Shore power feasibility study in the Salish Sea

January, 2022

Report number: NRC-OCRE-2021-TR-061

This report was prepared for Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) by the National Research Council and the Eastern Research Group. This report does not necessarily represent the views of ECCC. To view the full report, please contact ssmer-remms@ec.gc.ca.

Executive Summary

This study assesses the current and potential use of shore power at Canadian Ports in the Salish Sea. The Salish Sea is an area of coastal waters on the south coast of British Columbia. It includes the Strait of Georgia, Strait of Juan de Fuca, Puget Sound, and an intricate network of connecting channels and adjoining waterways.

Shore power provides land-based power to vessels while dockside. This allows them to shutoff the auxiliary engines when at berth. These engines supply power to maintain vessel electronics, provide ventilation to cabins, and offload or load cargo. To use shore power, there must be dockside connections. Additionally, vessels need an electrical system compatible with the portside system.

Shore power provides air quality improvements and greenhouse gas emission reductions. This is only the case however when the source of electricity is cleaner than the emission control area (ECA) compliant diesel fuel used by vessels. British Columbia Hydropower (BC Hydro) is the source of power for Salish Sea ports. Thus, connecting to shore power helps improve local and regional air quality. This is because there are fewer emissions with hydroelectricity than combusting marine diesel fuel. Shore power will also reduce noise and vibration from auxiliary engines.

Containerships and Tankers

This study assesses the shore power feasibility of containerships and tankers in the Canadian Salish Sea. It includes an assessment of current and projected fleets, categorizing vessels as follows:

• Vessels equipped with shore power
• Vessels that are good candidates for retrofitting
• Vessels that are too old to justify the investment
• Vessels scrapped due to age.

The study compiled data on costs to retrofit older vessels or to install, operate, and maintain vessel shore power for newly constructed vessels. Further assessment analyzed operations at the Port of Vancouver, providing insight into the current use of shore power. The study also compiled cost data for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the landside components of shore power. Additionally, the contractor held discussions with the local power supplier, BC Hydro, to asses anticipated power usage. Finally, the study presented estimates for emission reductions and cost benefit analysis, using data on projected vessel activity, changes in the fleet, and costs.

This assessment determined it is feasible to expand shore power to meet current and future needs of containership operations. If designed properly, it is feasible for a new terminal to have the majority of its vessels plug into shore power. The Port of Vancouver could also improve utilization rates of shore power at existing containership terminals (Centerm Berth 5 and Deltaport Berth 3). The Port identified in discussions that it is realistic for them to increase shore power utilization rates to two ships per berth per week. This is especially achievable by installing more receptacle pits and resolving the connection issue at Deltaport. The Port of Vancouver should also consider mobile systems as other ports find them useful to provide flexibility.

Optimizing existing terminals at the Port of Vancouver could result in 208 ships connected per year. This was determined by calculating 2 ships per week x 2 berths x 52 week per year. Constructing a new terminal or expanding an existing terminal would allow the Port to accommodate a projected 242 containerships with shore power in 2023. This estimate includes 126 existing vessels and new builds with shore power, and 116 candidates for retrofit (see Table E-5). Beyond 2023, the number of containerships with shore power will only increase.

The study anticipates significant air quality and GHG improvements with shutting off auxiliary engines and using hydropower from the local grid. Of the 2023 projected containership fleet, 19% are too old to justify the investment in shore power. Owners will likely scrap these vessels by 2026.

The assessment determined the number of ships with shore power by cross-referencing a list of ships in the world that are shore power capable in 2020. The list of shore power capable containerships is from IHS Sea-web. The assessment compared these ships with those that berthed in the Canadian Salish Sea in 2018. The Canada specific data is from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Marine Emissions Inventory Tool (MEIT). There were no tankers equipped for shore power in the Salish Sea Canada as of 2018.

Provision of shore power for tankers tends to be more complex than other freight vessels. This is due to tankers using onboard boilers to assist with pumping products on and off vessels. They also have auxiliary engines that provide power to the vessels while dockside. Finally, there are safety concerns related the use of shore power around volatile organic vapours. Resolving these issues will need to happen before the tanker fleet is as shore power ready. Addressing many of these issues will need to happen before California implements its new shore power requirements in 2025. At this point, tankers must either connect to the local grid or use alternative methods to reduce dockside emissions.

Traffic patterns in 2018 showed that tankers and containerships sailed mainly to Asia and the United States. The United States and China both have shore power connections. Within the United States, several ports have shore power connections for containerships. These ports include:

• Los Angeles
• Long Beach
• Oakland
• San Diego
• San Francisco
• Seattle
• Tacoma
• Hueneme.

To increase feasibility, the Port of Vancouver could take advantage of the existing shore power ready fleet. They could do this by targeting movement between ports and terminals that provide shore power to containerships in the Salish Sea. To further incentivize shore power use, the Port of Vancouver could form eco-partnerships with ports in the United States and China. For example, the Port of Vancouver is already leading an International Collaboration on Ship Emission Reductions (ICSER) and is a member of Environmental Ship Index (ESI).

In Europe, EU Directive 2014/94/EU requires European ports to install shore power facilities by December 31, 2025. Additionally, FuelEU Maritime Initiative requires ships over 5,000 GT that berth in an EU port for more than 2 hours to connect to shore power as of January 1, 2030.

Currently, there are mandatory regulations in California for all containerships to use shore power. Alternatively, beginning in 2023, ships can use a California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved emissions control strategy that achieves at least an 80% reduction in auxiliary engine emissions. China also has regulations that require China-flagged containerships to use shore power as of January 1, 2020 for new builds, and Jan 1, 2022 for existing ships without shore power. Additionally, all shore power capable ships, except for liquid cargo carriers, that berth for over 3 hours must use shore power or equivalent measures. The above-mentioned regulations in Europe, US, and China are significant for setting new environmental standards for the shipping industry. As a result, they will limit greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution.

Containerships at-berth in the Salish Sea emitted 41,398 tonnes of CO₂ and 772 tonnes of NO_x in 2018. They were the 2nd largest at-berth emitters after bulk carriers. Among the 235 containerships that called on the Port of Vancouver, 31% of the ships (73 ships) were shore power capable. There are chances to equip more ships with shore power to reduce at-berth emissions. In addition to eco-partnerships with other ports (for example development of technology, policy and strategy, collaboration and learning), using incentives, discounts, and regulations are other means that some jurisdictions are using.

Projections estimate that by 2023, with no shore power use, CO₂ and NO_x at-berth emissions from containerships will be 55,741 tonnes and 849 tonnes, respectively (Table E-1; 0% penetration rate^{Footnote 1} ). Alternatively, projections estimate emission reductions by almost 80% with a shore power requirement for all containerships, (Table E-1; 100% penetration rate^{Footnote 2} ) such as in California. The assessment found that emission reductions would not exceed 80% in 2023. This is because there are still many containerships that are too old for shore power retrofits but not old enough for scrapping. These ships are barriers to zero at-berth emissions.

(See footnotes for definition of penetration rates)

In the case of tankers, BP America unveiled the world’s first shore power terminal for oil tankers at the Port of Long Beach in 2009. They equipped 2 of their vessels that regularly visit the port so they have the ability to connect. Despite these early attempts to equip tankers with shore power, few tankers are shore power ready today. Currently, California is putting in place mandatory requirements for tankers to use shore power or alternative control measures. These measures would help to reduce at-berth emissions at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach starting in 2025, and other northern California tanker ports in 2027.

In 2018, tankers emitted 6,759 tonnes of CO₂ and 126.6 tonnes of NO_x. Projections estimate that by 2027, tankers will be a more significant contributor to at-berth emissions. Tankers will contribute over 20,000 tonnes CO₂ and 312 tonnes of NO_x. This is due to significant traffic growth from the Trans Mountain Expansion project, especially if they continue to use auxiliary engines (Table E-2, 0% penetration rate^{Footnote 3} ). Emissions have the potential to reduce by half if all tankers use shore power (Table E-2, 100% penetration rate^{Footnote 4} ). The remaining emissions are from tankers that are too old for shore power retrofits but not old enough for scrapping.

(See footnotes for definitions of penetration rates)

The IEC/ISO/IEEE 80005, last revised in 2019, has been an international standard for shore connection systems for 9 years since 2012. It has helped to ensure the safety and interoperability of shore power connections with different classes of ships. These ships include:

• Containerships
• Ferries
• Tankers
• LNG ships
• Cruise ships
• Roll-on roll-off ships.

The standard guarantees consistent and straightforward connections. Additionally, it removes the need for ships to make adaptations to their equipment at different ports.

Ship operators, terminal operators, ports, and equipment manufacturers all commonly recognize and accept the standard. Ports implementing the standard worldwide demonstrates the viability and benefits of shore power technology, as well as its interoperability and safety. For example, Centre d’Innovació del Transport (CENIT) reported that the percentage of successful shore power connections was 98% globally. This was with 6,627 shore power requested calls per year and 6,488 successful connections. This resulted in the reduction of many tons of CO₂, NO_x, SO_x, and PM_2.5 per year.

Many of the containerships that visit ports in the Salish Sea in Canada also visit China and California. Since they both have active shore power programs, it could be a factor in leveraging the enhancement of shore power participation in Salish Sea ports. (Table E-3)

In general, the cost to install shore power on newly constructed vessel ranges from 50,000 to 750,000 USD. This depends though on the size of the vessel and its power requirements. Retrofitting an older vessel is more costly, ranging from 268,500 to 2,146,500 USD for containerships. The retrofitting cost for tankers is between 1,612,556 - 2,900,000 USD. There is also ongoing vessel maintenance costs that range from 9,000 - 10,000 USD per year per vessel. This maintenance cost does not include the cost of the electricity.

¹ Total vessel visits from MEIT/SeaWeb
² Data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018 Entrance and Clearance.

¹ Total vessel visits from MEIT/SeaWeb
² Data from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2018 Entrance and Clearance.

The cost to install landside high voltage shore power varies based on a variety of factors. These include terminal configuration, existing infrastructure, grid connectivity, and others. Data on multiple North American shore power projects indicate that single berth shore power installation costs range from 1.4 – 5.8 million USD. Currently, electric power from BC Hydro for Salish Sea ports is 10.459 ₵/kWh plus $150/month administration fee. Additionally, there are ongoing maintenance costs for a single berth, estimated to be 24,285 USD per year.

By comparison, the electricity rate for shore power in California ranges from 15-20₵/kWh, according to CARB. However, depending on the port or terminal, the actual charges to the vessel may vary. This is because terminal operators may add on service charges. Subsidization may be possible for these charges to the vessel.

For ship operators, the actual charges to their vessels are an important financial consideration when using shore power. If the total cost of using shore power (including electricity rate, consumption, tax, subsidy and discount in port charges) is less than the total cost of using the auxiliary engine with diesel (including diesel price, consumption, tax and penalty), the economics justify the use of shore power. The cost benefit analysis took into consideration the electricity price for shore power and diesel price. Despite higher electricity prices for shore power, containerships in the Port of Los Angeles have achieved an 80% higher successful shore power connection rate since 2017.

Using regional growth factors, this assessment made projections using 2018 vessel data to anticipate the fleet in 2023 for containerships and 2027 for tankers. The assessment adjusted the regional growth factors where possible to account for local changes such as the expansion of the Westridge terminal. These projections also considered the age of the vessel. The projections assumed that new shore power capable vessels would replace containerships older than 27 years and tankers older than 28 years. Vessels considered as good candidates for retrofitting in the projected years were those younger than 17. Adjustments accounted for the fraction of vessels identified as fit for retrofit that are currently shore power capable. (Table E-5 and Table E-6)

Estimations made for the anticipated power usage in the projections for 2023 containerships and 2027 tankers considered:

• Power rating of the auxiliary engines
• Actual hours at the dock obtained from the MEIT
• Estimate of typical auxiliary engine operating loading

Projected power usage estimates for each terminal used this approach. (Table E-7).

Insights gained about critical factors from the discussions with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority about shore power needs consideration. Taking into account this insight is important prior to supporting the expansion of the current shore power program. Considerations include:

• Requirement of external funding sources to ensure sufficient resources to build, operate and maintain the shore power system.
• Sufficient power supply. Currently, BC Hydro has enough power to supply vessels using shore power. However, future electrification of port equipment such as cargo handling equipment and truck drayage may challenge BC Hydro’s capacity.
• Need for flexible system design to allow all shore power ready vessels to connect to the system.
• Requirement of trained professional staff to ensure efficient connection/disconnection of vessels and troubleshooting problems.
• Ensure full optimization of the shore power system by keeping power cost to the vessel operators and terminal fees low.

Table E-8 through Table E-11 present the results from the benefit-cost analysis for both containerships and tankers, respectively. These results show the total benefits and costs over an analysis period of 15 years. The first three alternative scenarios are specific to containerships. They build on each other by first enhancing the utilization rate of existing shore power wharfs (Scenario #1), then, amongst existing shore power capable ships (Scenario #2), and then, increasing infrastructure (ships and landside) to use shore power (Scenario #3). Scenario #4, which is exclusive to tankers, converts (when feasible) all tankers making calls to a single port to shore power enabled, and adds shore power to a single wharf.

For containerships, the non-monetized benefits of CO₂ and criteria air pollutant reductions increase from one scenario to the next. Specific to Scenario #3, these emissions reductions outweigh the additional landside capital and maintenance costs incurred from adding more shore power capacity at another wharf. The same is true for regional benefit-cost analysis of tankers (Table E-10). Although, the landside capital costs for tankers cut into the benefits of emission reductions more than for containerships.

In the analysis, the ship capital and maintenance cost increase is the total cost to make the ships shore power capable. The Port of Vancouver would take on this cost entirely. The energy cost savings is from the use of shore power in the Port of Vancouver. Recognition of the additional energy cost savings would occur when these ships visit other ports. This will further offset the ship capital and maintenance cost. To break even, containerships would need to go to one other port with similar electric cost savings in Scenario #2 and four other ports in Scenario #3. For tankers, Scenario #4 shows a loss from this fuel source switch. Carbon tax will help to reduce this loss because it makes marine diesel more costly.

Bulk Carriers, Cruise Ships, and Ferries

We have also analyzed the trade routes of bulk carriers, cruise ship and ferries in this report. This includes data that is relevant to the feasibility analysis. For example, ship size, ship age, shore power capability, berthed time, arrival frequencies, and other considerations. However, assessment of shore power feasibility for cruise ships, ferries and bulk carriers will be in a future study.

Discussion/Conclusions

For containerships, shore power is feasible as the fleet already has a significant number of vessels that are shore power ready. Additionally, retrofitting is an option for a reasonable portion of the older vessels. This assessment quantified both of these options. In addition, BC Hydro has sufficient electricity to meet the Port’s projected shore power needs. Furthermore, they are updating the network to ensure that infrastructure is in place to distribute the power to participating terminals. The cost benefit analysis quantified anticipated benefits through using a variety of data. This included, anticipated vessel traffic, cost data for vessels, and dockside investments along with current power rates.

To realize these anticipated benefits and maximize utilization of the shore power system, a strong commitment from the government, the Port, and vessel operators is necessary. Some of the critical elements needed to ensure the feasibility of this effort are:

• Set ambitious emission reduction targets (for example to be zero emission by certain date).
• Early planning and coordination with Indigenous peoples and stakeholders (including terminals, shipping lines, utilities, local pilots associations and adjacent communities).
• Use ISO/IEC/IEEE standard to ensure compatibility with all visiting vessels.
• Take advantage of the Shore Power Technology for Ports Program. The program will provide up to 50% of the funding to implement marine shore power technology at Canadian ports.
• During initial planning for shore power infrastructure, design the system assuming maximum usage to reduce the need to update infrastructure in the future.
• Work with utilities to project future power needs based on anticipated changes in vessel traffic and fleet composition.
• Invest in quality hardware components, scheduling and monitoring systems, and technical staff.
• Ensure a flexible design so that the system can accommodate changes in the fleet (increased number and location of vaults, moveable mobile connectors that run along the bull rail or mobile cable systems).
• Set up power monitoring system to track, control power usage and generate standardized invoicing.
• Require trained technical staff to ensure safe connecting/disconnecting and to troubleshoot technical problems. It is helpful if the technical staff can communicate in multiple languages as vessel staff may not always be fluent in English/French.
• Develop and implement a maintenance plan that replaces high use components prior to breakdown (including stockpiling of critical spare parts).
• To avoid issues with vessel docking direction, require vessels to have duplicate connectors on each side, a mobile onboard connecting system, or onboard shore power containers (for example Wärtsilä Shore power container system (wartsila.com) (PDF)).
• Create a system that allows vessels to easily register for shore power usage.
• Use a scheduling system to assign vessels an appropriate berth. Vessels would report 72 hours prior to their arrival to ensure the berth to matches their connection locations and power needs.
• Support global carbon tax on diesel fuel. Discussions for this are underway by the IMO for different proposals. The International Chamber of Shipping supports the IMO, which represent 90% of the global fleet.
• Develop a program of incentives that promote use of shore power by terminals and vessel operators.
• Form Eco-partnerships with sister ports. This provides a guarantee for shipping lines that vessels could hook up at either the originator or the destination ports. Coordination with Eco-partners could also help in the planning stage. At this point, the port can address any lessons learned from them about the carriers that operate from their location.
• Continuously review and adopt best practices from other ports to identify viable ideas that could enhance shore power operations for Salish Sea ports.
• Maintain ongoing communication with vessel and terminal operators involved in the shore power program. This allows the port to address issues before they become critical problems and to identify areas for improvement.

Regulations or rules that require terminals to provide shore power, and vessels to connect, removes ambiguity and makes participation a requirement. There are options to develop instruments that require terminal operators to install necessary shore power infrastructure, and require vessels to use these installations. For example, it is possible to create shore power regulations that also allow for alternative capture/treatment systems when connections are not possible. This could be a condition on future terminal construction projects. If the Port or terminal does not invest in such systems, the terminal would have to turn away any ship not able to plug-in.

Alternatively, through direct regulations, California continues to encourage the use of shore power and other mechanisms that reduce emissions from vessels during docking. A benefit of imposing a California-style berthing requirement would lead to a younger, more fuel efficient, less polluting fleet of vessels visiting Salish Sea ports. Conversely, if there is no requirement to use shore power, older vessels that can no longer visit California ports may divert to other west coast ports that do not have such requirements. This diversion would direct vessels to ports in the Salish Sea, generating a negative impact on local air quality. Regardless of the approach taken, the instrument needs to be clearly goal-based (for example zero-emission).

The Canadian Government has a number of climate and air pollution priorities under which shore power as a technology will help achieve those goals. “Addressing climate change and ensuring clean air for Canadians is a top priority for the Government of Canada. As Canada begins its journey towards exceeding our 2030 Paris Agreement climate target towards net-zero emissions in 2050, significant reductions in air pollutant emissions are expected as our economy becomes cleaner. For example, recent research suggests particulate matter—one of the most damaging air pollutants—could be reduced by as much as 88 per cent, with societal health benefits of about $7 billion a year” (Canada, 2021). In order for Canada to meet its climate targets and ensure local emissions are below the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards, there is a need for the utilization of technologies such as shore power to their maximum potential.