Shore power—also called onshore power supply or cold ironing—allows a ship at berth to switch off its auxiliary engines and connect to electricity from the local grid. For vessels that spend hours alongside, it can reduce local air pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions and noise, especially where the electricity supply is low carbon. It is particularly valuable for cruise ships, ferries, container vessels and Ro-Ro ships that call frequently at terminals close to cities.
Shore power is not as simple as installing a cable. The berth needs electrical infrastructure and grid capacity; the ship needs compatible equipment; standards must be followed; staff need training; and tariffs must make use commercially realistic. This editorial selection identifies twelve ports that have made notable progress on shore power. It is not a ranking of installed megawatts or connections, and availability must be checked berth by berth because not every terminal in a port offers the same service.
1. Port of Los Angeles, United States
Los Angeles has been a leading pioneer in shore power for container, cruise and other vessel segments as part of its wider Clean Air Action Plan. Its location in a heavily populated region makes reducing ship-at-berth emissions a public-health priority as well as a climate goal. Shore power is supported by clean-truck and terminal-equipment programmes, showing that port air quality requires multiple measures. The port’s experience demonstrates the value of combining regulation, infrastructure investment, utility coordination and clear incentives for ship operators.
2. Port of Long Beach, United States
Long Beach shares the San Pedro Bay complex with Los Angeles and has developed shore-power capacity for container and passenger vessels. Its sustainability strategy is shaped by the same dense urban setting, high vessel-call volumes and community concern about air quality. The port’s work shows that shore power must be integrated with berth planning, grid upgrades and terminal operations. The best infrastructure is used regularly; therefore, vessel compatibility and commercial arrangements are as important as cables and substations.
3. Port of Gothenburg, Sweden
Gothenburg is a Nordic leader in shore power, serving ferries, Ro-Ro vessels, tankers and other regular callers. Its strong electricity system, predictable services and sustainability agenda have made it a practical location for ship-to-shore electricity. Shore power complements rail freight, alternative fuels and lower-emission port equipment in a broader decarbonisation strategy. Gothenburg illustrates why ferries are often excellent early candidates: they return frequently, berth for defined periods and can justify investment in compatible onboard systems.
4. Port of Oslo, Norway
Oslo has used shore power and electrified maritime transport to reduce the impact of shipping on a city-centre waterfront. Norway’s low-carbon electricity and experience with electric ferries create favourable conditions for the technology. The port’s scale is smaller than Rotterdam or Los Angeles, but its significance lies in showing what an urban port can achieve when clean electricity, municipal policy and regular vessel services align. Oslo demonstrates that shore power can improve local air quality and quietness in locations where residents live close to the harbour.
5. Port of Seattle, United States
Seattle has made shore power a major part of its cruise-port sustainability programme. Alaska cruise ships can spend long periods at berth, making auxiliary-engine emissions particularly relevant to local air quality and climate goals. The port has worked with cruise lines, utilities and terminal operators to expand use, while also managing passenger traffic and waterfront development. Seattle’s experience highlights a core principle: shore power is most effective when the city, port and vessel operators share a clear commitment to using it, not merely installing it.
6. Port of Vancouver, Canada
Vancouver provides shore power for cruise vessels and has linked this work to broader environmental programmes, including incentives and air-quality initiatives. The port sits in an environmentally sensitive, urban and culturally significant waterway, making ship emissions a visible concern. Shore power can reduce local impact during long cruise calls, but it must be coordinated with grid capacity and vessel schedules. Vancouver’s approach shows the importance of transparent reporting and stakeholder engagement, particularly where ports operate near residential communities and valued natural areas.
7. Port of Hamburg, Germany
Hamburg has invested in shore power for container and cruise operations as part of efforts to reduce emissions in a busy urban river port. The technology complements electric handling equipment, rail logistics and environmental monitoring. Hamburg’s setting creates particular challenges: it must maintain international trade, navigation and industrial activity close to a large city. Shore power is one visible way to improve local conditions, but the port’s broader success depends on connecting ship, terminal, grid and regulatory systems reliably.
8. Port of Kiel, Germany
Kiel is a prominent European shore-power port, particularly for ferries and cruise ships operating in the Baltic and Scandinavia. Its regular passenger services make electrical connections commercially and operationally attractive, while the port’s close relationship with the city gives a strong incentive to reduce noise and emissions. Kiel’s experience is valuable because it shows how a medium-sized passenger port can lead through focused investment. The technology works best where a few compatible vessel types call repeatedly rather than where every visit is unique.
9. Port of Stockholm, Sweden
Stockholm’s passenger and ferry operations make shore power especially relevant. Vessels operate close to city neighbourhoods and sensitive archipelago waters, so reducing engine emissions at berth supports both public health and environmental protection. The port can combine shore electricity with other Nordic initiatives in clean maritime transport, including alternative fuels and efficient ferries. Stockholm demonstrates that the passenger experience and environmental performance can reinforce each other: a quieter, cleaner waterfront benefits residents and visitors alike.
10. Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands
Rotterdam is developing shore power across selected terminals as part of a broad industrial and energy-transition programme. The port’s scale and cargo diversity make implementation complex: electricity demand, vessel compatibility, grid capacity and terminal layouts differ widely. Yet Rotterdam’s industrial network and power-system planning give it potential to deploy shore power where the environmental benefit is strongest. Its approach highlights the need for prioritisation: ports should focus first on berths with frequent calls, long stays and significant local-emission impact.
11. Port of Barcelona, Spain
Barcelona is pursuing shore power for cruise, ferry and container berths to reduce emissions in a densely populated Mediterranean city. Passenger vessels can have long berth stays and high auxiliary loads, making shore electricity a valuable tool when compatible ships are available. The port’s work must be coordinated with terminal redevelopment, grid upgrades and city transport planning. Barcelona’s case shows how shore power can form part of a wider strategy that includes rail, short-sea shipping, cleaner fuels and smart-port systems.
12. Port of San Francisco, United States
San Francisco has supported shore-power use for cruise ships and other vessels in a highly visible urban waterfront setting. The port’s environmental agenda is shaped by the Bay Area’s climate policy, tourism role and community expectations. Shore power can reduce emissions near public promenades and neighbourhoods while enhancing the visitor experience. San Francisco demonstrates that even ports with limited cargo scale can have strong influence when they use their waterfront location to set high environmental standards for passenger shipping.
Electricity quality and real use matter
The environmental benefit of shore power depends on how clean the grid is and whether ships actually connect. Ports should measure connection rates, engine-off time, energy consumption and local air-quality outcomes. They must also avoid passing prohibitive electricity charges to ship operators, which can discourage use. As electricity demand grows—from ships, cranes, trucks, warehouses and future fuels—ports will need careful grid planning and renewable-energy procurement.
Frequently asked questions
What is cold ironing?
It is another name for shore power: a berthed ship connects to onshore electricity and turns off auxiliary generators where operationally possible.
Does shore power eliminate all ship emissions?
It reduces emissions from auxiliary engines while the ship is connected at berth. It does not eliminate emissions during the voyage, manoeuvring or from onboard systems that cannot be shut down.
Why do some ships not connect?
Reasons can include lack of onboard equipment, incompatible voltage or frequency, insufficient berth infrastructure, limited grid capacity, operational constraints or unfavourable electricity cost.