Valter Selén
IMAGE LICENSED BY INGRAM PUBLISHING
Onshore Power Supply (OPS), also known as shore-side electricity, is one of the promising technologies available to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in ports. Emissions at berth count for around 7% of overall shipping emissions in Europe [2020 European Union (EU) MRV Report]. OPS can also help address other externalities, such as noise and air pollution. As most European ports are located in or near urban areas, OPS is therefore an important tool and part of the solution for greening the shipping sector. Ports all over Europe have already started deploying OPS and are making plans for new or additional installations in the future. However, OPS as a technology is not an end in itself, and there are many barriers to the effective deployment of OPS.
This article will discuss how the deployment of OPS where it makes sense in ports can help address emissions from ships at berth. It provides an overview of the work being done by European ports to deploy OPS where appropriate and discuss how the various challenges related to the provision of OPS necessitate the prioritization of OPS deployment in ports to where it will maximize emission reductions the most. Looking ahead, the article expands on how a goal-based legal framework on the European level that requires the use of OPS by certain shipping segments at the relevant locations in the port would ensure the effective deployment of OPS.
Ports have traditionally been important hubs for the supply, production, export, and import of conventional energy. As part of the transition toward a net-zero economy, a push for alternative fuels is underway in the maritime sector. In this context, ports are central to the supply and demand of fuels and are stepping up their efforts to transform into hubs of clean energy. This includes supplying, producing, and storing renewable electricity along with providing important bunkering and fueling infrastructure for shipping and other transport modes converging in the port area.
The deployment and use of OPS in ports are part of a larger transition and should be seen against the backdrop of the larger push for the greening of the maritime sector requiring ships to adopt low- and zero-emission alternative fuels both during navigation and at berth. For the same reason, the choice to deploy OPS in any one port will also depend on other competing priorities and demands from shipping and other port stakeholders. The ability of ports to deploy OPS while also acting as hubs for conventional and alternative fuels is constrained by available grid capacity, limited funds, port space, and time. In spite of this, a large and growing number of ports in Europe have deployed OPS. At this stage, the use of OPS by ships remains relatively limited, however.
Starting from the existing and forthcoming requirements and standards for OPS, the section provides an overview of the deployment and use of OPS in the EU, demonstrating that there is currently a mismatch between the supply and demand for OPS in the EU. New legislative proposals on the European level are intended to address this mismatch and create a viable case for the uptake of OPS.
Long-standing requirements for ports to provide OPS have been in force since 2014. The requirement is set out in Article 4(5) of the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Directive (AFID) (2014/94/EU). Specifically, Article 4 of the Directive states that
shore-side electricity supply shall be installed as a priority in ports of the TEN-T Core Network, and in other ports, by 31 December 2025, unless there is no demand and the costs are disproportionate to the benefits, including environmental benefits.
The wording in the AFID provides ports with some flexibility as it allows for the deployment of OPS to be based on the demand from shipping while taking the costs and benefits of installing OPS into account. Since there are no requirements in place on the European level requiring ships to use OPS in ports, the current supply of OPS in European ports has often been motivated by concerns for air quality and noise in urban areas, with significant external funding being provided for each OPS installation. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that a number of OPS installations have been put in place in ports without being used by ships.
On 14 July 2021, the European Commission published several legislative proposals as part of the so-called Fit for 55 package. The package is a gathering of EU legislative files currently being revised, evaluated, or developed to deliver on the legally enshrined goal of reducing emissions by at least 55% in 2030. There are three proposals in the Fit for 55 package that are especially relevant within the context of OPS—the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), FuelEU Maritime, and the Energy Taxation Directive (ETD).
The European Commission (AFIR) proposal (Article 9) foresees the provision of shore-side electricity for container, passenger, and roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) passenger (ro-pax) vessels in all Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) ports by 2030. The measure applies to all ports that exceed a minimum number of annual calls from vessels of more than 5,000 gross tons in each of the relevant ship segments. Ships that spend a short time at berth (less than two hours) and/or that use specified alternative zero-emission technologies as well as unscheduled calls for safety reasons are excluded from the scope. Islands that are not directly connected to the grid are also exempted. When shore-side electricity has to be provided, ports have to provide “sufficient shore-power output to meet at least 90% of that demand.â€
Any requirement to provide OPS in ports must be matched by corresponding requirements for the vessels to use this infrastructure, where ships should connect to OPS as soon as possible. In this respect, Europe’s ports very much welcome the proposal on the use of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport and amending Directive 2009/16/EC (FuelEU Maritime).
The proposal is intended to increase the demand and uptake of renewable and low-carbon fuels in maritime transport. The proposal is necessary to match the available and future supply with demand by requiring vessels to use OPS infrastructure at berth. For ports, the requirements for ships to use an OPS when at berth set out in Article 5 are especially relevant as it mandates the use of OPS for certain shipping segments. Specifically, container ships and passenger ships (including ferries, cruise vessels, and ro-pax vessels) are required to connect to OPS if they spend longer than 2 h at berth.
These files are currently being negotiated by the EU colegislators (European Parliament and the Council of the EU), with positions within both institutions being finalized later this year. Against this backdrop, this article is a contribution to the ongoing discussions on how to best address emissions from ships at berth, including through the use of OPS.
The current ETD has been in force since 2003 and sets out the minimum taxation rates for energy in the EU. The European Commission proposal for a revised energy taxation presented as part of the Fit for 55 package introduces the taxation of marine fuels for intra-EU waterborne transport and proposes to make it easier for member states to introduce a tax exemption or lower tax rate for electricity provided to ships at berth (OPS).
Tax incentives can be an important instrument to encourage the development and use of cleaner marine fuels and discourage the use of fossil marine fuels in Europe. The ETD European Commission proposal gives member states the option to give a total or partial tax exemption to electricity directly supplied to vessels berthed in ports (Article 15, Paragraph 5). Currently, member states have to ask the European Commission to apply such an exemption, and if authorization is given, it counts for six years.
Since taxation is a member state competence, the council has the final say on the file and only has to consult the European Parliament. It is not yet sure whether the proposal will be adopted since it requires unanimous support among member states to pass.
In Europe, ports have been working with OPS for a long time. Its deployment is intimately linked to the efforts of European ports to deliver on their environmental priorities, which are outlined in Figure 1. These have been monitored by the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) since 1996.
Figure 1. The environmental priorities of European ports (2021 ESPO Environmental Report). Starting in 2020, the indicator for energy consumption was renamed to “Energy Efficiency.â€
Air quality is the top environmental priority for ports since 2013. The majority of European ports are located in or near urban areas, making air quality more than just an environmental concern—it also concerns the health of the port workers and citizens in the surrounding port community. With climate change as the second environmental priority and noise ranking fourth in the top 10, there is a strong interest from ports in finding solutions that help address these issues in ports (ESPO Environmental Report, 2021).
Shipping is usually the largest source of CO2 emissions in the port. As an illustration, in the Port of Rotterdam it accounts for around 87% of total transport emissions in the port. Berthed ships account for another 2% of total transport emissions in the port. In the Port of Helsinki, shipping accounted for 78% of CO2 emissions in 2020, including emissions from ships navigating in the port and at berth (ESPO Green Guide, 2021). Notably, ESPO has called for reducing emissions from ships at berth by at least 50% by 2030 (ESPO Green Guide, 2021).
To deliver on the environmental priorities of ports, OPS can help minimize some of the negative externalities related to ships at berth, especially air emissions. To this end, a number of ports in Europe provide OPS. Figure 2 shows that 57% of sampled European ports (equaling 50 ports) provided OPS at one or more of their berths in 2021. While the majority of installations are fixed installations, around 14% of OPS is provided through mobile installations. Notably, 82% of ports provided low-voltage OPS, whereas 46% of ports provided high-voltage OPS (2021 ESPO Environmental Report). The 2021 European Maritime Transport Environmental Report (EMTER) finds that 31 ports in the EU have already implemented high-voltage OPS (available from the European Environment Agency).
Figure 2. The supply of OPS in European ports (2021 ESPO Environmental Report).
Furthermore, Figure 3 shows that almost half of surveyed ports are planning to offer OPS in the next two years. The share of ports planning to offer OPS has increased significantly over time. Along with the bottom-up initiatives from individual ports, the uptick in ports planning to deploy OPS can be attributed to the priority on installing OPS in TEN-T Core ports by 2025 set out in the AFID (2014).
Figure 3. The outlook for OPS in Europe for the next two years (2021 ESPO Environmental Report).
In contrast to the large number of sources detailing the supply of OPS in European ports, there are few databases that capture the number of ships equipped with OPS calling on ports in the EU. Most of the available databases focus on OPS or batteries installed on board rather than on whether ships actually connect to OPS.
There are even fewer such databases that are available to the public. The Environmental Ship Index (ESI) is a key source of data on OPS on board ships worldwide as it collects confidential data from shipping companies on whether their vessels are equipped with OPS. If a ship is equipped with OPS, it receives a better ESI score, which in turn can result in incentives and rewards from ports that are also part of the ESI. However, since ESI is a private voluntary initiative, data on the share of vessels equipped with OPS are not publicly available. Other extensive databases, such as IHS Markit, are cited in European Commission publications such as the EMTER, but the data themselves are not available.
This lack of EU-level publicly available data on OPS on board ships makes it difficult for policymakers and individual ports to accurately monitor the demand for OPS from ships at berth. It also complicates the planning and deployment of OPS in ports since investment decisions are made based on expected demand, allowing an installation to break even or possibly even create a return on investment.
Using the data available to the public, it has been shown that overall emissions at berth represented 7% of all reported CO2 emissions in 2019 (2020 EU MRV Report). This equals around 10 million tons of CO2. It is not necessarily the case that OPS would help address all these emissions. According to the 2021 EMTER Report (available from the European Environment Agency), 9.6% of the container ships, 15.1% of the cruise ships, and 10.1% of the ro-pax ships calling at ports in the EU were equipped with high-voltage OPS in 2020.
Furthermore, a distinction is often made between a ship being “OPS ready†and actually having OPS installed on board. Shore power readiness entails that the ship could have an OPS installation on board but does not entail that the vessel actually has such an installation ready to use. The EMTER notes that this predominantly concerns leaving enough space for a potential OPS installation to be introduced on board in the future.
The European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO) is the European Commission’s key reference portal for alternative fuels, infrastructure, and vehicles in Europe. At this stage, the database provides only data on the uptake of batteries and their use on board vessels globally (see Figures 4 and 5, respectively). These batteries could be charged using OPS depending on the specifications and operational profiles of the vessel and the OPS installation in port. According to the database, around 400 vessels worldwide have batteries installed on board. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of these vessels use the batteries as part of hybrid propulsion or as part of a plug-in hybrid solution.
Figure 4. The development of the global fleet of ships with batteries [2022 year to date (YTD)]: the number of battery vessels in operation and under construction (EAFO, 2022).
Figure 5. A global fleet of ships with batteries by electrification type (2022 YTD): battery fleet by electrification type (EAFO, 2022).
Corroborating these findings, DNV has developed a database called Alternative Fuels Insight, which provides an overview of some key statistics for free. As of June 2022, the database lists 439 ships with batteries currently in operation worldwide. Notably, the majority of these ships (257) are listed as operating in Norway on the database.
Ports in Europe are constantly looking for ways to reduce emissions from ships at berth and in the port. Many see the deployment of OPS as a means of facilitating the greening of shipping, assuming that it is used by ships at berth. To bring about effective reductions of emissions through OPS, there is a need to recognize and address the many challenges ports face related to OPS.
This section will focus on three key barriers to the deployment and use of OPS: the need to increase demand by ships for OPS; ensuring sufficient grid capacity; and the high costs of installing OPS. To address these challenges, OPS should be deployed where it makes the most sense. Binding requirements for ships to use OPS should be combined with stakeholder coordination identifying where OPS should be deployed with the help of significant public cofunding.
As shown in the “Use of OPS by Ships Calling on European Ports†section, there is currently a lack of data on the demand for OPS from ships calling on ports in the EU. However, the available data do show that the demand does not equal the supply of available OPS. This can be attributed to the current absence of legislation requiring the lowering of emissions at berth, specifically the lack of binding requirements for ships to use OPS at berth. The apparent mismatch between available supply and demand is a major hurdle to the uptake and use of OPS. Ultimately, it risks creating stranded assets without delivering badly needed emission reductions at berth.
Anecdotal evidence from several ports illustrates the difficulties ports are facing in ensuring demand. Many ports find that it is simply not possible to motivate installing OPS when it is not clear what demand there is for the installation from ships at berth. In some cases, ports have installed OPS without clear commitments from ships to use it, resulting in installed OPS going unused for years on end. In one EU Member State, OPS projects relying on earmarked funds under the national Recovery and Resilience Facility Plan are now being questioned by the European Court of Auditors since there was no guarantee that ships would use the installed OPS.
To avoid these situations, commitments from shipping companies are crucial in making OPS an environmentally and financially viable solution at berth. Furthermore, legislation must introduce clear drivers and incentives for ships to use OPS when berthing at ports in the EU. This should include both ambitious emission reduction targets for ships in navigation and at berth as well as a technology-specific requirement for certain ship types to use OPS when at berth.
In other cases, a ship equipped with OPS is still not able to connect to the installation available at berth. An OPS installation is more often than not tailor-made to serve a specific ship type/segment with a specific operational profile. There have been cases where a new shipping company called on a terminal that had been equipped with OPS for a long time, and the ship was not able to connect due to compatibility issues on board the vessel.
There are also cases where existing standards are not enough to ensure that OPS is used at berth. Figure 6 shows an OPS installation in the Port of Gothenburg, which has been placed 14 m up in the air to allow for a connection with a specific ship at berth. These cases are not possible to standardize and require planning and extensive communication between the shipping company and port stakeholders.
Figure 6. An OPS installation in the Port of Gothenburg. (Photo courtesy of the Port of Gothenburg.)
Outside of exceptional cases, such as the one described previously, there are long-standing standards available for OPS in ports, facilitating the process of ensuring the compatibility of OPS installations on board ships. To speed up and facilitate the process, ESPO has collaborated with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) to develop a forthcoming quick reference guide for the development of OPS in maritime ports (EMSA, forthcoming). The guide provides a step-by-step technical guide for how to plan for, install, and use OPS. The aim is to help all port stakeholders bring OPS from the drawing board to the berth and from the plan to the plug.
The examples from various ports in this section illustrate that the principle of “build it, and they will come†does not apply when it comes to OPS. Rather, ensuring demand is a precondition for effectively reducing emissions at berth. This can be done through clear communication about the needs and specifications associated with the use of OPS at berth. A coordination mechanism could be introduced in EU legislation, where all relevant stakeholders in individual ports should jointly decide where and how OPS can best be deployed in the port.
Decisive action from the bottom up is also being taken. Demonstrating leadership on the deployment and standardization of OPS, several major European ports have committed to go beyond existing and forthcoming EU requirements in a 2021 Memorandum of Understanding (Port of Rotterdam), pledging to equip ultralarge container terminals in their ports with OPS by 2028. Other ports are also invited to join these efforts.
Some shipping stakeholders have similarly committed to increasing the uptake and use of OPS. In 2022 May, ESPO and Interferry (the global trade association for ferries) published a joint statement stating that ferry ports should act as soon as possible to deploy OPS and that ferry lines should commit to using OPS whenever it is available. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) has also committed to having 66% of their global cruise fleet equipped to connect to OPS by 2027 (CLIA, 2022). These initiatives are laudable and should be seen to complement stringent legislation on the European and national levels to require the use of OPS by ships at berth.
The use of OPS by ships will require large amounts of grid capacity and can even impact the power reserve in ports. In many cases, the requested capacity to be provided by OPS cannot be handled by the existing port grid, meaning that strengthening of the port grid, and in many cases, the general grid, will be needed. According to the European Commission (as set out in the AFIR European Commission proposal), the electricity delivered by OPS is expected to require 3,500 MW of electricity. When compared to the needs of the current OPS capacity, which is 174 MW, this entails that the EU will need 15 times more electricity for OPS used by ships at berth.
On the port level, there are also a number of challenges related to grid capacity and availability. As an example, the energy needs of a cruise vessel at berth vary significantly between 4.8 and 20 MW. This means that a port providing 12 MW of OPS at berth (which is sufficient for the vast majority of calls by cruise ships) will be able to serve most cruise ships individually. Nonetheless, the port could potentially struggle to meet the demand of several large cruise ships calling at the port at once with the shore-side electricity installations and grid capacity available in the port.
In addition to the heightened needs, investments in frequency conversion will be needed. Europe’s grids operate at a 50-Hz frequency, as does a large part of the grids operated in the world, whereas some vessels require 60 Hz when connecting to shore-side electricity. Unlike the United States, whose grid operates at 60 Hz, existing and planned OPS installations in European ports use 50 Hz, consistently with Europe’s grid. Therefore, the easiest way to avoid any incompatibilities would be for vessels calling on the EU to ensure that the installations on board are aligned with the OPS installations at berth.
Ports have not been designed and built with the objective to distribute electricity to vessels at berth. If a grid converter needs to be provided at berth in addition to the OPS installation, as is often the case, it results in a doubling in total investment costs and in making the project more complex. Additionally, the demand for OPS in ports could see peaks during certain periods, for instance, due to the seasonality of certain traffic flows. These peaks could coincide with peak demands in other sectors of the economy, such as heavy industry located in and around ports, or peak demands in the neighboring city, leading to a demand for energy that exceeds the local energy production capacity.
Such potential (temporary) shortages of grid capacity should not be considered as a failure by the terminal or port to supply OPS. Currently, the European Commission AFIR proposal does not address the issues of grid connectivity, grid capacity, power reserve, and frequency conversion, which are linked to the provision of OPS at berth.
The cost of developing OPS in ports varies from port to port and from location to location in the port, but overall, the cost is high, with almost no return on investment for the investing party. So far, there are no cases known where OPS has been deployed on a commercial basis, not even in countries where renewable electricity is cheaper than the fuel used on board. To this day, every OPS facility installed in Europe has been supported by up to 50% of public financing [S. Bullock (2020)]. The planning and installation of OPS at any given terminal in a port in Europe can take up to five years, depending on the local circumstances and the power needs required. Since time is money, this makes the deployment of OPS a highly complex, risky, and time-consuming endeavor, requiring significant human resources. Accordingly, significant support is needed from local, regional, and national governments as well as from EU financing instruments.
The European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) found that the capital expenditures for one OPS installation can vary between €1 and €25 million depending on the size and complexity of the installation. This estimate does not include the investments that will be needed for frequency conversion, substations, and additional grid infrastructure, nor does it include operating expenditures (OPEX).
According to the impact assessment published by the European Commission for the proposal on AFIR, total OPS infrastructure costs are estimated to range between €1.2 billion and €6.5 billion relative to the baseline for the period between 2025 and 2050. According to the same impact assessment, the costs for public authorities related to deploying OPS in accordance with the European Commission proposal would increase fivefold between now and 2030. The impact assessment developed by the European Commission for the FuelEU Maritime proposal estimates that €7.4 billion will need to be invested in OPS by 2050.
For such a heavy investment to make environmental and financial sense, it is crucial that ports can deploy it in the locations in the port where the demand is the highest. The AFIR impact assessment notes that OPS is expected to deliver reductions of CO2 that range from 1.5 to 2.5% of total maritime emissions by 2050. The majority of these emission reductions will undoubtedly come from the busiest locations and terminals in ports, strengthening the case for prioritizing deployment in these locations to maximize the effect of limited resources.
Anecdotal evidence from individual ports in the EU suggests that by focusing OPS deployment in the five or six busiest locations in the port, the vast majority of total port-level emissions at berth can be addressed. Findings from the Port of Antwerp suggest that the vast majority of carbon emissions from container ships at berth are concentrated in the five dedicated container terminals. The other terminals see only a very small part of total CO2 emissions in the port, meaning that there would be a strong case for focusing investments in deploying OPS at key dedicated terminals in the port.
European ports are committed to facilitating the greening of shipping. This entails addressing emissions from shipping both during navigation and at berth. This article has demonstrated that OPS is an important part of addressing emissions from ships at berth in ports and is increasingly becoming available in ports in Europe. At the same time, the various challenges associated with OPS mean that there is the need to prioritize the installation of OPS in places where it makes the most sense. OPS will not address all emissions from ships, and investments in OPS must be justified in terms of costs and benefits to the environment. The legal framework on the European level should therefore serve to ensure that OPS is deployed at locations in the port where each installation will deliver maximal emissions reductions per Euro invested.
Under the European Commission AFIR proposal, the entire port would need to have OPS if it receives more than a certain number of port calls by a container or passenger vessel. This would require significant additional investment for deploying OPS on top of those already foreseen by the European Commission. These investments are unlikely to be cost-efficient in relation to emission reductions.
The “Challenges Related to the Deployment of OPS†section has shown that the vast majority of emissions from relevant ship types are produced at the main locations where these ships normally stay for a longer period of time, such as dedicated terminals and berths in the port. Given the limited time and resources available for greening the maritime sector, it is therefore imperative to prioritize investments in OPS at locations where there is high current and future demand.
This article has argued for an alternative approach to OPS that seeks to optimize the use of OPS as a solution to emissions at berth. The approach consists of three key elements.
This approach does not assign new responsibilities to stakeholders in the port and would not affect the diverse governance models of European ports. By calculating the number of port calls based on the relevant locations in the port, it becomes possible for member states and ports to prioritize investments in OPS where it makes the most sense in terms of environmental benefit (GHG reductions). Accordingly, places in the port/terminals that are normally not called at or that are not intended to be called at by the ship segments required to use OPS at berth, as well as underused terminals, can be excluded from the requirement.
Issues related to insufficient grid capacity and grid infrastructure will have to be addressed by EU member states as it falls outside the remit of port authorities and other port stakeholders. In addition, stronger and clearer incentives in favor of OPS should also be provided, especially through an EU-wide permanent and total tax exemption for electricity provided to ships at berth under the revised ETD. A nonlegislative measure that would help drive the effective deployment of OPS would be publicly available data on the OPS readiness and demand for OPS from ships calling on ports in Europe. This could be provided through existing monitoring schemes such as the EAFO. By making these suggestions part of the EU legislation currently under negotiation, policymakers can address emissions from ships at berth in the most effective way through the deployment of OPS where it makes sense.
“ESPO position on the alternative fuels infrastructure regulation (AFIR) and on the proposal for a FuelEU Maritime Regulation.†[Online] . Available: https://www.espo.be/media/2021.11.29%20ESPO%20position%20on%20AFIR%20and%20FuelEU.pdf
“ESPO environmental report – EcoPortsinSights 2021,†European Sea Ports Organisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Online] . Available: https://www.espo.be/media/ESP-2844%20(Sustainability%20Report%202021)_WEB.pdf
“The European maritime transport environmental report 2021,†European Maritime Safety Agency, Lisboa, Portugal. [Online] . Available: https://emsa.europa.eu/emter.html
“2019 Annual Report on CO2 Emissions from Maritime Transport (EU MRV report).†[Online] . Available: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/api/files/SWD(2020)82?ersIds=de00000000001844
S. Bullock, “Barriers and solutions for UK shore-power,†Univ. Manchester, Manchester, U.K., 2020. [Online] . Available: https://research.manchester.ac.uk/en/publications/barriers-and-solutions-for-uk-shore-power
“European Maritime Transport Environmental Report 2021,†European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021. [Online] . Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/maritime-transport/
“Memorandum of understanding: Onshore power ambitions for container terminals in ports.†Port of Rotterdam. Accessed: Jan. 4, 2022. [Online] . Available: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/sites/default/files/2021-07/mou_ops_ports_of_antwerp-bremerhaven-hamburg-haropa_port-rotterdam_-_final_20210618_003.pdf
“European ports and Interferry agree on priorities for a sustainable future.†European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). Accessed: Jan. 4, 2023. [Online] . Available: https://www.espo.be/news/european-ports-and-interferry-agree-priorities-for
“Cruise industry seeks partnership with governments to reach decarbonisation goals,†Cruise Lines International Association, Washington, DC, USA, 2022. [Online] . Available: https://europe.cruising.org/knowledge_hub/cruise-industry-seeks-partnership-with-governments-to-reach-decarbonisation-goals/
“Impact assessment for the proposal on alternative fuels infrastructure regulation (AFIR),†European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. [Online] . Available: https://commission.europa.eu/select-language?destination=/node/9
“Impact assessment for the FuelEU Maritime proposal,†European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Online] . Available: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021SC0631
European Alternative Fuels Observatory, “Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) ships in operation an on order,†European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Online] . Available: https://alternative-fuels-observatory.ec.europa.eu/transport-mode/maritime-sea/vessels
Valter Selén (valter.selen@espo.be) is the senior policy advisor for sustainable development and EcoPorts Coordinator with the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), 1000 Brussels, Belgium.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2022.3232979
2325-5897/23©2023IEEE