Call for evidence outcome

Net zero ports: challenges and opportunities: summary of responses

Updated 28 August 2026

Executive summary

This document summarises the responses to the Department for Transport (DfT)’s call for evidence on net zero ports, which ran between 25 March 2025 and 27 June 2025. This is a factual summary of responses and sets out the government’s next steps based on the evidence collected.

Context

The call for evidence was published alongside the maritime decarbonisation strategy (MDS), which sets out the government’s approach to reducing UK domestic maritime greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero by 2050, as well as driving economic growth and making Britain a clean energy superpower.

The MDS acknowledged the vital role that ports will play in maritime decarbonisation and included 2 commitments related to UK ports to:

1. Consider an at-berth emissions requirement.
2. Support future energy demand at ports.

The call for evidence on net zero ports was the first step in meeting these commitments by improving our evidence base. It invited respondents to submit their views and any available data on 60 questions, relating to:

• the deployment of decarbonising infrastructure
• onsite energy generation
• ports’ refuelling capabilities
• the current and future electricity requirements at ports
• growth opportunities for ports, and wider sectors, in decarbonising ports
• the current state of decarbonisation in ports
• the case for an at-berth requirement for ports to reduce shipping emissions
• the role ports can play in enabling their tenants and the shipping sector to decarbonise

A total of 65 responses were received from a range of organisations. This summary describes the main themes set out in the responses, with more detailed commentary in response to some of the main policy questions that were asked.

Table 1 provides a breakdown of those who responded.

Table 1: groups and respondent amounts

Stakeholder group	Number of respondents
Port companies	17[footnote 1]
Other private businesses - including maritime technology, energy, and equipment providers	15
Trade associations	11
Academics	6
Environmental groups and non-government organisations (NGOs)	5
Shipping, cruise and ferry companies	4
Consultancies, research and technology organisations	3
Trade unions	1
Private individuals	1
Mayoral combined authorities	1
Distribution network operators (DNOs)	1

Note on fuels terminology

For the purposes of this document, when using the term ‘alternative fuels’, we are referring to fuels that can support decarbonisation compared to conventional fossil fuels. Terminology and definitions continue to evolve and we will keep these under review to ensure consistency with wider government policy and international frameworks.

Summary of responses to questions

Current energy capacity at ports  

Overview of questions asked and purpose

Questions 1 to 4 asked port companies to provide us with information on their current grid connections, including:

• the number of connections they have
• the capacity of those connections
• whether they were operating at or near their maximum capacity

We also asked:

• how much electricity came from onsite generation versus grid
• for information on availability charges and costs of grid upgrades
• whether they had a renewable energy tariff and the cost of this compared to a non-renewable tariff  

The call for evidence noted that the ability of ports to secure extra electricity capacity from their distribution network operators (DNOs) would be vital to decarbonising their operations. It also recognised that electricity capacity would:

• help decarbonise shipping emissions
• provide shore power
• help landside tenants to decarbonise

We therefore sought to understand the existing capacity at ports, including the constraints and costs at an individual port level.

The responses received represent a single point in time and do not account for any reforms to the grid connection process that have occurred since the publication of the call for evidence in March 2025. To protect commercial sensitivity, this section only confirms the type of data that was received, whilst trying to give a sense of scale of current grid capacity at ports.

Summary of responses

Respondents provided detailed insights into current energy demand at UK ports. Most port companies reported having multiple grid connections, some of which were high voltage connections.

Currently, major ports typically operate in the megawatt (MW) capacity range and smaller ports typically operate in the kilowatt (KW) range. The median grid capacity of ports based on responses to the call for evidence was 5.5MW and the mean grid capacity was 11.73MW. This is based on data that we received about individual port locations.

Port data provided only at company level has not been included because it cannot be disaggregated. Several ports are already operating at or near full grid capacity, particularly during their peak times of operations. This includes some respondents exceeding 70% utilisation.

Port companies provided data on their standing charges. These varied from port to port and some had set out the increases they faced. Some port companies also stated that they had a renewable energy tariff. If the port company provided data on the cost difference between a renewable tariff and non-renewable tariff, the responses indicated that the renewable tariff was higher.  

Eleven out of 17 port companies reported using onsite generation such as wind or solar to power some of their individual ports. One port has publicly stated that it currently meets 35% of its energy demand through three wind turbines on their port. 

Forecasting future energy demand at ports

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 5 to 6 asked port companies about:

• their future energy demand
• whether they were planning for their future energy demand 
• if the current capacity at an individual port level was sufficient to meet this

If they did require extra electrical grid capacity, we asked for information on this.   

As well as running this call for evidence, we have engaged directly with the ports, shipping and energy network industries. The view from port stakeholders is that they will need extra electricity capacity to achieve their decarbonisation goals and their economic growth ambitions.

There will be unique and individual drivers that will determine the amount of future electricity capacity that will be required at each port, but the aggregated responses to the call for evidence provides a high-level overview.

Summary of responses 

A majority of port companies that responded indicated that they expect their future energy demand to increase between now and 2050 and were actively planning ahead. Future demand is expected to rise significantly due to:  

• the introduction of shore power and demand for vessel charging 
• the electrification of port equipment (for example cranes and forklifts)  
• electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure  
• new commercial opportunities for ports and port tenants  

Port companies estimate varied future energy demand needs, with respondents stating that the energy capacity they need could increase by 2 to 10 times their current grid capacity, reaching around 91MW on average to support the varied drivers of demand^{[footnote 2]}. Most respondents also emphasised that their planned upgrades are not expected to meet 100% of future demand growth.  

Respondents set out that the energy profile of ports is undergoing a fundamental shift. Reasons given include electrification of port operations, shore power for vessels, and the emergence of alternative fuels (including hydrogen, ammonia and methanol), which are expected to drive increases in energy demand. Responses indicated that this is not just about volume, it is also about load profile complexity, given that:  

• flexible grid management will be required as peak electricity demand may coincide with vessel berthing schedules and cargo operations 
• energy resilience will become critical as ports transition from being passive consumers to active energy hubs
• forecasting future electricity demand will become increasingly difficult due to uncertainty around vessel uptake of shore power and switching to future fuels

Securing the additional grid capacity at ports

Overview of questions asked and purpose

Questions 7 to 13 asked respondents about:

• the implications of grid capacity constraints on ports and their customers
• investing in grid capacity ahead of demand
• barriers they face in accessing power
• the economic and environmental benefits that securing additional electricity capacity would bring

Government had also heard from ports prior to the publication of the call for evidence that 2 major challenges they faced in securing extra electricity capacity were:

• the cost of new connections
• how far into the future DNOs were offering additional electricity capacity

The responses to these questions represent a snapshot in time for the ports sector and do not account for any reforms to the connections queue that are currently ongoing. 

Summary of responses

Many port companies reported difficulty securing timely and affordable grid capacity upgrades. One respondent stated that an individual port was initially offered several phased connection dates in the run up to 2030. However, they were later told it would be 2039 before it could connect due to the National Energy System Operator (NESO) assessing that there would be wider transmission impacts. Some indicated lead times to secure their grid connections of up to 15 years. Others raised concerns that they would struggle to meet their future demand for grid capacity, even if their live grid connection applications were to come back with a reasonable connection date and they accepted the offer.  

In the responses, grid connection delays emerged as a critical bottleneck to port decarbonisation. Respondents argued that the issue is institutional as well as technical, given that:

• connection queues are long and port companies felt that ports lacked priority status despite their perceived strategic role
• differences between port development timelines and grid investment cycles create friction
• cost allocation for grid upgrades is unclear, especially when benefits extend beyond the port boundary

Some port companies attempted to collaborate with regional energy users but faced legal, logistical and technical issues, as well as challenges building trust around sharing commercially sensitive information. Legal obligations for energy trading were highlighted as a barrier to collaboration.

A few respondents mentioned that they are constrained by legislation that restricts how they can buy, sell or share energy, making collaboration with other users complex or unviable. Respondents also indicated that sharing energy between multiple users requires complex balancing and connection arrangements. Several respondents noted that the technical challenges of coordinating energy use and infrastructure across different energy users at a port made collaboration impractical.  

A few port companies highlighted that they are part of working groups exploring collaboration, but that these groups are still in early development. These efforts are focused on breaking down barriers to information sharing due to commercial sensitivities and fostering trust, rather than on providing joint infrastructure projects. Others that said they were part of these groups indicated that, so far, few practical solutions have emerged. Typically, they referred to the complexity of the energy systems and the differing priorities among stakeholders as the reason progress was hindered. 

Twenty-six respondents provided a view on the implications that grid capacity constraints would have on port growth and whether ports or their customers have lost out on any opportunities. Of the 26 respondents, 18 (69%) agreed, 2 (8%) disagreed and 6 (23%) did not know if ports and their customers have lost out on opportunities due to insufficient electricity supply.

Some respondents stated that this affects UK competitiveness, including in relation to the EU, and the ability to establish green shipping corridors. Two respondents raised specific concerns that cruise and ferry operators are choosing European ports over UK ones due to better shore power availability and lower electricity costs. Others indicated that the lack of grid capacity discourages investment in electric vessels, shore power and green marine fuel production (for example hydrogen and ammonia). 

Several economic benefits of securing sufficient grid capacity were suggested by respondents. These included seeing increased investment in ports and the surrounding region, as well as enhanced competitiveness and attracting new customers.

Respondents suggested that job creation could also be a result of securing sufficient grid capacity, for example in green construction, energy and logistics. The production of clean fuels would also allow ports or third parties to sell these fuels onto a wider market allowing for broader industrial decarbonisation. Other economic benefits included lowering supply chain costs and improved energy resilience.  

There were mixed views about investing in grid capacity ahead of demand. Those that considered it advantageous indicated that it could enable the early adoption of shore power. Some also suggested that it would attract investment as it supports Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) compliance. A common theme amongst the respondents who considered that it would be disadvantageous to install 100% capacity ahead of demand was the risk of stranded assets if demand did not materialise as forecast.

One respondent provided detailed data on how standing charges for one port using shore power would cost between £157,093 to £413,749 annually depending on whether the system was a 1.5MW system or a 4MW system. The difference in these costs was partly because transmission costs increase sharply between 1.8MW and 2MW, rising from £47,045 to £120,289 a year, which highlights a potential disincentive to investing in grid capacity ahead of demand. The costs mentioned by this respondent were representative of the time of their submission and may not reflect current standing charge costs.

Another common theme in responses was capital costs, with some indicating that high upfront costs made it impractical for ports to invest ahead of demand. However, others suggested that investing ahead of demand would have a lower cost overall because it would cut costs in the planning, administration and implementation of installing grid upgrades by doing it in one go, rather than by incremental upgrades. 

Those in favour of investing incrementally to increase capacity saw it as a more financially manageable approach, but only if grid upgrades can be secured in a timely manner. Respondents also indicated that an incremental increase reduced the risk of stranded assets.  

Several respondents indicated they have assessed the cost differences between installing 100% of their future grid capacity ahead of need and installing grid capacity upgrades incrementally. However, no respondents provided specific data to demonstrate the difference.

Onsite solar and wind generation at ports and battery storage

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 14 to 17 asked port companies:

• whether they had installed or were exploring renewable onsite generation at their ports
• what power generated from these sources would be used for

We also asked respondents to state any advantages and disadvantages of installing battery storage at ports. 

The MDS encouraged ports to increase their own electricity capacity, including producing their own renewable energy on site and making use of battery storage technology. It also encouraged exploring the use of private wire connections, with direct connections to nearby renewable energy projects. Our call for evidence reinforced this by setting out potential use cases for solar and wind energy produced at ports and battery storage.

Summary of responses 

Onsite renewable generation, mainly solar and wind, is increasingly common at ports, but rarely sufficient to meet total demand. Some port companies indicated that onsite renewable generation could supply a significant amount of energy. At least one port company stated that it aims to generate up to 50% of its electricity demand onsite, while another is currently meeting 35% of its demand through 3 wind turbines.   

Other port companies stated that while they have not installed onsite generation, they are exploring it. Typically, this is solar or wind power generation, though other methods of generation are also being explored, including using alternative fuels to power port operations. One respondent suggested that in the future other generation methods may include nuclear power.   

Those that did generate electricity onsite provided several examples of what it powered. Most respondents stated that it would help power port operations, with several clarifying that this would power the port-owned buildings or direct operations, rather than that of their tenants. Others indicated that it would be used to supply electricity to shore power.   

Fifteen respondents provided views on the advantages and disadvantages of battery storage at ports and potential costs. Advantages included battery storage increasing energy resilience and reliability, particularly in helping to manage short-term surges in energy demand from shore power and electrified port equipment. 

Battery storage could also reduce reliance on diesel back-up generators and enhance grid stability, particularly for ports with constrained grid connections, allowing for operational flexibility.   

A few respondents highlighted that battery storage can maximise the potential of renewable energy production (for example solar and wind) by integrating excess renewable energy with battery storage. Another benefit mentioned was the potential for battery storage to reduce operating costs through tariff optimisation and lower standing charges. 

Battery storage could also be used to enable ports to reduce the size of the upgraded grid connection that they need, which in turn would reduce the level of fixed standing charges. Some respondents also mentioned benefits such as the potential for trading electricity in wholesale and balancing markets.   

Disadvantages of battery storage were highlighted by several respondents. These included:  

• high upfront capital costs with the added risk of stranded assets  
• space constraints for ports with limited physical area  
• integration challenges with existing electrified infrastructure
• planning and regulatory barriers if in a shared-use environment, and the complexity and length of planning approvals procedures more generally 
• technological limitations of lithium-ion batteries, which typically only offer limited hours of discharge

Respondents provided a range of costs involved in installing battery storage at ports. These variances depended on the size of the system, with small-scale systems of less than 2MWh being quoted as costing below £1 million and larger battery storage solutions, for example a 100MWh system, being quoted as costing between £30 and £40 million.

However, smaller systems may face a higher per-unit cost compared to larger systems due to a lack of economies of scale. Respondents highlighted the high capital costs of installing battery storage, including high installation and integration costs. One respondent stated that the battery unit costs typically account for 40 to 70% of total capital costs, with the rest accounting for integration with existing energy infrastructure, networks and management systems.

The role of ports in enabling shipping to decarbonise

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 18 to 21 asked about:

• the role ports could play in enabling shipping to decarbonise
• whether ports had the powers to directly provide energy to vessels leaving port

We also asked:

• whether there was sufficient collaboration between ports, shipping operators and infrastructure providers to decarbonise shipping
• what the government could do to increase certainty about the supply of infrastructure required and the subsequent demand for the use of that infrastructure

The call for evidence set out that shipping operators need to have confidence that they will have access to the right infrastructure, at the right place, and at the right time to reduce their emissions and invest in new technologies. One barrier identified in previously commissioned DfT research was a ‘chicken and egg’ market failure about what comes first – investment in new vessels or investment in new infrastructure.

The main focus of the MDS is to change the fuels and technologies vessel operators use to reduce GHG emissions. This also sent a signal to the ports industry that they will have to play an increased role in directly providing or enabling third parties to provide the infrastructure that will enable shipping to decarbonise. This will require ports, shipping operators and potential infrastructure providers to continue working together, and in some cases to strengthen that collaboration. These assumptions underpin the responses received.  

Summary of responses 

Respondents argued that maritime decarbonisation is exposing the fragmentation of the port ecosystem. Ports can involve multiple tenants operating terminals, shipping lines or logistical hubs. They have diverse ownership models, including trust ports, private ports and publicly owned municipal ports. They also have varyingly complex governance structures.   

Out of a total of 44 respondents who answered the question on whether there existed sufficient collaboration between ports, shipping operators and infrastructure providers:

• zero respondents strongly agreed
• 4 (9%) agreed
• 7 (16%) neither agreed nor disagreed
• 27 (61%) disagreed
• one (2%) strongly disagreed
• 5 (11%) did not know

The main issues highlighted concerning collaboration were:  

• fragmented regulatory frameworks  
• a lack of standardisation and international alignment  
• commercial barriers and data silos  
• poor coordination and relationships with DNOs  

Some respondents mention that most collaboration remains ad hoc, noting that some ports are in working groups or pilot projects. For example, DfT’s UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) research and development (R&D) programme, launched in 2022, was mentioned as facilitating greater opportunities for collaboration. Respondents called for:

• clear government leadership and regulatory direction
• joint procurement schemes where shipowners work with ports to commit to the supply and use of a particular alternative fuel
• cross-sector partnerships such as green shipping corridor coalitions
• better integration with national infrastructure planning

Existing examples of these were seen to be effective in aligning the sector around common goals, timelines and standards.

Design of an at-berth emissions requirement

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 22 to 28 asked respondents to provide views on:

• whether a future at-berth emissions requirement would be effective at reducing GHG and air pollutant emissions
• whether that requirement should be technology neutral
• what technologies could be used to reduce at-berth emissions
• what would make the regulatory regime work effectively

Respondents were also asked to provide views on the definition of a high-frequency service and whether it should be included in a future at-berth emissions requirement, if taken forward.   

To help inform any future policy development, we wanted to understand how the ports and shipping market would respond to a technology-neutral at-berth emissions requirement and what solutions would prevail. This includes identifying whether the government will need to direct the market towards utilising electricity at berth, while allowing other technologies to be used, drawing on learning from the European Union’s (EU) FuelEU Maritime approach, which includes a specific shore power mandate. We also wanted to develop an initial understanding of how technology-neutral solutions that comply with an at-berth requirement could affect air quality and the ability of the ports and shipping markets to reduce air pollutant emissions.

Summary of responses

Effectiveness of an at-berth emissions requirement

In total, 51 respondents provided a view on whether an at-berth GHG requirement would be effective at at reducing GHG emissions surrounding ports. Here 17 (33%) strongly agreed that it would be effective, 22 (43%) agreed, 7 (14%) disagreed, 4 (8%) neither agreed nor disagreed and one (2%) did not know if it would be effective.

Sixteen of these responses were from port companies. Of these, 5 (31%) strongly agreed that it would be effective, 5 (31%) agreed, 3 (19%) disagreed and 3 (19%) neither agreed nor disagreed.

The 51 respondents also provided a view on whether an at-berth emissions requirement would be effective at reducing air pollutants surrounding ports. Of these:

• 13 (25%) strongly agreed that it would be effective
• 25 (49%) agreed
• 6 (12%) disagreed
• 5 (10%) neither agreed nor disagreed 
• 2 (4%) did not know if it would be effective

Sixteen of these responses were from port companies. Of these:

• 5 (31%) strongly agreed that it would be effective
• 5 (31%) agreed
• 2 (13%) disagreed
• 3 (19%) neither agreed nor disagreed
• one (6%) did not know if it would be effective

Respondents who believed that an at-berth emissions requirement would be effective at reducing both GHGs and air pollutant emissions often cited that it could:   

• reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulphur oxides (SOx), particulate matter and GHGs 
• help meet UK decarbonisation goals 
• encourage uptake of shore power 
• address the ‘chicken and egg’ problem by incentivising vessel retrofitting for shore power use 
• include co-benefits of reduced noise pollution and improved public health

Respondents who believed it would be ineffective raised:    

• duplication of regional or international regulations, for example proposed future GHG emissions regulation through the UK or EU ETS, IMO Net-Zero Framework or Emission Control Areas that would tackle GHG and air pollutant emissions from shipping
• concerns around the deliverability of shore power to enable reductions in at-berth emissions, given high electricity and capital costs weakening the business case for installing shore power infrastructure. Even if the infrastructure were available, respondents highlighted that they would be at a competitive disadvantage (for example with EU ports) on supplying it due to high electricity costs

A few respondents raised methodological concerns about the definition of at-berth emissions used by the government’s Maritime Emissions Model (MEM). Some respondents argued that these figures were overstated by counting emissions from tankers lightering up to 5 nautical miles from port, the full scope of which are unlikely to be addressed through shore power or other at-berth technologies. 

Separately, at a series of webinars and events held during the call for evidence period, multiple participants suggested that the MEM’s definition of at-berth emissions includes vessel manoeuvring. Though only raised in a few call for evidence responses, this reflects a misunderstanding, as the MEM follows the IMO’s approach and defines at-berth emissions as emissions from stationary vessels within one nautical mile of port (or up to 5 nautical miles for tankers). DfT is reviewing its use of this terminology in light of stakeholder feedback. 

Respondents called for clarity regarding what would be in scope for an at-berth requirement, suggesting that vessels that are manoeuvring or anchoring should not be included in a future regulation.

Technology neutrality 

There were mixed views about the approach the government should take regarding technology to reduce at-berth emissions. Respondents tended to favour some elements of technology neutrality, stating that this would:

• recognise the diversity of port operations and vessel types
• avoid stranded assets
• encourage innovation
•  allow for market-led solutions and flexibility to deal with emissions

However, there were some suggestions that the government should provide clear policy signals on what kind of technology would be in scope of a future policy, as this could reduce investment risk. 

Many respondents highlighted that shore power is seen as a mature technology and has been proven to reduce at-berth emissions if the electricity is renewably sourced. Those that did favour a particular technological solution suggested that the government should allow for exemptions to acknowledge that shore power might not be an appropriate or practical option for all UK ports.

An emerging trend from a few respondents was that they were exploring alternative solutions to reducing at-berth emissions. This included shore power that is supported by electricity from the grid and from battery storage or local renewable generation. This would reduce reliance on grid upgrades and improve emissions performance. 

While shore power was often seen as the most mature and scalable solution, some of the barriers to its rollout were highlighted. These included:

• high capital costs of installing shore power
• current grid capacity constraints
• the costs to vessel operators of retrofitting shore power systems

Some respondents suggested that vessels could become fully battery-electric, particularly those conducting short-sea shipping or port service vessels, which would likely enable them to meet a future at-berth emissions regulation. However, in addition to the aforementioned barriers to shore power, there would be limited suitability for larger vessels to become fully battery-electric.

Alternative fuels were identified as a means to meet an at-berth emissions requirement, including fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia and methanol. These were often seen as a medium to long-term solution. Respondents noted that safety concerns, infrastructure readiness and fuel availability would need to be addressed to make alternative fuels a viable solution.     

Other solutions received limited mentions. One respondent indicated that emission capture technologies could be used to meet an at-berth requirement. However, others questioned the maturity of carbon capture on vessels as a means of reducing GHG emissions. Smart port technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) or digital twins were also highlighted as ways to optimise operations and reduce idle emissions.

Regulatory regime of a future requirement 

A dominant theme throughout responses was a call for the government to set a clear direction of travel for maritime decarbonisation. Some respondents called for environmental legislation or mandates to help create long-term certainty. Other respondents highlighted that any future requirement should be technology neutral, with flexibility and exemptions depending on ports’ geography, access to electricity and size.

Others called for a phased approach starting with the largest ports, the highest polluting shipping operators or vessels that can already connect to shore power. Another major theme was that a UK at-berth emissions requirement should mirror or align with international regulations including the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework, or the EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulations. Some respondents also mentioned California’s emission requirement as another example that the UK could emulate or learn from.   

Other considerations mentioned were:   

• financial support from the government for infrastructure and operational costs   
• ensuring that monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems are used in any requirement 
• clear safety standards for alternative fuels 
• allowing for market-based mechanisms to help with compliance such as lower port fees for zero emission vessels, carbon pricing, emission surcharges, fines, changes to port access and incentives for early adopters

High frequency services

Respondents’ views on how high frequency services should be defined tended to fall into 2 camps. One is to define them as services operating daily with port stays under 2 hours, and the other is to align with FuelEU Maritime standards. Though FuelEU Maritime does not include a definition of high frequency services, it does include an exemption on vessels that are at-berth for less than 2 hours.  

Some respondents suggested more than 1,000 calls annually as a threshold. It was not defined whether this would be a single vessel that calls at a port, or whether it would be a service, for example a ferry service using multiple vessels that make 1,000 calls. Others also suggested California’s definition, which is similar to the EU’s but with some slight differences in the length of the port stay.   

Thirty-four respondents answered on whether high frequency services should be included in a future at-berth emission requirement. For this:

• 20 (59%) agreed
• 8 (24%) disagreed
• 5 (15%) did not know
• one (3%) neither agreed nor disagreed

Of the 20 respondents that agreed, reasons given concerned:  

• scope: if high frequency services were excluded, it would lead to a high cumulative amount of emissions falling outside the policy’s scope
• technology: high frequency services have technologically feasible pathways to decarbonise, though this would require government support to achieve  
• ensuring a level playing field: including them would avoid regulatory loopholes and ensure fair competition between all services 

Of the 8 respondents that disagreed and provided reasons not to include high frequency services in a future requirement, there reasons were related to:   

• it being operationally impractical for vessels that spend a short time at-berth to connect to the grid
• concerns around regulatory duplication
• disproportionate costs for high frequency services compared to non-high frequency services
• the risk of displacing maritime activity towards other more polluting modes of transport and creating reverse modal shift

Alternative fuel bunkering hubs and infrastructure

Overview of questions asked and purpose

Questions 29 to 36 asked respondents to provide any:

• current examples of plans for alternative fuel bunkering, production, storage and import and export terminals at ports for alternative fuels
• examples of future plans for alternative fuel bunkering, production, storage and import and export terminals at ports for alternative fuels

Respondents were asked about:

• existing bunkering facilities at UK ports
• barriers that ports face in becoming alternative fuel bunkering hubs
• what market and growth opportunities there may be
• the costs of installing alternative fuel and charging infrastructure

The call for evidence laid out that alternative fuels and energy sources (such as electricity) will play a significant role in decarbonising the maritime sector, with potential additional benefits of improved air quality. For these fuels and energy sources to succeed in decarbonising the sector, the supply, infrastructure and safe storage of these fuels will be essential. Ports will play a vital role in this.

For some ports in the future, their role in bunkering fuel for vessels using the port will change if they were to transition to become refuelling hubs. Similar to responses regarding grid connectivity, it is important to recognise that responses represent a snapshot in time for the ports sector. They do not account for any grid connection or planning reforms to reduce barriers to ports becoming alternative fuel bunkering hubs that are currently ongoing.

This section of the call for evidence sought to collate more information about:

• existing activities
• the costs and benefits of this approach
• any potential barriers that the ports sector is facing when planning on becoming alternative fuel bunkering hubs

Summary of responses

Several port companies responded that they already have or are planning to adapt facilities onsite at ports for alternative fuels on a small scale such as methanol, hydrogen and ammonia. Some also have infrastructure for the storage and bunkering of alternative fuels, such as biofuels.

However, these facilities are usually provided in collaboration with third parties that will install and operate the refuelling infrastructure, rather than the port directly providing it themselves.   

Several respondents mentioned that they have shore power or charging points for electric vessels, and that these were increasingly considered as part of the ports’ refuelling infrastructure.   

Other refuelling infrastructure mentioned as being located at ports include:

• Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)
• traditional fossil fuel bunkering

Respondents noted 6 different themes that they argued are barriers to ports becoming alternative fuel bunkering hubs.

Grid connection constraints were the most frequently cited barrier. Ports face:  

• long lead times (up to 15 years in some cases)  
• high upfront capital costs  
• uncertainty in demand forecasting  
• poor customer service and transparency from DNOs

Fuel and technology uncertainty was also raised as a dominant theme, with respondents citing a lack of clarity about which alternative fuels will dominate the market. This was presented as a challenge for the sector, as different fuels will require different infrastructure, given varying storage and safety requirements. 

Cost came up as another prevalent barrier, with respondents noting high upfront capital costs for terminals to have the infrastructure to store and bunker alternative fuels. This is compounded by the aforementioned barrier on fuel uncertainty, as the demand risk hinders the commercial viability of investing in alternative fuel infrastructure.

High standing charges and high electricity costs also arose as barriers to investment in alternative fuel and charging infrastructure. This is because the costs of producing green hydrogen or its derivatives would currently be high due to the cost of electricity.   

The final dominant theme to emerge was regulatory and planning complexities creating long processes that risked investment timelines. Respondents raised Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations as a particular hurdle that ports will need to overcome if they want to store hydrogen in significant quantities. At least one port company noted that they had cancelled development plans to have hydrogen storage and instead moved it to an area where licensing requirements for COMAH had already been met. 

Respondents also noted a lack of UK-specific guidance on:

• alternative fuels in COMAH regulations
• health and safety rules
• fire codes for hazardous substances
• safety and liability risks
• handling, storage, bunkering and movement of fuels in bulk

They also identified a lack of technical expertise within ports, particularly with handling hazardous fuels like ammonia.

Limited space for infrastructure expansion was raised as another barrier, in particular for ports in urban areas. Other land and infrastructure barriers included:

• the need for specialised storage for alternative fuels
• a lack of existing infrastructure
• potential displacement of other revenue-generating activities

Respondents provided a range of estimated costs and timeframes for building alternative fuel bunkering hubs and electric charging infrastructure. Estimates varied depending on:

• what infrastructure was being developed
• the scale of this infrastructure
• the geographic location of the port

Most respondents who did provide information suggested that full implementation of alternative fuel and charging infrastructure would take between 5 and 10 years, though some projects may take longer, with some taking until 2050 to be completed. Many respondents noted that they are still assessing the viability due to demand and regulatory uncertainty.

The estimates given for electric charging infrastructure varied depending on whether its purpose is to provide power to a large vessel, such as a cruise ship, or a smaller vessel. These costs ranged between £45,000 per berth to over £20 million per berth with some respondents highlighting that the higher the energy demand required, the higher the costs of installing electric charging infrastructure or shore power.

Some respondents highlighted the financial support that formed part of international schemes to support the development of alternative fuel and charging infrastructure. Others provided detailed cost estimates for individual components including switchgears, cable management systems and the costs of feasibility studies.

Respondents identified 5 different growth opportunities for ports if they became alternative fuel bunkering hubs. These are:   

• first-mover advantage: early investment in alternative fuels could position UK ports as leaders in green shipping corridors
• job creation: opportunities in engineering, fuel production and digital infrastructure
• green finance: decarbonised ports attract environmental, social and governance (ESG) focused investors
• energy hubs: potential to support local grids and export hydrogen
• cross-modal benefits: shared infrastructure for HGVs and other transport modes

Role of ports in enabling their tenants to decarbonise

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 37 to 40 asked how ports can help their tenants to decarbonise their operations and what barriers ports face in helping their tenants to decarbonise.   

The call for evidence highlighted the diversity of tenants operating at ports, and that the government was seeking to better understand:

• the range of tenants
• what ports are doing to help them decarbonise 
• the barriers they might face in doing so

Summary of responses

The number of tenants at a port ranges significantly depending on the port size and economic activities. Economic activities noted include ferry and cruise services, cargo handling, construction, warehousing, manufacturing and power provision.  

Respondents identified several actions ports can take to support tenant decarbonisation. The most prevalent action identified was investing in infrastructure that would enable decarbonisation including:

• centralised waste and recycling hubs
• onsite renewable energy generation such as solar and wind
• electrification infrastructure for port operations and vessels

Respondents suggested that ports could incentivise tenants to decarbonise through commercial and financial levers, such as:

• co-investing in green infrastructure or technologies alongside their tenants
• offering renewable electricity at competitive rates
• providing funding for vessel conversion 

The other dominant theme was how ports could act as convenors to facilitate collaboration, with the Thames Net Zero Coalition being given as an example.

Respondents also argued that these forums allow organisations to:

• share best practice and data
• encourage tenants to adopt energy efficiency measures
• invest in alternative fuel bunkering infrastructure

These forums can also support cross-modal solutions, for example through electrification at ports also supporting the decarbonisation of HGVs and rail freight.

There were several major barriers to ports supporting tenant decarbonisation. Similar to barriers to ports becoming alternative fuel bunkering hubs, the primary barrier was grid connection constraints. Other reasons respondents gave as barriers were:

• limited supply and long lead times 
• bottlenecks and lack of coordination with DNOs 
• the need for government intervention to improve grid access

Ports were generally seen as enablers rather than direct providers of decarbonisation capability for tenants onsite. Many port companies indicated that they lack the authority to mandate fuel switching or equipment upgrades for tenants as they often operate independently.

Other barriers to ports supporting tenant decarbonisation included:

• regulatory and planning challenges
• policy uncertainty
• geographical and spatial constraints

Four respondents answered the question on what they, as tenants at a port, wanted from their landlords to help with decarbonisation. The results were that:

• all 4 respondents mentioned the provision of electrification infrastructure
• one respondent mentioned access to green electricity and fuels for onshore and offshore use
• one respondent mentioned that if the industrial strategy resulted in lower electricity costs, this needed to include ports, subcontractors and shipping to lower energy costs and encourage decarbonisation
• one respondent mentioned data sharing to help improve collaboration for day-to-day operations
• one respondent mentioned needing a grid connection to meet UK ETS requirements

Measuring and reducing port emissions

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 41 to 50 asked port companies:

•  whether they measure direct emissions
• if they did measure direct emissions, to provide data in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) to quantify the current level of annual direct GHG emissions at port

We asked about:

• the sources of GHG emissions at ports, and the challenges faced in decarbonising these sources
• other environmental impacts at ports such as air pollutants and noise and water pollution
• the opportunities for growth from ports decarbonising their operations, including job growth, upskilling and other economic opportunities   

The call for evidence set out that the government needed to understand these issues to help assess how to reduce port emissions.

Summary of responses

Eighteen respondents (17 port companies and one trade association) responded to the question about whether they monitor their direct GHG emissions. Of these:

• 16 (89%) stated that they do monitor their own direct GHG emissions at their ports
• 2 (11%) said they do not

Of the 16 respondents who do monitor their emissions:

• 2 (13%) monitor some of their direct GHG emissions
• 5 (31%) monitor all
• 9 (56%) did not make a distinction

 To note, some ports are expected to comply with the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting requirements, though some go beyond these requirements.

Several ports confirmed they had emission inventories, which they used to disaggregate emissions data by equipment type. Major emission sources included diesel generators, oil and gas heating systems, dredgers, cranes and diesel-powered rail and road vehicles.

Seventeen respondents included whether they monitor additional environmental impacts or not. Of these, 77% indicated that they monitor impacts such as air quality, noise and biodiversity, though the additional impacts monitored differ from port to port. Most ports monitored air quality, which can be tracked using diffusion tubes and electronic monitors for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter, such as PM 2.5.    

Those that also monitor noise pollution noted that it is monitored annually, with some ports reporting reductions in noise pollution after shore power has been introduced. Other ports also indicated that they monitor biodiversity via ecological surveys, tree planting and invasive species management.   

Responses indicated that decarbonisation of port operations is progressing unevenly. Challenges highlighted by respondents include:

• retrofitting, given legacy equipment with long asset lifecycles - equipment that can be retrofitted tends to be complex and ports face operational disruptions, including the time taken to retrofit equipment, or down time to charge assets
• workforce transition, including retraining for electric, hydrogen or digital systems
• grid infrastructure limitations and long upgrade timelines
• financing issues such as high capital costs (for example £250,000 for a new electric terminal tractor versus a £100,000 diesel conventional tractor) and high retrofitting costs for vessels
• limited availability of zero-emission alternatives for heavy-duty equipment
• limited fuel supply and uncertainty around future fuel types

Electrification was seen as the primary pathway amongst respondents for reducing direct GHG emissions from port operations. Others noted that decarbonisation options for operations were:

• electrification of cranes, forklifts and terminal tractors  
• using Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO) as a transitional fuel  
• onsite renewable generation (solar and wind)  
• battery storage for load balancing and resilience

Biofuels like HVO are being used to reduce emissions immediately. However, several respondents noted a higher cost with HVO, stating that HVO can be between 30 and 50% more expensive than diesel.   

Solar and wind installations are growing but are often insufficient to meet full demand. Battery storage is seen as a strategic enabler but faces high costs and integration challenges.  

Ports are also investing in energy efficiency (for example LED lighting and AI-based optimisation) and exploring alternative fuels such as hydrogen for operational use, though these remain in pilot stages.

Several themes came through from respondents when asked about the growth benefits of decarbonisation. Respondents often argued that ports are uniquely positioned to benefit from the energy transition, not just to mitigate its risks, given numerous economic and environmental opportunities. These included:

• investment and competitiveness: decarbonised ports are more attractive to ESG-focused investors and can gain a first-mover advantage in green shipping corridors
• job creation: new roles in electrical engineering, fuel handling, sustainability and digital infrastructure
• clean fuel production: ports could become hubs for hydrogen, ammonia, and methanol, supporting both maritime and other transport sectors
• improved air quality and biodiversity: electrification and alternative fuels reduce pollutants and environmental risks
• energy resilience: onsite generation and battery storage enhance operational continuity

However, respondents claimed that realising these opportunities required the government to:

• provide clear government policy and regulatory alignment (domestic and international)  
• intervene through public funding and electricity cost reform  
• accelerate grid connections  
• create faster planning approvals  
• upskill the workforce

Respondents highlighted that the energy transition required not only new skills but also more jobs in existing fields. These jobs included:

• electrical engineers, especially high-voltage specialists 
• technicians trained in hazardous fuels (for example ammonia and hydrogen) 
• new jobs involving digital and AI skills for smart infrastructure and cybersecurity, as well as upskilling the existing workforce to handle digital infrastructure
• sustainability officers and energy analysts

Other roles that are emerging at ports include maritime ESG officers, lifecycle emissions assessors, as well as consultants and strategists for transition planning.

Existing decarbonisation goals set by UK ports

Overview of questions asked and purpose

Questions 51 to 55 asked port companies to provide information about:

• whether they had decarbonisation goals and what these looked like
• how they planned to deal with residual emissions
• the costs and benefits of ports reaching their decarbonisation goals   

The call for evidence highlighted that many port operators have already begun their decarbonisation journey and are increasingly setting out their own forward plans and commitments. Port operators are increasingly publishing their decarbonisation goals for their direct operations. We were seeking more information on progress in decarbonising port operations, including:

• any decarbonisation goals ports have set
• how government can galvanise the sector to decarbonise  

The call for evidence laid out that although the maritime sector applies the GHG Protocol, the UK’s overall climate ambition is defined by the 2008 Climate Change Act (CCA). CCA requires the UK government to set legally binding carbon budgets, which set the maximum amount of GHGs emitted in the UK over a five‑year period. The UK’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) form an integral part of our international climate commitments.

Summary of responses

All 17 port companies that responded had at least one decarbonisation goal for their operations, though naturally the scope and timelines of these goals differed. Some of the port companies reported having interim goals, for example some had a goal to be carbon neutral by a particular year and then net zero by a later date. All port companies had decarbonisation targets for their scope 1 and 2 emissions. Although the port decarbonisation trajectories varied between respondents, a summary of the decarbonisation goals are:

• 4 port companies had a goal to reach net zero in scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030
• 4 port companies had a goal to reach net zero between 2030 and 2035 for scope 1 and 2 emissions
• 5 port companies had a goal to reach net zero for their scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2040
• 4 port companies had goals that would see them reach net zero between 2040 and 2050, with one wanting to be the first carbon negative region, in line with their local authority

Some port companies have set targets to be net zero for their defined scope 3 emissions by 2050

Of the 17 port companies that responded to having at least one decarbonisation goal:

• 8 clarified the nature of their goals for scope 1 and 2 emissions
• 5 aimed for net zero with residual emissions
• 2 aimed for absolute zero
• one aimed for close to zero emissions

Respondents also explained how they plan to address residual emissions. The primary 3 methods included were:

• carbon offsetting (for example tree planting and blue carbon projects)  
• carbon trading  
• carbon sequestration

Respondents also outlined what considerations they made in setting decarbonisation goals with a recurring theme being the desire to improve environmental performance. Some respondents mentioned that they are aligned with science-based target initiatives and others shared that their carbon footprint is third-party verified. Improving air quality and enabling wider emissions reductions across the supply chain was also a consideration.

The financial status of ports and an awareness of attracting investment was considered by several respondents whilst setting their decarbonisation goals. Respondents noted that goals and future plans had to be economically viable and so were conducting cost-benefit analyses.  

Some respondents mentioned that government action is a consideration in their decarbonisation plans, with international alignment playing an important part. The plans and policies of the IMO and the UK ETS were noted as areas they considered in setting their decarbonisation goal and one respondent stated followed the policies of their local council.

Other considerations mentioned in setting decarbonisation goals included:   

• asset lifecycle and replacement planning of their machinery and vessels  
• customer and supply chain demand 
• grid connection readiness 

Several port companies provided estimates of costs required to decarbonise their operations. Estimates included the costs of grid connections, which varied depending on the capacity required. Other estimates varied depending on whether the costs included internal port grid network upgrades or battery systems to support peak electricity demand and super grid transformers. Some of these ports noted that timelines were more critical than cost.

Economic benefits for port suppliers 

Respondents who supply ports with technology, equipment or energy for the maritime sector highlighted a range of growth benefits for their businesses as the maritime sector decarbonises. These included: 

• most prominently the opportunity for market expansion and export potential for their business - it was suggested that ports decarbonising creates anchor clients for UK suppliers, enabling scale and cost competitiveness
• opportunities to strengthen credentials for entering international markets, with respondents who identified as maritime fuel or equipment providers arguing that decarbonisation would strengthen their credentials if they could successfully supply UK ports with alternative fuels bunkering infrastructure
• benefits extended beyond immediate sales and included long-term market positioning, innovation opportunities and regional economic growth
• opportunities for ports to serve as testbeds for emerging technologies and Intellectual Property (IP) development, with examples given including shore power connectors, hydrogen systems and AI energy platforms  
• opportunities for suppliers to secure a dependable revenue stream through long-term service and maintenance contracts with ports for zero emission technologies such as battery systems and hydrogen safety - a few respondents argued that this would also help foster local supply ecosystems of manufacturers, service providers, and training institutions that would support the development of new skills

Economic benefits for ports 

Financial incentives came up as the most dominant economic benefit of achieving their decarbonisation goals. The cost savings of pursuing green alternatives rather than fossil fuels, given anticipated price rises and lower maintenance costs, were repeatedly mentioned.

The increase in competitiveness, particularly in the future, due to being able to offer shore power to vessels and shipping lines, was widely discussed, as was customer retention. Two respondents noted the reduced cost to public health if air quality improves as the maritime sector decarbonises.  

Many indicated that another economic benefit of achieving their decarbonisation goals is attracting investment. The theme that decarbonisation will make investment more attractive to environmentally conscious investors and new customers was discussed repeatedly. One respondent highlighted increased innovation as a co-benefit to this.  

Another economic benefit was increased competitiveness compared to other national and international ports that had not decarbonised. Job creation and workforce upskilling would also be a benefit of ports reaching their decarbonisation goals.   

A recurring theme amongst all respondents was that this would support national and regional economic growth.

Environmental benefits 

Respondents noted several environmental benefits for ports reaching their decarbonisation goals, these were: 

• reduced GHG emissions 
• improved air quality in the areas around ports 
• enhanced biodiversity and marine ecosystems 
• noise reduction and better working environments

How the government can galvanise ports to decarbonise

Overview of questions asked and purpose 

Questions 56 to 60 asked for views on:

• how the government can help galvanise ports to decarbonise
• whether respondents believed that small and large ports were preparing adequately to reach net zero

In the call for evidence, the government emphasised its commitment to decarbonising the maritime sector and enabling a more environmentally sustainable industry. The government was seeking to better understand what it can do to help galvanise ports to proactively plan their route to decarbonising their direct operations.

Summary of responses 

There was a split in opinion amongst respondents on whether both large and small ports were adequately planning their approach to reaching net zero from the 42 respondents who provided a view. Of these responses:

• 16 (38%) agreed that ports are adequately planning for net zero
• 15 (36%) disagreed 
• 11 (26%) did not know

Fifteen responses were from port companies. From the 15 responses:

• 10 (67%) agreed that ports are adequately planning for net zero
•  4 (27%) said they did not know
• one (7%) disagreed

Many respondents noted a disparity between larger and smaller ports. Respondents felt that:

• larger ports (including smaller ports in large port groups) were generally better equipped and supported
• smaller and single site ports face more challenges due to limited resources and a lack of tailored support

Barriers to net zero planning 

Some provided views on what barriers existed for ports to plan for net zero. These included:   

• a lack of government direction and long-term policy clarity 
• insufficient funding and investment confidence 
• grid connection constraints and a lack of shore power 
• poor coordination between ports, operators and DNOs

We asked whether there was sufficient government or industry-led guidance to help ports decarbonise. A total of 47 respondents provided an answer on whether there was sufficient government-led guidance to help ports to decarbonise. In these answers:

• 10 (21%) agreed
• 32 (68%) disagreed
• 5 (11%) did not know

A total of 41 respondents provided a view on whether there was sufficient industry-led guidance to help ports decarbonise. Of these 41 respondents:

• 13 (32%) agreed that there was sufficient industry-led guidance
• 24 (59%) disagreed 
• 4 (10%) did not know

The majority of respondents raised a need for updated and new guidance from the government, particularly on the safe use of alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia. Guidance on complying with decarbonisation regulations (such as the UK ETS and IMO measures) came up in several responses. Some respondents highlighted that ports are multi-modal and will need guidance on decarbonising other modes of transport such as EVs.   

A few responses warned that the current guidance is fragmented amongst several different government departments, which, in their view, results in there being no clear strategic direction on decarbonisation. These respondents also typically called for clearer information on funding streams and infrastructure planning.

Potential government measures to enable decarbonisation 

As part of the call for evidence on net zero ports, the government suggested several other measures that it could take to enable ports to decarbonise. These were:   

• looking to include decarbonisation plans in masterplans  
• introducing mandatory decarbonisation plans  
• encouraging voluntary decarbonisation targets at ports  
• supporting industry collaboration on decarbonisation  

There were mixed views from respondents on port master-planning. Some supported mandatory plans, with one respondent saying that while many ports had already produced masterplans, they should be made compulsory. This respondent added that these mandatory masterplans should also align with local and regional decarbonisation strategies to enhance their effectiveness.

However, the same respondent also noted that this could lead to a situation where local planning authorities could become a barrier to decarbonisation or place a burden on smaller ports that are resource constrained. Another respondent provided a similar view but also suggested exemptions for what they termed ”resource constrained ports”.  

A similar view was evident regarding mandatory decarbonisation plans, which were seen as potentially effective by some respondents. However, many also argued that they risked adding undue administrative burden on smaller ports.   

Voluntary targets were generally seen as leading to a risk of fragmented progress amongst ports. Meaningful accountability mechanisms would need to be in place to ensure that decarbonisation happens evenly across the UK ports sector.   

While not all respondents answered directly about these measures, they did provide views on what they believe would enable ports to decarbonise. This included:   

• support for shore power and alternative fuels through capital expenditure grants, co-investment models and support from the National Wealth Fund 
• electricity cost reform: particularly VAT cuts, as well as standing charge reductions to make shore power viable
• continued funding for innovation through the UK SHORE programme
• accelerated grid connections, including the prioritisation of grid capacity for ports and a streamlined planning approval process for ports
• creating a level playing field with fair carbon pricing and targeted support for smaller ports
• clear regulatory direction and funding to reduce investment risk - the direction should also align with international standards

Next steps

This call for evidence has valuably increased our understanding of the ports sector and their ambitions to take positive action to decarbonise, as well as the blockers and challenges they are facing. This evidence is used in informing our immediate next steps on the role of ports in maritime decarbonisation. These steps are: 

1. Removing barriers to ports securing the energy they require, focusing on where we can have an impact right now. This includes championing ports’ energy needs in wider government action on strategic energy planning and connections reforms. 
2. Building on the evidence gathered, we will work with industry to understand ports’ ability to deliver, or enable third parties to deliver, the infrastructure required for maritime decarbonisation. We will consider the need for future government action as wider maritime decarbonisation policies are developed and implemented.

We will build on these ambitions in our forthcoming Maritime Growth Strategy. 

These immediate next steps do not represent the full span of our maritime decarbonisation policies, as set out in the MDS, but are intended to practically enable them. Alongside these immediate actions, and taking into account this wider policy context, it is our minded-to position to reduce GHG emissions at berth through a UK maritime fuel regulation, noting that they are already included in the UK ETS and the current design of the IMO Net-Zero Framework, rather than through a standalone at-berth emissions requirement. We will test this position in our forthcoming consultation on UK maritime fuel regulations.

We will continue to monitor the case for implementing additional measures to improve air quality, drawing and building on the evidence gathered in this call for evidence.

Removing barriers and championing ports’ energy needs

This call for evidence highlighted existing examples of shore power provision and a wide range of activity to decarbonise port operations, including onsite renewable generation. It also confirmed that energy demand at ports will increase significantly, alongside ongoing delivery barriers.  

Since the call for evidence was published, the government has announced reforms to grid connections through the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy. This includes launching a new ‘Connections Accelerator Service’ and using new powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to accelerate connections for strategic demand.

NESO has also published further detail on strategic energy planning. These developments create an opportunity for DfT to champion immediate and future port electricity needs. The recently established Electricity Infrastructure for Transport ministerial group will support this by bringing together the transport and energy sectors. 

Concerns around electricity costs and planning barriers remain. Through the £448 million UK SHORE programme, we are supporting innovative approaches to reducing costs, such as integrating renewables, private wire connections and battery storage, and will continue engaging with industry on this. We will also explore how to strengthen energy demand forecasting and long‑term planning for ports, including through:

• updated guidance on port master-planning
• the National Policy Statement for Ports
• wider port-specific good practice planning guidance 

These examples are not exhaustive. We will continue to keep opportunities under review as policy development and implementation progresses as well as proactively addressing emerging barriers.

Working with industry to understand ports’ ability to deliver, or enable third parties to deliver, the infrastructure required for maritime decarbonisation and considering the need for future government action

UK ports, and businesses on port land, already demonstrate their ability to attract investment. However, many respondents called for government intervention to improve the commercial viability and investment certainty needed to meet decarbonisation goals.

As future fuel regulations and the UK ETS provide investment signals for shipping to decarbonise, there will be an emerging clean infrastructure and fuels market for ports and third parties to provide.

The forthcoming consultation on UK maritime fuel regulations will further explore how future regulation and other government action can support market growth, provide investment certainty for ports and associated infrastructure, and address remaining market barriers. Alongside investment certainty, respondents highlighted the need for greater cross-sectoral collaboration to realise the clean maritime transition. We will explore government levers to improve dialogue between government, energy and transport sectors, as well as other industry partners, to secure investment for the infrastructure they need.

Reducing GHG emissions at berth through fuel regulations and the UK ETS, rather than placing unnecessary regulatory burdens on ports 

Since the MDS was published, the UK ETS has extended to maritime, with at-berth emissions in scope. In our forthcoming consultation on UK maritime fuel regulations, we will set out our minded-to position to reduce at-berth GHG emissions through fuel regulations applied to ships and their operators, rather than through an at-berth requirement placed on ports.

This represents the simplest and most effective way forward, streamlining our regulatory approach by placing the responsibility on those operating vessels and minimising administrative burdens on ports. However, we recognise the range of views expressed in this call for evidence, many of which highlighted the benefits of an at-berth requirement and welcome input in this consultation to inform future policymaking.

Consider future action to improve air quality as the MDS is implemented 

Though responses to this call for evidence highlighted some air quality benefits of port decarbonisation, further evidence is needed to understand the scale of air quality impacts from shipping and the role any future interventions might play. 

The measures set out in the MDS to reduce GHG emissions, in particular the UK ETS and fuel regulations, are expected to have co-benefits for air quality, and the approach we have outlined here will facilitate the enabling role of ports in these areas. 

As we further develop and implement maritime decarbonisation policies, we will monitor the impact of future fuels, such as ammonia, on air quality and the wider environment, and will consider the need for additional policies to improve air quality in future. Our forthcoming consultation on UK maritime fuel regulations will provide a further opportunity to gather evidence on air quality impacts and potential approaches.

List of organisations that responded 

1. Associated British Ports  
2. Belfast Harbour Commissioners  
3. Blue Visby Services Limited  
4. British Ports Association   
5. Canal & River Trust  
6. Carbon Capture and Storage Association  
7. Carnival UK  
8. UK Chamber of Shipping  
9. Connected Places Catapult  
10. De Courcy Alexander  
11. Dover Harbour Board  
12. DP World   
13. Element 2  
14. Energy Networks Association  
15. Energy UK  
16. Forth Ports Limited  
17. Fuels Industry UK  
18. Green Cat hydrogen   
19. Harwich Haven Authority  
20. HiiROC Ltd  
21. Hutchison Ports  
22. Hyro  
23. KPMG  
24. Liverpool City Region Combined Authority  
25. Logistics UK  
26. Marine Zero  
27. Mibau Stema UK Ltd  
28. Montrose Port Authority  
29. National Grid  
30. NatPower Marine  
31. Net Zero Marine Limited  
32. North Yorkshire Council Port Authority  
33. Orkney Renewable Energy Forum  
34. PD Ports  
35. Peel Ports Group  
36. Port of Aberdeen  
37. Port of Bristol  
38. Port of London Authority   
39. Port of Tyne  
40. Portland Harbour Authority Ltd  
41. Portsmouth International Port  
42. PowerCon  
43. Relode  
44. Renewable UK  
45. RMT  
46. Samudra oceans limited  
47. Seabound Carbon Ltd  
48. Siemens Energy  
49. Society of Maritime Industries  
50. Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute   
51. STAX Engineering  
52. Sulnox Group PLC  
53. T&E UK  
54. Thames Estuary Growth Board  
55. The Crown Estate  
56. The Hydrogen Energy Association  
57. Tyndall Centre University of Manchester  
58. UCL, Heriot-Watt University and Leeds University (as part of TransiT project)  
59. UK National Clean Maritime Research Hub  
60. UK Major Ports Group  
61. Valero Energy Ltd  
62. Wightlink

Footnotes

1. The 17 respondents included individual ports and port groups, representing 58 individual ports in total. ↩

2. Among respondents that provided an estimate of required future capacity, average current grid capacity is approximately 14MW. ↩