Americas News
Port CEO Voices Rare Criticism of 'Cost-Prohibitive' Shore Power
The cost / benefit proposition of installing shore power came under rare public criticism this week, with Dan Stahl, CEO at the Port of Longview in the US state of Washington, suggesting it was only a viable solution with subsidies.
"I'm pretty clear that the ports (using shore power) are not making net revenue on this, and the only reason that ports are doing it is because there is significant grant money," he was quoted by local media as saying Wednesday.
Installing Shore power has long been a popular choice for ports as part of efforts to reduce local emissions.
By plugging in to shore power, vessels at berth can turn off their auxiliary engines and instead use power from the local electricty grid.
A vessel's emissions footprint then becomes a function of how the electricity is generated, and any emissions produced in that process are done so away from the port.
But even with shore power infrastructure in place at the port, as Board of Commissioner President Allan Erickson noted, there needs to be a corresponding investment in vessels so they can 'plug in'.
"My understanding is that to convert the fleet as it exists now from using diesel or whatever commodity they use for fuel to adding shore power capability is cost-prohibitive," Erickson said.
As ports and the wider maritime industry look to slash their emissions footprint, shore power has remained a popular solution with public criticism of it rare, but not unprecedented.
One of the more notable pushbacks came in 2015 with the president and CEO of the South Carolina Ports Authority, James Newsome, saying shore power was a "last-generation solution at most major ports."
His views were evidently not held by many and today there are numerous new shore power installations currently underway, including one only a few hours away from Port of Longview where Port of Seattle is on track to next year become the first in world with three short power systems available for cruise ships.
