Case Study VIII: The Impact of Onshore Power Supply on EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime
- Maximilian Schroer
- Mar 9
- 4 min read
Updated: Apr 7
As the maritime industry tackles FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS, the business case for Onshore Power Supply (OPS)—also known as shore power or cold ironing—is becoming increasingly interesting for shipping companies. By allowing vessels to reduce their fuel consumption while at berth and draw power from the local electricity grid, OPS reduces at-berth emissions, and can help save FuelEU Maritime penalties and EU ETS costs.
This week's newsletter dives into what OPS is, whether it is of relevance under FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS, and analyses the financial impact of using it.
What is Onshore Power Supply?
OPS is a solution that enables ships to connect to the port's electrical grid at berth, allowing them to shut down or at least reduce their onboard auxiliary engines. The solution reduces fuel consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and air pollutants such as NOx, SOx, and particulates at berth, leading to improved air quality in port cities and reduced GHG emissions from ships.
Historically, OPS requires significant infrastructure investment on land to enable the grid's ability to supply shore power to the ship. Many ports worldwide, particularly in Europe, the US, and China, are already investing in shore power infrastructure. Air pollution is a key driver for such investments, underlined by, for example, California's Clean Air Act, for the ports and adjacent cities, whereas GHG emission reduction is the main driver for shipping, exposed to EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime.
Onshore Power Supply under FuelEU Maritime and EU ETS
As part of the FuelEU Maritime Regulation, container and passenger ships have to use OPS in European ports covered by Regulation (EU) 2023/1804 from January 1, 2030 onwards. After an initial phase-in, the requirement is extended to even more ports by January 1, 2035. Exemptions are given to ships in ports without OPS or relevant technical and other emergencies. BetterSea has previously published newsletters on the port-relevant and ship-relevant regulations. Beyond the regulatory requirement, the use of Onshore Power Supply is also one of the possible compliance options, able to reduce the penalty or even create a surplus.
EU ETS does not come with a regulatory requirement to use OPS, but it allows shipping companies to reduce their compliance cost exposure through Onshore Power Supply. Since EU ETS only considers tank-to-wake (TtW) emissions, OPS is accounted for with 0 emissions.
Case Study: How Much Can a Vessel Save by Using OPS in 2025?
Similar to BetterSea's previous case studies, we use the usual sample ship with an annual fuel consumption exposure under EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime of 10,000t HFO.
Baseline Scenario (no OPS):
Fuel Consumption: 10,000 t HFO
GHG Intensity: 91.74420 g CO2e/MJ
EUA Price: 70.00 € (Assumption)
HFO Price: 497.00 € (Ship & Bunker, VLSFO in Rotterdam, 16.03.2025)
FuelEU Penalty: 622,000 €
EU ETS Costs (2025): 1,525,860 €
Fuel Costs: 4,970,000 €
In the baseline scenario, the sample ship faces total annual compliance costs of 2,147,860 € and total OPEX (fuel & compliance) of 7,117,860 €.
OPS Scenario (10% of overall fuel consumption replaced by OPS):
Fuel (incl. port) Consumption: 10,000 t HFO
Port Consumption (replaced by Electricity): 1,000 t HFO
Generator energy efficiency: 50%
Electricity Consumption (OPS): 5,625,000 kWh
GHG Intensity: 89.3368 g CO2e/MJ
Electricity Price: 0.070 €/kWh (Netherlands, 16.03.2025)
EUA Price: 70.00 € (Assumption)
HFO Price: 497.00 € (Ship & Bunker, VLSFO in Rotterdam, 16.03.2025)
Surplus Value: 250 € (Assumption)
Potential Surplus Earnings: 232,893 €
FuelEU Penalty: 0 €
EU ETS Costs (2025): 1,373,274 €
Fuel Costs: 4,866,750 €
In the OPS scenario, the sample ship faces EU ETS costs of 1,373,274 €, but no FuelEU Maritime penalty, instead it can monetize the created surplus adding 232,893 € additional income. With slightly reduced fuel costs (4,866,750 €) compared to the baseline scenario (4,970,000 €) and the surplus earnings, the overall OPEX reduced from 7,117,860 € to 6,007,131 €. Therefore, OPS is able to save 1.1M € annually.
The above has been calculated with BetterSea's free, online FuelEU Maritime Calculator. For a more detailed study using your own data or assumptions, click below.
Conclusion: Should You Consider OPS For Your Fleet?
The above case study presents OPS as an attractive option for compliance with FuelEU Maritime and outlines its potential for overall compliance costs and OPEX reductions. However, its cost savings potential strongly relies on the availability of OPS in the corresponding port.
BetterSea’s FuelEU Maritime Compliance Platform with integrated marketplace provides you with a fast, streamlined, end-to-end process covering all potential compliance options, including external pooling and surplus trading. It allows you to comprehensively strategize your FuelEU and EU ETS compliance on a ship-specific level amidst volatile markets. Book a demo below!
Stay tuned for more insights on navigating maritime decarbonisation compliance in our upcoming newsletters. If you have any questions or need further guidance, feel free to reach out!
Best regards,
The BetterSea Team
Contact Us: info@bettersea.tech
Follow Us on LinkedIn!
Subscribe to our weekly newsletter below!
Disclaimer: This case study is based on assumptions if not otherwise stated .
Commenti