Freight News, Sea


UK needs joined up approach to shore power, says power expert

[ February 27, 2026   //   ]

Recent statements by the ports of Portsmouth and Aberdeen that publicly funded shore power projects may never be switched because of high usage costs on should not be dismissed as local pricing anomalies but are an early warning signal for UK maritime decarbonisation, says founder and chief executive of energy transition enabler, NatPower Marine, Stefano Sommadossi.

He warns that if shore power cannot be made commercially viable in flagship projects, confidence will erode among investors, shipping lines and port operators.

Sommadossi says that shore power is not experimental but a proven solution to one of shipping’s most visible pollution sources and plugging into grid electricity cuts those emissions dramatically.

He says: “The question is not whether shore power works environmentally. It does. The question is whether the UK can make it work commercially and quickly.”

Projects in Aberdeen and Portsmouth were built with serious intent and public backing. But when industrial electricity prices surged, vessel operators calculated that diesel was cheaper than plugging in. Ports, effectively acting as energy retailers, were left exposed to volatility.

He warns that the UK’s pricing framework: high industrial electricity costs, grid charges and policy levies alongside relatively lower marine fuel costs sends the wrong signal to ship operators. However, reducing grid-related charges and ensuring that clean electricity is prioritised for dedicated maritime “last mile” infrastructure would materially change the equation.

If that distortion persists, the implications extend beyond shore power. They affect fleet investment decisions, including propulsion. Shore power is one part of a broader transition that includes electric and hybrid propulsion systems. Shipowners considering those investments require confidence that clean electricity will remain competitively priced not only in port, but across operating models over decades.

Sommadossi points out: “European ports are not standing still. Many operate with discounted electricity regimes, VAT adjustments or structured energy support for green shipping. As carbon pricing expands, ports offering affordable plug-in and electric propulsion solutions will attract traffic.”

He also notes that shore power has largely been rolled out port-by-port whereas shipping operates on corridors. No operator will electrify vessels for a single charging point if the rest of the route remains dependent on diesel.

Electrifying entire corridors would  embeds charging into voyage planning and aligns vessel and infrastructure investment but without a network strategy, isolated assets risk becoming stranded.

Supporting electric shipowners through reductions in ancillary operating costs, and creating matched energy incentives for cargo owners who choose lower-emission shipping options would strengthen the commercial case.

Aligning UK carbon pricing mechanisms, including the introduction of an emissions trading framework and penalties consistent with EU regimes, would provide long-term signals that reward early adopters rather than disadvantage them.

A more resilient model would see private infrastructure developers finance, build and operate corridor-level charging networks, managing energy risk over the long term. Public funding could then focus on accelerating fleet conversion and supporting early adopters, where commercial barriers remain highest.

Tags: