MAKING SENSE OF ONSHORE POWER SUPPLY

Both entities basically highlight the waste built into the European Commission’s proposals regarding the revision of the Alternative Fuels Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR) and the proposed FuelEU Maritime Regulation.

The nub of the matter is, as the joint statement points out, that: “Article 9 of the Commission AFIR could result in the entire port needing to have OPS if it receives more than a certain number of port calls by a container or passenger vessel. This,” ESPO and FEPORT contend, “would entail significant additional public investment for deploying OPS compared to a more focused approach.” Such investments, they suggest, are unlikely to be cost-efficient in relation to the emissions reductions that they can deliver.”

A much better approach, they argue, is to have a deployment that focuses on OPS installation per location (such as berths or terminals) in a port, rather than per port. The governing principle, the two parties elaborate, is to deploy OPS where the case is proven that it makes environmental and economic sense, and does not entail a waste of public resources.

Accordingly, ESPO and FEPORT argue the case for a legal framework at the European level that ensures OPS is deployed in port locations where each installation “will deliver maximal emissions reduction per Euro invested.” This, in turn, they state, calls for the following two base line requirements:

• A requirement for ships to us OPS when it is available in ports in FuelEU Maritime, and
• Prioritising OPS deployment in port locations where it reduces emissions the most in AFIR.

By way of closing the argument, ESPO and FEPORT further point out that:

“By calculating the number of port calls based on the relevant locations in the port it becomes possible for Member States and ports to prioritise investments in OPS where it makes the most sense in terms of environmental benefit (GHG reductions). Accordingly, locations in the port 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, such as underused terminals, can be excluded from the requirement.”It is not unknown for the European Commission to be accused of being over-bureaucratic or wasteful. Hopefully, on this occasion the early submission of views by ESPO and FEPORT – in time to influence pending legislation – will result in a victory for common sense.