Shore Power for Cruise: 30 Ports That Matter Most and the Real Plug In Constraints
February 26, 2026
Shore power for cruise is moving from “nice ESG story” to a practical operating constraint: if a port can plug you in and your ship can take the power, you can cut at-berth emissions fast. If either side cannot, you are back to generators and the conversation shifts to local rules, berth scheduling, and who pays for the extra infrastructure. The first 10 ports below are the kind that shape fleetwide shore-power planning because they combine high cruise volume with real infrastructure decisions already made or in motion.
Shore Power for Cruise: 30 Ports That Matter Most (2026)
First 10 ports: verified shore power availability, funded build-outs, and the constraints that decide whether ships actually plug in
| # | Port | Shore power status | Real plug-in constraints | Ship-side requirements that decide compatibility | 2026 stakeholder notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Miami, Florida 🇺🇸
PortMiami
|
In service
5 cruise berths
PortMiami states shore power capability at five cruise berths.
|
Berth assignment drives outcomes: a ship can only plug in at an equipped berth. High-volume turnaround days can create “available in port” but “not on this berth today” scenarios. Grid capacity and simultaneous demand can also cap usage. | HVSC (high-voltage shore connection) gear, voltage/frequency compatibility, commissioning history on that terminal configuration, and a crew routine that fits turnaround flow. | A leading U.S. East Coast benchmark: once multiple lines connect reliably, “plug-in expectation” tends to harden quickly for homeported ships. |
| 2 |
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 🇺🇸
Port Everglades
|
Planned / program
Multi-terminal scope
Port Everglades has publicly described an electrification plan for cruise terminals (with completion targets reported by industry media).
|
Biggest constraint is scale and sequencing: multi-terminal build-out requires utility upgrades, construction phasing, and operational workarounds during works. Early “first berths live” rarely equals “most ships can plug in.” | Mixed calling fleet makes standardization important: ships need compatible HVSC and repeatable plug-in procedures that do not disrupt embark/disembark. | Track it by “how many cruise berths are live” rather than “port has a project,” because peak days can outrun early-stage capacity. |
| 3 |
Port Canaveral, Florida 🇺🇸
New terminal projects influence shore power timing
|
Planned
New terminal design
Port Canaveral’s new cruise terminal planning has been reported as including shore power.
|
Constraint is practical delivery: shore power is tied to terminal construction schedules and utility interconnect readiness. Until specific berths are commissioned, “planned” does not change generator reality. | Newbuilds are more likely to be shore-power capable, but terminal compatibility still matters: connector layout, voltage/frequency, cable handling plan, and crew training. | A key test case for Florida: large-ship homeport growth collides with rising port electrification pressure. |
| 4 |
Galveston, Texas 🇺🇸
Rapidly growing U.S. homeport
|
Project development
Timeline/specs work
Port of Galveston describes an initiative to develop scope, timeline, and agreements for shore power.
|
Constraint is project maturation: engineering specs, utility capacity, and commercial structure (who pays for equipment and power) decide pace. Early-stage programs do not solve multi-ship peak days. | Shore-power capable ships still need berth-side infrastructure and compatibility. The more consistent the homeport assignment, the easier it is to justify ship-side readiness investments. | Stakeholders should watch milestones: design, procurement, construction, commissioning; not just “announcement.” |
| 5 |
Brooklyn, New York 🇺🇸
Brooklyn Cruise Terminal
|
In service
Expansion ongoing
NYCEDC has announced expansion of shore power infrastructure at the terminal.
|
Constraint is compatibility and access: not every ship can connect, and operational windows can be tight around passenger movements. Mobile or expanded systems can improve reach, but real-world connection success varies by ship. | HVSC readiness plus the right physical configuration for that berth (side, connector arrangement, cable reach) and trained electrical crew. | High-visibility urban air-quality setting: political and community pressure can turn “available” into “expected” quickly. |
| 6 |
Seattle, Washington 🇺🇸
Pier 91 (Smith Cove) and Pier 66
|
In service
Measured usage
Port of Seattle publishes shore power performance and adoption metrics for cruise calls.
|
Even with infrastructure, the constraint is execution: aligning plug-in with turnaround choreography, keeping ship equipment maintained, and avoiding schedule compression that removes safe connection time. | Ship compatibility plus operational maturity: reliable plug-in depends on trained crew, maintained switchgear, and a routine that fits tight Alaska turnaround schedules. | A “data-forward” port: reported plug-in rates and capability stats make it easier for stakeholders to separate infrastructure claims from actual usage. |
| 7 |
Vancouver, British Columbia 🇨🇦
Canada Place (East and West berths)
|
In service
HV shore power
Canada Place East and West berths are described as equipped with shore power infrastructure.
|
Constraint is berth and demand management: on busy Alaska days, not every ship can always get an electrified berth or connect window, depending on berth assignment and equipment availability. | HVSC compatibility, commissioning history, and consistent operating procedures. Documentation can matter where incentives or reporting frameworks apply. | One of the most operationally mature North American cruise shore power locations; it sets expectations for the Alaska corridor. |
| 8 |
Juneau, Alaska 🇺🇸
Cruise call concentration and local air-quality focus
|
In service
Configuration limits
Juneau has long-standing shore power; city materials highlight berth and connection-side constraints.
|
Two recurring constraints: (1) power and berth availability on peak days, and (2) ship connection configuration (port vs starboard side) not matching the available electrified berth arrangement. | HVSC readiness plus the correct side configuration for the berth. Operationally, tight Alaska schedules mean crews need practiced connection routines. | A classic “works, but not for everyone every day” port; stakeholders should focus on how expansion plans address side-configuration and peak-demand limits. |
| 9 |
Seward, Alaska 🇺🇸
Gateway port with funded electrification
|
Funded build-out
EPA Clean Ports
EPA and the City of Seward describe a major grant-funded project to add shore power and related electrical upgrades.
|
Constraint is project delivery timeline: design, procurement, construction, commissioning. Until live, ships remain on auxiliary generation at berth. | When it goes live: ships need compatible HVSC equipment and operating procedures that fit turnaround/tour logistics. | The key stakeholder question is schedule confidence: funded does not mean operational; track design and commissioning milestones. |
| 10 |
Los Angeles, California 🇺🇸
Port of Los Angeles (World Cruise Center / AMP)
|
In service
AMP program
Port of Los Angeles describes Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) for ships plugging into shore power at berth.
|
Constraint is berth and ship readiness, plus power delivery reliability and timing. Even in established programs, plug-in depends on the right berth face and a ship that is equipped and commissioned for that configuration. | AMP/HVSC capability matched to terminal setup, trained crew, maintained shipboard switchgear, and a safe cable-handling plan that does not conflict with passenger movement. | Mature air-quality framework means higher operational expectation: “could not connect” tends to get scrutinized more than in ports where OPS is still new. |
| 11 |
Long Beach, California 🇺🇸
Long Beach Cruise Terminal (Pier H)
|
In service
At-berth system
California at-berth planning docs indicate cruise-terminal shore power is installed and in service.
|
Operational access is still berth-specific: if multiple ships are alongside (or the berth is being worked), plug-in is not automatic. Commissioning and cable reach for the specific berth face can also limit use. | Shore-power capable ship configuration that matches the terminal setup (voltage, frequency, connector arrangement), plus a crew routine that fits embark/disembark timing. | In California, usage expectations and reporting are typically tighter. The practical question is not “does it exist” but “how consistently can it be used on peak days.” |
| 12 |
San Diego, California 🇺🇸
B Street Cruise Ship Terminal
|
In service
Adding capacity
Port communications describe cruise shore power use today and a contracted enhancement to expand connection flexibility.
|
The constraint is slotting and hardware: when multiple ships call, connection points, cable handling, and berth choreography decide whether both can plug in without slowing operations. | HVSC-ready ship, compatible voltage and frequency, and a proven connection procedure that can be executed safely during passenger-facing operations. | A practical “execution port”: the difference between emissions reductions and diesel running is mostly about whether connection windows and equipment availability are managed like a core ops KPI. |
| 13 |
San Francisco, California 🇺🇸
Pier 27 James R. Herman Cruise Terminal
|
In service
Terminal system
Port information states cruise ships can plug into the terminal shore power system.
|
The “can plug in” constraint becomes operational: schedule compression, crew readiness, and ensuring the ship is configured for that berth’s setup. | HVSC readiness and compatibility with the terminal’s electrical arrangement, plus documented commissioning for the ship class calling. | For stakeholders, the key metric is usage rate by call: shore power exists, but whether it becomes routine depends on consistent procedures and berth assignment. |
| 14 |
Halifax, Nova Scotia 🇨🇦
Halifax Port Authority cruise berths (Pavilion terminals)
|
In service
Port offering
Halifax Port Authority describes shore power capability for cruise operations.
|
Peak-day demand can exceed the number of plug-in points, and usage depends on berth allocation. Operational readiness and connection timing still matter. | HVSC compatibility and crew procedures, plus advance coordination when multiple ships are scheduled and not all can connect simultaneously. | The stakeholder lens is “coverage”: how many cruise calls can realistically plug in during busy days, not only whether a system exists. |
| 15 |
Barcelona 🇪🇸
Cruise terminals on Adossat (example: Terminal H / MSC terminal OPS project)
|
Under development
Cruise OPS awarded
Port reporting and industry coverage describe an awarded cruise OPS build with a later in-service target.
|
The constraint is delivery timeline and grid build-out: cruise OPS depends on new substations, cabling, and terminal integration, not just a berth-side box. | Ships need the right HVSC configuration for that terminal once live. Until then, operators must plan around generator use at berth. | A high-scrutiny port: stakeholders track “when cruise terminals go live” and how quickly usage becomes expected as the electrification program scales. |
| 16 |
Civitavecchia (Rome) 🇮🇹
Passenger/cruise port area
|
In service
Early adopter
Public materials describe early shore power deployment for visiting ships, and cruise OPS mapping includes Civitavecchia.
|
Practical constraint is berth-side availability and whether the ship is configured for that specific connection. Operational window and coordination still decide real-world plug-in. | HVSC capability, compatible voltage and frequency, and berth-specific connector arrangement match. | Stakeholders should watch how coverage expands beyond single-berth capability, because cruise call peaks can overwhelm limited connection points. |
| 17 |
Genoa 🇮🇹
Cruise and ferry hub
|
Under construction
Cruise hub focus
Port-sector reporting describes construction of new shoreside power facilities at the cruise and ferry hub.
|
Constraints are program delivery and commissioning: shore power becomes useful only once the berth-side system is tested, crews are trained, and procedures fit terminal operations. | HVSC-ready vessels and standardized procedures across visiting ships, plus documented commissioning for the terminal configuration. | Genoa is a good example of “project reality”: announcements matter less than commissioning dates and how many berths are truly live. |
| 18 |
Savona 🇮🇹
Palacrociere cruise terminal
|
Equipped
Terminal statement
The cruise terminal states both terminals are equipped with shore power connection starting in 2025.
|
Constraints are berth access and operational execution: connection windows must fit the passenger flow, and the ship must match the terminal’s setup. | HVSC readiness, compatibility with the terminal arrangement, and trained electrical crew to connect without delaying turnaround routines. | The stakeholder question is adoption rate: once equipped, the value is realized only if ships routinely plug in on turnaround days. |
| 19 |
Marseille 🇫🇷
Marseille-Fos port area (CENAQ shore connection program)
|
Program expanding
Network build
Port project documentation describes electrification works to connect ships at berth and reinforce the port electrical network.
|
Constraints include which terminals are equipped first, how many simultaneous connections the network supports, and whether berth schedules align with connection windows. | Ship HVSC compatibility with French grid standards where applicable, plus berth-specific connector arrangement and safe cable-handling routines. | Track it by terminal: Marseille-Fos has a broader electrification program, and the cruise relevance depends on which passenger berths become live and when. |
| 20 |
Southampton 🇬🇧
ABP Port of Southampton (Horizon and Mayflower cruise terminals)
|
In service
Cruise terminals
ABP states shore power is available at both Horizon and Mayflower cruise terminals.
|
Constraint is berth allocation and how many ships can connect at once. Connection timing must fit turnaround operations, and not every visiting ship is necessarily equipped. | Shore-power enabled ships with compatible equipment and a practiced connection routine, plus coordination to secure a shore-power berth on busy days. | A high-impact European turnaround port: once shore power is operational at multiple terminals, stakeholder pressure shifts to “consistent usage,” not pilot status. |
| 21 |
Copenhagen 🇩🇰
Oceankaj and Langelinie cruise terminals
|
In service
Major facility
Cruise-capable OPS facility inaugurated and described as supplying cruise calls at key terminals.
|
Even with a large system, usage can be limited by berth assignment, simultaneous demand, and the time needed to connect without disrupting passenger operations. | HVSC readiness plus terminal-specific compatibility (voltage and frequency handling, connector arrangement) and a practiced crew routine to connect during turnaround windows. | A leading Northern Europe reference point. Stakeholders tend to shift quickly from “available” to “expected” once regular use is demonstrated. |
| 22 |
Oslo 🇳🇴
Revierkaia cruise quay
|
In service
High-voltage
Port states the cruise OPS facility is completed and opened, with defined electrical specifications.
|
Real-world limits include available grid capacity on peak days and whether the berth assignment matches the OPS-equipped quay. | HVSC compatibility with the port’s published voltage and frequency setup, plus a shipboard configuration that matches the quay-side connection system. | Strong “specs transparency” port. Stakeholders can evaluate compatibility and capacity more concretely than in ports with only headline announcements. |
| 23 |
Stockholm 🇸🇪
Central cruise quays with high-voltage OPS
|
In service
Multiple quays
Ports of Stockholm states a meaningful share of cruise calls can connect to onshore power.
|
Not every call can plug in. The constraint is which quay is assigned, plus connection window timing during passenger operations. | HVSC-ready ship, proven commissioning for the berth configuration, and a standardized connection routine that fits a tight city-center call. | A “usage-rate” story. Stakeholders should track the percent of calls actually connected, not just the number of OPS points installed. |
| 24 |
Tallinn 🇪🇪
Port of Tallinn cruise quays (OPS build project)
|
Funded build-out
Substation + quays
EU-backed project announced to build grid connection, substation, and cruise quay OPS infrastructure.
|
Constraint is delivery timeline: until substation and quay gear are commissioned, calls remain on auxiliary generation. Future simultaneous-use depends on final capacity and berth scheduling. | When live, ships need HVSC compatibility and operational readiness. Early operations usually prioritize specific quays before broader coverage. | A “project risk” port. Stakeholders should follow design, procurement, construction, and commissioning milestones rather than assuming near-term availability. |
| 25 |
Helsinki 🇫🇮
City-centre passenger terminals with OPS; cruise OPS ambitions stated
|
Partial OPS
Passenger focus
Port has OPS in service for passenger traffic in key terminals; port has publicly discussed offering OPS to visiting cruise ships in the future.
|
Constraint for cruise is whether high-voltage cruise-capable connections are available at the cruise berth faces and whether utility capacity supports large hotel loads during peak calls. | Cruise ships still require HVSC-compatible systems at the specific berth, plus proven commissioning and a safe connection routine that fits port call operations. | A “direction-of-travel” port. Stakeholders should distinguish between existing passenger OPS and cruise-scale OPS coverage at cruise berths. |
| 26 |
Rotterdam 🇳🇱
Holland Amerikakade (Cruise Port Rotterdam)
|
In service
Commissioned
Port authority reports the Cruise Port shore power installation was officially opened and first cruise connection completed.
|
Constraints are berth availability and connection windows. If the cruise berth is occupied or operational timing is compressed, ships may not connect even when the system exists. | HVSC readiness and berth-specific connector compatibility, plus procedures that do not interfere with passenger flows and terminal operations. | A good “new OPS” benchmark: stakeholders will watch how quickly connection becomes routine across different ship calls, not only showcase first-use events. |
| 27 |
Hamburg 🇩🇪
Cruise terminals Altona, Steinwerder; HafenCity ramping up
|
In service
Scaling coverage
Port communications state shore power is already available at key cruise terminals, with additional terminal coverage scheduled.
|
Main constraints are ship certification/equipment readiness and berth-by-berth availability during peak call days. “Terminal has OPS” does not equal “every ship can connect.” | Ship must be equipped and certified for the terminal setup, with trained crew and maintained systems. Operational timing must protect a safe connection window. | A policy-driven port: expectations are tightening and the operational burden shifts to “consistent usage” rather than pilot participation. |
| 28 |
Kiel 🇩🇪
City-centre cruise berths (Ostseekai) and ferry connections
|
In service
Expanded capacity
Port describes shore power for cruise and ferries, including expanded simultaneous supply capability.
|
Constraints include connection logistics during passenger operations and peak double-call days where multiple ships want OPS at once, requiring strong scheduling discipline. | HVSC-compatible ships plus a reliable connection process. For double calls, success depends on both ships being equipped and the berth allocation matching OPS points. | A high-use German reference port where “how many ships can plug in at once” is a core planning variable. |
| 29 |
Valletta 🇲🇹
Grand Harbour (Valletta Cruise Port)
|
In service
OPS connected calls
Cruise port and cruise-line communications describe successful OPS integrations and ship connections at berth.
|
Typical constraints are connection window, berth allocation, and operational routines. Early-stage adoption can be uneven even after the system exists. | Ship must have compatible HVSC gear and operational readiness. Cable management, safe passenger-flow timing, and crew training often determine whether the connection happens. | High visibility: stakeholder focus often shifts quickly from “system exists” to “why is connection rate not higher,” especially near dense urban waterfront areas. |
| 30 |
Piraeus (Athens) 🇬🇷
Cruise berth OPS program in development
|
Studies / design
Green cruise hub push
EU project materials describe final studies and engineering designs for OPS at designated cruise berth positions.
|
The constraints are grid capacity, permitting, and project delivery. Until infrastructure is installed and commissioned at specific berths, plug-in remains aspirational. | Once live: HVSC-ready ships, berth-specific connector compatibility, and operational routines that allow safe connections during busy passenger operations. | Stakeholders should treat this as a build-out timeline story. The key is when shore power becomes operational at cruise berths, not when plans are announced. |
Cruise Shore Power Readiness Tracker (Bookmark Tool)
One view for port readiness, ship compatibility, connection windows, and a quick at-berth savings estimate
Readout
The tracker scores each port call on five real gating items and estimates at-berth fuel, cost, and CO2 changes using the scenario inputs below.
The tracker scores each port call on five real gating items and estimates at-berth fuel, cost, and CO2 changes using the scenario inputs below.
Scenario inputs
At-berth savings estimate (directional) for planning and comparison.
Portfolio summary
Readiness counts and estimated savings for calls marked ready.
Ports scored 5/5
0
Calls that should be plug-in capable if scheduled on the right berth.
Ports needing work
0
Calls with 3 to 4 gating items met.
Estimated fuel saved (ready calls)
0 t
Based on the scenario inputs and number of ready calls.
Estimated CO2 avoided (ready calls)
0 tCO2
Fuel saved times CO2 factor.
Estimated net cost delta (ready calls)
$0
Fuel cost avoided minus electricity cost while plugged in.
Calls tracked
30
The 30 ports listed in the article.
Signal
The most common failure mode is a port that is technically capable but does not have enough equipped berths during peak days. The tracker splits that reality into separate gating items so the weak link is visible.
The most common failure mode is a port that is technically capable but does not have enough equipped berths during peak days. The tracker splits that reality into separate gating items so the weak link is visible.
| # | Port | Readiness score | Real plug-in gates | Fuel saved (per call) | Net cost delta (per call) |
|---|
Shore power is becoming a berth-level reality, not a generic port claim. The ports that deliver consistent plug-ins are the ones that solve the unglamorous constraints: enough energized berths for peak days, utility capacity that holds under simultaneous demand, and procedures that fit passenger operations without creating safety or schedule friction. For cruise stakeholders, the practical takeaway is simple: treat shore power like an operational capability that must be scheduled, verified, and repeated, and it will deliver predictable at-berth emissions cuts. Treat it like a checkbox, and the connection rate will stay uneven even in “equipped” ports.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.