The European Parliament has published a new study promoted by by the Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) and implemented by the Dutch consultancy FIER Sustainable Mobilty on the prices of electric recharges for electric cars and for the supply of shore-side electricity to ships in ports. With regard to Onshore Power Supply (OPS) plants from install in ports to supply electricity to ships at berth, the document recalls that the European FuelEU regulation Maritime establishes that the strategic ports of the network TEN-T trans-European infrastructure must be equipped by the end of the of infrastructure for shore-side power supply to serve most large ship ports container ships and passenger ships and that, from 2030, some ships will be required to connect to OPS, where and to use this system to meet their electricity demand at berth or to use a equivalent zero-emission solution when moored.

The study specifies that the shore power supply is provided under monopoly or quasi-monopoly conditions and that, however, the charging of shore power supply does not is still subject to the same type of EU tariff rules as regulate the public charging of electric vehicles. In fact, whether EV charging prices are to be reasonable, transparent, comparable and non-discriminatory in accordance with the of the European Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), there is no pricing principle equivalent to EU level for shore-side power supply in ports. Therefore, to date a ship moored in a given port often can't choose between different power providers electric floor-standing.

In addition, the study finds that prices for the differences greatly between EU ports. Energy tariffs are often combined with fixed elements, connection-related, request-based, or include a minimal charge, which makes prices difficult to compare and can result in higher average costs for larger vessels or for users stationed in ports for short periods. The study shows that without clearer rules on tariffs, there is a risk that OPS services will become available on paper, but remain unattractive or difficult to use in practice.

The study notes that, therefore, with regard to services OPS, the EU should develop a basic framework for price governance, with a level of pricing that should facilitate cost recovery without penalizing unfairly the first users of the service, the most small or short stops. In addition, a more would help ports, shipowners and policymakers to assess whether OPS prices are reasonable and supportive the broader objective of more efficient maritime transport clean.

In particular, the study notes that, first, the EU should consider introducing a minimum standard for the transparency of OPS tariffs and, for accessible OPS services, to the public, port or port terminal managers should publish a clear price list indicating at least the price any fixed costs per stopover or connection, any element related to capacity, the treatment and whether network or service fees are charged separately. Secondly, tariff comparisons should Move from nominal prices to comparisons based on €/kWh scenarios effective. Noting, however, that, given that OPS services are often priced through a mix of volumetric and fixed costs, and therefore the publication of only €/kWh can be misleading, especially for short-term or low-speed stopovers consumption, the study notes that the European Commission should develop a common comparison method based on standard scenarios so that ports can be compared on a homogeneous basis and disproportionate fixed fee structures become obvious.

The study finds that the EU should also consider the development of an operational test for the determination of reasonable prices for OPS services in a mandatory context usage. In practice - the document specifies - this means that the rates should be justifiable by factors identifiable cost points: electricity supply, regulated network charges, recovery of the costs of infrastructure, usage risk and a service margin proportionate. In addition, fixed rates should be examined with particular attention where they penalize young users, those who make short stops or those who are the first to adopt the service.

The study also notes that EU and Member State policies Member States should do more to reduce barriers to upstream costs that make OPS expensive, given that network constraints and additional capacity costs can have a significant impact on final tariffs and, in some ports, may become the real bottleneck for the implementation of the service.

According to the study, the EU should also consider the possibility of to strengthen the level playing field and incentives adoption of the OPS service, given that the international experience suggests that making OPS mandatory is more effective than relying solely on the use of the service on a voluntary. The Californian regime for shore feeding - explains the document - is the most striking example of this having extended the mandatory control requirements to further types of ships, including oil tankers, demonstrating that binding obligations can transform shore-side power from Pilot project to routine practice. In the EU context - specifies the study - this justifies two successive steps: one more strict enforcement of OPS obligations for the 2030/2035 and an early revision of the scope in order to extend it where justified.

OPS price per kWh compared with bare electricity costs

Country	Port	OPS sites	OPS points	Average price	Bare electricity costs	Difference
Belgium	Antwerp-Bruges	4	3	€ 0,270	€ 0,159	€ 0,11
France	HAROPA	4	8	€ 0,250	€ 0,137	€ 0,11
France	Marseille Fos	3	13	€ 0,250	€ 0,137	€ 0,11
Germany	Bremen-Bremerhaven	4	7	€ 0,316	€ 0,183	€ 0,13
Germany	Hamburg	6	11	€ 0,316	€ 0,183	€ 0,13
Greece	Piraeus	1	4	n.a.	€ 0,169	-
Italy	Genoa	3	11	n.a.	€ 0,177	-
Italy	Gioia Tauro	1	0	n.a.	€ 0,177	-
Malta	Marsaxlokk	4	18	€ 0,197	€ 0,133	€ 0,06
Netherlands	Rotterdam	4	5	€ 0,350	€ 0,163	€ 0,19
Poland	Gdansk	2	0	n.a.	€ 0,130	-
Portugal	Sines	1	0	€ 0,111	€ 0,114	€ 0,00
Spain	Algeciras	1	20	€ 0,220	€ 0,124	€ 0,10
Spain	Barcelona	4	11	€ 0,220	€ 0,124	€ 0,10
Spain	Valencia	2	4	€ 0,220	€ 0,124	€ 0,10

Source: Authors' own elaboration (FIER, 2026) based on consultations with ports