Measure what cleaner shipping and transport actually deliver

The problem and who is affected

The port now offers shore power, so docked ships can switch off their engines. The port forecasts a large carbon saving from 2027, but it has published no figures on how often ships connect, how much electricity they use or what emissions are avoided. Operators say the electricity is too expensive, so use may stay low. Air quality and greenhouse gases are measured in separate ways, and bus and port money come from different budgets. Without clear reporting, residents cannot tell what these schemes achieve.

Who is affected: People who live and work near the port and along busy roads such as Alfred Road, London Road and the port approaches. Bus users in the north of the city served by the Pompey Link pilot. Council taxpayers, who part-funded the port works. Ferry and cruise operators deciding whether to plug in.

What this would change

Aim: Show, in public and in plain numbers, whether shore power and local bus pilots are being used and what they change for air quality, carbon emissions and access.

What success would mean: Regular published figures for ship connections, electricity used and estimated emissions avoided, set against the forecast; air quality results near the port reported alongside them; and a published evaluation of Pompey Link before any decision to extend or end it. No numeric target is proposed, because no agreed baseline exists yet.

The council, as owner of the port and as local transport authority, would ask the port to publish a quarterly shore power summary: connected calls by vessel type, hours connected, electricity supplied, share of eligible calls that connected, and estimated emissions avoided with the method stated. The council would publish the port-area air quality monitoring sites and results from the existing network. For Pompey Link, it would publish passengers, cost per journey and who uses it before the funding decision. Bus and port reporting stay separate because their funding and purposes differ. Cycling is covered in the separate cycle-connections action.

Proposed lead: Portsmouth City Council (proposed; as port owner, air quality authority and local transport authority). Partners: Portsmouth International Port, University of Portsmouth (Sea Change monitoring partner), Brittany Ferries and other port customers, Community First (Pompey Link operator), Stagecoach South and First Solent (bus enhanced partnership).

Powers: The council has statutory local air quality management duties and must report through the Annual Status Report (asr2026-summary). As local transport authority it holds the statutory Local Transport Plan and the bus enhanced partnership (ltp4-amr-2026, bsip-page). As owner of the port it can ask the port to publish operational data; this is an organisational choice, not a statutory power, and commercial data about individual operators may need to be aggregated. The council cannot make ships connect and does not set national electricity costs, which the port and operators say are the main barrier (seachange-whitepaper).

Options

• Current approach: Current approach. The port publishes the forecast and a white paper; the council publishes the air quality summary and runs the Pompey Link pilot. No usage or outcome figures are published for either.
• Proposed response: Publish a shore power and bus pilot scorecard. Quarterly port figures on connections, electricity and estimated emissions avoided, with stated methods; port-area air quality sites named in the summary report; a published Pompey Link evaluation before the funding decision.
• Alternative: Independent annual evaluation only. Ask the University of Portsmouth monitoring team to publish one annual evaluation of Sea Change air quality and carbon effects, with no quarterly data. Cheaper to run but slower and less transparent.
• Alternative: Tie reporting to a connection incentive. Combine publication with a time-limited tariff support or berth-allocation rule to raise uptake. This would need costing, legal and subsidy-control advice, and is not appraised here.

Further appraisal may change the choice because the cost of data collection, commercial confidentiality with ship operators, and whether the monitoring network can separate port effects from traffic and weather are not yet known.

Delivery plan

A first practical step: Write to the port asking which shore power usage figures it already collects and could publish in aggregate. This needs no new funding or approval.

Costs and funding

One-off costs

Not costed. Setting up reporting from data the port already holds is expected to be small, but this has not been estimated.

Recurring costs

Not costed. Staff time for quarterly publication and any extra monitoring analysis.

Capital or revenue

Mainly revenue (reporting and analysis). Existing Sea Change capital was £19.8m government funding plus £4.6m council match, with a separate council grid contribution given as £3.6m in the September 2026 white paper (seachange-whitepaper) and as £3m in the July 2026 press release (seachange-golive); the two sources have not been reconciled. None of this pays for reporting.

Funding status

No funding identified for reporting. Bus grant (£7.46m revenue over 2026/27–2028/29) is ring-fenced for bus projects and cannot pay for port works.

Affordability

Not assessed. Reporting costs should be estimated before any commitment.

Costing still needed

Estimate staff days for quarterly port reporting and an annual air quality comparison; confirm whether the Sea Change demonstrator budget already covers monitoring until the end of the demonstration period.

Benefits, risks and trade-offs

Possible benefits: Residents and councillors could see whether a large public investment is used. Evidence would show whether low uptake needs action on electricity costs. A Pompey Link evaluation would support a fair decision on its future. Benefits are not quantified.

Risks:

• Ship operators may connect rarely because electricity is expensive, so the forecast saving may not happen.
• Air quality near the port is affected by traffic, weather and other sources, so changes may not be attributable to shore power.
• Commercial confidentiality may limit what the port can publish about individual operators.
• Reporting creates staff workload without new funding.
• Local greenhouse gas statistics will not show the effect, which could be misread as failure or success.

Who could gain or lose: People living near the port and busy roads would gain most if ships plug in. Pompey Link users include people in areas without another bus route; ending the pilot without evaluation could leave them worse off. Public subsidy of electricity for ships would transfer money to operators and would need justification.

Environment: Shore power is intended to cut fuel burnt at berth, noise and local pollution. Its carbon effect depends on the electricity source; the port says supply is 100% renewable, which was not independently checked.

Capacity: The council runs the monitoring network and the port, but no dedicated reporting post was identified. The University of Portsmouth monitoring role is tied to the demonstrator period.

How to judge progress

Reassess when: Reassess when the port publishes any usage figures, when the 2027 Annual Status Report (2026 data) is published, or when the Pompey Link funding decision is due.

Where things stand

What is known:

• Sea Change serves the three busiest berths and began commercial use in July–August 2026.
• Government provided £19.8m and the council £4.6m in match funding, plus a grid contribution.
• The 20,000 t CO2e a year saving is a forecast from 2027.
• Air quality objectives were met at relevant exposure in 2025, but most sites worsened compared with 2024.
• Local greenhouse gas statistics do not capture international shipping.
• Pompey Link is a pilot funded through the BSIP.

What is not known:

• How many ships have connected and how much electricity they used.
• The method behind the 20,000 t forecast.
• Which monitoring sites best represent the port area.
• Whether Pompey Link funding ends in March or May 2027, and its cost and use.
• The shore power tariff and whether it is subsidised.
• Whether three ships have yet connected at the same time.

Decisions needed:

• Whether the council, as port owner, asks for regular public shore power reporting.
• Whether to fund an independent evaluation after the demonstrator period.
• Whether to extend, change or end Pompey Link, based on published evidence.

Existing work:

• Sea Change shore power: Operating; first commercial connections July–August 2026 (as of 2026-09).
• Annual Status Report of Air Quality 2026 (2025 data): Published as a summary to the 1 October 2026 meeting; full report on request (as of 2026-10-01).
• Pompey Link on-demand bus pilot: Operating; funded to March 2027 (service page) or May 2027 (monitoring report) (as of 2026-10-05).
• Portsmouth Bus Service Improvement Plan: £48.3m programme 2022–2026; new multi-year bus grant from 2026/27 (as of 2026-07-22).
• Portsmouth Transport Strategy (LTP4) 2021–2038: Adopted October 2021; fourth monitoring report September 2026 (as of 2026-09-17).

Next review: When the port publishes shore power usage data, or when the council publishes the 2027 Annual Status Report summary, or at the Pompey Link funding decision.. Evidence last checked 2026-11-02.

Sources

Where earlier ideas went

• cleaner-transport (earlier 12-point plan): expanded. cleaner-transport Not carried forward: Nothing dropped. The claim that no combined cost is published is corrected: itemised Sea Change capital funding is now published. Cycling moved to the separate cycle-connections action.