Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities

Michele Acciaro a,n, Hilda Ghiara b,1, Maria Inés Cusano b,2
a
The Kühne Logistics University, Großer Grasbrook 17, Hamburg, Germany
b
University of Genoa, Via Vivaldi 5, Genoa, Italy

H I G H L I G H T S

Port authorities are required to engage in energy management in order to diversify and respond to environmental pressure.

Energy management in ports has not been investigated sufficiently and offers opportunities for cost savings.

Port authorities can promote energy management by coordinating power generation, energy use and the uptake of renewables.

Two case studies (Genoa and Hamburg) illustrate the importance and pervasiveness of energy management in ports.

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ports are characterised by the geographical concentration of high–energy demand and supply activities,
Received 26 December 2013 because of their proximity to power generation facilities and metropolitan regions, and their functions as
Received in revised form central hubs in the transport of raw materials. In the last decades the need to better understand and monitor
16 March 2014
energy-related activities taking place near or within the port has become more apparent as a consequence of
Accepted 8 April 2014
the growing relevance of energy trades, public environmental awareness and a bigger industry focus on
Available online 14 May 2014
energy efficiency. The uptake in the port sector of innovative technologies, such as onshore power supply, or
Keywords: alternative fuels, such as LNG, and the increasing development of renewable energy installations in port
Energy management areas, also calls for more attention to energy matters within port management.
Port strategy
So far, however, few port authorities have actively pursued energy management strategies. The necessity
Green ports
for port authorities to actively manage their energy flows stems from their efforts to plan, coordinate and
facilitate the development of economic activities within the port, and as a consequence of the heavier weight
that sustainability is given within the port management strategies.
Through the analysis of the experiences of two European ports, Hamburg and Genoa, that have
already attempted to coordinate and rationalise their energy needs, this paper will argue that for the ports of
the future active energy management can offer substantial efficiency gains, can contribute to the
development of new alternative revenue sources and in the end, improve the competitive position of
the port.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Energy efficiency is becoming more interesting for ports and
terminals as they realise that substantial energy savings can be
obtained through rationalisation of operation, adoption of new
technologies and use of renewable energy sources (Wiegmans and
Geerlings, 2010; Acciaro, 2013; Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin,
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 49 40 328707 281.
E-mail addresses: Michele.Acciaro@the-klu.org (M. Acciaro),
ghiara@economia.unige.it (H. Ghiara), cusano@economia.unige.it (M.I. Cusano).
1
Tel.: þ39 010 209 5231.
2
Tel.: þ39 010 209 5256.
2012; Yap and Lam 2013; European Sea Port Organisation [Espo],
2012). This is part of the stronger focus of many ports on
improving their green image and developing environmental stra-
tegies (Lam and Notteboom, 2014) to better manage negative
externalities (Benacchio et al., 2001) and stakeholder relations
(Dooms and Verbeke, 2006; 2007), in the pursuit of a competitive
advantage (Adams et al., 2009; Verhoeven, 2010), as part of
the improvement of their strategic management processes
(Haezendonck, 2001; Ghiara and Cepolina, 2013), or as a response
to the pressure of the shipping industry (Organisation of Economic
Co-Operation and Development [OECD] (2011)).
The topic of energy efficiency is not new (Bunse et al., 2011),
but in the case of ports, notwithstanding the increasing number of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013
0301-4215/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
projects related to energy savings and developments in renew-
ables, no port specific research has addressed such a theme.
Although in the manufacturing sector (Thollander and Ottosson,
2008, 2010), small and medium enterprises (SMEs) (Froese and
Toeter, 2013), universities (Cebon, 1992) and in shipping (Acciaro
et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2012), among other sectors, energy
efficiency literature is emerging, research in this area is far
from conclusive. There is a need for further case studies
(Johnson, 2013; Sivill et al., 2012), and the port sector can offer
interesting examples.
The present paper means to contribute to current energy
management discourses by providing two case studies on what
particularly proactive port authorities have been developing in
terms of energy management. Considering the exploratory nature
of the paper, which in essence aims to propose the application of
the concept of energy management in the port sector, the use of
case studies is particularly appropriate (Yin, 2009). Case studies
have been used extensively in port economics and management.
Although what energy management in seaports entails depends
on the specificities of each individual port, the case studies provide
two different approaches to the possible actions that port autho-
rities can undertake in order to improve their energy efficiency. In
doing so, the paper illustrates the new trends that require port
authorities to actively manage their energy hub function and
explain how new sources of revenue can be potentially generated
when port authorities actively promote energy management.
The paper is structured in the following way. In addition to the
introduction, Section 2 describes how the centrality of the port in
energy trades has emerged, and highlights how more case studies
are needed to better investigate this aspect of port activity. Ports
have for a long time taken up the role of energy hubs, and such a
role is becoming more crucial. Section 3 presents the case studies
on the port of Genoa and Hamburg. Section 4 advances the
concept of the port authority as an energy management promoter
on the basis of the concepts discussed in the introduction and in
the case studies. This function entails an increased focus on energy
flow rationalisation within the port as well as a proactive approach
to energy conservation. Section 5 summarises the major findings
of the paper, and indicates policy recommendations and areas for
further investigation.
2. Materials and methods
For the purposes of this paper we can define an energy hub as a
geographical concentration of high-energy demand and supply
activities, where energy intense industries, power generation,
distribution and related activities and projects are located. The
port interaction with respect to energy can be summarised in two
main areas:

Power generation (energy supply)

Energy consumption (energy demand)
Power generation refers to those activities that take place in the
port and that entail the conversion of energy into electricity.
Energy use refers to the use of electricity for port and port related
activities, such as cargo handling and also industrial processes,
logistics and administrative activities. Energy use can be classified
into

Energy required for direct port activities, such as terminals,
locks and bridges, administration buildings, buoys, and
lighting.

Energy required for powering ships (fuel consumed and elec-
tricity provided to ships).
5

Energy required for port related and port induced activities,
such as refineries, railway operations, steel and metal works,
and tourism.3
Renewable energy plays an important role within ports, as they
are often located in areas that are particularly suitable for power
generation from wind (e.g. Rotterdam, Kitakyushu in Japan), waves
(e.g. Port Kembla in Australia or Mutriku in the Basque Country),
tide differentials (under study for example in Dover, UK, and the
Port of Digby, Nova Scotia), and in some cases geothermal energy
(see the Hamburg case). Furthermore, often ports have available
wide flat surfaces, such as storage areas and warehouses, that can
be used for the installation of solar panels (e.g. the Tokyo Ohi
Terminal or in the Port of San Diego administration buildings),
although such infrastructure might not always be suitable for large
scale solar energy exploitation. The development of the renewable
energy sector has also an impact on ports through project cargo for
offshore renewable energy installations and support services for
wind farms.
Ports are also likely to become important players in carbon
capture and storage (CCS) and they already play an important role
in material recycling and waste disposal. These developments can
benefit the port in terms of cargo volumes transported, and waste
can be converted into thermal energy or used to generate biogas and
electricity. Those trades can be important for those ports where
energy trades constitute a large portion of throughput that might be
declining as the world energy demands move away from fossil fuels.
The development of biofuels also represents an opportunity for
many ports, not only in terms of handling of raw materials, but
also in production, storage and distribution. Whether in the future
biofuels will acquire a more conspicuous importance among
maritime fuels is difficult to say, but ports might then also benefit
from such development in terms of bunkering service. This is
already happening for alternative fuels such as liquefied natural
gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), with ports develop-
ing new LNG bunkering infrastructure. This appears to be a natural
development for those ports already active in LNG trades, although
bunkering operations also pose challenges, mostly related to LNG
distribution, infrastructure and the location of bunkering facilities
(Harperscheidt, 2011; Acciaro and Gritsenko, 2014).
The use of LNG offers advantages in terms of reduced noxious
gas emissions, as it entirely eliminates SOx and PM emissions, and
substantially eliminates NOx (although CO2 is only partially
reduced). It also allows the port to benefit from substantially
lower gas prices, although the price of LNG is today far from stable
and very difficult to predict. With the enforcement of more
stringent emission regulations in the North Sea, the Baltic Sea
and the US coast, LNG could become an important shipping fuel in
the next decade, requiring ports in northern Europe and the US to
develop adequate facilities (Acciaro and Gritsenko, 2014).
LNG in fact appears particularly attractive in the ferry and
passenger segments, which typically require vessels to berth in the
proximity of urban centres, while there has been a tendency to
move LNG liquefaction and regasification plants away from popu-
lated areas. This is just an example of the constraints imposed on
the exploitation of new energy sources and the city. While on the
3
An important component of energy use relates to the handling of energy
commodities, primarily energy products such as oil and oil distillates, natural gas,
coal, and also carbon that derive from power plants that burn fossil fuels, or
chemical products such as hydrogen, ammonia, or methanol that can be used as
fuels or to store energy in chemical forms to accommodate peaks in the production
of renewables. The ability of the port to carry out particularly efficiently the loading
and unloading of raw materials influenced the port energy profile primarily as it
favoured the localisation of energy-intense manufacturing in the proximity of
ports.
6 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
one hand the city is typically one of the main beneficiaries of port
activities, on the other hand the proximity of the port creates
undesirable effects.
Most critical in this respect is the necessity for ports to reduce
emissions from operations and shipping, which has contributed to
the development of alternative fuels as mentioned above.
In addition to imposing specific constraints on the types of fuels
and operations allowed in ports, various port authorities have
developed on-shore power supply (OPS) solutions also referred to
as shore-side electricity. OPS allows for vessels to be powered
entirely through grid electricity while in port. Among the various
port authorities that have invested in OPS or are evaluating such
projects are Los Angeles/Long Beach, Gothenburg, Antwerp, Van-
couver, Lübeck, Kotka, and Seattle among others (see the World
Port Climate Initiative for more details).
The development of OPS poses on the port the challenge of
ensuring power availability, typically from the national grid. OPS
can represent a large portion of the total energy use of the entire
port complex, in some cases several times higher than the total
energy use of terminals. The development of OPS would therefore
require port authorities to have a clear picture of the energy use
profile of the port and its related activities.
The following section explains how port authorities deal with
energy management through two case studies. The case studies
emphasise the role of the port as an energy hub and discuss the
environmental dimension of energy management. The two case
studies have been selected on the basis of their similarity in
providing best practices on energy management and the particu-
larly proactive role of the port authorities. Hamburg, in addition to
being one of the major European ports, has been particularly
proactive in terms of energy efficiency and the promotion of
energy management. Furthermore the case study is very interest-
ing for the close relation between the city and the port, a
relationship that has allowed the port to implement innovative
policies in terms of energy efficiency.
Genoa has been chosen as it represents the Mediterranean, a
region that is very different from the Northern area in terms of
maturity of environmental policies. The Genoese case study is
interesting because it shows how the creation of an ad hoc tool as
the Port Energy Environmental Plan (PEEP) can work as a guide-
line for comprehensive policies in a situation of high institutional
complexity. The innovative value of the PEEP exemplifies the
awareness of the port authority on energy matters.
The case studies are structured in four main subsections in
order to ensure comparability.
1. Introduction
2. Energy supply
3. Energy demand
4. Port authority approach to energy management and
main issues
3. Results
3.1. The port authority of Genoa as an energy promoter
3.1.1. Introduction
The Port Authority of Genoa (GPA) has developed a Port Energy
Environmental Plan (PEEP) for its port with the scope of stimulat-
ing and developing the activities linked to the production of
energy from renewable sources and of limiting energy use in its
own territory. The logic behind this plan is grounded in the belief
that what happens within the port premises has an impact on the
hosting city.
The GPA has carried out an examination of the port’s vast areas
with the main goal of examining where it would be possible to
intervene in order to reduce the energetic waste and install
systems for the production of energy from renewable sources.
The technical committee has developed a two-layer strategy to
carry out this evaluation; one layer focuses on the urban level,
while the other on individual buildings (see Table 2).
The ultimate goal of the PEEP, intended as the first instrument
in Italy to promote the use of renewable sources and boost energy
efficiency in port areas, is to bring down 20,000 t of CO2 a year in
the port of Genoa with an overall investment of 60 million euros.
This strategy will allow to

Save almost 10,000 t of CO2 annually with the introduction of
12 plug positions of cold ironing in the naval reparations area,
the ferry terminal and a container terminal (Voltri Terminal
Europa) with an investment of 13 million euros.

Save 6000 t thanks to the wind system with an investment of
20.1 million euros.

Save 3600 t as a consequence of the installation of 29 photo-
voltaic structures with an overall investment of 24.4 million
euros.

Save 100 t thanks to the installation of three solar power
stations in port buildings with an investment of 400,000 euros.
According to the work plan, and based on an estimation of CO2
reduction for the year 2011, this integrated strategy would allow to
one save around 197,000 t of CO2 by 2020.
3.1.2. Energy supply
The port area presents characteristics that make it suitable for
the realisation of goethermal heat plants, i.e. energy production
systems through a heat pump fed with seawater. An example of
this type of installation is already operational and supplies the
ferry terminal. Even if the potential of this kind of energy as a
renewable source is substantial, both its environmental impacts
and technical requirements need to be thoroughly assessed. The
port of Genoa is currently evaluating a more extensive use of
geothermal heat plants.
Five different projects dealing with photovoltaic and solar
technology have already been carried out by private concession-
aries in the port of Genoa. Even if the port authority owns the
spaces within the port premises, these areas are given in conces-
sion to private terminal operators and therefore the private
operators are those who, at the current state, can develop
initiatives that have to be aligned with the strategies of the PEEP
that works as a coordinator and governor of all the energy related
initiatives. The simplest option in terms of action should have been
for the GPA to carry out these initiatives unilaterally and indepen-
dently; however, considering the limitations imposed by the
Italian 84/94 law4 on port authorities’ ability to engage directly
in business operations, the GPA can only act as a coordinator.
Private firms are then entrusted with the operational and com-
mercial developments in view of their better capacity to manage
the planning and financial aspects of the introduction of renew-
able energy sources.
The main result that has been achieved by the creation of the
PEEP has been that of creating awareness among the terminal
operators and providing them with guidelines that were lacking in
the field of energy saving and sustainable energetic development.
4
The 84/94 law establishes the legislative framework for Italian ports. In article
6 the law establishes that the port authority’s main duties are the orientation,
planning, control, coordination and promotion of port operations and other
commercial and industrial activities carried out within the port premises. The
PA’s tasks do not allow the port to carry out commercial activities by itself.
 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12 7

Even if most of the projects deal with photovoltaic and solar 3.1.3. Energy demand
technology, currently one wind-power project is being assessed. In the port of Genoa, each terminal operator is responsible for
The procedure to adopt such technology is quite long and costly, as monitoring and reporting a terminal’s total energy consumption
it requires a full year of monitoring of the wind conditions on the rates, without providing specific disaggregated data on the share
selected site. The port is also proceeding toward the electrification the different activities have on that total (Table 1).
of part of its quay and a transformation cabin is currently under The port is also in the process of expanding its capacity with
construction in the industrial area of the port. The project has been two major infrastructure developments. An estimation has been
partially financed by the national government (more than 50%), made of the energy consumption of these two new areas for an
regional government (30% approximately) and port authority overall total of 7,500,000 kW h a year (Derna and Bettolo quays).
(around 20%) for an overall investment of 12 million Euros. A feasibility study is currently being undertaken in the San
Benigno area (an area that is very close to the port) to develop a
district heating policy for residential and office skyscrapers. This
project, that involved the University, the National Research Coun-
Table 1
cil, the regional energy agency (ARE), Muvita and different private
Energy consumption for container terminals in Genoa.
Source: compiled by the authors on Port of Genoa data. actors such as the administrations of the different buildings, would
allow the port to become an energy reservoir for the city.
Terminal Consumption/year in kW h If this plan is adopted, the GPA would operate as the facilitator
for the buildings using the sea-water as an energy source and
VTE (50% reefer) 19,000,000
SECH 4,500,000
would be able to promote energy management outside the port
Messina 5,000,000 premises.
Fruit Terminal 4,600,000 The Municipality of Genoa has been long working within the
Stazione marittima 6,300,000 EU-funded scheme of the Smart City projects. One of the four axes
Oil terminal 2,500,000
of the project as a whole deals with the energetic efficiency boost
Dry bulk terminal 5,000,000
Other 49,900,000 in the port with the use of renewable sources. The PEEP lies within
this broader strategy at the city level. Even if the EU funds for the

Table 2
Comparison of the two case studies.
Source: Authors, based on the Port Energy Environmental Plan and the Energy Cooperation Port of Hamburg.

Case study characteristics Genoa Hamburg

Port as energy hub Yes Yes

Ability of the port authority to act as energy Yes Yes
management promoter
Ability of the port authority to use energy No No
management as a source of revenue
Port strategy related to energy management 1. Goals at an urban level
a. Reduce energy requirements
b. Develop appropriate environmental
technologies and use of renewables
c. Abatement of pollutants
d. Environmental protection
e. Mitigation of impacts of
surrounding areas
2. Goals at a building level
a. Reduction of energy requirements
for buildings
b. Improvement of building
performance
c. Use of renewables in buildings
1. Renewable energies
a. Expansion of wind farm sites
b. Assessment of solar power generation potential and site
identification for solar power
c. Assessment of biomass energy developments
2. Lowering energy consumption and emissions by increasing energy
efficiency and providing intelligent infrastructures.
a. At companies
b. Cross-company use of waste heat
c. Demand side management through the development of a
virtual power plant
d. Renewable energy storage systems
e. Hydrogen produced from renewable energies
f. Funding and support programme to refurbish commercial
buildings

3. Promoting innovative and eco-friendly mobility to reduce

emissions effectively.
a. Alternative power for berthing vessels
b. Alternative ship propulsion systems
c. Alternative power for heavy duty traffic
d. E-vehicles for port operations
e. E-mobility for commuters

Port–city relation Very close Very close

Policy issues Energy management is hindered by the complex Energy management is facilitated by city-state institutional
institutional framework framework
Salient issues 1. Proactive approach towards energy 1 Close relationship city–port
management 2 Institutional cooperation among city-state and HPA
2. Interaction between the different 3 Strong participation in renewable energy
institutional levels
3. Cultural aspects and change of mentality
8 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
whole project are not enough to achieve the main goals (6 million
euros for the whole project the pillars of which are buildings,
mobility, energy and the reduction of emissions within the port by
40%), the “marriage” between the PEEP and the Smart City project
has put together at the same table 60 companies active in the port.
While on the one hand the GPA would be willing to carry out
an energy diagnosis for the companies operating in the port to
evaluate together the possibilities of energy reconversion, they
face a severe lack of resources and personnel to make this possible.
On the other hand, and thanks to the EU project APICE that has
seen Genoa as one of its partners and case studies, the emissions
generated by the port cities have been monitored. This APICE
project (Genoa, Marseille, Thessaloniki, Barcelona and Venice),
financed by the European programme for territorial Cooperation
MED 2007/2013, intends to develop a knowledge-based approach
for air pollution mitigation and sustainable development of port
activities, through spatial planning policies at the local level that
includes the territory around the ports. The project has provided
emission inventories for gaseous (mainly carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3) and
non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs)) and parti-
culate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) emissions from all anthropogenic
emissions sources (transport, industry, energy, central heating,
etc.). The interesting aspect of this work is that the simulation
tools developed in the project could be applied to different
scenarios (for example quay electrification). In the case of Genoa,
the measurements that have been carried out highlight higher
peaks of air pollution during the summer season when there are a
much higher number of ferries calling at the port.
For this project, the mitigation measure suggested for Genoa
was OPS for two different areas of the port, namely the VTE cargo
terminal, located at the western edge of the harbour area, and the
Ferry Terminal, located very closely to the city centre. The
contribution of VTE and Ferry Terminal emissions to the total
harbour emissions is around 10%, while the abatement of the
harbour emissions in the area close to the electrified quays is very
high (up to 80%). Another interesting aspect that came out as a
consequence of the work carried out by the GPA with its PEEP is
that of seeing the port as an industrial district in terms of value
creation. In such a way, once energy efficiency policies have been
implemented in the port, it should be easier to transfer them to
other industrial districts in the city.
3.1.4. Port authority's approach to energy management and main
issues
Can the GPA promote energy management and engage in the
generation and sale of power within and outside the port pre-
mises? Currently, and while the National legislation of port
activities remains unchanged, this is impossible. The perception
is that, if private operators do not act proactively to exploit
renewable energy sources, the GPA could directly engage in the
development and exploitation of renewable energy sources in
those areas of the port under its responsibility (in any case this
would only allow one to produce energy for internal use in light of
the outstanding amount of energy consumption).
Another aspect that comes out as being highly problematic is
the interaction between the different institutional levels (Eur-
opean, National, and regional/local) involved in the legislation
making process in the energy sector in Italy. In this specific case,
there has been a regional/local attempt to regulate the energetic
sector by providing incentives for the use of renewable sources
following the provisions of specific EU directives, as there was a
normative void in the national legislation.
For a long time there has been a clear EU framework regarding
the development and incentives linked to renewable energy. But
only recently have these guidelines been coherently incorporated
in the Italian legislation creating a context in which the Regions
and local governments could develop renewable energy strategies.
As a result of these policy changes, the GPA has established plans
to develop photovoltaic installations. In December 2012 the
National government issued a new Decree that modified the
context in which the local bodies operate shifting the focus of
attention (and possible central incentives) from renewable strate-
gies to increasing the energy efficiency of public buildings. The
GPA then had to reformulate the port energy strategy (following
the flow of centrally driven incentives) towards initiatives aimed
at improving the energy efficiency.
The above-mentioned process highlights the extreme complex-
ity the Italian port authorities have to cope with in order to carry
out energy policies in the port area. In this sense, it can be stated
that the GPA has attempted to define a medium/long term local
energy policy in the absence of a stable and definitive national
legislation.
A positive aspect regarding the interaction between different
institutional levels linked to the particular case of the PEEP
experience is that it has created awareness on the need for this
kind of approach and it could be exported to the other two ports in
the Liguria region, namely La Spezia and Savona.
Due to a lack of awareness, preparation and education in
energy matters, most of the local actors have assumed that their
simple option, considering the topography of their terminals, was
to place solar panels or photovoltaic equipment on their roofs and
no further steps were taken towards a thorough efficiency perfor-
mance assessment.
The main problem encountered by the promoter (GPA) of the
initiative was that of having to deal with uninformed companies,
where there is no such thing as an energy management coordi-
nator. As a consequence, the PEEP has attempted to work on the
demand side creating awareness of the existing possibilities to
increase energy efficiency.
3.2. The port of Hamburg: towards a sustainable energy future
3.2.1. Introduction
Sustainability plays an important role in the port of Hamburg
as the proximity of the port areas to the city and the sensitivity of
the Elbe river ecosystem require particular attention to sustain-
ability issues in the development of the port. In particular,
sediment and water quality, climate protection, emissions to air,
and energy efficiency are the main environmental issues the port
has to deal with (Bauriedl and Wissen, 2002; Grossmann, 2008;
Merk and Hesse, 2012). Flood prevention has also played an
important role in the relations between the city and the port
basin (Von Storch et al., 2008).
Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) is the organisation mandated by
the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg to manage the port. The
city of Hamburg is the sole shareholder of the HPA and as such it
ensures that environmental goals are an integral part of HPA
strategy (Merk and Hesse, 2012). Since 2011 the HPA has been a
member of the Hamburg Eco-partnership (Umwelt Partnerschaft
Hamburg), a cooperation among the Chamber of Commerce, the
Chamber of Crafts and Trades, the Industry Association and the
City of Hamburg, aimed at improving the ecologic balance within
the city of Hamburg, and in general strengthen the correlation
between protecting the environment and business success.
Furthermore the HPA has initiated together with the State Minis-
tries of Economic Affairs, Transport and Innovation, and the State
Ministry of Urban Development and Environment an energy
cooperation project (“smartPORT Energy”), aimed at developing
sustainable energy solutions and improving the energy profile of
the port.
 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
An interesting development in the port–city relationship in
Hamburg is the HafenCity project. This redevelopment of the old
port's warehouses and industrial areas stretches over 157 ha and is
the largest urban redevelopment plan currently underway in
Europe. The HafenCity project increases the importance of redu-
cing external environmental impacts from the port, as luxury
homes and urban areas come closer to the waterfront (Merk and
Hesse, 2012).
3.2.2. Energy supply
The port of Hamburg and the city of Hamburg have
been investing in renewable energy since the early 1990s,
when Hamburg pioneered the development of wind energy.
Although these efforts do not aim to place the port authority in
the middle of the energy trade, the HPA is involved directly in
promoting and exploiting the potential of renewables. These
synergies are made possible by the prioritisation of renewables
within the City of Hamburg and the alignment of the port
authority's strategy with such an approach. The city has its own
energy company, Hamburg Energie, which is active in the exploi-
tation of renewables within the city-state and also operates in
electric mobility.
This strategy has been rather successful with the city having
almost tripled the use of renewable energy in the last decade.
Wind has remained the core of the renewable strategy for the city
of Hamburg, with 52.75 MW capacity installed and 58 turbines in
2012 (Deutsche Windguard, 2013). The port area has half of the
share of such wind production, with wind turbines located in
Waltershof, Moorburg, and Wilhelmsburg and two large Enercon
E-126 turbines located in the proximity on the Altenwerder
terminal with a capacity of 6000 kW each. The city is also involved
in the development of offshore wind parks, for which large
turbines are being tested on the coast in Cuxhaven and Brünsbut-
tel (Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg and Hamburg Port
Authority, 2012).
The HPA has an important role in the promotion of renewable
energies in the port and a support scheme has been set up to
promote the development of solar energy facilities in the terminals
and on warehouse rooftops. Two installations are already
operational and a third one is being planned. The installation at
the logistics centre near the Container Terminal Altenwerder (CTA)
accounts for power generation of approximately 500,000 kW h per
year. Within the port of Hamburg solar thermal energy has also
been used. Hot water in the HPA offices is produced thanks to a
solar thermal installation on the roof that allows for 56,000 kW h
savings every year (European Commission, 2010).
The harbour is also the location of the largest European port rail
infrastructure and a pilot project is being tested on 880 switches
that are warmed up using geothermal energy. The installation is
self-regulating, and the heat transport starts as soon as the
ambient temperature drops below a critical threshold and is
interrupted as soon as it exceeds it. The operation of the facilities
does not produce any emissions and does not require electricity
(Hamburg Port Authority, 2012; Hurtienne, 2010).
Near Hamburg thermal power plants are also in operation,
currently in Wedel and Tiefstack, and a new plant is planned in
Moorburg, that have been the subject of large controversies and an
international court ruling. The Moorburg Power plant, operated by
Vattenfall, would generate electricity (1640 MW) and heat
(650 MW). The technologies employed are state of the art in terms
of fuel utilisation, and the plant will require the handling of
approximately four million tons of coal, ash and gypsum in the
port (Vattenfall, 2010). The plant would also ensure minimal
interference with the Elbe river, but the operation of the plant
that would require 64,000 l of water yearly for the cooling system
9
and the environmental impacts of the plant are currently again
being questioned.
Another large project is located in the area of Wedel and
involves the transformation of an existing coal power plant. The
new plant, that is also developed by Vattenfall and that will enter
into operation in 2016/2017, will burn natural gas and will operate
by making use of combined heat and power (Vattenfall, 2010,
2012). The simultaneous production of heat and power through
the coupling of gas and steam turbines (CCGT) is 88% more
efficient than the existing infrastructure, and at completion will
generate 400 MW h in heating.
The location will also be used as an energy storage facility,
where heat can be accumulated to store power obtained from
wind farms in case of optimal wind conditions. This is one of the
major challenges for the use of renewable energy sources, as the
power generated is not always met by demand (Vattenfall, 2012).
Vattenfall has agreed to invest in the next five years about EUR
1.5 billion, of which 550 million will be used for the development
and expansion of the district heating system.
The area of Hamburg also benefits from other renewable forms
of power generation, from biomass and burning municipal solid
waste as in the Borsigstrasse plant (that generates on average
160 GW h per year), the VERA plant (85 GW h) and the Rugenber-
ger Damm (75 GW h).
3.2.3. Energy demand
The Port of Hamburg, with its large industrial complex, is an
important energy user within the municipal state. The largest
terminal operator in Hamburg, HHLA, has an approximate energy
demand of 120 MW h per year. This is relatively small in compar-
ison with the energy demand of a steel mill operated by Arcelor
Mittal, in the range of one GW h, or a rolling mill operated by
Norsk Hydro, that requires 2 GW h. Europe's largest copper pro-
ducer, Aurubis, is also located in the port, and has a yearly energy
requirement of 660 MW h (Pietsch, 2013).
In terms of efficiency of port operation the port of Hamburg
has been active on multiple fronts, from favouring a more
energy efficient modal split to the implementation of OPS and
the active involvement of terminal operators. As already men-
tioned, a large part of hinterland traffic moves in Hamburg by rail.
The HPA has developed a tariff system aimed at providing
incentives for the use of cleaner diesel locomotives or particle
filters and lower noise brakes (Hurtienne, 2010). These tariffs are
associated with the incentives provided for environmentally
friendly ships (Hamburg Port Authority, 2012). The HPA also
focuses on low emissions by operating all harbour vessels on
low sulphur fuels and providing OPS for inland vessels, mooring
vessels and ferries.
The largest terminal operator in the port, Hamburger Hafen
und Logistik AG (HHLA), that operates trains and trucks and is also
active in logistics and real estate management, is an important
player in Hamburg. HHLA, which is 70% state owned, has been
pioneering energy efficiency measures within the port. In addition
to the solar installations mentioned above, the company has an
extensive sustainability programme. Among the most innovative
solutions is the development of the hub shuttle system that
improves operational efficiency of train handling by over 10%
(Pietsch, 2013).
Furthermore one of the main terminals, CTA, has been elec-
trified, with a pilot project that develops electrification for its
automated guided vehicles (AGVs). The terminal makes use of
certified green energy and the electrification of the AGVs will have
substantial benefits not only in terms of emission reduction but
also as the vehicles are silent and allowed for substantial costs
savings (Hurtienne, 2010). The company is evaluating the
10 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
possibility of using battery packs to store excess electricity
produced through wind (Pietsch, 2013).
HHLA also manages the terminal Tollerot, which operates a
fleet of electric cars and uses heat generated by burning biogas
produced in the neighbouring sewage handling plant in
Köhlbrandhö ft. This accounts for a reduction of 1000 t of CO2 per
year (Pietsch, 2013). The company aims to reduce its carbon
emissions by 30% by 2030 compared with the 2008 levels, and
by 2012 had already achieved a reduction of 24%, although future
reductions appear more difficult (Pietsch, 2013).
The other largest terminal operator in Hamburg, Eurogate, has
also developed a comprehensive sustainability strategy on its
sites, not only in Hamburg but also in Bremerhaven and Wilhelm-
shaven. This strategy includes among other things the develop-
ment of photovoltaic installations on roofs and flat areas, the
construction of wind turbines on terminal sites, a 25% emission
reduction (on 2008 levels) by 2020 and the operation of two
woodchip plants for the production of CO2-neutral heat in term-
inals (Eurokai, 2013).
Energy efficiency within the port takes various forms and the
HPA has been active in promoting energy efficiency awareness
among its employees. HPA employees could bring forward their
suggestions for climate protection measures in a competition.
Most ideas have been implemented and include, for example,
the recovery of energy used for the operation of elevators in the
Elbtunnel (Hamburg Port Authority, 2012). The HPA has also
been testing electric vehicles as part of a federal government
initiative. The CEO of the port, Jens Meier, also advances the
hypothesis of turning Hamburg in a hub for the transhipment,
manufacturing and conversion of electric vehicles (Hamburg Port
Authority, 2012).
3.2.4. Port authority's approach to energy management and main
issues
While the port does not appear to consider the development of
energy management as a potential source of additional revenue,
the commitment of the HPA to energy efficiency is well docu-
mented. This is probably the result of the importance of environ-
mental accountability in the Hamburg context, as well as the
strategic choice of the HPA to characterise the port of Hamburg as
a green player.
The close relationship among the city, the HPA, and many of the
companies present in the port allows for coordination in the
implementation of environmental actions. Although the port is
not a spatial unity, the HPA has successfully implemented a system
of incentives and information exchange to foster environmental
practices.
The port development plan 2025 (Free and Hanseatic City of
Hamburg and Hamburg Port Authority, 2012) dedicates one
chapter to the relationship between the city and the port, and
emphasises the importance of ensuring integration between the
city and the harbour sustainability strategies. The particular
characteristics of Hamburg as a city-state also favour the adoption
of green strategies and the capitalisation on such strategies at a
city level. This is further demonstrated by the selection of Ham-
burg as the European green capital in 2011. The port sustainability
strategy is interwoven with the city sustainability strategy and
with the ecological protection plans that the city-state is pursuing.
A particularly important position is occupied in the sustain-
ability strategy of the city and the port by the river Elbe and in
particular the Tidal Elbe project that aims to preserve and enhance
the river as an ecological and economic resource. The development
of innovative concepts for energy conservation is also coordinated
between the city and the ports, and so are the initiatives to make
the port an important touristic attraction for the city.
The port energy management is then fully embedded in the
city energy management and complements it. It is then probably
the city of Hamburg that is in a better position to capitalise on the
energy hub position of the port, as it is already partially doing with
its controlled company Hamburg Energie.
4. Discussion
From the overview and the case studies presented in the
previous sections Hamburg and Genoa already act beyond the
role of energy hubs although clear differences can be identified in
the approach and success in intervening in energy matters.
Hamburg seems more advanced in the implementation of a
renewable strategy in close cooperation with the city-state gov-
ernment. Genoa has been among the first port authorities in the
Mediterranean basin to articulate a comprehensive energy effi-
ciency and environmental strategy for the port, encompassing also
its relations with the city. The implementation of such a strategy
is, however, somewhat hindered by the institutional framework in
which the port operates.
It should be observed that the role of the two ports along the
energy chain is more as facilitators than as active promoters of
energy efficiency. Ports, in their traditional role in the energy
chains, are defined as simple transit points, where energy pro-
cesses are passively managed. The port authority, in this case, does
not engage in trading, generation or purchase of power beyond its
direct needs. In the case studies analysed, instead, the port
authorities are under pressure to take a more proactive approach
towards the promotion of energy efficiency.
The increasing role of sustainability, in fact, urges port autho-
rities to monitor and coordinate the energy utilisation and power
generation processes internal to the port. This tendency results in
ports adopting environmental key performance indicators (EKPI)
and increasingly making their carbon footprint available (see for
another good example the Port of Gothenburg). The PEEP of the
port of Genoa and by the energy cooperation “smartPORT Energy”
of the port of Hamburg show that port authorities are starting to
develop active plans aimed at reducing or optimising their energy
processes. These plans by necessity include not only port operators
and port users, but also energy grid managers and local commu-
nity managers. The development of renewable activities within
the port, as seen in Hamburg and less prominently in Genoa,
implies that the energy networks within the port will increase in
complexity, and port authorities need to become more conscious
players in the port energy system and should be capable of
addressing the environmental concerns, energy efficiency and
sustainability proactively.
On the basis of the experiences of Genoa and Hamburg, a
suitable definition of the port authority as a promoter of energy
management refers then to its role in planning, regulating and
monitoring energy use within the port. In this function the port
authority aims to improve energy efficiency by evaluating energy
use and implementing new policies and changes where necessary.
The port authority promotes energy management by coordinating
all aspects of energy management, from energy efficiency and
reduction of the carbon footprint of the port to waste management
and sustainable development by

Encouraging the use of renewable/sustainable energy resources
within an organisation or community,

Deriving solutions for carbon management,

Raising the profile of energy conservation.
The two case studies allow for some considerations related to
the governance structure of the two ports. While both ports can be
 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
broadly classified as landlord ports, the differences in the imple-
mentation of the two port governance models have an impact on
the ability of the port authority to promote energy management.
The Hamburg model allows for greater flexibility and closer
coordination between the port and the city, while the Genoa
model results in a more centrally driven approach. In both cases
great autonomy is left to terminal operators, with the port
authority providing only soft incentives for energy efficiency.
Notwithstanding the actual developments in the two studied
port authorities, the port management literature lacks models that
can capture the specific characteristics of energy management
within the port. In the energy management literature concepts
such as demand-side management (Gellings and Chamberlin,
1987) or integrated resource planning (Kreith, 1993) are well
established, but have never been applied to ports. The concept of
community energy management (CEM), or community energy
planning (Jaccard et al., 1997) offers some useful insight in the
way such concepts could be applied to ports. According to Jaccard
et al. (1997), CEM defines energy strategies that can be imple-
mented at various geographical levels and includes planning and
management processes. The CEM concept can be extended in the
port context to a port energy management (PEM) centred on

Land use planning,

Equipment, operations and transportation management,

Terminal design and operation,

Energy supply and delivery.
Land use planning refers to the function of port authorities in
planning investment, terminal concessions and allocation of sites
for redevelopment or green field projects. This function increas-
ingly takes into consideration congestion, ship accessibility and
the development of transport infrastructure to and within the
port. The two case studies offer multiple examples of how port
authorities include environmental constraints and energy effi-
ciency requirements in the planning and development of new
port areas. Modal split guarantees are another example of how the
port authority can include energy efficiency considerations in the
concession phase of a port terminal.
The equipment, operations and transportation management
function refers to the use of energy efficient equipment not only
for port ancillary services, such as tugging and mooring vessels
(see the test within the HPA to convert tugboats to LNG), but also
influencing the energy efficiency profile of ships visiting the port,
or trucking and railroad operators. Typical examples of actions in
such an area are regulation and incentives aimed at the reduction
of fuel consumption for ships, as well as the reduction of emissions
from trucks as in the case of HHLA vehicles (but see also for
example the clean truck programme of the Port of Los Angeles/
Long Beach).
Terminal design and operation consists of the role of the port
authority in fostering the adoption of energy efficient equipment
and processes in terminals as well as energy efficient building and
construction methods. A typical example of such a function is the
incentives that port authorities can provide for the electrification
of container terminals or the development of solar panels on
buildings and warehouses (Froese and Toeter, 2013).
Port authorities can influence the energy supply and delivery
by supporting systems that favour energy conservation within the
port and stimulate the development of renewables. In particular
concepts such as smart grids and virtual power plants could be
successfully applied in ports and are currently under study in
Hamburg, among other cities. Smart grids are able to overcome the
problems associated with the irregular power supply derived from
many renewable energy sources, such as wind or waves. A virtual
power plant consists of joining power generation facilities and
11
energy dumping points so that energy peaks can be smoothed. The
applicability of such concepts is currently under study in the
e-harbours project (Schäfers, 2012) and the Green EFFORTS project
(Froese and Toeter, 2013).
These four functions are not independent. In fact planning and
infrastructure decisions have an impact on the equipment and use
patterns for terminals and transport infrastructure. The electrifica-
tion of terminal equipment for example can be valuably interfaced
to allow the port to dump excessive loads in supply peaks that can
be stored in the equipment batteries. In a more traditional power
supply through the main grid, batteries from the terminal equip-
ment could be powered at night when energy costs are lower
(Schäfers, 2012).
Following the argument of Jaccard et al. (1997) PEM decision
processes can be represented in a hierarchy where infrastructure
and land use patterns influence the major production processes,
transportation choices and modes, which in turn impact the
choices of equipment, vehicles and ship technologies used within
the port. These hierarchies are dependent on the choices made at a
higher geographical level (city, region, and country) and are also
impacted temporally by the choices performed in the past. This
aspect is particularly interesting in ports that traditionally have
moved along a development path (Wiegmans and Louw, 2011).
5. Conclusions and policy implications
The paper has investigated the applicability of the concept of
energy management to the port sector by reviewing two case
studies: the port of Genoa and the port of Hamburg. These two
ports have been selected for different reasons. The port of Genoa is
one of the few ports to have elaborated a coherent and systematic
analysis of its energy profile in relation to its environmental plan
in the PEEP. The port of Hamburg is one of the leading ports in
terms of energy efficiency, and together with the city of Hamburg,
has been one of the leaders in promoting the use of renewable
energy sources.
Neither port considers energy management as a potential
source of future revenue. From both case studies it emerges that
energy management in ports is mostly limited to promoting
energy efficiency measures and stimulating energy conservation.
Ports are increasingly under pressure to reduce their environ-
mental footprint and to diversify. While in the case of Hamburg,
energy management appears part of the strategic positioning of
the port, in the case of Genoa, this is more in response to societal
pressure and regulation.
Both port energy management plans are strongly linked to the
city strategies. In the case of Hamburg it appears that the city is
the driving force behind a large number of energy efficiency
practices. In the case of Genoa, it seems that it is the port authority
that takes the role of energy efficiency promoter. The contexts are
of course very different as Hamburg is a city-state while Genoa has
a limited role in shaping the Italian national energy policy.
This paper highlighted the importance of looking at the port
from the perspective of its energy management strategy advocat-
ing a more active role for port authorities. This is the result of the
increasing importance of energy efficiency in port operations and
along the supply chain, and the changing role of port authorities.
Every port is confronted in different ways with the erosion of its
competitive position, and the energy management dimension
might help identifying possible strategic improvements. The port
of Rotterdam for example will be confronted with the erosion of its
role as a European oil hub, and, as a matter of fact, is already
actively investigating alternative trades (e.g. biofuels). Further case
studies would benefit from the understanding of the importance
of energy management.
12 M. Acciaro et al. / Energy Policy 71 (2014) 4–12
One of the main limitations of the paper is its focus on two
European ports, which does not allow generalisation to ports in
other parts of the world or with significantly different economic,
social, geographical or environmental characteristics. European
ports, in fact, although embedded in their respective national
regulation, respond to similar environmental and societal drivers.
The paper, however, calls for increasing investigation of energy
management issues in ports.
In more general terms, the concept of PEM can contribute by
clarifying the areas where the port authority can operate and play
a more critical role in reducing environmental impacts and
increase energy efficiency in the port. Port authorities might be
reluctant to take an active role in energy management, as it might
be perceived as not an integral part of their function. This attitude
is also documented in other sectors and is often evidence of the
lack of awareness of the importance of energy management (Jaffe
and Stavins, 1994).
An empirical assessment of alternative PEM models, and the
benefits obtainable for ports from such applications, would be an
interesting contribution to research in this area and in general to a
better understanding of the energy efficiency gap analysis. The
port industry can offer remarkable benchmarking opportunities in
comparison with other industries, such as the shipping industry or
energy intense industries.
The added value of the paper is bringing attention to an area of
research that has been explored only marginally in the case of ports.
It is the hope of the authors to stimulate the start of a new research
area centred on the role of port authorities in managing energy flows
and fostering energy efficiency practices within ports.
Acknowledgements
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the
International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Annual
Conferences in Marseille, July 3–5 2013. The authors would like to
acknowledge the comments of two anonymous referees.
References
Acciaro, M., Hoffmann, P.N., Eide, M.S., 2013. The energy efficiency gap in maritime
transport. J. Shipp. Ocean Eng. 3 (10), 1–10.
Acciaro, M. & Gritsenko, D. (2014). Energy innovation in ports: the role of local
contexts in LNG bunkering terminal development. In: International Association
of Maritime Economists Annual Conference, 15–18 July 2014, Norfolk, Virginia.
Acciaro, M., 2013. Corporate Social Responsibility in the Port Sector: An Institu-
tional Theory Perspective. IFSPA – International Forum on Shipping Ports and
Airports, Hong-Kong.
Adams, M., Quinonez, P., Pallis, A.A., Wakeman, T., 2009. Environmental Issues in
Port Competitiveness. Dalhousie University.
Bauriedl, S., Wissen, M., 2002. Post‐Fordist transformation, the sustainability
concept and social relations with nature: a case study of the Hamburg region.
J. Environ. Policy Plan. 4 (2), 107–121.
Benacchio, M., Ferrari, C., Haralambides, H.E., & Musso, E. (2001). On the economic
impact of ports: local vs. national costs and benefits. Forum of Shipping and
Logistics, Special Interest Group on Maritime Transport and Ports International
Workshop, 8-10.
Bunse, K., Vodicka, M., Schö nsleben, P., Brülhart, M., Ernst, F.O., 2011. Integrating
energy efficiency performance in production management–gap analysis
between industrial needs and scientific literature. J. Clean. Prod. 19 (6),
667–679.
Cebon, P.B., 1992. Twixt cup and lip organizational behaviour, technical prediction
and conservation practice. Energy Policy 20 (9), 802–814.
Denktas-Sakar, G., Karatas-Cetin, C., 2012. Port sustainability and stakeholder
management in supply chains: a framework on resource dependence theory.
Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 28 (3), 301–319.
Deutsche Windguard, 2013. Status des Windenergiesausbaus in Deutschland.
Deutsche WindGuard GmbH, Varel, Germany.
Dooms, M., Verbeke, A., 2006. An integrative framework for long-term strategic
seaport planning: an application to the port of Antwerp. In: Notteboom, T. (Ed.),
Ports are More than Piers. De Lloyd, pp. 173–192.
Dooms, M., & Verbeke, A. (2007). Stakeholder management in ports: a conceptual
framework integrating insights from research in strategy, corporate social
responsibility and port management. In: International Association of Maritime
Economists Annual Conference, 4–6 July 2007, Athens, Greece.
Eurokai, 2013. Annual Report 2012, Abbreviated version.
European Sea Port Organisation (Espo), 2012. Green guide: Towards Excellence in
Port environmental Management and Sustainability. European Seaport Orga-
nisation (ESPO), Brussels, Belgium.
European Commission, 2010. Hamburg—European green capital 2011. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Free And Hanseatic City Of Hamburg, & Hamburg Port Authority (2012). Hamburg is
staying on course, the port development plan to 2025. Hamburg: Free and
Hanseatic City of Hamburg – State Ministry of Economic Affairs, Transport and
Innovation; Hamburg Port Authority.
Froese, J. & Toeter, S. (2013). Reducing the Carbon Footprint of ports and terminals–
fiction and reality. Paper Presented at the Green Port South Asia Conference,
20–22 March 2013, Mumbai.
Gellings, C.W., Chamberlin, J.H., 1987. Demand-side Management: Concepts and
Methods, second ed. Fairmont Pr.
Ghiara H., Cepolina S. (2013). Corridor 24 infrastructures and operational services
supporting new port strategies. Paper for the WCTR 2013 Conference, July 15–
18, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Grossmann, I., 2008. Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a
changing global environment. Geoforum 39 (6), 2062–2072.
Haezendonck, E. (2001). Essays on strategy analysis for seaports. Garant Uitgevers
NV.
Hamburg Port Authority (2012). Geschäftsberich 2011. Hamburg Port Authority,
Hamburg.
Harperscheidt, J., 2011. Bunkering, infrastructure, storage, and processing of LNG.
Ship Offshore 1, 1–7.
Hurtienne, W., 2010. Innovations in seaports – future port development in
Germany. In: van Schel, L. (Ed.), PIANC Yearbook 2010. PIANC-World Associa-
tion for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure, Brussels, Belgium, p. 213.
Jaccard, M., Failing, L., Berry, T., 1997. From equipment to infrastructure: commu-
nity energy management and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Energy
Policy 25 (13), 1065–1074.
Jaffe, A.B., Stavins, R.N., 1994. The energy paradox and the diffusion of conservation
technology. Resource Energy Econ. 16 (2), 91–122.
Johnson, H. (2013). Towards Understanding Energy Efficiency in Shipping. Chalmers
University of Technology.
Johnson, H., Johansson, M., & Andersson, K. (2012). Barriers to energy efficiency in
short sea shipping: a case study. In: Short Sea Shipping 2012 Conference, 2–3
April 2012, Lisbon.
Kreith, F., 1993. Integrated resource planning. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 115 (2),
80–85.
Lam, J.S.L., Notteboom, T., 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of port
management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews
32 (2), 169–189.
Merk, O., & Hesse, M. (2012). The competitiveness of global port-cities: the case of
Hamburg. OECD Regional Development Working Paper No. 2012-06.
Organisation Of Economic Co-Operation And Development (Oecd), 2011. Environ-
mental Impacts of International Shipping: The Role of Ports. OECD Publishing.
Pietsch, J.H., 2013. HHLA Corporate Sustainability, Presentation. Hamburger Hafen
und Logistik AG, Hamburg.
Schäfers, H. (2012). How smart grids can be profitable and the e-harbours showcase
of hamburg. In: E-Harbours Midterm Conference, May 2012, Bruges, Belgium.
Sivill, L., Manninen, J., Hippinen, I., Ahtila, P., 2012. Success factors of energy
management in energy-intensive industries: development priority of energy
performance measurement. Int. J. Energy Res. 37 (8), 936–951.
Thollander, P., Ottosson, M., 2008. An energy efficient Swedish pulp and paper
industry–exploring barriers to and driving forces for cost-effective energy
efficiency investments. Energy Effic. 1 (1), 21–34.
Thollander, P., Ottosson, M., 2010. Energy management practices in Swedish
energy-intensive industries. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (12), 1125–1133.
Vattenfall. (2010). Investing in Hamburg's future, information on the construction
of he moorburg hard coal-fired power plant. Vattenfall Europe AG.
Vattenfall. (2012). Aus wind wird Wärme. Vattenfall Europe AG.
Verhoeven, P., 2010. A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance?
Marit. Policy Manag. 37 (3), 247–270.
Von Storch, H., Gö nnert, G., Meine, M., 2008. Storm surges—an option for Hamburg,
Germany, to mitigate expected future aggravation of risk. Environ. Sci. Policy 11
(8), 735–742.
Wiegmans, B.W., Geerlings, H., 2010. Sustainable port innovations: barriers and
enablers for successful implementation. World Rev. Intermodal Transp. Res. 3
(3), 230–250.
Wiegmans, B.W., Louw, E., 2011. Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: a new
phase at the interface? J. Transp. Geogr. 19 (4), 575–583.
Yap, W.Y., Lam, J.S.L., 2013. 80 Million-TEU container port? Sustainability issues in
port and coastal development. Ocean Coast. Manag. 71, 13–25.
Yin, R.K, 2009. Case study Research: Design and Methods, Vol. 5. Sage.