The Department for Transport (DfT) released its response to the Net Zero Ports Call for Evidence on 4 September 2026, confirming a decisive policy shift: the government will not introduce a standalone at‑berth emissions requirement for UK ports.

Policy shift confirmed

The DfT’s response states that “the Department is now minded not to introduce a standalone at‑berth emissions requirement on ports”. Instead, the government will address berth‑side greenhouse‑gas emissions through two existing levers – the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) and forthcoming maritime fuel regulations that apply to ships and their operators. The department argues that regulating ships and operators is “the simplest and most effective way forward while minimising administrative burdens on ports”.

This announcement follows the earlier National Policy Statement for Ports, which focused on capacity and investment. The new focus on emissions marks the first time the DfT has explicitly ruled out a dedicated at‑berth rule in favour of broader market‑based mechanisms.

How the UK ETS will be used

The UK ETS already covers power generation, industry and aviation. Extending it to berth‑side emissions means that the carbon output associated with ships while they are docked will be accounted for under the scheme. The DfT’s wording suggests that the emissions from ships at berth will be captured by allocating allowances to the vessels or their operators, rather than to the port facilities themselves.

By shifting the compliance burden onto ship owners, the department hopes to avoid the “administrative burdens on ports” that a separate at‑berth rule would create. For port operators, this could mean less paperwork and fewer on‑site monitoring requirements. However, the DfT did not publish details on how allowances will be calculated, how compliance will be verified, or what price signals will be applied to encourage lower‑carbon fuels at berth.

Upcoming maritime fuel regulations

In parallel with the ETS extension, the DfT signalled that new maritime fuel regulations are in the pipeline. These rules will target the type of fuel used by ships when they are docked, aiming to reduce sulphur and carbon intensity. The exact timing of the regulations was not disclosed in the response, but the department described them as “forthcoming”.

The combination of ETS coverage and stricter fuel standards is intended to create a two‑pronged approach: a market price on carbon emissions and a technical requirement on fuel quality. Together they should drive ship owners to adopt cleaner fuels or invest in on‑shore electricity for shore‑power connections, without imposing direct reporting duties on port authorities.

Industry reaction

The British Ports Association (BPA) issued a statement welcoming the decision. While the association praised the avoidance of a dedicated at‑berth rule, it also flagged reservations about how the ETS will be implemented for berth‑side emissions. The BPA noted that “the simplest and most effective way forward” hinges on clear guidance from the DfT on allowance allocation and verification methods.

Founded in 1992, the BPA represents the interests of the UK’s major commercial ports. Its reaction underscores a broader industry view: ports prefer regulatory approaches that keep compliance costs low and avoid duplicative reporting, but they need certainty on the mechanics of any ETS extension.

Implications for UK ports and shipping operators

  • Reduced direct regulatory load on ports: By not imposing a separate at‑berth rule, ports will not have to develop new monitoring infrastructure or submit additional emissions data to the DfT.
  • Compliance shifted to ship owners: Vessels will likely need to purchase carbon allowances or demonstrate fuel‑quality compliance, aligning their costs with those of other ETS‑covered sectors.
  • Potential for shore‑power uptake: If ETS pricing makes carbon‑intensive fuels expensive, ports that can provide on‑shore electricity may see increased demand for electric berthing.
  • Uncertainty around ETS mechanics: The DfT has not yet detailed how berth‑side emissions will be measured, how allowances will be allocated, or what the compliance timeline will be.
  • Future fuel standards: The forthcoming maritime fuel regulations could impose limits on sulphur content or mandate low‑carbon fuels, but the exact specifications remain to be published.

For shipping operators, the shift means that emissions costs will be embedded in the broader ETS market price, potentially increasing operating expenses if carbon prices rise. Operators may also need to adjust fuel procurement strategies to meet upcoming fuel standards.

What remains unknown

The DfT’s response does not provide a timetable for the maritime fuel regulations, nor does it explain the methodology for calculating berth‑side emissions under the ETS. Key questions that industry stakeholders are likely to press include:

  • When will the detailed guidance on ETS allocation for ships at berth be published?
  • Will there be a grace period for ports and operators to adapt to the new regime?
  • How will the DfT ensure that the ETS price signal is strong enough to drive a shift to cleaner fuels?
  • What enforcement mechanisms will accompany the forthcoming fuel regulations?

Until these details are clarified, ports will have to plan for two possible scenarios: a smooth transition where ETS compliance is straightforward, or a more complex rollout that could require additional reporting or infrastructure investment.

Context within recent port policy coverage

Earlier this month, the DfT also published a revised National Policy Statement for Ports, which removed the national‑shortage test for new port projects. That change opened the door for new infrastructure development but did not address emissions. The current policy shift therefore adds an environmental dimension to the broader reform agenda, signalling that the government is willing to use existing market mechanisms rather than bespoke rules to meet its Net Zero commitments for the maritime sector.

Analysts note that the DfT’s approach mirrors the broader UK climate strategy, which favours integrating sectors into the ETS rather than creating a patchwork of sector‑specific mandates. Whether this will deliver the emissions reductions needed for the UK’s 2050 net‑zero target remains to be seen, but the move does remove an immediate regulatory hurdle for ports.

Looking ahead

Stakeholders will be watching for the DfT’s next set of publications – the detailed ETS guidance and the maritime fuel regulation draft – to gauge the practical impact on port operations and shipping costs. The British Ports Association has indicated it will continue to engage with the department to ensure that any ETS implementation is transparent and proportionate.

In the meantime, UK ports can prepare by reviewing their existing emissions monitoring systems, assessing the feasibility of shore‑power installations, and modelling the potential cost impact of ETS‑linked carbon pricing on berth‑side activities.

The policy shift announced on 4 September 2026 therefore represents both a relief – no separate at‑berth rule – and a new set of strategic decisions for the sector as it navigates the evolving carbon‑pricing landscape.