EVIDENCE
Initiative · working concept · proposed open standard
Energy Port
Standard
Stop moving joules.
Deliver kilowatts.
A proposed open infrastructure standard for connecting mobile generation to coastal power demand. Generation is becoming more modular and potentially more mobile. The shore-side interface is still redesigned almost every time.
GENERATION SHOULD BE ABLE TO FOLLOW DEMAND
WEBSITEExplains the idea
GITHUBDevelops the technical concept
SOCKET MATTERSThe weekly book explains why
01 / THE PROBLEM
We standardized the grid.
We did not standardize the shore.
Conventional chain
Fuel extractionMaritime transportUnloadingInland transportFixed power plantTransmission gridConsumer
What if we change what we transport?
Alternative architecture
Mobile generationMaritime transportStandardized coastal connectionLocal power demand
This does not automatically make the second chain cheaper. Its economics depend on location, load, grid constraints, generator technology, fuel logistics and the cost of delay. Generation mobility creates an alternative architecture that deserves systematic evaluation.
02 / THE INTERFACE
Mobility without interoperability is just another bespoke project.
THE PLUG
Mobile generating asset
Floating generation, modular plants, batteries and future technologies.
EPS
THE SOCKET
Energy Port
The standardized boundary between mobile generation and the local energy system.
03 / OPEN TECHNICAL WORK
The standard is being developed in public.
Energy Port Standard is currently a working technical concept. We are publishing it early because an infrastructure standard should be challenged by the people who may eventually have to design, build, connect, operate and regulate it.
Read it. Challenge it. Improve it.01
Working Concept
The current EPS concept and proposed scope.
Open on GitHub ↗02Interface Boundary
What belongs in the standard—and what remains site-specific engineering.
Review the boundary ↗03Open Questions
Questions that still need evidence and expert review.
Challenge the questions ↗CURRENT STATUSWorking concept: v0.1
DEVELOPMENTOpen
TECHNICAL REVIEWIn progress
FIRST USE CASESeeking
IDEAWORKING CONCEPTPUBLIC REVIEWEVIDENCEREVISIONFUTURE SPECIFICATION
The first version is supposed to be wrong. Its purpose is to expose assumptions early enough for engineers and market participants to challenge them. Future revisions should reflect evidence, technical review and real use cases.
04 / PROPOSED SCOPE
Standardize the boundary.
Not the whole power system.
The scope remains under development and review. EPS seeks to define repeatable interface requirements—not prescribe complete assets or eliminate project engineering.
EPS MAY STANDARDIZE
- 01Electrical interface requirements
- 02Voltage and frequency compatibility
- 03Protection philosophy and synchronization
- 04Control interfaces and SCADA integration
- 05Communications and cybersecurity
- 06Metering and settlement
- 07Safety boundaries and connection procedures
- 08Compatibility documentation and conformity
EPS WOULD NOT STANDARDIZE
- —The complete generator or local grid
- —The entire port and its civil works
- —Marine structures for every site
- —Environmental and regulatory conditions
- —All site-specific engineering
Standardized engineering, not no engineering.
Every Energy Port will still require engineering. The purpose is to define repeatable interfaces, responsibilities and compatibility requirements so engineers do not start from a blank sheet every time.
05 / WORKING REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE
An Energy Port is not simply a cable connection.
It is the shore-side system required to safely receive power from compatible mobile generation. The architecture is not final.
01Marine interface
02Electrical connection
03Protection
04Controls
05Metering
06Cybersecurity
07Operations
08Local grid integration
06 / THE ENERGY DISTRICT
A socket alone is not enough.
An Energy District is a working reference idea for a local group of loads supplied through an Energy Port.
Industrial sites, ports, mines, data centres, remote communities, construction projects and infrastructure clusters are areas to investigate—not confirmed markets.
07 / SYSTEMS LOGIC
Separate what we know
from what we need to test.
HYPOTHESIS
Some of that engineering can become repeatable.
A neutral boundary may reduce bespoke work and improve compatibility.VISION
One socket. Many plugs.
Compatible generators could compete to serve compatible locations over time.Generator AGenerator BGenerator C
EPS COMPATIBILITYEnergy Port 1Energy Port 2Energy Port 3
This is a long-term market-forming hypothesis, not a current deployment.
08 / WHY OPEN
Open specification.
Real engineering.
The objective is not a proprietary connector controlled by one vendor. A useful interface needs participation from generator companies, ports, utilities, EPCs, engineers and regulators. The technical work is therefore public from the beginning.
OPENSpecification, interface definitions, technical discussion and compatibility requirements.
POTENTIAL FUTURE SERVICESEngineering, reference designs, conformity assessment, certification, software and operations. None of these programs exists today.
09 / CURRENT WORK
This is an investigation,
not a finished standard.
The technical work has started publicly. EPS working concept v0.1 is available for issue-based review.
01Define the EPS interface boundary
02Map requirements that should be standardized
03Separate interfaces from site-specific engineering
04Review mobile-generator compatibility
05Identify real demand cases
06Test economics against alternatives
07Collect criticism through the public repository
08Develop successive EPS concept versions
Read the evolving technical material on GitHub ↗
10 / OPEN QUESTIONS
The useful criticism is the criticism that can kill the idea.
01
Which electrical parameters belong in the standard?
02
Where should generator responsibility end?
03
How much engineering can realistically become repeatable?
04
Which technologies can share one interface?
05
What certification model would be credible?
06
Where can mobile generation beat the alternatives?
If part of the concept is technically wrong, we would rather find out now than after concrete has been poured. These questions are tracked in the public EPS repository.
Review open questions ↗11 / CONTRIBUTE
Help test the boundary.
TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTION
Review the technical work.
For electrical, power-system and marine engineers, EPC specialists, generator manufacturers, operators, classification experts, cybersecurity specialists and regulators.
Open an Issue, challenge the scope, question an assumption or identify an existing standard that already solves part of the problem.
Review the technical work ↗USE CASE / COMMERCIAL DISCUSSION
Suggest a real use case.
For industrial consumers, ports, infrastructure developers, utilities, project developers and generator operators.
Describe the location, demand, alternatives and constraints that EPS would have to address.
Suggest a use case ↗HOW TO CONTRIBUTE
You do not need to write code to contribute.
- Open an Issue
- Point us to an IEC, IEEE, ISO or class requirement
- Challenge an interface assumption
- Suggest a real use case
- Identify a missing discipline
- Propose a change to the concept
12 / THE WEEKLY BOOK
The repository shows what we are building.
Socket Matters explains why.
Socket Matters is a book published online, one chapter each week. It follows the history, reasoning, economics, mistakes and development behind Energy Port Standard.
It is a separate narrative: not the specification, not a pitch deck and not a substitute for the technical repository.
Stop moving joules.
Deliver kilowatts.
We are building the socket for mobile power.
Energy Port Standard is a proposed open standard and working initiative.