AI-powered community news covering local government, public meetings, and community issues across Alaska.
Alaska
Alaska House panel advances ban on heavy fuel oil for cruise ships | Alaska News
Alaska House panel advances ban on heavy fuel oil for cruise ships
Frame from "House Transportation, 4/21/26, 1pm" · Source
PublishedAI
Alaska House panel advances ban on heavy fuel oil for cruise ships
by Alaska NewsMay 11, 2026(1h ago)5 min readJuneau, AK, USA
Share
The Alaska House Transportation Committee voted 4-3 Tuesday to adopt a committee substitute for House Bill 366 that would ban heavy petroleum fuel oil on large cruise ships operating in state waters. The committee held the bill for further discussion and did not vote to move it from committee.
The committee substitute, version G, applies only to commercial passenger vessels carrying 250 or more overnight passengers. That is a change from the original bill, which would have covered all vessels. The measure would prohibit the use of heavy fuel oil in Alaska's coastal waters, with exemptions for emergencies, vessels unable to convert when the law takes effect, and vessels in continuous transit through Alaska waters without entering ports or waterways.
Co-chair Rep. Ashley Carrick said the committee substitute reflected the sponsor's original intent and was adopted first to avoid confusion about what the committee should discuss.
Rep. Sara Hannan introduced the bill on February 23, 2026, as part of the final day for individual legislators to introduce bills. The measure was referred to the House Transportation and Finance Committees. Hannan said she brought the legislation forward after hearing from Alaskans concerned about health and environmental risks associated with heavy fuel oil. Heavy fuel oil is a byproduct of the refining process that contains high concentrations of toxic pollutants, she said. Ninety-seven percent of the bunker fuel used in Alaska comes from large cruise ships equipped with exhaust scrubber systems, which mix toxic exhaust with seawater and discharge the mixture into the ocean.
The committee substitute was adopted after Rep. Kevin McCabe objected, questioning why the bill targets cruise ships that bring millions of dollars to Southeast Alaska's economy.
"I am concerned why we are targeting all of a sudden a cruise ship industry that brings millions, if not more, dollars to Southeast Alaska," McCabe said. "Why are we singling them out?"
Hannan responded that large cruise ships spend far more time in Alaska waters than other vessels. A container ship spends roughly 170 hours in the emissions control area of Southeast and Southcentral Alaska, while a medium cruise ship spends over 3,270 hours in Alaskan waters, she said. When questioned, Hannan said she did not know whether that figure included time at port or only underway hours.
Dr. Morgan Powers, an aquatic ecotoxicologist based in Anchorage, testified that scrubber discharge contains toxic hydrocarbons and metals including vanadium, copper, and lead. A single large commercial passenger vessel can discharge the equivalent of more than five swimming pools of contaminated water per hour, she said. The discharge is chemically complex, devoid of oxygen, and acidic.
This article was drafted with AI assistance and reviewed by editors before publishing. Every claim can be verified against the original transcript. If you spot an error, let us know.
Powers said her research shows that cold water embryonic forage fish are highly sensitive to hydrocarbons at concentrations an order of magnitude lower than those measured in scrubber discharge. Oil droplets can stick to fish eggs, creating continuous exposure. These exposed fish hatch with deformities of their heart, jaws, and spine, which impairs their ability to feed and survive, she said.
Published toxicity studies of scrubber discharge show harmful effects at extremely dilute concentrations, particularly on sensitive organisms such as zooplankton and larval stages of benthic invertebrates, Powers said. Adverse effects on reproduction and development of several plankton species have been observed at sample dilutions as low as 1 part per million.
Linda Benken of the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association supported the bill, saying the cruise industry's use of heavy fuel oil threatens Alaska's seafood reputation. Over 6,000 people in Southeast Alaska work in the seafood industry, which generates $887 million in annual first wholesale value, she said.
"If Alaska wants to continue to market its seafood as coming from pristine waterways, it is in all of our interest to ensure we protect against extreme and toxic pollutants," Benken said.
Emily Edenshaw, CEO and Tribal Administrator of Ketchikan Indian Community, testified that Ketchikan expects more than 2 million cruise ship visitors this year. That is the size of Phoenix coming to a 38-mile island, she said. Edenshaw said the bill addresses a public health issue for Alaska Native communities that rely heavily on fish and marine resources.
Hannan said switching to marine gas oil would cost approximately $3.50 per passenger per day, according to a 2024 economic report. All large cruise ships already carry the cleaner fuel because they are required to use it in certain ports, including Glacier Bay, Vancouver, Puget Sound, and California, she said.
McCabe noted that marine gas oil is 35 to 50 percent more expensive than bunker fuel, which explains why cruise ships continue using the heavier fuel. He also pointed out that there are different types of scrubbers: open-loop systems that discharge into water and closed-loop systems that store waste for disposal at port.
Hannan said the legislation would eliminate the need for scrubbers because ships would no longer be burning bunker fuel. Scrubbers are used to moderate the pollutants that bunker fuel creates, she said.
The bill would allow the Department of Environmental Conservation to issue fines for violations and to exempt large commercial passenger vessels operating before January 1, 2030, if at the time the law takes effect they are not equipped to convert to using an alternative fuel source. The department would also gain authority to monitor and record data related to large commercial passenger vessels in applicable waters.
Gene McCabe, Director of the Division of Water at DEC, testified that the Environmental Protection Agency's Vessel General Permit sets standards for liquid scrubber discharge and that reporting goes directly to EPA through an electronic portal. The standard EPA sets is the same for all vessels, with no Alaska-specific standard for the liquid portion of the discharge, he said.
Jason Olds, Division Director for Air Quality at DEC, testified that the department's indeterminate fiscal note was based on the prior version of the bill that covered all vessels. He said the department would submit an updated fiscal note following adoption of the committee substitute that narrowed the scope to large commercial passenger vessels.
Sections 1 through 4 of the bill would take effect January 1, 2027, according to staff testimony.
The committee substitute defines applicable waters as the Alexander Archipelago, navigable waters of the United States within Alaska, and the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. Heavy petroleum fuel oil is defined as any marine fuel with viscosity greater than 380 centistokes or sulfur content exceeding 0.1 percent by weight.
The bill does not apply to vessels in continuous transit through Alaska waters without entering ports or waterways, or to vessels using heavy fuel oil in emergencies or to render assistance.
Stay informed. Support what matters.
Free, permanent access to local news you can verify. Subscribe to support Alaska News and go ad-free.
Comments
Sign in to leave a comment.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.