HB 1652
In CommitteeHouse
Ocean vessels/environment
Reducing environmental impacts associated with the operation of certain ocean-going vessels.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires most large ocean-going vessels to use ultra-low-sulfur fuel (≤0.1% sulfur) when operating within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s coast to reduce harmful air pollution, starting January 1, 2028. It establishes recordkeeping, fee, and penalty provisions and gives the Department of Ecology authority to enforce the rule.
- Requires ocean-going vessels to use marine fuels with ≤0.1% sulfur by weight (e.g., marine gas oil or marine diesel oil meeting ISO 8217 standards) while operating in regulated waters (within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s shore) starting January 1, 2028.
- Mandates detailed recordkeeping of fuel type, sulfur content, fuel-switching procedures, and vessel position/timing for entries into and exits from regulated waters.
- Allows vessel operators to pay noncompliance fees instead of switching fuels if they meet specific conditions (e.g., unplanned redirection, lack of compliant fuel, or ≤2 port visits per year); fees must be paid to the port or, if declined, to the air quality and health disparities improvement account.
- Authorizes the Department of Ecology to adopt rules, collect administrative fees (to cover implementation costs), and impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation.
- Creates the vessel sulfur pollution account in the state treasury to hold noncompliance fees, and specifies that collected penalties go to the natural climate solutions account.
Who is affected
- Ocean-going vessel operators — Ocean-going vessels (e.g., cargo ships, tankers over 400 feet or 10,000 gross tons) must switch to low-sulfur fuel (≤0.1% sulfur) when operating within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s shore, and maintain detailed fuel and operational records.
- Port authorities — Ports in Washington may receive noncompliance fees from vessels that cannot comply with the fuel rule and must use those funds for port-based emissions-reduction projects like electrification.
- Washington residents — Washington residents benefit from reduced air pollution (especially fine particulate matter) near ports and coastal areas, improving public health outcomes.
- Marine fuel suppliers — Fuel suppliers must provide detailed sulfur content data for marine fuels used in Washington-regulated waters and may be subject to testing and record requests.
- Washington Department of Ecology — The Washington Department of Ecology gains new authority to enforce the rule, collect fees, issue penalties, and adopt implementing rules.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Reducing sulfur content in marine fuels within 3 nautical miles of shore will significantly lower emissions of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and sulfur oxides—known to cause respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and premature death—directly improving health outcomes for coastal communities near ports like Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 3(1)The requirement for ultra-low-sulfur fuel (≤0.1% S) eliminates the need for exhaust scrubbers, which discharge toxic wastewater into marine ecosystems—thus reducing secondary pollution and protecting marine life in the Salish Sea, including endangered orcas.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(a); Sec. 5Ports receiving noncompliance fees can use them for port electrification and emissions-reduction projects, enabling local governments to invest in cleaner infrastructure (e.g., shore power, zero-emission cargo equipment) that benefits surrounding communities and reduces localized pollution burdens.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(a)Civil penalties deposited into the natural climate solutions account fund broader climate mitigation efforts—potentially supporting community-level resilience projects that benefit everyday Washingtonians, especially in vulnerable regions like the Puget Sound lowlands.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(3)Mandated recordkeeping (fuel type, sulfur content, position, switching times) enables robust enforcement and transparency, empowering communities and researchers to monitor compliance and correlate pollution reductions with health metrics—strengthening accountability and public trust.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 3(2)-(4)
Potential Concerns (5)
Vessel operators (especially smaller operators making 2+ port visits/year) may face significant operational and compliance costs—including fuel-switching logistics, recordkeeping, and potential fees—even if they qualify for fee-in-lieu, because the fee structure is not capped and ports may decline fees, pushing costs to state accounts without direct relief to operators.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 4(3)(a)Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation create a high-stakes enforcement regime that disproportionately burdens vessel operators with limited compliance capacity, especially those with prior violations or in high-traffic ports—effectively internalizing regulatory risk into operating costs without offsetting support.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 5(3)The requirement that noncompliance fees be paid to ports (or redirected to state accounts) means ports must agree to accept them or risk losing flexibility—this creates administrative burden on ports and may lead to inconsistent enforcement across ports, increasing compliance uncertainty for vessel operators.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 4(2)The Department of Ecology may impose administrative fees on vessel operators to cover implementation costs, but the bill does not cap or limit these fees—meaning recurring operational costs could accumulate, especially for small or infrequent operators, without transparency on fee levels.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 5(2)The fee-in-lieu option for vessels making ≤2 port visits/year creates a two-tiered system where small-volume operators gain relief, but larger or more frequent operators face full compliance costs—this may incentivize consolidation or route-shifting to avoid Washington ports, indirectly affecting longshore and port-related jobs.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 4(1)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Coastal residents near ports (e.g., Tacoma, Everett, Bellingham) benefit from reduced PM2.5 and SOx exposure, lowering risks of asthma, heart disease, and premature mortality—especially vulnerable populations like children and the elderly.
Ocean-going vessel operators—particularly large shipping lines—will face higher fuel and compliance costs (e.g., switching to MGO/MDO, recordkeeping, potential fees), but may pass some costs to shippers; smaller operators with ≤2 port visits/year gain fee-in-lieu relief.
Ports (e.g., Port of Tacoma, Port of Seattle) gain authority to use noncompliance fees for electrification and emissions-reduction projects, enabling cleaner operations and improved community relations—but must manage administrative burden and potential revenue variability.
Marine fuel suppliers must provide sulfur content data and may face increased demand for ultra-low-sulfur fuels, potentially requiring supply chain adjustments—but the market shift aligns with global IMO 2020 standards, easing compliance for major suppliers.
The Department of Ecology gains new rulemaking and enforcement authority, increasing its regulatory scope—but must allocate resources to implement monitoring, testing, and penalty collection, which could strain existing staff without additional funding.