HB 1689
In CommitteeHouse
Emissions/vessels at berth
Adopting emission standards for ocean-going vessels at berth.
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 allows Washington to adopt California’s air pollution rules for large ships while they are docked at ports, requiring them to plug into shore power or use cleaner technologies to reduce harmful emissions. It aims to improve air quality and public health—especially for communities near ports—while supporting job creation and infrastructure investment.
- Allows the Washington State Department of Ecology to adopt California’s emission standards for ocean-going vessels while they are docked (at berth), specifically referencing Titles 13 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
- Requires vessels to use shore power (also called 'cold ironing') or other low- or zero-emission technologies while at port, to reduce diesel particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions.
- Rules must be adopted by January 1, 2028, with the Department of Ecology allowed to extend compliance deadlines by up to three years if needed.
- Clarifies that the new rules do not override existing federal or state requirements related to vessel safety, crewing, or other environmental protections.
- Cites existing state and federal funding opportunities—including the Washington State Transportation Electrification Strategy—to support implementation and infrastructure development.
Who is affected
- Shipping and maritime industry operators — Shipping companies operating ocean-going vessels at Washington ports (e.g., container ships, ferries) must comply with new emission standards requiring use of shore power or other low-emission technologies while at berth.
- Port authorities and port infrastructure operators — Ports in Washington (especially the Ports of Tacoma and Seattle) must invest in shore power infrastructure to support vessel emissions compliance, though state and federal funding is available to help cover costs.
- Residents of port-adjacent communities — People living and working near ports—especially in frontline communities—will benefit from reduced diesel particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions, lowering health risks like cancer and respiratory illness.
- Construction and electrical workforce — Workers involved in constructing, installing, and maintaining shore power systems may see increased job opportunities, with estimates suggesting hundreds of job-years across the state.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Adopting California’s stricter berth emissions standards will significantly reduce diesel particulate matter and greenhouse gas emissions in port-adjacent communities—where maritime emissions cause ~20% of Puget Sound’s diesel particulate matter and drive cancer risk—directly improving respiratory and cardiovascular health, especially for frontline communities of color and working-class residents.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3), (4)The bill leverages existing state and federal funding to support shore power infrastructure, with MARAD estimating 302–526 job-years statewide by 2050; this creates direct, local employment in construction, electrical work, and engineering—particularly beneficial for union and non-union workers in the Puget Sound region.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(9), (7)By aligning with California’s proven vessel-at-berth standards, Washington gains immediate access to a regulatory framework already validated for effectiveness in reducing emissions—accelerating climate and air quality benefits without reinventing policy, and supporting the state’s broader climate goals under the Clean Air Act.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(5), (8)The bill empowers state agencies to act on environmental justice grounds, addressing decades of disproportionate pollution burdens on port-adjacent communities—many of which are low-income and communities of color—thereby advancing equitable access to clean air as a fundamental right.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)
Potential Concerns (4)
Shipping companies and port operators must invest in costly shore power infrastructure and retrofit vessels to comply with new standards, which may increase operational costs and reduce profitability—especially for smaller or less-capitalized operators—though federal/state funding is available, access may be uneven and administrative burdens could delay implementation.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Port authorities (e.g., Ports of Tacoma and Seattle) must manage complex infrastructure upgrades and coordinate with vessel operators to ensure compliance, increasing administrative and technical workload without full cost reimbursement—despite state/federal funding, gaps remain in capital access for smaller ports or those with limited technical capacity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)Compliance timelines (effective 2028, with possible 3-year extension) and infrastructure lag may delay emission reductions, meaning some port-adjacent communities continue to face elevated health risks longer than necessary—especially if funding or permitting bottlenecks occur.
TransportationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)While the bill cites job creation, the actual employment gains depend heavily on whether local hiring clauses, apprenticeship requirements, and workforce development programs are included in implementation—none are mandated in this bill, so high-wage jobs may go to out-of-state contractors rather than Washington workers.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
Port-adjacent residents—especially in South Seattle, Tacoma’s South End, and Duwamish River corridor—will experience measurable reductions in cancer risk and respiratory illness due to lower diesel particulate matter and NOx emissions. This is a direct public health win for frontline communities.
Large shipping lines (e.g., Maersk, MSC) and terminal operators (e.g., SSA, APM Terminals) will face capital costs for shore power readiness, but may pass some costs to ports or shippers; however, early adopters (like TOTE Maritime) already demonstrate feasibility and may gain competitive advantage or avoid future regulatory penalties.
Ports of Tacoma and Seattle will need to invest in shore power infrastructure, but are well-positioned to access federal grants (e.g., NEVI, port grant programs); smaller ports (e.g., Everett, Bellingham) may face greater relative burden due to lower traffic volume and fewer economies of scale.
Local electric utilities (e.g., Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light) will see increased demand for grid upgrades and shore power connections; this could support ratepayer-funded infrastructure projects but also requires coordination to avoid grid strain during peak vessel dwell times.
Construction and electrical workers—especially union members in IBEW, UA, and carpenters’ unions—stand to gain hundreds of job-years from infrastructure build-out, but actual local hiring depends on prevailing wage, local preference, and workforce development policies not mandated in this bill.