Skip to main content

SB 5519

In Committee

Senate

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?
  1. Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
  2. Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
  3. Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
  4. Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
  5. Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
  6. Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
Introduced: January 26, 2025
Last Action: January 12, 2026
Status: S Environment, E
Companion Bill:

AI Analysis

This analysis was generated by AI and may contain errors. It is not legal advice. Always refer to the official bill text for authoritative information.
People & CommunitiesPeople-leaningCorporate & Wealthy Interests

This bill requires large commercial and government vessels to burn ultra-low-sulfur fuel while operating within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s coast to reduce harmful air pollution. It establishes strict recordkeeping, enforcement, and fee/penalty systems, and creates dedicated state accounts to fund clean port and air quality initiatives.

  • Requires ocean-going vessels to use fuel with ≤0.1% sulfur by weight (marine gas oil or marine diesel oil) while operating in regulated waters (within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s shore) starting January 1, 2028.
  • Mandates detailed recordkeeping onboard vessels—including fuel switching logs, fuel purchase records, engine specifications, and fuel system diagrams—to demonstrate compliance.
  • Allows vessel operators to pay noncompliance fees instead of switching fuels if they meet specific conditions (e.g., fuel shortage, mechanical impossibility, or ≤2 port visits/year).
  • Authorizes the Department of Ecology to collect a fee per port visit to cover program costs and to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations.
  • Requires noncompliance fees to be paid to ports (for clean port projects) or, if declined, to the state’s air quality and health disparities improvement account; civil penalties go to the natural climate solutions account.

Who is affected

  • Ocean-going vessel operatorsOcean-going vessels (e.g., large cargo ships, tankers over 400 feet or 10,000 gross tons) must switch to low-sulfur fuel (≤0.1% sulfur by weight) when operating within 3 nautical miles of Washington’s shoreline.
  • Port authoritiesPorts in Washington may receive noncompliance fees and must use those funds for port-based clean energy or emissions-reduction projects (e.g., shore power, electrification).
  • Washington residents, especially in Puget Sound communitiesResidents and workers near ports and shipping lanes benefit from reduced air pollution (e.g., fewer fine particulate emissions), improving respiratory health and environmental quality.
  • Marine fuel suppliersFuel suppliers must provide fuel meeting strict sulfur limits and keep detailed records of fuel composition and delivery for vessels operating in regulated waters.
  • Washington Department of EcologyThe Washington Department of Ecology gains new authority to enforce fuel standards, collect fees, and impose penalties for noncompliance.
Effective: January 1, 2028Fiscal impact: The bill creates a 'vessel sulfur pollution account' to receive noncompliance fees and fuel testing fees; these funds will be used to cover the Department of Ecology’s costs of implementing and enforcing the program. Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation will be deposited into the 'natural climate solutions account'. Ports may also receive fees to fund clean port projects.
Model: Intel/Qwen3-Coder-Next-int4-AutoRoundGenerated: Mar 19, 2026 at 9:02 PM

Pro/Con Analysis

Stronger case for benefits

Potential Benefits (5)
  • Reduced sulfur emissions (≤0.1% sulfur fuel) within 3 nautical miles of shore will significantly cut fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and SOx emissions near densely populated coastal communities—especially benefiting frontline communities in Puget Sound who experience disproportionate asthma and cardiovascular burden from ship pollution.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 3(1); Sec. 4(1)
  • By avoiding exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers), the bill prevents discharge of toxic wastewater into the Salish Sea, protecting marine ecosystems from heavy metal contamination and acidification. This is a direct environmental safeguard not offered by similar federal or California rules that permit scrubbers.

    EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(a); Sec. 4(3)(b)
  • Ports receiving noncompliance fees can fund shore power infrastructure and other emissions-reduction projects, enabling long-term decarbonization of port operations and reducing reliance on diesel backup generators—benefiting port workers and adjacent neighborhoods.

    Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(3)(a); Sec. 5(1)
  • Civil penalties of up to $10,000/day for violations fund the natural climate solutions account, which supports forest and wetland restoration—creating co-benefits for wildfire resilience, water quality, and carbon sequestration that protect all Washingtonians.

    Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 5(3); Sec. 6
  • Reduced air pollution near ports will lower hospitalizations for respiratory illnesses (e.g., asthma attacks), especially among children and elderly in communities like Tacoma, Everett, and Bellingham—reducing public healthcare costs and provider burden.

    HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2); Sec. 3(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
  • Vessel operators (especially smaller or less-resourced operators) face increased operational costs due to mandatory fuel switching, recordkeeping, and potential noncompliance fees or penalties. While the exemption for ≤2 port visits/year reduces burden for some, most large commercial vessels making frequent port calls will bear significant compliance costs that may be passed to shippers or consumers.

    Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 4(1)(c)
  • The noncompliance fee option creates a two-tiered compliance path: vessels with frequent port visits (e.g., large container lines) must switch fuels (costly), while infrequent visitors (e.g., cruise ships, occasional tankers) can pay fees instead—potentially giving larger, more flexible operators an advantage over smaller operators with less fuel flexibility or capital reserves.

    Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(1)(a)-(c); Sec. 5(3)
  • Port authorities receive noncompliance fees (if they opt in) to fund clean port projects, but must enter enforceable agreements with Ecology to use the funds—limiting discretion and requiring coordination. This provides new funding but adds administrative burden for port staff.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 4(2); Sec. 5(2)
  • The Department of Ecology must collect a per-port-visit fee to cover program costs, but the bill caps it at actual implementation costs—meaning no net revenue gain for the state. This ensures fiscal neutrality for state government but requires new staffing and oversight capacity.

    Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 5(2)
  • Marine fuel suppliers must provide sulfur-compliant fuel and maintain detailed records, increasing logistics and documentation costs. While this may benefit large fuel distributors with existing compliance infrastructure, smaller regional suppliers may face barriers to entry or increased operational complexity.

    Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 3(2)-(4); Sec. 4(1)

Who Is Most Affected

Ocean-going vessel operatorsNegative Impact

Large container ships, tankers, and cruise vessels operating frequently in Puget Sound will face mandatory fuel switching and recordkeeping, increasing operational costs. While some may pass costs to shippers, operators with limited fuel flexibility or older fleets may face margin pressure.

Port authoritiesPositive Impact

Ports can receive noncompliance fees to fund shore power, electrification, and emissions-reduction projects—improving local air quality and supporting long-term decarbonization goals. However, they must comply with Ecology agreements and cannot use funds for vessel-side upgrades.

Washington residents, especially in Puget Sound communitiesPositive Impact

Coastal residents, especially in Puget Sound communities near shipping lanes, benefit from reduced PM2.5, SOx, and NOx emissions—leading to fewer respiratory hospitalizations, improved quality of life, and lower public health costs. Disproportionate benefits accrue to environmental justice communities near ports.

Marine fuel suppliersMixed Impact

Marine fuel suppliers must provide ultra-low-sulfur fuel (MGO/MDO) and maintain detailed delivery records. Large national/international fuel providers are well-positioned; smaller regional suppliers may face higher compliance costs or reduced market share.

Washington Department of EcologyMixed Impact

Ecology gains enforcement authority but must establish rules, hire staff, conduct inspections, and manage appeals. The bill ensures program costs are covered by fees, but implementation requires significant upfront capacity building.

Sponsors

Senator Lovelett(Democrat)District 40Primary
Senator Dhingra(Democrat)District 45Secondary
Senator Frame(Democrat)District 36Secondary
Senator Lovick(Democrat)District 44Secondary
Senator Nobles(Democrat)District 28Secondary
Senator Saldaña(Democrat)District 37Secondary
Senator Salomon(Democrat)District 32Secondary
Senator Valdez(Democrat)District 46Secondary