An amendment in an international treaty on shipping pollution could have profound effects on the cost of getting goods and people in and out of Alaska’s ports. Everything from the cruise industry to the cost of imported cherries could be impacted by costlier fuel.
The state of Alaska sued several defendants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. The suit is to stop enforcement of the Emissions Control Area in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. Ships in the area are required to burn low-sulfur fuel. Low-sulfur is defined as a sulfur content of less than 1,000 parts per million.
“The State seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its citizens and economy from enforcement of the ECA in the waters off the coast of Alaska,” according to a state complaint filed July 13.
Extension of emissions control to Alaska requires approval by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, the state said in its complaint. This was not done, according to the state, therefore ECA enforcement in Alaska is unconstitutional.
ECA is an amendment to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships treaty.
EPA announced the Aug. 1 deadline to convert to low-sulfur fuel in the spring of 2010.
The state said public comments indicated “no scientific basis for extending the ECA to Alaska.” The state said the EPA does not have authority to enforce an emission control area in Alaska.
The cruise industry in Alaska is pleased with Alaska’s lawsuit, said John Binkley president of the Alaska Cruise Association.
Enforcing the low-sulfur fuel rule would “cost Alaska a tremendous amount,” Binkley said. “We are glad he is standing up for Alaskans.”
If EPA and Coast Guard enforcement is not enjoined, Alaska’s cruise industry would see a direct financial hit.
“It is going to increase substantially the cost,” Binkley said. He said the industry estimates low-sulfur fuel to cost an extra $3.5 million to $5.5 million per ship, depending on the ship and itinerary.
“So it is substantial,” Binkley said. And Alaska is already an expensive destination, he said.
Binkley said cruise ships coming into Alaska are currently required to use fuel with lower sulfur content than is required and remove some sulfur from their tailpipes.
“We are already leading in scrubber technology,” Binkley said. The ECA doesn’t account for scrubbers, he said.
In some ports, cruise ships are able to plug in to shore power.
“And shut down our engines all together,” Binkley said.
Juneau currently has one cruise dock with shore power.
Binkley said low-sulfur fuel isn’t the only solution to cleaning up cruise ship emissions. Cruise ships can burn highly refined fuel in populated areas and at port or plug in to shore power, in exchange for burning lower quality fuel out at sea.
“Lets look for alternatives that achieve the same results,” Binkley said.
If the state of Alaska’s request to enjoin enforcement of low-sulfur fuel use in Alaska is turned down, the cruise industry will comply, Binkley said.
“We’ll burn more expensive fuel,” Binkley said. “But it ultimately will have an impact on the number or ships coming to Alaska. Less people will come and less ships will come.”
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (20)
Add commentEditorial or news article?
With a cruise ship lobbyist in the governor's mansion or house or dwelling or whatever, the state files a law suit with direct bearing on the health and well being of residents to save the cruise ship industry lawyer fees and the need to follow federal law. And what do readers get, an editorial or a news story which ignores the history of opposition to this industry, the state's own regulations, or opposition spokespersons. How pathetic.
Steveconn
mansion, house, dwelling, shack... Too funny.
You are right this article lacks details horribly.
I think this article was placed in the paper as an editorial because editorials don't have to be backed up facts. Sink the cruise ship industry? I think not. The cruise industry claimed the head tax was sinking their sales but did we see an increase in passengers after Parnell lowered the head tax? We did not.
The heads of the cruise ship industry are always bellyaching and I understand why. They get rich at our expense. In this case we pay for the price in air quality.
Juneau deserves cleaner air during tourist season.
From the 6/12 NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/health/diesel-fumes-cause-lung-cancer-...
"Diesel fumes cause lung cancer, the World Health Organization declared Tuesday, and experts said they were more carcinogenic than secondhand cigarette smoke.
The W.H.O. decision, the first to elevate diesel to the “known carcinogen” level, may eventually affect some American workers who are heavily exposed to exhaust. It is particularly relevant to poor countries, where trucks, generators, and farm and factory machinery routinely belch clouds of sooty smoke and fill the air with sulfurous particulates. "
The irony of our hydro electric community having to endure the insult of cruise ships belching smoke into the air we breathe is obvious to anyone who visits downtown or Douglas on a 5 ship day.
And yes, I know there is one dock where a few ships can "plug in". What about the all the others?
' Enforcing the low-sulfur fuel rule would “cost Alaska a tremendous amount,” Binkley said. “We are glad he is standing up for Alaskans.” '
Our governor is concerned about cruise ship profits when he should be concerned about Alaskans' health.
My understanding is that this
My understanding is that this isn't just a cruise industry issue. The barge companies that we all rely on will also be greatly effected by this new rule. You think it's expensive to barge something up now? Wait until the barge companies have to make the change as well.
Ferries
What type of fuel do our ferries use?
What about the local Coast Guard vessels?
Will they all be using this more expensive fuel or do they already use it?
Appreciate it if anyone can enlighten the conversation. Certainly our Ferry system and Coast Guard should comply with same standards as cruise ships.
I’m with you akbrdguru. My
I’m with you akbrdguru. My concern is the cost of doing business, food for example even fuel’ heating or gas. With the drought down south the cost of food I mean all types will be very expensive. Now let’s throw this in the mix.
Information is Good
I appreciate the thoughtful questions and comments about how EPA regs may also impact our already expensive costs for transportation, food, etc., besides hurting the cruiship industry's bottom line. Good grub for thought.
There are reasonable degrees of concern regarding the impact of a tug boat hauling a barge and 5 cruise ships idling in port for 10 hours while burning cheap fuel to generate electricity for thousands of people in their floating, self-contained small cities.
Besides the economy of sales of goods and services to our visitors, Juneau also stands to benefit by selling clean water and energy to the industry while in port. And maybe someday soon, we'll also be able to better manage how cruise ship waste adds to our growing mountain of trash.
Fuel?
To the people that think this is about low sulfer content, how naive can you be.
This about the petroleum industry raking in more profits. They point to a treaty and say this is not our doing. If you dig deep enough I wonder how much oil money you would find supporting this treaty.
It's likened to a republican candidate saying we never outsourced jobs. Yeah, believe that the next time you give your child a toy made in China covered in lead paint.American made overseas with none of that pesky safety oversight and child labor. The profits, the profits
interesting point clay, but
interesting point clay, but you make it sound as if it is "a" tug boat against every cruise ship. I'd submit that the impact of our local maritime infrastructure is far greater than you are trying to make it seem.
what i'd be curious to learn is how long this change has been in the works. the article makes it sound like there wasn't a whole lot of notice of when this change was going to take place. i'm all for cleaning up how we do things, but i take issue with the govt coming in and making a sweeping change like this without really allowing those impacted by the change to plan for it. i also wonder why they are going after the fuel, when what seems to be at issue is the exhaust. if there are ways of cleaning up the exhaust, what does it matter what they are using for fuel?
Cruisers Charge For Fuel Costs
The issue of rising fuel costs for cruise ships is ridiculous. When the oil price went to $144 / barrel a few years back the cruise industry put a $10/day surcharge on passenger tickets. When the price dropped, so did the surcharge.
Also, why can't the foreign-owned cruise industry convert to clean fuel in the US, since they pay no US taxes? When I last checked, Carnival pays 1% in taxes to all US entities, most of that going to the state of Alaska.
The free-loading cruise industry should clean up its fuel emissions AND pay fair US corporate taxes. And please quit bothering Captain Zero with your whining - he's the worst advocate you could choose for any oil issue.
Concerned, the ferries
Concerned, the ferries already use mostly Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel, (15 ppm) and occasionally Low Sulfur Diesel (500 ppm). I can't say for sure about the Coast Guard, but I would think they do as well, given that they will be one of the primary enforcers of the new rules.
ULSD 15 ppm has already been phased in for highway diesel fuel. This is why you can't buy regular diesel at the gas station. The process of changes to fuel requirements for non-road, locomotive, and marine engines began in 2004 and Low Sulfur and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel was to be phased in from 2007-2014. The changes for marine engines began to take effect in 2007.
The North American ECA actually took effect on August 1, 2011, but included a one-year grace period to give time to adapt to the new requirements. That grace period ends August 1, 2012. The EPA also adopted changes to allow for the production and sale of 1,000 ppm Low Sulfur Diesel for use in Category 3 marine vessels (large ocean vessels and ships) instead of 500 ppm, which is typical "Low Sulfur" Diesel.
The 1,000 ppm rule doesn't actually take effect until 2015. The rule that takes effect this August 1, 2012 requires 10,000 ppm.
Another issue may be the availability of fuel in the short term and the cost to refineries and suppliers (passed on to users, of course) to modify/expand their production, storage, and delivery equipment. You cannot have even one drop of a higher sulfur content fuel touch any equipment used to produce, store, and deliver say, 15 ppm fuel because the 15 ppm fuel is considered contaminated after that. Most suppliers (because of the highway diesel rules) have already converted much of their equipment to handle 15 ppm fuel.
However, there has been ample time to prepare. And this has all been approved by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). I don't think there is any getting around it.
Modified my above comment for
Modified my above comment for additional information.
Who cares about the Health of
Who cares about the Health of Alaskans!
Ports?
Have we got this covered?
Public Law 110–280
SEC. 7. RECEPTION FACILITIES.
Section 6 (33 U.S.C. 1905) is amended—
(1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(3) The Secretary and the Administrator, after consulting with appropriate Federal agencies, shall jointly prescribe regulations setting criteria for determining the adequacy of reception facilities for receiving ozone depleting substances, equipment containing such substances, and exhaust gas cleaning residues at a port or terminal, and stating any additional measures and requirements as are appropriate to ensure such adequacy. Persons in charge of ports and terminals shall provide reception facilities, or ensure that reception facilities are available, in accordance with those regulations. The Secretary and the Administrator may jointly prescribe regulations to certify, and may issue certificates to the effect, that a port’s or terminal’s facilities for receiving ozone depleting substances, equipment containing such substances, and exhaust gas cleaning residues from ships are adequate.’’…
‘‘(2) The Secretary may deny the entry of a ship to a port or terminal required by the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or regulations prescribed under this section relating to the provision of adequate reception facilities for garbage, ozone depleting substances, equipment containing those substances, or exhaust gas cleaning residues, if the port or terminal is not in compliance with the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or those regulations.’’
Thanks Colo14er
I was doing some additional checking - agree not much chance of getting around it for us but annoying that the Great Lakes region seem to have received an exemption and don't have to comply.
If it's good for us why is it not good for Great Lakes?
Also think government vessels should comply with all standards imposed on private sector.
Interesting!
concerned--Could it be that they build the Chevy Volt in that region and care more about the environment???
The rules apply to any
The rules apply to any Category 3 marine vessel while it is operating within 200 nautical miles of the U.S. coastline. This could also mean a vessel sailing from a port outside of the 200-mile zone has to obtain compliant fuel before entering into the 200-mile zone.
Although technically, a vessel may either:
(1) utilize fuel the sulphur content of which does not exceed 10,000 ppm;
(2) utilize an exhaust gas cleaning system approved by its flag Administration in accordance with IMO guidelines; or
(3) adopt any other technological method that is verifiable and enforceable and has been approved by its flag Administration in accordance with IMO guidelines (such as the use of LNG as fuel for propulsion).
Ships must also maintain detailed records regarding fuel change-overs, as well as retaining bunker delivery notes and bunker samples.
As far as exemptions, for Canada, waters of the Canadian Arctic are exempt from the rules. For the U.S., exemptions include the US Pacific territories; the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (largely unpopulated); the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; the US Virgin Islands; western Alaska (including Kodiak); the Aleutian Islands; and the U.S. Arctic.
Note that many of the cruise and container ships use a heavy grade of fuel, that isn't readily available in Alaska, as their primary fuel source. However, a number of the cruise ships already have the capability to use ULSD #2 and periodically do use it.