Alaska Marine Lines will not have to change its operations in response to marine pollution control standards implemented August 1.
“The diesel fuel we burn and the engines we burn it in already meet [Emission Control Area] rules,” Dave Curtis, VP of marketing for Alaska Marine Lines said. “We are using diesel that is cleaned up, that has had a lot of the sulfur removed.”
ECA is an amendment to MARPOL (marine pollution) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships treaty. A treaty between the U.S. and Canada allows the countries to establish Emissions Control Areas along their coasts and is recognized by the United Nations.
The EPA was tasked with the enforcement of sulfur levels in certain marine fuel at 10,000 ppm on Aug. 1, which will then be reduced to 1,000 ppm by 2015.
The state of Alaska sued several defendants, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In its complaint, the State listed two primary ways the pollution requirements could affect its interests. Low-sulfur fuel is more expensive and would increase the cost of goods the State imports and would reduce royalty payments and production taxes it receives from oil companies. The rule would also increase costs of goods shipped to Alaskans and raise costs for the cruise industry.
The cruise industry has come out in favor of the State’s lawsuit. Alaska’s cruise industry was required to upgrade its bunker fuel to meet ECA standards – a move that is expected to cost the industry millions.
AML provides regular and seasonal service throughout Southeast and Central Alaska. Fuel prices have a major impact on the price of shipping, second only to personnel costs, Curtis said.
“I look at the price of diesel every morning,” Curtis said. “If we were building houses for a living, fuel would be our lumber.”
While the shipper hasn’t had a direct impact from the new fuel requirements, Curtis said ECA enforcement is bad for all Alaskans.
“When the cruise industry is impacted, it impacts all of us,” Curtis said. If ticket prices go up, cruise passengers purchase fewer goods, which results in fewer goods to ship, he said.
While AML has paid all along to burn cleaner fuel, other shippers, he said have had to adjust to the new low-sulfur rules.
Totem Ocean Trailer Express announced in early August that it received a permit from the EPA to waive ECA requirements while it converts two of its vessels to burn liquefied natural gas.
This can have carry-on effects for Alaska’s economy.
“It is the guy who buys the gallon of milk at the end who pays,” Curtis said. “Having that big populated part of the state pay higher costs could trickle down to all.”
• Contact reporter Russell Stigall at 523-2276 or at russell.stigall@juneauempire.com.
Comments (20)
Add commentCruise lines need to cooperate
So it appears AML can meet their clean air obligations, the states ferry system can burn low sulfur fuel, fishing boats and land vehicles can afford the low sulfur fuel, but lets not make the cruise industry comply. It might reduce their profit level by some miniscule margin. Especially if they resist, and burn millions in law suits, fines and other legal expenses.
In the mean time, the tour industry appears to be the largest polluter in SE Alaska. No other ships leave such dense clouds of black smoke behind. And the tour buses...do they burn special cheap high sulfur fuel? They really stink, far worse than other locally owned trucks. Maybe it's just a lack of maintenance.
The cruise industry needs to become a better corporate citizen.
Baloney
Fast Ferry is greatest polluter in southeast. Commercial fisherman pollute as well. If your serious about your beliefs in pollution make commercial fishermen burn same fuel and actually police their illegal discharging of waste.
The question should be does this new policy actually make a difference? Why were Great Lakes exempted (answer is Obama wanted Michigan and Wisconsin's votes and didn't want the bad press of hurting their economies with policies that make no difference.)
Oh and Canada is not complying on west coast. So this is a treaty where only Alaska has to comply. Great leadership.
"the State listed two primary
"the State listed two primary ways the pollution requirements could affect its interests".
notice how the health & welfare of Alaskans never registers as an interest for Parnell.
"It is the guy who buys the
"When the cruise industry is impacted, it impacts all of us,” Curtis said. If ticket prices go up"......
"It is the guy who buys the gallon of milk at the end who pays,” Curtis said"
**********************************************************************
No Curtis, actually its our kids futures, future Alaskans that will be paying the price. Who gives a crap about tickets costing a bit more and the fact that YOU might make a little less money or the fact that we all will have to pay a bit more for milk. Come on!
Think bigger, think about what all this means to our kids and their future!
Our kids are worth all of us doing whatever it takes now. We have no choice, it is our obligation - to "pay it forward" for them.
Sean Parnell has his administration, our state, smack down on the wrong side of history,
because we should all be in this together and paying it forward.
If we are all in this together then let us not exempt
the citizens of one state over another otherwise this "we're all in it together" argument begins and ends at Alaska's shores and carries as much water as a paperweight. I don't buy into this 'pay it forward' dogma as The Great Lakes are allowed to remain unsafe for swimming or fishing while the engines and smokestacks of maritime industry are left unscathed.
hmmm...
What about ships that have top-of-the-line scrubbers? If we are concerned about what's coming out of the pipe, I think we should be more concerned on that. Yes, fuel can result in some nasty exhaust, but there's also a way to clean that exhaust.
I wish the feds would do a much better job at some of these regulations. this just goes back to overall world pollution.. why is China always exempt from them, despite being THE largest polluter?!?!
Because Americans have cornered the market on
feeling the planet's pain.
AML
So this regulation won't cost AML any more. Good to know.
Mr. Curtis should have shut his mouth at that point. Blabbing on about cruise tickets and the price of a gallon of milk are purely opinion on his part, and beyond his expertise.
The big gray turds the cruise ships leave in the sky downtown affect the health of Juneauites. And the smog trails they leave behind them as they cruise are disgusting. They're dumping their waste into OUR sky. So it costs a few more bucks for some tourist to buy a ticket. And maybe it even means they buy one less tee-shirt or smaller diamond earings. I don't care. My clean air is worth more than that.
And yet Canada is shipping us via the Taku River
their mine toxins. Have to wonder what direction the prevailing winds are blowing in this trade-off?
Or,
lattie, they could just quit coming to Juneau and all of your angst will melt away. That would make some of us happy. But, knowing you from the comments made day after day by you I seriously doubt that you would be any happier.
Don't know what AML's whining
Don't know what AML's whining about lower sulfur fuel is about. They add a fuel surcharge to everything they carry, so it costs them nothing whatever happens.
wrong denny
I'm happy the cruise ships come and dump off 1.2 million people to spend money in our fair city. I just want their impacts to be minimized.
I'll leave the corporate boot-licking to you.
Post removed due to inaccuracies.
***
Huh Ken?
When Franklin was around, Alaska was Russian territory. We didn't inherit the border until the Alaska purchase in 1867.
Franklin was obviously a genius, but expecting him to foresee the purchase of Alaska from Russia nearly 100 years later is a lot to ask.
Lat: I stand corrected. The S.E. border confrontation was
settled otherwise. Canada's claim would have actually swallowed Haines and the rest of S.E. Diplomacy won out and the recognized border was pushed back to where it is now.
Sorry, I was relying on a trusted source. Lesson learned. Trust but verify. It was my fault for including S.E. Alaska border in that mindset.
Ben Franklin was only making vague assurances to the French that America would not intervene with their dispute with Britain over disputed British territory in lieu of France's pending economic calamities.
My acquaintance was mixing things up with the Treaty of Paris of 1763 and and the end of the Revolutionary War when Ben Franklin had to make amends for leaving the French out of the secret negotiations with the British Empire, coupled with the Canadians.
But the buck stops here. My bad.
I will remove that post.
Concerned is mis-informed
The ferries, including the fast ferries, already use low sulfur fuel. And low sulfur fuel is all that's available to the local fishing fleet.
Not to Defend the cruise ships
it is better now with the cruise ships running smaller ships and " plugging in " when they hit juneau. But the Blue haze the hangs around Southeast is gross, no wonder they move from port to port at night.
And for Baloney's statement about commercial fisherman, maybe You should ask what type of motors they have in there boat, most of them have replaced the old fuel guzzlers with teir two and three fuel efficient, low sulfer, motors already. I do agree back in the day of the old 671 and volvo's they had a problem but know not so much.
balderdash
As for this cost increase to all Alaskans I say there is a shell game going on folks. To begin with not everything coming into Alaska comes by boat. Aircraft and trucking do bring freight into parts of the state. All this boat freight got from the suppliers to the ships and goes from the ships to the stores by truck. So a lot of the fuel being used is not going to be affected.
I see this just like the cruise industry plays the game: a five dollar passenger tax becomes the justification to increase passenger cruise cost by $ 20. The additional $ 15 becomes added profits.
I'd like some real number to see what the additional cost would actually be for fuel cost on the ship coming from say Tacoma to Juneau and return. Then show how that relates to the thousands of tons of actual freight in terms of added cost per pound.
In the past it has been shown over and over that the surcharges for fuel charged to customers has generated increased profits far above the increase in fuel. I believe this smoke and mirror over low surfer fuel will turn out to be the same bilking of the customers. Fuel prices increase and instantly there is a fuel surcharge then when fuel prices decrease it seem to take months after the decrease to drop the surcharges.
This is about AML. And
This is about AML. And speaking of AML, this is why they charge so much.
They get all the accolades while their (do I have to say this?) "customers" go broke paying for freight and AML's fuel (by way of the fuel surcharge).
Yes, not only do we pay the freight charges, we also buy their fuel. Rip offs.......
While I cringe when I pay
While I cringe when I pay more for basically everything here, I think of it as paying to enjoy this amazing place we choose to live in. I wouldn't even dream of living downsouth (or farther north).