Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
04/21/2026 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB366 | |
| HB302 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 302 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 2026
1:39 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS ABSENT
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
WITNESS REGISTER
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:39:54 PM
CO-CHAIR TED EISCHEID called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:39 p.m. Representatives Stutes,
Nelson, Gina, St. Clair, McCabe, Carrick, and Eischeid were
present at the call to order.
1:41:11 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 366, "An Act relating to the use of
heavy petroleum fuel oil as a marine fuel; relating to the
duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
1:42:00 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK moved to adopt CS for HB 366, Version G.
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:42:40 PM
}REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN* Alaska State Legislature* Juneau,
Alaska* As prime sponsor, presented HB 366.{ as prime sponsor,
presented HB 366. She deferred to staff to present summary of
changes.
1:43:09 PM
}HUNTER MEACHUM* Staff to Rep. Hannan* City & State* {
presented the summary of changes in CS.
1:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE G. NELSON asked for definition
MS. MEACHUM clarified that CS would replace "vessel" with "large
commercial passenger vessel"
1:44:47 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID removed his objection
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected
He explained his objection. Expressed concern with targeting
the cruise ship industry, which brings millions of dollars to
Southeast Alaska.
1:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE G. NELSON echoed REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE comments,
and asked for further clarification regarding the change in
"vessel" definition
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained the reasoning...
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID clarified...
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN "large commercial passenger vessel" has at
least 250 paying passengers qualifies
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about hours spent
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN emissions control area in Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska and will follow up...
1:49:46 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK CS reflects original intention of the bill
sponsor and that is why the committee would like to adopt it
first.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained objection...
roll call
passed! adopted!
1:51:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, as prime sponsor, presented the sponsor
statement for HB 366, Version G [hard copy included in the
committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
HB 366 proposes to restrict large commercial passenger
vessels from using heavy petroleum
fuel oil (HFO) in Alaska waters.
HFO is a byproduct of the oil refining process. It is
commonly referred to as "bunker fuel" and
is dense, viscous, and contains high concentrations of
toxic pollutants that have climate change
implications and pose serious risks to marine
ecosystems and human health.
The overwhelming majority of HFO used in Alaska comes
from large cruise ships equipped
with exhaust scrubber systems, which are required when
using HFO to meet both the 2015
North American Emission Control Area requirements and
the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO) global sulfur limits implemented
in 2020. Although these systems allow
vessels to work around emission standards, none of
them eliminate the serious harm caused by
using HFO. Open-loop scrubbers mix toxic exhaust with
seawater and then discharge that
mixture into our waters.
Every large cruise ship calling on Alaska ports
already has the capability to operate using
alternative fuels such as marine gas oil (MGO). Many
vessels including several large cruise
ships, small cruise ships, and the Alaska Marine
Highway ferries already use cleaner
alternative fuels. MGO is a low-sulfur distillate fuel
and does not need to be pre-heated to be
pumped and burned. It is widely available in Alaska
and along global navigational routes.
According to a 2024 economic report prepared by Energy
and Environmental Research
Associates, LLC., requiring large cruise operators to
switch to MGO amounts to approximately
$3.50 per day per passenger or a 2.1 percent increase
in daily fuel costs.
Passage of this important legislation will help to
protect and sustain our ways of life, fisheries,
livelihoods, and the pristine natural environment
unique to our state.
I would be grateful for your support of HB 366.
1:54:29 PM
MS. MEACHUM, on behalf of Representative Hannan, prime sponsor,
gave the sectional analysis for HB 366, Version G [hard copy
included in the committee file], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1: AS 30 is amended by adding Chapter 35 on
Marine Fuel.
AS 30.35.010: Prohibits the use of heavy petroleum
fuel oil in an auxiliary engine or main engine on a
large commercial passenger vessel operating within the
navigable waters of the United States within the State
of Alaska, the waters of the Alexander Archipelago,
and within the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve.
AS 30.35.020: The heavy petroleum fuel oil
restrictions do not apply to a large commercial
passenger vessel during an ocean-going voyage that
consists of continuous and expeditious navigation
through applicable waters for the purpose of
traversing the applicable waters without entering
navigable river or waterways within the state or an
arm of the sea or ocean that expends inland to meet
the mouth of a river.
The prohibition also does not apply to a large
commercial passenger vessel using heavy petroleum fuel
oil in an emergency, to avoid imminent emergency, or
for the purpose of rendering assistance to a person,
vessel, or aircraft in danger or distress.
AS 30.35.030: The Department of Environmental
Conservation is granted the authority to issue fines
that a person may be required to pay for operating a
large commercial passenger vessel using heavy
petroleum fuel oil in an auxiliary engine or main
engine.
AS. 30.35.050: Defines the following:
1. Applicable waters means the waters of the Alexander
Archipelago and the
navigable waters of the United States within the State
of Alaska and within
the Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
2. Heavy petroleum fuel oil means any marine fuel that
has a viscosity greater
than 380 centistokes or a sulfur content that exceeds
0.1 percent by weight.
3. Large Commercial Passenger Vessel means a
commercial passenger vessel
that provides overnight accommodations for 250 or more
passengers for hire,
determined with reference to the number of lower
berths.
Sec. 2: AS 46.03.020(15): Amends the powers of the
Department of Environmental
Conservation so that it can monitor, observe, and
record data and information related
to large commercial passenger vessels in applicable
waters.
Sec. 3: Amends uncodified law by adding a section to
require the Department of
Environmental Conservation to report to the
legislature detailing implementation of
section 1.
Sec. 4: Amends uncodified law to allow for the
Department of Environmental Conservation to exempt a
large commercial passenger vessel operating before
January 1, 2030, from the heavy petroleum fuel oil
requirements laid out in section 1 if at the time
section 1
takes effect, the large commercial passenger vessel is
not equipped to convert to using an alternative fuel
source.
Sec. 5: Amends uncodified law to allow for the
Department of Environmental Conservation to adopt
regulations necessary to implement the heavy petroleum
fuel oil restrictions.
Sec. 6: Section 5 takes effect immediately.
Sec. 7: Sections 1-4 take effect January 1, 2027.
1:58:39 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced invited testimony.
1:59:03 PM
}DR. MORGAN POWERS, Environmental Consultant* Fjord & Fish
Sciences* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 366.{
she described her experience growing up in the aftermath of the
Exon Valdez oil spill in southcentral Alaska. She described her
work and, based on the science she studies, testified in support
of HB 366. She described the short-term and long-term impacts
of heavy fuel oil on coastlines. She explained that although
lighter?? fuels still have negative environmental impacts, a
spill could be addressed more effectively and quickly.
scrubber discharge effects...
more...
2:04:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE
population impact on SE AK marine life due to scrubber discharge
DR. POWERS stated that there have been no studies in southeast
alaska, but there is in washington...
and baltic sea...
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about scrubber discharge versus oil
spills
DR. POWERS stated that crude oil and heavy fuel oil are rather
similar, but crude oil is more viscous. Meanwhile, scrubber
discharge also contains a toxic mixture of...
2:08:34 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID
DR. POWERS, in response to a question from
described the process of biomagnification and explained that not
all contaminants are digested in the same way.
she stated that there are hydro-carbons, potentially toxic, in
fish and marine mammals across Southeast Alaska waters.
2:11:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR
DR. POWERS
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that the EPA regulates scrubber
wastewater, but calls for scrubber constituents, such as cruise
ship cpmanies, to report their own data to the EPA
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that state DEC does not monitor
scrubber exhaust, but...
2:13:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the availability between the
two types of fuel. and cost comparison.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN in all ports that cruise ships depart
from, (including Vancouver...) have access to both types of
fuels...
she listed the three cruise ships that exclusively utilize the
lighter fuel
she will follow up with the cost difference
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the cost of conversion
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated that there is no conversion cost
2:17:01 PM
}LINDA BEHNKEM, Executive Director* Alaska Longline Fisherman's
Association* Sitka, Alaska* {
She described the membership of her association, many of whom
live and work in Southeast Alaska
HFO is full of toxins and has known toxic impacts to marine life
and human health.
use of HFOs is illogical for this industry at best
Alaskans consume much more seafood than the rest of the country,
placing them at elevated risk of cancers, respiratory disease,
and other illnesses
she emphasized that the reputation of Alaskan seafood coming
from "cool, clean waters" cannot last much longer if toxic
pollutants continue to pollute its waterways.
she confirmed that the Alaska State Legislature has the power to
regulate the fuels that are burned in Alaska's waterways.
She urged the committee to support HB 366.
2:21:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES
MS. BEHNKEM clarified $3.50, not $35o per day???
2:22:10 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID
MS. BEHNKEM clarified ...
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE clarified that there are both open loop
and closed loop scrubber systems.
2:23:31 PM
}EMILY EDENSHAW, CEO, Ketchikan Indian Community* Ketchikan,
Alaska* {
Ketchikan expected to have more than 2 million visitors this
summer.
She shared her professional and cultural history.
she emphasized that there must be a balance in cultural tourism
KIC is the second largest tribe in Alaska and one of the biggest
employers in Ketchikan
HB 366 would directly impact the health and well-being of KIC
members, whose diets and cultural practices rely on the health
of both the land and sea.
she emphasized the contaminants that enter the water, also enter
Ketchikan's food system
she said that HB 366 presents a clear and actionable policy
she said that HB 366 is not an "anti-tourism" bill, but is "pro-
Alaska."
she disagreed with the narrative that HB 366 would be "singling
out the cruise ship industry," but would set a standard that
reflects the value of the resources at stake. cleaner fuels
already exist, and many vessels are already transitioning to
them around the world.
first, Alaska lacks oversight...
second,
tried to address this issue at the tribal level, but individual
tribes lack the resources to achieve the impact they need to see
third, need for meaningful partnership
fourth, need to address cumulative impacts
she suggested...
expressed hope to one day have as many traditional canoes in
Southeast Alaska waters as there are cruise ships.
2:37:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ST. CLAIR, for DEC, asked about scrubber
standards
2:38:22 PM
}JASON OLDS* Director of Air Quality, Alaska Dept. of
Environmental Conservation* City & State* {
two kinds of scrubber discharge, air emissions
open and closed loop scrubbers...
sulfur is not destroyed in the combustion...
2:40:03 PM
GENE MCCABE* Director, Division of Water, DEC* City & State* {
there is an EPA standard for scrubber discharge and for
reporting frequency for those with a scrubber permit
the data that is collected is available online
2:40:59 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK asked about how other communities
MS. MEACHUM stated that she would follow up with the sulfur
limits that other states and countries have implemented
but then shared limits set by...
the international maritime organization
north american emission control area
2:43:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE MGO is roughly 35 to 50 percent more
expensive than bunker sea?
asked about the indeterminate fiscal note
MR. OLDS stated that it was based off the broader scope of HB
366 prior to adopting the CS... will follow up with a fiscal
note that applies to the new scope of large commercial passenger
vessels.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN
2:46:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked about the different types of
scrubbers
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN open and closed loop scrubbers, one is
water discharge, one is air discharge
MS. MEACHUM addressed concerns with both types of scrubbers...
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN confirmed that HB 366 would eliminate the
need for scrubbers, by prohibiting bunker fuel
2:48:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered closing statements...
2:49:27 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:49 p.m. to 2:53 p.m.
2:53:33 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced that the final order of business
would be CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 302(L&C), "An Act relating to
travel insurance; and providing for an effective date."
2:53:55 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:53 p.m. to 2:54 p.m.
2:55:01 PM
}REPRESENTATIVE CAROLYN HALL* District 16, Alaska State
Legislature* City & State* { as prime sponsor, presented HB 302.
read sponsor statement???
2:56:51 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID announced invited testimony.
2:57:07 PM
}DUKE DE HAAS, VP* Allianz Partners USA* City & State* {
via PowerPoint [hard copy included?]
He shared his professional experience within the travel
insurance industry
HB 302 would be a "modern framework for travel insurance."
described the benefits for consumers, including free look
periods, clear disclosures, and opt-out protections
stated that HB 302 would establish consistent standards for
regulators, including streamlined filings, enforcement
authority, and uniform definitions
he stated that HB 302 would provide a level playing field and
that 42 other states have already implemented similar
legislation
he emphasized that HB 302 would be "modernization, not
reinvention"
3:04:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA asked about inconsistencies...
MR. DE HAAS provided an example...
REPRESENTATIVE MINA what does it apply to?
MR. DE HAAS people purchase travel insurance with airline and
cruise ship tickets and other tourism...
3:07:34 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID opened public testimony on HB 302. After
ascertaining that no one wished to testify, he closed public
testimony.
3:09:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HALL closing statements.
3:09:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the *
meeting was adjourned at *.