International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 10, 2025
Bottom line
The bill imposes new fees on international shipping emissions to fund domestic green maritime initiatives and improve air quality in port areas.
What it actually does
This bill establishes new fees on greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutants from large cargo vessels operating in or importing cargo to the United States. The collected fees are then appropriated to various federal agencies to fund programs aimed at decarbonizing the maritime industry, supporting workforce development for green shipping technologies, and enhancing air quality monitoring in port communities. It also includes provisions for recognizing foreign pollution fees and a sunset clause if a global fee mechanism is established.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step to address the rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions from the marine shipping industry and to mitigate the severe air pollution impacts on communities surrounding ports. They contend it will incentivize the transition to cleaner fuels and technologies, create green jobs, and improve public health, while also positioning the U.S. as a leader in global maritime decarbonization efforts.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that these fees would increase the cost of shipping and imported goods, potentially leading to higher consumer prices and reduced economic competitiveness for U.S. businesses. They may also raise concerns about the administrative burden on shipping operators and importers, and question the effectiveness of a unilateral U.S. fee compared to a globally agreed-upon mechanism.
The bill is moderately complex due to technical definitions and multiple funding streams, requiring a dedicated read to fully grasp its implications. The estimated reading time is appropriate for an informed reader.
Sec. 1
Short Title
This section establishes the official short title of the Act as the 'International Maritime Pollution Accountability Act of 2025'. This title provides a concise and recognizable name for the legislation.
Supporters argue
A clear and descriptive short title helps in public discourse and legislative tracking, making the bill's intent immediately understandable.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the short title of a bill, as it is a standard legislative practice.
Tradeoffs
None inherent in the short title itself.
Sec. 2
Findings
This section outlines Congress's findings regarding marine shipping emissions. It states that greenhouse gas emissions from marine shipping account for nearly 3% of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and are rapidly increasing. It also highlights that ports are significant sources of air pollution, contributing to poor air quality and worse health outcomes in surrounding neighborhoods.
Sec. 3
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the Act, such as 'Administrator' (EPA), 'covered voyage' (self-propelled vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage or more transporting cargo, with specific exceptions), 'port of origin', 'final port of call', 'importer', 'Jones Act vessel', and 'ultimately bound for the United States'. These definitions are critical for determining the scope of the fees and reporting requirements.
Sec. 4
Reporting Requirements for Covered Voyages
Beginning January 1, 2027, operators of covered voyages must submit detailed information to the EPA Administrator within 30 days after each calendar quarter. This includes data on port of origin, total distance and time traveled, mass of fuel consumed, mass of cargo transported, details of all ports of call (U.S. and intermediate), time spent in U.S. ports, and fuel consumed within the U.S. exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, and internal waters. This data is crucial for calculating the fees assessed under subsequent sections.
Sec. 5
Fee on Lifecycle Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent Emissions from Cargo Vessels
Starting January 1, 2027, the EPA Administrator must assess a fee on operators of covered voyages based on their lifecycle carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) emissions. The fee is calculated by multiplying the mass of fuel consumed, its CO2-e emissions profile (developed by EPA), and a base rate of $150 per metric ton of CO2-e. This rate is adjusted annually for inflation plus 5 percentage points. Voyages in polar regions incur a tripled fee. The fee is reduced if operators pay a similar fee under an International Maritime Organization (IMO) global economic measure. An alternate fee mechanism is established for importers whose cargo is offloaded at foreign intermediate ports but ultimately bound for the U.S. The section includes a sunset provision if a global IMO fee is instituted.
Sec. 6
Fees on Criteria Air Pollutants
Beginning January 1, 2027, the EPA Administrator must assess fees on operators of covered voyages for emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) within the U.S. exclusive economic zone, territorial sea, and internal waters. The fees are calculated based on the mass of fuel consumed in these areas, the fuel's emissions profile (developed by EPA), and specific dollar rates per pound ($6.30 for NOx, $18 for SO2, $38.90 for PM2.5). These rates are adjusted annually for inflation plus 5 percentage points. Penalties are imposed for late payment.
Sec. 7(a)
Modernizing the Jones Act Fleet
This section appropriates 25% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Maritime Administration. These funds are for grants, rebates, and low-interest loans to eligible entities (owners of Jones Act vessels) to replace or retrofit existing marine fuel oil-propelled vessels with those exclusively using batteries, low-carbon fuels, or other zero-emissions technologies. Priority is given to projects maximizing greenhouse gas and criteria air pollutant reductions, improving water quality, and alleviating air pollution in poor air quality areas. A clawback provision ensures compliance with certification.
Sec. 7(b)
Research and Development for Low-Carbon Maritime Fuels and Low-Emission Maritime Technologies
This section appropriates 25% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Department of Energy. These funds are for competitive grants to eligible entities (including states, companies, port authorities, universities, research institutions) to carry out projects in the U.S. for producing, transporting, blending, or storing low-carbon maritime fuels, or developing, demonstrating, or applying low-emission maritime technologies. Priority is given to projects maximizing domestic production, greenhouse gas reductions, public health benefits, water quality, and job creation.
Sec. 7(c)
Workforce Development
This section appropriates 5% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Environmental Protection Agency. These funds are for grants and rebates to support workforce training and development for the maintenance and operation of zero-emission port equipment and vessels propelled by batteries or low-carbon fuels. Eligible entities include state/local/Tribal agencies, port authorities, air pollution control agencies, maritime academies, and private entities partnered with these. This includes curriculum development at maritime academies.
Sec. 7(d)
Harbor Craft Electrification
This section appropriates 10% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Environmental Protection Agency. These funds are for grants, rebates, or low-interest loans to replace or retrofit existing harbor craft (excluding ferry vessels) with battery-electric propulsion, and to support associated workforce development. Priority is given to projects maximizing emissions reductions, public health benefits, water quality, and alleviating air pollution in poor air quality areas. A clawback provision ensures compliance.
Sec. 7(e)
Ferry Electrification
This section appropriates 10% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Environmental Protection Agency. These funds are for grants, rebates, or low-interest loans to replace or retrofit existing ferry or crew vessels with battery-electric propulsion, and to support associated workforce development. Priority is given to projects maximizing emissions reductions, public health benefits, water quality, and alleviating air pollution in poor air quality areas. A clawback provision ensures compliance.
Sec. 7(f)
Increased Air Monitoring in Port Communities
This section appropriates 5% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Environmental Protection Agency. These funds are for grants, rebates, or low-interest loans to create fenceline air monitoring at port boundaries and in communities located within 1 mile of a port boundary. Eligible entities include various levels of government, port authorities, air pollution control agencies, and nonprofit entities with monitoring experience.
Sec. 7(g)(1)
Funding for Clean Ports Program
This section appropriates 15% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out the existing Clean Ports Program established under section 133 of the Clean Air Act. This program typically provides grants and rebates for projects that reduce emissions from port-related sources.
Sec. 7(g)(2)
Funding for National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund
This section appropriates 3% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for deposit into the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund. This fund supports projects that enhance coastal resilience, restore coastal habitats, and address threats to ocean and coastal resources.
Sec. 7(g)(3)
Funding for Marine Debris Foundation
This section appropriates 2% of the fees collected under Sections 5 and 6 (starting FY2029) to the Department of Commerce to carry out subtitle B of title I of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which established the Marine Debris Foundation. This foundation supports efforts to prevent, remove, and research marine debris.
Exclusion of Jones Act vessels from the definition of 'covered voyage'. This means domestically flagged and operated vessels engaged in coastwise trade are exempt from the fees assessed in Sections 5 and 6.
Sec. 3(4)(B)(iii)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define the scope of a bill's applicability. However, it is also a politically significant carve-out that protects a specific domestic industry from new fees, while simultaneously creating a dedicated funding stream for its modernization in Sec. 7(a).
Case for: Proponents argue that exempting Jones Act vessels protects the domestic maritime industry, which is vital for national security and economic stability, from new financial burdens. It allows for a targeted approach to modernize this fleet through grants rather than fees.
Case against: Critics might argue that exempting Jones Act vessels creates an uneven playing field and reduces the overall impact of the fee system on domestic emissions. If the goal is comprehensive pollution accountability, all vessels operating in U.S. waters should ideally contribute.
Estimated impact: Exempts a significant portion of domestic shipping from direct emission fees, potentially reducing the overall revenue collected but redirecting a portion of the collected fees to support their decarbonization.
Alternate fee for imported cargo: This provision requires importers to pay a prorated share of the CO2-e fee if their cargo is offloaded at a foreign intermediate port but is ultimately bound for the United States. Importers cannot import the cargo until the information is submitted and the fee is paid.
Sec. 5(c)
Why it matters:This is a technical provision designed to prevent evasion of fees by routing cargo through intermediate foreign ports. Its complexity is inherent in addressing a potential loophole, making it less prominent than the primary fee assessment.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is essential to ensure the comprehensive application of the carbon fee, preventing circumvention through transshipment and maintaining the integrity of the pollution accountability system. It ensures that the environmental cost of goods ultimately consumed in the U.S. is accounted for.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision places an undue burden on importers, who may have limited control or visibility over the full voyage details. It could lead to significant administrative challenges, delays in imports, and increased costs for goods, potentially impacting supply chains.
Estimated impact: Potentially broad impact on importers of goods that use complex international shipping routes, ensuring a wider application of the carbon fee and increasing revenue, but also increasing administrative complexity for importers.
Sunset Provision: This section states that the CO2-e fee (Section 5) ceases to apply if the Administrator determines and publishes in the Federal Register that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) or another UN agency has instituted and is enforcing a global fee on lifecycle CO2-e emissions from covered voyages that is equal to or greater than the fees assessed under this section.
Sec. 5(e)
Why it matters:This is a strategic provision that signals the U.S.'s preference for a global solution while taking unilateral action in the interim. It's a mechanism to encourage international cooperation by demonstrating U.S. commitment and setting a benchmark.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision demonstrates the U.S.'s commitment to global climate action and encourages the IMO to adopt a robust international carbon pricing mechanism. It ensures that U.S. businesses are not unfairly burdened if a global standard is adopted.
Case against: Critics might argue that the threshold for the global fee to trigger the sunset provision ('equal to or greater than') is too high, potentially making it difficult for a global agreement to meet the criteria and effectively locking the U.S. into its unilateral fee indefinitely. It could also be seen as a threat rather than an incentive for international partners.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter the long-term financial landscape for shipping if a global agreement is reached, potentially shifting the regulatory and financial burden to an international body.