On August 12, 2025, Alaska Marine Lines, which operates barge services to Hawaii and Alaska, announced that it will no longer ship electric vehicles (EVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) on its vessels. The prohibition on EVs and PHEVs took effect immediately for barges to Hawaii, Central Alaska, and Western Alaska, and took effect on September 1 for barges to Southeast Alaska. The company attributed the change to “the increased complexity and fire risk associated with shipping large lithium-ion batteries on vessels at sea.” EV fires pose unique difficulty for firefighters, ranging from the difficulty of extinguishing the fire to the gases released. The announcement comes about two months after a cargo ship carrying thousands of new vehicles, including EVs and PHEVs, caught fire off the coast of Alaska and burned for weeks before eventually sinking.

The new policy by Alaska Marine Lines limits the transportation options available for vehicle shipment to Alaska and Hawaii and serves as a reminder that those moving EVs and other hazardous materials need to review not just relevant government regulations, but also policies and contractual limitations imposed by transportation service providers. Barges and ferries serve as a key access point to Alaskan communities that are inaccessible by roadways. Although EVs can still be transported to many of these communities via the Alaska Marine Highway System and its ferries, the state only permits two electric vehicles on each sailing for the same reason Alaska Marine Lines has implemented its policy, and these ferries can take longer. These evolving policies on EV transport require those shipping vehicles to carefully review the limitations imposed by carriers, which can, in some instances, be more stringent than the federal regulations that also govern such transport. Any person or entity that conducts a transport-related activity that falls within the scope of the Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations must comply with both those regulations and any restrictions imposed by a carrier, and should review both sets of requirements to ensure compliance with the more-stringent of the two. In some instances, the carrier will impose more stringent requirements, while other times or in other respects the federal regulations may impose additional requirements with which the shipper must still comply.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Amy Symonds Amy Symonds

Amy Symonds is an Environment and Natural Resources Group senior counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Her practice primarily focuses on assisting clients with pesticide and chemical regulation and litigation matters. She also focuses on general environmental and administrative law issues.

In…

Amy Symonds is an Environment and Natural Resources Group senior counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. Her practice primarily focuses on assisting clients with pesticide and chemical regulation and litigation matters. She also focuses on general environmental and administrative law issues.

In her pesticide practice, Amy has assisted both task forces and individual companies by explaining complex state and federal regulatory requirements, drafting contracts for the transfer of pesticide registrations and data, and identifying and mitigating data protection concerns when submitting pesticide data to or relying upon pesticide data in foreign countries. She has represented both data submitters and follow-on registrants in arbitrations regarding data compensation claims involving pesticide data submissions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Amy also defends pesticide companies in enforcement actions brought by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In her chemicals practice, Amy has assisted clients ranging from petrochemical companies and traditional chemical manufacturers to automobile and computer parts manufacturers. She has developed processes for her clients to identify and address applicable Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requirements, and advised clients regarding their obligations to report under TSCA’s chemical data reporting rule in complex factual scenarios.

Amy has conducted audits for her clients to determine and perfect compliance with FIFRA, TSCA, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). She has also assisted clients with various matters arising under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Animal Welfare Act, and the Federal Select Agent Program. Amy has worked with clients to address the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

During law school, Amy was a member of the Order of the Coif and the George Washington Law Review. In 2014-2021 she was named a “Rising Star” by Washington, DC, Super Lawyers.

Prior to entering private practice, Amy assisted the general counsel of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in presenting policies regarding the protection of nuclear power plants against external threats. During her time at the NRC, she also advised the general counsel on communications with persons suspected of misuse of nuclear materials.