2025 Bill Proposes Jones Act Exemption for Energy Shipments to AK, HI, GU, PR: Could Lower Power Costs, Affect U.S. Maritime Jobs

A new piece of legislation, the "Noncontiguous Energy Relief and Access Act of 2025," is looking to change how energy-related goods get to Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico. This bill proposes a significant tweak to a century-old maritime law, section 55102 of title 46, U.S. Code, commonly known as the Jones Act. The core idea is to exempt the transportation of "energy products" – things like power generators, solar panels, wind turbine components, and fuels like liquefied natural gas (LNG) – from the Jones Act's requirement that goods shipped between U.S. ports must use U.S.-built, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-crewed vessels when destined for or moving within these noncontiguous states and territories.

The Jones Act Gets a Detour: What's Changing for Energy Shipments?

So, what’s the big deal here? The Jones Act has long been a cornerstone of U.S. maritime policy, designed to support the American shipping industry. This bill, specifically SEC. 2. Energy products exemption, carves out an exception for a whole category of goods. It defines "covered noncontiguous trade" as shipping routes between the mainland U.S. and Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, or Puerto Rico, as well as routes within these areas.

The bill lays out what counts as "energy products": it’s not just fuel, but also the "equipment" and "components" needed for electricity generation, storage, transmission, and distribution. Think big stuff like power generators, massive wind turbines, solar arrays, and even parts for hydroelectric plants. For example, if a utility company in Hawaii wants to build a new solar farm, under this bill, the solar panels and converters could potentially be shipped directly from an overseas manufacturer on a foreign-flagged vessel, potentially speeding up the project or lowering freight costs. Similarly, LNG needed for a power plant in Puerto Rico could arrive on a wider variety of ships.

Power Bills vs. Paychecks: Who Might Feel the Squeeze (or Relief)?

This is where things get interesting, because changes like this usually have winners and losers. On one hand, folks living in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico could see some relief. These places often face higher energy costs due to their reliance on shipped-in fuels and equipment. If it becomes cheaper to transport energy infrastructure or fuel, those savings could theoretically trickle down to your electricity bill or make new renewable energy projects more viable. A small business owner in Guam, for instance, might see more stable energy prices, making it easier to budget.

On the flip side, this exemption could be a blow to the U.S. maritime industry. If a significant chunk of energy-related cargo in these protected trade lanes can now be carried by foreign vessels, it means less business for U.S.-flagged ships, American shipbuilders who construct Jones Act-compliant vessels, and the U.S. mariners who crew them. Someone working at a shipyard on the Gulf Coast that specializes in building vessels for this trade, or a merchant mariner whose routes include these noncontiguous areas, might rightly be concerned about job security or reduced demand for their services. SEC. 2 effectively removes a guaranteed market for certain U.S. shipping operations.

Unpacking the Definitions: What's In, What's Out?

The bill is pretty specific in its definitions, aiming to keep the exemption focused. "Energy source" includes LNG and other sources for electricity generation, plus "petroleum products" as defined in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The list of "equipment" is quite broad, covering everything from generation (solar, wind, hydro) to transmission and distribution components. While the definitions themselves are fairly clear, the breadth of what's included under "energy products" is notable. The intent seems to be comprehensive coverage for anything related to the power grid in these noncontiguous areas.

If this act becomes law, it would directly amend existing maritime regulations. The challenge often lies in balancing the potential for lower energy costs and improved infrastructure in these often high-cost regions against the impact on a domestic industry that the Jones Act was designed to protect. It’s a classic policy balancing act: making energy more accessible and affordable for some, while potentially shifting economic benefits and burdens for others.