A warning to all (not just Tesla) EV owners planning to travel on the Alaska Marine Highway System. We booked our trip at the reservations online site to Bellingham with a return to Ketchikan a week later. Upon arrival at the AMHS Terminal, I checked in got our boarding pass and tickets and went back to our Tesla MY to await boarding. This was my wife’s first trip on the M/V Kennicott and we were both looking forward to this trip. Literally minutes before the vehicles were to board the ferry, I was approached by the Master of the vessel and informed we were being denied passage since we were driving an EV. He went further stating AMHS did not currently have a policy in effect but he was denying us passage expressing his concern of our vehicle spontaneously catching fire, then inflamming the rest of the vehicles and he would lose the ship and passengers…essentially sinking the ship right before my eyes at the dock and making it entirely my fault. At that point I knew we were being discriminated against driven by fear of the what if scenario presented to me…of course, you can ”what if” a person to death in any given scenario. Still, we did nothing wrong, there was no current policy in affect addressing our boarding we simply booked passage to Bellingham. I reached out to AMHS management and discussed the matter then went back to my vehicle where I was instructed to move out of the boarding lane (which I did). While this played out we were in the sight of everyone at the terminal and in the parking/loading area. We were embarrassed and at wits end not knowing what was happening or even whether we were going to be permitted to sail. A few minutes later, after the very last vehicle in the vehicle line was loaded on the vessel the Master then approached me a second time stating “I’ll make you a deal”…which translated means you do it my way or you don’t sail. His proposal was for my vehicle to board with the caveat I had to permit a fire blanket to be placed over my vehicle. If you are not familiar with a fire blanket they are akin to a large thick and very heavy tarp. Of course it was covered with dirt and debris from the car deck on the ship making me cringe each time I mustered enough to watch them. No doubt my paint was scratched and glass probably scratched as well. It does not end here. We also had to remove our pets (rescues) from the vehicle and place them on the cold steel deck where they remained for two nights under constant stress from the vibration of the vessel props and shafts directly below them. Our pets are still stressed and one shakes terribly each time I remove him from his carrier; which, did not occur prior to this incident. Bottom line: If you have plans to travel on the Marine Highway System be prepared to either be denied passage or if you are permitted passage the knee jerk reaction of some may result in YOUR car being covered by a fire blanket (which is the most idiotic thing I’ve seen in many years). We won’t be using the Marine Highway System any longer. We were publicly embarrassed and publicly humiliated due to a “what if” scenario for absolutely no reason other than ignorance and fear. Our pets were mistreated and stressed to the point they suffered and still show signs of stress from being subjected to their forced stay on the car deck. We canceled our return trip since we didn’t know and still don’t know what policy will be in affect for our return…nope, not doing that again. While I appreciate the concern expressed by the vessel Master (responsiblity for the safety of his ship, crew and passengers). What I don’t get is the lack of an established policy for situations like this. When I booked my reservation there should have been a flag that told me we might be denied passage since we were driving and EV…there was none, rather we had to get the notice of denial minutes before the cars were to board the ferry. Word of caution to future travelers…beware…I’m shipping my MY on AML and we are now flying back…actually cheaper to do it that way in my situation. Note: Not so much as an apology nor empathy expressed by AMHS. Not a good business model.
Thanks for the write up. I can just imagine BC Ferries trying to pull something similar, it wouldn't go over too well. Interesting article here: A fire on a passenger ferry was caused by an EV in 2010 The first electric vehicle traction battery fire on water occurred on the vehicle deck of the MS Pearl of Scandinavia on 17th November 2010, as it was travelling from Oslo to Copenhagen. The EV was a rebuilt Nissan Qashqai, that had been converted to a BEV by a Dutch enthusiast. When the battery went into thermal runaway, the car was connected to a 220V charging station via an extension cord manufactured by the owner so it could be used in multiple countries; a recipe for potential disaster in any situation. The total battery capacity of the converted Qashqai is unknown. However, the official report by the Danish Institute of Fire & Security states the fire originated in the battery pack, but it wasn’t possible to determine exact cause. There were other EVs on the same ferry, but thankfully the fire didn’t spread to those vehicles. Images: MissCandy Charging began at 2% battery state of charge; when fire broke out the vehicle was at 53%. The fire alarm system first alerted crew to smoke at 5:58am & the sprinkler system commenced initial suppression. Firefighters from Sweden were lowered to the ferry by helicopter & the fire was reported extinguished at 7:51am. All passengers & crew observed evacuation guidelines & disembarked safely. The Danish Maritime Authority responded by temporarily banning charging for EVs & other vehicles on all vehicles. But the MS Pearl of Scandinavia wasn’t the first fire on what’s known as a ‘ro-ro’ (or roll-on, roll-off) passenger vehicle ferry; three other incidents on the Commodore Clipper, Lisco Gloria & Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, all in 2010, were all under investigation following car deck fires. This converted Qashqai on the MS Pearl of Scandinavia is the only electric vehicle confirmed to have caused a marine vessel fire to date.
Your story highlights the importance of clear policies and communication from transportation services. Reminds me of a time when my travel plans hit a snag, but I found solace in exploring new places and focusing on the top things to do in the area. It's disappointing that AMHS didn't offer an apology or show empathy.
You weren't being discriminated against, its the fact that EVs as a car are different that ICE and have different risks and its not like everyone understands it or has a plan to deal with it. They don't know how risky it actually is for an EV to spontaneously combust when just sitting 'off'. ICE doesn't just spontaneously combust when they are turned off like EVs occasionally do. Its also not like they have the equipment prepared to handle an EV fire on hand - and yes they would need it because its a risk, just like having a fire extinguisher in general. Its not like everyone has undergone emergency preparedness training on how to handle a potential battery fire, so their behavior wasn't irrational. They were nice enough to let you travel with a fire blanket on it. Honestly could have gotten them in trouble if their higher ups knew.
Empathy? Empathy for what? That was likely the first time they saw an EV come to their ferry. They didn't expect it and didn't have a plan on how to handle EVs and their different risks than ICE. And yes the risk is different and risks should have emergency preparedness plans. They still let the guy take his car on the boat with an improvised way to handle the risk. Where was OP's empathy? Why didn't he call ahead knowing that he owns a car that has a different risk than normal? Despite the recent uptick in annual sales (still less than 10% annual), less than 3% of all cars driven on the road are EVs. There are more manual transmission cars driven than there are EVs. Its absurd for any EV driver to just expect everything to cater to their car preference when EVs are clearly still not mainstream yet.
But they do leak fuel which is why, when I was working for BC Ferries, there would always be a deckhand on the car deck checking for fuel leaks.
sure, but that clearly wouldn't create the same protocol as a potential EV fire, since EV fires require a completely different set of equipment to handle. I'm fairly certain the risk of fire from that is even lower than EV fire risk in general.
I suspect as the proportion of EVs increase, they will figure it out. I read a report that claimed some early roll-on and roll-off drivers failed to realize ‘scrapping bottom’ of an EV had a latent risk. Also, docked fire investigators are finding it wasn’t the EV but the poorly maintained, used car. Regardless, I’m getting a windshield protective film next month. Then I’ll be less worried about rock strikes. Bob Wilson
Yes they will, but OP's attitude here is not correct. Its unreasonable to be mad at anyone for not knowing how to deal with EVs at this point. It would be more warranted if nearly 10-15% of all cars were EVs, but right now its not even past 3% nationally and who knows what it is around Alaska.
That's why I asked when this story came out. I suspect it was a long time ago, when there were more stories about EV fires creating angst with everyone. Today, that seems to have disappeared. I know EVs are very common here on our BC ferries, and I haven't seen any special covers on them.
Waiting, yes, but on the ferry, while it would be nice, but it sounds like a pretty dirty power source (the ferry diesel engine)
The ferry needs to send its motive power to the propellers. Better to use efficient grid power at either ferry terminus. Bob Wilson
