Climate Change and Aviation Fuel: A Tough Problem to Solve
Large aircraft require high energy fuel, and lots of it. But jet fuel is very difficult to clean up to satisfy climate protection imperatives, which has led to a major dispute in the US over the role coal-to-liquids and other alternative aviation fuels may play. Congress, the US Air Force, the major airlines, the US Environmental Protection Agency, its Federal Aviation Administration, a special Defense Department task force, coal-state senators, and many, many others are getting into the dogfight, which may go on for a long time.
With all the publicity aircraft greenhouse emissions are receiving, one might conclude that they rank right up there with electrical utilities, vehicle emissions, and other prominent categories in terms of greenhouse threats. In fact, US aircraft operations account for 10 - 12 percent of greenhouse emissions from the transportation sector and for only about three percent of total US greenhouse emissions, which is also about the total percentage contribution to greenhouse gases from aviation worldwide. The difficulty is, controlling aircraft carbon emissions is a particularly intractable problem, and the problem is going to become much worse over the next few years as demand for air travel and transport doubles or even triples by 2025. The issue is exacerbated by scientific uncertainty about just how much more potent at high altitudes aircraft emissions are in causing the greenhouse effect as compared to emissions on the Earth’s surface.
The airline industry has done a great deal already, however, to increase its efficiency and lower the rate of increase in greenhouse emissions per air mile traveled. The industry claims that improvements in operational efficiency over the past 30 years have reduced carbon dioxide emissions 70 percent in the course of improving fuel efficiency 110 percent. The most promising pathways at present to further reduce the carbon footprint of aviation involve improved air traffic control systems, on-ground aircraft operations management, lighter engines and more aerodynamically designed aircraft, and flight altitude and speed adjustments. Still, attempts to improve jet fuel composition and performance have received the lion’s share of attention in recent months.
Finding less climate-challenging fuels for today’s jet fleet is proving to be a particularly challenging and controversial topic. Some promising experiments in fueling aircraft reminds one of a trip to a botanical garden, to a marsh, or to the supermarket, or of the early days of flight at Kitty Hawk. Recent forays include biofuels derived from babassu nuts, coconut oil, algae, or the central American plant, jatropha (a relation of castor oil). A very light, albatross-like solar-powered aircraft is under development in Germany, while Boeing has actually flown – for twenty minutes at 60 miles an hour – a manned aircraft powered by hydrogen fuel cells and lithium battery-stored electricity. But the major battle over alternative aircraft fuel is taking place over fuel liquids derived from coal or oil (tar) sands.
Coal-to-liquids (CTL), whether for aircraft or for other consumption as a fuel, is hardly new. Germany pioneered the process in the Second World War, and for the past nine years South African Airways has flown its jets on a 50-50 mixture of CTL synthetic and ordinary commercial fuel. The US Air Force has completed a test program very much like the South African fuel mix, using 50 percent Fischer-Tropsch synthetic fuel and 50 percent commercial fuel. Even B-52s can safely burn the fuel.
The Air Force and members of the Senate and House from coal-producing states, not to mention proponents of tapping the vast reserves of oil sands in Canada, are pushing strongly for development and use of CTL aviation fuels. The difficulty is, among other things, that a lifecycle analysis conducted by the US EPA found that CTL fuel releases 118.5 percent more greenhouse gases than conventional fuel (EPA, 2007). Perhaps carbon capture and sequestration technology, were it to be developed, could be used to overcome this large carbon deficit? No, said EPA, even after going to the difficult and expensive effort of capturing and sequestering CTL carbon compounds, emissions would still be 3.7 percent greater than for conventional petroleum. The Defense Department has already asked MIT to study the lifecycle carbon profile of CTL production and use, and Senator Lautenberg intends to re-insert in the Federal Aviation Administration funding re-authorization bill making its way through Congress a provision requiring the National Academy of Sciences to organize a study committee to address the question. While these studies are pending it may be correct to say that the jury is still out on the climate implications of CTL and other alternative aviation fuels, but it is clear that widespread adoption of CTL and oil sands to liquids fuels would be accompanied by major environmental challenges.
The Air Force is particularly partial to CTL as a source of aviation fuel and is aggressively pursuing its development. However, a major study done by the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy at the request of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, titled “More Fight – Less Fuel,” has concluded that domestically produced synthetic fuel will not contribute to the DoD’s most critical fuel problem – delivering fuel to deployed forces. The Task Force, co-chaired by James Schlesinger and retired General Michael Cairns, wrote that full carbon life-cycle analysis should be performed and that synthetic fuels should have a carbon footprint less than conventional petroleum fuels before they are adopted.
This last remark may be directed at a DoD-commissioned legal analysis attempting to show that in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress did not intend for the military services to be considered as “federal agencies.” Why? Because section 526 of the 2005 law bans federal agencies from purchasing any fuels that produce higher levels of greenhouse gases than conventional jet fuels. (This provision is kicking up sand in many quarters and may not survive the political pressure that is being brought to bear.)
The EPA plans to join with the FAA in considering regulation of aviation greenhouse emissions in the course of the climate “town hall” comment period that EPA has called for to gather thoughts about using the Clean Air Act to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions, a topic we have covered in an earlier blog. The European Union first tried to ignore aircraft greenhouse emissions in its first round of actions under its climate authority (the issue, is, as we said above, a very difficult one), but it is now considering requiring airlines to participate in the emissions trading system.
The debate over how the US will attempt to come to grips with the difficult issue of direct aircraft engine emissions of greenhouse gases is just getting started.
Who's in the Driver's Seat? Washington vs the States, Agency vs Agency
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently dealt a blow to both EPA and the states by proposing preemptive federal fuel economy standards (corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards) that not only negate the states’ efforts to regulate fuel economy and vehicle greenhouse emissions but also directly challenge EPA’s leading role in regulating vehicle emissions. Will the courts, Congress, or a presidential administration sort out the traffic jam over authority to reduce vehicle greenhouse emissions? At this writing, the governors of twelve states are weighing in against what they view as a “cynical” power grab by the NHTSA, but resolution is nowhere in sight. [summary]
It’s a fine mess, the climate traffic jam. Led by California, some eighteen states have asserted a primary role in controlling vehicle greenhouse emissions. But the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to close off independent state action by denying California the Clean Air Act waiver it had to have before it (or any other state) could proceed on its own. Having blocked the states, and having lost a Supreme Court case in which it tried to avoid a role in greenhouse gas regulation, the EPA has begun to scour the Clean Air Act to establish its own primacy, not only over vehicle greenhouse emissions, but over a variety of other greenhouse gas sources as well (see accompanying blog).
The state-EPA-court dispute was bad enough, but it gets worse. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently dealt a blow to both EPA and the states by proposing preemptive federal fuel economy standards (corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards) that render the states’ efforts a clashing nullity and directly challenge EPA’s lead on vehicle emissions. Will the courts, Congress, or a presidential administration sort out the traffic jam over authority to reduce vehicle greenhouse emissions? At this writing, horns blare, voices are being raised (the governors’ above the rest), but resolution is nowhere in sight.
The dispute focuses attention on the fact that vehicle mileage standards and direct emissions controls are inextricably intertwined approaches to combating greenhouse emissions. Altering one unavoidably clashes with the other. States like California want to set both mileage requirements and emissions controls under their own laws, and the EPA wants to control (well, may be forced to control) direct vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act, but the NHTSA says that the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act put it in charge by empowering it to set uniform national mileage standards that must not be impaired either by inconsistent state mileage standards or by state or federal tailpipe emissions standards. That makes NHTSA the lead agency on vehicle emissions, and other climate regulatory wannabes must step aside.
The details are that NHTSA has proposed standards for 2011-2015 model years that would culminate in a 2015 standard for cars of 35.7 mpg and 28.6 mpg for light trucks, which represent substantial increases in mpg over existing CAFE standards. It is very important to understand that these proposed new standards explicitly will take carbon dioxide impacts into account for the first time. NHTSA lost a Ninth Circuit appeal when it tried to bypass consideration of CO2 impacts by arguing that it could not put a value on a ton of CO2 emissions. Although it has asked for reconsideration of this decision, it has nevertheless apparently read the handwriting on the wall and decided to issue a proposed CAFE rule that takes carbon control benefits into account.
The big news recently has been the outrage a dozen governors expressed in companion letters to the President and congressional leaders on April 23rd regarding NHTSA’s “cynical attempt” to “subvert,” “usurp,” and “assault” congressional authority and “rewrite” the Clean Air Act’s provisions covering air pollution, “including greenhouse gases.” The governors could not have been clearer (could they?) that they view state authority to control greenhouse emissions as guaranteed by the Clean Air Act and principles of federalism and that, as far as they are concerned, the only relevant federal greenhouse gas control law is the Clean Air Act (with which they are not entirely pleased, but they like it better than putting the federal Department of Transportation in control).
The NHTSA may not appear at first glance to be an environmental protection agency, but the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) may be the “vehicle” for an enforced education for NHTSA in climate science and policy. NHTSA’s debut in climate policy takes the form of a comprehensive NEPA environmental impact statement that the Administration has announced that it will draft on climate science and alternative ways to reduce vehicle greenhouse emissions (Federal Register Notice). The public and other agencies of federal and state government will be asked to provide comment. NHTSA wants to make its own collection of studies of greenhouse gas impacts on temperature, water, biological resources, human health and welfare, regional differences, and the time frame in which impacts may occur. If this sounds somewhat familiar, keep in mind that NHTSA comes somewhat new to the climate debate.
Thus, while EPA is asking for public comment on using the Clean Air Act’s provisions for climate management in the US, the NHTSA is creating another parallel public forum on the topic using the NEPA process and the triggering “major federal action” of its proposal of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. While Congress continues to review climate bills and hold hearings, the federal agencies are far from silent. While this election year grinds on, maneuvering for position quietly goes forward among the states and the federal agencies most involved with climate policy development.
The US's Existing Climate Protection Laws: Will They Work?
Less than a decade has passed since the accepted wisdom was that the US would enact a greenhouse gas control regime to implement the framework climate treaty and the Kyoto Protocol, which the Senate would have ratified after much debate. Yet today it appears that our national climate strategies are going off in unanticipated directions that would have astonished the climate pundits of ten years ago.
Last December, Congress enacted a fuel, vehicle mileage, and overall energy efficiency law that will clearly help lower carbon emissions. The Senate will vote on a comprehensive climate bill in June, if the sponsors have their way, but that bill is a far cry from implementing legislation for Kyoto. The states may soon have blanketed a large part of the nation with regional and state climate initiatives that will be so pervasive that they will set the bar for the key components of over-arching federal legislation – and preserve a major role for state and local governments. There is even talk of bilateral climate agreements with India and China, and also a totally new international approach that would target greenhouse gas emissions sector-by-sector across the economies of the developed nations.
Furthermore, while all this is taking place, it appears that the Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental community have discovered – with the help of the Supreme Court – that the US has had a greenhouse gas regulation law in place for decades, well before Kyoto. By ruling a year ago that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the motor vehicle emissions control provision of the Clean Air Act, the Court made the entire Act a little pregnant with the potential for federal regulation of all manner of greenhouse gas sources – the thousands of sources controlled under state implementation plans to achieve federal ambient standards, new and modified stationary sources, emitters of air toxics, sources in clear-air areas of the country, and others regulated under the Act. The particular trigger for new motor vehicle emissions regulation is a statutory determination that greenhouse emissions may reasonably be found to endanger public health or welfare, but other Clean Air Act provisions contain the same or a similar trigger for greenhouse “air pollutants” as well.
The key Clean Air Act provisions involved were rather elegantly analyzed for a House subcommittee on April 10, 2008 by the EPA’s air program administrator Robert Meyers in 19 pages of testimony, which he prefaced by saying that a full explanation “could easily fill a text book.” The relevant sections, most of which are covered in the seven petitions states and private organizations have filed, are an alphabet soup of the Clean Air Act specialists favorite programs: NAAQS, SIPs, PSD BACT, Non-attainment RACT, NSPS, HAPS MACT, aircraft, ship, and locomotive emissions provisions, and the welter of road and non-road vehicle and equipment engine and fuel emissions requirements that the Act authorizes.
To plunge into the greenhouse ramifications of any one of these programs is to plunge deep. Our Ports and Harbors Practice, for example, is considering the myriad of greenhouse gas controls that may be relevant to shippers, port authorities, transportation networks, and others on, or on the way to or from, the nation’s ports and harbors.
The EPA has tried to put off the reckoning, but the Clean Air Act has been held to be applicable to greenhouse emissions. The question is, can we live with it – can we make it work as a climate statute? States and environmental groups appear at first to be saying yes, we can, but the EPA is skeptical and has initiated a national head-scratching over the issue. The groups are pressing for a court order for EPA to come clean and issue the endangerment finding, which the groups say they have conclusive evidence that the Agency has already made. The EPA has come to the brink of making the endangerment finding more than once, only to recoil from taking the first fateful step toward conscripting the Clean Air Act into the federal climate arsenal.
Recently, the Agency has contrived to prolong its agony. It announced that it would issue an advanced notice of proposed rule making this spring inviting the public to offer its comments on climate science (endangerment) and “the broader ramifications” to “many relevant sections of the Clean Air Act” of using it as the primary policy tool for controlling greenhouse emissions. These comments would then help the Agency issue a second proposed rule that would set forth the Agency’s views on how to comply with last year’s Court decision.
The environmental plaintiffs are pressing hard for a court order requiring EPA to make the endangerment finding. They argue that the Supreme Court’s decision leaves no room for the EPA to organize a national town hall meeting on the advantages and disadvantages of using the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gases. They reason that the Court required the agency to make an endangerment finding or give cogent scientific reasons why it could not. No other paths lie open, they say.
The Agency’s invitation for public comment seems designed to resurrect its view, rejected by the Court, that the Act would provide only an “inefficient, piecemeal approach” to controlling emissions and that a regulatory scheme that included “all significant sources and sinks” would be best. Perhaps. But an agency rule making is not the place for this legislative debate, one which Congress has already initiated and seems inclined to bring to a conclusion in a time frame that may turn out to be less protracted than EPA’s two-step rule-making process is likely to be.
In fairness to EPA, regulating greenhouse emissions through the Clean Air Act is likely to be a bit like opening Pandora’s Box to find a Trojan Horse inside. The statute may reach greenhouse “air pollutants,” but just barely, and its extensive implementing provisions were not designed with climate protection in the front of the congressional mind. The Agency appears to have concluded, we think correctly, that if it regulates motor vehicle greenhouse emissions as the states and environmental groups demand, they have to act favorably on petitions that the groups have also already filed to regulate the greenhouse emissions from a full Mother Hubbard’s cupboard of emitter bones and snacks already alluded to – airplanes, ocean vessels, off-road and recreational vehicles, sources in mining, agriculture, and construction, outdoor power equipment, and the like. This may not be the systematic, finely tuned, and comprehensive solution the nation deserves to the climate challenge, but such is the logic of the situation in which US climate policy is now mired.
It may well be that the states and environmental plaintiffs are forcing the issue on the Clean Air Act, not actually expecting or even wanting to remake it as a climate protection statute. Their purpose may be to force Congress to reach the same conclusion EPA has reached and thus pressure Congress into enacting a comprehensive climate law before the courts turn the Clean Air Act into a greenhouse gas nightmare. Chairman John Dingell appears to have fallen hard for the strategy, recently calling for federal cap-and-trade legislation to correct the “hideous mistake” the Supreme Court made. But in the meantime, the EPA is obliged to try to reconcile existing law with demands for piecemeal greenhouse regulation under the welter of Clean Air Act provisions that various groups have lined up like dominoes, ready to ask the courts to tip over.
EPA’s strategy has been dismissed by state and environmental groups as one of delay until the Administration comes to an end January 20, 2009. Listening to the skillful but beleaguered EPA Administrator at press conferences on the President’s program lends some support to this view. But Administrator Johnson does make a point that while the Clean Air Act Endangerment Stew is simmering, Congress has enacted – in important part with Administration endorsement – a law that actually may lower vehicle and other carbon emissions below the steep upward trajectory they were on only a couple of years ago. The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 specifies a national mandatory fuel economy standard, a “CAFE standard,” of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, which should, the White House says, increase vehicle efficiency by 40 percent. The new law also hikes the renewable fuels mandate passed in 2005 to 36 billion gallons by the year 2022 (although plenty of pundits have begun to point out the climate and air quality downside of corn ethanol.) The new Act includes a lighting efficiency requirement for phasing out incandescent bulbs by 2014 and lighting efficiency improvements of up to 70 percent by 2020. There are also significant appliance and federal operations energy efficiency requirements in the legislation.
Based on the President’s “20 in 10” program set out in his 2007 State of the Union message (20 percent reduction in gasoline use by 2010), the Administration’s other energy savings and “green” source programs, and the EISA, the EPA has argued, somewhat logically, that all these measures are more effective than – or at the least the functional equivalent of – the command-and-control regulations that may in time be served up from the Clean Air Endangerment Stew. In fact, EPA has suggested in the past that these steps comply legally with the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. This is what the national town hall advanced notice of proposed rule making is all about. It is also the current version of the rule making that EPA once wanted to launch, i.e., a multi-departmental rule that would involve several statutes (including the Clean Air Act) and implement the President’s 20-in-10 agenda.
More fundamentally, the Clean Air Endangerment Stew has now locked the courts, the EPA, and Congress in a struggle over how tripartite constitutional government should approach climate policy, a classic separation of powers issue that only lacks the states to make this a battle over federalism as well. As we move forward on climate in Congress, it might be wise to heed the admonition of Chancellor Bismarck. “Do not ask how legislation and sausages are made.”
