“LAX,” a TV
show premiering in September 2004 on NBC, will dramatize
the world of the Los Angeles International Airport, with
episodes focusing on such timely issues as illegal immigration
and terrorism. The third-busiest airport in the world, serving
over 50 million passengers per year(1),
the real-life LAX encapsulates a wealth of problems for
the show’s writers to draw upon for their scripts. Oddly
enough, the show’s web site at NBC.com does not mention
airport-related air pollution as a topic for “LAX.” This
is a shame, because LAX has implemented numerous programs
and procedures to help reduce greenhouse gas and smog-forming
pollutant emissions from the site, including free parking
and the use of electric recharging stations for electric
vehicles users.(2)
An Issue of Growing Urgency
A study released in 2004 concludes that the rise in demand
for air travel is one of the most serious environmental
threats facing the world.(3)
One 747 arriving and departing from JFK airport in New York
City produces as much smog as a car driven over 5,600 miles,
and as much polluting nitrogen oxides as a car driven nearly
26,500 miles.(4) Nationally,
the number of aircraft operations (defined as one takeoff
or one landing) grew substantially, from around 15 million
in 1976 to almost 30 million in 2000. Officials at 16 of
the nation’s 50 busiest commercial service airports cited
air quality as their most significant environmental concern(5)
and, as of 2000, 33 out of 50 of the nation’s busiest commercial
airports were located in areas found to be in non-attainment
of criteria pollutants according to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).(6)
Yet, while emissions from most source sectors are declining
due to the implementation of more stringent control programs,
the growth in air travel and the continued lack of federal
control programs for aircraft engines is contributing to
increased air pollution from airports. States are required
by federal law to reduce ambient levels of criteria pollutants.
Given the existence of stringent control programs for other
industry sectors, reductions in airport-related air pollution
are necessary in order for states to lower emissions to
meet air quality and public health goals.(7)
Major Sources of Air Pollutants Emitted at Airports
Vehicles that run on fossil fuels and are used to access
and operate airports are the major sources of pollution
generated by airports. These include: aircraft; ground access
vehicles (GAVs) – vehicles such as cars, shuttles, and public
transit that transport people and goods to and from airports;
and, ground support equipment (GSE) used in the airport,
such as for aircraft towing.
State Authority to Regulate Airport Air Emissions
States have fairly limited power to regulate airport-related
air pollution, largely due to the preemption and commerce
clauses of the federal Constitution. For a detailed portrait
of the legal landscape of state power over airport air emissions,
please see Chapter 5 of “Controlling
Airport-Related Air Pollution,” prepared by the Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management and the Center
for Clean Air Policy (2003). What follows is a basic rundown
of state authority to regulate aircraft engine emissions,
airport GAVs, and airport GSE.
Regulating Aircraft Engine Emissions
Title II of the Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts states from
regulating aircraft engine emissions. However, states may
petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to set tougher
emissions standards for aircraft engines (EPA and DOT coordination
is required on aircraft standards). Such a petition could
be further pursued in the U.S. Court of Appeals. States
can also create policies that regulate ground-level activities
of aircraft that do not impinge on safety.(8)
Under the Anti-Head Tax Act (AHTA), states are preempted
from charging landing fees at airports unless the state
is the proprietor and, even then, only if the fee is levied
for airport or aeronautical purposes and is considered “reasonable.”(9)
According the language of the AHTA, assessing an emissions-based
landing fee would qualify under these criteria if they include
costs of remediating air pollution due to airport expansion
(building a new airport would fall under the same category).
States are confined to limiting aircraft engine emissions
in ways that do not impact safety. In 2000, 30 out of 50
of the nation’s largest commercial airports provided electricity
to aircraft, and 28 airports provided preconditioned air
at some gates for airlines to use, reducing or eliminating
the need for aircraft to operate separate generators (i.e.,
ground power and conditioned air units, and auxiliary power
units on board aircraft). Providing aircraft with electricity
and preconditioned air reduces fuel use and aircraft engine
emissions.
Aircraft Engine Fuel Efficiency
Aircraft engine fuel efficiency has improved 70 percent
per passenger kilometer since the 1960s.(10)
The newest, most sophisticated commercial engines have very
high combustion temperatures, which results in lower carbon
emissions, but higher nitrogen oxide emissions. As engine
performance improves, abating nitrogen emissions, the primary
issue related to aircraft air emissions, especially as air
travel expands in coming years, will be fuel consumption.
Taxing fuel is not legally viable (see footnote 9), nor
would it necessarily be effective at dampening demand. In
addition to technological solutions, operational measures,
infrastructure and Air Traffic Control (ATC) enhancements,
and market-based measures are being considered as incentives
to further limit emissions from aviation. In principle,
such measures could achieve emissions reductions at a lower
cost and in a more flexible manner than traditional regulatory
measures.
The rapid growth of the regional airline market could make
a difference in decreasing aircraft and airport-related
air pollution. Regional jet, or RJ, departures rose from
12,364 in 1997 to 93,606 in 2000 – a 735 percent increase.(11)
RJs, are very fuel-efficient and regional flights sometimes
eliminate unnecessary transfers at major airports. For now,
however, RJs give ATC personnel a headache because of the
increased air traffic they cause, and are actually worsening
air quality issues at some airports due to their operational
load.
Ground Service Equipment (GSE)
States can establish hours-of-use limits, daily mass emissions
limits, and other regulations that do not prohibit GSE fleet
operators from having options available that do not require
equipment modification. If the state is the proprietor of
an airport, they must build a GSE fleet run on alternative
fuels according to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (so long
as the use of such vehicles does not compromise safety).
However, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Engine
Manufacturers Association v. South Coast Air Quality Management
District, prohibits states from taking actions that would
require GSE fleet operators at airports not run by the state
to purchase GSE that run on alternative fuels, “[South Coast
Air Quality Management District’s vehicle fleet rules] do
not escape pre-emption [from section 209 of the Clean Air
Act] just because they address the purchase of vehicles,
rather than their manufacture or sale.”(12)
Ground Access Vehicles (GAVs)
States have authority to regulate traffic flow at airports
they run. This is key, because airport-related car and shuttle
traffic are significant, if not the largest, sources of
airport air pollution. Please see page 57 of the U.S. GAO
report, “Aviation
and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth
Present Environmental Challenges,” for examples of measures
taken at Logan and Los Angeles International Airports to
limit GAV emissions.
Policy Options
Given the above statutory confines, states have three important
strategies open for reducing air pollution generated by
airports: (1) Increase the number alternative fuel vehicles
in use and the infrastructure supporting them; (2) Increase
alternative, environmentally-friendly power sources for
aircraft operations at airport gates; and, (3) Increase
shuttle service to airports from remote locations for passengers
and employees.
Federal Action
U.S. HB
3419, the “Right to Know About Airport Pollution Act
of 2003,” would require the administrator of the EPA to
conduct a feasibility study for applying “airport bubbles”
as a method of identifying, assessing, and reducing the
adverse environmental impacts of airport ground and flight
operations. The airport bubble concept treats an airport
and the area within a specific radius around the airport
as a single source of pollution that emits a range of pollutants,
including air, noise, water, and solid waste. The goal of
applying the airport bubble concept is to implement specific
programs or regulations that reduce pollution from each
source within the bubble, thereby reducing the overall pollution
in that area.
State Action
New Jersey
S
542 (2004) directs the Department of Environmental Protection
to conduct a feasibility study to assess air pollution sources
in and around certain airports and military bases.
New York
A
2677 (2004) requires the state Department of Environmental
Conservation to conduct a feasibility study on regulating
the air pollution in and around Kennedy and LaGuardia airports
and appropriates funds for such a study.
Rhode Island
H
6400 (2004) requests that the Department of Environmental
Management perform air quality studies at and near T.F.
Green Airport in Warwick.
|