Home > State Info > Innovative Legislation > Airport Air Pollution

ISSUE: AIRPORT AIR POLLUTION

“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.

Sources:
(1) “The Real LAX – Stats.” NBC. 21 September 2004 <http://www.nbc.com/nbc/LAX/stats/index.shtml>.
(2) “Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges (GAO/RCED-00-153).” Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, August 2000, p. 57. 21 September 2004 <http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00153.pdf>.
(3) “Aviation growth ‘risk to planet’: The rise in demand for air travel is one of the most serious environmental threats facing the world, a study says.” BBC News. 4 July 2004. 21 September 2004 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3864099.stm>.
(4) Stenzel, Jennifer and Jonathan Trutt. “Flying Off Course: Environmental Impacts of America’s Airports.” Natural Resources Defense Council. October 1996. 21 September 2004 <http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/foc/aairinx.asp>.
(5/2) “Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges (GAO/RCED-00-153),” p. 50.
(6/2) “Aviation and the Environment: Airport Operations and Future Growth Present Environmental Challenges (GAO/RCED-00-153),” p. 52.
(7) Cooper, Coralie, et al. “Controlling Airport Related Air Pollution.” Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) and the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP). June 2003. 21 September 2004 <http://64.2.134.196/workgroup/aircraftport/Aviation_Final_Report.pdf>.
(8) It is likely that a state regulation will be preempted by federal law if the regulation involves the movement of aircraft. Therefore, establishing regulations that focus on non-movement aspects of aircraft that could reduce air pollution, such as fixed-based power and preconditioned air, are more likely to survive legal tests for preemption.
(9) The Airline Deregulation Act prohibits states from taking any actions that directly or indirectly affect the price, route, or service of an airline. Airline Service Agreements (ASAs), which are negotiated between nations and place limits on carriers from each country, often contain a provision exempting uplifted aviation fuel from taxation.
(10) “Fuel efficiency.” International Air Transport Association (IATA). 21 September 2004 <http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm>.
(11) “Aviation Competition: Regional Jet Service Yet to Reach Many Small Communities.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office, February 2001, p. 9. 21 September 2004 <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01344.pdf>.
(12) “Engine Manufacturers Association et al v. South Coast Air Quality Management District et al.” U.S. Supreme Court. Slip Opinion (28 April 2004): 1.
This page was last updated on September 21, 2004.

The SERC project has been discontinued due to lack of funding. We apologize, but it’s unlikely that we’ll be able to respond to requests for information about the material posted on this site.