Reducing Emissions from Aviation: Policy Options

Transcription

1 Reducing Emissions from Aviation: Policy Options Greg Dierkers Senior Policy Analyst Center for Clean Air Policy STAPPA/ALAPCO Fall Membership Meeting October 26, 2005

2 About the Center for Clean Air Policy Environmental think-tank, founded in 1985 by state governors to help find a market-based approach to reducing acid rain. Working to apply similar cost-effective approaches to reducing ozone, greenhouse gases, air toxics at the local, nat l, and int l levels. Active participant in EPA/FAA National NO x Stakeholder Initiative Observer to the International Civil Aviation Organization and its Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection.

3 N O x E m issions (Tons/Y ear) Contributors to Airport-Related Emissions: Case Studies 3,500 3,000 2, % (A PU ) 7.9% (G SE) 2,000 1,500 1, % 3.8% (A PU ) 10.0% (G SE ) 3.1% (A PU ) % 86.1% 10.7% (G SE ) Logan International Airport B radley International A irport M anchester A irport A ircraft G SE A PU Source: NESCAUM & CCAP, Ground Service Equipment (GSE), e.g., baggage tractors Auxiliary Power Units (APU)

4 Cumulative Growth Rate NOx Emission Growth Rates: % 62% 35% Aircraft Electrical Utilities Industrial On-Road Vehicles 10% -0.2% -15% -40% -39% -35% Source: Author's calculation; EPA, National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report: 2001, 2002 From : Aircraft NOx emissions grew by 16%; electric utilities declined by 16%, industrial sources declined by 13%, and on-road vehicles declined by 14%.

5 (in M M T CO2e) US & C a n a d ia n Av ia tio n C O 2 E m is s io n s Total US A v iation Total Canadian Data for Mexican Emissions are unavailable

6 Aviation's Share of US Transportation GHG Emissions: % 13% 7% Automobiles Light Trucks Other Trucks 24% 34% 13% 3% 1% 2% Other Commercial Aircraft Aviation Bunkers Military Aircraft Other Aviation Source: US EPA, 2003 In 2001, aviation (both domestic and international) accounts for 4% of total US emissions and 2% of Canadian emissions

7 (in m illions of ope ra tions ) US Aircraft Operations 35 Aircraft O perations: H istorical and Future A ir Taxi & C om m uter Air Carrier * 2004* 2014* S ource: FA A, P rojections based upon FA A A erospace Forecast FY , M arch * P redicted 1 Operation = 1 takeoff and landing

8 Aircraft Standards US EPA has elected to adopt standards established by the Int l Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) ICAO adopted new standards in 2004 (CAEP/6) which lowers the NOx certification standards by 12% percent below the current standard» Would apply to all newly certified engines beginning in 2008.» EPA would has not proposed this std. for adoption but manufacturers typically meet it years before it enters into force New standard likely to have little impact on global and U.S. national NOx emissions» Global aircraft NOx emissions in 2020 estimated to be ~150% above 2002 levels after new standard» Total U.S. NOx emissions from aircraft operated by major US carriers in 2020 would be ~60 percent above 2000 levels after the standard Only 2-4% below the level w/o the standard

9 Characteristics of Aircraft Standards Rate based (i.e., g/km)» Doesn t account for aggregate emissions and w/ aircraft operations growing rapidly, aggregate emissions increasing Not typically been technology-forcing» Large number of currently manufactured engines meet the recently adopted ICAO standard And, this standard only applies to engines manufactured in the future (in 2008) Applies only to newly designed or certificated engines» w/ slow fleet turnover many engines are in airline fleet for long periods of time (e.g., yrs.) Based upon engine emissions characteristic» Doesn t account for emissions attributable to airframe design and condition, as well as benefits of improved designs

10 NO x E m is s ions (tons ) Aircraft Emissions Increasing at Major US Airports Despite New ICAO Standard N O x E m issions At M ajor U.S. Airports 6,000 5,000 4, Baseline 2010 N ew C A E P S tandards 2015 N ew C A E P S tandards 2020 N ew C A E P S tandards 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 ORD - CHICAGO ATL - ATLANTA LAX - LOS ANGELES PHX - PHOENIX DFW - DALLAS/FT. WORTH IAH - HOUSTON EWR - NEWARK LGA - LA GUARDIA JFK - KENNEDY BOS - BOSTON PHL - PHILADELPHIA BWI - BALTIMORE DCA - WASHINGTON MDW - CHICAGO IAD - DULLES Schmidt, 2005

11 Limit GAV & GSE Activity GSE: States could include program to limit emissions from GSE as part of SIP» Program must not create an emissions standard Nat l voluntary GSE aggreement didn t yield results, but states and localities could introduce programs despite nat l impasse SouthCoast of California and Dallas/Ft. Worth voluntary GSE agreements are interesting models GAV: States could implement TCMs for airport sources» e.g., traffic flow controls and idling restrictions

12 Cap-and-Trade via Bubble : Overview Limit on total airport emissions or from specific covered sources (e.g., aircraft)» Airport authority or individual emitters could be responsible for maintaining emissions below cap Provides flexibility and promotes cost-effectiveness» Emissions from individual source(s) may vary, as long as overall cap is not exceeded» Encourages the lowest-cost option Aggregate emissions are known Legality of bubble unclear» Cooperative arrangements w/ airport possible

13 Bubble Operation Emissions limit could be absolute level (e.g., 5% below today s levels) OR rate-based (e.g., NOx per landing and take-off or per passenger) Could apply only to aircraft emissions, GSE, OR a combination of aircraft, GSE, and other sources at the airport Airports or airlines could be responsible for maintaining emissions below the limit Emissions reductions achieved on-site or through emissions trading from off-site sources» e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule participants

14 Bubble in Operation: Logan Air Quality Initiative Massport voluntarily agreed to limit NOx and VOC emissions at Logan Airport to 1999 levels» Arose out of discussions concerning airport expansion Massport is responsible for maintaining emissions below the limit» Pays for emissions reductions on- or off-airport facility Level expected to be met in the relative near-term and will therefore trigger the program requirements» Will airlines and the FAA sue?

15 High-Speed Rail Greater use of high-speed rail (HSR) can reduce short-haul flights between certain city pairs. For example:» Expand/introduce HSR service for routes where it can be competitive w/ air travel.» Connect airports to rail (e.g., Newark Airport)» Aviation and rail joint efforts (e.g., ticket sharing) Typically connections less than 350 miles are good candidates for HSR connection» 15 U.S. airports with a total of 45,000 short trips per month are potential candidates for new fast rail service according to Amtrak

16 US Dedicated High-Speed Rail Corridors Source: US Federal Railroad Administration, 2001

17 Legal Barriers and Opportunities in the US Engine standards for aircraft, GSE, and GAV set by federal government» Aircraft engine standards influenced by int l standards» The Clean Air Act authorizes CA to adopt more stringent GSE engine standards, and other states may be able to follow suit States could include program to limit GSE and GAV emissions as part of SIP So long as the limitations do not create an emissions standard Airport expansion may provide an opportunity for discussions for emissions improvements» NEPA and air quality/sip/tip planning Few legal precedents established addressing aviation emissions; therefore, jurisdictions may be able to test what is feasible.

18 Conclusions In some regions, airport-related emissions are a large source of NOx emissions And, aviation emissions are projected to grow significantly despite recently adopted int l aircraft engine standards States and localities have restrictions in how they can regulate airport-related emissions, but policy options are available to reduce emissions Airport bubbles offer airlines flexibility in how reductions are achieved and provide localities with means to offset (and possibly reduce) increasing emissions. What are state and localities willing to test?

19 For more information: Center for Clean Air Policy CCAP and NESCAUM (2002), Controlling Airport-Related Air Pollution, Related_Air_Pollution.pdf CCAP (2005), Aircraft NOx Emissions: Analysis of New Certification Standard and Options for Introducing an Airport Bubble, %20Report_x007E_FINAL.pdf