Aviation remains a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, yet federal policies in the United States have largely failed to address its impact. As the urgency to decarbonize aviation grows, some state policymakers are exploring independent solutions. These initiatives focus on integrating sustainable aviation fuels, which have a lower carbon footprint than conventional jet fuel and, in some cases, can even achieve net-zero emissions.
However, questions around the legality and feasibility of state-level action persist. A recent report from UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) delves into various policy approaches and their potential legal risks. This analysis sheds light on how state-led strategies can influence aviation’s sustainability journey.
The Role of State Policies in Aviation Decarbonization
With federal action on aviation emissions lagging, states are stepping in with innovative policy measures. These efforts aim to accelerate the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels and reduce the industry’s reliance on high-carbon jet fuel.
Some of the proposed state policies include:
- Low carbon fuel standards that create incentives for using cleaner fuels
- Airport-based regulations under the Clean Air Act to reduce aircraft emissions
- Taxes and fees on high-carbon jet fuel to discourage its use and fund sustainable alternatives
While these approaches show promise, they also raise legal and regulatory concerns, particularly regarding potential conflicts with federal law.
Low Carbon Fuel Standards: A High-Impact Approach
One of the most effective ways to promote sustainable aviation fuels is through a low carbon or clean fuel standard. This policy sets a carbon intensity threshold for fuels, where low-carbon alternatives generate credits, and high-carbon fuels result in deficits.
By integrating aviation fuels into existing low carbon fuel standards, states can create a financial incentive for airlines to adopt cleaner fuels. However, this approach also comes with the highest legal risk. The federal government traditionally regulates aviation fuel standards, and opponents may argue that state-level mandates interfere with national policies.
Despite this risk, the CLEE report suggests that a well-structured fuel standard could withstand legal challenges, particularly if designed to align with broader climate and clean energy goals.
Clean Air Act Regulations and Airport-Based Strategies
Another potential approach involves leveraging state and local implementation plans under the Clean Air Act. Specifically, states could introduce indirect source rules on airports, requiring reductions in emissions from mobile sources such as aircraft.
This policy would focus on reducing pollutants associated with high-carbon aviation fuel. Since airports already comply with various federal and local air quality regulations, expanding these rules to include sustainable aviation incentives could be a viable path.
While this approach presents a moderate legal risk, it also offers a strategic opportunity. By linking aviation fuel standards to established air quality mandates, states can frame these policies as extensions of existing environmental protections.
Taxation and Fees: A Revenue-Generating Mechanism
A third state-level policy option involves taxing high-carbon aviation fuel or imposing fees to discourage its consumption. The revenue generated could be allocated to fund research, infrastructure, and incentives for sustainable aviation fuel deployment.
Unlike direct fuel regulations, this approach does not mandate fuel choices but instead creates an economic signal that encourages a shift toward lower-carbon alternatives. The legal risk associated with taxation is lower than that of a low carbon fuel standard, though challenges could still arise if opponents argue that fuel taxes infringe on federal jurisdiction.
Nonetheless, targeted taxation remains a pragmatic tool for states to drive market shifts without directly mandating fuel use.
Balancing Impact and Legal Viability
The CLEE report concludes that while a low carbon fuel standard could have the most significant effect on sustainable aviation, it carries the highest risk of federal preemption. Conversely, taxes and fees offer a strong financial mechanism to support sustainability with a moderate legal risk.
For states seeking to implement these policies, careful design and alignment with federal and industry interests are crucial. Policymakers can enhance legal viability by framing these initiatives within broader clean energy and public health goals, rather than as direct aviation fuel regulations.
Conclusion
State-level action has the potential to accelerate the transition toward sustainable aviation fuels, even in the absence of federal leadership. By strategically designing policies such as low carbon fuel standards, airport-based regulations, and targeted taxation, states can drive meaningful reductions in aviation emissions while navigating legal complexities.
While challenges remain, these initiatives signal a growing recognition of aviation’s role in climate change mitigation. If successfully implemented, they could serve as models for broader national and international efforts in aviation decarbonization.