The FAA reauthorization bill would preserve a future for leaded gas -

Good morning and welcome to The Climate 202! Our thoughts are with Californians dealing with the aftermath of Tropical Storm Hilary — and with all Americans named Hilary.

Not a subscriber? Sign up for The Climate 202 to get scoops and sharp analysis in your inbox each morning.

In today’s edition, we’ll cover the Interior Department’s fourth approval of a large offshore wind project, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to launch a new review of ozone standards. But first:

The FAA reauthorization bill would preserve a future for leaded gas

Controversial language in a bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration would effectively require small airports to continue selling leaded gasoline, despite the health hazards of lead, a powerful neurotoxin.

The provisions have sparked a fierce debate among lawmakers, public health advocates, pilots and fuel producers. The debate isn’t over whether to ditch leaded aviation gas, but how quickly to do so in light of safety concerns.

The United States began phasing out leaded gas for motor vehicles in the 1970s, and commercial planes and private jets use unleaded fuel. But more than 220,000 smaller planes, known as piston-engine aircraft, still use leaded gas sold at roughly 13,000 small airports around the country.

Pilots say they support the FAA’s target date of 2030 for phasing out leaded aviation gas, or avgas. They note that only one unleaded avgas is widely available today, and it works for 75 percent of piston-engine aircraft and creates safety problems for the rest.

Environmental and public health advocates say 2030 is too late to protect children living near small airports. They note that lead exposure can seriously damage children’s brains and nervous systems, leading to learning and behavioral problems.

The language in the bipartisan FAA bill, which the House overwhelmingly passed last month, prioritizes the status quo over the quick transition activists desire.

The House version of the bill would require airports that receive federal grants to continue selling the same kinds of fuels they sold in 2018 in perpetuity.
The Senate version would require these airports to continue selling the same fuels they sold in 2022, with a sunset date of 2030 or whenever unleaded fuels are “widely available.”

“While the language doesn’t explicitly say all airports must continue to sell leaded avgas, in effect, it requires them to continue providing those fuels,” said Nathan Park, an associate legislative representative at the environmental law firm Earthjustice.

“However, it is long overdue that we transition away from these harmful fuels,” Park added.

Other critics

For Maria G. Reyes, the provisions are personal. She lives under the flight path to Reid-Hillview Airport in east San Jose, where she raised her granddaughter.

In a 2021 study, blood lead levels in some children living near Reid-Hillview rivaled those of children at the height of the Flint, Mich., water crisis.

“Every time we see an airplane fly over the neighborhood, it’s a pollution issue for our children,” Reyes said. “And like all grandmothers, I wonder how much this is going to affect my granddaughter.”

In response to the 2021 study and years of pressure from community activists, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors banned leaded avgas at Reid-Hillview and San Martin Airport, becoming the first county in the nation to do so.

Sylvia Gallegos, deputy county executive for Santa Clara County, said the provisions in the FAA bill would “impede our ability to provide unleaded fuel exclusively, and that is very concerning.”

Reed-Hillview offers an unleaded avgas made by Indiana-based Swift Fuels that is compatible with about 75 percent of the piston-engine aircraft fleet.
Oklahoma-based General Aviation Modifications Inc. received FAA approval last year for the first unleaded avgas that is compatible with 100 percent of the fleet, although it's not yet widely available.

George Braly, the co-founder of General Aviation Modifications, said most small airports only have one fuel tank for piston-engine aircraft. He said the provisions would force airports to keep leaded avgas in these tanks, unless they spend about $500,000 on a second tank for an unleaded alternative.

The supporters

Supporters of the provisions say they share the goal of eliminating leaded avgas. But they say the transition shouldn’t be rushed at the expense of pilots’ safety.

“Everybody wants to remove lead from aviation fuel,” said Jim Coon, senior vice president of government affairs at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, a trade group. “But we need to have a safe and smart transition.”

If the shift happens too quickly, it could leave pilots stranded, said a Republican aide on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which passed the FAA bill by a 63-0 vote in June.

“You can’t have instances where an aircraft lands at an airport and there’s no fuel available for them — or even worse, they are disincentivized from landing at an airport that would be safer to land at because there’s no fuel available there,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

Republicans and Democrats on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee also agreed to include another provision that would codify the FAA’s EAGLE Initiative, which sets a 2030 target for making unleaded avgas widely available.

Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.), the top Democrat on the committee, said in an emailed statement that the bill “directs the FAA to develop a plan to ensure general aviation aircraft can fully transition away from leaded fuels by 2030, a critical next step to protecting the health and safety of those living in and around airport communities.”

Amendments, EPA action

The House adopted an amendment to the FAA bill from Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) that would allow airports to sell unleaded avgas that has an “industry consensus standard,” such as approval from the nonprofit organization ASTM International. But Braly said it could take years for his company to secure such an approval.

The amendment “does little to mitigate the problem created by that legislation,” Braly said.

Obernolte, a pilot, defended his amendment in an emailed statement, saying it “provides a path forward” for unleaded avgas “while protecting the balance between progress, affordability, and accessibility for general aviation pilots.”

On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will consider the FAA bill when Congress returns from the August recess, with just weeks before the aviation agency’s funding authority expires at the end of September. A spokeswoman for committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) did not respond to a request for comment about whether a manager’s amendment would address the leaded avgas provisions.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency last year announced a proposed determination that lead emissions from aircraft “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.” This determination is formally known as an “endangerment finding,” and if finalized, it would form the legal basis for the EPA’s first-ever regulations on lead emissions from planes.

Agency alert

Interior approves fourth large offshore wind project

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management today will announce the approval of a large offshore wind project that is expected to supply carbon-free power to Rhode Island and Connecticut, according to details shared in advance with The Climate 202.

The Revolution Wind project will be about 15 nautical miles off Point Judith, R.I., and will produce an estimated 704 megawatts of clean energy, enough to power nearly 250,000 homes. It marks the Biden administration’s fourth approval of a commercial-scale offshore wind project, joining the Vineyard Wind project off Massachusetts, the South Fork Wind project off Rhode Island and New York, and the Ocean Wind 1 project off New Jersey.

Revolution Wind, which is owned by the Danish energy giant Orsted and the New England utility Eversource, originally proposed constructing up to 100 turbines. But the developer agreed to build no more than 65 turbines to address concerns about obstructed views in Martha’s Vineyard.

The project, which is expected to create 1,200 jobs during construction, comes as the Biden administration seeks to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030.

“The project’s approval underscores the Administration’s commitment to promoting domestic energy production and fighting climate change, while promoting economic growth and fostering environmental stewardship within coastal communities,” BOEM Director Elizabeth Klein said in a statement.

EPA restarts review of ozone standards

The Environmental Protection Agency will end its current review of the nation’s ground-level ozone standards and start over, potentially prompting what some environmental groups called an unacceptable delay.

In a letter dated Friday and shared in a news release yesterday, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said he would restart the agency’s evaluation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, a key ingredient in smog. Regan wrote that after reviewing the advice of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, he was “convinced that a full and complete review of the ozone NAAQS is warranted to ensure a thorough and transparent assessment of the latest science.”

The move comes after the agency in 2021 said it would reconsider the Trump administration’s decision not to update the standards. Environmentalists said the move creates an unnecessary delay that could lead to more pollution in the meantime.

“It is unacceptable for EPA to go back to the drawing board when it has already made significant progress toward a stronger smog standard,” Charles Harper, power sector senior policy lead at Evergreen Action, said in a statement. “Kicking off a brand new multi-year process, rather than finalizing the reconsideration already underway, will mean subjecting millions of Americans to dangerous levels of air pollution for years.”

Asked for comment, EPA spokesman Nick Conger said in an email to The Climate 202: “We’re going to move as quickly as possible while making sure we’re accounting for the latest science and preserving the integrity of the review process. EPA’s independent science and health advisors raised new, substantial issues that require a thorough review. We’ll do that review in a lawful, transparent, science-based way, so we can best protect people from air pollution in a durable way.”

In the atmosphere

Viral

Thanks for reading!

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZL2wuMitoJyrX2d9c3%2BOaW9oamJks6KtjKucmq2knbyztdmaq6KnnmKvqrjLZq6orZyZerG%2BxKycq66VYrO2wNSrnGaklZaxprCMoJisZw%3D%3D