U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–640 2010

FROM THE WRIGHT BROTHERS TO THE RIGHT 

SOLUTIONS: CURBING SOARING AVIATION 

EMISSIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2008 

Serial No. 110–31 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. John Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 8 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 9 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, prepared statement .................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Hilda Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 12 

WITNESSES

Panel One 

Dan Elwell, Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, Planning, and 

Environment, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration ................................ 14 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 16 

Answers to Submitted Questions ............................................................. 101 

Bob Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Air and Radiation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................. 29 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 31 

Panel Two 

Jim May, President and CEO, Air Transport Association ............................ 54 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 57 

Tom Windmuller, Senior Vice President, International Air Transport Association ......................................................................................................... 71 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 73 

Answers to Submitted Questions ............................................................. 111 

Deron Lovaas, Transportation and Energy Co-Director, Natural Resources Defense Council ............................................................................... 80 

Prepared Statement .................................................................................. 83 

Answers to Submitted Questions ............................................................. 124 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Hon. Edward J. Markey, supplemental testimony submitted by Virgin Atlantic Airlines ............................................................................................................ 46 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, supplemental testimony submitted by The Boeing 

Company ............................................................................................................... 51 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

FROM THE WRIGHT BROTHERS TO THE 

RIGHT SOLUTIONS: CURBING SOARING 

AVIATION EMISSIONS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 2, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:50 p.m. in room 2318, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Larson, 

Solis, Herseth Sandlin, Cleaver, Hall, McNerney, Sensenbrenner, 

Walden, and Sullivan. 

Staff present: Ana Unruh Cohen and Danielle Baussan. 

The CHAIRMAN. This second hearing today is called to order. The 

select committee analyzes all causes of global warming. It can’t let 

aviation fly under the radar. Aviation emissions currently amount 

for 12 percent of U.S. transportation emissions and 3 percent of 

emissions nationally and worldwide. The impact of these emissions 

cannot be ignored. The CO2, nitrous oxide and particulate matter 

leaked into high altitudes alter our climate. Scientific debate does 

not center on whether CO2 in the stratosphere is harmful. The 

question is how much more harmful CO2 may be when compounded 

by other aviation emissions in the stratosphere. 

The aviation industry has improved emission output through 

technology, but the rapidly increasing number of flights will exacerbate aviation emissions. The FAA has forecasted over a billion commercial passengers annually by 2015, and the intergovernmental 

panel on climate change has predicted that even assuming efficiency and infrastructure improvements, aviation emissions could 

double or triple by 2050. Aviation must answer for the heat 

trappings of their own success. 

Today’s hearing on aviation emissions should not be viewed as a 

mere blip on the screen. States, cities and organizations have petitioned the EPA to regulate aviation greenhouse gas emissions. 

Aviation fuels are currently being considered under a cap-and-trade 

system in Congress. The European Commission plans to integrate 

domestic and U.S. flights into the EU trading system. As local governments and other nations move to limit the impact of aviation on 

the environment, Congress cannot linger in a holding pattern. The 

witnesses before us today address the three factors responsible for 

aviation emissions, operations technologies and fuel. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
2 

Regulating fuel emissions largely falls to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Federal Aviation Administration can discuss 

its vision to streamline aviation operations for more efficient 

flights, and the Natural Resources Defense Counsel’s transportation fuel director can discuss aviation fuel options and consequences. The Air Transport Association and International Air 

Transport Association can discuss different approaches to aviation 

cap-and-trade regulations. Virgin Atlantic General Counsel Jill 

Brady was unable to attend today’s hearing, but submitted written 

testimony discussing Virgin’s groundbreaking commercial flight 

using biofuels and support for an international cap-and-trade 

scheme. 

I encourage the public to read her testimony and all the other 

testimony. As aviation’s contribution to global warming creeps up 

the IPCC charts, we cannot wait until it becomes a bigger threat. 

At one time, the number of automobiles on the road was not a significant contributor to global warming emissions. But even after 

that harm was established, decades of inattention and legislative 

delays led us to the environmental emergency that formed this select committee. 

With that in mind, I look forward to hearing everyone’s testimony today. And now I turn to recognize the ranking member for 

an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
3 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 9 here 61640A.001
4 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 61640A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

you for scheduling this hearing today. I look forward to learning 

more about this topic. One of my many curiosities about this topic, 

perhaps the most pressing is why the aviation industry is a major 

focus in the global warming debate. By all measures, aviation produces just a tiny fraction of the world’s greenhouse gasses. In the 

U.S. aviation accounts for only 3 percent of emissions compared to 

electricity generation, ground transport, industry and agriculture, 

all of which produce many times more greenhouse gasses. Furthermore, the aviation industry has been doing a good job of improving 

fuel efficiency because if they didn’t do that, they would all be out 

of business with fuel prices being what they are. And it didn’t take 

heavy-handed government regulations such as cap-and-trade to 

make it happen. 

In the past 4 years, U.S. airlines have improved fuel efficiency 

by 11 percent mostly due to the market driven pressures of the 

high price of oil and the lower value of the dollar. This is positive 

progress, and the industry deserves commendation for this improvement. In spite of these numbers, the European Union wants 

to include aviation in its emission trading scheme which would 

clearly throw additional costs onto the airline industry. I don’t understand why government regulators want to punish an industry 

that is already making good progress without the pressure of regulation. 

Then again, I don’t understand how hampering the economy with 

regulatory schemes like cap-and-trade is the proper way to confront 

climate change in the first place. Last month, an EU commissioner 

said that if the U.S. didn’t join the EU emission trading scheme or 

apply a similar program to U.S. airlines by 2010, EU would begin 

denying incoming flights in 2012. I wonder if this threat also applies to India and China, each of which has a growing airline industry to meet the demand of their growing economies. In fact, testimony today will show that these two countries will build 100 new 

airports over the next decade to meet the demand. 

And, no, India and China don’t have emissions trading system of 

their own, and it doesn’t look like they are going to get one soon. 

There may be advances in clean fuel technology that help reduce 

airlines greenhouse gas output even further. As I have said many 

times, technological advancement must be part of any plan to confront climate change. However, I do not believe that any advances 

in fuel technologies should come at the expense of safety. There are 

already some concerns that biofuels can cause engines to stall, 

which is a safety risk I believe is too great, especially considering 

the airlines’ minimal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. 

If large scale changes are needed in the aviation industry, the 

U.N.’s international civil aviation organization is the best place to 

address these questions. And it isn’t often that I embrace a U.N. 

organization to do anything. 

However, in this case, the U.N. is taking more thoughtful approach to aviation emissions and technology than is the European 

Union. 

When it comes to global warming, many people cry that the sky 

is falling. But I worry if we make careless changes to the airline 

industry, it will be the planes falling from the sky. I believe it is 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
6 

more prudent at this point to recognize the good work that the airlines are doing before we force changes that could jeopardize both 

the safety and the economic health of the industry. I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. To respond to Mr. Sensenbrenner about why we are 

concerned about an industry that has only 3 percent, I just think 

we all have to get on the bus, everybody, whether we are 3 percent 

or half a percent or a tenth of a percent, we all have to get on the 

bus. We are not going to solve this problem unless every industry 

participates. That includes Congress, that includes us in our homes 

and that includes the airline industry. So it hardly will be an excuse, and obviously I’m from Seattle, an aerospace industry, and 

you might think a hometown team would say ignore that industry, 

but you can’t ignore any industry. 

So I have good news to report to the committee, and we are going 

to hear about it today. There are some bragging rights coming out 

of Seattle that to do my job of bragging about my home town team, 

let me brag about them a little bit. The first biofuels operated commercial jet airplane, the jet, was manufactured in Seattle, with 

Boeing 747 using standardized engines with no modifications whatsoever to the engines. It flew on February 24, 237 miles from London to Amsterdam safely, didn’t fall out of the sky, no injuries reported and it was a smooth flight. And it used a fuel generated by 

Imperium Biofuels in Grace Harbor, Washington, used 3,175 gallons of biofuels. It was produced by Imperium. This was kind of an 

all Washington State project with help by Sir Richard Branson. 

And it just shows what the power of the human intellect can do 

in aerospace, and we look forward to more successes. 

I also want to point out in the aerospace industry, our ground operations are part of this as well. And there is really some good 

things we can do on the ground. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport has done some great things reducing its CO2 emissions in its 

operations. They are using 25 percent green power. They have reduced their electrical consumption 24 percent, and they are implementing a way to use preconditioned air so you don’t have to use 

the airplane engines to condition the air in the airplanes while 

they are sitting on the tarmac. So we are developing some great 

systemic things in Seattle, and I look forward to hearing about 

more success. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. I want to thank the chairman and thank him for 

holding this hearing today. And I also bring with me some bragging rights from the aerospace industry and my home town is that 

of East Hartford, Connecticut, where my dad worked at Pratt Whitney for 37 years where we continue to keep the eagle flying as we 

say, from East Hartford and I’m proud as well and I think all the 

more reason to have hearings like this and to set standards and 

goals to see the kind of technological advances that, in fact, can be 

made that are going to help us all in our effort to limit the carbon 

footprint that we have and create greater efficiencies that will improve our travel, and of course, save overall dollars. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
7 

Pratt Whitney announced the successful design of engines that 

were beyond Mitsubishi and with technology that reduces air emissions 40 percent below the 1996 regulations and saving taxpayers 

$600,000 each year due to lower operating and maintenance costs 

and improved productivity. 

It does, Mr. Chairman, beg the question, too, you know perhaps 

at a future date, we could have the Air Force in here and the Pentagon in terms of listening to their testimony inasmuch as they are 

the largest consumers of energy in the United States government 

system. And the Air Force obviously is the largest consumer of fuel 

in the country. 

And with that, I look forward to hearing from our testimony and 

thank the chairman for holding this insightful hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman from 

Connecticut. And now we turn and recognize the gentleman from 

Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Larson and 

Mr. Inslee pretty much covered what my comments are. I would 

only add, and then yield back the balance of my time. There are 

a lot of questions that have not been answered and I think that we 

have got to go through a period of examining what happens to the 

pollution at a higher altitude and whether there is a greater impact, even though we have 3 percent emissions. It could be that it 

creates problems of its own. We don’t know, and so I think it is appropriate that we examine it. And I appreciate the hearing and our 

guests who have come here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
8 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 17 here 61640A.003
9 

Mr. LARSON [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. With that, I 

recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I also would like to welcome our witnesses and thank the chairman for holding this hearing today. And I reassure our ranking member that I, for one, do 

not, as a member of this committee, want to punish an industry 

that has already done a lot in their own interests and also in the 

environments interest by installing wing lifts or removing magazines which add to up to a surprising amount of weight. I don’t 

think there has been too many customer complaints about magazines being removed from airlines, and any efforts that are being 

made, not only in the air but on the ground, as I understand, to 

reduce consumption of release of greenhouse gasses from ground 

equipment that is involved with loading airlines with baggage or 

food services or what have you. 

I’m proud to say that in my district, Stewart Airport, which has 

just been taken over by the Port Authority of New Jersey, is going 

to be, according to their announcement at their big press conference, they would like to be the first carbon negative airport, and 

compensate with solar and geothermal and passive features and so 

on and with using alternative fuels as much as possible on the 

ground for the emissions that they release in the air. That may be 

a big ticket, and I admire them for making such an ambitious announcement. And I wish them luck in meeting that goal and will 

do everything I can to try to help. But I just think I agree with, 

I guess it was Mr. Inslee said that we all have to try; I as an individual, we as Members of Congress and you as members of your 

company and your industry, in order to have a chance at reaching 

the goals that this committee is constituted to find a route to, those 

being energy independence and to stop the advance of climate 

change that we all must do our part. 

And I am appreciative of the fact that the industry we are hearing from today has already done a lot along those lines and looking 

forward to hearing what else you think can be done, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LARSON. I thank the gentleman from New York for his words 

and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome 

the panel here for their testimony. And I look at all the issues, I 

look at this issue, I look at all the issues surrounding global warming as not only a threat but as an opportunity, in this case there 

is an opportunity to find ways to make the airline industry more 

efficient which will ultimately save money, there has been some 

very good recommendations out there that are worth pursuing, one 

by Mr. Lovins, Henry Lovins, to encourage the airline industry to 

tax considerations, to retire some of the older more inefficient 

planes with new ones. 

That certainly wouldn’t hurt the State of Washington. And there 

is all kinds of things we can do to improve airline efficiency which 

would reduce greenhouse gasses. So I look forward to what this 

hearing would produce. And thank you very much and I yield back 

to the chair. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
10 

Mr. LARSON. I thank the gentleman from California, and now on 

to our panelists and again, we want to thank them for being here 

today. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Blumenauer and Ms. Solis follow:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
11 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 21 here 61640A.004
12 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 61640A.005
13 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 61640A.006
14 

Mr. LARSON. And first, I would like to recognize as the Chair 

comes back and assumes his position, Dan Elwell, the assistant administrator for aviation, policy, planning and environment of the 

United States Federal Aviation Administration, and Mr. Bob Meyers who is the principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENTS OF DAN ELWELL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, 

AVIATION, POLICY, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT, UNITED 

STATES FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND BOB 

MEYERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you both for joining us and with that I yield 

to the chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and Mr. Elwell. Whenever 

you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF DAN ELWELL 

Mr. ELWELL. Thank you. Good morning, chairman Markey. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you, Congressman 

Sensenbrenner and the members of the select committee. 

The environment is a page 1 issue no matter where page 1 happens to be. It was the central theme of the FAA’s annual forecast 

conference last month, and the subject of acting Administrator 

Sturgell’s speech to the International Aviation Club. Whether you 

followed the proceedings in Bali or the recent meeting of the group 

on international aviation and climate change in Montreal, one 

thing is clear: Aviation’s contribution to global change is getting a 

lot of attention, which is as it should be. And that is why I am so 

pleased to share with you today both U.S. aviation’s exceptional environmental record to date and our plans to make it even better. 

The bottom line for us at the FAA and indeed for every citizen of 

this great land is that when you have the opportunity to do something for the environment, you do it. This issue should neither be 

partisan nor polemic. As global citizens, we have got to move forward with each opportunity. At the FAA that is specifically what 

is happening. We recognize the significance of taking care of the 

planet. 

In a day and age where aviation activity is on the verge of doubling, where annual passenger totals will surge past 1 billion, it is 

imperative that we take steps that will make a lasting difference. 

Those steps form the very foundation for our plan for the next generation of air traffic control. 

NextGen is known as our blue print for the future. It also happens to be our plan to keep aviation green. With the aviation industry experiencing record growth, aircraft emissions remain a central environmental challenge as they contribute to global climate 

change and impact local air quality and noise near airports. From 

a business standpoint, failure to address these concerns could slow 

or stop the growth of aviation and the benefits it brings to our Nation. 

Aviation accounts for roughly 10 million jobs in the U.S. and over 

5 percent of our national GDP. For the record, as I already said, 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
15 

aviation greenhouse gas emissions represent less than 3 percent of 

the world’s total. Nevertheless we must do what it takes to reduce 

that number. 

To provide some context, there is some good news. When you 

compare 2006 to the year 2000, U.S. commercial aviation moved 12 

percent more passengers and 22 percent more freight while burning less fuel. Between 2000 and 2006, aviation emissions in the 

U.S. actually declined—that’s right, declined—by about 4 percent, 

reducing our carbon output by about 6 million tons. 

During the same period, European aviation emissions increased 

some 30 percent. And in light of this data, recent rhetoric from the 

EU threatening to cut or reduce U.S. flights to Europe if we don’t 

pay for our carbon is, at best, impolitic, at worst, hypocritical. It 

is not surprising that the rest of the world rejected the European 

plan during the 36th international Civil Aviation Organization assembly in Montreal last year. 

We, like most of the world, believe that the most efficient means 

of reducing aviation emissions is to reduce the amount of fuel that 

is burned. The aviation industry has made and continues to make 

significant improvements. Aircraft fuel efficiency has improved 70 

percent over the last 40 years and it is only getting better. On a 

per-passenger mile basis, Boeing’s new 787 will be as fuel efficient 

as today’s subcompact hybrid car. These advances are taking place 

without a single government imposed emission standard for CO2

and no mention of a cap. 

In the past 4 years alone, U.S. airlines have improved their fuel 

efficiency by 11 percent, U.S. airlines have voluntarily committed 

to an additional 30 percent improvement by 2025. With that said, 

forecasts are one thing, getting there is quite another. But with the 

price of oil over $100 a barrel, the motivation to reduce fuel consumption has never been greater. 

But back to what the FAA is doing. We have already implemented a program to reduce vertical separation between aircraft at 

high altitudes. It is saving about 3 million tons of CO2 per year. 

We are redesigning air space. We are altering the routes planes use 

to descend into airports both here and overseas. That will allow us 

to use smooth continuous approaches that burn less fuel and make 

less noise while doing so. 

In short, anyplace and any way we can make a difference we are. 

And as we head into the design, development and execution of 

NextGen, I think that getting to zero emissions growth is a reasonable goal. In my written testimony, I described the five-pillar approach that will get us there. It takes advantage of efforts like our 

aviation climate change research initiative, the commercial aviation alternative fuels initiative, FAA’s proposed research consortium called CLEEN and a partnership for air transportation noise 

and emissions reduction. 

Aviation has faced many challenges in the past. We have solved 

them by coming together to produce collaborative efforts that have 

changed the way we operate as an agency and has literally 

changed the way Americans fly. I am confident that we will continue with that in the environmental challenge ahead. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Elwell, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Elwell follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
16 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 30 here 61640A.007
17 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 31 here 61640A.008
18 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 32 here 61640A.009
19 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 33 here 61640A.010
20 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 34 here 61640A.011
21 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 61640A.012
22 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 61640A.013
23 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 61640A.014
24 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 61640A.015
25 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 61640A.016
26 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 61640A.017
27 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 61640A.018
28 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 61640A.019
29 

The CHAIRMAN. Our second witness on the first panel is Bob 

Meyers, the principal deputy assistant administrator in the Office 

of Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Mr. Meyers and I have been walking around the corridors of the 

Rayburn building here since the beginning of time almost. 

Mr. MEYERS. Something like that, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. When did you start working up here in the Rayburn building? 

Mr. MEYERS. I started working for Congress in the late 1970s. 

The CHAIRMAN. Around the same time I arrived here. We welcome you here and we appreciate your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BOB MEYERS 

Mr. MEYERS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee 

concerning the important issue of aviation emissions and climate 

change. On December 4 and December 31st of last year, EPA received two petitions to set greenhouse gas emission standards for 

aircraft engines under the Clean Air Act. One petition was filed by 

several States, the City of New York the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District and the District of Columbia. The other was 

filed by several environmental organizations. The petitions raised 

similar but not identical issues. The relief requested in the petition 

centers on the finding of endangerment and adoption of Clean Air 

Act regulations. 

As Administrator Johnson recently informed the committee, EPA 

intends to issue an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking later 

this spring. This ANPR will cover a variety of issues arising from 

the supreme court’s decision in Mass v. EPA and among the issues 

addressed, ANPR will seek comment and relevant data concerning 

the two aviation petitions the Agency has received. 

The ANPR will also seek comment and data with respect to additional petitions the Agency has received concerning non road and 

marine sources. Through the ANPR process EPA expects to gain 

valuable information and public insights regarding greenhouse gas 

emissions from such sources air connections among various Clean 

Air Act provisions and possible regulatory requirements. Your letter of invitation requested that I address four issues. Some of the 

questions posited were similar to the questions previously received 

by the Agency that were addressed in my letter to the committee 

of March 31st. In today’s testimony, I would like to provide further 

response to your concerns and specifically information regarding 

emissions, potential use of biofuels, FAA coordination and the EU 

emissions trading scheme. 

Very briefly, the compound submitted from aircraft jet engines 

that directly relate to climate change are carbon dioxide and small 

amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. There are also emissions 

which more indirectly affect radiation forcing climate. As detailed 

in my written statement, the works of the International Panel on 

Climate Change reports to the Council of the International Civil 

Aviation Organization and other sources have examined these 

emissions. Overall, aircraft operations in the U.S. are estimated to 

account for about 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from the 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
30 

U.S. transportation sector and approximately 3 percent of total 

U.S. GHG emissions. 

Section 231 of the Clean Air Act gives EPA authority to determine whether aircraft emissions contribute to air pollution which 

may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, and to set emission standards following a positive finding. 

Section 232 of the Act provides FAA with the authority to certify 

aircraft engines for emission purposes and to enforce compliance 

with EPA’s standards. EPA has utilized this authority on several 

occasions including the 1982 standards for HC, or hydrocarbons, 

1997 standards for NOx and CO, and further NOx standards in 

2005. These standards essentially cover criteria pollutants and precursors for purposes of improving local air quality. 

With respect to fuel, commercial aircraft uses a petroleum-based 

fuel commonly referred to as Jet-A kerosene. In 2006, the air travel 

industry and FAA established the commercial aviation alternative 

fuels initiative to explore the potential use of alternative fuels for 

aircraft for energy security and possible environmental improvements. And since the FAA’s primary authority is this area, I would 

defer to the FAA to address their ongoing work in this area. 

Overall, as mentioned, U.S. aviation emissions have declined in 

recent years. Moreover, it is likely the aircraft fuel efficiency will 

improve in the future due to technology developments for lighter 

and more aerodynamic aircraft, as well as more efficient engines. 

In the long term, the expected increase in air traffic and lead times 

that are necessary for technology change and deployment could effect recent trends. As indicated previously, our upcoming ANPR 

will provide a context in which these issues can be assessed. With 

respect to coordination with the FAA, various offices within EPA 

and FAA are in frequent contact regarding aviation and environmental issues, including the next generation of air transport system plan. 

EPA has had substantial interactions with FAA in the development of aviation GHG inventories and we expect to continue our 

coordination with FAA in developing our responses to the two administrative petitions. 

Finally, you asked whether EPA was examining how the U.S. 

might comply with the EU trading scheme. As my letter of March 

31st addresses this issue, I would just generally state that the EPA 

technical staff had provided background data information regarding emissions and cap-and-trade programs during an interagency 

process. 

Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members, for giving me 

this opportunity, and this concludes my prepared statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meyers, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Meyers follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
31 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 61640A.020
32 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 61640A.021
33 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 61640A.022
34 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 61640A.023
35 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 61640A.024
36 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 61640A.025
37 

The CHAIRMAN. And the Chair will now recognize himself for 5 

minutes for questioning. 

Mr. Elwell, the NextGen program was formed to plan for the future of aviation. In both your testimony and your response to the 

select committee’s letter last year, your environmental efforts seem 

to be tangential rather than central to the future of aviation. Given 

the future of carbon constrained economy and the inevitability of 

some sort of European aviation emissions cap-and-trade system, 

how is it that you have not focused on global warming emissions 

as you plan for a rapidly increasing aviation industry? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well, Mr. Chairman, in referencing NextGen, we 

have an integrated work plan, a rather large document, but we 

have devoted an entire section of the integrated work plan, which 

is basically the template from which we will implement NextGen. 

And the chapter is dedicated to environmental considerations and 

how we will mitigate our environmental footprint, so I wouldn’t 

characterize our treatment of the environmental issue with regard 

to NextGen as tangential. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does the FAA see coal-to-liquid fuels as the future of jet fuel? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well coal-to-liquid fuels is one area of alternative 

fuels being looked at. And the initiative I had mentioned in my testimony, CAAFI, or Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative, 

is dedicated to the furthering for the proposal for alternative fuels 

that have a net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. So to the extent to which coal to liquid can achieve that, then yes, we will be 

for it. But there is, as you are well aware, sequestration issues and 

life cycle issues. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, the Virgin Atlantic and Continental are 

testing the biofuels in their planes, and is even funding research 

into biofuels. What work is being done to support biofuel development at your agency aside from a biofuels demonstration test 

flight? 

Mr. ELWELL. Again, as part of our central participation in CAAFI 

and in the aviation climate change research initiative and our partnership program for lower emissions, we are intricately involved 

both in centers of excellence with university research, again CAAFI 

and ACCRI in all aspects of alternative fuel research. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meyers, as you point out in your testimony, 

EPA’s decision on whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions 

from aviation sector under section 231 of the Clean Air Act depends on an identical determination as Massachusetts versus EPA 

as to whether the emissions cause or contribute to air pollution 

that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or 

welfare. We know from EPA’s staff depositions to Congress that 

EPA finished the endangerment finding for motor vehicles and 

found that, indeed, EPA did believe that these emissions are dangerous. 

Since you have concluded that these emissions are dangerous 

when they come out of vehicles that drive on the roads, would it 

not be arbitrary to conclude that these emissions are not dangerous 

when they come out of vehicles that fly in the skies? 

Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
38 

I think I might say that the documents that you are referring to 

are draft documents we have had that correspondence with the 

committee with respect to these documents. So as draft documents, 

any use in documents would not be conclusions. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you do formally conclude that greenhouse gas 

emissions from motor vehicles are dangerous, is there any reason 

that EPA did not conclude that emissions coming from aviation are 

not also as dangerous? 

Mr. MEYERS. I learned a long time ago not to engage in 

hypotheticals. In that hypothetical I am not available to give you 

a detailed answer. I would say very clearly the endangerment language in 231 is very similar to that with the act to petition in the 

section 202, and when we looked at greenhouse gasses, we understand which pollutants they are and they are emitted from both 

mobile sources on road as well as offroad as well as aircraft. 

The CHAIRMAN. And do you plan on including the text of the 

endangerment finding you already completed for vehicle emissions 

in the advanced notice of proposed rule? 

Mr. MEYERS. Mr. Chairman, we are just initiating work now on 

the ANPR, so decisions regarding final documents and final support documents have not been made at this point in time. I think 

as I related to the committee and other committees on the Hill indicates that we plan to utilize the work that was performed by 

EPA over last year in response to the greenhouse gas petition and 

with reference to the President’s 20-in-10 initiative. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you. The Chair now turns and recognizes 

the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Elwell, do you see 

a conflict between some move to reduce emissions and a strong 

safety record? Is there a conflict between trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and safety? 

Mr. ELWELL. Mr. Cleaver, if you are asking are they mutually exclusive, clearly not. We can pursue both and we clearly have. We 

are currently in the safest period that we have ever seen. And we 

also are just wrapping up a decline in fuel burn despite the fact 

that we have carried more people and freight. So I think the record 

is clear that we can do both. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I raise the question only because there was discussion about planes falling. And I thought it might be important for 

us to just get that on the record. The committee is not saying ignore public safety and concentrate on greenhouse gas emissions. 

What is the future, based on your analysis, in the aviation industry with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? And I am 

not sure whether, who does the, whether FAA or whoever would 

look at the other atmospheric emissions and whether there is a difference there than on Earth. Do you have any thoughts about that 

or knowledge about whether that has ever been looked into or 

whether you believe that it ought to be looked into? 

Mr. ELWELL. We certainly believe it needs to be looked into. In 

my written testimony, I go through the pillars of our plan go forward, and the first pillar is a better understanding of the impacts 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
39 

of the various emissions that combustion produces. One thing we 

know for sure is that CO2 is not altitude dependent, so there is no 

multiplying effect of CO2 wherever it is emitted. And we believe 

and it has been posed before that the other pollutants have some 

magnification at altitude. As recently, the IPCC is actually most recently said that the science is so uncertain as to that ‘‘multiplier’’ 

as to them not giving one actually. And so our involvement in 

ACCRI, Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative, is focused on 

exactly those issues. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses. Mr. Meyers, I want to ask you, in your written testimony 

you mentioned the Fischer-Tropsch synthetic which was produced 

by the Nazis for various fuels including aviation fuel I believe during World War Two. And the Fischer-Tropsch reaction is apparently—I believe there are a couple of studies I have heard about 

that are going on now to pull carbon dioxide out of the air, process 

the carbon in it into a liquid fuel, upon which combustion releases 

a similar amount of carbon dioxide back into the air in a carbon 

neutral process which would provide us, if one uses, in parts of the 

country and parts of the world, where the sun shines almost constantly or where the wind blows almost constantly using those renewables as the energy to drive the Fischer-Tropsch reaction. Are 

you aware of any studies along those lines? And what are your 

thoughts? 

Mr. MEYERS. I would be happy to get back to the record on the 

specific studies to be aware of. My office is primarily a regulatory 

office out of EPA and we have an Office of Research and Development. But generically, obviously, it is going to depend, FischerTropsch is a process that will depend on feedstocks. You can use 

Fischer-Tropsch with coal and has been done for some time, as you 

mentioned, both in World War II and in South Africa in more recent years. So I would say it is probably theoretically possible but 

I would have to get back to the record for more specifics. 

Mr. HALL. I am curious about this because I have been hearing 

about it. If you do an Internet search for Fischer-Tropsch, a lot of 

sites show up with different things on them and you can’t believe 

everything you read on the Internet, but wouldn’t it be nice if it 

were true. 

Mr. Elwell I don’t know if you want to comment to this. Since 

Mr. Meyers referred to you on that part his testimony and I have 

one other question also. 

Mr. ELWELL. And no to the Fischer-Tropsch. It is out of my 

realm. 

Mr. HALL. It seems to me that using an existing carbon fuel like 

coal obviously is something we know how to do with that process 

to create liquid fuels. But we also know, so far anyway, that we are 

faced with either sequestering massive amounts of carbon dioxide 

or using a fuel that could already be used in other ways, whereas 

storing solar or some other renewable—the big problem people always say about the sun and the wind is you can’t always predict 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
40 

when it is going to shine and you can’t always predict when it is 

going to blow. But if you could store it and basically use the liquid 

as a battery or use hydrogen as a battery in a similar way by separating water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn the hydrogen, that is not something I am advocating for airplane fuel, but 

it is something that can be used for generation of electricity. 

But this is a similar thing for Fischer-Tropsch if a carbon dioxide 

neutral process could be developed using it. The other question I 

had, you mentioned continuous descent as part of NextGen, and I 

sit on the Aviation Committee of Transportation and Infrastructure, and I’ve been very interested in that because particularly in 

my district we have a couple of towns, the Town of Pound Ridge 

and the town of Warwick in the 19th congressional district that are 

being affected or feel that they are being affected already by the 

New York air space redesign, and they are hearing that stepping 

down of planes going from descent to hover to descent to hover as 

they wait to be cleared for the next 2,000 foot drop. And of course 

the engines have to rev up to hold altitude and then rev down to 

descend, and once they can get on to continuous descent, they 

hopefully will be less noticed. 

They might be making as much noise sort of on average, but it 

is that change in pitch that I think is especially noticed by people 

out in the country, and where they are used to the peace and quiet. 

Is this something that can be done in any parts of, for instance, in 

New York air space before full implementation of NextGen? 

Mr. ELWELL. NextGen, before full implementation, it can be 

done, in fact, over 25 percent of the approaches right now in L.A. 

are using CDA. And we are putting it in where we can. Obviously, 

probably one of the most difficult places to do it consistently is in 

the northeast sector which is why the redesign is so important. But 

once, as you mentioned, once NextGen is fully implemented, our 

hope is to have CDA be the norm and step down arrivals would be 

the exception. 

And you are right. The ability to go to idle from altitude and 

bring up your power half a mile from the threshold huge emissions 

benefits and below 6,000 feet about a 30 percent reduction in overall noise. 

Mr. HALL. So it is good both for noise and for CO2 emissions and 

that is what we are after. My time is done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Elwell, if you wanted to do a great job on 

NextGen, what kind of resources would you need for Congress to 

give you? 

Mr. ELWELL. A little bit over a year ago, the FAA, the administration proposed our NextGen reauthorization bill, and it offered 

some financing reform initiatives that would we believe allow us to 

pay for and implement NextGen as quickly as we are able. It had 

some dedicated funding for NextGen. Obviously, that legislation 

has lagged some. But we absolutely need your cooperation and 

partnership, Congress, and the proper and timely funding for the 

capital expenditures for NextGen and for—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give me a number? 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
41 

Mr. ELWELL. We had in our proposal a plan to spend $4.6 billion 

over 5 years just on NextGen. And the President’s budget supports 

that. So that is what we are asking for. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, great. Thank you. And Mr. Meyer, in January, the select committee sent you a letter asking about the EPA’s 

commitment to aviation emissions and climate change. Your reply 

which we received 2 days ago stated that ANPRN has not taken 

a formal stance on the effects of aviation on climate change. 

When will you address this issue? And will it be separate from 

an endangerment finding? 

Mr. MEYERS. We will be addressing these issues as well as other 

issues effecting climate change in the context of an ANPRN. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you will be doing it in the context of the announcement that you made last week? 

Mr. MEYERS. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. That is helpful to us. Does the gentleman 

from Missouri have any other questions? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, one other question. I was intrigued 

by Mr. Hall’s comment about the airport in his district. Is that 

something, for either of you, is that something that you believe to 

be possible and if so, is it something that you would encourage 

where airports would move toward becoming carbon neutral, at 

least in the ground operation with renewable fuels and so forth? 

Mr. ELWELL. Absolutely encourage it. In fact, we have a program 

called VALE, Voluntary Airport Lower Emissions program, in 

which we allow airports to spend money on electric vehicles and 

tank refuelers as opposed to using trucks. All of the things that 

were mentioned by your colleague. Electric, plug into airplanes for 

fueling, cooling so that they don’t need to turn on the engines. So 

yes, the short answer is absolutely. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is there any, do you have any material and documentation, that we would need that I would be able to look at? 

Mr. ELWELL. Yes, we do, sir. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I would really like to see that. That is very intriguing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just so I can clarify, is it possible, Mr. Meyers, 

that when the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking comes out 

that there won’t be something in there? Is one of the options a consideration of the endangerment finding or there won’t be an aviation component? Is that also possible? 

Mr. MEYERS. We are in the process of drafting, so I think I 

should probably allow for any possibility during that process of 

drafting an interagency review. 

But as the letter indicated that was sent to your committee and 

others, we were looking at the ANRPN as a vehicle to address— 

we not only have two aviation petitions, we have five other petitions covering off road and marine. 

So traditionally under our process when we get petitions of this 

sort, as we did last year when we had a petition with regard to 

leaded aircraft general aviation aircraft gasoline, we solicited the 

information we needed to address the petitions through an 

ANPRN. So that would be our intent with respect to the aircraft 

petitions. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
42 

Relative to your question on endangerment, as I think we have 

referenced in the letter, that we would be looking both at the 

science and climate change and that relationship to endangerment 

finding that would occur, and that would be in the context of the 

ANPRN also. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible that it will come out without any 

actual proposal of either endangerment or regulations for any sector? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, fairly much by definition of advance notice, 

does that normally conclude with a proposal? It is meant as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, not as a formal notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you are saying it doesn’t necessarily mean 

that either the endangerment finding or something on—— 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, I think what we tried to indicate was during 

the course of our consideration over the last year, and as the committee knows, there was a lot of work done with reference to not 

only vehicle emissions but the endangerment issue, and also not 

covered by the act of petition of the fuels. 

We look very heavily at the fuels. As the Administrator has testified in respect to previous hearings, we had the passage of the energy bill to take into consideration in December. 

So in the context of our letter, an explanation of our plan going 

forward was to examine the interconnections of the Clean Air Act 

that occurred both between the mobile and stationary sources. Obviously with respect to the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision, the 

context of regulatory decisions are essentially channeled through a 

follow-up of endangerment finding in accordance with the opinion 

and in accordance with the structure of the statute. 

The CHAIRMAN. So at the pace at which this is proceeding, it is 

possible that the President could leave office, President Bush could 

leave office without any decision actually having been made on 

endangerment and without any decision actually having been made 

in this one hearing—a focus on the role of aviation and a solution 

to the problem? 

Mr. MEYERS. Well, I think the path for the Administrator’s outline is to issue an ANPRN this spring, allowing for a public comment period. Then at the end of that process, we would consider 

on the basis of that information how best to respond to the Massachusetts vs. EPA case and its implications throughout the act. 

The CHAIRMAN. How long is the comment period? 

Mr. MEYERS. That has not been established traditionally in this 

area. One would look at—it is a substantial notice, a substantial 

issue, so normally 60 days would be a rough minimum time. 

The CHAIRMAN. So 60 days for the advanced? 

Mr. MEYERS. I want to be clear. We have not determined the period of actual public comment. I won’t determine that, the Administrator will determine that when he would sign the advance notice. 

Just normal practice in order to give sufficient notice on large 

issues—and certainly the large issues with respect to Massachusetts vs. EPA, normally is 16, and perhaps a 9-day process would 

be appropriate. I just want to emphasize that is a decision that the 

Administrator will make at the time the document is prepared. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
43 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess from my perspective there has been a lot 

of time to think about these issues since the decision, and my request to you would be to consider making this as brief a period of 

time as possible. I think people are ready to comment. 

Mr. MEYERS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and we will certainly convey that to the Administrator. I think the balance here 

on any public comment period is between having a fulsome comment and the ability of all parties to provide information, as well 

as the desire to move expeditiously. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with that. That has to be balanced in 

that the EPA is just running out the clock on the Bush administration and actually will not have a decision before the President 

leaves office. So in that context at least, these decisions are being 

made about the length of time that is going to be given for comment as opposed to action. 

So that is just the legality of it, I understand. But I caution that 

that will be, perceptually, how you would, given the length—given 

thus far to think about the issue. 

My time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. Meyers, was your Agency, was EPA involved at all in the Air 

Force procurement decision about the new tanker? The Air Force 

decided to buy a tanker that uses 24 percent more fuel per mile 

of product than another aircraft that uses 24 percent more efficient; therefore, has 24 percent less CO2 emissions. 

Were your agencies involved in that at all? 

Mr. MEYERS. I will be happy to check on that. I have no memory 

of any involvement by the Office of Air and Radiation. 

Mr. INSLEE. I doubt the Office of Air and Radiation, but I just 

wonder if the EPA in general would have been involved in that? 

Mr. MEYERS. I will need to check with the other offices, and we 

would be happy to provide that for the record. 

Mr. INSLEE. The reason I ask is that this is kind of a new issue 

to me, but it seems to me one thing we need to start thinking about 

in our Federal procurement, when we are buying aircraft to think 

about the CO2 emissions. 

We had one product that reduces CO2 emissions by a full quarter, and we didn’t buy it. We bought a competitor, which also happened to be significantly produced in Europe, which is another 

issue. 

Do you have any guidance on that? I would be appreciative, because it seems to me that is something we ought to be thinking 

about. 

Mr. Elwell, I am told that the FAA’s budget requested $300 million for environmental stewardship but the primary goal of those 

were noise pollution abatement, while only about $10 million was 

for research in new aircraft technology to help reduce emissions. 

Is that the situation, and is that really adequate to the task if 

we really want to reduce emissions? 

Mr. ELWELL. Well, as I mentioned, noise—or in my written testimony—noise remains the major concern for local communities and 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
44 

local airports. And the money that you are talking about is spent 

for insulation for noise—for infrastructure noise mitigation. 

I think the stewardship of every dollar that we get for research, 

particularly in developmental research for design, engine and airframe, is spent primarily—we leverage every dollar, I should say, 

with our Center of Excellence, with the MIT-administered partner 

program. 

So we can always do more with the challenges we have 

budgetarily. I think we do the best with what the Agency has. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am sorry, 90 percent of that is used then for infrastructure. Whose infrastructure improvements are you referring to? 

Mr. ELWELL. Do you mean the 300 million? 

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. You said the bulk of it goes to infrastructure 

improvements, insulation and the like. Whose infrastructure are 

you are talking about? 

Mr. ELWELL. We are talking about residents and inhabitants 

within the noise-affected area of airports. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we certainly would encourage you to think 

more aggressively on trying to embrace these new technologies because we think they are happening. 

Boeing has a new airplane. The 787 has 20 percent more fuel efficiency than any other plane on the market. There are great 

things going on. 

By the way, I was talking to somebody yesterday, just by happenstance, about turboprop technology that may be looked at. You 

may have talked about this already. Do you have any thoughts 

about that? Or is that something that you are supporting? 

Mr. ELWELL. Yes. 

Mr. INSLEE. I am told that it has markedly better fuel efficiency 

if we can get over some of the noise issues. 

Mr. ELWELL. I have read some of the same things and don’t know 

much more other than what you are saying, other than there are 

some advancements being made in turboprop technology, quieter 

turboprop engines, more fuel-efficient turboprop engines. Again, 

anything that reduces noise and emissions we are in favor of. 

Just to add to your comment about the money that we are spending, we do—as I mentioned earlier before you came in, about our 

reauthorization proposal—have significant increases in funding for 

this fundamental—or the developmental research for engines and 

airframe. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we will look forward to that. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. I don’t 

know if the gentleman from Missouri has any other questions. 

Mr. CLEAVER. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your testimony. We look forward to working with both of you in the next several months. 

We are going to be, obviously, paying very close attention and escalating our level of attention to these issues. I would ask both 

agencies to move quickly. The urgency of the problem is in Washington, and I think the public and the world is looking to us to find 

answers to the questions in a timely, telescoped time frame way. 

We thank both of you for your testimony. 

Our second panel, if they would move up as soon as the first 

panel—while you are doing that, I will mention that both Virgin 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
45 

Atlantic and Boeing have submitted testimony for the record, and 

I ask unanimous consent to include the testimony of Boeing and 

Virgin Atlantic at some point. 

[The information follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
46 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 61640A.026
47 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 61640A.027
48 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 61640A.028
49 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 61640A.029
50 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 61640A.030
51 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 61640A.031
52 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 79 here 61640A.032
53 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 80 here 61640A.033
54 

The CHAIRMAN. We welcome the second panel. The second panel 

will have as a lead-off witness Mr. Jim May, who is the President 

and CEO of the Air Transport Association. He was named the 

President and CEO in February of 2003. Prior to joining the ATA, 

Mr. May served as Executive Vice President for the National Association of Broadcasters. So our paths have been crossing since the 

beginning of time. 

Mr. May’s father was also a member of this body, of the United 

States Congress. It is obviously a place that you are very familiar 

with and comfortable with and we welcome you back. Whenever 

you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JIM MAY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AIR 

TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; albeit, as you point out, in 

a somewhat different context. It was my mother, actually, who 

served from the great State of Washington for a number of years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Really. What years were they? 

Mr. MAY. 1958 through 1972. 

The CHAIRMAN. She was one of the very first Members—— 

Mr. MAY. One of the early Members and, of course, the great 

State of Washington has had a great a tradition of women serving 

in high elected positions. We are all very proud of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thought it was your father all these years. 

When you are ready, please begin. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I want to emphasize, first, three points. 

First, commercial airlines are extremely greenhouse gas efficient. 

Second, we are proactively committed to further limiting greenhouse gas footprints and are actively and aggressively pursuing a 

comprehensive plan to achieve that outcome. 

Third, I think there is a critical role for the Federal Government 

to play, not for the industry, not against the industry, but rather 

with it. 

Commercial airlines are extremely greenhouse gas efficient. 

Aviation has a decidedly strong track record that I think is often 

overlooked or misstated. We contribute just 2 percent of domestic 

greenhouse gas emissions today compared to 25 percent for the balance of the transportation industry. I think this is no small 

achievement given that we are essential to the economy, support 

nearly 9 percent of U.S. employment. 

Today’s airplanes are not just smarter, they are quieter, cleaner, 

use less fuel than ever before. And we fly them smarter, as has 

been talked about today. 

U.S. Airlines has been able to deliver more value by constantly 

improving fuel efficiency through fuel reinvestment in technology 

and efficient operations. We improved our efficiency over 100 percent between 1978 and 2006, resulting in 2.3 metric tons—2.3 metric billion tons of carbon dioxide savings, which is the equivalent— 

as the slide shows—of taking 17 million cars off the road in each 

of those years. While doing that we burned 4 percent less fuel in 

2006 than in the year 2000, carried 12 percent more passengers, 

20 percent more cargo. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
55 

Our greenhouse gas efficiency compares favorably to other sectors and modes. Today our planes are as fuel-efficient, as was testified by the FAA, as compact cars, and, at the same time, we are 

carrying more goods and people over six times faster. We are highly motivated to continue this trend. 

Fuel is our largest cost center, averaging 50 percent of operating expenses, costing us $41.2 billion in 2007 and projected to grow to 

$55 billion in 2008. 

The market is sending the commercial airlines the price signal 

that some call for in legislation. As demand for air service grows, 

some growth in aviation is predicted. But that is a good thing. We 

are key to driving a more environmentally efficient economy, optimizing global value change, and creating greater and social economic opportunities for people. 

Let’s keep growth in context. The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change has determined that under the most likely scenario, carbon dioxide from global aviation in 2050 will grow to 

about 3 percent of total man-made carbon dioxide emission from 

the 2 percent it is today. 

Now, at the core of our efforts, carriers have made a commitment 

going forward to improve fuel efficiency by an additional 30 percent 

by 2025. That is roughly equivalent to taking over 13 million additional cars off the road each year. These improvements will come 

only from our continuing airlines’ investments. In fact, achieving our goal will require approximately a $730 billion investment between now and 2025, which is a high hurdle 

under any circumstances, but particularly in these difficult financial times. 

Recognizing that today’s carbon-based fuel supply can only take 

us so far, our airlines are also making extensive resource commitments to stimulate the development of commercially viable, environmentally friendly, alternative fuel through CAAFI, which has 

been talked about earlier. 

Congressional leadership, however, is needed, and it is in four 

areas. First, we would hope that Congress would work to ensure 

that our outdated traffic control system is modernized to permit 

more direct routes, saving fuel and emissions. Studies show this 

will reduce emissions by 10 to 15 percent on top of the 30 percent 

that we are already projecting for fuel savings. 

Next, we urge Congress to reinvigorate NASA and FAA and environmental aeronautics R&D programs. Additional revolutionary advances in engine and airframe technology can only come through 

the government-led R&D that serves to preserve America’s leadership in aeronautics. 

Third, we ask Congress to spur further commercial development 

of alternative and environmentally sensitive jet fuels. 

Finally, we urge you to calibrate any climate change-related legislation so it doesn’t work against our efforts. To continue our fuel 

efficiency and other advances, we have got to have the capital to 

invest. Any of the economic measures that siphon funds out of our 

industry would severely threaten that process. 

Accordingly, while we don’t believe a further economic measure 

such as cap and trade is necessary for aviation, if such a measure 

were to be applied, it should be carefully calibrated to take key conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:06 Nov 10, 2010 Jkt 061640 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A640.XXX A640

rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
56 

siderations into account. They include allocation of allowances to 

reflect aviation’s fuel efficiency achievements to date, reinvestment 

of proceeds into aviation—very important—and accounting for the 

reality that aviation is a global business. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the airlines have a great environmental track record and are committed to improving on that. Congressional leadership is needed. We are asking you not to work for 

us, we are asking you to work with us as we address the important 

environmental and energy concerns that we all have. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. May. 

[The statement of Mr. May follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
57 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 61640A.034
58 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 61640A.035
59 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 61640A.036
60 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 61640A.037
61 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 61640A.038
62 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 61640A.039
63 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 61640A.040
64 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 61640A.041
65 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 61640A.042
66 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 61640A.043
67 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 61640A.044
68 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 61640A.045
69 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 61640A.046
70 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 61640A.047
71 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Tom Windmuller. He is the 

Senior Vice President for the International Air Transport Association. He is a long-time veteran on these issues, and we welcome 

you before our panel. 

STATEMENT OF TOM WINDMULLER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT 

Mr. WINDMULLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

We appreciate the opportunity to brief the committee on the 

steps the aviation industry is taking to reduce its environmental 

footprint. Let me begin by saying that we support and endorse everything that my colleague Jim May has already said. 

Climate change is a big global program. The air transport industry is a small but significant part of that big problem. 

The title of today’s hearing signaled to me that it is important 

to put aviation emissions in perspective. The Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change reports that aviation currently represents 2 percent of global carbon emissions and could reach 3 percent in the next 43 years. 

More importantly, the air transport industry has an enviable 

record of significantly reducing its environmental footprint. Over 

the last 40 years, we have eliminated black smoke from aircraft engines while reducing noise and increasing fuel efficiency by 75 percent. 

Since 1997 alone, IATA members have improved their fuel efficiency by a full 20 percent with a corresponding reduction in CO2. I am not aware of any other industry with this green a track 

record. 

However, the aviation industry is not resting on its record of success. We have set ourselves a target to improve fuel efficiency by 

an additional 25 percent by 2020, and we will reach this target by 

replacing old aircraft and retrofitting the remaining fleet. 

I would note, as has already been said, that our American members, also represented here today by my colleague at the Air Transport Association, have set themselves an even tougher target of 30 

percent better fuel efficiency by 2025, and their leadership will 

serve as an example for the rest of the world. 

IATA has an aggressive four-pillar strategy in place to achieve 

carbon neutrality and, ultimately, zero carbon aviation emissions. 

We are confident that we will reach this greener future that we all 

strive for by investing in fuel-efficient technology, flying planes 

more effectively, building and using efficient infrastructure and developing and implementing positive economic incentives. 

Some may doubt our ability to reach these goals. However, airlines have an enormous incentive to achieve these targets as quickly as possible. 

Today, IATA airlines face a $156 billion fuel bill that represents 

32 percent of their operating costs. Our only hope to survive as viable businesses is to increase our fuel efficiency. Greater fuel efficiency means less carbon. It is that simple. 

In 2007, IATA worked with airlines and governments around the 

world to reduce our members’ carbon emissions by $10.5 million 

tons through the implementation of more efficient air routes and 

flying smarter. We anticipate that the introduction of the Boeing 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
72 

787 and similar equipment, along with promising work in alternative fuels, will result in significant additional savings going forward. However, we cannot reach our goal of carbon neutrality, let 

alone zero carbon emissions, alone. 

Let me suggest to this committee what it can do and what it 

should not do to help us reduce and ultimately eliminate these 

emissions. 

First, we need Congress to restore FAA and NASA funding of research into lighter materials, radical new aerodynamics and new 

algae-based fuels. Perhaps there is also a role here for the national 

labs. 

Secondly, we need the Congress to fund the next generation of 

air traffic control in the U.S. and insist that the FAA accelerate its 

implementation. 

Thirdly, we need you to pursue positive economic measures such 

as tax credits for airlines and manufacturers that invest in cleaner 

technologies. 

Most importantly of all, we need this committee to avoid the 

temptation of imposing a barrier on the industry’s achieving these 

challenging environmental goals that we have set. For example, if 

the U.S. Government were to pursue an emissions trading scheme 

that is as flawed as that being considered by the European Union, 

that would only postpone the day when we reach our ambitious environmental targets. 

The European ETS scheme is green in name only. As currently 

designed, it will act as a carbon tax and reduce the resources airlines have to effectively address this challenge, thereby postponing 

our progress. It is an illegal unilateral scheme that proposes to address a global problem with a shortsighted, piecemeal approach. It 

is bad policy that will hinder rather than help us all reach our goal 

of carbon neutrality and ultimately carbon emissions. 

We urge the committee to strongly consider the positive role it 

can play in advancing our shared goals of a carbon-free future and 

avoid the temptation of taxes and charges in the name of the environment that will only postpone the day we reach these goals. 

We welcome the opportunity to work with this committee, going 

forward, to ensure that our shared visions become reality. Thank 

you for your consideration. I would be pleased to take your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Windmuller follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
73 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 61640A.048
74 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 61640A.049
75 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 61640A.050
76 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 61640A.051
77 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 61640A.052
78 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 61640A.053
79 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 61640A.054
80 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, very much. 

Our final witness is Mr. Deron Lovaas. What is the name of the 

point guard for the Utah Jazz, do you know? 

Mr. LOVAAS. Oh, Deron, that is right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Same spelling. 

Mr. LOVAAS. Very same spelling. You are exactly right. There is 

more than one of us. I think I am the only Deron. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you are the point guy on this. 

Mr. LOVAAS. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are the Transportation and Energy Co-Director of the NRDC, the National Resources Defense Council, on 

these issues. We welcome you, sir, whenever you are ready to 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF DERON LOVAAS, TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY CO-DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. LOVAAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the 

committee for giving me the opportunity to testify today. 

Just referring back, launching the Apollo program to send a man 

to the Moon in the 1960s, President Kennedy made it clear that we 

do that not because it is easy, but because it is hard. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wish Mr. Inslee could be here. Mr. Inslee has 

written a book. I wish he were here. 

Mr. LOVAAS. That is right. Well, this is a similar situation with 

aviation which is central to the new choice which faces of aviation 

we are going to hew to a new path that cuts heat-trapping pollution, as well as oil dependence, or take a path towards dangerous 

climate change. 

Government can and must step up to a leadership role if aviation 

is to thrive in a carbon constrained world by taking steps which 

will boost efficiency and develop cleaner energy alternatives. 

Transportation will make up 28 percent of the U.S. energy demand in 2008. Jet fuel will account for 11 percent of that energy 

demand. However, it will only account for about 3 percent of total 

energy demand. 

As of 2004, it accounted for about 12 percent of total heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, but heat-trapping emissions continued to grow because aviation is one of the 

fastest growing sectors in the economy, and those emissions are exacerbated by the fact that altitude enhances the climate forcing 

properties of pollutants in a plane’s wake. 

As the witness from the FAA stated, the science is still unclear, 

but it is clear there is an enhancement effect. The size of it, the 

magnitude of it is in question. 

Unfortunately, a big entity, the Air Force, is in pursuit of alternative synthetic liquid fuels, specifically liquid coal. This is like the 

tale wagging the dog when it comes to fuel since the military uses 

less than 2 percent of transportation fuel and the Air Force is 

merely a subset of that. 

Liquid coal as a substitute is fundamentally at odds with other 

national priorities such as fiscal responsibility and climatic stability. According to the Department of Energy, liquid coal produces 

double the warming emissions compared to conventional gasoline. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
81 

Even if CO2 released by liquid coal plants is captured and stored, 

the emissions would still be higher from today’s crude oil system. 

Launching this industry is an expensive proposition with each 

plant costing billions of dollars. 

Some in aviation seem keen on other high carbon institutes. 

United and American Airlines have both gone on the record supporting the expanse of a pipeline system bringing tar sands, derived oil, to the Chicago region where refining of tar sands by 

ConocoPhillips is directly linked to O’Hare Airport. There is also 

renewed interest in carbon intensive oil shale development in the 

west, specifically from the Air Force. 

Instead, what we need to do is make much more efficient use of 

jet fuel by taking these steps. Transition to more fuel efficient airplanes and engines, which includes exciting developments like the 

Boeing 787, which I know Mr. Inslee mentioned earlier—which 

uses 20 percent less fuel than comparable aircraft—improved air 

traffic control can also yield energy and CO2 savings. 

Here I will quote Jim May, who says rightly that studies consistently have shown that modernization of the air traffic control system will improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emission by 10 to 15 percent. But no matter how efficiently used, something needs to fill the tank. We should either stick with conventional fuel for aviation or look for substitutes that are lower, not 

higher in carbon intensity. 

Biofuels show some promise, in partnership with Boeing and GE 

Aviation, Virgin Atlantic, as they say in their testimony, I imagine, 

already successfully tested the use a blend of jet fuel and biofuel 

in a flight from London to Amsterdam. Continental plans something similar in early 2009. 

One possible source for aviation is algae, a net absorber of carbon 

dioxide and a source of energy rich oil that can be turned into fuel. 

Investments in intercity rail as an alternative—short home mode 

of transport and should also be part of this strategy. A full highspeed electric train emits between 1⁄10 and 1⁄4 of aircraft greenhouse 

gas emissions. Also the moral, while we save elsewhere in transportation, the lower the need for substitutes for aviation. 

Indeed, energy, NRDC projects that new policies enacted, thanks 

to this Congress in 2007, will save almost 4 million barrels of oil 

a day nationally by 2030. That is a good start and Congress must 

go further by taking these steps. 

First, do no harm. We need to protect and monitor implementation of section 526 of the 2007 energy bill, a Federal procurement 

provision that provides much needed backstop to insure the Federal Government does not use its purchasing power to buy fuels 

that produce more global warming collusion than conventional gasoline. 

Second, NRDC has joined five States in the District of Columbia 

as well as four fellow organizations led by Earth Justice to petition 

the EPA to regulate emissions of heat-trapping pollution. EPA has 

regulated emissions from aircraft pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 

but not those that contribute to global warming. 

As the Chairman said earlier to the EPA witness, we believe now 

is the time for that to change. Although there are improvements 

that should be made, thirdly, the Lieberman-Warner bill as passed 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
82 

by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is a very 

strong start toward an economy-wide climate stabilization strategy. 

The bill includes a low carbon fuel standard, a technology neutral 

and performance based standard for transportation fuels. 

Fourth, again, to quote Jim May, Congress should ensure that 

our outdated if inefficient air traffic control system is modernized. 

The solution, as the Energy Security Leadership Council called for 

in 2006, is for Congress to require the FAA to improve commercial 

air traffic routing. 

Last but not least, we agree with the ATA on the need to reinvigorate NASA and FAA environmental aeronautical research and development programs. For aviation, big breakthroughs in structures 

in engines as well as low carbon energy substitutes are hard to 

come by. The Federal Government must help spur leaps forward in 

technology as it did with the Apollo Space Program. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement of Mr. Lovaas follows:] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
83 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 61640A.055
84 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 61640A.056
85 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 61640A.057
86 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 61640A.058
87 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 61640A.059
88 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 61640A.060
89 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 61640A.061
90 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 61640A.062
91 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 61640A.063
92 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 61640A.064
93 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 61640A.065
94 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 61640A.066
95 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 61640A.067
96 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 61640A.068
97 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 61640A.069
98 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me recognize the gentleman from 

Missouri for a round of questions. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During the panel prior 

to your presence here, there was mentioned the fact that perhaps 

biofuels would be dangerous to airliners. Do any of you have any 

notion at some point that our technology would reach the point 

where biofuels could be used in aircraft? 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Cleaver, I think we have had some experiments 

that have taken place already that show that biofuels have some 

very real promise. What we all need to be concerned about is the 

safety issue, in particular the exacting specifications required for 

aviation fuel that are driven in no small part by the realities of altitude and the realities of temperature. 

So we are, through CAAFI, as others are, very committed to trying to find as many reasonable alternatives as possible to include 

biofuels but with the understanding and the recognition that we all 

have to be very sensitive to the exact specifications. 

We recently, our board, adopted a set of specifications that we 

think are going to be important. We are very, very committed because, in addition to the fuel savings of traditional fuels, in addition to the savings for air traffic control and fuel, our alternative 

fuels become critical. 

To buttress a point that my colleague said a minute ago from 

NRDC, we want to make sure they are net positive from an environmental standpoint. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. I think we do this as well. That is encouraging. 

Now, Airbus and Boeing are manufacturing two passenger airplanes that are much lighter and much more costly. I am wondering how much longer do you think it would take to change our 

inventory to the lighter aircraft using far less fossil fuel? 

Mr. MAY. I know Tom will have some comments on this as well, 

but between, I think—I will reserve judgment on the exact year, 

but over the last 4 or 5 years, we have spent an additional $33 billion on fuel. It is our number one cost center. That equates to 

roughly 330 aircraft. 

So it is a function of the financing of this industry, and it leads 

me to the point that is central to my testimony, which is we want 

to be as green as anybody else in this world. We think we are doing 

a terrific job of doing that. We need to make sure that the legislative and regulatory environment permits us to continue to invest 

the multibillions of dollars in new aircraft, new avionics for use in 

the next generation air traffic control system, which I hope will be 

the now generation, not next generation, ATC, and development of 

fuels, et cetera. So it is a very expensive proposition. 

Mr. WINDMULLER. I agree entirely with that. If I can put a 

slightly different spin on it, over the last 3 years, the airline community has ordered 6,000 new airplanes. Today there are about 

19,000 commercial aircraft in operation, so about 30 percent of that 

19,000 has been ordered new in the last 3 years. The production 

lines for some of these new models such as the A380, the Boeing 

787 are sold out for the next several years. 

As Jim said, our members have every incentive they need to be 

as fuel efficient as they possibly can be. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
99 

Mr. CLEAVER. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, before I relinquish 

my time, it is refreshing to have you here before this committee. 

I went home somewhat depressed yesterday after having the oil executives here. They also talked about green but they talked about 

greening their pockets. So it is infinitely more refreshing to have 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MAY. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that last statement? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, please. 

Mr. MAY. I would note that Lieberman-Warner will cost this industry somewhere between $85 and $100 billion between now and 

2025 because we would be of necessity forced to buy permits for our 

activities. The money goes, interestingly, to the oil companies 

under the current construct of that legislation. So I think it is 

somewhat ironic that we have got this hearing juxtaposed with the 

one you held yesterday. 

The CHAIRMAN. I will talk to our committee about that. Thank 

you. 

The gentlelady from South Dakota, Ms. Herseth Sandlin. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to the witnesses and the very insightful written statements you 

have submitted and for your testimony today. I must say, Mr. May, 

you have made some very commendable recent hiring decisions. 

Mr. MAY. Thank you so much, and I apologize for that. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Cleaver pursued some of the area I 

wanted to go in the direction of jet biofuels. 

But given how you described the investments that you want to 

make in the upcoming years and in addition to what you have already made, and I appreciate the comment you just made as to the 

economic impact of Lieberman-Warner and being in agreement on 

the out goals and what we can do between now and then economically within different sectors of the economy, but it is an expensive 

proposition, so are you aware of any support, financial or otherwise, that foreign governments or agencies are providing to nonU.S. airlines or to U.S. airlines with the goal of developing alternative jet fuels, including biofuels? 

Mr. MAY. Tom, you may have an answer to that. I am not aware 

of foreign governments that are engaged in it, but you may. 

Mr. WINDMULLER. The European Union has committed approximately 1 billion Euros to this type of research. But, frankly speaking, that amount of money is a drop in the ocean of what will be 

needed to accelerate the implementation of third generation 

biofuels that can actually have a real impact on the carbon footprint of this industry. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Which may go to the issue of the Air 

Force looking at some of the synthetic fuels that are more cost-effective right now. I have spoken with General Mosely about this, 

Mr. Lovaas, and we know there have been test flights using synthetic fuels or coal-to-liquid. 

I would agree we want a net positive impact, and from an environmental perspective, my sense is the DOD is pursuing this because while you cited some percentages, for the DOD their largest 

line item in the Air Force budget is their fuel, from what I have 

been told, as it relates to their operating costs. 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
100 

So I think we need to address this, sort of what are the shortterm strategies for certain agencies versus the mid-range and the 

long term which was actually one of the reasonable things that we 

heard yesterday in yesterday’s hearings in terms of the strategies 

that we have to pursue. 

But I would just make note as a response to saying that the investment so far has been so minimal that we have to look at, 

again, mid-range and broad range, long range what we are going 

to be able to accomplish in making government investment in addition to what the private sector is doing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I think there are about 3 minutes 

left to go with the roll calls on the House floor. 

I do have a number of questions for the panel that I am going 

to submit to you in writing. I would ask for your timely written response to these questions, but as a logistical reality right now, we 

will be out of session here for about half an hour anyway. 

I just think probably out of courtesy to all of you rather than 

waiting through the afternoon it probably be better if we adjourned 

the hearing at this point in time. So with thanks of the committee, 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARING
101 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 61640A.070
102 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 61640A.071
103 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 61640A.072
104 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 61640A.073
105 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 61640A.074
106 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 61640A.075
107 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 61640A.076
108 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 61640A.077
109 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 61640A.078
110 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 61640A.079
111 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 61640A.080
112 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 149 here 61640A.081
113 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 150 here 61640A.082
114 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 151 here 61640A.083
115 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 152 here 61640A.084
116 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 153 here 61640A.085
117 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 154 here 61640A.086
118 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 155 here 61640A.087
119 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 156 here 61640A.088
120 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 61640A.089
121 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 61640A.090
122 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 61640A.091
123 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 61640A.092
124 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 61640A.093
125 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 61640A.094
126 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 61640A.095
127 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 61640A.096
128 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165/300 here 61640A.097