The recession is taking its toll on many efforts to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indeed, it now appears unlikely that Congress will move forward on regulations in the near future ... perhaps waiting until after the 2010 elections. While it is still possible that the EPA will pursue regulations based on its "endangerment" finding, it would seem unlikely that such regulations would be very broad, at least initially, since it would be politically risky to implement sweeping changes in our energy system via regulatory fiat as opposed to publicly-debated legislation. However, any delaying of GHG regulations does not mean that interest in reducing aviation's emissions will subside. The reason for this is that both the airline industry and the US Department of Defense share a strong interest in developing aviation fuels that are not derived from crude oil. Since these two groups consume over 90% of the JetA in the US, their policies and priorities will determine the future of this fuel. One of the ways that the shared interest of the airlines and DOD is demonstrated is through their leadership roles in the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI).

I was invited to attend CAAFI's annual meeting in late September where I learned more of this shared interest in alternative fuels, especially those that will be a "drop in" replacement for crude-based JetA. Both the airlines and DOD hope that alternative fuels will at least reduce the volatility of JetA prices, if not reduce them. A big concern is that as US gasoline demand falls (due to mandated fuel economy improvements in cars), refineries will close (this is already happening) thereby reducing JetA production also. (Refineries cannot infinitely vary the ratio of JetA and gasoline that can be produced from a single barrel of oil ....less gasoline, less JetA.) Since airlines hope to grow when the economy picks up, this means more JetA. But if gasoline demand is falling, the price of JetA would be pushed up by this increased demand if it only comes from the same barrel of crude.

In addition to economic considerations, both the airlines and DOD are attracted to the potentially lower GHG impact of alternative fuels. The airlines face the potential of US regulations and the immediate reality of European Union regulations. Alternate fuels, especially if available at reasonable cost, could help deal with these. The DOD faces a slightly different requirement: by Congressional mandate (Section 526 of the Energy and Security Act of 2007), the DOD cannot purchase any non-petroleum fuel that emits more CO2 over its "wellhead to wake" lifecycle than crude-based fuels. The only feedstocks that could meet this requirement would be those derived from biomass (and some such feedstocks might not qualify based on an analysis of their lifecycle carbon footprints).
The net result of these twin economic and environmental drivers is that virtually all players in the aviation fuel eco-system (oil companies, fuel distributors, engine manufacturers, FAA, ASTM, ATA, investors, etc.) are cooperating to develop one or more, drop-in, Jet A replacement. The plant sources of most interest are ones that do not use or compete for land with food crops: algae, camelina, and jatropha.

There are many economic, technical, and environmental issues to be resolved before these fuels become available. But the alignment of interests would seem to suggest that these issues must and will be resolved. And the JetA portion of GA will be taken along on the ride.