APPENDIX
to
Comments of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc. on the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Greenhouse Gas Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Aircraft Engine Rulemaking Petitions, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318
Figure 1
ATA’s 30 Percent Fuel Efficiency Goal Will Translate Into CO2 Savings
Comments of the Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
(ATA), 2 November 2008
Public consultation on EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU
ETS) – Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) for
Aviation
1.
INFORMATION ON THE CONSULTATION
This internet consultation is available only in English.
All the background documents for this consultation can be found at Aviation webpage
Please send your contribution to this e-mail address ENV AVIATION QUESTIONNAIRE
The results of this survey will be published on the Aviation website and will be used as
an input for guidance that will be developed by the Commission on MRV for aviation
sector in the EU ETS.
This internet consultation will open on 7 October 2008 and will close on 3rd November
2008. No further contributions will be accepted after that date.
Please note that this consultation does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be
taken by the Commission. The consultation should not be considered an opinion poll or
a forum for voting about these issues. The Commission’s aim is to generate the widest
possible set of responses.
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ABOUT YOU
Please provide some information about yourself or your organisation before proceeding to the
questionnaire. Your comments will not be processed unless you provide us with this background
information.
a.
My role in answering this questionnaire
Please tick as applicable
I am responding as a private individual
I represent an organisation
X
b.
Name of the organisation
Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA).
ATA appreciates the opportunity to submit its views on the MRV consultation process. At the
same time, we file these comments under protest and with full reservation of our rights, as
ATA’s approach to the MRV consultation must be viewed against the backdrop of ATA’s
fundamental objections to the EU’s unilateral effort to include international aviation within the
scope of its ETS program. These objections are described further below in section 4 on “Other
Issues.”
We also comment in that section on the inadequate time provided for this consultation period.
As noted below, the truncated review period has left us with insufficient time to fully review the
draft MRV guidance and background documentation, let alone to coordinate comments among
our member companies, beyond the limited comments that we provide in this submission in
response to certain discrete issues. The absence of a comment in response to any specific
consultation question (e.g., questions relating to the difficult subject of the “special reserve”)
therefore should not be taken as an acceptance of or agreement with the proposed approach in the
consultation document.
c.
Purpose of the organization
ATA is the largest airline trade association in the United States, representing the country’s
principal U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers. The association’s fundamental purpose is to
foster a business and regulatory environment that ensures safe and secure air transportation and
permits U.S. airlines to flourish, stimulating economic growth locally, nationally and
internationally.
The members of ATA are: ABX Air, Inc.; AirTran Airways; Alaska Airlines, Inc.; American
Airlines, Inc.; ASTAR Air Cargo, Inc.; Atlas Air, Inc.; Continental Airlines, Inc.; Delta Air
Lines, Inc.; Evergreen International Airlines, Inc.; Federal Express Corporation.; Hawaiian
Airlines; JetBlue Airways Corp.; Midwest Airlines; Northwest Airlines, Inc.; Southwest Airlines
Co.; United Airlines, Inc.; UPS Airlines; and US Airways, Inc. Associate members are: Air
Canada; Air Jamaica; and Mexicana.
d.
Size of the organisation
Please tick as applicable
Up to 10
11-100
101-1000
More than 1000
X
e.
Country of residence
United States of America
f.
Contact details of the organisation
Nancy N. Young,
Vice President, Environmental Affairs
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20004-1707
[email protected]
g.
Type of the organisation
Please tick as applicable
Individual aircraft operator (go to question 2.8)
Commercial aircraft operator
Non-commercial aircraft operator
Other individual private company
Industry association
Competent Authority
Other public sector organisation
Academic organisation/thinktank
Environmental NGO
Other NGO
Other (please specify)
3.
X
QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questionnaire is based on the consultation document. Questions in the consultation
document are numbered similarly as in this questionnaire. Please read carefully the consultation
document and provide answers to all questions relevant for yourself or your organisation. There
are not space limits for your responses, but please limit your answers to the specific content of
the question. For general comments please fill up the section “other issues/additional comments”
at the end of the questionnaire.
a.
Administrative processes
Tonne-kilometre data
Question 1- Should there be common dates, set by the Commission, across all MS for the
submission of tonne-kilometre monitoring plans to Competent Authorities, and for the approval
of tonne-kilometre monitoring plans, or should the deadlines be left open for each Competent
Authority to set to reflect their own circumstances?
There should be common dates used and more generally a harmonized approach to all aspects of
administering the ETS program by member state competent authorities. Individual non-EU
airlines should not face competitive disadvantages based solely on their unilateral “assignment”
to a particular EU member state (based on assignment criteria that have yet to be articulated). In
order to avoid such market distortions, EU member states should be required to adhere to a
strictly uniform approach with respect to all aspects of the administration of the ETS regime,
including the MRV requirements.
Question 2- If common dates should be set by the Commission for the submission of tonnekilometre monitoring plans to Competent Authorities, and for the approval of tonne-kilometre
monitoring plans, do you agree with the timing proposed in this document?
No. A timetable that envisions a deadline for submission of monitoring plans by July of 2009 is
simply unrealistic, particularly given (a) the unnecessary complexity and administrative burden
that would be imposed if the MRV requirements are imposed as proposed; (b) the fact that the
underlying legislation purporting to authorize the inclusion of aviation into the ETS has only just
been adopted at the EU level, and individual member states have not yet even transposed the
basic legal requirements (let alone the detailed MRV rules) into their domestic law; and (c) the
likelihood that the Commission will not complete its guidelines on information to be included in
monitoring plans until May 2009.
Annual emissions
Question 3- Should there be common dates, set by the Commission, across all MS for the
submission of annual emissions monitoring plans to Competent Authorities, and for the approval
of emission monitoring plans, or should the deadlines be left open for each Competent Authority
to set to reflect their own circumstances?
As stated in response to Question 1, there should be common dates used and more generally a
harmonized approach to all aspects of administering the ETS program by member state
competent authorities. Individual non-EU airlines should not face competitive disadvantages
based solely on their unilateral “assignment” to a particular EU member state (based on
assignment criteria that have yet to be articulated).
Question 4- If common dates should be set by the Commission for the submission of annual
emissions monitoring plans to Competent Authorities, and for the approval of emission
monitoring plans, are those proposed in this document suitable?
As stated in response to Question 2, a timetable that envisions a deadline for submission of
monitoring plans by July of 2009 is simply unrealistic, particularly given (a) the unnecessary
complexity and administrative burden that would be imposed if the MRV requirements are
imposed as proposed; (b) the fact that the underlying legislation purporting to authorize the
inclusion of aviation into the ETS has only just been adopted at the EU level, and individual
member states have not yet even transposed the basic legal requirements (let alone the detailed
MRV rules) into their domestic law; and ; and (c) the likelihood that the Commission will not
complete its guidelines on information to be included in monitoring plans until May 2009.
Question 5- How should it be ensured that maximum benefit is derived from experiences learned
during the pre-trading scheme monitoring period?
Among other things, the Commission should seek to consult in a deliberative and meaningful
way with the affected industry sector. As discussed more fully in the “other issues” points
below, the inadequate nature of the current MRV public consultation ensures that the
Commission will derive very little if any benefit from the industry’s existing experiences in data
collection, reporting and retention in other markets. This truncated consultation procedure
should be expanded and improved in future efforts to revisit the MRV guidelines based on
experiences in the pre-trading monitoring period.
Question 6- Do you think that the submission of an updated monitoring plan before the start of
the first trading period in 2012 will contribute to improve the quality of monitoring and reporting
in the emissions trading period? If yes, how and in what areas of the monitoring plan?
b.
Monitoring and reporting: Main Issues
General issues
Question 7-In which circumstances would the ICAO designator not be considered as the
appropriate way to define the aircraft operator?
We understand that the Association of European Airlines intends to propose in its comments to
use the standard industry term “operating carrier” to define the carrier with responsibility under
the MRV guidelines: “’Operating carrier’ means the carrier whose call-sign is that under which
the flight is registered and used by air traffic control at the time it performs an aviation activity
listed in Annex I or, where the operating carrier is not known or is not identified by the owner of
the aircraft, the owner of the aircraft.” ATA supports this proposal.
Question 8- What evidence should be required to ensure that applications to the special reserve
refer to additional or new activity?
Question 9 - Is listing flight routes in a monitoring plan for tonne kilometre data sufficient to
gauge potential expansion of aircraft operators? How could it be demonstrated that this growth is
not a continuation of an aviation activity previously performed by another aircraft operator?
Monitoring and reporting tonne-kilometre data
Question 10 - Do you consider a standard source of GCD data from Eurocontrol as the most
appropriate approach for your needs? If not, explain why and detail what would be the preferred
approach for your specific situation.
The discussion of options for measuring distance information for purposes of kilometer-tonne
reporting is an example of the excessive complexity and burden underpinning the proposed
approach in the MRV consultation. Airlines currently use city-pair distance information from
standard industry sources. There is no need to develop a unique source for determining distance,
and doing so increases the possibility that the EU MRV criteria will differ from existing airline
data collection and reporting methods.
For example, U.S. carriers are currently subject to the world’s most comprehensive aviationrelated data reporting obligations. Carriers (including foreign air carriers operating to and from
the United States) are currently required to report data to the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Office of Airline Information (OAI) on “Form 41” based on distance
information specified by DOT. That data is in turn derived from a DOT-maintained website that
combines a master coordinate file with the degrees, minutes and seconds of latitude/longitude for
each airport with an algorithm that uses those coordinates to calculate the GCD for the selected
city pair. See http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Distance.asp?pn=0. The MRV guidelines should not
impose a different mileage calculation value than the one carriers already use based on standard
city pair mileage data.
The Form 41 databases include traffic data (passenger and cargo), capacity data and other
operational data, including monthly traffic and operational data for each city-pair market that the
carrier operated, and monthly traffic, capacity and operational data for each aircraft type that the
airline flew in each city-pair flight stage. These data files are not based on sampled data or data
surveys, but rather on a direct census of data. Carriers also submit monthly reports on domestic
and international fuel consumption. Information about these databases -- and about OAI’s data
collection systems and techniques for correcting data errors, for verification, and for validation -can be found here:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/source_and_accuracy_compendiu
m/form41_schedule.html.
As a general matter, ATA believes that data collection and reporting practices for ETS MRV
purposes should incorporate and build on the data collection and reporting practices under Form
41. This approach would encourage harmonization and cost-effectiveness for regulated entities,
and would be consistent with the approach currently under discussion at ICAO, where the Group
on International Aviation and Climate Change (GIACC) has taken a careful and deliberative
approach to identifying and working to build on existing national level experience with fuel
consumption and emissions reporting. As we understand it, GIACC is looking to the U.S.
approach under Form 41 as a potential point of reference for harmonized global reporting
practices.
Question 11-If an aircraft operator chooses to use measurements of actual passenger weight,
what type of weighing instruments are used in the industry and what are their typical levels of
uncertainty across a whole year?
Question 12- For non commercial operators, where freight and mail mass data are not required
by JAR-OPS/EU-OPS what type of weighting instruments are used for weighing freight and mail
mass and what are their typical levels of uncertainty across a whole year?
Question 13 - Do you consider that an uncertainty assessment should be required for tonnekilometre data? If so, in which cases? and what would be the added value of this?
No. U.S. airlines have long been reporting ton-mile data under Form 41 reporting requirements.
Those existing data collection and reporting methods are sufficiently accurate. MRV reporting
should be designed in a way to avoid costly, duplicative and conflicting data collection and
reporting requirements.
ATA does not support the proposal that has been advanced by another commenter to extend to
200 km the legislation’s 95 km automatic adjustment for flight distance calculations to account
for inefficiencies in routing. Indeed, any fixed figure adjustment value will inevitably bias
tonne-kilometer data in favor of short-haul flights, with larger fixed values resulting in larger
biases. A more accurate and equitable adjustment for flight routing inefficiencies, and one that is
grounded in industry operational practices rather than arbitrarily assigned, would be an
adjustment factor reflecting a standard percentage (e.g., 5 percent) of a flight stage’s total
distance.
Question 14 - For competent authorities, do the proposed tonne-kilometre templates fit your
purpose?
Question 15 - For operators, do the proposed tonne-kilometre templates fit your purpose?
Question 16 - Are there other parameters that should be covered in the tonne-kilometre
templates? If so, which?
Question 17 - Is there a need to link to the content of the tonne-km templates to special
software/databases? If yes, which ones?
Information on existing databases used for Form 41 reporting, and alternative data templates
used by airlines that submit data under Form 41, can be found in Chapter 8 of the document that
is located here:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/traffic_reporting_guide/pdf/entire.pdf
In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing to roll out a new platform for
electronic reporting for all carriers required to file under Form 41; any reporting required under
the MRV guidelines should be designed so that it is compatible with that electronic reporting
platform.
Monitoring and reporting annual emissions
Question 18 Do you think that different levels of accuracy (or uncertainty) in monitoring and
reporting of annual emissions should be required for different aircraft operators according to predefined categories of operators per annual emissions?
No. There should be uniform requirements across the covered industry sector.
Question 19 If yes, what are the reasons and what would be the benefit of such differentiation?
Question 20 Do you consider minor and de minimis sources relevant in the context of the
aviation sector? In which situations?
Emissions from APU fuel consumption represent a de minimis percentage -- well under 1 percent
-- of emissions attributable to in flight fuel consumption for any given flight stage, particularly
for long-haul flights. Measured data for APU fuel burn are either not available, or not routinely
or easily collected separately from flight fuel data. Most APU meters measure hourly APU
usage rather than fuel consumption. Hourly usage does not directly relate to fuel burn due to
differences in power load depending on the mode of APU usage. Moreover, to the extent an
APU is run during the flight, the fuel consumed would be captured in the flight’s fuel data and
separate APU data would double count this consumption. In light of these considerations,
carriers should not be required to measure and collect actual APU fuel consumption data
separately, and de minimis variations based on emissions from APU usage should be
disregarded.
Question 21 If you consider that minor and de minimis sources warrant consideration in the
context of the aviation sector, would the thresholds considered for stationary installations be
applicable and for which kinds of flights not falling under the current exclusions?
As indicated in the response to Question 20, emissions attributable to APU consumption fall well
under a 1% de minimis threshold, which should be sufficient to exclude it from the MRV
requirements for aviation.
Question 22 Is there a standard level of uncertainty for fuel metering in the industry, which
could be proved through calibration certificates? Please provide details of sources proving the
level of uncertainty in fuel metering in the aviation industry (eg. according to metering devices,
suppliers specifications or to safety requirements)
ATA Specification 103 (“Standard for Jet Fuel Quality Control at Airports”),
Revision 2006.1, establishes recommended specifications for U.S. airports. It provides that fuel
quantity measurement meters should be capable of maintaining accuracy of 1/10 of one percent
(0.1%) and repeatability of 1/20 of one percent (0.05%) at flow rates ranging from 100 gpm to
the maximum rated flow of the fueling equipment. It further provides that meters should be
checked and calibrated at least annually.
Question 23 Is there any specific requirement for the use of standard fuel density factors in the
industry?
Question 24 Should the MRV guidelines for aviation explicitly mention (temperature
dependent) standard density conversion factors to be used in fuel measurement? In this case,
which would be the most appropriate standard density values applied to aviation fuels and why?
To the extent that it is necessary to collect specific density information (e.g., to convert volume
information from fuel meters into fuel mass information), carriers should be permitted to choose
between an approach based on either: (a) a per flight approach using the density value that is
used by the flight crew in calculating fuel upload for that flight, or (b) a general default value for
fuel density that would apply to all conversion calculations.
With respect to option (b), 0.8 kg/liter would be an appropriate default value. (ATA
Specification 103 specifies a fuel density range of 0.775- 0.840, corrected to 15o celsius.)
Although variations exist among fuel suppliers at different airports and at the time of fuel uplift
due to temperature, these variations are generally small and would likely cancel out across an
annual reporting period. The reduced data collection and reporting burden would more than
compensate for any small loss in accuracy.
Question 25 Should density measurement be required every time instead of using standard
values? What would be the benefit of this?
No. This would impose an enormous additional monitoring burden, with no proportional benefit.
Although measured density values are used in some circumstances, they are not currently
required, including for operational safety purposes, and there is no reason to impose such a
requirement for purposes of the MRV guidelines.
Question 26 Are there any barriers that prevent some aircraft operators from gathering data on
actual fuel consumption per flight? Could you please describe the situations where this data
would not be available?
Although many aircraft are capable of gathering this data on actual fuel consumption, that is not
universally true. Some older aircraft still do not automatically transmit fuel consumption
information, and a significant element of fuel consumption data is collected manually by aircraft
crews. A carrier is therefore likely to collect less than 100 percent of flight data for all its flights
in the aggregate, nor is there likely to be 100 percent accuracy of data collected for each
individual flight. The MRV system should be designed in such a manner so as to incorporate
operational practices, and not to expect or demand 100 percent accuracy for such reporting.
In addition, as noted above, data on actual APU fuel consumption is not readily available, and is
a de minimis fraction of fuel consumption in any event.
Question 27 Could aircraft operators not able to provide information on fuel consumption per
flight provide instead total annual fuel consumption figures for their operations covered by the
EU ETS? In this case, what estimation method could be used to ensure that fuel consumption
covered by the EU ETS is not underestimated?
Yes. Indeed, in part for the reasons noted above in our response to Question 26, total annual fuel
consumption figures for covered operations should provide an overall accuracy level that is
comparable to flight-by-flight fuel consumption measurement and data collection, but at
dramatically lower costs and with far less administrative burden.
As a general matter, ATA believes that the requirements set out in the legislation and elaborated
in the consultation document relating to fuel consumption data on per flight basis impose an
excessively complex and burdensome set of data collection and reporting requirements. The
significant costs of compliance with such a system -- quite apart from the massive costs of
compliance with the core ETS requirements -- cannot be justified by the marginal improvements
in accuracy that may be achieved through this approach.
For this reason, ATA believes that annual fuel consumption figures for covered operations
therefore offers a preferable approach in general to the fuel consumption data methodology
proposed in the consultation document, even where fuel consumption per flight is theoretically
available, and that the legislation should be amended to permit carriers to adopt this approach.
Alternatively, even if a per flight approach is adopted, the legislation and MRV requirements
should instead allow carriers to choose to report based on per flight estimated data derived from
standard modelling techniques, based for example on origin and destination data or on more
sophisticated available models that take account of actual flight movement data with full flight
trajectory information.
If neither of these sufficiently accurate but less burdensome approaches is accepted and actual
per flight fuel data is instead required, fuel consumption data should be based on actual
consumption data where available (e.g., through ACARS information) or alternatively (at the
carrier’s option) by straightforward calculations based on the volume of fuel uplifted or mass of
fuel on board aircraft. Fuel metering and fuel mass data is a core safety and operational
consideration, and both fuel meters and aircraft monitoring equipment provide data that are
sufficiently accurate across an operator’s annual reporting year for emissions monitoring and
reporting purposes, without the need to introduce further complexity or uncertainty factors into
the system. It would be unreasonable to impose unilaterally more stringent measurement and
monitoring requirements regarding fuel consumption than those already imposed under tightly
regulated and exceedingly stringent aviation safety measures, particularly given the long history
of international cooperation on aviation safety measures.
Question 28 The MRG 2007 Decision requires that all information needed to reconstruct
reported emissions data, including all fuel consumption data, should be kept for at least 10 years.
Would there be any obstacles to data storage for this period? How could these obstacles be
overcome?
There is no reason to require carriers to maintain this data for such a long period of time, which
will only impose burdensome data retention costs. Data retention requirements should not
extend beyond the period required for verification of the submitted data. Carriers are required to
maintain underlying data to support their Form 41 submissions to the U.S. Department of
Transportation for 3 years; there is no justification for the MRV guidelines to extend beyond
such existing requirements. See 14 CFR § 249.20.
Question 29 Do you want to have the option of using specific values for NCV to define the
energy content of aviation fuels or would you prefer standard values for everyone?
No. The methodology proposed in the consultation document, which is based on a misguided
effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions monitoring and reporting
framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex. The massive complexity
of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in accuracy over time, but
imposes significant burdens in compliance costs.
Instead, emissions should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct
conversion factor with the IPCC default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.16) or alternatively the
more precise figure derived from the relevant calculations (i.e., 3.1564) for aviation fuel.
Question 30 If standard values are used would the IPCC default values for NCV be
appropriate? If not, why not?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 31 How accurate in practice is the NCV data provided by fuel suppliers?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 32 If none of the above options is appropriate for your specific situation, which
would be your preferred method to provide accurate NCV for aviation fuels?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 33 Do you want to have the option of using specific values for emission factors of
aviation fuels or would you prefer standard values for everyone?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 34 Would IPCC default emission factors expressed as tCO2/TJ be considered as an
appropriate standard value for all aircraft operators? If not, please explain why.
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 35 Are there any barriers or concerns for aircraft operators developing activityspecific emission factors expressed as tCO2/TJ?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 36 Could standard emission factors expressed as tCO2 per tonne of fuel provide a
more accurate measurement of emissions at lower costs? Could you provide official references
for these standard emission factors?
As stated in response to Question 29, the methodology proposed in the consultation document,
which is based on a misguided effort to graft an MRV framework for aviation onto the emissions
monitoring and reporting framework developed for stationary sources, is unjustifiably complex.
The massive complexity of the regulatory framework provides little if any improvement in
accuracy over time, but imposes significant burdens in compliance costs. Instead, emissions
should be derived from fuel consumption information using a direct conversion factor with IPCC
default emissions factor values (i.e., 3.15) for aviation fuel.
Question 37 Which situations could you consider that would require the use of a fall-back
approach?
Question 38 What would be the minimum requirements for the approval of fall-back
approaches by the Competent Authority?
Question 39 Is special treatment of bio-fuels necessary, or can the emission factor and NCV of
bio-fuel blends be satisfactorily determined using the above requirements for standard fuels?
ATA agrees that there may be a need in the future to develop a tailored approach for alternative
fuels, including recognition of an exemption for biomass fuels or partial biomass fuels, which
may have different emissions factors (including when measured on a life-cycle basis) than
standard jet fuel. That approach should be developed when such alternative fuels are available in
the marketplace, based for example on the relevant standard IPCC emissions factors for those
fuels.
Question 40 Would fuel suppliers be able to provide the percentage biogenic carbon content
for blended fuels determined using international or national standards?
Question 41 Do you agree with the proposed methodology to account for measurement
uncertainty in a given aircraft operator?
Question 42 Is listing fuel metering uncertainties that apply to an entire aircraft operator
appropriate? If not, why?
Question 43 Will it be possible to demonstrate an aggregate uncertainty range for a range of
fuel meters through the error propagation law? If not, why? If yes, how?
Question 44 Should it be allowed to carry out monitoring without uncertainty assessment in
the two pre-trading years?
Question 45 Do the proposed annual emissions templates fit your purpose?
1. ATA understands that the columns for “fuel type” in this template refer to the different
categories of aviation fuels (i.e., Jet A kerosene; Jet B “wide-cut” fuel; AvGas), rather than to
specific sources of fuels within these broad categories. There is no feasible way to track
individual fuel sources of Jet A, for example. Moreover, there is no need to do so given that
these fuels are refined and sold to very tightly controlled commercial standards.
2. For the reasons described in our General Point 5 below regarding commercially sensitive
data, carriers should not be required to break down fuel reporting by departure and arrival at each
individual EU member state.
Question 46 Are there other parameters that should be covered in the annual emissions
templates? If so, which?
Question 47 Can the proposed annual emissions templates be completed with your existing
data records?
Data records vary by carrier and by region. It is extremely doubtful that all fields in the
templates could be completed for all carriers using existing records. For example, not all carriers
collect data on fuel use beyond data required to satisfy regulations on load manifests; data on
fuel remaining after a flight may not be collected by all carriers at the corporate level. In
addition, data on specific gravity of fuel sources as provided by the fuel provider may be used by
the crew of a specific flight, but it is not necessarily incorporated into corporate databases. Even
for aircraft where ACARS automatically transmits actual fuel consumption figures in flight,
moreover, such data would not fully or separately capture APU fuel consumption.
Question 48 Is there a need to link annual emissions templates to special software/databases?
If yes, which ones?
Information on existing databases used for Form 41 reporting, and alternative data templates
used by airlines that submit data under Form 41, can be found in Chapter 8 of the document that
is located here:
http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_information/traffic_reporting_guide/pdf/entire.pdf
In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing to roll out a new platform for
electronic reporting for all carriers required to file under Form 41; any reporting required under
the MRV guidelines should be designed so that it is compatible with that electronic reporting
platform.
c.
Verification
Completeness
Question 45 Will the existing records of the aircraft operators, cross-checked with Eurocontrol
data be enough to ensure completeness of flight and emission data?
Rather than designing a completely new data collection and reporting framework to meet predetermined standards of completeness and accuracy (modelled on principles developed for
stationary sources) and then inquiring whether that framework can be met through existing
records, MRV requirements should be initially designed based on existing carrier data collection,
reporting, and retention practices, using default industry standards wherever possible.
Departures from such practices that impose additional data collection, reporting and retention
requirements must be justified in terms of cost-effectiveness.
Question 46 Will the use of the ICAO designator ensure that emissions data is not duplicated
for aircrafts operated by different operators? If not, how could it be ensured that all flights within
the EU ETS are taken into account for MRV by exactly one operator?
Question 47 Will additional checks be required to ensure completeness?
Materiality
Question 48 Do you agree with the proposed materiality levels?
Question 49 Do you think additional guidance should be provided to verifiers outlining a
recommended data sampling procedure, such as one which would consider the appropriate
temporal and spatial data representation? Or should verifiers be allowed to apply their own
professional judgement as part of verification?
Question 50 Do you think that the proposed templates for the monitoring plan and annual
reporting will help reduce the verification risk? Please explain.
Accreditation
Question 51 What are in your view the specific competencies needed by a verifier active in the
aviation sector additional to competencies for verifiers of stationary installations?
Question 52 Regarding extra-EU operators or EU operators who operate outside the EU, where
will verification best take place in order to be cost efficient while still ensuring a reasonable level
of assurance?
Question 53 If verification needs to take place outside the EU or outside the MS where an
aircraft operator has been assigned, which of these would be the most suitable approach: 1) Each
operator is verified by a verifier accredited in the country where it has been assigned; 2) there is
a minimum requirement that the verifier acts under the accreditation of an EU accreditation
body?
4. OTHER ISSUES / ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Are there any other issues related to Monitoring, Reporting and Verification for Aviation that
you would like to raise? Please be brief and specific
**********************
ATA Response:
1.
The Effort to Encompass International Aviation within the EU ETS is Illegal
The United States and several other governments have repeatedly stated that the proposed
EU legislation for unilateral inclusion of international aviation in the ETS would not only
constitute bad policy, but would also constitute a violation of EU obligations under international
aviation agreements. ATA and its member carriers agree with these objections.
Among other legal concerns, the EU’s attempt to include international aviation
constitutes an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction with respect to emissions that
take place over non-EU states and the high seas, and is inconsistent with several provisions in the
Chicago Convention and in the web of bilateral air services agreements that supplement the
Chicago Convention. These include provisions in the Chicago Convention relating to: the
obligations of parties to collaborate in standard setting (e.g., Articles 12, 37); the jurisdictional
authority of parties with respect to the regulation of international civil aviation (e.g., Articles 1,
11 and 12); and express limitations on the ability of parties to impose charges unrelated to
services (Article 15) and to impose duties on fuel (Article 24). The various bilateral air services
agreements currently in force between the EU (or its individual member states) and non-EU
states impose still further legal restrictions on the ability of a party to impose unilaterally the
ETS framework on the carriers of another party.
These legal gaps and conflicts on the international plane are multiplied by legal
infirmities that exist now, and will likely continue to exist, at the member state level. To take an
obvious example, given that the basic legislation has only just been adopted and has not been
transposed into any member state law, there are significant questions about whether and when
member state competent authorities will establish a legal basis to require carriers to comply with
the various requirements of the proposed system, including submission of monitoring plans.
ATA accordingly reserves its right to challenge in all appropriate forums the application
of the EU ETS to international aviation. The fact that ATA has also chosen to provide comments
in this submission on certain details of the MRV consultation document in no way constitutes
acceptance of or consent to be bound by the proposed EU legislation.
Even if the ETS proposal were legal, moreover, its unilateral approach to addressing
GHG emissions from aviation reflects a flawed policy approach. The only feasible approach to
addressing the climate change impacts of international aviation is through a multilateral process
at ICAO. At the 36th Session of the ICAO Assembly in September 2007, ICAO members
focused on aviation emissions related to climate change and addressed the use of emissions
trading. The Assembly agreed to establish a high-level group through ICAO to develop a
framework of action that nations could use to address these GHG emissions. A report with
recommendations is due to be completed before the next Assembly Session in 2010. In addition,
the Assembly urged all countries to not apply an emissions trading system to other nations’ air
carriers except on the basis of mutual consent between those nations. No such mutual consent
has been achieved. Any effort to develop either a unilateral framework therefore runs the
significant risk of impeding or obstructing those important efforts under way at ICAO.
2.
The MRV Consultation Process is Flawed and Inadequate
Even if the proposed ETS legislation were legal, moreover, the consultation process that
the European Commission has adopted for the MRV guidelines is both inadequate and
inconsistent with the Commission’s own “minimum standards” on public consultation. Those
standards provide, in relevant part, that “[t]he Commission should provide sufficient time for
planning and responses to invitations and written contributions. The Commission should strive to
allow at least 8 weeks for reception of responses to written public consultations and 20 working
days notice for meetings.” See COM(2002) 704 final, at 21 (11.12.2002) (“General principles
and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission”) (emphasis
added). These minimum standards also specify that “a consultation period longer than eight
weeks might be required in order to take account of: the need for European or national
organisations to consult their members in order to produce a consolidated viewpoint; certain
existing binding instruments (this applies, in particular, to notification requirements under the
WTO agreement); [or] the specificity of a given proposal (e.g. because of the diversity of the
interested parties or the complexity of the issue at stake) ....” See id.
Any one these criteria would alone justify a requirement to establish a longer consultation
period. With respect to the MRV consultation, each of these criteria is satisfied:
·
There is a need for organizations (both national and international, in the case of IATA as
well as ATA and other regional carrier associations, to consult and coordinate with their
member companies) on these issues.
·
The MRV guidelines, like the ETS proposal as a whole, clearly implicate EU obligations
under international aviation agreements, as indicated above.
·
And the complexity and detail associated with the MRV requirements, combined with the
diversity of interests between EU-based and non-EU based carriers, is self-evident. In
the words of the Commission itself, “[t]his is a very technical consultation ....” See
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/aviation_en.htm) (emphasis added).
Yet the Commission not only did not choose to extend the consultation period beyond the
“minimum standard” eight week period; it chose to reduce the consultation period to a period of
just four weeks. The consultation document makes no effort to explain this truncated time limit,
beyond a short notice on the website referring to the “short time period available to get the
guidelines and provisions ready for the start of the monitoring obligations in 2009.” (That note
says incorrectly that the period “is reduced to 5 weeks.”)
It appears that this timetable was driven by a perceived need to complete the guidelines in
time for a June 2009 submission of carrier monitoring plans. But, as the consultation document
acknowledges, that monitoring plan deadline is not specified in the draft legislation. Even if it
were, we can see no legitimate reason that the Commission’s timetable would be impeded by a
consultation period that extended for (at a minimum) an additional four weeks.
The unjustifiably short consultation period is particularly burdensome to non-EU airlines,
who (apparently in contrast to their EU-based counterparts) had no advanced notice of the
timetable or early drafts of the MRV guidance in order to facilitate internal review of the
guidelines. Indeed, this expedited review process is taking place notwithstanding the fact that, as
of the opening of the consultation period, the underlying legislation that would authorize MRV
guidelines for the aviation sector had not even been adopted. As a result, we have not had
sufficient time to fully review the draft MRV guidance and background documentation, let alone
to coordinate comments among our member companies, beyond the limited comments that we
provide in this submission in response to certain discrete issues. The absence of a comment in
response to any specific consultation question therefore should not be taken as an acceptance of
or agreement with the proposed approach in the consultation document.
The Commission’s decision to fragment its implementation of the proposed legislation
has further complicated our ability to meaningfully review and provide comment on the MRV
rules. The rushed introduction of these MRV rules means that they have been developed and
reviewed in isolation from the other critical rules that the Commission will have to design in
order to impose the ETS framework onto aviation emissions. Those other details include, for
example, guidelines on the detailed interpretation of aviation activities in Annex I, measures for
the auctioning of allowances, rules for the implementation of the special reserve, establishment
of the historical aviation emission baseline, and specifying the administering member state. As
the consultation document itself notes in some places, the MRV guidelines will be
interconnected with and have implications for many of these still undisclosed points of
implementation. ATA therefore reserves the right to revisit our comments on the MRV rules in
the future in the light of new information that may emerge when the Commission decides to
share further details on its plans for these important elements of the scheme.
3.
The MRV Rules Have Not Considered the Impact on Non-EU Carriers
The MRV rules themselves reflect the broader failure to fully take into account the
impact on international aviation that is evident in the unilateral imposition of the ETS scheme.
As discussed above in part, for example, there appears to have been no effort to take into
account or build on existing non-EU carrier experience with data collection and reporting
requirements for kilometer-tonne information or fuel consumption information, despite the
many advantages that might have been gained by modelling new requirements on existing
systems and avoiding duplicative or conflicting data collection and reporting requirements. That
unilateral approach is directly contrary to the approach being taken under ICAO with respect to
data collection practices, where for example the Group on International Aviation and Climate
Change (GIACC) has taken a careful and deliberative approach to identifying and working to
build on existing national level experience with fuel consumption and emissions reporting,
including the U.S. approach under Form 41. In the end, the Commission’s unilateral approach
to developing a monitoring and reporting framework merely compounds and exacerbates the
fundamental problem that has plagued the proposal to include aviation within the ETS since the
beginning: the unilateral nature of the process.
4.
The MRV Rules Are Excessively Complex and Burdensome, Without Providing
Proportional Benefits in Increased Accuracy
In general, the consultation document proposes the adoption of excessively complex and
administratively burdensome data collection and reporting requirements. This appears to reflect
an effort to achieve a level of accuracy and precision that is not justified by the additional costs
that will be incurred, and that fails to take account of both the unique circumstances of aviation
and existing industry practices and standards. As discussed above, these flaws are most clearly
manifest in the proposed system for calculating GHG emissions from fuel data, but the general
point applies throughout the MRV consultation document.
Rather than designing a completely new data collection and reporting framework to meet
pre-determined standards of completeness and accuracy (modelled on principles developed for
stationary sources), the MRV requirements for aviation should be initially designed based on
existing carrier data collection, reporting, and retention practices, using default industry
standards wherever possible. Any departures from such practices that impose additional data
collection, reporting and retention requirements must be justified in terms of cost-effectiveness.
5.
Protection of confidential business information & data retention
Data reporting requirements should be limited to protect confidential business
information. Carriers should therefore be required to report only aggregated annual fuel
consumption; more detailed data can be made available to verifiers and auditors as required. Per
flight fuel data should not be reported or made publicly available, as flight-specific fuel
consumption is highly confidential. Form 41, for example, does not require fuel reporting on a
per flight or even city pair basis, but rather on a system level. Similar aggregation requirements
should be adopted in the MRV guidelines as well. In addition, in cases where a carrier has only
limited service into a member state, requirements to report fuel consumption data by member
state, even when aggregated annually, could result in the release of commercially sensitive
business information.
**************