Washington Brings Mixed Bag on Sustainability

The 2024 U.S. elections have markedly changed the political environment in Washington this year, seemingly shifting focus away from sustainability onto other priorities. However, even as green initiatives have muted in the Washington dialog, progress is continuing as the conversation has turned more toward innovation and as rural and manufacturing states—along with their lawmakers—have stepped up their support.

“Every new administration brings a changing landscape, and stakeholders adjust accordingly,” said Kristie Greco Johnson, senior v-p of government affairs for NBAA. “But I think when it comes to sustainability and aviation, there's still quite a bit of energy and progress at play. We have a strong message with policymakers that these are policies that are good for American commerce, American business, American energy independence, and national security. Those messages still resonate with leadership.”

Karen Huggard, v-p of government affairs for the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), agreed, saying progress made this year in sustainability shows that for aviation, “it’s a little bit different and in some ways in a class of its own. When we think about the new technologies that we're looking toward in the future in terms of electrification, hydrogen, and alternative energy sources, that's all about global leadership, it's all about research and development, it's about the next generation of aircraft, and it's about innovation.”

Mixed Results in Washington

However, questions swirled about the future of Washington's support for sustainability following the elections. And, immediately after taking office, President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders revoking federal sustainability goals and electric vehicle mandates, halting some funding, and calling for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, among other steps. More recently, an executive order was released ending wind and solar subsidies.

But, in June, the administration released another executive order establishing an Electric Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) Integration Pilot Program and called for the expansion of beyond visual line of sight operations and applications. Further, the administration early on approved a sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) refinery loan in Montana. And work involving SAF continues at the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Transportation, each with its own niche.

Action on Capitol Hill has similarly been mixed. On one hand, the One Big Beautiful Bill budget reconciliation act that passed in July phased out clean vehicle and energy efficiency credits adopted under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. It also did not renew a $1.25 per-gallon blenders SAF tax credit—this had already expired, so it wasn’t necessarily “killed” like some other measures.

However, the bill retained a broader biofuel production tax credit, which includes SAF, but at a lower $1 per gallon rate. And it retained hydrogen production tax credits, but sunsets them in 2027 rather than 2033.

“There are a number of provisions that eliminated sustainability policies put in place by the previous administration, but a key one that endured was the biofuel tax credit. And while the value of that tax credit was decreased, I think its existence is a result of strength and support from farm-state Republicans,” Greco Johnson said. “There's quite a bit of economic benefit to those farm-state communities—the production of sustainable aviation fuel, producing the feedstocks, refining the products, distributing the products. There's a lot of bipartisan support around that.”

The reduction in the SAF tax credits, Huggard said, may be a recognition that any tax credit is being weighed against a strong push to cut the budget. “A tax credit works in the wrong way. So, the fact that the biofuel tax credit was extended is a recognition of those other positive attributes for the American economy. The fact that enhanced [SAF-only] credit ultimately didn't remain, I think, is just a reality of them having to be mindful of what their goal was in terms of that spending bill.”

Importantly, support for SAF, electric, and other sustainable measures remains firmly in place on Capitol Hill. Both the House and Senate have created Sustainable Aviation Caucuses, supported by lawmakers not only from farm states that see the benefits to agricultural economies, but also those in traditional petroleum states such as Louisiana, where they see opportunity for expanding existing assets and infrastructure for SAF.

While green energy has been pushed under Democrat policies, “Republicans are recognizing that sustainable aviation fuel is a great market for American production in agricultural states. So, we're seeing a shift toward SAF on the economic benefits to domestic fuel production, the economic benefits to the farmers who will grow feedstock for this fuel,” Huggard said, adding, “There's also recognition that energy security from domestic sources is valuable.”

Greco Johnson further pointed out that SAF “really fits nicely within the administration's policy goals on domestic energy production and energy independence, which contributes to national security.”

Eyes on Appropriations

Looking forward, aviation advocates have turned their attention to the appropriations process, where funding for critical research such as the CLEEN (Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions, and Noise) program is vulnerable to funding cuts. CLEEN is a public-private cost-sharing research program to forward sustainable technologies. Further, they are eyeing funding for the aviation sustainability center of excellence—referred to as ASCENT, which is focused on NextGen environmental technologies research.  Funding for these programs was shaved down and/or redirected under the 2025 continuing resolution bill, but Congress seems interested in returning levels to those of Fiscal Year 2024.

Support also continues for the U.S. SAF Grand Challenge. However, earlier this year, the administration signaled a change in the name from “sustainable aviation fuel” to “synthetic aviation fuel,” perhaps a reflection of the drive toward innovation rather than a sustainability priority. On top of the terminology change, there hasn’t been much visibility on the challenge, raising some concern that it has taken a back seat.

The States Step In

While Washington refocuses, the states have stepped up as another key piece of advancing sustainable initiatives. This is particularly true in rural states that rely on agriculture, but also in states such as Florida and Kansas that are laying the groundwork for electric aviation. Many have adopted or are contemplating tax and other incentives to pave the way.

“The states that had already leaned into biofuels over the last 10 and 15 years understand what those kinds of fuels can do for the economy,” Huggard said. Other states have joined in, such as those in the Southeast eager to establish biofuel production facilities, or those where manufacturing is central and are looking for innovation. To them, this means jobs.

“We have a good story to tell in aviation. It's hard not to get behind it because it makes sense and rises above the political fray a little bit,” Huggard said.

While Europe looks to mandates, the U.S is more aimed on incentives, but that could shift. “I don't see us moving to a stick approach from the federal perspective on sustainability the way that it's happening in Europe. [But,] many of our aviation companies are global, and so they have to navigate these.” That's a topic of a panel at the upcoming NATA Aviation Business Conference.

However, at the state level, it is not all about incentives, and while there is support among the states, that doesn’t quell the industry critics. “We've seen climate demonstrations at Southern California airports against business aviation. We've seen several bills that could have been really damaging to business aviation introduced in the California legislature,” Huggard said. “We see movements to shut down business aviation airports in the Northeast, and then increasingly we see anti-aviation sentiment in some middle states like Colorado, so it can be very difficult for business aviation here in the U.S.”

Ultimately, she said, advocates need to take a multi-pronged approach of looking at the administration, its various agencies, Congress, as well as the states. But it is also on industry, the association experts agreed.

“For aviation—from the manufacturing and the operator's perspective, we've always been trying to fly faster, safer, lighter, with less fuel, so the industry will continue to invest resources in more efficient engines, more efficient airframes, and more efficient materials that deliver aircraft that consume less fuel,” Greco Johnson said.

Business and general aviation manufacturers remain committed to their research and development (R&D) efforts, a spokesman for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association agreed.

This includes developing new airframe and engine technologies and materials. “Our companies are still proceeding with their R&D work,” he said, “and to the extent that the administration can support what our companies are doing, that would be very helpful. It cannot be done alone in the industry. It cannot be done alone by the government. It's got to be a joint effort.”

This is especially true given the far-reaching technologies being explored. “Our companies are engaged in these revolutionary technologies, whether hydrogen, electric, or eVTOLs,” he added. “The technologies will prove pretty valuable down the road.”

Meanwhile, Huggard stressed: “Aviation is one of the best stories right now in our economy. We can in many ways continue to lean into that because it's a strong message that both furthers our efficiency and lowers our emissions, reduces the carbon footprint, and the impact on the environment, but it's also about real leaps forward in terms of innovation within aviation.”