28-Jun-2010 IATA criticizes lack of progress on volcanic ash issues in Europe [ATW]
28-Jan-2010 The solid business case for cutting carbon emissions [BusinessDay]
06-Dec-2009 The implications of the EU's ETS [Aircraft Commerce]
16-Nov-2012 Airbus and EADS join Chinese venture to develop algae-based jet fuels, with demo flight planned for 2013 [GreenAir Online]
15-Nov-2012 Third wave of green flight trials to get underway in Europe as part of AIRE emissions reduction programme [GreenAir Online]
09-Nov-2012 Virgin Atlantic says 2020 carbon target on track as new aircraft and fuel efficiency measures deliver savings [GreenAir Online]
[ATW, 28-Jun-2010] [...] Bisignani further urged the ministers to address distortions to measurements of airline carbon dioxide emissions created by the airspace closures. "As 2010 is a baseline year for determining allocations under Europe's emissions trading scheme due to take effect in 2012, accuracy is critical," he said. At ATW's Eco-Aviation Conference last week, experts expressed doubt that any adjustments will be made owing to the airspace closures. "The chances are zero" that the EU will allow carriers to adjust their reported emissions, said Julien Dufour, MD of VeriAvia and CEO of SustainAvia.
[BusinessDay, 28-Jan-2010] [...] From 2012, all carriers flying into the EU, with a few exceptions, will have to cut their emissions to 85% of 2004-06 levels. Any emissions above that threshold will have to be paid for by acquiring carbon credits.
That won’t come cheaply. Environmental aviation group Sustainavia estimates that, on average, an airline operating an Airbus A340 from London to Johannesburg will incur carbon credit costs of about €6600 a flight. “That is based on the use of about 70 tons of fuel and carbon credits at about €30 a ton,” says Sustainavia MD Julien Dufour. Factor in a return flight, and the annual cost easily reaches €50m.
Dufour says while the average cost of a carbon credit last year was €8-€14 a ton, he believes the demand for carbon credits from all sectors will push up the average price in the next few years to “anywhere between €20 and €40”. [...]
[Aircraft Commerce, 06-Dec-2009] [...] Julien Dufour, founder and chief executive officer of Paris-based Sustainavia, started the company in February 2009 when he realised how long it took to understand ETS, and that 3,000-4,000 operators needed to do just that. He has 23 clients, including most recently Pakistan International Airlines.
“It is not that complex once you understand it. The RTK plan is optional, only for those who want to apply for free allowances. It is only worth doing for airlines with efficient operations, high load factors and highly efficient aircraft.
“In early 2011 the Competent Authorities will add up the airlines’ RTK data and calculate their share of RTKs. The Lufthansa Group, for example, will have a 9% share. It is expected to report a lot of RTKs compared to its CO2 emissions because it has a fuel-efficient fleet.” An airline with inefficient aircraft will have a higher rate of fuel consumption per RTK. An airline’s allowance will be higher where its
payloads are high.
Dufour says that the baseline overall cap is expected to be 210-220 million tones of CO2. At the bottom end of the fuel efficiency scale is a business-jet operator, using 6kg of fuel per RTK, because small aircraft are relatively fuelinefficient, and are operated with low load factors, thereby generating small volumes of RTKs. The CO2 allowance, based on RTKs, will be small compared to fuel consumed. At the top end of the fuel efficiency scale, Lufthansa would consume 0.3-0.4kg of fuel per RTK, because of its fuel-efficient fleet and high load factors.
Dufour adds that operators which already have efficient aircraft have an advantage. Basing free allowances on RTKs, rather than actual fuel consumption, stops operators trying to overstate their emissions in 2010 so that they can get a larger allowance going forward. He estimates that an efficient operator, which is growing fast and has been able to purchase quota, will end up with 60% free allowances (since it is based on 85% of historic emissions) and 40% for an inefficient carrier.
Dufour has surveyed airlines about ETS and says he has had lots of feedback. “People are saying that they want to see a global approach to aviation emissions.” Meanwhile European airlines are more in favour of the ETS than non-EU ones, but both tend to think that they are being discriminated against. Dufour says one overseas carrier saw it as “a thinly veiled attempt by EU airlines to get more free allowances and to try to get subsidies.” Others think that market distortions have been ignored and that it is just a way for the EU to generate revenue, which will not be used for the environment.
“In theory,” says Dufour, “airlines with hubs just outside Europe, such as in the Middle East and North Africa, will get an advantage. The ETS model could go global, but it is very unfair to developing countries who contribute little [overall] in terms of emissions.”
Dufour has calculated examples of the total carbon cost for several aircraft. This assumes daily flights and a cost of EUR 30 per tonne of purchased CO2 allowance.
Dufour estimates that if this cost is passed on to passengers, it would be EUR 5 per passenger for short-haul and EUR 30 per passenger for long-haul trips. [...]
» Read more (pdf, 90 KB)
[GreenAir Online, 20-Oct-2009] Understanding the EU ETS Directive and the monitoring and reporting requirements indeed requires several readings, extensive research and a lot of patience, even for the brightest brains. At the end of the day, though, the ETS is not that complicated and is simply about data collection, transfer, storage and reporting. What kind of data? Flights, payload, fuel in tanks and fuel uplift. In most cases, flights and payload are already properly monitored by airlines. Similarly, fuel data is already available in most cases since it is included in the flight log, and flight logs are always a requirement. In other words, the EU ETS should be no big deal for most aircraft operators, argue Julien Dufour and Gary Cleven. [...]
[GreenAir Online, 02-Oct-2009] [...] Julien Dufour of aviation ETS consultancy SustainAvia agrees that the delay will not help operators perform their financial impact analysis and estimate the number of carbon credits that will be available but he believes the postponement will have no real implications. “The EC will start collecting the reported tonne-kilometre from operators in 2011 and is not expected to announce the number of free allowances to be granted to each operator before mid-2011,” he said. “This means we could wait a further two years for the cap announcement without it making a difference.” [...]
[Air Transport World, 10-Sep-2009] [...] Julien Dufour, CEO of SustainAvia, an aviation environmental consultancy, believes that many operators will miss the deadlines and says that, for instance, Russian airlines have been told by the Russian CAA not to submit plans until told to do so. The agency is against the EU ETS in principle and wants all Russian carriers to act collectively. Indian airlines face a similar situation, with all plans being sent to the Indian Directorate of Civil Aviation first for approval.
Dufour told Eco-Aviation Today that most member states have not transferred the ETS directive into law so penalties cannot apply in relation to the emissions monitoring plan. However, the Aug. 31 deadline was required for the tonne-km. plan for the granting of free allowances. He said most aircraft operators "have submitted their plans."
For a passenger, the emissions carbon tax that likely will result from the ETS for a flight from Singapore to London on an A340 with 250 seats would be €32 ($46) if the cost of carbon is €30 a tonne. For a much shorter sector, such as Athens-London on a 737-800 with 120 passengers, it would be €6.
[Air Transport Intelligence, 31-Aug-2009] Carriers from the Americas have begun submitting their monitoring plans for the European Union's emissions trading scheme even as they question the legality of the programme.
Both the Latin American and Caribbean air transport association, ALTA, and the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) say their members are filing emissions monitoring, reporting and verification plans "under protest" as most EU member states maintained aviation's first ETS deadline today as the EU plans to fold aviation into the scheme from 2012.
However, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK granted carriers varying extensions as the final list of administering states was not published until earlier this month, according to ETS advisory company SustainAvia. [...]
[GreenAir Online, 28-Aug-2009] [...] Two consultancies specializing in the Aviation EU ETS are advising their airline clients, especially those who have just joined the revised list, to submit a preliminary plan by 31 August even if it contains just an outline or contact information, and then file again when the plans have been completed.
“That’s what is happening with a major Asian carrier administered by Spain,” said Julien Dufour of SustainAvia. “They must mail the preliminary templates to the Spanish Climate Change Office with a stamp dated 31 August or earlier, together with a letter explaining they had only just been informed and with no time to complete the plan, they would resubmit as soon as possible and, in the meantime, here are the preliminary plans.”
Dufour also believes that some operators administered by a member state with an extended deadline will still file a preliminary plan by 31 August in case it transpires that only those operators who have supplied tonne-kilometre plans by that date can apply for free allowances. He says that there is some fear that the extended deadlines in some member states are illegal as they do not comply with the EU Directive.
[...] However, it appears likely that many operators will miss the deadline. According to Dufour, Russian airlines have been told by the Russian CAA to not to submit plans until instructed to do so. As the CAA is against the Aviation EU ETS in principle, it wants all Russian airlines to act collectively on whether or not to submit plans. Indian airlines, too, must first submit their plans to the Indian Directorate of Civil Aviation for approval. [...]
[Aviation & Allied Business, 20-Aug-2009] In its September issue, Nigeria-based Aviation & Allied Business Publications features a major article about the EU ETS and its implications on African airlines written by Julien Dufour, SustainAvia's Founder & CEO.
[GreenAir Online, 13-Aug-2009] [...] According to Julien Dufour of aviation ETS consultancy SustainAvia, Italy has just appointed a dedicated committee within the Ministry of Environment as its CA, which has already transposed the EU directive into national law and set a deadline of September 30. Hungary, meanwhile, has yet even to appoint a CA.
[...] “I think the EC preferred not to exclude anybody because of the risk of error,” believes SustainAvia’s Dufour. “In some cases, they have no way of knowing if an operator should be excluded or not. For example, an operator is considered to be commercial if it has an AOC and there is no way the EC or Eurocontrol can know if an operator has an AOC or not (for operators outside of the EU). In this case, it is up to the operator to show evidence of its AOC.
“Similarly, being a small or big emitter is hard to define for the EC: again it is up to the operator to show evidence that it is above or below the threshold. And even if an operator is below the threshold in 2009, it may choose to comply because it expects to be above the threshold in 2010 and it does not want to lose the free allowances.
“Another example is over the exemption of flights carrying non-EU heads of state. In most cases the EC knows that a flight carries a Head of State but they have no way of knowing whether he or she is from the EU or from a country outside of the EU.”
Dufour says aircraft operators performing an aviation activity listed in Annex I to the EU Directive are covered by the EU ETS whether or not they are on the list of operators. Conversely, aircraft operators that are on the list do not fall under the scheme if they do not perform an aviation activity listed in Annex I because, for example, they only perform exempted flights.
If an operator is not on the Commission’s list, but undertakes an Annex 1 activity, Dufour advises the operator to contact the Commission and inform them of its qualification to enter the scheme. The Commission may publish updates to the operator list over and above a requirement set out in the Directive to publish an update before the February 1 of each year. Only when the operator appears on the list will the operator and appropriate regulator know which Member State they have been assigned to. [...]