Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/13/2025 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Mitigation at Our Airports | |
| Presentation: Leaded Aviation Gas in Alaska Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2025
1:02 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ashley Carrick, Co-Chair
Representative Ted Eischeid, Co-Chair
Representative Genevieve Mina
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Elexie Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Tilton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES MITIGATION AT
OUR AIRPORTS
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: LEADED AVIATION GAS IN ALASKA UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
TROY LARUE, Division Operations Manager
Statewide Aviation
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)."
AARON DANIELSON, Division Operations Manager
Fairbanks International Airport
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)."
CURT CASTAGNA, Co-Chair; President, CEO
Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative;
National Air Transportation Association
Los Alamitos, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative (EAGLE)
Update."
KAREN HUGGARD, Vice President
Government Affairs
National Air Transportation Association
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint,
titled "Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative
(EAGLE) Update."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:50 PM
CO-CHAIR ASHLEY CARRICK called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Moore,
Mina, Stutes, McCabe, Eischeid, and Carrick were present at the
call to order.
^PRESENTATION: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Mitigation at
Our Airports
PRESENTATION: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Mitigation at
Our Airports
1:03:58 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business
would be a presentation by the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
mitigation at Alaska's airports.
1:04:15 PM
TROY LARUE, Divisions Operation Manager, Statewide Aviation,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), co-
presented the PowerPoint, titled "Introduction to Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)" [hard copy included in the
committee file]. He explained what constitutes PFAS, as seen on
slide 2 and slide 3. He stated that these substances were first
introduced in the 1950s, and now they are "found in just about
everything." He pointed out that PFAS are difficult to
breakdown in the environment because they are heat resistant,
transferable by water, and capable of sticking to the soil. For
these reasons, he stated that contamination spread is easy. He
stated that over 6,000 chemicals make up PFAS. He described
them as "forever chemicals" that bioaccumulate in animals and
humans, with a minimum toxic contamination level at 70 parts per
trillion. He described Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) which
is a PFAS product used in consumer products, such as in non-
stick cookware, stain resistant furniture, ski waxes, rain gear,
cooking utensils, paints, plastics, adhesives, personal care
products, convenience food packaging, and some bottled water.
He clarified that the contamination from these chemicals is not
just from firefighting, and he noted other sources, such as
manufacturing and wastewater treatment plants.
MR. LARUE moved to slide 4 and described the pathways for PFAS.
He noted that these chemicals are not removed in water treatment
plants. He pointed out that industrial smoke emits PFAS, and it
leaches into the ground at landfills; therefore, these chemicals
end up in the groundwater that animals and humans consume, and
in the animals that humans eat. On slide 5, he pointed out that
firefighting foam with PFAS is more often found at the state's
139 airports that are federally certified. He noted that PFAS
are also found on military bases, which are prevalent across the
state. He pointed out that these chemicals are difficult to
track because they spread so easily in any body of water.
MR. LARUE moved to slide 6 and discussed the impacts of PFAS on
drinking water in the state. On the slide, he noted the list of
the state's contaminated sites. Because of this contamination,
he stated that water is shipped into some of these communities.
On slide 7, he pointed out that some DOT&PF capital improvement
construction projects would have contamination risks, and these
risks could cause delay. He added that contamination mitigation
could come with a high cost. He stated that DOT&PF has been
working with the Department of Environmental Conservation to
determine how best to sequester contamination so projects could
be completed. He stated that another alternative to
sequestration would be to ship the contamination to the Lower
48, where there are systems to mitigate PFAS. He moved to slide
8 and discussed contamination site characterization, which
involves the examination of sites to determine where the PFAS
plume is located and where it might be moving.
1:10:17 PM
AARON DANIELSON, Division Operations Manager, Fairbanks
International Airport (FIA), Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, co-presented a PowerPoint, titled
"Introduction to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)."
On slide 9, he noted that airports have a high concentration of
PFAS, and he discussed what is being done to reduce this. He
pointed out that new standards have been set for the use of
fluorine-free foam (F3), and a new foam provider has been
selected. He noted that this new, "green" foam would be a
replacement on all airport firetrucks; however, the trucks would
need to be cleaned first because these chemicals are very
resilient.
1:12:00 PM
MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Eischeid,
expressed uncertainty concerning the difference in cost between
F3 foam and PFAS foam. He expressed the understanding that the
costs would be comparable. He stated that he would follow up
with the committee on this cost comparison.
MR. DANIELSON stated that DOT&PF has put out a request for
proposals to clean the firetrucks contaminated with PFAS. He
noted that these proposals would concern the federally certified
airports in the state. He stated that these proposals are
currently being evaluated. He moved to slide 11 and discussed
the study done in 2023 on contamination remediation. He stated
that the study has resulted in some pilot projects. For
example, he noted the use of an effective thermal treatment for
contaminated soil; however, he pointed out that this takes a
high volume of energy and heat. He stated that this treatment
was tested at a highly contaminated pit site, which had been
used for decades for airport fire training. He noted that after
the treatment, there had been a 99 percent reduction of PFAS in
a water sample. He added that this result "is very promising."
MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Representative
Stutes, explained that it took years and a large body of
research on PFAS for the realization to come about that these
chemicals were leaching into the groundwater. Once this was
determined, he said that impact studies had to be done on humans
and animals; furthermore, dangerous levels had to be determined.
He described the impact as bioaccumulative, which means that
human health would be affected [as PFAS became concentrated in
the body over time]. In response to a follow-up question, he
expressed uncertainty on the specific effects on human health.
He offered to follow up to with some resources on this.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned the mitigation of PFAS in
Kodiak, as the U.S. Coast Guard there has a fire-training burn
pit next to the ocean. He expressed the understanding that this
site has been used for years. He questioned the ability of
finding PFAS in the ocean.
MR. LARUE, in response, expressed the understanding that these
chemicals are found in the water and in the fish, and the Coast
Guard is in the process of cleaning up this burn pit area. He
stated that PFAS has been around for the last 20 years, and
resources to deal with this are now being developed.
MR. LARUE, in response to a series of follow-up questions from
committee members, stated that there are many class action
lawsuits with the chemical companies. He answered that there
are many pathways for individuals to seek restitution,
especially if the individual knows where and when the exposure
happened. In response, he clarified that contamination from
PFAS is a countrywide issue. He stated that the processes used
for breaking down PFAS would be covered in an upcoming slide.
1:23:52 PM
MR. DANIELSON stated that the primary method for breaking down
PFAS would require heat, time, and an activated carbon
filtration system. On slide 10, he referred to the 2023 study,
which had involved onsite methods for PFAS destruction. On
slide 11, he discussed the method of injecting activated carbon
into the groundwater pathway, as this would hold a PFAS plume in
place. He noted that this method has had some success on a fire
pit site in Fairbanks.
MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 12 and pointed out that options for
disposal of contamination in the state are currently limited.
He stated that for soil, water, AFFF, or waste products,
disposal would require removal from the state, or it would
require onsite remediation. He stated that any contract made
for removal would include creating onsite remediation.
MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick,
asserted that because of the vast amounts of contamination in
the state, the goal would be to have remediation in state. He
also noted the expense of sending the contamination to the Lower
48 for treatment. He expressed optimism concerning the results
of tests for onsite remediation in Fairbanks. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that onsite remediation would
involve treating the contamination in the area where it
occurred.
1:28:13 PM
MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 13 and went into further detail on
the methods of remediating and destroying PFAS. He stated that
PFAS remediation is a rapidly evolving form of technology. He
discussed a proven method for treating water, which would
involve filtration, and then moving the contaminant into a solid
form for destruction. He pointed out that another method for
water treatment would involve foam fractionation. He stated
that this would bubble out PFAS for treatment by bioremediation.
Concerning foam treatments, he discussed destruction
technologies that often use chemical and thermal methods. For
soil treatments, he stated that this is done in the traditional
method of excavation and disposal, often into another location.
He noted that new technologies would involve putting a thermal
component directly into the soil, with carbon barriers to keep
the contaminants in place. In recap, he stated that there are
many technologies that could be used; however, factors in Alaska
would need to be considered, such as the size of the
remediation, the remote locations, and other contaminants that
could be present, as seen on slide 14.
MR. DANIELSON moved to slide 15 and summarized DOT&PF's
commitment in addressing PFAS. He reiterated that sites are
being addressed to determine the level of contaminants, and
areas with a known discharge of AFFF are being prioritized. He
stated that drinking water is being tested, and water would be
provided to residents in contaminated areas. He noted that
communities with contamination sites are being educated on the
impacts of PFAS. He continued that, except in emergencies with
fire, no AFFF has been sprayed to the ground since 2019.
1:31:58 PM
MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Representative Stutes,
stated that when the department dispenses water to the public,
water bottles that do not contain PFAS would be used. In
response, he stated that PFAS-free bottles would be marked.
MR. LARUE, in response to a question from Representative Mina,
stated that DOT&PF is working on the transportation side of the
issue, and for advice, it would reference the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), and others. He stated that DEC would advise
DOT&PF on a construction site project, for example, but DOT&PF
would not be in "the loop" concerning people's health.
1:33:54 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK questioned the amount of PFAS firefighting foam
that still exists in the state.
MR. DANIELSON responded that it is a federal requirement for all
firefighting foam in airports to have a PFAS base. He stated
that the state would receive its first shipment of non-
fluorinated foam this year.
CO-CHAIR CARRICK referenced slide 8, which showed airports in
the state where site characterization has been done. She
suggested that even if an airport is not listed or been tested,
it would still have PFAS on site.
MR. LARUE, in response, expressed agreement that airports not
listed likely have contamination. He stated that DOT&PF had
worked with DEC, and it was determined that the sites with
shallow groundwater should be tested first. He noted that there
is still more work to do on testing.
MR. LARUE, in response to Representative Mina, expressed the
hope that federal funding would be available for remediation, as
it is difficult to find state funds. He reiterated the
department's commitment. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that outside of the work being done at airports, the
department would partner with other state entities and
communities on this effort.
MR. DANIELSON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Carrick
concerning individual drinking water well sites near FIA, he
expressed the understanding that it would not be possible to
remediate individual wells because PFAS contamination would come
from a continuous plume, and it would not economically viable.
He added that a home filtration system could be installed to
remove PFAS from the water.
MR. LARUE added that in some of the rural areas effected, there
are active projects to implement filtration systems in some
businesses and homes. In response to a follow-up question, he
expressed the understanding that there has been no PFAS detected
in vegetables; however, he noted the importance of washing these
vegetables.
1:43:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:43 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
^PRESENTATION: Leaded Aviation Gas in Alaska Update
PRESENTATION: Leaded Aviation Gas in Alaska Update
1:45:40 PM
CO-CHAIR CARRICK announced that the final order of business
would be a presentation on leaded aviation gas in Alaska.
1:46:00 PM
CURT CASTAGNA, Co-Chair, Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead
Emissions Initiative (EAGLE); President, CEO, National Air
Transportation Association (NATA), co-presented a PowerPoint,
titled "Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions Initiative
(EAGLE) Update" [hard copy included in the committee file]. On
slide 1, he introduced himself and discussed several recent
meetings he has had with stakeholders in Alaska. On slide 2, he
overviewed the key objectives of EAGLE, which is to promote the
transition to unleaded aviation fuel by 2030. He stated that
this transition time has been expanded by two years for Alaska.
He clarified that 2030 would not be a deadline, but a goal. He
stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) came out
with a finding that one-hundred low-lead (100LL) fuel is an
environmental risk. He added that this fuel has not been
banned, but a transition plan is being implemented, along with
replacement fuel. He suggested that the transition might take
longer than the 2030 goal.
MR. CASTAGNA pointed out that the problem with leaded fuel is
not just environmental. He explained that the only source of
the lead additive used to make this fuel is in Liverpool,
England. He stated that this facility would be closing in 2030;
therefore, the transition away from 100LL would also be a
business decision. He stated that this leaded compound would be
stockpiled until 2030.
1:54:29 PM
MR. CASTAGNA reiterated EAGLE's goal, as seen on slide 3, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
"Eliminate the use of leaded aviation fuels for
piston-engine aircraft in the United States by the end
of 2030 (2033 for Alaska) without adversely impacting
the safe and efficient operation of the existing
fleet."
MR. CASTAGNA noted that the trade organizations listed on the
bottom of the slide are working with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). He discussed the different components of
the organizations listed.
MR. CASTAGNA overviewed the objectives of EAGLE, as seen on
slide 5, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
- Facilitate Stakeholder Support for the Development
and Deployment of Viable Replacements for 100LL
- Research and Develop Technical Solutions to Mitigate
the Potential Impacts on the Existing GA Fleet
- Inform the Regulatory & Policy Processes to Safely
and Smartly Transition to a Viable Replacement to
Eliminate Lead Emissions
- Protect the Availability of 100LL During the
Transition
MR. CASTAGNA added that there is not a replacement for 100LL at
this point. He stated that the chemistry is being researched to
find a similar additive that would create the same high
performance in aircraft. He moved to slide 5 and discussed what
a viable unleaded replacement for 100LL avgas would look like,
stating that this replacement must meet three elements: safety,
production and distribution, and consumer usage. Concerning
safety, he said that aircraft must continue to meet FAA
requirements, and the components of the new fuel must be
acceptable for this. Concerning production and distribution, he
said that there must be an understanding of the fuel so business
decisions for the needed supply could be made. He added that
the fuel must be produced and distributed in quantities and
locations to meet the country's needs. He noted the
complexities and limitations of transporting fuel in Alaska.
Concerning consumer usage, he said that it must be economically
reasonable for consumers, and manufacturers must be able to
provide technical and warranty support.
1:58:09 PM
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a committee question, clarified
that he is currently in California, while Karen Huggard is
located in Washington DC.
MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 6 and discussed the factors that are
affecting the availability of 100LL avgas. He pointed out the
environmental factors, and he gave details on the lawsuits in
California. Concerning the economic factors, he reiterated the
issue of the single supplier of the lead additive. He added
that another factor would be the transition to 100LL avgas by
General Aviation.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative
McCabe concerning the lawsuits in California, explained that in
2015, [the Center for Environmental Health] in California sued
fixed fuel suppliers in the state because the suppliers had not
posted the lead content in some products. In the settlement,
there was a requirement that the defendants would replace 100LL
avgas by 2055. Since the time of the lawsuit, a fuel became
available, and [the Center for Environmental Health] took the
defendants back to court to stop the use of 100LL. He stated
that there is now a temporary ruling in favor of the defendants,
as the new fuel is not yet commercially viable. In response to
a follow-up question, he clarified that "not commercially
viable" in this situation would mean that there is not enough
fuel to replace 100LL, a price point has not been established,
and engine manufactures have not endorsed the fuel.
2:03:20 PM
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a committee question, said that he
is not a resident of Alaska, but he has traveled to Alaska many
times for annual meetings. He expressed appreciation for the
importance of air travel in the state.
KAREN HUGGARD, Vice President, Government Affairs, National Air
Transportation Association, responded that she is not a resident
of Alaska. She stated that recently she visited Alaska and took
a tour of its avgas infrastructure with the state's
stakeholders. She stated that EAGLE is advocating for Alaska by
helping protect its avgas fuel supply until there is a suitable
replacement. She expressed support for Alaska's unique
situation concerning its fuel needs. She added that she has
worked with the Alaska Congressional Delegation in Washington on
legislation that would retain 100LL fuel in Alaska until 2032.
She noted that Alaska's supply of avgas comes from Richmond,
California, and EAGLE has been working to keep this refinery
open.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative Mina
on the incentives for developing viable unleaded fuel, stated
that currently there are two commercial distributors providing
lead-free aircraft fuel. He stated that GAMI provides this fuel
in California, but FAA has not approved it for helicopters. He
noted aircraft maintenance concerns have resulted from the use
of GAMI fuel. He stated that Swift Fuels distribute the other
new lead-free aircraft fuel, UL94. He expressed the
understanding that this fuel would work for around 80 percent of
the aircraft fleet in Alaska; however, the remaining 20 percent
of the fleet uses high-octane fuel. He pointed out that this
high-octane fuel is used in most of the aircraft nationally, so
this creates a challenge.
MR. CASTAGNA expressed the understanding that critical services
in Alaska rely on this high-octane fuel, so a transition to UL94
avgas would greatly affect the state. Concerning possible
incentives, he expressed the opinion that if UL94 were tested on
the 80 percent of Alaska's fleet that could utilize it,
incentives could be provided; however, he continued that he is
not advocating that Alaska do this. He recommended that this
testing be done in California where the incentives already
exist. He expressed the understanding that UL94 users are "very
happy with the fuel," as removing lead from fuel has benefits.
He noted the federal government is considering tax credits for
the use of this fuel before the 2030 date.
MS. HUGGARD added that significant investments are being made to
test the unleaded fuels in a methodical manner, and this is
being done to understand their viability. She noted that EAGLE
would be advocating for a smooth transition to lead-free fuel,
especially concerning the price point.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the testing of GAMI and UL94 in
subzero temperatures.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response, pointed out the Piston Engine
Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and Supplemental Type
Certificates (STC) tests. He stated that all fuels would go
through these tests, which include tests for freezing
temperatures. He stated that the results would be proprietary
information between fuel developers and FAA, so the tests
results are unknown. He pointed to slide 7, which addressed the
two paths for fuel approval. He noted that both GAMI and Swift
Fuels are pursuing FAA and STC approval for high-octane unleaded
fuel. He stated that they are also going through the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International process,
which would address temperature and compatibility all the way
through the supply chain. He stressed the importance of this in
Alaska because of its unique environment and supply chain
restrictions.
2:15:46 PM
CO-CHAIR EISCHEID opined that because the lead additive comes
from England, a trade war could increase the fuel costs of
100LL.
MR. CASTAGNA stated that the possibility of tariffs has been a
concern. He stated that EAGLE has had talks with Innospec, the
company in England that provides this fuel additive. He
expressed the understanding that Innospec is in support of this
effort; however, it has made the business decision to stop
producing its product. He reiterated that both the
environmental and business components would motivate the fuel
transition.
MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 8 and discussed the STC process for
evaluating fuels. He reiterated that this is a proprietary
process between the FAA and applicant, as the applicant would
have the control of the visibility of the evaluations and fuel
specifications. He expressed the importance of this because the
fuel industry would be involved in this review. He stated that
FAA would not be testing fuel; rather it would be validating the
tests in the STC process. He continued that the ASTM standard
would provide the transparency in the supply chain. He noted
that more details on fuel testing could be found on EAGLE's
website.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative
Mina, stated that STC would work as an FAA-endorsed certificate
for aircraft modifications. He stated that PAFI represents all
industry stakeholders, including aircraft manufacturers and fuel
companies. He explained that ASTM International develops and
publishes voluntary consensus standards. Concerning a lead-free
100LL product, he noted there are around 600 tests being
evaluated. He noted that Swift is going through this peer
review process, while GAMI is not; however, GAMI would be
reviewing Swift's fuel in the peer review process. He further
described the production and marketing of fuels after this
process. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that
having the ASTM standard would not be required to market the
product. He added that ASTM has become the standard only
because all the refinement and marketing networks use this. He
noted that Swift is going through the ASTM process and the
parallel process of having their engines approved, and this is
so FAA could certify the fuel. He stated that the PAFI program
works in parallel with ASTM International. He reiterated that
the ASTM standard is not legally required; however, most
airports will not sell a non-ASTM approved fuel.
MS. HUGGARD clarified that ASTM is a peer review process, where
the applicant must submit its methodologies and data to a panel
overseeing standards. She added that the panel would consist of
industry representatives who understand the data. She asserted
that this would create confidence, as it creates a voluntary
standard that ensures best practices and best production. She
expressed the understanding that all fuels sold in the country
would have an ASTM standard.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a question from Representative
Mina, explained that because ASTM is an industry consensus
standard, FAA would not engage with this. While GAMI is not
pursuing an ASTM standard, he indicated that FAA would still
need to validate GAMI's data in STC; however, the industry and
the consumer would be the ones deciding whether to buy the fuel.
He stated that there has been consumer confidence in the ASTM
standard for the past 50 years. He stated that FAA has the
discretion to require ASTM, but it has not.
MS. HUGGARD added that the most recent FAA legislation has a
requirement for an industry standard if a federal grant is
involved. She expressed the understanding that if a fuel with a
grant does not have a standard consensus evaluation, it cannot
be sold in airports.
2:28:04 PM
MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 10, which displayed a graphic of the
national supply chain for fuel distribution. He stated that
there are 15 distributors in the Lower 48, with 3,500 fixed-
based operators selling the fuel. He continued that there are
around 460,000 pilots, with 230,000 aircraft using the fuel, and
300,000 mechanics managing this fleet. Along the bottom of the
slide, he noted the flow of fuel from the producers,
distributors, and fixed-based operators to the owners and
operators. In this process, he explained that STC fuels would
become approved with the mechanics, as they are the ones making
the entries into the aircraft maintenance logbooks.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE opined that requiring STC could become an
expense in rural Alaska.
MR. CASTAGNA pointed out that if a fuel has fleet-wide
authorization in the PAFI program, this will give FAA
authorization, and an STC authorization would not be required.
MS. HUGGARD expressed the understanding that Swift Fuels is
considering this process.
MR. CASTAGNA, in response to a follow-up question from
Representative McCabe, stated that through the PAFI process, the
fleet would be approved.
2:33:10 PM
MR. CASTAGNA moved to slide 11 and pointed out the graph on the
volume of fuel sales in the country. He stated that in 2023,
there were 176 million gallons of avgas sold in the country. He
noted the top five states that sell high volumes of avgas, with
Alaska listed as the fourth highest seller. He made a
comparison, stating that for every four hours on the freeway
system in the Lower 48, more than 176 gallons of fuel would be
burned. Concerning this volume of fuel, he pointed out that the
decision-making process would be complex for refineries and
businesses. He moved to slide 12, which mapped out the 7
refineries in the Lower 48 that make 100LL. He pointed out the
terminals in the country distributing the fuel, including those
in Alaska. He stated that these terminals in Alaska receive
fuel on barges from the refinery in Richmond, California. He
stated that slide 13 shows the fuel sales and distribution once
it reaches Alaska. On slide 14, he pointed out the national
supply chain infrastructure and deployment in Alaska, with
Alaska being one of the top 10 states for buying avgas volume.
The map shows where the refineries are in relation to volume
consumption.
MR. CASTAGNA stated that it is important to note that the
refinery in Richmond, California, has an old distillation tower.
Because of this, he explained that the refinery would be
incapable of producing the high-quality base required for the
unleaded fuel for GAMI and Swift. On slide 14, he noted the map
of the country marked with the refineries and the states with
the highest 100LL fuel consumption. On the next slide, he broke
down how Alaska compares to the rest of the country for
producers and distributors. He noted that Alaska has around 3
distributors, with 68 fixed-based operators selling avgas fuel.
He continued that the state has around 6,400 pilots, 8,100
aircraft, and 3,300 mechanics who manage this fleet. He noted
that per population, this is the highest number of pilots and
aircraft in the country.
MS. HUGGARD added that Alaska has the highest per capita
consumption of avgas in the country.
MR. CASTAGNA, in conclusion, pointed out EAGLE's contact
information on the last slide. He expressed the opinion that
Alaska's supply of 100LL would need protecting until a safe
transition to unleaded fuel could be made. He advised the
committee that the movement to ban 100LL would need to be
monitored by the state. He said, "Your voice is really
important to be heard, and it needs to be heard."
2:38:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MINA questioned the 20 percent of aircraft in
Alaska that Swift fuel would not be compatible with.
MR. CASTAGNA clarified that Swift has two products, with UL94
working for around 80 percent of the fleet. He stated that 100R
is Swift's other product, and the intention would be for it to
reach the goal needed for the remaining 20 percent of the fleet.
He pointed out that this fuel is being tested now. He noted
that this would still not work for a few aircraft engines, with
some of these being in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MINA expressed appreciation for the information
presented. She expressed the understanding that leaded fuel is
"bad," yet there would be a high cost to transition. She
questioned the biggest barrier for Alaska's transition to
unleaded avgas.
MR. CASTAGNA responded that barriers would include the cost, the
bureaucracy, and the safety of alternative fuels. He discussed
the difficulties with the supply chain in the state, as the fuel
would need to be barged and then transported in barrels, which
would complicate the testing. He noted the discussions he has
had with Everts Air in Alaska, and the potential for this
company to do the testing. He encouraged a discussion with fuel
suppliers, as this transition must be done safely.
CO-CHAIR MERRICK thanked the presenters, and she made closing
comments.
2:45:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 20250313 DOT & PF HTRA PFAS Presentation.pdf |
HTRA 3/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities PFAS Presentation |
| NATA Alaska House Transportation Committee Presentation.pptx |
HTRA 3/13/2025 1:00:00 PM |
National Air Transportation Association Presentation on Aviation Gas |