Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Competing testimony on aviation fuel taxes: AOPA warns of federal limits; advocates cite emissions and justice case for higher jet-fuel tax
Loading...
Summary
At a Joint Committee on Revenue hearing, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association opposed proposed aviation fuel tax increases, while environmental and public-health advocates supported higher jet-fuel taxes to address emissions and fund climate resilience.
Two opposing perspectives on aviation fuel taxation were presented to the Joint Committee on Revenue as lawmakers heard House Bill 4080 and Senate Bill 1924.
Sean Collins, Eastern regional manager for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), testified virtually in opposition to both bills. Collins told the committee that “the FAA mandates that all tax revenue from aviation fuels, both jet fuel and aviation gasoline, must return to the system of airports strictly for use in eligible aeronautical development purposes.” He said neither bill explains how the revenue would be used for recognized aeronautical programs and that MassDOT’s aeronautics division has not requested additional fuel-tax revenue or provided justification for new or expanded aviation programs. For those reasons Collins said AOPA opposes HB4080 and SB1924 until an eligible need is identified and justified publicly.
Representing a statewide coalition opposed to private-jet expansion, Alex Chatfield urged the committee to support Senate Bill 1924, which would raise the excise tax on jet fuel. Chatfield cited an Institute for Policy Studies report and told the committee that “CO2 emissions from jet fuel consumed in the commonwealth today are 5.9 megatons per year and growing,” noting that Boston’s emissions excluding aviation are about 6 megatons per year and falling. He argued current tax treatment “effectively subsidizes one of the most carbon-intensive forms of travel” and said a modest tax increase would place “a modest but meaningful price on pollution,” create incentives for efficiency, and generate revenue for climate resilience projects, public transit and health mitigation in affected local communities.
Chatfield emphasized local air-quality impacts near airports and framed the bill as fiscal and environmental justice: “The additional revenue can be directed towards climate resilience projects, public transit, mitigating health impacts, and clean energy investments that benefit everyone, not just those who can afford to fly frequently,” he said.
Committee members asked clarifying questions and noted they would try to gather information about how other states tax jet fuel and aviation gasoline. The transcript provided contains testimony and questions but no recorded committee action on these bills.
