There is a saying in the aviation industry: “If you’ve seen one airport, you’ve seen one airport.” Every airport is an inherently unique combination of geographical constraints, physical layout, revenue generation structures, and operational use.

Each airport must account for these factors to create environments that respect the individual character of a location while meeting the demands of the communities they serve. However, all airports stand united through their need for safe and efficient aircraft operations, infrastructure development, and integration with the surrounding community and environment.

Building on RMI’s 2024 insight, Why Airports Need to Start Planning for Net-Zero Aviation Now, in collaboration with and with funding support from POWDR and the Play Forever Foundation, RMI held two workshops this summer on advancing net-zero aviation with a focus on airport infrastructure planning. These one-day workshops, held at Snowbird in Utah and Copper Mountain in Colorado, engaged stakeholders from across the aviation value chain alongside energy providers and state agencies from each state. Attendees participated in facilitated discussions on efforts needed to advance the uptake of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) as well as the infrastructure needed to accommodate hydrogen, electric, and hybrid aircraft in the coming years.

The aviation industry has set the target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. To meet this goal, it must deploy all available levers at its disposal, including fuel efficiency improvements, scaled SAF uptake, and the adoption of hydrogen and electric propulsion aircraft. However, the industry’s current trajectory falls short, with nearly one-third of aviation emissions remaining unabated by 2050.

This gap will increase if SAF and advanced aircraft technologies are not accommodated and scaled. To support their uptake and close the projected unabated emissions gap, engagement between airports and their stakeholders is critical today.

Bringing together airport managers and planners, state and federal agencies, airlines, aircraft manufacturers, SAF producers, hydrogen producers, and utility providers, these two convenings identified challenges and solutions to technology and infrastructure development, ground operations, and market expansion.

In alignment with widely accepted rationale, participants agreed that SAF is the most accessible near-term solution given technology and commercial market readiness of hydroprocessed ethers and fatty acids (HEFA), as well as the potential of alcohol to jet (AtJ) and power to liquids (PTL) SAF production pathways.

Since aircraft are long-term assets with typical lifespans of 20-25 years, hydrogen and electric propulsion aircraft will require significant consideration and planning of airport infrastructure and operations; however, airports face structural limitations in leading this transition and will need external support, policy alignment, and clear business cases to move forward with any capital investments.

To spur deployment, pilot programs and proof points, at both the aircraft and airport levels, are essential to de-risk innovation and build momentum. It is likely that hydrogen operations will apply first to regional commercial and cargo markets while electric aircraft will start with smaller-scale uses such as flight training applications and then make their way into short-distance commercial and cargo feeder routes.

As a result of the Intermountain West workshops, five key strategic recommendations were identified to advance net-zero aviation:

1. Prioritize SAF adoption as a near-term, low-disruption solution while continuing to address blending, price competitiveness, and other challenges.
2. Invest in pilot programs and proof-of-concept demonstrations (e.g., training flights, ground support equipment (GSE), etc.) at both the aircraft and airport levels to build confidence and operational knowledge.
3. Develop long-term master plans for hydrogen and electric integration, including infrastructure, workforce, safety, and regulatory alignment.
4. Leverage public-private partnerships and pursue state and federal incentives to de-risk investment.
5. Facilitate ongoing stakeholder engagement to address fragmentation and build a shared vision for decarbonization. Form regional airport coalitions to collaboratively explore hydrogen and electric aircraft operations and infrastructure development.

Technology and infrastructure

Although SAF still requires policy support and incentives to address the cost gap versus fossil jet, it is the most feasible and least disruptive decarbonization pathway available today, outside of traditional aircraft efficiency improvements.

The existing mass balance approach of drop-in fuels allows airports to benefit from SAF without directly managing overhauled fuel logistics. Upstream blending is preferred and more efficient, particularly since blending at the airport would come with the added responsibility of ensuring the blended fuel meets ASTM 1655 certification, the standard specification for aviation turbine fuels.

Terminals upstream of the airport are likely to be the best locations to blend SAF at scale given their established ability to blend products as well as their existing storage capabilities. However, the action of bringing SAF volumes to an airport depends prominently on jet fuel consumers (i.e., airlines and general aviation operators) and producers more than the airport itself.

At larger airports, fuel consortiums typically manage fuel demand on behalf of the airlines. Additionally, fixed-based operators (FBO) may also operate fuel facilities for general aviation operations as well as for airline operations at smaller airports. These fuel consortiums and FBOs operate on behalf of their customers and ultimately are responsible for coordinating with the upstream fuel supply network to get jet fuel to the airport.

In addition to SAF uptake, when it comes to scaled adoption of hydrogen and electric aircraft, airports will require a complete rethinking of fueling logistics, gate and ramp operations, and terminal design. Both fuel consortiums and FBOs are critical stakeholders that must be involved in novel infrastructure conversations with airports and can also help elevate the voices of both their commercial and general aviation customers. As fundamentally different propulsion technologies, the scale of change may justify airport investment in dedicated terminals to accommodate commercial and general aviation hydrogen and electric aircraft.

Integrating conventional aircraft operations with hydrogen or electric operations may be challenging to optimize. Dedicated space along with dedicated operations teams may be necessary to efficiently service these aircraft types. The level of hydrogen demand over time will also impact the method of transportation to and distribution at the airport.

While small and remote airports are more likely to receive hydrogen deliveries by truck in both the near and long term, large hub airports may eventually transition to pipeline delivery and distribution, which would have significant implications on infrastructure planning and implementation decisions.

Regardless of size, each airport has distinct features regarding fuel transportation and storage at or near the facility that must be carefully evaluated when considering the transition to renewable fuels.

Electricity demand is also a major consideration when planning for hydrogen and electric aircraft operations. Stakeholders agreed that anything at the airport that can be electrified should be.

Electric ground support equipment, or GSE, is already being seen to be cost-effective and more efficient than hydrogen or even fossil alternatives. Electrical infrastructure may be sufficient to accommodate existing operations and projected demand based on traditional end uses, but it is likely insufficient in most cases to accommodate the demands from electric aircraft and GSE charging, hydrogen production and/or liquefaction, and cryogenic storage loads.

On-site renewables and energy storage systems could supplement demand and provide load management, but most demand for electricity will likely still be met by the grid. Airports that rely on the electrical grid must address base and peak demand management, evaluate energy and power rate tariffs, determine optimal storage solutions such as batteries, and design an effective distribution system to support infrastructure requirements.

Given the significant additional loads expected from hydrogen and electric aircraft technologies — in addition to the demands for renewable electricity being placed on utilities from the electrification of ground transportation and the increasing demand of data centers with the advancement of artificial intelligence — collaborative master planning between airports and utilities will be critical for large infrastructure projects. Each of these entities has their own long-term master planning processes which will need to be aligned.

Ground operational requirements and challenges

Airports must maintain 100 percent uptime; any energy or fueling solution must be redundant and resilient. Microgrids, hydrogen storage, and electric charging infrastructure must be designed with fail-safe systems and emergency response protocols to ensure reliability. Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) emergency response procedures will also need to be established for the unique characteristics of hydrogen and electric emergencies such as fuel spills or thermal runaway.

Hydrogen refueling will require dedicated protected zones to provide proper safety distances from the airport terminal and other ground operations. Infrastructure must accommodate any potential change in setback distances, gas detection, fire suppression, and specialized fueling systems. Additional considerations in extreme weather events may also be necessary to ensure timely and effective emergency response.

Turnaround time parity with conventional fueling is critical for the operational viability of hydrogen and electric aircraft operations. At this time, hydrogen refueling is anticipated to be slower than jet fuel operations in the absence of multi-hose refueling, and questions remain around whether a hydrogen aircraft can safely simultaneously refuel while other operations are occurring on the ground (baggage loading, aircraft servicing, passenger boarding).

In 2024, the first worldwide hydrogen station guidelines for the aerospace industry were jointly developed by EUROCAE and SAE, providing a set of defined process parameters for both gaseous and liquid hydrogen aircraft fueling operations at airports. Hydrogen and electric technologies will require new training programs for ground crews, flight crews, and emergency responders. Airport pilot projects can build familiarity with the application of these procedures.

Additional consideration must be given to supporting aircraft in the case of flight diversions to alternate airports. Emergency services, ground crews, and fuel supply networks must be in place to ensure hydrogen and electric aircraft can be safely accommodated and do not become stranded assets.

To alleviate this, regional cohorts of airports exploring hydrogen and electric aircraft operations can engage together in airport system planning processes. This can also help increase airport confidence in the adoption of new technology and reduce hesitancy associated with embarking on new opportunities in isolation.

Market, business case, and stakeholder considerations

Airports are structurally limited in their ability to lead innovation when it comes to the adoption of net-zero emissions fuel solutions. Before airports can make significant capital investments that will ultimately support and scale new aircraft technologies, aircraft must meet FAA aircraft certification processes, which are still in the process of being developed today for hydrogen aircraft, for example.

Additionally, airports do not have control over fuel demand. Fuel consortiums on-site or near the airport operate on behalf of airlines, which provide the demand signals needed to procure fuel required.

However, airlines will need to see hydrogen and electric aircraft technology develop before they are ready to bet on it. To pique demand interest, aircraft manufacturers must meet the market with a potent and singular voice to solidify the timeline for new technology readiness.

Once aircraft offtake agreements, investment, and route service decisions are made by airlines, investment at the airport level can follow. Fuel and power suppliers will also likely wait to see the demand before they invest in additional capacity to meet it. To help signal increased ambition and demand, a long-term aspirational goal (LTAG) or challenge set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) could be established for hydrogen and electric aircraft development and deployment.

Rising fossil jet fuel prices could improve the business case for SAF, hydrogen, and electric propulsion over time. A path to cost parity is critical given the thin margins of airline operators and the price sensitivity of the traveling public in general.

In combination with voluntary markets leveraging demand aggregation through mechanisms such as the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance (SABA) to reduce the cost premium associated with net-zero aviation, federal and state incentives and other policy mechanisms, such as public-private partnerships, can be used to help advance the markets for SAF and hydrogen and electric aircraft to maturity.

In addition to aviation specific incentives and policies, state level upstream incentives for renewable energy projects can indirectly support net-zero aviation given the significant energy demands associated with production of SAF — particularly for power to liquids (PtL) based methods — and hydrogen. To gain momentum and improve efficiency, industry and governments should work toward streamlining any overlapping initiatives and simplify governance structure. Additionally, states may support these programs by conducting public awareness campaigns to assist developers in bringing projects to final investment decision (FID).

Passenger perceptions of new technology also must be considered. In general, commercial passengers are largely safety and price driven when making air travel decisions. Safety is the core guiding principle of aviation. To develop public confidence in hydrogen and electric air travel, public education campaigns highlighting safety first design and certification processes can help to improve acceptance. Therefore, community engagement should be an expected component of airport modifications related to hydrogen and electric aircraft.

To begin to think deeply about how and where hydrogen propulsion could enter commercial service most credibly in the near term, RMI conducted a flight-level analysis at both the airport and state level in Utah and Colorado.

The objective was to identify which existing routes could viably transition to hydrogen given the expected size, weight, and range constraints of early hydrogen and electric aircraft technologies. Using publicly available Bureau of Transportation Statistics (Form 41) data, the analysis defined a route as a specific aircraft type operating between the same origin and destination airports.

Initial scans showed that the most fuel-intensive of these routes from the largest hubs, Salt Lake City (SLC) and Denver (DEN), are typically long-haul flights to major hubs. These flights are often both too long and served by aircraft that are too large to be near-term candidates for hydrogen transition, reinforcing the hypothesis of focusing on regional operations first. In general, the analysis sought to answer four questions:

1. Which routes, as measured by seats, fuel burn, miles, or operations, should be viewed as the best candidates for transition based on 2023 service?
2. What actions and decisions made today will influence the rate of transition?
3. If an airport requires increasing volumes of hydrogen or electricity in the future, what are the associated infrastructure needs and costs?
4. How feasible is this future at a system level?

The methodology applied a set of filters based on current estimates of the limitations of novel-propulsion aircraft: routes under 1,000 nautical miles, operated by smaller regional jets with fewer than 90 available seats.

Each existing service was assigned a binary Yes/No flag for “transitionability” under those assumptions, then ranked by multiple indicators such as seat capacity, fuel burn, and flight frequency to surface the most impactful opportunities.

A comparative route analysis across Utah and Colorado identified airports with the highest activity within, from, or to the states of interest, recognizing that clustering opportunities can affect the feasibility of infrastructure investment.

For Colorado, the example results below highlight the top interstate and intrastate transitionable routes, ranked by count of flights to illustrate practical starting points for deployment (see Exhibit 2). This analysis was replicated for Utah.

Actual uptake over time will depend on a combination of policy support, airport capital investment in hydrogen infrastructure, and commitments from OEMs, airlines, and investors to develop and commercialize hydrogen aircraft. Regulatory certifications and the establishment of technical standards for fuel quality, handling, and safety will also play a critical role.

While this analysis is preliminary, it provides a framework for understanding how near-, medium-, and long-term actions across these areas could accelerate the deployment of novel propulsion technologies, as well as key areas of focus for coalitions and working groups to consider.

Based on the analysis’s assumptions on hydrogen uptake and infrastructure buildout, the analysis additionally included a high-level exploration of cost implications, recognizing that implementing liquid hydrogen (LH₂) operations will require systems-level modifications at airports.

In RMI’s modeling, the levelized cost of hydrogen (LCOH) optimizes for the lowest cost of production (inclusive of electricity, geography, and storage) based on local renewable resource potential to consistently meet demand. Modeling also takes into consideration policy support, transport logistics, and airport costs. Outside of hydrogen production costs, additional costs include:

1. Transit, for which airports may rely on new dedicated pipelines that require high capital expenditure but achieve low unit costs at scale, or near-term trucking, which typically carries about 4 metric tons of LH₂ per tanker.
2. If hydrogen arrives as gas, liquefaction is required, typically consuming 10–12 kilowatt hours of electricity per kilogram of hydrogen, adding $1.50–$3.15 per kilogram in cost. For context, this cost is within the same order of magnitude as the cost of electricity required per kilogram for green hydrogen production.
3. At the airport, cryogenic storage introduces both capital costs, roughly $0.72/kg, and operating costs, about $0.58/kg for maintenance, labor, utilities, and insurance.
4. Finally, boil-off losses can range from 0.1% to 3.5% per additional day of storage, depending on utilization and design.

To ground these components in an operational metric, the analysis benchmarked an ERJ175 on the EGE–DEN route and converted the all-in fuel cost to cents per available seat mile (ASM), the standard industry metric for measuring the passenger-carrying capacity of an aircraft, measured by the number of seats available on a plane multiplied by the number of miles flown on a route.  (see Exhibit 3).

Replacing regional routes will be complex and initially costly, yet with targeted policy, airport capital funding, OEM and airline investment, and timely certifications and standards, hydrogen service has a credible path to long-run cost competitiveness. Equally important, this analysis clarifies the near-, medium-, and long-term levers that influence uptake, enabling airports and policymakers to prioritize actions that can begin to unlock early demand and de-risk infrastructure.