There are more solutions than obstacles. Nicolas Zart
Note from the author: This article examines how recent EPA regulatory changes may impact Advanced Air Mobility infrastructure and operations. Electric Air Mobility reports on policy developments that affect the AAM industry without endorsing political positions or parties. Our focus remains on analyzing how regulatory frameworks influence the practical deployment of electric aviation technology
The US administration took action that could influence the development of Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) before it takes flight. While the current administration supports AAM development, its aggressive EPA rollbacks eliminating greenhouse gas regulations could leave the industry to rely on fossil fuel-powered infrastructure. this would undermining the AAM environmental promise that makes electric aviation publicly acceptable.
The Infrastructure reality
AAM depends on massive electrical infrastructure that is currently designed. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s comprehensive study for the FAA, an average vertiport requires at least 1 megawatt of charging capacity. this is equivalent to powering 800 homes simultaneously. Busy facilities could demand over 5 megawatts, comparable to a medium-sized data center. Our Electric Air Mobility research shows these numbers could reach 10 to 50MW of power within a decade of operations.
These upgrades have not been made on our urban electrical grids. They were not designed to handle such concentrated power demands. Utilities cannot generate nor transport such energy amounts. Multiport development typically requires new substations, upgraded transmission lines, and distribution equipment that can cost millions per site. Mostly, they require generating their own electricity.
Here is where EPA rollbacks could create unintended consequences. Without regulations incentivizing clean electricity generation, many utilities will meet this new AAM demand the cheapest way possible: burning more fossil fuels. However, recent findings show that alternative and renewable energies no longer need subsidies and have shown to have a strong business case, oftentimes already proven more affordable than fossil fuel derived energy.
The Tricky Regulatory Balance
On February 11, 2026, the EPA rescinded the 2009 endangerment finding. The scientific determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act no longer exists. This action eliminates the legal foundation for federal greenhouse gas regulations across multiple sectors. The EPA has also proposed repealing emissions standards for power plants that would have limited carbon dioxide, mercury, and toxic air pollutants from coal and gas-fired facilities.
Transportation, which the EPA has identified as the largest source of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, now faces eliminated vehicle emission standards. The previous administration’s ambitious rules would have driven electric vehicle adoption to 56 percent of sales by 2032.
Meanwhile, EPA enforcement of pollution regulations has collapsed. According to the Environmental Integrity Project, the agency filed only 30 civil lawsuits against polluters in its first year under the current administrator. That is 76 percent less than during previous administration’s first year.
The Potential Consequences for AAM
AAM markets itself as clean, sustainable, zero-emission transportation. Electric aircraft produce no direct emissions during flight, hybrid little. But that environmental benefit lessens if the electricity charging those aircraft comes from unregulated coal and natural gas plants burning fossil fuels without emission controls.
According to the EPA’s own data, 60 percent of U.S. electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas. Without regulations pushing utilities toward cleaner generation, and with EPA enforcement essentially halted, utilities have little incentive to invest in renewable energy when fossil fuels remain cheaper.
Consider multiports’ energy demands, electricity coming from a fossil fuel plant operating without emission controls would become an indirect greenhouse gas emitter at scale. this would potentially offsetting much of the environmental benefit that electric aircraft provide.
This also creates a public relations nightmare for AAM operators. Communities already skeptical of aircraft flying overhead will scrutinize the entire system. Environmental groups that might have supported electric aviation will question whether AAM truly reduces emissions or simply shifts them from tailpipes to power plants.
Yale Climate Connections research demonstrates that burning fossil fuels for electricity harms public health through air pollution, respiratory disease, and climate impacts. If AAM infrastructure drives increased fossil fuel combustion without emission controls, communities will face these health consequences while seeing minimal environmental benefit from electric aircraft.
The Fossil Fuel Conundrum
The current administration’s supports AAM development while simultaneously backing petroleum interests that provided substantial campaign funding. These competing priorities will affect AAM operations.
As petroleum companies reportedly brace for lawsuits from citizens affected by unregulated emissions. utilities burning more fossil fuels to power AAM infrastructure without EPA oversight means those lawsuits could extend to the aviation industry itself. AAM companies investing billions in electric aircraft certification find themselves dependent on an electricity shaky grid increasingly powered by unregulated fossil fuel generation. The industry’s environmental credibility, essential for public acceptance and regulatory approval, faces erosion before commercial operations begin. This doesn’t solve the antiquated condition of the grids in the US.
Potential Public AAM Backlash
Community desirability represents one of AAM’s greatest opportunity. Noise concerns, safety questions, and airspace integration issues already favor adoption. However, adding environmental deregulation could turn the public against AAM.
Research from the Greater Good Science Center and other institutions shows that trust, transparency, and genuine environmental benefit drive public desirability of disruptive technologies. AAM operators cannot claim environmental leadership while relying on unregulated fossil fuel electricity.
Potential Outcomes and Solutions
Some AAM companies like BETA Technologies are building their own renewable energy infrastructure. This includes solar and battery storage systems, specifically to avoid dependence on grid electricity of uncertain origin.
The NREL study recommends multiports incorporate on-site renewable generation and battery storage to reduce grid impact and improve sustainability. Microgrid coupled with energy load balancing systems allow AAM operators to control their energy sources and credibly claim environmental benefits.
Of course, on-site renewable generation adds significant capital costs to already expensive multiport development. Without regulatory requirements or incentives for clean electricity, many operators could choose cheaper fossil fuel-powered grid connections.
The current administration finds itself in a tough situation to simultaneously champion AAM and favor the fossil fuel industry. The EPA rollbacks eliminating greenhouse gas oversight, power plant emission standards, and enforcement of pollution regulations could create the conditions for environmentally questionable AAM infrastructure. It is also noted that, so far, renewable energy has outperformed conventional ones in both ROI and overall performance.
Links:
EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sources
NPR on EPA Endangerment Finding Rescission
NREL Vertiport Infrastructure Study
FAA Advanced Air Mobility Infrastructure
Inside Climate News EPA Enforcement Collapse
Yale Climate Connections on Fossil Fuel Health Impacts