When Lee Kaminetz accepted my invitation to co-moderate an ACI-NA panel called “Airport Energy: The Good, the Bad, and the Legal” I knew the conversation would be interesting. Lee is General Counsel at the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the organization that manages San Diego International Airport, and we worked together for years. Before moving into consulting, I served as an Environmental Manager at the Airport Authority, and I worked with Lee and his team on a variety of sustainability and energy initiatives including photovoltaic solar, battery storage, EV charging, building electrification, and collaborative pilot projects with airlines and the local energy utility.
In the early days, projects started off as technical challenges, and we spent plenty of time discussing costs and other technical details, but it soon dawned on me that many of the biggest challenges weren’t based on project engineering. Instead, they were related to things like procurement requirements, ownership structures, utility agreements, and contract terms. In other words, the projects were as much (or more!) about people and organizational decision-making as they were about energy.
That same theme repeated as Lee and I assembled our ACI-NA panel that included airport sustainability leaders, attorneys, and technical experts from around North America. Three lessons stood out: the importance of scenario planning, understanding who owns the technology post-construction, and the value of engaging legal early and often during planning.
Lesson 1: Plan for More Than One Future
Airport energy planning has become increasingly complicated because demand for power is growing on many fronts at once. Teams are preparing for electrified vehicles, ground support equipment, and emerging aircraft technologies. At the same time, airports are electrifying terminals and central plants while juggling resilience, reliability, cost, and environmental goals. Airports are also increasingly data-intensive operations.
Beyond forecasting how much electricity an airport will need, a major challenge lies in deciding what energy technology to invest in when nobody knows what the future will bring. What if advanced air mobility (AAM) doesn’t materialize at that specific airport? What if the rental car companies don’t invest in large electric vehicle (EV) fleets?
Several panelists emphasized that airports should resist the temptation to build plans around a single forecast or technology pathway. Instead, they should think in terms of multiple possible futures. That way, teams can identify investments that remain valuable across a range of outcomes. This approach helps airports avoid long-term commitments based on assumptions that may not be relevant a few years from now.
In practice, that flexible approach may mean better modeling of potential energy usage, working more closely with utilities for new service, protecting sites for future infrastructure, or building adaptability into active capital projects.
You can’t predict the future, but you can be ready for more than one version of it.
Lesson 2: Ownership Matters as Much as Technology
One of the most common themes of the panel discussion involved who owns what pieces of the energy assets. Every airport energy project eventually has to solve that problem.
They showed up in questions like:
- Who owns the infrastructure?
- Who receives the renewable energy credits?
- Who is responsible for maintenance?
- Who owns the data generated by the system?
- What is force majeure, anyway?
These questions arise whether the project involves AAM, EV charging, or something else. Project technologies may differ, but the basic business questions remain the same.
The panel conversation revolved around responsibilities and long-term obligations. For example, a battery energy storage system may be installed within a year, but a contract can remain in place for over a decade.
Project construction timelines may be short, but keeping these energy projects operational takes a village.
Lesson 3: Engage Legal Early and Often
Everyone on the panel agreed on the value of engaging legal teams early and often during project development. In reality, it was recognized that many project teams involve legal counsel after key decisions have already been made, but by that point it might be too late. For instance, a potential solution may already have been selected. A procurement strategy may be underway. Or contract negotiations may already be happening.
When legal identifies concerns at later stages, attorneys often appear to slow a project down when they point out technical flaws. But instead of bringing legal in as the final reviewer, a team can invite counsel into the discussion as the project is still taking shape to help them understand the business need and potential risks. Legal is a trusted team member (not the department of ‘no’), so include them in the initial and ongoing conversations. They’ll be better positioned to give guidance, instead of having to rework key considerations and slowing down the project.
Early engagement gives legal the context they need to help inform the project instead of just reacting to it. They can spot issues while there’s still time to address them. For example, legal counsel might flag a requirement in a proposed procurement approach before the team commits to it, giving the team room to adjust rather than unwind decisions later.
No project eliminates risk entirely, but an engaged legal team helps the team make informed decisions.
Alignment Is a Team Sport
Legal teams bring valuable insights, and successful projects need to get a “yes” from counsel as key decisions are made to move a project forward. Looking back, that may have been one of the most important takeaways from my time at SAN.
