The Global State of Airside Electrification

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Airside operations continue to electrify at a rapid pace.  

One area of interest involves electric ground support equipment (eGSE). GSE encompasses the low and high voltage equipment used to support aircraft between flights, including baggage tractors, aircraft tow vehicles, ground power units, and belt loaders. Improvements in lithium-ion technology and steep price declines (over an 89% drop between 2010 and 2020) have made lithium-ion powered eGSE an increasingly realistic investment for airports worldwide. 

Ground support equipment is especially well-suited for electrification. Electric motors are most efficient when used in applications like GSE that start and stop frequently, remain at lower speeds, and operate across short ranges.

Electrification of GSE equipment is growing due to three primary reasons: 

The aviation industry contributes 2% of the world’s total CO₂ emissions and 12% of CO₂ emissions from transportation. To reduce emissions, many individual airports and organizations have developed roadmaps to improve sustainability. For example, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is an association of over 350 airlines around the world committed to net-zero CO₂ emissions by 2050.  

Organizations like the Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) help independently assess airports based upon their commitment to emission reductions. Today, approximately 650 airports around the world are ACA-accredited. The largest concentration lies in Europe, where sustainability initiatives are particularly emphasized.

The highest level of ACA accreditation (level 5) requires an airport to maintain ≥ 90% absolute CO₂ emissions reductions in Scope 1 (direct) and Scope 2 (indirect) emissions, among other requirements. Most ACA airports today are certified at levels with less stringent requirements.  

Though airside operations account for just 2-10% of total aviation carbon emissions, transitioning to electric GSE can still help reduce emissions. A recent European study found that eGSE reduces CO₂ emissions by 48% compared to GSE with traditional internal combustion engines. Using 2019 airside traffic levels as a base, the ground handling industry could have reduced carbon emissions by 1.8 million tons per year if all GSE were electric. 

Electric GSE models are also commercialized and ready to scale, in contrast to emerging technologies such as sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) and electric aircraft. SAF involves transitioning from commercial jet fuels to alternatives like biofuels made from non-petroleum feedstock. In the long-term, SAF is expected to reduce emissions the most, but the technology is not yet widespread. 

Government initiatives are also accelerating the eGSE transition. State-provided grants are helping airports overcome the upfront costs associated with new equipment and infrastructure. In the United States, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) will invest $25B in US airport infrastructure over the next five years. 65% of US airports plan to apply for BIL funding in 2026, with 24% planning to use the funds for airside vehicle electrification. 

Ongoing Federal Aviation Administration programs like the Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) and Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) initiatives further support this transition, providing grants for projects like gate electrification, alternative fuel vehicles, and electric GSE. The US government estimates that VALE grants alone will reduce ozone emissions by 1,768 tons per year over the next 5 years, equivalent to removing 493,500 vehicles off the road.  

Government programs like VALE and ZEV exist in various forms across the world. Frankfurt Airport, for example, received a ~$785,000 (€690,000) grant from the German government to expand its airside charging infrastructure and purchase new electric buses. Additionally, the European Commission approved over ~$683 million (€600 million) in funds in 2025 to develop electrification across transportation systems, including airside ground power units, pre-conditioned air systems, and airport eGSE battery chargers. 

Beyond sustainability goals, the practical benefits of eGSE are also driving electrification. Electric equipment offer several operational advantages compared to traditional internal combustion powered equipment, including: 

• Quieter Operation: eGSE is quieter to operate, reducing disruptive noise levels on the apron. 
• Lower Total Cost of Ownership: Although their upfront purchase prices are typically higher than traditional equipment, eGSE delivers long-term cost savings over its lifespan. 
• Reduced Daily Operating Costs: eGSE relies on electricity rather than fuel, lowering day-to-day operating expenses and minimizing exposure to fuel price volatility.  
• Lower Maintenance Requirements: eGSE have fewer moving parts than traditional combustion engines, reducing wear and tear and requiring less ongoing maintenance. 
• Improved Monitoring and Control: Compared to internal combustion or lead-acid battery systems, lithium-ion systems provide operators with advanced data collection and capabilities like fast and opportunity charging. 

These operational benefits make the transition to electric GSE a practical move as well as a sustainable one. Recognizing these advantages, most airports no longer question whether to electrify their ground support equipment. A 2024 survey found that 65% of airports had already adopted at least one eGSE vehicle, and almost 70% plan to increase their eGSE fleet size in the future. Hong Kong International Airport, for example, plans to increase their electric vehicle (EV) and eGSE fleet to over 3,000 vehicles by 2030.  

As airports move from eGSE commitment to execution, a new set of challenges is emerging. For many, the new question is how to make the transition work in practice. Practical realities such as power availability and charging knowledge are becoming the primary barriers to progress. 

The specific challenges often depend upon the size of the airport. The US Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Part 139 Airport Certification List classifies airports as large hubs, medium hubs, small hubs, and non-hubs based upon their number of annual enplanements.  

Different sizes face different constraints. With higher budgets and more staff, large hubs like Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Dallas Fort Worth International Airport are often further along in their electrification transition. However, they tend to face infrastructure challenges as their larger GSE fleets require more power. Medium and small-hub airports are also striving toward electrification but are more constrained by budget and lack of knowledge surrounding charging infrastructure. 

This chapter will examine two overarching GSE electrification challenges in more detail: 

• Increased energy demand on local power grids 
• Lack of standardization for eGSE charging infrastructure 

The first and most immediate challenge is the growing demand for power. In contrast to traditional diesel-powered equipment, eGSE requires electricity to function. At the same time, competition for electrical capacity is increasing from other airside and landside digitalization initiatives. Newer lithium-ion batteries also require more power to support fast charging and advanced monitoring compared to traditional lead-acid. 

Electricity demand from ground support equipment is impacted by airport size and the scale of their fleet. A recent study found that GSE electrification at medium and small hub airports generally required peak power loads below 5 MW. However, large hubs with bigger fleets can require anywhere from 1-2 MW up to 10-20 MW during peak demand. The annual electricity consumption of a large hub can approach 51,000 megawatt hours, enough to power 4,970 average US homes for a year. 

A recent report from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory modeled eGSE energy consumption by airport using user-defined electrification targets and hourly flight schedules. Although the model relies on several assumptions and constraints, the general trend highlights a clear spike in energy consumption as ground support equipment electrifies. To select one scenario, the report’s 2025 Atlanta International Airport model illustrates a jump in annual electricity consumption (MWh) between theoretical 10% and 100% electrified GSE fleets.

Airports should expect these power challenges to continue for the foreseeable future. The rapid expansion of data centers and AI workloads is already increasing competition for electrical grid capacity in many regions.  

“The shift to electric ground support equipment is gaining momentum around the world, and it’s also creating new demands on airport infrastructure.”

Chris Baldwin, CEO of IDEAL Industries

“The shift to electric ground support equipment is gaining momentum around the world, and it’s also creating new demands on airport infrastructure,” said Chris Baldwin, CEO of IDEAL Industries, a company that invests in electrification and power management solutions. “As fleets electrify, the conversation is moving beyond vehicle adoption to questions around power availability, charging capacity and how airports can build the resilience needed to support long-term growth.” 

In some cases, airports will not possess the necessary AC infrastructure to make a complete transition to electric GSE possible. As a result, operators are exploring new methods to increase available energy. 

One approach involves installing on-site renewable energy systems like photovoltaic systems (solar panels). By converting energy from the sun into electricity, photovoltaic installations reduce an airport’s dependence on local power grids and improve sustainability.  

On-site generation is most realistic for large airports that possess both the capital to invest and the highest need for more power. As one example, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport in Texas announced the construction of a new $234M electric Central Utility Plant in 2023 that is fueled by renewable sources. 

Even when sufficient power is available, the timing and cost of that demand introduce another challenge. Many airports operate within “time-of-use” (TOU) utility pricing structures, where billed rates are adjusted based upon the time of day. TOU structures generally charge more during the day and less during the late evening and early morning hours when demand slumps. Because airside activity tends to peak during daytime hours when the number of flights is highest, airports often draw power when it is more expensive.  

A battery energy storage system (BESS) provides a way for airports to take advantage of TOU savings. These devices store energy pulled during off-peak hours for usage during periods of higher demand later. BESS can: 

• Reduce strain on existing electrical infrastructure 
• Lower peak demand charges under TOU pricing models 
• Postpone or reduce the need for costly AC infrastructure upgrades 
• Improve operational resilience during short-term power outages 

While power availability is one major constraint, a second (and often less visible) issue is the lack of eGSE charging standardization. The industry remains fragmented, with differences not only in charger design but also in connector types and battery‑to‑charger communication protocols. Many systems rely on proprietary interfaces between the charger and the battery management system (BMS), limiting interoperability across equipment and suppliers. 

In practice, this complicates airport operations. Airports must manage multiple charging systems and ensure vehicles are routed to compatible chargers. Even where connectors align, inconsistent communication protocols can prevent effective charging or reduce performance. While some airports attempt to standardize fleets around a single supplier, this is difficult given long asset lifecycles and incremental procurement. 

To address these gaps, industry organizations such as the Advanced Energy Council and UL are working to improve alignment across connectors and protocols. Lessons learned from the more mature on‑highway EV sector are helping guide these efforts. 

Despite these ongoing compatibility and power challenges, airports can take steps to improve their eGSE charging strategies. The next chapter explores why a strategy grounded in operational reality is important for success. 

Airport operators often begin their eGSE transition by focusing on vehicle selection. However, airports should not overlook how those vehicles will be charged. Poor charging strategies lead to underutilized fleets, disrupted work, and diminished confidence in electrification programs.  

The most fundamental part of any charging strategy involves understanding the power requirements of electric equipment.

Before purchasing or installing any chargers, airports should collect data on: 

• The number of battery chargers required to support their eGSE fleet  
• The total electrical load required by those chargers, including peak and average demand profiles 
• Where chargers can be installed, considering both space constraints and available AC infrastructure

Together, this information helps airport operators make informed decisions as they begin electrifying. For example: 

• Estimating power loads helps determine whether additional investments (on-site power generation, battery storage, etc.) are necessary.  
• Evaluating the apron’s existing AC infrastructure ensures that chargers are installed where power is available. Growing numbers of airports are establishing charging bays or zones (areas dedicated to vehicle charging) in locations where their circuits can supply necessary power. 

“The greatest gains come from combining strategic charger placement with dynamic load management, enabling charging to shift from peak to off-peak periods, reducing grid impact while ensuring equipment remains operational when needed.” 

 Ivar Bal, Project Lead at Deerns

“Success depends on understanding where vehicles charge, how many chargers are needed, and which vehicles will use them. Pushback trucks, tractors, loaders and mobile stairs each have unique energy demands and operating patterns. The greatest gains come from combining strategic charger placement with dynamic load management, enabling charging to shift from peak to off-peak periods, reducing grid impact while ensuring equipment remains operational when needed.” said Ivar Bal, Project Lead at Deerns, a design and engineering company that specializes in building installations, building physics, and airport operational systems.

Charging plans must also account for the realities of daily airport operations. Large airports manage hundreds of flights and thousands of passengers each day, and these fast-paced environments cannot shut down to install electric infrastructure. To minimize operational impact, many airports are adopting phased electrification strategies that slowly transition their fleets year by year. A phased approach also spreads capital investment over a longer period and permits more time to secure additional power capacity if needed.  

While all airports face these planning and operational challenges, their ability to address them can vary significantly by size. Large airports typically employ dedicated staff and third-party consultants to manage electrification and model their unique power needs. Medium and small hub airports tend to lag behind. Constrained by fewer internal resources and limited access to specialist expertise, these airports may underestimate how charging availability, placement, ratios, and power impact daily operations. 

This disparity in resources and planning capabilities by size is also reflected through ACA status. As airport hub size increases, the number of airports with ACA certification also increases. Large airports also tend to be rated at higher levels compared to medium and small hubs. Of course, electric ground support equipment represents only one part of an airport’s overarching sustainability efforts that impact ACA accreditation. 

Though larger airports have the advantage of additional resources, the number of players involved in electrification (third-party consultants, airlines, equipment providers, etc.) can lead to misaligned or slower decision-making. To improve charging strategies, larger airports should establish clear lines of communication and responsibility matrices. For example, the person or entity overseeing the charging infrastructure must coordinate their decisions with those in charge of vehicle selection, or they risk purchasing incompatible equipment. 

For medium and small hub airports, knowledge gaps can be filled by partnering with a reputable battery charger distributor. Airport operators should not treat battery chargers as a one-off procurement decision, but rather as an opportunity to establish an ongoing relationship with the charger’s distributor. Airports should evaluate whether a distributor offers: 

• Demonstrated expertise in airside operations 
• Fast charger installations that minimize disruptions 
• Support with load modeling and charging infrastructure planning 
• Local, qualified teams to support charger installation, serviceability, and ongoing maintenance  
• Willingness to remain engaged post-installation as fleets evolve and scale over time 
• Data analytics support and implementation 

A good charging partner not only assists with charger installation but also provides ongoing support and guidance. As chargers mature, the airport and distributor can establish on-call service and support contracts to respond to any maintenance needs. 

Medium and small hub airports can also benefit from their charging partner’s data analytics expertise. Some modern chargers offer telematics, or real-time data dashboards that track charger status, battery health, and equipment downtime. However, the raw data may be difficult for a layperson to understand. Partners can help to refine and explain the dashboards, enabling proactive maintenance of chargers and helping operators to better understand their GSE fleet status. 

Charging strategy is not the only important consideration for electrification success. The selection of the industrial battery charger itself is another crucial decision.  

“Too often, the focus is placed on the equipment itself, when in reality the charging infrastructure is what determines the long-term success of an electrification program,” said Darren King, Managing Director at GSE charger distributor FastCharge Australia. “The most successful projects begin with a clear understanding of how charging will integrate into the operation—not simply where chargers can be installed.”

“The most successful projects begin with a clear understanding of how charging will integrate into the operation—not simply where chargers can be installed.”

Darren King, Managing Director at FastCharge Australia

Adopting a high-performing electric GSE charger can reduce the likelihood of unexpected downtime, enable faster turnaround times, and even enhance equipment safety.

Five of the most important considerations for electric ground support equipment charger selection involve: 

Though energy storage systems and renewable energy installations are one method to reduce electricity costs, another involves charger efficiency. No battery charger is perfectly efficient; every charger loses some energy as heat when it converts AC power from the grid into DC power usable by the equipment. However, high-efficiency chargers minimize these losses, allowing operators to deliver the same charging output while consuming less power. 

Over time, high-efficiency battery chargers can reduce both electricity costs and carbon emissions. For example, upgrading a small fleet of twenty 48V electric vehicles in the US from an 85% to 97% peak efficiency charger could save up to $6,170 in annual electrical savings under optimal conditions (assuming a charge of $0.20/kWh). The upgrade would also reduce annual carbon emissions by 135 MtCO_2, or the equivalent to planting roughly 6,500 trees per year. 

One example of a high-efficiency battery charger is the Enatel^® Outdoor Charger. Designed specifically for outdoor electric ground support equipment, the Enatel Outdoor Charger offers the highest peak efficiency rate of any battery charger in the world (up to 97.6%). The efficiency is intended to maximize fleet productivity and minimize downtime as utilization increases. 

Another charger attribute that improves performance involves compliance. Though eGSE industry standards are still developing, selecting chargers that comply with existing standards builds confidence in that charger’s reliability and durability. It also helps airport management demonstrate due diligence by prioritizing safe, standards-aligned equipment for usage by apron personnel.  

Two of the most prominent standards organizations are CE (Europe) and UL (US):

One example of a specific rating that indicates charger reliability involves electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). EMC refers to an electronic device’s ability to operate without being disrupted by (or disrupting) the electromagnetic energy of neighboring devices. EMC performance is typically tested by placing equipment within a specialized anechoic chamber that blocks external signals from entering. It also provides internal absorption through walls lined with specialized carbon-loaded foam and ferrite tiles. These materials absorb electromagnetic waves rather than letting them bounce. 

As charging infrastructure becomes more powerful and operations rely on increasing numbers of connected systems, EMC performance is becoming increasingly important. Chargers must operate reliably alongside vehicles, telematics, and wider airside systems without introducing interference. This is a particular advantage for airside environments where radio communications and other sensitive electronic equipment are in constant use. 

EMC compliance is indicated by standards like ETSI EN 301 489-1 and 301 489-17, plus EN IEC 61000-6-2, 61000-6-4, 61000-3-11, and 61000-3-12. These standards demonstrate a charger’s rigorous testing background and provide confidence that its performance will not be compromised by signal interference.  

Evaluating compliance is important because individual battery chargers are not always rated to the same standards. For example, few ground support equipment chargers manufactured in the US today are EMC-compliant. The Enatel Outdoor Charger is one example of a charger that is UL, CE, and EMC-compliant. Operators can look for compliant chargers as an indication of their quality and consistent long-term performance.  

Another important consideration involves the charger’s durability. From heavy rain and snow to high winds and intense sunlight, ground support equipment chargers are constantly exposed to weather conditions. Adopting a charger that is specifically designed for rugged environments can provide operators with greater confidence in that charger’s longevity, performance, and safety. 

The importance of environmental durability is one example of a knowledge gap.  

“I’ve seen smaller airports try to make indoor material handling chargers work outdoors by adding makeshift weatherproofing,” said Damien O’Regan, Product Strategy Lead at GSE charger manufacturer Enatel. “But in practice, these DIY solutions don’t hold up and can lead to safety issues.” 

Instead of DIY weatherproofing, operators should select chargers designed to meet clear durability standards for outdoor usage. Two examples of these standards include: 

• Ingress Protection (IP) Ratings: Developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), IP ratings grade the resistance of an equipment enclosure against liquid and dust.  
• National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) Ratings: NEMA ratings define the types of environments in which an electrical enclosure can be used. NEMA is primarily used in North America. 

Outdoor airport GSE battery chargers provide confidence in equipment reliability and uptime because they have been carefully designed, tested, and rated for outdoor use. The Enatel Outdoor Charger is one example of an industrial battery charger created specifically for outdoor ground support equipment operations. Built to IP54 and NEMA 3RX standards, it continues to perform in harsh apron conditions. IP54 indicates the charger is protected against dust and water splashes, while NEMA 3RX adds corrosion resistance. 

“Throughout the trial period, the charger demonstrated reliable performance, robust build quality, and consistent charging efficiency in a demanding operational environment,” said Tony Smith, Chief Operations Officer at Bahrain Airport Services, the ground handling service provider at Bahrain International Airport.

“Based on our evaluation, the Enatel Outdoor Charger proved to be a dependable and well-engineered solution that aligns with BAS’s commitment to operational reliability and the transition toward electrified GSE.” 

Tony Smith, Chief Operations Officer at Bahrain Airport Services

Another feature that can improve airside charging infrastructure performance involves telematics and battery monitoring capabilities. These near real-time data dashboards provide operators with an overview of their fleet’s energy consumption along with a wide range of battery health and charge data.  

Using these capabilities, airports can easily monitor their smart battery charging systems remotely and initiate maintenance if a charger is not operating at full capacity. The Enatel Outdoor Charger includes telematics with API connectivity as part of its functionality, providing useful data to inform maintenance, availability, and planning decisions. 

A final consideration involves selecting industrial fleet charging solutions that enable easier expansion in the future. This flexibility is especially beneficial for medium and small hub airports that are electrifying at a slower pace.  

To support ongoing electrification transitions, operators should consider ground support equipment chargers that support: 

• Mixed Fleets: A mixed fleet means that an operator’s GSE equipment includes a variety of battery chemistries and voltages. A fleet with mixed chemistries, for example, could include equipment with lead-acid batteries and lithium-ion batteries. Chargers that support mixed fleets provide small and medium hub operators with a clear logistical advantage. Airports can electrify slowly over years without locking themselves into a single battery chemistry or manufacturer. 
• Modularity: A modular industrial charger is built using interchangeable power units, allowing power capacity to be easily increased. Rather than investing in a 300 Amp charger up-front, a modular charger enables airports to invest in a 120 Amp charger and then add additional modules as their power needs and fleet size increase in the future. Modular designs also improve charger resilience and enable easier maintenance. If one module fails, the airport GSE battery charger will continue to function at reduced capacity using the remaining modules instead of going offline completely. A technician can replace the faulty module with a fresh module within minutes, getting the charger back to full capacity quickly. On the other hand, an issue with a non-modular charger can require complete replacement of the charger. 
• Dual Charging: Battery chargers with dual ports can charge two vehicles at once, permitting vehicles to get back into service faster and saving space on the apron. 

The Enatel Outdoor Charger is an example of an industrial battery charger that supports mixed fleets, offers both single and dual port models, and is modular by design. The charger is compatible with any type of battery chemistry (lithium-ion, lead-acid, solid state, sodium-ion, etc.) and with any voltage from 24 to 96V. It provides modularity from 5kW to 30kW, permitting airports to scale their fleets over time more easily and enabling easier maintenance. 

Darren King, Managing Director at GSE distributor FastCharge said, “When charging infrastructure is treated as a strategic operational asset rather than just another electrical installation, airports are far better positioned to support today’s fleet requirements and confidently scale for the future.” 

“Purpose built, outdoor rated charging systems, such as the Enatel GSE platform, give airports the flexibility to position charging where it delivers the greatest operational value, while providing the efficiency, reliability and resilience needed in a demanding airside environment”

Darren King, Managing Director at FastCharge.

The aviation industry continues to electrify its ground support equipment. Encouraged by sustainability goals, government initiatives, and increased operational efficiencies, airports across the world are in the midst of their eGSE transition. 

The benefits of electric ground support equipment are clear, but so are the challenges. Large hubs are facing AC infrastructure and electrical constraints that limit immediate electrification ambitions. Small and medium hubs are constrained by a lack of staffing and budget. Unclear standards and limited industry knowledge surrounding charging infrastructure are slowing installations and leading to potentially unsafe practices. 

To meet these challenges, the industry must continue to advocate for new compliance standards and adopt clear electrification planning. Each airport should establish dedicated electrification programs and plan for electrification not as a one-off decision, but with the future in mind. Partnering with third-party distributors for charger installation and maintenance expertise is one method. Adopting airport GSE battery chargers that provide operators with an advantage in efficiency, flexibility, durability, and compliance is another. 

As the market continues to mature, electrification success will be defined less by initial adoption and more by the ability to learn, adapt, and operate reliably over time. 

---

Ready to Scale Your eGSE Fleet?

Every airport operation has unique charging demands. Submit your information below to learn more about strategic solutions designed to meet your electric fleet’s needs.