Airport Energy Efficiency and Cost Reduction (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 The following three chapters of this report address examples of successful practices to increase airport energy efficiency. Sub-groupings of practices by operations category and system [envelope, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting, etc.] will be described to further break down infor- mation and provide background. Discussion and explanation will elaborate on clear strategies and implementable prac- tices identified during the survey and interview processes and literature review. The terms improvement, strategy, practice, and action are used interchangeably throughout the text. All are meant to describe a physical or procedural process that has been doc- umented to affect energy use at airport terminals. CATEGORY AND TYPE OF PRACTICE Practices fall into multiple categories, but are grouped by sys- tem to provide the most practical reference for facilities man- agers and consultants. Owing to limitations of the survey and unique conditions at each airport, projects may be retrofit for one facility and new at another. Cost and payback data from the survey lacks precision and does not make a distinction between retrofit and new for each improvement; however, in literature sources it was noted that “[retrofit project] payback periods are generally much longer than the payback periods associated with insti- tuting energy-related [operations and maintenance] and re- commissioning measures, which are often less than 2 years” (Turner et al. 2007, pp. 11–12). METHODS FOR UTILIZING STRATEGIES Although any strategy could be planned, studied, and imple- mented as an independent project, most will take place as a component of a larger investment. When major equipment upgrades and other longer payback (10+ years) improvements are undertaken it may be worthwhile to group them with short payback projects such as lighting retrofits or optimization pro- grams “to help offset initial costs and improve the return on investment” (Turner et al. 2007, p. 13). As supported by one interview respondent and stated in previous ACRP research, “enhanced re-commissioning would also be a part of any retrofit project and prioritized like any other individual retrofit measure when calculating the over- all project payback period” (Turner et al. 2007, p. 13). Some strategies, such as lighting upgrades, may already be part of ongoing maintenance programs. Others may take significant planning before implementation. The age of the terminal facility as noted by interviewees has significant bearing on where improvements make sense. Younger facilities may consider pursuing operations related to improvements, whereas older terminals would benefit from equipment upgrades or automation. Airport operators can use this list of practices to initiate discussion with staff and con- sultants, and determine which strategies are most applicable to their facility. PAYBACK, COST, AND PERCENTAGE OF IMPROVEMENT Simple payback was found to be a common method of deter- mining feasibility for energy efficiency projects in initial literature reviews and was used as a metric within the air- ports survey. Practices are identified in terms of simple pay- back time in years and implementation cost relative to total budget. Survey data from small airports were prioritized when available. In an effort to make the survey useful to the consultants and easy to complete by respondents without excessive research or time, project cost was requested relative to over- all budget. Cost can be defined as total project cost and not cost per square foot. Although the precision of this metric may vary as the result of wide-ranging airport sizes and diversity of respondents, it was believed to represent a good qualitative assessment of the project by persons with direct and holis- tic knowledge of airport operations at their facility. As such, it is useful information in conjunction with payback. Cost information is based on energy rates for 2009 at respondent airport locations. Payback periods are dependent on several factors (from Turner et al. 2007, p. 13): • Energy rates • Hours of operation CHAPTER THREE ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRACTICES: BACKGROUND AND UTILIZATION

12 • Climate conditions • Relative efficiency of equipment and/or controls being installed or replaced • Design condition requirements • Interdependency of savings when more than one (energy efficiency improvement) is installed. OUTLINE STRUCTURE Improvements are organized within the following structure: Level 1: SYSTEM Level 2: Subsystem/Type/Operation Level 3: Energy Efficiency Strategy/Action/Improvement/ Practice