Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
36 project upfront costs and payback and constantly changing funding dollars for energy efficiency projects at smaller air- technology, make finding and documenting appropriate sup- ports are limited (Schofield 2009). porting information to justify a project challenging. Local level grants by energy providers and other state orga- nizations usually support smaller projects or portions of major Data upgrades. These funding sources continue to become more available, especially in states with aggressive sustainability As mentioned elsewhere in this report, data about existing targets and legislation such as California. energy costs and use for an airport terminal is the primary way to understand what type and where improvements will be most If adequate funding were available, survey respondents indi- successful. These data are best gathered through an energy cated that improvements that reduce operations costs would audit or commissioning process that approaches the terminal receive priority. Second to operations costs were additional systems holistically. Larger airports participating in the sur- control of systems, which may be more easily attainable for vey indicated that funding for commissioning or other tech- smaller airport terminals owing to their (relatively) low build- nical evaluation is often supported by utility companies, with ing square footage, and simplicity of systems. some utilities providing consultants as well as funding. Funding for energy efficiency projects at most airports sur- veyed is largely handled within the regular budget process, Feasibility Studies either through operations or capital expenditures. In many cases, for smaller airports, budget dollars are FAA/AIP fund- Small airports can turn to a variety of sources for feasibility ing; however, the financial structure of larger airports often studies including costbenefit analysis and ROI analysis per- includes other sources. Depending on the type or duration formed by airport staff, case studies of similar projects, or of project, lamp retrofit or visual display retrofit for example, other technical literature from consultant and industry reports. energy efficiency improvements may be included in normal These resources can provide support with examples of project O&M budgets for little or no cost. In addition, at the end of processes, comparable technology, and documented payback, the fiscal year, smaller projects such as lamp or fixture retro- but typically require additional staff analysis and packaging to fits may be addressed by left over operational dollars. support a particular project. Grants Demonstration Projects In addition to FAA funding such as AIP entitlement grants, An alternative strategy and one that may be especially viable other governmental agencies such as the EPA, DOE, and at airports located in areas of unique weather; that is, strong U.S.DOT have provided grants to airports. Recently, an Energy winds or excessive sun, is to fund small-scale demonstration Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant from DOE was projects (wind or solar) in support of larger, terminal-wide awarded to support construction of renewable energy systems installations. Demonstration mock-ups such as window films at an airport on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (DOE 2009c). and lighting systems can also be considered for interior Ongoing terminal improvements including a ground-source projects as a part of retrofits or remodels. heat pump mechanical system at Juneau International Air- port were funded in part by grants through the state of Alaska Included with Other Capital Projects Legislature (Palmer and Fritz 2008). Additional funding for the improvements came from local Capitol Improvement Plan Interviews identified that most energy efficiency projects are (CIP) funds and a sales tax. usually not stand-alone projects and therefore required less specific justification because the core project had other, non- WEBLINK--Financing Energy Efficiency energy benefits. In general, the chances of implementing an DSIRE--Financial Incentives for Energy Efficiency: energy efficiency project are greater when that project is a part http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/finee.cfm. of an existing, funded project. Financing Energy Efficiency Improvements: http://cepm.louisville.edu/Pubs_WPapers/ practiceguides/PG21.pdf FUNDING CHALLENGE As might be expected, the major challenge to implementation Chapter Summary of energy efficiency projects at airports surveyed is funding. With no recent increases in Airport Improvement Program The following methods were identified within literature and (AIP) funding, limited passenger facility charges owing to low survey data as ways to implement practices that reduce energy enplanements, and a greater focus on security improvements, costs and improve energy efficiency at small airport terminals.
OCR for page 37
37 · Leverage the growing demand for cost savings in support Box 16 Financing Energy Efficiency of energy efficiency projects to increase the scope of Allison describes a variety of financing mechanisms including a project, make the project more competitive, and find "internal financing, debt financing, lease and lease-purchase support within the airport administration. agreements, energy performance contracts, and utility incen- · Take advantage of changes in social attitudes that support tives" (Allison 2008, p. 8). sustainability to stress the greater value of energy effi- ciency projects toward overall airport carbon reductions. Traditional internal capital methods are "often the simplest · Consider energy efficiency in the design of every capital way to pay for energy efficiency projects" because all savings project and within operations. are gained by the organization (Allison 2008, p. 8). Another · Highlight the "multiple value streams," including eco- alternative is debt financing; however, it is noted that this nomic, environmental, and operational, that accrue method can have greater administrative complexity (Allison with energy efficiency projects when communicating 2008, p. 8). to stakeholders. Other external financing relationships include "leasing and · Utilize commissioning to ensure that new or retrofit lease-purchase agreements [which] help organizations get building systems operate as specified. around the high, up-front costs of new, energy-efficient equip- · Designate an energy advocate within the project teams ment and, in some cases, include guaranteed savings clauses" to monitor and support energy efficiency goals. (Allison 2008, p. 8). · Utilize data from audits, feasibility studies, and demon- stration projects to justify new projects. As mentioned in chapter two, ESCO performance contracts · Consider grants from state and local utilities as well as can include financing for improvements as well as "equipment alternative funding structures such as ESCO's agree- purchases, and maintenance" (Allison 2008, p. 8) ments to fund energy efficiency projects.