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.

48 LITERATURE REVIEW A literature review was conducted to identify best practices for energy efficiency and generate categories and questions about low- cost practices for the survey questionnaire. In addition, the review collated data from previous studies about low-cost energy efficiency improvements and provided supplemental information to support results of the survey. A wide variety of sources were referenced including aviation, transportation, and construction journal articles; aviation industry and government reports; university and institution studies; industry con- ference proceedings; and national, state, and public agency websites. The results of the literature review appear throughout the docu- ment, as both highlighted information and general content to sup- port the respondent’s strategies for reducing energy costs through efficiency improvements. Information from the literature review is cited and sources are listed in the References. SURVEY A questionnaire was developed to obtain information about the plan- ning and implementation of energy efficiency practices at targeted airports. The survey consisted of multiple choice and yes/no questions. For specific practice-oriented questions, participants were encouraged to quantify “estimated payback” and “cost to implement” by checking supplemental boxes. Survey participants were also encouraged to elaborate on responses within blank text boxes The results of the survey were used throughout the report to describe or reference practices and cost information. Primary for- mats of these results found in the report include: • Figures or charts summarizing results • Highlighted areas of text describing actions from specific air- ports in greater detail or topics of interest supplemental to the main report • A general discussion of results pertaining to specific topics. See Appendix B for more information and specific questions. Format and Distribution Methods To ensure easy access to the survey it was translated into Portable Document Format (PDF) for electronic distribution. This allowed each survey to be coded for distribution to a specific airport. It also allowed immediate return of data to the consultant to expedite preparation of the report. Lastly it preformatted the data to that par- ticular airport, allowing tracking of responses and management of completed surveys. Target Audience The TRB panel and staff provided a list of candidate terminals, which was supplemented by the research team to total 20 airport operators with direct knowledge of airport terminals and energy efficiency measures. To obtain data salient to small airport termi- nals, the researchers were directed to contact small hub and com- mercial service airports to determine if they had completed applic- able projects and invited them to participate in the survey. The final list was not intended to be a random sample and may not present an unbiased or broad perspective of energy efficiency improvements. For instance, some respondents are also members of the TRB panel. SURVEY RESPONSE Of the 20 airports required to submit information, 20 responses were received, representing a 100% response rate. The 20 airports that responded to the survey are referred to as survey respondents throughout the report. Small hub, non-hub, and commercial service APPENDIX A Method and Survey Response Box A1 Airport Classification US Code Title 49 §47102 categorizes airports into large hub, medium hub, small hub, and non-hub, according to annual passen- ger boardings or enplanements. The categories are defined as follows: • Large hub airport—a commercial service airport that has at least 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings. • Medium hub airport—a commercial service airport that has at least 0.25% but less than 1.0% of total U.S. passenger boardings. In this report large and medium hub airports were combined into one category. These combined categories identify airports with more than 1.9 million enplanements. • Small hub airport—a commercial service airport that has at least 0.05% but less than 0.25% of total U.S. passenger boardings (more than 380,000 and less than 1.9 million enplanements). • Non-hub airport—a commercial service airport that has less than 0.05% of total U.S. passenger boardings (more than 10,000 and less than 380,000 enplanements). Nonprimary commercial service airports were also contacted. This category is defined as follows: • Commercial service airport—a publicly owned, commercial service airport that has at least 2,500 and fewer than 10,000 passenger boardings each year and receives scheduled passenger service. The respondents represented the following classifications of airports (see Figure A1): • 8 large and medium hub (40%) • 5 small hub (25%) • 4 non-hub (20%) • 3 commercial service (15%)

49 airports represented 60% of responses. See Box A1 for more about airport classification. AIRPORT TERMINAL SQUARE FOOTAGE The 20 airports provided terminal size as a reference. The respondents reported the following range of terminal sizes: • large/medium hub: 400,000 ft2 to 6 million ft2 • small hub: 140,000 ft2 to 600,000 ft2 • non-hub: 54,000 ft2 to 160,000 ft2 • commercial service: 5,000 ft2 to 21,000 ft2 Although there were a number of large and medium hub airports that provided information, many energy efficiency practices are scalable to smaller airport terminal buildings. INTERVIEWS A total of 13 airports were contacted for follow-up interviews to dis- cuss energy efficiency practices that have been implemented in greater detail. Of these 13, 12 were able to provide additional information. Airport interview participants: • Bemidji Regional [BJI] • Dallas/Fort Worth International [DFW] • Dickenson–Theodore Roosevelt Regional [DIK] • Fresno Yosemite International [FAT] • Juneau International [JNU] • Montgomery Regional [MGM] • Minneapolis/St. Paul International [MSP] • Eastern Oregon Regional at Pendleton [PDT] • Mid-Ohio Valley Regional—Parkersburg [PKB] • Reno/Tahoe International [RNO] • Lambert/St. Louis International [STL] • Tampa International [TPA]. These interviews were conducted as person-to-person tele- phone calls and teleconferences that included additional research staff and/or additional airport staff and airport energy consul- tants. Content from interviews is incorporated throughout the report and as text boxes to highlight specific practices or strate- gies of note. Box A2 Geographic Location of Respondents The FAA monitors and regulates the national airspace through 9 administrative regions: Alaska, Central, Eastern, Great Lakes, New England, Northwest Mountain, Southern, Southwest, and Western–Pacific. The 20 responses were from airports located in all 9 of the FAA administrative regions and 16 different states: Alabama, Alaska, Ari- zona, California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. FIGURE A1 Airport size graph.