Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 R1
ACRP
AIRPORT
COOPERATIVE
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
REPORT 56
Sponsored by
the Federal
Aviation
Administration
Handbook for Considering
Practical Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction
Strategies for Airports
OCR for page R2
ACRP OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE* TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2011 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
CHAIR OFFICERS
James Wilding CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (re- VICE CHAIR: Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
tired)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
VICE CHAIR
MEMBERS
Jeff Hamiel
MinneapolisSt. Paul J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Metropolitan Airports Commission Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation,
Norfolk, VA
MEMBERS William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
James Crites Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
DallasFort Worth International Airport James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX
Richard de Neufville Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Kevin C. Dolliole
Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort
Unison Consulting Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
John K. Duval Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence
Austin Commercial, LP Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Kitty Freidheim Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
Freidheim Consulting
Steve Grossman
Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA
Jacksonville Aviation Authority Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Tom Jensen Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
National Safe Skies Alliance Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and CEO, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority,
Catherine M. Lang Atlanta, GA
Federal Aviation Administration
Gina Marie Lindsey David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Los Angeles World Airports Lawrence A. Selzer, President and CEO, The Conservation Fund, Arlington, VA
Carolyn Motz Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West
Airport Design Consultants, Inc. Lafayette, IN
Richard Tucker Thomas K. Sorel, Commissioner, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul
Huntsville International Airport
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Paula P. Hochstetler Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
Airport Consultants Council
Sabrina Johnson C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Richard Marchi EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Airports Council International--North America
Laura McKee Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
Air Transport Association of America J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
Henry Ogrodzinski Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
National Association of State Aviation Officials Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Melissa Sabatine LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.DOT
American Association of Airport Executives
Robert E. Skinner, Jr. John T. Gray, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads,
Transportation Research Board Washington, DC
John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
SECRETARY Officials, Washington, DC
Christopher W. Jenks David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Transportation Research Board Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Tara O'Toole, Under Secretary for Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC
Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S.DOT
Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT
Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
Diamond Bar, CA
*Membership as of July 2011. *Membership as of June 2011.
OCR for page R3
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP REPORT 56
Handbook for Considering
Practical Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction
Strategies for Airports
CDM
Cambridge, MA
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
Synergy Consultants, Inc.
Wareham, MA
Subscriber Categories
Aviation · Energy · Environment
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2011
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP REPORT 56
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in trans- Project 02-10
portation of people and goods and in regional, national, and inter- ISSN 1935-9802
national commerce. They are where the nation's aviation system ISBN 978-0-309-21369-1
connects with other modes of transportation and where federal respon- Library of Congress Control Number 2011941723
sibility for managing and regulating air traffic operations intersects
with the role of state and local governments that own and operate most © 2011 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
airports. Research is necessary to solve common operating problems,
to adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and to
introduce innovations into the airport industry. The Airport Coopera- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tive Research Program (ACRP) serves as one of the principal means by
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
which the airport industry can develop innovative near-term solutions
written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
to meet demands placed on it. published or copyrighted material used herein.
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The ACRP carries understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB or FAA endorsement
out applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the
agencies and are not being adequately addressed by existing federal material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate
research programs. It is modeled after the successful National Coopera- acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of
tive Highway Research Program and Transit Cooperative Research Pro- the material, request permission from CRP.
gram. The ACRP undertakes research and other technical activities in a
variety of airport subject areas, including design, construction, mainte-
nance, operations, safety, security, policy, planning, human resources, NOTICE
and administration. The ACRP provides a forum where airport opera-
tors can cooperatively address common operational problems. The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Airport Cooperative Research
Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the
The ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision Governing Board of the National Research Council.
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary partici-
pants in the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
Oversight Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S.
The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
Department of Transportation with representation from airport oper- procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
ating agencies, other stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
such as the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA),
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
the American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
Association of State Aviation Officials (NASAO), and the Air Transport Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
Association (ATA) as vital links to the airport community; (2) the TRB
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and Council, and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
(3) the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because
contract with the National Academies formally initiating the program. they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research orga-
nizations. Each of these participants has different interests and respon-
sibilities, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort.
Research problem statements for the ACRP are solicited periodically
but may be submitted to the TRB by anyone at any time. It is the
responsibility of the AOC to formulate the research program by iden-
tifying the highest priority projects and defining funding levels and
expected products.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel,
appointed by the TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport pro-
fessionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels pre-
pare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and
provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published reports of the
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing cooper- AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP
are available from:
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board
Business Office
intended end-users of the research: airport operating agencies, service 500 Fifth Street, NW
providers, and suppliers. The ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other
interested parties, and industry associations may arrange for work- and can be ordered through the Internet at
shops, training aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
results are implemented by airport-industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members
of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta-
tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange,
conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board's varied activities annually engage about
7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia,
all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu-
als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP REPORT 56
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Michael R. Salamone, ACRP Manager
Theresia H. Schatz, Senior Program Officer
Joseph J. Brown-Snell, Program Associate
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Senior Editor
ACRP PROJECT 02-10 PANEL
Field of Environment
Patti J. Clark, CH2M HILL, Jacksonville, FL (Chair)
Karen Hancock, City of Aurora, Aurora, CO
Diane Heinze, Port of Oakland, Oakland, CA
Meenakshi Singh, Cleveland Airport System, Cleveland, OH
Jim Stanislaski, Gensler, Boston, MA
Nathan Brown, FAA Liaison
Edward J. Laughlin, US Government Accountability Office Liaison
Kevin W. Welsh, Air Transport Association of America, Inc. Liaison
Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Theresia H. Schatz
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
ACRP Report 56: Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction
Strategies for Airports is a handbook and decision support tool that assists airport operators
in identifying, evaluating, prioritizing, and implementing practical, low-cost strategies to
reduce and manage greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The handbook and AirportGEAR,
the interactive decision support tool developed in the research as a companion to the hand-
book, consider a range of strategies that can be implemented by all types of airports--
regardless of size, geography, or resources--either directly or in partnership with airport
stakeholders, including airlines, airport tenants, and host communities. A user's manual to
guide the user through the decision support tool is also included. In addition, fact sheets,
which are the foundation and data source for the tool and provide pertinent information to
implement the reduction strategies, and a presentation, which provides awareness training
materials that can be used by airports to educate and inform stakeholders, were developed.
The decision support tool, the user's manual, the fact sheets, and the presentation are
available on the attached CD-ROM. The user's manual is also printed in this report for
ease of access.
There is increasing concern over aviation's contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions and associated environmental impacts affecting airports and the aviation industry. As
environmental pressures continue to increase nationwide, it is imperative that airports take
every opportunity to reduce their carbon footprint.
The report will assist airports, airlines, and airport tenants in reducing their GHG emis-
sions by identifying practical, low-cost solutions and assisting them in better serving their
passengers, customers, and host communities. This handbook and decision support tool
identifies and evaluates best practices that airports can voluntarily implement.
Available resources were investigated and reviewed to gather information on proven and
innovative measures for reducing airport-related GHG emissions. The research team doc-
umented the wide range of strategies for airport operators to reduce emissions of GHG asso-
ciated with typical airport activity and compiled a list of 125 practices in 12 categories for
use in the airport setting. The decision support tool was developed and field tested at a
variety of airports of different sizes and geographic locations that provided suggested
improvements.
A report documenting the research method used to develop the handbook, fact sheets,
and decision support tool has been posted on the ACRP Project 02-10 web page of the TRB
website (http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=2573).
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS
1 Summary
13 SECTION I Introduction and Purpose of the Research
17 SECTION II Development of the Fact Sheets
17 II.1 Strategy Categories
18 II.2 Evaluation Criteria
19 II.2.1 Financial Considerations
20 II.2.2 Implementation Considerations
21 II.2.3 Potential Impacts
24 II.3 Fact Sheet Organization
24 II.3.1 Page 1, Strategy Description
24 II.3.2 Page 2, Details of Evaluation Criteria Results
26 II.3.3 Page 3, Attributes
28 II.3.4 Page 4, Additional Information
30 SECTION III How to Use the Handbook, Fact Sheets,
and AirportGEAR
30 III.1 How to Use This Handbook and the Fact Sheets
31 III.1.1 Gain Familiarity with Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction Strategies
31 III.1.2 Identify Issues Associated with a Specific Strategy or
Groups of Strategies
32 III.1.3 Identify and Select Strategies that Have the Greatest Ability
to Achieve a Desired Objective
33 III.2 Example Uses of the Fact Sheets
33 III.2.1 Gain Familiarity With Types of Strategies
34 III.2.2 Identify Issues Associated with a Specific Strategy
37 III.2.3 Identify and Select Strategies with the Greatest Ability to
Achieve an Objective
39 III.3 How to Use AirportGEAR
39 III.3.1 AirportGEAR Features
50 III.3.2 Examples of Uses of AirportGEAR
55 SECTION IV Greenhouse Gas Accounting Principles
and Other Considerations
55 IV.1 Sources of Airport-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions
55 IV.1.1 Traditional Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources at Airports
56 IV.1.2 Non-traditional Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources at Airports
56 IV.2 Boundaries of Airport Greenhouse Gas Inventories
56 IV.2.1 Organizational Structure
57 IV.2.2 Operational Boundaries
OCR for page R9
58 IV.3 Mitigation vs. Offsetting
59 IV.4 Relationship Between Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Other Airport
Documents, Processes, and Programs
59 IV.4.1 Financial Issues and Grant Assurances
61 IV.4.2 Planning and Development, including Capital Improvement Projects
62 IV.4.3 Airport Energy Management and Operational Practices
62 IV.5 Importance of Coordination with Tenants and Other Stakeholders
63 IV.6 Regulations and Voluntary Reporting and Mitigation
63 IV.6.1 Current Regulations and Requirements
65 IV.6.2 Potential Future Regulations and Requirements
A-1 Appendix A Fact Sheets
B-i Appendix B AirportGEAR User's Manual
C-1 Appendix C Awareness Presentation
Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale
for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.
OCR for page R10
SUMMARY
Handbook for Considering
Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction Strategies for Airports
Airports are actively considering approaches to reduce airport-related greenhouse gas
emissions. To assist airports with evaluating various strategies, this project analyzed various
greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and compiled a list of 125 practices for use in
the airport setting. Technical information is presented for each strategy to assist airport oper-
ators with selection and implementation of the strategies that are most appropriate for a spe-
cific airport. The strategies can be used for airport-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction
initiatives (e.g., minimizing the use of auxiliary power units) as well as to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions associated with a specific project (e.g., installing energy efficient equipment as
part of a building renovation). The research results can be used by airport employees in all de-
partments, whether they are in the initial stages of learning about greenhouse gas mitigation
or already have greenhouse gas emission reduction activities underway.
The research results include (1) this Handbook and (2) its accompanying decision-support
tool, called AirportGEAR (Airport Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment and Reduction). The
information for 125 greenhouse gas reduction strategies is presented in Fact Sheets (one for
each strategy) as Appendix A on the attached CD-ROM. This Handbook includes background
information, descriptions of how the Fact Sheets were developed, and examples of how the
Fact Sheets can be used to evaluate and select reduction strategies.
The information in the Fact Sheets and AirportGEAR can be used to serve many purposes,
most of which fall into one of the following three categories:
· To gain familiarity with the types of strategies that are available
· To identify issues associated with a specific strategy
· To identify and select strategies that have the greatest ability to achieve a desired objective.
This research material includes strategies that may be within the authority of an individ-
ual user to control as well as those that users may only influence or for which users have no
implementation control. Therefore, as users consider emission reduction strategies, they will
need to understand issues of ownership and control of emission sources, emissions inven-
tory boundaries, and other inventory accounting principles, which are reviewed in Section
IV of this Handbook. ACRP Report 11: Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions Inventories identifies the basic range of sources of greenhouse gas emissions at airports
and approaches to preparing inventories. Most important in greenhouse gas inventories is
the recognition of ownership of and control over the source in the inventory presentation.
Therefore, emissions are characterized as Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emis-
sions), and Scope 3 (other emissions). Users of the Handbook and AirportGEAR should have
a familiarity with how sources would be represented in an inventory, as discussed in Sec-
tion IV of the Handbook. Depending on the scope of the emissions and the type of strat-
egy, emission reduction strategies can be represented as a mitigation or an offset of GHG
1
OCR for page R11
2 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports
emissions, which can affect the presentation of emissions in the inventory. As background,
Section IV of the Handbook discusses the inventory process, mitigation versus offsetting,
how emission reduction planning relates to other airport activities, and a summary of the
current state of emissions regulation.
The Fact Sheets
A comprehensive literature review and interviews were conducted to identify 125 practi-
cal greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies and to compile technical information for
each strategy that will assist airport operators in selecting and implementing the strategies.
These strategies were systematically organized according to 12 categories, which effectively
became a way of identifying the type of emission reduction strategies:
· Airfield Design and Operations (AF)
· Business Planning (BP)
· Construction (CN)
· Carbon Sequestration (CS)
· Energy Management (EM)
· Ground Service Equipment (GS)
· Ground Transportation (GT)
· Materials and Embedded Energy (ME)
· Operations and Maintenance (OM)
· Performance Measurement (PM)
· Renewable Energy (on-site) (RE)
· Refrigerants (RF)
Each reduction strategy was analyzed according to 11 evaluation criteria in order to con-
sistently provide the user with important information about each strategy. The evaluation
criteria are organized into three categories:
· Financial Considerations
Estimated capital costs
Estimated operation and maintenance costs
Estimated payback period
· Implementation Considerations
Implementation timeframe
Maturity of the reduction strategy
Airport control
· Potential Impacts
Greenhouse gas reduction potential (Scopes 1 and 2)
Greenhouse gas reduction potential (Scope 3)
Impacts to natural resources
Impacts to the built environment
Impacts to regulatory compliance
For each of the evaluation criteria, a visual icon, or rating value, is used to indicate the results
of the analysis. For example, the strategies with the least expensive capital costs have a rating
icon of one dollar sign ($) while those with the most expensive capital costs receive a rating icon
of four dollar signs ($$$$). In addition, a narrative is provided that describes how the ratings
were determined. For all evaluation criteria, the result of the analysis is based on published
OCR for page R70
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Principles and Other Considerations 61
to oversight laws (e.g., city and county ordinances) as well as the contracts between the airport
operator and its tenants.
The Airport Improvement Program and its predecessor the Airport Development Aid Pro-
gram (ADAP) have been notable sources of federal dollars at an average airport. An AIP grant
to an airport can cover a substantial portion of the costs of improvements addressing airport
safety, capacity, security, or environmental projects, at up to 95% of the project cost. Such grants
require compliance with a list of 39 "grant assurances" as a condition. The other primary source
of funds at larger commercial service airports is the Passenger Facility Charge, which has notable
FAA oversight. The grant assurances not only apply to the federally funded improvements
but also to all of an airport's operations, as acceptance of these funds designates the airport
as a public use airport. Likewise, although some of these conditions have a limited term, others are
perpetual. Thus, the requirements imposed by grant assurances are relevant to not only airport
operators themselves but also their tenants and other users. These assurances can affect either how
monies are collected and used or the types of programs that are in place.
The important grant assurances relevant to greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies
include the following:
· Grant assurance 5 requires that the airport not sell, lease, or encumber any part of its title or
other interests in the property.
· Grant assurance 16 requires conformity of the airport with plans and specifications. Specifi-
cally "any modification to the approved plans [Airport Layout Plans], specifications, and
schedules shall also be subject to approval of the Secretary. . . ."
· Grant assurance 19 requires the airport to be operated at all times in "a safe and serviceable
condition" and in accordance with the minimum standards.
· Grant assurance 22 requires that the airport must be available as an airport for public use on
reasonable terms and without unjust discrimination to all types, kinds, and classes of aero-
nautical activities, including commercial aeronautical activities offering services to the public
at the airport.
· Grant assurance 24 requires the airport to maintain a self-sustaining fee and rental structure.
· Grant assurance 25 requires airport revenues to be used only for aeronautical purposes.
The FAA can prohibit the airport operator from receiving AIP funds if the airport is found in
violation of a grant assurance and does not bring itself into compliance.
Section II documents the evaluation criteria and information for strategies identified by this
study. Reflected in that analysis of the individual emission reduction strategies was the potential
for airport operators to become in conflict with grant assurances. Airports are encouraged to con-
sult the FAA concerning potential conflicts if strategies to reduce emissions are not currently part of
their current operation.
IV.4.2 Planning and Development, including Capital
Improvement Projects
Once an airport has received federal funding, its facilities must then continue to conform to
the currently approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP) per grant assurance 16. Planning at airports
can take many forms, including a Master Plan, ALP Updates, Sustainability Plans, documenta-
tion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and/or general mitigation planning.
Guidance concerning airport development project planning is found in FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 150/5070-6B, Airport Master Plans, and other FAA Advisory Circulars. While the FAA has
guidance concerning facility planning, airport operators are not required to follow a specific
planning process, as that process can be tailored to local needs. However, airport facility layouts
OCR for page R71
62 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports
are subject to airport design standards to ensure consistency and safety. These standards are
defined through a number of Advisory Circulars, including AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design.
In analyzing the strategies documented by this project, a review of FAA Orders and Advi-
sory Circulars was conducted. For instance, if an airport was undertaking planning for a
replacement hangar, the tools developed for this project could be consulted concerning var-
ious facets associated with the administration, planning, design, construction, and operation
of the replacement hangar.
Examples of how greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies might be reflected in airport
planning and development could include the following:
· Climate Action or Sustainability Planning where broad-based policies for reducing emissions
are being considered. The Handbook and AirportGEAR could be used to aid in identifying
emission reduction actions or strategies for inclusion in those plans and how they might
achieve goals and objectives in these plans.
· Project/Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Planning. As airports consider individual devel-
opment projects, the Handbook and AirportGEAR can be used to illuminate issues, benefits,
and costs associated with various strategies that could be embraced in the project.
IV.4.3 Airport Energy Management and Operational Practices
Airport energy management (AEM) activities can consist of planning and development
activities or general facility management. Airport facilities use large amounts of energy. The ter-
minal facilities--the facilities that host passengers using commercial service airports--are the
largest consumers of airport energy (e.g., lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, etc.).
Because of this consumption and associated financial cost, some airport operators have
reduced operating expenses by focusing on energy efficiency, considering both energy supply
and energy consumption. Airports have initiated energy audits and in some cases have
assigned job responsibilities to airport staff for energy management.
It is anticipated that the Handbook and AirportGEAR will be useful tools for airport staff and
other parties interested in managing and conserving energy use associated with airport facilities.
IV.5 Importance of Coordination with Tenants
and Other Stakeholders
Given that many of the largest sources of emissions at airports are controlled by tenants or
affect emissions of tenants (see Table IV-3), airport operators are encouraged to coordinate with
their tenants (1) to accurately inventory these sources and, (2) if seeking emission reductions, to
Table IV-3. Distribution of emissions by ownership and control.
Airport Tenant Public Airport Access
Airport
Owned/Controlled Owned/Controlled Owned/Controlled
ONT 1.5% 81.1% 17.4%
SAN 1.5% 92.3% 6.1%
SEA 1.4% 90.4% 8.0%
PDX 2.6% 88.4% 9.0%
LAX 1.7% 93.4% 4.9%
Aspen 2.6% 95.4% 2.0%
Hillsboro 0.5% 95.8% 3.6%
Van Nuys 0.9% 90.5% 8.6%
Source: Synergy Consultants, based on reports by the airports above.
OCR for page R72
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Principles and Other Considerations 63
coordinate and communicate with these parties concerning feasibility and cost-effective emis-
sion reduction actions.
Based on a few inventories prepared to date, the distribution of emissions based on owner-
ship and control indicates that the airport operator can control a small portion of emissions
associated with an airport (on average less than 3% of the total airport-related emissions). How-
ever, airport operators may be in a position of supporting the emission reduction of its tenants
(i.e., airlines, aircraft operators, tenants, etc.) as well as the public that uses the airport. There-
fore, this Handbook recommends that as airport operators consider plans to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, they coordinate with the tenants and public users.
There are an extensive number of example actions that airport operators can take to reduce
emissions associated with their tenant and public activities. The example in Table IV-2 identi-
fies two actions that were taken by the airport: one that affected emissions by the airlines using
one of the concourses and another that reduced the public ground travel emissions. First, the
installation of pre-conditioned air/400-hertz power at the gates reduced aircraft operator APU
emissions (a Scope 3 emission), while slightly increasing airport electrical consumption (a Scope 2
emission). This action resulted in a net reduction in airport-wide emissions as shown.
Because the substantial majority of emissions at an airport (typically over 90% of total airport-
related emissions) are owned and/or controlled by other parties (i.e., tenants and the public),
airport operators are encouraged to work with these parties to identify and implement strategies
that are mutually beneficial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
IV.6 Regulations and Voluntary Reporting
and Mitigation
The Handbook and AirportGEAR can aid airport operators in complying with federal, state, and
local regulations and emissions reporting and mitigation. This section of the Handbook discusses
the regulations and requirements that were in place at the time of publication. Regulatory require-
ments are evolving and the airport operator should refer to current legislation. Potential future
requirements are also included here as an example of the types of legislation that may be
encountered, even though the information listed may be outdated shortly after publication. At
the time of this publication, greenhouse gas mitigation activities are voluntary unless an airport
has committed to mitigation measures as part of NEPA or state regulation, such as the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA).
IV.6.1 Current Regulations and Requirements
In December 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed two important greenhouse gas findings:
· Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and forecast concentra-
tions in the atmosphere of six key greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of
current and future generations.
· Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of
greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the
greenhouse gas pollution that threatens public health and welfare.
While these findings themselves do not place any regulatory or mitigation requirements upon
airport operators and airport-related activities, under current US regulatory schemes, they would
be a prerequisite to anticipated future controls on mobile sources. Subsequent to the findings,
litigation has been brought seeking to overturn the findings.
OCR for page R73
64 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports
As the USEPA moves to place regulatory requirements on greenhouse gas emissions, it has
promulgated the following requirements:
· Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. The rule requires reporting of greenhouse
gas emissions from specific sources--relatively large emitters and suppliers of fossil fuels or
industrial greenhouse gases--to enable the USEPA to collect emissions data to inform future
policy decisions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial greenhouse gases, manu-
facturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of
greenhouse gas emissions are required to submit annual reports to the USEPA. In addition, facil-
ities that operate certain sources, such as power generators, are automatically triggered to report
under this rule, regardless of whether or not the threshold of 25,000 metric tons is exceeded.
· Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Economy Standards. In April 2010, a final
rule occurred covering model years 2012 through 2016 for passenger cars, light-duty trucks,
and medium-duty passenger vehicles. The rule making requires these vehicles to meet an esti-
mated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, which is
equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon diox-
ide level solely through fuel economy improvements.
· Stationary Source Emissions (Prevention of Significant Deterioration/Title V Tailoring
Rule). Historically, stationary sources subject to certain emissions levels were subject to exten-
sive regulations under the Clean Air Act New Source Review process. The USEPA refined these
regulations to include greenhouse gases (i.e., tailoring rules). Starting in 2011, existing and new
major sources of greenhouse gases, defined currently as those facilities emitting 75,000 metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent or more per year, will be subject to Title V permitting, which
could include restrictions and controls for greenhouse gas emissions.
At this time, it is expected that airlines, as corporate entities, are subject to these requirements
and that approximately 10 to 20 US airports meet the requirements to report their greenhouse
gas emissions, particularly those airports that have co-generation plants. A smaller subset of these
airports may also be subject to the Title V Tailoring Rule. It is recommended that airport oper-
ators conduct a greenhouse gas inventory to determine if the regulatory thresholds of 25,000
metric tons for the Mandatory Reporting Rule and 75,000 metric tons for the Title V Tailoring
Rule are exceeded.
Many of the airline partners operating at the nation's commercial service international air-
ports are also subject to various emissions trading schemes (Europe and Australia). The most
widely debated, given the amount of air traffic, is the European Union Emission Trading System
(EU ETS). Under the EU ETS, implementation has occurred in stages, with the initial focus
having been on the largest sources of emissions. These large emitters must monitor and annu-
ally report their carbon dioxide emissions. Starting January 1, 2012, aviation emissions will be
subject to the EU ETS. For emissions in excess of their designated allowance, parties are
required to either reduce emissions or purchase offsets. Litigation by US carriers was initiated
over the EU ETS.
Prior to the 2009 USEPA actions and recent national level legislative efforts, many states and
local communities, feeling that the federal government was not acting aggressively enough to
address climate change, began to enact requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. Regional emis-
sions reduction programs include the following:
· Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI has established a cap-and-trade program
affecting power plants with generating capacity of 25 MW or greater. A cap-and-trade system
is an economic incentive program designed to reduce emissions by establishing a cap and
enabling those who emit under the cap to sell their unused emissions allocation to those who
are not able to reduce emissions in as cost effective a manner.
OCR for page R74
Greenhouse Gas Accounting Principles and Other Considerations 65
· Western Climate Initiative (WCI). WCI members agreed to jointly set a regional emissions
target and establish a cap-and-trade program covering multiple economic sectors. The green-
house gas emissions target for WCI members is 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, or approxi-
mately 33% below business-as-usual levels. The regional target is designed to be consistent
with existing targets set by individual member states and does not replace these goals. A cap-
and-trade program, beginning in 2012, will cover emissions from electricity and large indus-
trial and commercial sources and, beginning in 2015, will cover emissions from transportation
and other residential, commercial, and industrial fuel use.
· Midwest Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord (MGGRA). MGGRA members agree to estab-
lish regional greenhouse gas reduction targets, including a long-term target of 60% to 80%
below current emissions levels, and to develop a cap-and-trade system to meet the targets. Par-
ticipants will also establish a greenhouse gas emissions reductions tracking system and imple-
ment other policies, such as low-carbon fuel standards, to aid in reducing emissions.
In addition, an extensive amount of state and local level emissions programs are in place and
are too numerous to list.
IV.6.2 Potential Future Regulations and Requirements
At the time this Handbook was prepared, the primary federal, state, and local regulations gov-
erning greenhouse gases require one or more of the following:
· Reporting of annual emissions over a designated threshold (i.e., USEPA mandatory report-
ing rule requiring facilities generating more than 25,000 metric tons, WCI requiring reporting
for facilities over 10,000 metric tons).
· Increased production and use of renewable energy where states and local government are
seeking to use a greater quantity of renewable energy.
· Emissions standards and/or fuel consumption/economy standards. While federal level car-
bon dioxide emissions standards have not been promulgated, fuel consumption standards for
surface vehicles have been promulgated not only on the federal level, but by several US states
(California, Oregon, Washington) as well. In addition, meetings of the International Civil Avi-
ation Organization have discussed various aircraft-related energy efficiency goals.
· Mitigation. Such requirements would principally arise from state or local climate action laws
that seek to achieve an emissions reduction in the future relative to a past emission. However,
international and some regional programs have adopted a cap-and-trade requirement that
could require emissions reduction.
The following legislative efforts that are under deliberation in the US House of Representa-
tives and Senate are indicative of these types of likely future requirements:
· The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454, also known as the Waxman-
Markey Bill) as passed by the House would establish an economy-wide, greenhouse gas cap-
and-trade system and critical complementary measures to help address climate change and
build a clean energy economy. Except in unusual conditions, this act would not be expected to
apply to airports unless airports are producing power or fuels or operate large stationary
sources emitting more than 25,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases. The act would establish
emission caps that would reduce emissions for all covered entities to 3% below their 2005 lev-
els in 2012, 17% below 2005 levels in 2020, 42% below 2005 levels in 2030, and 83% below 2005
levels in 2050. The proposal also calls for regulations to limit black carbon emissions in the
United States.
· The Senate's Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 (S. 1733, known as the
Kerry-Boxer Bill) would establish a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases. Simi-
lar to the House Waxman-Markey Bill, this legislation would not be expected to directly affect
OCR for page R75
66 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports
airports other than in cases where there are large stationary sources or where the airport gen-
erates power. The act would establish emission caps that would reduce emissions for all cov-
ered entities to 3% below their 2005 levels in 2012, 20% below 2005 levels in 2020 (lower than
that of the House bill), 42% below 2005 levels in 2030, and 83% below 2005 levels in 2050.
· The American Power Act (Kerry-Lieberman Bill) is similar to the Waxman-Markey Bill as
well as the Kerry-Boxer Bill with an economy-wide cap-and-trade system. Transportation
fuels would be regulated at the point of distribution or import. In addition, this bill includes
a "hard collar" on the price of carbon offsets.
· The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act of 2009 (S. 2877, known as the
Cantwell-Collins Bill) would require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 20% relative
to 2005 levels by 2020, 30% relative to 2005 levels by 2025, 42% relative to 2005 levels by 2030,
and 83% relative to 2005 levels by 2050; these levels are similar to the Kerry-Boxer Bill. The
act would require the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to reduce emissions by
(1) placing a gradually declining limitation on the quantity of fossil carbon permitted to be
sold and (2) requiring each first seller to surrender periodically a number of carbon shares
equal to the quantity of covered carbon it produces or imports.
· The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S. 1462), similar to H.R. 2454, con-
tains extensive provisions concerning energy production, energy efficiency, renewable energy
standards, etc.
· The Clean Energy Act of 2009 (S. 2776) was introduced by Senators Webb and Alexander to
promote investment and development of clean energy technologies, including nuclear power
and other resources. It would result in the expenditure of $20 billion over 20 years to fund a
series of loan guarantees; nuclear education and workforce training assistance; research into
nuclear reactor lifetime extension; and the development of solar power, biofuels, and alterna-
tive power technologies.
· The Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009 (S. 2729) would require the Secretary of Agricul-
ture and the USEPA to establish (1) a program to govern the creation of credits from emis-
sion reductions; (2) an advisory committee to provide scientific and technical advice on the
establishment and implementation of such an offset program; and (3) a carbon conservation
program to provide incentives to implement projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through conservation easements, sequestration contracts, and timber harvest or grazing con-
tracts. It would require the USEPA to establish a registry to record approved credits issued
under such an offset program.
OCR for page R76
APPENDIX A
Fact Sheets
Technical information for 125 practical greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies is avail-
able on the attached CD-ROM in a PDF file.
A-1
OCR for page R77
APPENDIX B
AirportGEAR User's Manual
B-i
OCR for page R78
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. ..... B-1
SECTION 1: System Requirements ........................................................................................... B-2
SECTION 2: System Prerequisites and Dependencies ............................................................ B-3
SECTION 3: Installation Guide ................................................................................................ B-4
3.1 Install Adobe Reader Prerequisite ....................................................................... B-4
3.2 Install AirportGEAR ............................................................................................. B-5
3.3 Troubleshooting ................................................................................................... B-8
SECTION 4: Quick Start Guide ................................................................................................ B-9
SECTION 5: AirportGEAR Features ........................................................................................ B-10
5.1 GETTING STARTED ............................................................................................B-11
Screenshot of GETTING STARTED .....................................................................B-11
Purpose of GETTING STARTED......................................................................... B-12
How GETTING STARTED Works ...................................................................... B-12
AirportGEAR's Features ........................................................................................ B-13
What Type of User are You? ................................................................................B-14
Quick Start Guide ................................................................................................... B-21
The Information Panel .......................................................................................... B-21
125 Reduction Strategies ....................................................................................... B-21
Background on the 125 Emission Reduction Strategies ............................... B-22
The Evaluation Criteria ........................................................................................ B-24
Background on the Evaluation Criteria ........................................................... B-24
AirportGEAR Companion Handbook............................................................... B-26
Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 Emission Categories ....................................... B-26
Recommended Uses of GETTING STARTED ...........................................................B-27
B-ii
OCR for page R79
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
5.2 EXPLORE ........................................................................................................... B-28
Screenshots of EXPLORE .............................................................................................. B-28
Purpose of EXPLORE ..................................................................................................... B-30
How EXPLORE Works ................................................................................................... B-30
LIST ............................................................................................................................ B-31
SEARCH ................................................................................................................... B-32
LIBRARY................................................................................................................... B-33
Recommended Uses of EXPLORE ...............................................................................B-35
5.3 PRIORITIZE ....................................................................................................... B-36
Screenshots of PRIORITIZE .............................................................................. B-36
Purpose of PRIORITIZE ..................................................................................................B-37
How PRIORITIZE Works................................................................................... B-38
Basic Prioritization ................................................................................................ B-38
Pairwise Prioritization .......................................................................................... B-38
Recommended Uses of PRIORITIZE........................................................................... B-40
5.4 AIRPORT INFO.................................................................................................. B-40
Screenshot of AIRPORT INFO . ................................................................................... B-40
Purpose of AIRPORT INFO ........................................................................................... B-41
How AIRPORT INFO Works......................................................................................... B-41
Recommended Uses of AIRPORT INFO ................................................................... B-43
B-iii
OCR for page R80
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
5.5 PLAN .................................................................................................................. B-43
Screenshot of PLAN ........................................................................................... B-43
Purpose of PLAN ................................................................................................ B-44
How PLAN Works.............................................................................................. B-44
Create Plans............................................................................................................. B-44
View and Print Reports ........................................................................................ B-45
Export Report Data...........................................................................................B-46
Recommended Uses of PLAN ...................................................................................... B-47
5.6 INVENTORY & REDUCTIONS ......................................................................... B-48
Screenshots of INVENTORY & REDUCTIONS ....................................................... B-48
Purpose of INVENTORY & REDUCTIONS............................................................... B-49
How INVENTORY & REDUCTIONS Works..................................................... B-50
INVENTORY ........................................................................................................... B-50
REDUCTIONS ........................................................................................................ B-50
MATH EXPRESSIONS .......................................................................................... B-53
Recommended Uses of INVENTORY & REDUCTIONS ....................................... B-56
ADDENDUM 1: List of 125 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ......................... B-57
ADDENDUM 2: Evaluation Criteria........................................................................................ B-62
ADDENDUM 3: Examples of Reports Generated from the PLAN Feature..............................B-66
B-iv
