Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports (2011)

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.

The foundation of the Handbook and AirportGEAR is the technical information for each of the 125 greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. The technical information is organized and presented in a four-page Fact Sheet for each strategy (See Appendix A on the attached CD-ROM). In developing the Fact Sheets, the emission reduction strategies were categorized and evaluated relative to a number of attributes: • Category of the strategy—such as business planning, ground transportation; • Evaluation criteria—representing issues likely of interest or concern to airports; • Other relevant information—including favorable implementation areas, geographic regions, and airport sizes; and • Ranking guidance—variables that users can use to help identify strategies that would meet their needs. This section of the Handbook describes the Fact Sheets and provides details about these attributes. II.1 Strategy Categories A comprehensive literature review and airport interviews were conducted to initiate the data-gathering activities for this project. The reduction strategies derived from the literature and interviews were systematically organized according to the set of subject categories presented in Table II-1, which effectively became a way of identifying the type of emission reduction measures. A picture is designated for each strategy category to assist in the navigation of the Fact Sheets. In addition to the literature review and interviews, Internet resources were investigated to collect technical information. Information sources included the airport trade associations [American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE), Airports Council International (ACI), Airport Consultants Council (ACC), and International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)], airport users [Air Transport Association (ATA)], federal agencies (USEPA and USDOT), and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). Pertinent research from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) was also included in the information gathering. A complete list of ref- erences is included on the attached CD-ROM. 17 S E C T I O N I I Development of the Fact Sheets

II.2 Evaluation Criteria Each reduction strategy was evaluated in accordance with eleven analysis criteria in three categories: • Financial Considerations – Estimated capital cost – Estimated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs – Estimated payback period • Implementation Considerations – Implementation timeframe – Maturity of the reduction strategy – Airport control 18 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports Picture for Category Category Airfield Design and Operations Business Planning Construction Carbon Sequestration Energy Management Ground Service Equipment Ground Transportation Materials and Embedded Energy Operations and Maintenance Performance Measurement Renewable Energy (on-site) Refrigerants Category Number of Strategies AF 18 Strategies that directly address emissions associated with airfield design and aircraft operations BP 11 Airport administrative strategies designed to aid in emission reduction CN 5 Construction process emission reduction strategies CS 4 Strategies designed to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide long-term storage EM 39 Strategies designed to reduce facility energy consumption and provide alternative energy supplies GS 1 Strategies designed to reduce emissions from vehicles that support aircraft and airport maintenance GT 17 Strategies associated with the movement of passengers, employees, and goods/services to and from the airport ME 4 Strategies associated with procurement and waste streams OM 3 Strategies designed to address the operation and maintenance of airport facilities PM 5 Strategies designed to evaluate performance of emission reduction plans and actions RE 14 Strategies to generate various forms of renewable energy (sun, wind, geothermal, gas, etc). RF 4 Strategies designed to address refrigerant use at airports and the associated greenhouse gases Photo sources: GT – Los Angeles World Airports; PM – Adapted from ACRP Report 11; RE – Denver International Airport; BP, CS, CN, EM, ME, and OM – Office.Microsoft.com Media Gallery © Microsoft. Abbreviation Coverage Table II-1. Categories of greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies.

• Potential Impacts – Greenhouse gas reduction potential (Scopes 1 and 2) – Greenhouse gas reduction potential (Scope 3) – Natural resources – Built environment – 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 information, airport interviews, vendor information, and/or institutional knowledge and professional judgment of the research team. The visual icons are presented in both the Fact Sheets and in AirportGEAR. The narratives are presented in the Fact Sheets, which are accessible on the attached CD-ROM as Appendix A and in AirportGEAR. The format of and technical information included in the Fact Sheets is described in more detail in the remainder of Section II. The following subsections briefly summarize the methodologies used to evaluate these criteria. A summary of the evaluation criteria and the rating values is presented in Table II-2 at the end of this section (page 23); users may wish to print it to have handy as they review the Fact Sheets or use AirportGEAR. II.2.1 Financial Considerations When considering emission reduction strategies, users are likely to have questions concern- ing the financial costs. The research team identified several variables that would be of interest to the user when addressing these financial considerations: • What is the capital cost to initiate the strategy (i.e., build and install)? • What are the ongoing costs to operate and maintain the strategy (O&M costs)? • What is the payback, if any, with the strategy? For instance, if the strategy results in an energy savings, how long will it take to recover the capital costs? The evaluation of each strategy identifies high-level values for capital cost, O&M cost, and payback period. For example, the capital cost criteria identified whether a reduction strategy will initially cost less than $10,000, between $10,000 and $100,000, between $100,001 and $1,000,000, or greater than $1,000,000. Estimated Capital Cost The estimated capital cost reflects the estimated upfront costs to plan, design, and/or construct the reduction strategy. This estimate includes both soft costs (labor for design and planning) as well as equipment costs, if necessary. The estimated capital cost does not include the use of grants or funding to pay for the initial costs. It does also not include the cost of carbon. The estimated capital cost rating value is based on published information, airport interviews, vendor informa- tion, and/or the institutional knowledge and professional judgment of the research team. Dollar sign icons are used to reflect the following ranges: < $10,000 $10,000–$100,000 $100,001–$1,000,000 > $1,000,000 Development of the Fact Sheets 19

Estimated O&M Costs Estimated O&M costs reflect estimated annual operations and maintenance costs, which would include labor and material costs necessary to implement the action. The estimated O&M cost rating value is based on published information, airport interviews, vendor information, and/or the institutional knowledge and professional judgment of the research team. Wrench icons are used to reflect the following ranges: < $5,000 $5,000–$50,000 $50,001–$100,000 > $100,000 Estimated Payback Period The estimated payback metric provides a general indication of how long the energy savings (if any) will pay for the capital and O&M costs and does not include the use of grants or funding. It also does not include the cost of carbon. The estimated payback period rating value is based on published information, airport interviews, vendor information, and/or the institutional knowl- edge and professional judgment of the research team. Calendar icons are used to reflect the following ranges: < 2 years 2–5 years 6–10 years > 10 years II.2.2 Implementation Considerations As users consider various strategies, a number of implementation considerations often influ- ence an airport’s desire and/or ability to adopt a strategy: • Is the strategy under the direct control of the airport operator, or what degree of control and authority would most airport operators have over the strategy’s implementation? • What is the length of time necessary to plan and implement the strategy? • Is the strategy proven or new in its use in the airport setting? The evaluation of each strategy identifies where the strategy falls in the range of possibilities for each of these criteria. Implementation Timeframe This metric represents how long it will take the user to plan/design/build the reduction strategy and get it running so that greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced. Clock icons are used to reflect the following timeframes: Immediate: < 1 year Short-term: 1–5 years Medium-term: 5–10 years Long-term: > 10 years 20 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports

Maturity of Reduction Strategy This metric indicates whether the strategy is a proven approach that is implemented by many airport organizations or one that is cutting edge and only implemented by a few organ- izations (and hence a little bit riskier). A single star indicates less mature (i.e., in the concept stage) strategies and may represent greater risk, whereas the four-star strategies are in wider use, better understood, and proven. This rating value is based on programs that are currently in place at airports and in other industries as well as on professional judgment. The stars indi- cate the following scale: Conceptual stage Trial tested Proven Proven at airports Airport Control This evaluation criterion is another way of noting the airport operator’s role and thus ability to control the strategy and associated emissions. The rating indicates typical airport conditions (e.g., the airport operator typically does not control pre-conditioned air systems); however, the research team acknowledges that actual control may vary depending on the operating environ- ment at the airport. The plane icons indicate the authority/control that the airport operator would have over implementation of the strategy: Airport operator has no ownership, control, or influence over implementation of the strategy. Airport operator has no ownership or control but can influence the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through policy, procedures, or training. Airport has no ownership or control but can influence the reduction of green- house gas emissions through infrastructure improvements. Airport operator has complete control over implementation of the strategy. II.2.3 Potential Impacts One of the fundamental needs of many users will be to better understand the local con- sequences of individual emission reduction strategies. Research focused on addressing the following questions about each strategy, which were then included in the Potential Impacts category: • What will be the estimated emission reduction from implementation of the strategy? • Will the strategy create direct or indirect effects on natural resources or require the depletion of natural resources locally? • Will the strategy create direct or indirect effects on the built environment (such as noise, light emissions, odor, etc.)? • Are there any regulatory-related issues that must be considered with the strategy? For the evaluation of emission reduction potential, the magnitude of the potential reduc- tion of Scopes 1 and 2 emissions is presented combined and that of Scope 3 emissions is pre- sented separately. The magnitude of potential reduction is considered low (i.e., emission reduction always relatively low), medium (i.e., potential varies between low and high, depend- ing on the specific implementation details), or high (emission reduction always relatively high). For impacts to natural resources, the built environment, and regulatory compliance, the rating scale indicates whether there will be negative impacts or positive benefits associated with the reduction strategy. Development of the Fact Sheets 21

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential, Scopes 1 & 2 The airport is responsible for the sources of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions; see Section IV for a description of greenhouse gas accounting principles. The metric was defined based on the World Resources Institute (WRI) classifications and the professional judgment of the research team concerning the degree of effect on the emissions. The icons represent the following ratings: None Does not decrease Scopes 1 & 2 emissions Low: Reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions is always relatively low. Medium: There is potential for the reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions to range from low to high depending on implementation details. High: Reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions is always relatively high. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential, Scope 3 The sources for Scope 3 emissions are the responsibility of either the tenant or the public; see Section IV of this Handbook for a description of greenhouse gas accounting principles. The metric was defined based on the WRI classifications and the professional judgment of the research team concerning the degree of effect on the emissions. Using the same descriptions as for Scopes 1 & 2, the icons represent the following ratings: None Does not decrease Scope 3 emissions. Low: Reduction of Scope 3 emissions is always relatively low. Medium: There is potential for the reduction of Scope 3 emissions to range from low to high depending on implementation details. High: Reduction of Scope 3 emissions is always relatively high. Impacts to Natural Resources This evaluation criterion indicates when the effect of the strategy on natural resources (criteria pollutant air emissions, surface water, groundwater, sediment, wetlands, floodplains, undeveloped lands, etc.) is to increase or decrease the their depletion (e.g., additional make-up water may be needed for a recommended building cooling technology). A thumb-down indi- cates adverse effect, whereas a thumb-up represents beneficial impact based on professional judgment: Adverse impact to natural resources (i.e., increases stormwater runoff) No benefit or impact to natural resources Benefit to natural resources (i.e., reduces criteria pollutants) Impacts to the Built Environment This criterion indicates the negative or positive effect of the strategy on the human envi- ronment of the surrounding communities (e.g., noise from an airfield design, increased road traffic for biomass deliveries, etc.). In general, there will be a strong correlation between impacts to natural resources and impacts to the built environment because the actual impacts 22 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports

may overlap (e.g., degradation of air quality). Using professional judgment, the following rat- ings were used: Adverse impact to the built environment (e.g., increases noise) No adverse or positive impact to the built environment Positive impact to the built environment (e.g., social benefits) Impacts to Regulatory Compliance This criterion indicates degree of difficulty in complying with state and federal airport and environmental regulations. Using professional judgment, the following ratings were used: May trigger a change to regulatory compliance status Does not change regulatory compliance status May facilitate compliance with a regulation Development of the Fact Sheets 23 Criterion Definition Estimated Capital Costs Upfront costs to plan, design and/or construct the reduction action. Estimated Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs Annual costs for continued implementation of the reduction action. Estimated Payback Period* The time required for the return on an investment to “repay” the capital and operations and maintenance costs. Financial Considerations Ranking Scale < $10,000 $10,000–$100,000 $100,001–$1,000,000 > $1,000,000 < $5,000 $5,000–$50,000 $50,001–$100,000 > $100,000 < 2 years 2–5 years 6–10 years > 10 years Table II-2. Evaluation criteria for strategies. (continued)

II.3 Fact Sheet Organization The results of the analysis of the reduction strategies are presented in a Fact Sheet for each strategy included in Appendix A. The information on the four-page Fact Sheets is explained in the following subsections. II.3.1 Page 1, Strategy Description Reduction Action Description A description of each strategy is provided, including first steps that are needed for implemen- tation. These descriptions are comprehensive but also concise. To avoid duplication of material in other portions of the Fact Sheet, it only describes the basic characteristics of the strategy, not including cost, impact, or emission reduction. Quick-Scan Interpretative Icons A low number of bolded icons indicates low impact/cost, whereas, a high number of bolded icons indicates high impact/cost. The bolded icons reflect current conditions, results of case studies, and personal experience of the research team. The evaluation criteria are defined in Section II.2. II.3.2 Page 2, Details of Evaluation Criteria Results This page of the Fact Sheet presents how the results of applying the evaluation criteria were determined. To avoid continuous page flipping, the symbols from the preceding page are repeated on the left column of page 2. 24 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports Criterion Definition Airport Control** The level of financial and logistical control of the airport operator to implement the reduction action. Implementation Timeframe The time period required to implement the action and reduce GHG emissions. Maturity of Reduction Strategy Past demonstration that the reduction action is implementable and effective. Implementation Considerations Ranking Scale Airport operator has no ownership, control, or influence over implementation of the strategy. Airport operator has no ownership or control but can influence the reduction of GHG emissions through policy, procedures, or training. Airport has no ownership or control but can influence the reduction of GHG emissions through infrastructure improvements. Airport operator has complete control over implementation of strategy. Immediate: < 1 yr Short term: 1–5 yrs Medium term: 5–10 yrs Long term: > 10 yrs Conceptual stage Trial tested Proven Proven at airports Table II-2. (Continued). (continued)

Financial Considerations This section provides the details that went into determining the financial considerations ratings used on pages 1 and 2 (i.e., estimated capital costs, O&M costs, and payback period) as well as any additional information that may be needed to plan for the financial implica- tions of implementing the reduction strategy. For example, this text may discuss strategies involving third-party agreements [e.g., Energy Service Companies (ESCOs)], cost-sharing strategies with airlines, potential revenue streams from Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), carbon offsets or sale of electricity, or other indirect costs or financial benefits that may be associated with the reduction measure. Other business/financial planning strategies, such as creating a revolving fund using savings that will finance additional reduction strategies, are also noted. Development of the Fact Sheets 25 Potential Impacts elacSgniknaRnoitinifeDnoiretirC GHG Reduction Potential: Scopes 1 & 2** The magnitude of the reduction in Scopes 1 & 2 GHG emissions (direct and indirect emissions) as a result of the action. None Does not decrease Scopes 1 &2 emissions Low: Reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions is always relatively low. Medium: There is potential for the reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions to range from low to high depending on implementation details. High: Reduction of Scopes 1 & 2 emissions is always relatively high. GHG Reduction Potential: Scope 3** The magnitude of the reduction in Scope 3 GHG emissions (other emissions) as a result of the action. None Does not decrease Scope 3 emissions Low: Reduction of Scope 3 emissions is always relatively low. Medium: There is potential for the reduction of Scope 3 emissions to range from low to high depending on implementation details. High: Reduction of Scope 3 emissions is always relatively high. Impacts to Natural Resources Impacts or secondary benefits to natural resources. Adverse impacts to natural resources (i.e., stormwater) No benefit or impact to natural resources Benefit to natural resources (i.e., reduces criteria pollutants) Impacts to the Built Environment Impacts or secondary benefits for the built environment and local communities. Adverse impacts to the built environment (e.g., increases noise) No adverse or positive impacts to the built environment Positive impact to the built environment (e.g., social benefits) Impacts to Regulatory Compliance Impact on the airport operator’s compliance status with regulations. May trigger a change to regulatory compliance status Does not change regulatory compliance status May facilitate compliance with a regulation * Does not consider financial incentives such as grants, rebates or tax incentives ** Ranking scale is representative of a majority of airports, but may not fit the control and operation structure for every airport. Table II-2. (Continued).

Implementation Considerations This section explains how the ratings were determined for the criteria of airport control, implementation timeframe, and maturity of the reduction strategy. Additional information that is critical for the user to understand the process of implementing the strategy is also included. Potential Impacts This section explains how the ratings were determined for the potential impacts evaluation criteria (i.e., greenhouse gas reduction potential and impacts to natural resources, the built envi- ronment, and regulatory compliance) as well as any other additional information that is critical for the user to understand during decision-making activities. Quick-Scan Interpretative Icons This section repeats the page 1 icons for financial and implementation considerations and potential impacts. II.3.3 Page 3, Attributes This page presents various characteristics of the strategy in a format that enables the user to scan the sections to determine whether the strategy may be applicable or desirable to the user. Potential Limitations This narrative identifies potential obstacles to implementation that may be encountered. For example, certain technologies may either compete with each other or decrease the efficiency of other reduction strategies. In addition, a reduction measure may increase Scope 1 emissions (e.g., cogeneration) while reducing Scope 2 emissions. Risks are also outlined (e.g., ice and snow sliding off of solar panels onto pedestrians, etc.). Reduction Action Affects GHG Sources (by Owning/Controlling Entity) Review of this section of the Fact Sheet will enable users to narrow their search to strategies affecting specific sources. See Section IV of the Handbook for a description of sources. Favorable Geographic Regions This section identifies the practicality of strategies based on geographic location of an airport. Ten regions were used: • Alaska • Central West Coast: Central and Northern California and Nevada • Hawaii and Guam • Lower Midwest: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Arkansas • Mid Atlantic: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Virginia, and the District of Columbia • Northeast: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island • Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming • Southeast: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, and the territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands • Southwest: Southern California, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico • Upper Midwest: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska 26 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports

Favorable Airport Sizes This section identifies the practicality of strategies based on airport size. For example, Jetway- based pre-conditioned air may not be applicable at airports that do not have commercial service and Jetways. Airport sizes are categorized based on levels of activity: • Large hub: airports representing 1% or more of total US passenger enplanements (passengers boarding commercial service aircraft); consists of about 30 airports • Medium hub: airports representing at least 0.25% (and less than 1%) of total US passenger enplanements; consists of about 37 airports • Small hub: airports representing at least 0.5% (but less than 0.25%) of total US passenger enplanements; consists of about 72 airports • Non-hub: airports representing at least 2,500 enplaned passengers; consists of about 378 airports • General aviation: all other airports; consists of nearly 2,900 airports Recommended Stakeholder Engagement In general, comprehensive stakeholder engagement is recommended to enhance the success of the implementation of a greenhouse gas reduction measure, as noted in Section IV. The “Other Industries” category includes industry stakeholders (vendors, manufacturers, trade organizations) that would enhance implementation. Eleven groups of stakeholders are noted and multiple groups may apply to an individual strategy: • Airlines/aircraft operators • Airport personnel • Community groups • FAA • Local businesses (e.g., solar panel manufacturers) • Local government (e.g., city council) • Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) • Non-FAA Regulators (e.g., state environmental regulators) • Regional entities (e.g., regional transportation authorities) • Tenants (reflecting non-aircraft operator tenants) • Utilities (electrical, gas, oil, etc.) Space Requirements Because many airports are space constrained, the user may want to consider possible space issues. This section notes the amount of space the strategy needs: • No space required • Small (less than 1 acre) • Significant (greater than 1 acre) Project Type This section provides information concerning the phase/department in which the reduction strategy should be initiated and carried out. This information is critical for resource allocation and proper planning for implementation (i.e., construction recycling needs to be considered during design so that appropriate specifications can be included in the bid package). Six options are provided (note that multiple options may apply): • Planning • Design Development of the Fact Sheets 27

• Construction • Airside Operations • Landside Operations • Administrative Functional Area This section denotes which areas of the airport may be directly involved or impacted during implementation. More than one of the possible 16 Implementation Areas may be checked [these areas are consistent with those identified in the resources published by the Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA)]: • Airport Building Facilities: passenger terminals (and may be redundant with the “Terminal Areas Indoor” area) for larger airports or the administrative building for general aviation airports. Included are all non-tenant support structures, such as maintenance buildings, operations centers, snow sheds, etc. • Airfield: runways and taxiways • Baggage Handling: baggage makeup and delivery area within the indoor and outdoor terminal areas • Cargo Warehousing: all buildings associated with mail, freight, and belly-cargo and the freight forwarder area • Control Tower: the air traffic control tower, terminal radar approach control, enroute con- trol facility, and ground control movement centers • Fueling Stations: all stations where on-airport fueling occurs, e.g., fuel farms, truck racks, fueling pumps • Navigation Aids: Any form of aid-to-air navigation on an airport • Parking: parking for ground vehicles, which may include public, employee, and tenant parking • Public Transportation Facilities: facilities that enable the transfer of passengers from the air- port to areas within the local community; typically consist of bus, light rail, heavy rail, etc. • Rental Car Facilities: facilities associated with private companies that rent ground vehicles to passengers using the airport; includes space in the passenger terminals as well as off-site facilities, and consolidated rental car facilities that house multiple private companies • Roadways/Pavement: all on-airport roadways whether owned and/or controlled by the airport operator • Signage: all signage that uses lighting at an airport • Tenant Space: all space leased to tenants (including airline and non-airline). This space may be subject to direct billing of utilities between tenant and utility provider • Terminal Areas Indoor: the interior building envelope of public passenger processing areas • Terminal Areas Outdoor: the exterior space surrounding the passenger processing terminals, including the curb front • Utility Plants: co-generation facilities, centralized utility plants, and HVAC facilities II.3.4 Page 4, Additional Information This page of the Fact Sheet provides further information concerning the implementation of the strategy at other airports, possible funding, and available resources for the user to investigate and understand the strategy. Case Study Examples This section of the Fact Sheets identifies the application of the specific strategy at an airport, based on that airport’s actual experience. Multiple cases are cited where possible. 28 Handbook for Considering Practical Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies for Airports

On-Line Resources URLs for websites are provided to further the user’s understanding of the specific strategy and/or case study. Funding Sources Five options for where project funding may be derived are noted: • FAA AIP Funding: This option refers to funding derived from the aviation trust fund and refers to the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Based on a tax of airline tickets and avia- tion fuel, AIP funds can be used for runways, taxiways, ramps, lighting, signage, NAVAIDS, land acquisition, etc. • FAA VALE Grant Eligible: In 2003, Congress created the Voluntary Airport Low Emission (VALE) Program to fund projects that would voluntarily reduce criteria pollutant emissions at airports. This program is presently designed to address criteria pollutants, but there have been suggestions to enable the program to fund greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Actions taken to reduce criteria pollutants would likely also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. • USEPA DERA Eligible: Under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the USEPA formed the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) that funded projects to reduce diesel emissions. • Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Eligible: The PFC allows the airline to collect up to $4.50 at the request of the airport for every enplaned passenger at that airport. Airports use these fees to fund FAA-approved projects. • Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Eligible: To implement airport security mea- sures, the TSA will occasionally fund projects, which may also achieve emission reductions. • Other Funding: Other funding sources that may be applicable to a specific strategy. Key References Documents identified during the research effort that could assist the user with further informa- tion about the strategy are identified here. Related Reduction Strategies Other emission reduction strategies may supplement, be compatible with, or frequently occur at the same time as the selected strategy. This section enables a user to cross-reference the strate- gies to enhance the overall greenhouse gas reduction plan. Development of the Fact Sheets 29