Assessing Opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs (2013)

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.

75 Four case studies have been prepared to illustrate a number of analyses and questions that can be addressed with this guidebook and associated toolkit: • Analysis of energy demand from a subset of users: Many airports are interested in introduc- ing alternative fuels for only a subset of users (e.g., only airport-owned vehicles) and would like to use the toolkit to investigate options. Using Charleston International Airport in South Carolina as an example, this case study illustrates how an airport can use the toolkit to ana- lyze a subset of the potential energy users and alternative fuels without the need to fill out the entire energy matrix. • Analysis of total energy demand at the airport: In contrast to the Charleston case study, some airports want to produce a demand profile for all the users at the airport to make informed strategic planning decisions with respect to future energy use. Using Seattle-Tacoma Inter- national Airport as an example, this case study illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of using the energy matrix to capture this projected demand. • Support business plan for alternative fuel use at airports: Using Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, this case study demonstrates how the guidebook and tool- kit can be used to help airports and potential producers evaluate business opportunities at the airport. • Siting considerations: To illustrate the framework for evaluating siting considerations pre- sented in Section 6, an analysis is performed using Tulsa International Airport in Oklahoma as a hypothetical example. This case study provides a summary description of the application of the steps in the siting evaluation framework. These case studies are short and focus on specific applications of these tools. They were chosen to be illustrative and not comprehensive. 7.1 Analysis of Energy Demand from a Subset of Users 7.1.1 Overview of Charleston International Airport Charleston International Airport (CHS) is the busiest airport in South Carolina and serves as both a commercial and military field. CHS is a unique airport for a variety of rea- sons. The airport is the largest joint commercial/military air facility in the nation and it is in a high-growth area for marine, air, and rail transportation. Additionally, Boeing is in the process of expanding its Charleston factory, which currently houses the 787 Dreamliner assembly line. On the other hand, unlike many large commercial airports, the airport does not have access to a dedicated fuel delivery pipeline. This lack of access to a pipeline makes S e c t i o n 7 Representative Case Studies

76 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs CHS susceptible to occasional supply disruptions. Thus, by pooling the combined needs of the commercial and military users at CHS, the airport represents a significant node for multi-modal fuel demand. At the same time, the potential for supplying the airport with alternative fuels that may be produced locally would contribute to the supply reliability on the airfield. 7.1.2 Case Study Objective CHS is interested in understanding its energy use and investigating alternative fuel distri- bution options. In particular, CHS wants to get a better understanding of the energy used by its largest clients (commercial air carriers and general aviation) and by its own vehicles. Like many other airports, CHS keeps track of only a limited set of energy users at the airport. CHS has data for the consumption of unleaded gasoline and conventional diesel by its own fleet of vehicles and GSE, and for the jet fuel dispensed to commercial aircraft on the airfield. However, the airport does not have information on fuel use by many other users such as the military and ground access vehicles (e.g., shuttles, taxis, private vehicles). This case study illustrates how the energy mix spreadsheet can be used to understand current energy use and investigate future options for alternative fuels even if information for possible users is not readily available. 7.1.3 Current Energy Use for Selected Users The first step in the analysis of alternative fuel distribution options is to understand the cur- rent energy use at the airport. The energy mix spreadsheet provides rough estimates based on very simple statistics of airport operations; however, if more accurate information is available, it should be used instead. In the case of CHS, the airport had actual fuel use data as shown in Table 11. Notice that information for military, groundside vehicles, off-airport users, and buildings was not available from the airport; however, since the airport is interested primarily in fuel use by commercial carriers and GA aircraft and its own vehicles, the information provided is sufficient to perform an analysis. The information shown in Table 11 was used to populate the “MatrixCurrent” worksheet in the energy mix spreadsheet. The results are shown in Table 12. User Fuel Type Fuel Use in 2011 (000 gal) Aircraft Passenger jet aircraft* Jet A 17,300 GA jet aircraft Jet A 2,800 GA piston aircraft Avgas 152 Airside vehicles Passenger GSE* Unleaded gasoline 8 Diesel 49 Airport vehicles Unleaded gasoline 24 Diesel 3 *Note: The information provided regarding jet fuel and GSE fuel does not differentiate between passenger and cargo operations. For simplicity, it is assumed that all this fuel was used on passenger aircraft and passenger GSE. Table 11. Fuel consumption for selected users at CHS (Source: CHS airport).

Table 12. Energy demand screenshot with fuel use numbers from 2011 as provided by CHS.

78 Assessing Opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs Total use for each type of fuel and a breakdown by major user is shown in Table 13. In sum- mary, fuel use in 2011 at CHS included about 20 million gallons of Jet A, 152,000 gallons of avgas, 32,000 gallons of gasoline, and 52,000 gallons of diesel. 7.1.4 Baseline 2015 Projected Energy Consumption for Selected Users For planning purposes, it is assumed that the airport is interested in projected fuel use by 2015. Based on the FAA’s Terminal Area Forecast, enplanements at CHS are expected to grow about 13% in that time period. Assuming the fuel mix used by aircraft, GSE, and airport vehicles remains the same as in 2011, the projected use by 2015 is as shown in Table 14. A comparison of the 2011 fuel use and the baseline projections for 2015 are shown in Table 15. 7.1.5 Scenario 1: Projected Energy Use with a Moderate Switch to Alternative Fuels The airport is interested in understanding the fuel volume requirements associated with a moderate switch to alternative fuels. To explore this scenario, the airport can use the “Matrix- Future” worksheet in the energy mix spreadsheet with different mix percentages for passenger aircraft, GA jet aircraft, passenger GSE, and airport vehicles. For example, the airport could consider the following fuel mix: • Passenger and GA jet aircraft: 98% Jet A, 2% alternative jet fuel • Passenger GSE: 10% gasoline, 60% green diesel, 30% CNG • Airport vehicles: 50% gasoline, 10% diesel, 40% biodiesel The fuel volumes associated with this fuel mix are shown in Table 16. A comparison of the fuel volume of this scenario and the baseline 2015 scenario is shown in Table 17. The main changes relative to the baseline 2015 projections are the need for 450,000 gallons of alternative jet fuel; the reduction in projected gasoline and diesel consumption from 32,000 to 23,000 gallons and 52,000 to 3,000 gallons, respectively; and the consumption of 38,000 gallons of green diesel, 11,000 gallons of biodiesel, and 81,000 gallons of CNG. Subtot als Total Usage Aircraft Airside Vehicles Private Vehicle Passenger Light (Fleet) Scheduled Bus/Van Courtesy Van Off-Airport Vehicles Buildings/Other 20,100 20,100 Rail 152 152 32 32 52 52 Table 13. Energy demand screenshot showing total usage with fuel use numbers from 2011 as provided by CHS.

Table 14. Baseline 2015 projected energy demand assuming constant energy mix.

En er gy us e (p er ye ar ) Ai rc raf t C ur re nt 20 ,1 00 15 2 Fu t ure 22 ,5 12 15 7 Ai rs id e Ve hi cl es Cu rren t 3 2 5 2 Fu t ure 38 58 Pr iv at e Ve hi cl e C ur re nt Fu t ure Pa ss enger Li gh t (F le et ) C ur re nt Fu t ure Sc hedu le d Bu s/ Va n C ur re nt Fu t ure Co urt es y Va n C ur re nt Fu t ure Ra il Cu rren t Fu t ure O ff- Ai rp ort Ve hi cl es Cu rren t Fu t ure Bu il di ng s/ Ot he r C ur re nt Fu t ure C o n v e n t i o n a l j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy Mi x by U ser G r e e n d i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) B i o d i e s e l B 2 0 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy de ma nd A V G A S ( 0 0 0 g a l ) E 8 5 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 2 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) E l e c t r i c i t y ( 0 0 0 k W h ) A l t e r n a t i v e j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) G a s o l i n e ( 0 0 0 g a l ) D i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 1 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 3 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C N G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) L P G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) Table 15. Comparison of 2011 and baseline 2015 projected energy demand.

Table 16. Projected 2015 energy demand assuming a moderate switch to alternative fuels (Scenario 1).

En er gy us e (p er ye ar ) Ai rc ra ft Cu rrent 20 ,1 00 15 2 Fu t ure 22 ,0 62 45 0 1 57 Ai rs id e Ve hi cl es Cu rrent 32 52 Fu tu re 23 3 3 8 1 1 8 1 Pr iv at e V ehi cl e C urr ent Fu tu re Pa sse nger Li gh t (F l eet ) C urrent Fu tu re Sc hedu le d Bu s/ Va n C urr ent Fu tu re Co ur te sy Va n C urr ent Fu tu re Ra il Cu rrent Fu tu re O ff- Air por t Ve hi cl es Cu rrent Fu tu re Bu il di ng s/ Ot he r C urr ent Fu tu re A V G A S ( 0 0 0 g a l ) E 8 5 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 2 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy Mi x by U ser G r e e n d i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) B i o d i e s e l B 2 0 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy de ma nd E l e c t r i c i t y ( 0 0 0 k W h ) C o n v e n t i o n a l j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 1 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 3 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C N G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) L P G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) A l t e r n a t i v e j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) G a s o l i n e ( 0 0 0 g a l ) D i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) Table 17. Comparison of 2011 and projected 2015 energy demand assuming a moderate switch to alternative fuels (Scenario 1).

Representative case Studies 83 7.1.6 Scenario 2: Projected Energy Use with an Aggressive Switch to Alternative Fuels In this scenario, the airport wants to explore a what-if scenario with a more aggressive switch to alternative fuels. The following fuel mix is now being analyzed: • Passenger and GA jet aircraft: 90% Jet A, 10% alternative jet fuel • Passenger GSE: 30% green diesel, 30% CNG, 40% electricity • Airport vehicles: 20% gasoline, 10% diesel, 40% biodiesel, 30% electricity The fuel volumes associated with this fuel mix are shown in Table 18. A comparison of the fuel volumes of this scenario and the baseline scenario is shown in Table 19. The main changes rela- tive to the baseline projections are the need for approximately 2.2 million gallons of alternative jet fuel; the reduction in projected gasoline and diesel consumption from 32,000 to 6,000 gallons and 52,000 to 3,000 gallons, respectively; and the consumption of 19,000 gallons of green diesel, 11,000 gallons of biodiesel, 81,000 gallons of CNG, and approximately 1.3 megawatt-hours of electric power. 7.1.7 Summary of Results A summary of projected fuel consumption for the 2015 baseline, moderate, and aggressive scenarios is shown in Table 20. Even though this is a very high-level analysis, there are a number of observations that can be helpful for CHS as the airport considers strategic options for future fuel procurement. For example: • Jet fuel consumption is projected to increase by about 13%. Since alternative jet fuel is assumed to be drop-in, no additional infrastructure will be necessary as long as there are enough stor- age and handling facilities to handle the increase in jet fuel consumption. • Use of gasoline and diesel would decrease; therefore, no additional infrastructure would be required for either one. Some of the existing gasoline facilities could be removed or re-purposed, especially in the aggressive scenario, since usage would fall to less than 25% of the projected baseline. As for diesel, since a significant amount of green diesel use is expected, the existing diesel infrastructure could be used. Additional infrastructure for handling biodiesel may be required. • New infrastructure for CNG would be necessary. • Depending on current electric use and provision at the airport, additional infrastructure may be required to support an extra 1.3 megawatt-hours of power consumption. With the information gathered for this case study, the airport can also start investigating other questions of interest such as how a potential switch to alternative fuels could affect the total cost of fuel or reduce emissions. To do so, the airport can use the information contained in the guidebook regarding price and emissions characteristics of the different alternative fuels to create a cost and emissions profile for the baseline and alternative scenarios. If the airport is interested in expanding the scope of the analysis to include other potential users, a logical extension would be the inclusion of military users. The airport could request information from the military base with respect to their current and projected fuel needs and use that information to populate the energy mix spreadsheet. Since military activity at CHS is very significant, the addition of military users would result in much higher volumes of projected fuel use for both conventional and alternative fuels. Large potential demand for alternative fuels

Table 18. Projected 2015 energy demand assuming an aggressive switch to alternative fuels (Scenario 2).

En er gy us e (p er ye ar ) Ai rc raf t C ur re nt 20 ,1 00 15 2 Fu tu re 20 ,2 61 2, 25 1 1 57 Ai rs id e Ve hi cl es Cu rren t 3 2 5 2 Fu t ure 6 3 19 11 81 1, 28 2 Pr iv at e Ve hi cl e C ur re nt Fu tu re Pa ss enger Li gh t (F le et ) C ur re nt Fu tu re Sc hedu le d Bu s/ Va n C ur re nt Fu tu re Co urt es y Va n C ur re nt Fu tu re Ra il Cu rren t Fu tu re O ff- Ai rp or t Ve hi cl es Cu rren t Fu tu re Bu il di ng s/ Ot he r C ur re nt Fu tu re A V G A S ( 0 0 0 g a l ) E 8 5 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 2 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy Mi x by U ser G r e e n d i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) B i o d i e s e l B 2 0 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) En er gy de ma nd E l e c t r i c i t y ( 0 0 0 k W h ) C o n v e n t i o n a l j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 1 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C u s t o m 3 ( 0 0 0 g a l ) C N G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) L P G ( 0 0 0 g a l ) A l t e r n a t i v e j e t ( 0 0 0 g a l ) G a s o l i n e ( 0 0 0 g a l ) D i e s e l ( 0 0 0 g a l ) Table 19. Comparison of 2011 and projected 2015 energy demand assuming an aggressive switch to alternative fuels (Scenario 2).

86 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs would be an important selling point for CHS to attract potential producers and distributors of alternative fuels to the field. 7.1.8 Conclusion This case study illustrated how the energy mix spreadsheet can be used to explore possible alternative fuel use scenarios. Using data provided by the airport, the spreadsheet allows the user to investigate different mixes of alternative fuel use. Even though the airport had infor- mation for a limited set of users, the tool is still helpful as it does not require that all data be available to provide insights into possible alternative fuel uses. However, once additional data become available, the spreadsheet can be updated to investigate current and projected fuel use. 7.2 Comprehensive Analysis of Energy Demand 7.2.1 Overview of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac) is one of the busiest airports in the United States and is the primary air transportation hub in Washington State and the Northwestern United States. Sea-Tac is one of the world’s leading airports in addressing sustainability and environmental concerns and has developed a long-term strategic plan to move people and goods efficiently, manage natural resources wisely, and promote sustainable communities. Sea-Tac and the Port of Seattle have set measurable goals in the areas of air quality and climate change, energy use and conservation, buildings and infrastructure, materials use and recycling, water resources and wildlife, noise, and education to track and reduce its environmental impact (Port of Seattle 2012). In terms of energy use at and in airport-controlled facilities and vehicles, the main fuels cur- rently used include natural gas, electricity, diesel, and gasoline. Natural gas is the largest energy source, with nearly 3 million therms used for facility heating and hot water each year. Sea-Tac currently provides electric service to 67 businesses with over 170 metered sites. Total annual electric utility operating expenses are in excess of $14 million, with an average annual load of 18.3 megawatts. The airport’s vehicle fleet uses an estimated 100,000 gallons of gasoline and 12,000 gallons of diesel annually. In addition, approximately 150,000 gallons of CNG are used annually for specialized vehicles. Sea-Tac tenants and service providers have adopted alternative fuels and energy to various degrees. For example, Alaska Airlines has used alternative jet fuel on a trial basis and many of the ground transportation service providers are using electricity, CNG, or propane to fuel their fleets. Scenario Conv. Jet A (000 gal) Alt. Jet Fuel (000 gal) Avgas (000 gal) Gasoline (000 gal) Diesel (000 gal) Green diesel (000 gal) Biodiesel (000 gal) CNG (000 gal) Electricity (kWh) Baseline 22,512 – 157 38 58 – – – – Moderate 22,120 392 157 23 3 38 11 81 – Aggressive 20,261 2,251 157 6 3 19 11 81 1,282 Table 20. Summary of projected fuel consumption depending on alternative fuel insertion scenario.

Representative case Studies 87 7.2.2 Case Study Objective The objective of the case study is to evaluate how the energy mix spreadsheet can be used to help airports do a comprehensive analysis of energy demand as the basis for an energy use strat- egy. The purpose is to indicate the strengths and limitations of the toolkit and stimulate its usage by other airports. Since Sea-Tac has ample experience evaluating, planning, and implementing energy and alternative fuel use strategies, it is uniquely positioned to evaluate the toolkit and how it can be applied to support the introduction of alternative fuels in the airport setting. 7.2.3 Research Approach Sea-Tac entered current year data and assumptions from the airport’s projected growth into the energy mix spreadsheet and let it forecast future energy mix. As part of the development of its environmental impact reduction strategy, Sea-Tac had previously produced energy use fore- casts using other means, enabling it to provide a practical evaluation of the spreadsheet’s utility. 7.2.4 Results and Discussion Over the next 5 years, the increase in projected fuel and energy estimated by the spreadsheet was 18%, which is an acceptable estimate in a business-as-usual assessment; however, based on energy conservation initiatives and increases in energy efficiency targeted by Sea-Tac, over the same time frame the airport is projecting a 30% decrease in vehicle fuel use and, pending the implementation of several facility-based energy conservation measures, a 14% decrease in electrical use. Overall, Sea-Tac found the energy mix spreadsheet to be a great way of showing a business- as-usual scenario that an organization can use to plan infrastructure improvements and an easy way to evaluate alternative scenarios. It may even help determine what, if any, mode shifts could help reduce the need for facility or roadway build-outs. Given all the work already done at the airport with respect to alternative fuels, the energy mix spreadsheet may not play a prominent role in determining what alternative fuels are used at Sea-Tac. If, however, the spreadsheet’s calculations suggest the airport may not be able to reach its emission reduction goals over the next 5 to 20 years, it will spur delving deeper into analyses and strategic planning. If, on the other hand, the spreadsheet’s assessment suggests the goals are readily reachable, it might be time to develop new, more aggressive, goals. The results from the spreadsheet and, just as important, working through the data entry can help facilitate conversations between the different departments and interests at an airport. Any effort to facilitate a discussion on the different aspects of future fuels, environment, infrastruc- ture, and need is welcomed. The energy mix spreadsheet is a convenient way to display current airport fuel usage and allows for estimating airport service provider usage as well. Sea-Tac is expected to soon see a significant change in the use of alternative transportation fuels, so having knowledge of regulations regarding alternative fuel use would help the user better understand how to populate the energy matrix. For example, if there is a rule that all gov- ernment vehicles must use alternative fuels by 2018, the assumptions for that section can focus on forecasting trends to meet that rule. These assumptions can be tracked using the workbook spreadsheet of the toolkit. There, the user can keep track of regulatory considerations by specific fuel, which would help when putting data into the energy mix spreadsheet. There are certain aspects in which the toolkit can be strengthened. For example, the energy mix spreadsheet has some limitations with respect to anticipating improvements in aircraft and surface vehicle fuel efficiency, air traffic management system improvements, and energy

88 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs conservation efforts that will be key components for reducing demand for energy use in the future. The energy mix spreadsheet does not assume improvements in energy efficiency or con- servation explicitly. To capture these effects, the user can adjust the growth rate in air traffic activity (passenger, cargo, military, and GA) to reflect the gains in efficiency. For example, if air travel is projected to grow by 15% in 5 years, and energy efficiency is expected to reduce fuel consumption by 3% over the same time period, the adjusted projected growth rate would be 15% - 3% = 12%. Furthermore, the energy mix spreadsheet identifies infrastructure needs in terms of volume changes but does not account for requirements based on special circumstances or the ability to modify existing facilities. These types of considerations have to be accounted for by the user out- side of the energy mix spreadsheet. If these special circumstances result in the need for additional storage or distribution infrastructure, this information can be included in the “Infrastructure” worksheet of the energy mix spreadsheet. 7.2.5 Conclusions Sea-Tac believes this toolkit is most useful for medium-range forecasting, the span of 5 to 20 years out, where knowledge of fuels and technology is relatively certain. Anything that hap- pens in the next 5 years to radically change fuel mix will likely be less of a traditional planning effort and more of a reaction to some new initiative; beyond 20 years the energy mix becomes too speculative. In summary, absent an airport’s specific knowledge of goals for its future energy mix and needs, the energy mix spreadsheet can be useful in developing a conversation about energy and fuel. As mentioned previously, any way to facilitate a discussion on the different aspects of future fuels, environment, infrastructure and need, by the multiple parties involved at an airport, is much appreciated. In addition, since industry data is the basis for calculating forecasts, the results can readily be used to truth check other airport analyses and environmental goal setting related to energy and fuel. It is likely that the more time is put into using the toolkit, beyond the initial evaluation, the more valuable it will become. The abilities to track progress in meeting goals and to customize fuel and energy types give the tool a dynamic feel. 7.3 Support of Business Plan for Alternative Fuel Use and Production 7.3.1 Overview of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) is the busiest airport in the United States and the world. The airport is a major hub for Delta and Southwest airlines, serving a significant amount of domestic and foreign destinations. ATL has many unique characteristics with respect to the potential use of alternative fuels. It is one of the largest airports in the United States in terms of aircraft operations and, consequently, jet fuel consumption. The large number of aircraft operations also translates into strong demand for ground transportation fuels for both airside and groundside vehicles. ATL is also an important air cargo facility, with the associated significant traffic of heavy-duty trucks and potential demand for diesel and other fuels suitable for large trucks, such as CNG. In addition, ATL has long-term goals associated with reducing its use of electric power from the grid as well as the need to dispose of significant amounts of MSW, which could be used as feedstock for a number of alternative fuel production processes. Finally, as of 2012, the airport is scoping potential uses for a 39-acre parcel on the airport’s property

Representative case Studies 89 that has been set aside and could be used, for example, to house an “Energy Park” (Hartsfield- Jackson 2011). 7.3.2 Case Study Objective The objective of this case study is to illustrate how this guidebook and toolkit can be used to support an airport in the identification of strategic opportunities to promote the use of alterna- tive fuels. First, these materials can be used by the airport to understand its total energy demand (from both on- and off-airport users) and to create scenarios of possible future use. Second, the airport can use the output of this demand profile characterization to inform the business case for potential alternative fuel producers who may be interested in supplying the airport. 7.3.3 Information-Gathering Approach To understand its energy use profile, the airport needs to gather information from a variety of sources. This process will require effort because an airport is not expected to have access to energy use information outside the activities that it directly controls. Examples of data that may not be readily available to an airport include fuel use by airline GSE, ground transportation vehicles, and private vehicles. Thus, the airport is encouraged to follow a tiered approach. The first step is to gather as much information as is available from airport-owned energy uses, such as airport vehicles and buildings. In the case of ATL, the airport has gathered a fair amount of this information in Appendix E of its annual Sustainable Management Plan (Hartsfield-Jackson 2011). Relevant data that can be extracted from this document includes fuel consumption by airport vehicles and buildings in 2010, as shown in Table 21. A second step is to contact the main energy users at the airport. At the very least, the airport should be able to obtain jet fuel consumption data from the fuel farm operator or the airlines. This data may also include fuel dispensed for GSE. The airport should also contact rental car operators, fleet vehicle operators, and cargo truck operators for information that would enable an estimate of fuel consumption. Third, depending on resource availability, the airport could also survey energy users. This survey would be particularly helpful to estimate fuel use by pri- vate vehicles and employees. All this information can be organized and input into the energy mix spreadsheet to generate both a baseline and projected scenarios (note that the energy mix spreadsheet can generate high-level estimates of fuel consumption for many users; however, to the extent that the airport can gather the information from the primary energy users, the energy values will be more accurate). With respect to supporting the business case for potential alternative fuel producers who may be interested in supplying the airport, several steps are recommended. First, the airport should engage alternative fuel companies that may benefit from the location of the airport or from the availability of particular types of feedstock in the proximity of the airport. The airport should also indicate if there are any facilities or land available for use by any interested producers. Sec- ond, the airport can demonstrate the potential for multi-modal energy demand by exercising the energy mix spreadsheet and showing the results to interested fuel producers. The parameters User Type Gasoline (000 gal) Diesel (000 gal) CNG (000 gal) Electricity (GWh) Airport vehicles 138 97 4 0 Airport buildings 0 32 0 288 Table 21. Example of energy use at ATL in 2010 (Source: Hartsfield-Jackson 2011).

90 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs that the airport can explore include changes in the growth rate of aviation activity, changes in the fuel mix for both aircraft and surface vehicles, and the time horizon. These scenarios can be combined with information gathered from the potential fuel producers to match their projected fuel production. Thus, the energy matrix can be used to specify targets in terms of volume for different fuels at a certain point in the future. At the same time, the data from the fuel producers can be fed back into the energy matrix to indicate how close they might be in fulfilling the pro- jected demand. This information can give potential producers a high-level estimate of the size of the market for different products at the airport. This can be especially important for processes that result in a number of co-products, such as alternative jet fuel and green diesel. In the case of ATL, three companies representing various process types were approached to gauge their interest in producing alternative fuels for delivery at the airport. These companies included an ATJ company, a thermochemical-and-MSW-to-liquids producer, and an HEFA company. The companies were interested in engaging with the airport because of the availabil- ity of infrastructure and feedstock in the proximity of the airport that fit their business needs and the significant demand for fuel at the airport not only from aircraft but also from ground transportation, among other reasons. In addition, the availability of airport land for a potential energy park was of interest to two of them. Each company was asked to provide information that would support subsequent, more in-depth analysis, including proposed size of facility and infrastructure requirements, production volume, feedstock utilization and supply, and an initial environmental assessment of the production process. As of the writing of this guidebook, the airport and the alternative fuel companies were still in the exploratory phase. The energy mix spreadsheet was exercised in a limited capacity to demon- strate its applicability. A next step in this process is to extend the formal analysis of the propos- als submitted by the potential fuel producers to perform a detailed study of costs and benefits for each proposed facility. The workbook spreadsheet can be used to help in the assessment of the costs, benefits, regulatory, and siting considerations for each one. All this information can then be used by the airport to evaluate the different alternatives and by the fuel producers to strengthen their business case. 7.3.4 Conclusion The process described above demonstrates how the thought process behind the guidebook and toolkit can be useful in scoping the benefits and costs of having an alternative fuels facility on or near an airport. These materials can help airports where the question is not only should the option for alternative fuels supply be investigated but also how should the opportunities be evaluated. As of the writing of this guidebook, conversations between ATL and a number of alternative fuel producers are ongoing with the help of the guidebook and toolkit. 7.4 Review of Siting Considerations 7.4.1 Overview of Tulsa International Airport Tulsa International Airport (TUL) is the second busiest commercial airport in Oklahoma and the primary gateway for residents of the northern and eastern parts of the state. It is the primary maintenance base for American Airlines, handling the maintenance for the company’s Boeing 737, 757, 767, and 777 aircraft as well as for its sizable fleet of McDonnell Douglas MD-80s. It serves as a major regional airport, a GA gateway, and economic engine for the state of Oklahoma. Determining the necessary future capacity of airport fuel facilities is critical to the ability of an airport to continue to adequately serve its various users and customers and to correctly size any new facilities to allow for future growth in demand. Tulsa is anticipated to see growth in passen-

Representative case Studies 91 ger enplanements of approximately 7% between 2011 and 2015, 17% between 2011 and 2020, and 42% between 2011 and 2030 (FAA 2011b). Prudent planning for infrastructure can mitigate the difficulties associated with providing increased infrastructure to support this growth. The future provision for alternative fuels at the airport is another purpose of undertaking this step in the site planning process. Though construction and other regulations associated with tank storage on an airport are similar regardless of the type of fuel contained in those tanks, some logistical differences, particularly in the area of fuel delivery, are to be expected. For example, a lack of pipeline access may have consequences as to the ideal location of a potential new alternative jet fuel storage tank. Furthermore, depending on how aggressive an airport may be in introducing alternative fuels, it is possible that the required storage of conventional fuels could stabilize or decrease in future years as alternative fuels compose a larger share of total fuel use. This could have an effect on the level and direction of future infrastructure investment, possibly steering it toward providing solutions to expand alternative fuel storage rather than conventional fuel storage. However, some alternative fuels are drop-in, lessening the necessary changes that must be made to fueling infrastructure in those situations. 7.4.2 Case Study Objective The objective of this case study is to illustrate the process for identifying the main siting considerations for alternative fuel distribution programs discussed in Section 6. This process is illustrated using TUL as an example. Tulsa was selected because of its mix of commercial and GA traffic and ground transportation refueling facilities that are common to many other loca- tions. At the same time, Tulsa has very unique characteristics, such as hosting a major aircraft maintenance operation, which are not commonly found on other airports. Therefore, the gen- eral approach described here can be applied at other airports but the specific observations are only valid for TUL. 7.4.3 Approach This case study follows the process shown in Figure 9, which reproduces Figure 6 from Section 6.1. 7.4.3.1 Step 1: Fuel Facility Inventory An initial fuel facility inventory of TUL is shown in Figure 10 and Table 22. For each storage facility, this inventory includes the distributor, tank owner, type, size, and content. Overall, total fuel storage capacity at the airport consists of the following: • 520,000 gallons of Jet A • 42,000 gallons of avgas • 110,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline • 17,000 gallons of diesel 7.4.3.2 Step 2: Fuel Requirements Fuel infrastructure requirements for existing and future operations can be derived from an assessment of current and projected fuel use. These estimates need to be done for both aviation fuels (Track A in Figure 9) and non-aviation fuels (Track B in Figure 9). The assessments may be included on an Airport Master Plan or from other independent analysis. For example, the energy mix toolkit can be used to estimate approximate values for current and future fuel use. As a hypothetical example, TUL may be interested in having 10% alternative jet fuel on the airfield by 2017, while at the same time replacing 50% of its diesel-powered trucks with CNG-fueled equipment and converting all diesel-powered GSE to electricity.

92 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs 1. Fuel Facility Inventory Aviation vs. Non-Aviation • Fuel Type • Tank Type/Size • Ownership/Distribution • Condition/Compliance • Utilities • Mapping 2. Fuel Requirements • Airport Fuel Demand Analysis 5. Site Plan Screening Analysis • Regional Transportation Planning Document Review • Zoning and Corporate Planning Review • Federal and State Regulatory Agency Compliance Review • Hazard to Flight Analysis • Preliminary Environmental Review • Building Code Review 6. Recommended Fuel Facility Site Plan Confirmation • Preliminary Cost Estimates • State and Federal Funding Eligibility (Including Grants) • Private Capital Funding Sources • FAA Grant Assurance Compliance • ALP Drawing Set Update for FAA Review & Approval • Environmental Review Process (NEPA) • State and Local Environmental Permitting 7. Fuel Facility Construction • Design & Engineering Drawings • Final Cost Estimates • Coordinate Phasing & Development for Required Support Projects • Building Permits TRACK B Non-Aviation Fuel Projections • Unleaded • Diesel • Green Diesel (Alternative) • CNG (Alternative) • LPG (Alternative) 3. Development Goals • Expansion • Relocation/Decom- missioning • Consolidation • Upgrade • Alternative Fuels Facilities (Public vs. Private Use) 4. Preliminary Development Sites (Non-Aviation Fuel) • Vehicular access (landside) • Easement access (underground pipeline/hydrant distribution • Setback criteria (property line, roadways, buildings, etc.) TRACK A Aviation Fuel Projections • Jet A • Avgas • Green Jet A (Alternative) 3. Development Goals • Expansion • Relocation/Decom- missioning • Consolidation • Upgrade • Alternative Fuels (Green Jet A Drop-in) 4. Preliminary Development Sites (Aviation Fuel) • Vehicular access (landside) • Vehicular access (airside) • Easement access (underground pipeline/hydrant distribution Figure 9. Planning process for siting alternative fuel storage and distribution facilities at airports (reproduced from Section 6.1)

Representative case Studies 93 7.4.3.3 Step 3: Development Goals The main task is to determine whether additional infrastructure is required to support alter- native fuel storage and distribution facilities. In the hypothetical example in Step 2, since alterna- tive jet fuel is drop-in, no additional jet fuel infrastructure would need to be provided, assuming that the combined volume of conventional and alternative jet fuel can be handled with existing facilities. With respect to diesel, since the goal is to replace 50% diesel of trucks with CNG trucks and convert all diesel-powered GSE to electricity, there would be no need for additional infra- structure to handle diesel. In fact, it may be possible that existing diesel-related infrastructure would be redundant and, thus, could be removed. The introduction of CNG would require the provision of new infrastructure, including storage, handling, and refueling facilities. With respect to electric GSE, recharging stations would be required and an analysis of current and Background image © 2011 Google Earth Note: Some of the 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/Main/Blurbs/ 168378.aspx) retains the color versions. Figure 10. Fuel storage facilities at TUL.

94 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs Distributor Tank Owner Type* Size Content FBO Atlantic Aviation UST 30,000 Jet A UST 8,000 Avgas UST 10,000 Diesel UST 10,000 Unleaded UST 30,000 Jet A UST 8,000 Avgas UST 30,000 Jet A FBO Bizjet AST 2,000 Jet A UST 20,000 Jet A UST 20,000 Jet A UST 20,000 Jet A Private QuikTrip UST 12,000 Jet A FBO Premier Jet/Legacy AST 20,000 Jet A Truck 5,000 Jet A FBO Sparks/Sparrowhawk UST 12,000 Avgas Airline SWA/Sky Tanking Tulsair Beechcraft AST 112,000 Jet A AST 112,000 Jet A FBO UST 20,000 Jet A AST 12,000 Avgas AST 500 Unleaded UST 20,000 Jet A Truck 1,200 Avgas Truck 2,200 Jet A Truck 2,200 Jet A Truck 3,000 Jet A Truck 1,200 Avgas FBO UST 20,000 Jet A UST 20,000 Jet A Private World Publishing Co. U.S. Aviation UST 20,000 Jet A Rental Car Alamo UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car National UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Hertz UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Avis UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Budget UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Thrifty UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Enterprise UST 12,000 Unleaded Rental Car Dollar UST 12,000 Unleaded Private American Parking UST 2,500 Diesel Airport TAA Maintenance UST 5,000 Diesel UST 5,000 Unleaded *UST – underground storage tank; AST – aboveground storage tank Table 22. Fuel storage inventory at TUL. projected electricity use should be performed to determine if the current electricity distribution infrastructure is sufficient to handle the anticipated loads. 7.4.3.4 Step 4: Preliminary Development Sites Once the development goals are identified, the next step is to do a preliminary identification of potential sites for additional infrastructure that may be required. A number of key planning considerations in the siting of fuel storage facilities on the airport must be taken into account when looking for potential sites. The type of siting considerations and associated regulations that planners need to observe are illustrated in Figures 11, 12, and 13. Figure 11 shows the GA ramp at TUL and its primary Jet A storage tank. This graphic shows in detail how this area conforms to both regulatory and practical constraints. For

Representative case Studies 95 Background image © 2011 Google Earth Figure 11. A GA fuel storage area at TUL. Background image © 2011 Google Earth Figure 12. Remote aviation fuel storage with pipeline to terminal area fueling depot at TUL.

96 Assessing opportunities for Alternative Fuel Distribution Programs Background image © 2011 Google Earth Figure 13. Terminal area refueler truck depot at TUL. example, the figure shows the extent of the security fencing, which is required by the Trans- portation Security Agency, and how it relates to the landside access to the storage tank. Additionally it shows the 50-foot clearance line from each hangar for two primary reasons. The first is to show that any refueling vehicles parked near the storage tank are at least 50 feet from all other buildings, vehicles, and aircraft, an NFPA statute. The second is to show that the storage tank (and its associated fencing) is not creating an obstacle or safety hazard near a designated aircraft moving area, also an NFPA rule. That designated aircraft movement area is highlighted by the taxiway centerline on the chart. Some reference documents pertinent to this illustration include the following: • NFPA 409, Chapter 5, Apron Drainage: Ramps used for aircraft fueling adjacent to hangar structures shall comply with NFPA 415 (the apron or approach at the entrance to the hangar shall slope away from the hangar with a minimum grade of 1% for the first 50 feet). • NFPA 30, Chapter 22, for Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) location and separation criteria. • NFPA 30, Chapter 23, for Underground Storage Tank (UST) location and separation criteria. • NFPA 30, Chapter 5, for loading requirements of aircraft fuel servicing tank vehicles. • Taxilane Object Free Area standards based on FAA AC 150/5300-13 for Group III Aircraft (aircraft with wingspans up to but not including 118 feet). Figure 12 presents an example of a remote aviation fuel storage area with efficient landside access and a pipeline to the terminal area. The illustration shows the spill containment facilities surrounding the ASTs. For security reasons, a perimeter fence is required, as shown in the figure. Some reference documents pertinent to this illustration include the following:

Representative case Studies 97 • NFPA 30, Chapter 22, for AST location and separation criteria. • NFPA 30, Chapter 22, for control of spills from ASTs (i.e., remote impounding, impounding around tanks by open diking, impounding around tanks by closed-top diking, or secondary containment-type ASTs). • See local roadway engineering design standards for tanker trailer and emergency vehicle response maneuvering (e.g., typical outside turning radius of 60 feet and curb radii at corners of 30 to 40 feet). Figure 13 presents an example of a terminal area refueler truck depot located in proximity to the commercial aircraft parking areas and gates. The figure shows how the refueling area is fed by pipeline from the remote storage area and the road access to trucks to come and refuel. Some reference documents pertinent to this illustration include the following: • NFPA 30, Chapter 5, for loading requirements of aircraft fuel servicing tank vehicles. • NFPA 415, Annex A, Apron Drainage at Terminal Building: The apron shall slope away from the Terminal Building with a minimum grade of 1% for the first 50 feet. • See local roadway engineering design standards for tanker trailer and emergency vehicle response maneuvering (e.g., typical outside turning radius of 60 feet and curb radii at corners of 30 to 40 feet). • NFPA 30, Chapter 21, for detection of leakage from USTs (e.g., maintain accurate inventory records and/or implement a leak detection program). • Taxilane Object Free Area standards based on FAA AC 150/5300-13 for Group III Aircraft (aircraft with wingspans up to but not including 118 feet). 7.4.3.5 Step 5: Screening Analysis and Preliminary Fuel Facility Site Plans Once the preliminary development sites have been identified, the next step is to develop a draft schematic plan and perform a more systematic screening of the potential sites for compli- ance with applicable design criteria, NFPA codes and standards, and local fire codes. This review should also check for consistency with existing zoning and regional transportation planning documents, a supplemental hazard flight analysis, and a preliminary environmental review of the draft schematic site plans. When all this information is obtained, careful review and com- parison should be undertaken to identify the preferred or recommended one(s). 7.4.3.6 Step 6: Recommended Fuel Facility Site Plans With the preferred site(s) identified, the next step is to start working on preliminary design and engineering drawings with cost estimates for the proposed facilities. It would also be impor- tant to identify those portions of the project that may be eligible for state or federal funding and to confirm FAA grant assurances. The permitting process as well as a NEPA review should also be started in this step. 7.4.3.7 Step 7: Fuel Facility Construction With a final site selection and design and engineering drawings with cost estimates completed, construction of the fuel facility can begin. 7.4.4 Conclusion This case study illustrated the suggested process for analyzing siting considerations associated with alternative fuel facilities using TUL as an example. While every airport will have its own set of unique local characteristics and conditions, the process presented here is intended to be general enough to apply to most circumstances and to be helpful to airports of any size, opera- tions profile, and geographic location.