Methodology to Develop the Airport Terminal Building Energy Use Intensity (ATB-EUI) Benchmarking Tool (2016)

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.

2 Figure 1. The Process of Data Analysis and Development of EUI Benchmarks 2. Defining Annual EUI per ATB Zone Figure 2 shows the process used to determine the proposed Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for the Airport Terminal Building (ATB) Zones. In this process, published EUIs were gathered and compared to determine the most representative EUI for the expected Zones in the ATB. As shown in the upper portion of the figure, various sources were reviewed to determine if suitable EUIs were available. The result of this review produced the Preliminary EUIs. In the lower portion of Figure 2, an ongoing process is indicated to crosscheck EUIs with representative data from actual facilities (i.e., utility billing data, square footage, etc.). The result of this crosscheck was intended to produce the Proposed EUIs for use in the final report for this project. Define Data Collection: Input Form Airport 1 Airport 2 Airport 3 Airport 4 Airport 5 Airport 6 Airport 7 Airport 8 Airport 9 Airport 10 ATB Systems ATB Zones  People Movers, Escalators, Elevators  Baggage Handling System  POU systems (electric, heating/cooling)  GSE Charging Systems  Exterior Lighting  Other Concession - Food  Concession - Retail  Office  Transient Space  Ticketing Check-In  Departures Hold Room  Departure/Border Security  Outbound/Inbound Baggage Handling  Arrivals/Baggage Claim  Service (Mech/Elec/Server)  Define EUI and EU Table: • Proposed EUI per ATB Zone • Proposed EU per ATB System Apply Data Collection & Table Analysis to Participating Airport Terminal Buildings (ATBs) Define: Representative Airport Terminal Buildings Compare & Crosscheck Results between ATBs Compare and Crosscheck the Calculated Table EU and EUI with Measured EUI based on Utility Information Estimate: Measured EUI based on Utility Information

3 Figure 2. Defining Proposed EUI per Airport Terminal Building Zone Some of the existing sources for EUI values focus on EUI for one specific building type/Zone (e.g., the PNNL Post Occupancy Evaluation of 22 GSA Office Buildings). Other sources provide values for several different building types/Zones (e.g., CBECS 2003, EPA Portfolio Manager, California Commercial End Use Survey). Each of the sources considered in this study relies upon a previous survey of existing building performance to establish EUI benchmark values for a specific building type or a group of building types. These sources established benchmarking values for building performance measured by EUI, which are relevant to this study because they provide a context for establishing the Preliminary EUIs per ATB Zone. The following is a brief review of the EUI sources. 2.1 Comparison of EUI Sources per Function/Zone Table 1 summarizes the differences and similarities between the three main EUI sources; i.e., 2003 CBECS, EPA Portfolio Manager, and the California Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS). In Table 1, the varying values of ten (10) Zones identified in ATBs are shown. Six (6) building types from the 2003 CBECS database were used to represent the ten (10) ATB Zones. Five (5) ATB Zones were represented using the 2003 CBECS “Public Assembly” category, (i.e., Transient Space, Ticketing Check-In, Departures Hold Room, Outbound/Inbound Baggage Handling, and Arrivals/Baggage Claim) (U.S. EIA 2003). In the case of the EPA Portfolio Manager, six (6) building types were also used to represent the ten (10) ATB Zones. The EPA Portfolio Manager’s “Public Services-Transportation Terminal/Station” building type represented the five (5) ATB Zones: Transient Space, Ticketing Check-In, Departures Hold Room, Outbound/Inbound Baggage Handling, and Arrivals/Baggage Claim (U.S. EPA 2013). The 2003 CEUS’ building types are the same as CBECS’ building types except for the “Public Order & Safety.” The CEUS data does not include this building type (LBNL 2008). Define EUI and EU Table: • Proposed EUI per ATB Zone • Proposed EU per ATB System  Restaurants  Other Businesses  Sub-metered Participating Airport Terminals CBECS EUI per ATB Zone Preliminary EUI per ATB Zone Actual Utility Data Crosscheck Other Existing EUI Sources Proposed EUI per ATB Zone Other General Information EPA’s ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager  California Commercial End Use survey (CEUS)  PNNL Post Occupancy Evaluation of 22 GSA Office Buildings  PNNL End-Use Load and Consumer Assessment Program (ELCAP)   ASHRAE Standard 105-2007  ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, Chapter 11, Energy Cost Budget  California Title 24, Part 6, Performance Method  ASHRAE Standard 100-2006  Arch 2030

4 Table 1. Comparison of EUIs for Building Types from Difference Sources associated with ATB Zone No. Airport Terminal Building Zone CBECS Data (2003) EPA Portfolio Manager (Using 2003 CBECS Data) California Commercial End Use Survey - CEUS (2008) Building Type Mean EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Building Type Median EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) Building Type Median EUI (kBtu/ft2-yr) 1 Concession Food Food Service 258 Food Sales & Service - Fast-Food Restaurant & Restaurant (CBECS Fast- Food & CBECS – Restaurant Cafeteria) 304 Food Services - Restaurant 333 2 Concession Retail Enclosed Mall 102 Retail - Enclosed Mall 94 Enclosed Shopping Center - Mall 80 3 Office Office 93 Office - Office (CBECS - Office &Bank/Financial) 67 Office - Professional 53 4 Transient Space Public Assembly 94 Public Services - Transportation Terminal/Station 45 Public Assembly 72 5 Ticketing Check-In Public Assembly 94 Public Services - Transportation Terminal/Station 45 Public Assembly 72 6 Departures Hold Room Public Assembly 94 Public Services - Transportation Terminal/Station 45 Public Assembly 72 7 Departure/Border Security Public Order & Safety 116 Public Services - Police Station (CBECS - Fire Station/Police Station) 88 NA NA 8 Outbound/Inbound Baggage Handling Public Assembly 94 Public Services - Transportation Terminal/Station 45 Public Assembly 72 9 Arrivals / Baggage Claim Public Assembly 94 Public Services - Transportation Terminal/Station 45 Public Assembly 72 10 Service (Mech/Elec/Server) Other 164 Other - Utility (CBECS - Other) 79 Other - Unknown 89 In general, as illustrated in Figure 3, the EUI sources compared in this study showed a wide variation in the EUIs for each of the ATB Zones due to several reasons, such as the EUI calculation methods (mean vs. median), the different building types/Zones, and the data sources (national vs. state-based). However, several trends can be observed. First, with the exception of the “Concession Food” category, the 2003 CBECS EUI values are above all other values, which is considered acceptable for the purposes of this study since the 2003 CBECS values are the most widely used EUI values in the HVAC industry. Second, several of the EPA Portfolio Manager values appear to be unreasonably low for average values for existing facilities (i.e., Public Services).

5 Figure 3. EUIs Comparison between Different Sources 2.2 Crosscheck with Actual Utility Data The study included several efforts to crosscheck the Preliminary EUIs per ATB Zone with the Actual Utility Data from businesses similar to those found in ATBs (such as full-service restaurants and fast- food establishments, etc.), or sub metered data from the participating airports. 2.2.1. Crosscheck Efforts The crosscheck efforts include the following: • An EUI Analysis of full-service restaurants in Raleigh, North Carolina (2014): This restaurant analysis is based on a survey of six (6) full-service restaurants in the area surrounding Raleigh, NC. This analysis was completed with the intent of informing this study by providing a EUI reference for the Concession - Food ATB Zone. This analysis includes annual whole-building energy consumption based on electricity and natural gas consumption for twelve month utility bills. 258 102 93 94 94 94 116 94 94 164 304 94 67 45 45 45 88 45 45 79 333 80 53 72 72 72 NA 72 72 89 0 100 200 300 400 Co nc es si on Fo od Co nc es si on Re ta il O ffi ce Tr an si en t S pa ce Ti ck et in g Ch ec k- In De pa tu re s Ho ld R oo m De pa rt ur e/ Bo rd er Se cu rit y O ut bo un d/ In bo un d Ba gg ag e H an dl in g Ar riv al s / Ba gg ag e Cl ai m Se rv ic e (M ec h/ El ec /S er ve r) E U I (k B tu /s qf t- yr ) Airport Terminal Building Zone CBECS (2003) EPA Portfolio Manager California Commercial End Use Survey - CEUS (2003-2004)

6 • An EUI Analysis of full-service and fast-food restaurants in Bryan/College Station, Texas (2013- 2014): This analysis consists of surveying and analyzing full-service and fast-food restaurants located in Bryan/College Station, TX, with the intention of providing a reference EUI for the Concession - Food ATB Zone. The survey included full-service Mexican and Asian restaurants, and fast-food establishments serving burger, sandwich, pizza, donut, coffee, and yogurt. The analysis includes annual whole-building energy consumption based on electricity and natural gas consumption, whenever was available, for twelve month utility bills. 2.2.2. Summary and Discussion of Results The restaurant types included in the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) statistics were full-service and fast-food restaurants in Raleigh, NC and College Station, TX. Twelve month energy consumption data was considered. Both electricity and natural gas utility bills were included when possible. The analysis results are shown in Figure 4. The full-service and fast-food restaurants data was grouped and averaged: Full service, 485 kBtu/ft2-yr, and fast-food, 530 kBtu/ft2-yr. The CBECS EUI for the restaurant category is 258 kBtu/ft2-yr, a difference of 87.9% and 105.4% are observed. This large discrepancy can be due to the small sample of this study compared to the one used by CBECS, which includes nationwide spread of food-serving facilities. Therefore, for this study’s reliability, the research team decided to use the reported 2003 CBECS EUI values in determination of the ATB EUI values per Zone. Figure 4. EUIs Comparison among Actual Utility Data Sources and CBECS Values 2.3 Final Annual EUI per ATB Zone The research team’s recommendation was to adopt the 2003 CBECS values as the Final EUI per ATB Zone. The recommendation was made despite the fact that the 2003 CBECS values for “Concession Food” are the lowest of the values among other EUI sources, so all the EUI values are consistent with the remaining categories, and to avoid the need for additional variables as required by the EPA Portfolio Manager for these categories. 485 530 258 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Restaurant Fast Food CBECS To ta l E U I ( kB tu /ft 2 )