National Academies Press: OpenBook

Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts (2019)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Case Examples

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Findings
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Case Examples." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25609.
×
Page 79

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.

25 The industry survey data provide an overview of what airports are doing to plan and to imple- ment GHG reduction projects. To complement this information, airport staff were interviewed to learn more about specific GHG reduction efforts and to detail those experiences for others in the industry. The author started with the 125 GHG reduction strategies listed in ACRP Report 56 and selected specific strategies that have been implemented by airports since the report’s publication in 2011. A minimum of 10 case examples was set on the basis of direction provided in the problem statement, and examples were identified to represent a variety of airport sizes and geographic locations. The case examples were developed from initial airport responsiveness and additional case examples were selected on the basis of those already prepared, with the goal of providing a diversity of experiences. A list of the case examples is provided in Table 3-1. The table includes the airport name, the airport’s FAA identification code, the airport’s location, the airport’s FAA hub or classification of size, the FAA region it is located in, the GHG initiative profiled, the emission Scope (e.g., 1, 2, or 3) that is applicable, and the practice category and identifier number from ACRP Report 56. The individual case examples follow in detail and include a summary table with some of the same information plus the following: • Financial information indicating sources of funding • Rankings for the practice relative to implementation, operations, and maintenance as con- tained in the ACRP Report 56 fact sheets • Emission reduction estimates when provided by the airport or attributable to an independent source In Table 3-1, the order that the case examples are listed is based on general ease of implementation—from simple to complex. This is also the order that the case examples are pre- sented in this chapter—they are organized by relative complexity, with the simplest practices applicable to a larger portion of airports presented first. The location of the airports and the types of airports that participated in the case examples are shown in Figure 3-1. The final list of 17 case examples includes 21 airports with all of the FAA regions represented. The case examples include practices implemented to reduce a range of Scope 1, 2, and 3 emis- sions. Of the 13 initiative categories presented in ACRP Report 56, seven are included in the case examples—renewable energy (five case examples), energy management (four case examples), ground transportation (three case examples), and business planning (three case examples) are covered the most. C H A P T E R 3 Case Examples

26 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts New York & New Jersey SWF, TEB (GT-14, GT-01) 13 San Francisco SFO CA L Western/ Pacific Zero Net Energy Building 1 Business Planning (BP-08); Performance Measurement (PM-04) 14 Atlanta ATL GA L Southern Carbon Offsets 3 Business Planning (BP-07) 1 Columbus CMH OH M Great Lakes LED Airfield Lights 2 Energy Management (EM-17) 2 St. Louis STL MO M Central Energy Audit and Efficiency Program 1 and 2 Performance Measurement (PM-02) 3 Sacramento SMF CA M Western/ Pacific Solar Power 2 Renewable Energy (RE-02); Energy Management (EM-04) 4 Portland Jetport PWM ME S Eastern GHG Inventory 1, 2, and 3 Business Planning (BP-01) 5 Cortez CEZ CO Non Northwest/ Mountain High-Efficiency Furnace 1 Energy Management (EM-21) 6 Austin AUS TX M Southwestern Thermal Energy Storage 1 Energy Management (EM-22) 7 South Bend SBN IN Non Great Lakes Ground Source Heating 1 and 2 Renewable Energy (RE-06) 8 Boise BOI ID S Northwest/ Mountain Solar Thermal 1 Renewable Energy (RE-03) 9 Dallas-Fort Worth DFW TX L Southwest Landfill Gas for Shuttle Buses 1 and 3 Ground Transportation (GT-14); Renewable Energy (RE-14) 10 Ketchikan KTN AK Non Alaskan Biomass Boiler 1 Renewable Energy (RE-05) 11 Birmingham BHM AL S Southern Electric GSE 2 and 3 Ground Support Equipment (GS-01) 12 Port Authority of EWR, JFK, LGA, NY, NJ L Eastern Electric Ground Transportation 1, 2, and 3 Ground Transportation ID Airport Airport Code State FAA Hub FAA Region GHG Initiative Emission Scope ACRP Report 56 Category Table 3-1. Airport case examples of greenhouse gas reduction initiatives.

Case Examples 27 15 San Diego SAN CA L Western/ Pacific TNC GHG Reduction Program 3 Ground Transportation (GT-17) 16 Seattle- Tacoma SEA WA L Northwest/ Mountain Sustainable Aviation Fuels 3 Airfield Design and Operations (AF-13) 17 Norman Manley KIN Jamaica M NA Solar At-Gate Demonstration 2 and 3 Airfield Design and Operations (AF-1); Renewable Energy (RE-02) Note: L = large; M = medium; S = small. ID Airport Airport Code State FAA Hub FAA Region GHG Initiative Emission Scope ACRP Report 56 Category Table 3-1. (Continued). Figure 3-1. Airports included in case examples.

28 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction Replacing older airfield lighting systems with newer, light-emitting diode (LED) technology has emerged as a practical option for reducing GHG emissions. According to the Electrical Test- ing Laboratory, a certified 1W LED fixture is five times more energy efficient than traditional quartz-incandescent elevated fixtures, resulting in an immediate savings in electricity (Woods, 2004). This translates to fewer energy-related emissions as well as lower electricity bills for the airport. Additionally, LED lighting can reduce airfield maintenance requirements because it has a significantly longer life expectancy (Burns, Dennie, Elshetwy, Lean, and Vigilante, 2015). John Glenn Columbus International Airport (CMH) was at the forefront of the industry when it decided to incorporate LED lighting into a runway reconstruction project. As the first airport to install an all high-intensity LED runway lighting system (Kouril and May, 2014/2015), CMH encountered some initial hurdles that required adjustments. The airport’s cooperative efforts with both the FAA and lighting manufacturers were key to demonstrating the technol- ogy and to standardizing operational procedures. Many airports have since progressed with converting runway lights to LEDs; however, FAA restrictions on using AIP funds for this type of project remain. Project Details The LED lighting project for the reconstructed Runway 10R/28L, also known as the south runway at CMH, encompasses all lighting associated with the airfield including centerline, edge lights (both flush-mounted on the pavement as well as elevated adjacent to the pavement), touch- down (TDZ), taxiway, runway guard lights (RGL), and all signage (see Figure 3-2). In addition Airport Type: Medium Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 2: Implementing energy efficiency to reduce the amount of electricity purchased from off-site providers FAA Region: Great Lakes Financing: • AIP match • Rebates from the utility company ACRP Report 56 Category: Energy Management ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation timeframe: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual operations and maintenance (O&M): 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 55% reduction in electricity consumption Energy Management EM-17: Install LED Runway and Taxiway Lighting 3.1 LED Runway Lighting Installation; John Glenn Columbus International Airport (CMH), OH

Case Examples 29 to LED lighting, the project integrated several other GHG-reducing elements including recycled pavement, limited construction vehicle trips, and hard-wired construction lamps that replaced traditional diesel-fueled lights. Upon successful completion of the south runway, Runway 10L/28R (the north runway) was retrofitted with LEDs as well. Implementation Between 2009 and 2013, CMH completed the replacement of its south runway by construct- ing a new runway and converting the old runway to a taxiway. Due to concerns over lack of heat radiation for melting snow and ice, lack of an infrared signal detectable by pilots when off at night, and the difference in brightness, the FAA had not yet certified the use of LED lights for airfield runway operations, and therefore, this aspect of the project was ineligible for AIP fund- ing. CMH opted to include the LED component as part of its own direct cost share. This decision catalyzed the FAA certification process and approval of commercial edge and centerline LED lights was completed prior to the installation of the system for the south runway. CMH’s work with the lighting manufacturer and the FAA enabled other airports to install LED airfield light- ing, funding these projects with AIP grants. However, the FAA has since restricted specific air- field lights from AIP funding eligibility, as noted in the AIP Handbook, specifically obstruction lights, approach lights, and high-intensity runway edge lights (FAA, 2014; K. Kodsi, personal communication, Jan. 30, 2019). The number of lights for the new runway was expanded by about one-third from the old run- way. Once installed, several operational changes were necessary. First, the brightness of the lights had to be decreased from that previously set for incandescent lights because of pilot complaints that the lights were too bright. It was determined that—in most cases—LED lights should oper- ate one step below the level previously used for the incandescent lights. When the lights were first installed, snow impacts were expected to be inconsequential; there- fore, heating elements were thought unnecessary. However, after installation, snow impacts were greater than expected, and the LED lights were retrofitted by the manufacturer with “arctic kits” specifically designed to melt snow. On the basis of this experience, arctic kits were included with the expansion of LED lighting to the north runway. However, even with the arctic kits, all runway lights (both LED and incandescent) can be covered by heavy snow; these lights must be uncovered by plowing to meet FAA standards for maintaining runway visibility. Snow removal vehicles need to switch from a steel plow blade to a composite or rubber blade to minimize lamp damage. LED lights have a 7-year warranty and expected life is on average 10 years as compared to 1–2 years for incandescent light. The LED runway lights and the housing can be fully removed and replaced when needed. For edge and other lamps, the existing LED bulbs can simply be replaced with a new one. The number of repairs has decreased, reducing maintenance capital and labor costs, and minimizing disruption on the runway, which improves both labor efficiency and safety. Figure 3-2. LED runway lights at CMH.

30 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Lessons Learned • FAA does not allow a mix of incandescent and LED lighting on the airfield; therefore, an upgrade requires a comprehensive approach matched with a suitable investment. • A heating element, such as the arctic kit, is necessary to ensure effective operation in the CMH climate. • Light intensity levels for various LED operating conditions must be tested and established. • Utility rebate programs are often available and should be considered to support financing. Effectiveness • Electricity consumption on a per light basis decreased by about 55%. • The number of lights for the new runway was expanded by about one-third from the old runway. Even with the increase in the total number of lights, LED technology resulted in a significant decrease in electricity consumption. Cobenefits • Improved efficiency for operations and maintenance activities • Flagship for promoting airport GHG reduction measures Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) in Georgia switched more than 16,000 runway and taxiway lights to LED in 2015. • Nineteen-year old runway lighting at Chippewa County International Airport (CIU) in Michigan was upgraded to LED in 2018. • Springdale Municipal Airport (ASG), Arkansas, opened a newly paved runway with LED runway lights in early 2019.

Case Examples 31 Introduction Airports operate and maintain a variety of buildings and associated facilities used to support customer and tenant aviation activities. Each of those facilities requires heating, cooling, and electricity to safely and efficiently support all functions of airport operations. An important first step in determining where energy efficiency measures can be best and most effectively imple- mented is to conduct a study of all energy systems. Customarily referred to as an energy audit, the study accounts for all heating, cooling, and lighting systems, their age for consideration of useful life, and other characteristics to determine how they are operating and what could be done to improve their efficiency. In recognition of the economic and environmental value of energy efficiency improvements, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of AIP funds for energy audits and subsequent improve- ments in the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act. St. Louis Lambert International Airport (STL) offers an example of an airport that has prepared an energy audit program, implemented improvements, and received financial and environmental benefits from those actions. Project Details STL pursued a number of different initiatives that led to the development and implementa- tion of an energy efficiency program, including the following: • GHG inventories in 2005, 2010, 2013, and 2015 • Environmental management system (EMS) in 2012 • City of St. Louis Sustainability in 2013 Airport Type: Medium Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1 and 2: Implementing energy efficiency to reduce the amount of electricity purchased from off-site providers FAA Region: Central Financing: • AIP match • Rebates from the utility company ACRP Report 56 Category: Performance Measurement ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation timeframe: 1 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 8.1m kWh of electricity avoided annually Performance Measurement PM-02: Perform Energy Audits 3.2 Energy Audit and Efficiency Program; St. Louis Lambert International (STL), MO

32 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts These efforts generated a list of energy efficiency projects, the first of which was completed in 2010. STL partnered with its local utility, Ameren Missouri, to identify projects and apply for cash rebates after completion. The airport receives cash from the utility to help offset the capital costs invested and it also saves money into the future through reduced energy costs. The number of projects completed by STL and the associated cost savings on an annual basis are included in Table 3-2. Subsequently, an energy audit was undertaken by the Electric Power Research Institute in 2015. The audit will be used to support future efficiency projects and potential funding. Implementation It is customary for planning and implementation to be conducted as parallel processes, each learning from the other. This was the case when STL was planning an energy efficiency program and accessing rebates from Ameren for the implementation of efficiency projects. The first projects, completed in 2010 and 2011, involved replacing T12 interior fluorescent light bulbs in the concourses with more efficient T8 bulbs. These projects required little research as the EPA was phasing out T12 bulbs because of their lower efficiency and their mercury content. At the same time, STL was using the initial projects to become familiar with the Ameren Missouri’s BizSavers® rebate program, and its requirements. As STL began developing complementary planning efforts including the 2012 EMS, the 2013 City Sustainability Plan, and GHG inventories, it also set up a utility task force to reduce con- sumption of energy and water. From 2013 through 2015, STL implemented 31 energy efficiency projects and submitted them for rebates through the BizSavers Program, which returned to the airport $490,642. In addition to the immediate cash payment, Ameren estimated that the efficiency projects would reduce STL energy costs by an average of $480,000 annually. Many of the projects have involved replacing older light bulbs and fixtures with LED lighting as well as installing smart building devices such as occupancy sensors and programmable thermo- stats. The lighting projects were prioritized on the basis of the age of the fixture as well as the estimated return on investment for upgrading to more energy efficient products. The next phase of the program is targeting the replacement of building systems, for example, chilled water pumps. STL is also pursuing the Building Operator Certification® Program to bench- mark energy efficiency performance. As an indication of program success, STL received the Missouri Governor’s Energy Efficiency Award in 2016 for its reduction in energy use. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity avoided by STL has a comparatively greater impact on GHG reductions than in other parts of the country because 75% of the electricity in the grid in its Year Project Count Cash Incentive Annual kWh Savings Annual Bill Savings 2010 1 $9,162 142,683 $11,885 2011 2 $24,439 520,224 $43,335 2013 6 $23,804 424,138 $35,331 2014 10 $67,085 1,130,327 $94,156 2015 12 $332,486 6,637,416 $552,897 Table 3-2. STL energy efficiency projects, 2010–2015.

Case Examples 33 region is generated by coal power plants. Using EPA’s eGrid emissions rate for the Southeast Region, STL’s energy efficiency efforts have resulted in approximately 8.4 million pounds of CO2e annually. Lessons Learned • It is often better to take advantage of opportunities to implement even if the planning process is not yet complete. • While utility companies have different programs, airports should investigate financial oppor- tunities associated with energy conservation. Effectiveness • The effectiveness of the project is measured by the amount of energy electricity consumption that has been reduced—it is measured to be 8.1 million kWh annually. Cobenefits • The projects have strengthened coordination between the airport and other city departments. • A working partnership with a utility has led to collaboration on a renewable energy project. Other Airports Implementing this Measure Other airports that have implemented an energy efficiency measure are listed in Table 3-3. Airport Code State FY Description Drake Field, Fayetteville FYV AR 2017 Assessment Gulfport-Biloxi International GPT MS 2017 Equipment/ Infrastructure Dallas-Fort Worth DFW TX 2017 Equipment/ Infrastructure Appleton International ATW WI 2017 Equipment/ Infrastructure Juneau International JNU AK 2017 Equipment/ Infrastructure Eastern Iowa CID IA 2017 Equipment/ Infrastructure Charleston-Yeager International CRW WV 2017 Assessment Chattanooga Metropolitan CHA TN 2018 Equipment/ Infrastructure Table 3-3. Airports that received AIP funding for energy efficiency projects.

34 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction Airports have been installing solar PV systems on their property for more than 10 years. One significant advantage of solar is that the panels are easily integrated into the existing built environment. They can be placed on building rooftops that are not otherwise effectively using the space. Alternatively, they can be installed on the ground in unused airfield areas or on top of canopies to double as shaded parking for customers and staff. Most airports already consume a lot of electricity, so it is easy to connect solar to the existing network to provide an ongoing supply. While some smaller systems are configured to produce electricity that is consumed directly on-site, most are larger projects constructed by third-party businesses that own and operate the facilities and sell the electricity to users of the grid. Under such arrangements, the airport is the host of the facility and it often receives lease payments for the use of airport property, but the “green” power is sent directly to the electricity grid and not purchased and used by the airport. More recently, airports are leasing the land and purchasing the clean energy generated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. SMF commenced operations of such a facility in October 2017 to advance its ambitious emission reduction objectives. Project Details The solar PV facility has a total nameplate capacity of 7.9 MW. It is a single axis tracking system, meaning that the solar panels track the daily path of the sun to maximize electricity generation (see Figure 3-3). The system comprises two arrays: a 3.38 MW ground-mounted system on a brownfield on the airport landside east of the terminal; and a 4.52 MW ground- mounted system on the airport airside north of the terminal. These sites were selected in part 3.3 Solar PV System; Sacramento International Airport (SMF), CA Airport Type: Medium Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 2: Purchasing solar generated electricity to reduce the amount of electricity purchased from off-site providers FAA Region: Western/Pacific Financing: • Third-party partner financier • Airport staff time ACRP Report 56 Category: Renewable Energy ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation timeframe: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 2 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 11,535 MT of Co2e per year Renewable Energy RE-02: Install Building-Mounted or Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Panels Energy Management EM-04: Enter into a Green Power Purchasing Agreement

Case Examples 35 because of their close proximity to the main airport facilities to reduce the cost of long, inter- connecting electrical lines. The east array provides power directly to Terminal A, the parking garage, and airfield lighting. The north array powers Terminal B and the automated people mover. The system is owned and operated by Clearway Energy, which leases the land from the air- port and sells it the electricity through a power purchase agreement (PPA). The PPA specifies that Clearway will guarantee a specific amount of electricity supply each year and the airport will pay Clearway for the electricity at a rate of $0.0735/kilowatt hour (kWh) over a 25-year period. The design amount of electricity supplied, 15,500,000 kWh, accounts for 38% of the airport’s current needs. Implementation The solar PV project was an employee-led initiative. All of the research to support the project concept was conducted by airport staff, including preparing a siting and feasibility study using similar models developed by other Sacramento County departments. The airport staff learned from the experience of other airports, in particular Fresno-Yosemite International Airport (FAT), and the staff used the information provided to assess siting options. Among the primary program design factors were the following: • The airport wanted to consume the renewable energy to reduce its carbon footprint, which necessitated a PPA model with the third-party developer. • Learning from the experience of others, the airport understood that the sites needed to be located near existing airport electrical vaults to minimize project costs and to keep the price of electricity under a PPA competitive. • The airport determined that no outside party (developer or consultant) could identify the best location for a project because this decision required knowledge only the airport staff had acquired. The airport was driven by a sustainability approach requiring projects to be economical, while also serving environmental and social objectives. From an environmental perspective, the airport understood Sacramento’s status as being one of the worst metropolitan areas in the country for air quality and the need to pursue projects that resulted in measurable improve- ments. From a social perspective, the airport saw a large-scale solar project as a great oppor- tunity to educate the public about clean energy. The economic benefits of the project became Figure 3-3. Solar PV at SMF.

36 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts clear when the project bid was released and the selected bidder could offer the airport a price of electricity that is 29% less than its existing rate. The airport was guided by its 2004 Master Plan, which identifies the need to implement emis- sion reduction projects. As a department of the county, it also contributed to the development of the County Climate Action Plan. The airport has recently developed a Sustainable Manage- ment Plan to advance its sustainability goals. Lessons Learned • Feasibility of solar can be readily assessed independently by the airport. • Learn from the experiences of other airports. • Communicate with the FAA regional office early and often. Effectiveness • The effectiveness of the project is measured by how much clean electricity the project has generated and consumed by the airport. The total amount of electricity used in year 1 was 15,100,00 kWh, which is just about the design capacity. Cobenefits • The educational benefit has been considerable. The solar projects are visible from the termi- nal buildings and the long-term parking lot. There are two large educational displays, one in each terminal, which provide information on the amount of electricity being generated and the equivalent amount of environmental benefit including barrels of oil avoided or cars removed from the roads. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Barnstable Municipal Airport (HYA), Massachusetts, opened a ground-mounted solar PV project in 2015. • Pierre Municipal Airport (PIR), South Dakota, hosts a ground-mounted solar project that opened in 2017; it generates green power for the city’s electric utility and its customers. • Tucson International Airport (TUS) in Arizona completed, in 2017, a large parking canopy covered with solar panels to keep passengers’ cars cool and to generate electricity for the airport.

Case Examples 37 Introduction As highlighted in this report, there is a considerable amount of activity at airports with a high potential for generating greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions may come directly from the air- port operator; they may result from the airport’s purchase of electricity from a regional power plant; or they are produced by tenants and customers using the airport. Before an airport can determine steps for reducing its emissions, it must first prepare an inventory of the activi- ties producing emissions and an inventory of how much GHG emissions these activities are generating. ACRP Report 11: Guidebook on Preparing Airport Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, published in 2009, provides airport operators with information useful to the development of individual GHG emission inventories. Airports of all geographic locations and sizes are developing greenhouse gas inventories not only to establish an emissions baseline, but also to set ambitious GHG emission reduction goals to guide future development projects. One clear example of a GHG inventory that accomplishes both of these objectives is one completed recently by PWM. Project Details In 2014, the PWM received an AIP grant to prepare a Sustainability Airport Master Plan (SAMP) under the FAA’s Pilot Program. The objective of the project was to integrate sustain- ability measures throughout the master planning process to ensure that future airport devel- opment considers economic viability, operational efficiency, social responsibility, and natural resource conservation (i.e., the airport sustainability framework referred to as EONS). With sustainability representing a core airport mission, the city of Portland would ensure that each project would consider reducing energy consumption, minimizing environmental impacts, and Business Planning BP-01: Use Greenhouse Gas Impact Evaluations as Decision-Making Criteria 3.4 Greenhouse Gas Inventory; Portland International Jetport (PWM), ME Airport Type: Small GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Quantify emissions controlled by airport and develop reduction strategies • Scope 2: Quantify emissions associated with electricity purchases from the grid and develop reduction strategies • Scope 3: Quantify emissions associated with nonairport-controlled activities and develop reduction strategies FAA Region: Eastern Financing: • AIP ACRP Report 56 Category: Business Planning ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: Not applicable

38 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts shrinking the Jetport’s carbon footprint. The final SAMP, released in November 2016, included a broad goal for greenhouse gas emissions, a baseline emissions inventory, reduction targets, and plans for project implementation. Implementation PWM created a SAMP planning advisory committee (PAC) made up of key stakeholders to provide valuable input into the development of the SAMP. The PAC was made up of 24 members, including representatives from associated municipalities, tenants, pilot organizations, the FAA, the Maine Department of Transportation, and tourism agencies. The airport administration and its consultant team initially gathered input from the PAC as to the objectives of the plan, then structured meetings around topic areas and prepared working summaries for review and discus- sion. Regular updates were also provided to PWM tenants (airlines, concessionaires, and fixed- based operators) to ensure that their comments and concerns as organizations were addressed. When the PAC members were asked for input into the six focus areas of the SAMP, the topic of greenhouse gas emissions was selected as a priority. Stakeholders were asked to define the objectives of the plan in considering greenhouse gas emissions and this resulted in the following mission statement: Become a national airport leader in climate change mitigation by supporting the reduction of green- house gas emissions generated from Jetport-controlled and influenced sources. The project team then prepared a GHG emissions inventory using ACERT, which allows air- ports to input data from a variety of sources—from aircraft type and activity to airport ground vehicle type and activity as well as information on electricity and fuel consumption—to estimate GHG emissions for any given time period. As part of the SAMP, PWM developed a baseline GHG inventory using data from 2015. From this starting point, PWM is able to evaluate per- formance relative to the baseline and progress toward reaching specific targets, including the following: • Install preconditioned air at 100% of all loading bridges by 2018 • Reduce Jetport-owned and controlled GHG emissions • Work with the tenants to develop a baseline of the Jetport’s Scope 3 GHG emissions by 2018 The plan also identified sustainability actions by category including the following: • Provide pre-conditioned air (PCA) at all commercial service aircraft gates • Encourage tenants to procure alternative fuel and/or fuel-efficient ground support equipment • Install public charging stations in the garage to accommodate electric vehicles • Prepare an annual Jetport-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and voluntarily report the Jetport’s carbon performance Greenhouse gas reduction projects completed since 2016 include the installation of a 465-kW direct current solar PV facility on the existing canopy of the parking garage. Lessons Learned • It is important to remain flexible. New opportunities arose and Jetport pursued funding for a solar project that was not a high priority during planning, but market opportunities changed. Effectiveness • Effectiveness is measured by the level of participation in developing the sustainability plans as well as the ability to produce resulting projects, of which the solar project is one.

Case Examples 39 Cobenefits • Cobenefits of this measure include a strong opportunity to collaborate with the community on projects in which the PWM can demonstrate environmental leadership. Other Airports Implementing this Measure Airports that have completed a GHG inventory in the past five years are listed in Table 3-4. Aspen-Pitkin ASE CO Austin-Bergstrom AUS TX Bend Municipal BDN OR Denver International DEN CO Duluth International DLH MN John Wayne Orange County SNA CA Milwaukee-General Mitchell MKE WI Nantucket Municipal ACK MA Philadelphia International PHL PA Pittsburgh International PIT PA Portland International PDX OR San Antonio International SAT TX Seattle-Tacoma International SEA WA Shreveport Regional SHV LA Salt Lake City International SLC UT Tallahassee International TLH FL Tampa International TPA FL Truckee Tahoe Municipal TRK CA Airport Code State Table 3-4. Survey respondents who have completed a GHG inventory in the past five years.

40 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction GHG emissions are reduced with more efficient energy use as reported by the EPA (National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, 2009). And, since more efficient energy use correlates to a direct reduction in fuel costs, the lesson is that projects aimed at reducing GHG by improved energy efficiency make good economic sense. With so many investment needs, however, the challenge facing airports is deciding when to use public funds to upgrade old lighting, heating, and cooling equipment to new, more energy- efficient ones. Cortez Municipal Airport (CEZ) provides a straight-forward example of a small airport’s decision-making process to upgrade its furnaces and demonstrates the environmental and economic benefits of taking that action. Project Details The project replaced three 25-year-old, natural gas burning furnaces in the terminal building with three new, higher efficiency models. The old units, two 50,000 BTU furnaces and one 75,000 BTU furnace, had operated with standing pilot lights and were about 65% efficient. These were replaced by three 60,000 BTU Trane Model XR95 units with auto ignition designated as 95% efficient, defined by the EPA as “high-efficiency.” Implementation CEZ had experienced both reliability and efficiency issues with its three terminal building furnaces, forcing staff to patch the vintage 1989 units together with duct tape during failures. While this approach deferred the immediate cost of replacement, it was clearly labor inefficient Energy Management EM-21: Install High-Efficiency Equipment and Controls 3.5 High-Efficiency Furnace Heating Project; Cortez Municipal Airport (CEZ), CO Airport Type: Nonhub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Reduced combustion of natural gas from airport heating system FAA Region: Northwest/Mountain Financing: • AIP ACRP Report 56 Category: Energy Management ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation timeframe: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 2 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 30% decrease in heating-related GHGs

Case Examples 41 and compromised building operations. As a consequence, the airport determined it was neces- sary to upgrade the equipment. Following a review of furnace options, CEZ budgeted for the replacement of the most prob- lematic unit with a high-efficiency model. The new unit was installed in winter 2014–15 to provide heating improvements for the remainder of that winter. The test with the new unit was very successful, resulting in greatly improved energy efficiency and operational reliability. This prompted CEZ to order two more units, which were installed prior to the start of the 2015–16 winter. The total investment cost of the three new furnaces was $8,670. The cost of gas for the last full year with the old furnaces was $2,483, while the cost of gas for the first full year of the new furnaces was $1,612, providing a first-year fuel savings of $868. On the basis of these numbers, the simple payback is about 10 years; however, overall savings will vary each winter based on fuel prices and weather demands. The systems have been operating effectively for the past three years without staff labor and operational concerns. Lessons Learned • Replacing outdated furnaces with modern, efficient units that drop into existing heating sys- tems has clear and quantifiable benefits that reduce both energy costs and GHG emissions. • Improvements to the efficiencies of heating systems are a feasible GHG reduction practice that can be adopted by airports of all sizes when replacements are necessary. • Making a small investment to test a new heating unit is a practical first step in increasing energy efficiency. Effectiveness • For this small, nonhub airport, effectiveness is measured in economic terms. The new high- efficiency furnace units will pay for themselves in natural gas cost savings in approximately 10 years. • The annualized fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) rating of the new furnaces is 95%, meaning that it requires approximately 30% less fuel for heating than the old, lower-efficiency units (EnergyStar, n.d.). The EPA certifies the AFUE rating of furnaces, with the highest category being 90–97% efficiency. This rigorous evaluation establishes a strong and universal standard for reducing GHG emissions. Cobenefits • Savings in maintenance and labor, and an increase in passenger comfort and staff morale. • Economic benefits that open the door to additional energy-saving practices. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • In 2018, Rick Husband International Airport in Amarillo, Texas, replaced its old boiler system with five new boilers, increasing efficiency from 80% to 96%. • In 2015, a major expansion of the terminal at Norman Mineta San Jose International Airport (SJC), California, allowed for the replacement of two boilers with three higher efficiency ones. • In 2014, Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ), New Mexico, received a VALE grant to replace aging boilers with higher efficiency models, reducing local emissions.

42 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction Temperatures rise throughout the day and peak in the afternoon, which prompts a spike in energy demand to keep buildings cool. As a consequence of supply and demand, power prices rise because of the increasing scarcity of power, which incentivizes energy conservation. One creative conservation option is to manage energy use by using and storing energy during low- cost periods and reducing use and deploying stored resources to meet needs during high-cost periods. This concept is referred to as load shedding. Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) implemented a thermal energy storage pro- gram nearly two decades ago during the airport’s construction. This case example demonstrates how the thermal storage program has been effective and how its implementation over time has allowed AUS to take advantage of new technologies and incentive programs. Project Details The project comprises two components: the installation of a thermal energy storage system, and participation in the energy utility’s load shedding program. Implementation As part of the new terminal development program in the late 1990s, AUS installed a thermal energy storage (TES) system as supplemental cooling to that provided by chillers powered by the central utility plant. The electric utility, Austin Energy, incentivized the installation of TES by offering lower electricity rates to those customers that operate a TES during summer peak power demand. The cost of the electricity consumed during on-peak is twice that of the off-peak Energy Management EM-22: Integrate Thermal Storage into Heating and Cooling Systems 3.6 Austin Energy Load Shed, Thermal Energy Storage Program; Austin- Bergstrom International Airport (AUS), TX Airport Type: Medium GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Reduced combustion of natural gas from airport heating system FAA Region: Southwestern Financing: • AIP for capital improvements • Staff for program management ACRP Report 56 Category: Energy Management ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation timeframe: 3 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 2 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • Not available

Case Examples 43 period. Furthermore, the demand charge applied to the customer’s monthly bill for the entire year is derived from the highest peak demand recorded. Therefore, limiting peak demand not only saves money on the electricity consumed during the peak period, but also decreases the demand charge applied throughout the year. The TES tank at AUS is designed to deliver 3,900 gallons per minute (GPM) to meet a peak cooling load of 2,438 tons. The total thermal capacity of the tank is 15,000 ton-hours. During peak power demand periods, the chillers powered by electricity are turned off and chilled water is drawn from the TES tank to cool the terminal. During off-peak power periods, the chillers cool the terminal and recharge the chilled water in the TES tank. On the basis of existing and near future demand, the TES has capacity to provide 3.8 hours of cooling during peak conditions. AUS has been considering enhancements to the TES to accommodate passenger growth and proposed terminal expansions; however, on the basis of return on investment (ROI) and opera- tional requirements, AUS decided not to construct a second tank, but rather pursue alternative programs to further shed load during peak periods. AUS has also been participating in Austin Energy’s Load Cooperative Program. During curtail- ment events, program participants agree to reduce energy consumption during the peak hours (4:00–6:00 p.m.). Austin Energy tracks participants’ KWH reduction after each curtailment event. On the basis of these data, it can determine when a curtailment will occur and notify participating customers via e-mail. The savings for the Planning and Engineering Building in the first year was 1,616 kWh or $2,343 as shown in Figure 3-4. Lessons Learned • While the existing system has performed successfully, a number of new opportunities working with the utility have proven to be more cost effective than expanding the system. • The evaluation of options considered the overall sustainability of the options as opposed to just the environmental benefits. Effectiveness • The effectiveness of these programs is primarily measured by energy cost savings, which have been demonstrated. Cobenefits • Cobenefits of the program include increased collaboration with the city and Austin Energy. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • San Antonio International Airport constructed a thermal storage project in 1982. The system continues to provide cost savings with low operations and maintenance costs. • Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport built a 6 million gallon, 90,000 ton-hour thermal energy storage system in 2009, which is able to shift up to 15 MW of power to off-peak periods.

44 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Source: Austin Energy, 2017. Figure 3-4. AUS load shedding program report.

Case Examples 45 Introduction Geothermal heating and cooling systems make use of energy in the earth. One effective tech- nique for extracting this energy, regardless of location, is through ground source heating (GSH) technology, which takes advantage of the constant subsurface temperature of ∼50° F (U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, 2019). The GSH system accomplishes this by drawing the cool temperature from the ground for air conditioning in the summer and replacing it with the displaced warmer air, seasonally increasing the temperatures underground. In the winter, the system uses the stored warm temperatures underground for heating and returns the cooler temperatures, thereby bring- ing the temperatures back to ∼54° F (see Figure 3-5). Drawing energy from the ground through GSH greatly reduces the power required to heat and cool buildings from other sources. The Saint Joseph County Airport Authority (SJCAA) has implemented two sequential GSH projects at South Bend International Airport (SBN) that together provide all of the heating and cooling needs of the main terminal, the concourse and the international terminal. The SJCAA learned from the first project and was able to improve and perfect the second larger project; its experience with both projects has sparked a new energy efficiency initiative and partnerships. Project Details The GSH systems are composed of closed-loop wellfields through which water flows and transfers conditioned water, a heat pump internal to the building for moving the water, and electrical and plumbing components to power the system. The first project, constructed in 2010 as part of a new concourse building, includes horizontal wells located in the airfield adjacent to the apron. It has a heating and cooling capacity for the 45,000-square foot concourse and also performs snow melt for the ground loading ramp areas. Renewable Energy RE-06: Install Ground Source or Geothermal Heating and Cooling System 3.7 Ground Source Heating Facility; South Bend International Airport (SBN), IN Airport Type: Nonhub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Reduced combustion of natural gas from airport heating system • Scope 2: Change in electricity demand from electric grid FAA Region: Great Lakes Financing: • FAA’s VALE Program ACRP Report 56 Category: Renewable Energy ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 2 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 64% reduction in heating-related GHGs

46 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts The second project, completed in 2014 as a retrofit in the main terminal building, includes a vertical wellfield design located in a landside, grassed area near the airport entrance. It includes 276 bore holes that extend to a depth of 350 feet below grade. Implementation In 2010, the SJCAA completed construction of a new concourse building equipped with five gates, state-of-the-art security, and passenger amenities. During the design process, both a con- ventional boiler and chiller system and a green alternative using GSH were identified as potential options for heating and cooling the building. The GSH system was selected because it was eligible for FAA AIP and passenger facility charge (PFC) funding; it was determined to be cost-effective; and it provided sustainability features that the SJCAA wished to include in the project. The GSH was designed with a horizontal wellfield that was located on the airside close to the new building, between taxiways, on land that could not be developed for other purposes. Soon after the new concourse was constructed, the boiler/chiller system for the existing terminal building was identified for replacement because it was approaching the end of its use- ful life. The SJCAA considered the success of the concourse GSH system and determined that a second system could serve as a viable replacement in the existing terminal. It developed a project concept that included heating and cooling capacity for both the existing terminal and forecasted future demand. Space for the wellfield was located on the landside and a vertical design was used to minimize the area needed and to allow for potential redevelopment options over the wellfield, such as surface parking. The airport was located in an area designated by the EPA for air quality nonattainment at the time; therefore, the project was eligible for funding under the FAA’s VALE Program. The SJCAA applied for and was awarded a VALE grant in 2013, which funded 90% of the geothermal system’s cost. The facility was constructed by the end of 2014. The entire heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system is controlled and moni- tored using an “off-the-shelf” building management system that allows the operator to set the Figure 3-5. Seasonality of GSH technology.

Case Examples 47 temperature of building areas to be conditioned and to monitor the operation of the entire HVAC system. It took a full year to calibrate the system to operate effectively, given the local climate and specific use patterns in the buildings. The system is most efficient in mid-winter and mid-summer, when temperatures between daytime highs and nighttime lows are less extreme and the system can respond more effectively to a smaller temperature change. The system was initially monitored and maintained by on-staff technicians. However, after several years of operational experience, the SJCAA has found that a combination of 24 hours/7 days a week (24/7) remote monitoring by a contractor and limited on-site capabilities is both more efficient and cost-effective. While the SJCAA does not have a sustainability plan, it has sought to incorporate environ- mental measures into all airport development projects. It was led by the notion that sustainable development projects would achieve environmental, social, and financial benefits. FAA funding for both projects was important for the SJCAA to afford these sustainability measures. Lessons Learned • With the new energy provided from the earth, the amount of power purchased from the util- ity decreased significantly. Because the purchase volume decreased, the airport was subject to a new energy tariff rate, and that caused the cost per energy unit consumed to increase. The change in its rate resulted in an unforeseen decrease in forecasted energy savings. This mis- calculation had no impact whatsoever on whether the SJCAA would have proceeded with the project or not. However, it did result in higher expectations for its rate of return and impacted future year budget forecasts. The lesson is to consider not only how much energy consump- tion will decrease but also how the change in consumption will affect the tariff rate. • The SJCAA switched from a horizontal to a vertical wellfield between the first and second projects. The vertical wellfield takes up less space, can accommodate some types of future development, and is more efficient. • Operations and maintenance activities are more effective and cost-efficient with a hybrid approach combining contractor monitoring with limited on-site expertise. Effectiveness • The project resulted in a decrease in natural gas consumption of about 3.8 million cubic feet of natural gas, reducing CO2 emissions by approximately 0.209 tons per year. Cobenefits • The geothermal program strengthened partnerships with city and county officials, which led to collaboration on an energy performance contracting project. • The projects have also increased goodwill with the community, which has improved discus- sions on other airport and regional issues. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Portland International Jetport (PWM), in Maine, used a VALE grant to incorporate ground source heating into its terminal expansion project in 2012. • In 2016, Nashville International Airport (BNA), in Tennessee, opened a ground source heating project that received FAA Energy Efficiency Grant funding for an innovative design using quarry water. • Duluth International Airport (DLH), in Minnesota, incorporated ground source heating into a new terminal building that opened in 2013.

48 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction The sun generates energy in the form of both light and heat. Solar photovoltaic energy, which uses panels to directly convert solar light into electricity, is a proven universal alterna- tive to conventional electricity generation. Solar thermal energy generates heat by capturing solar energy in thermal collectors, panels usually containing tubes of fluid that collect and hold heat (see Figure 3-6). Although solar thermal energy systems are highly efficient and effective once in place, their implementation can be more complicated because of the characteristics of a building’s existing heating and cooling systems. Additionally, because solar thermal energy Figure 3-6. Basic concept of solar thermal energy. Renewable Energy RE-03: Install Solar Thermal Systems for Hot Water Production 3.8 Solar Thermal Energy Facility; Boise Airport (BOI), ID Airport Type: Small Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Reduced combustion of natural gas from airport heating system FAA Region: Northwest/Mountain Financing: • FAA’s VALE Program ACRP Report 56 Category: Renewable Energy ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 85% reduction in heating-related GHGs

Case Examples 49 only addresses the heating aspect of climate control, this renewable energy may be best suited for colder climates. In an effort to cut heating costs, reduce energy consumption, and improve longevity of its heating system, the Boise Airport (BOI) recognized the substantial benefits associated with installing solar thermal energy. BOI offers a strong case example for GHG reduction because the practice of drawing on solar thermal energy for hot water heating was identified by ACRP Report 56 as the most impactful measure to reducing GHG emissions. Project Details The facility is composed of 12 solar thermal collector panels located on the roof of the airport terminal, a heat plate exchanger, two 300-gallon hot water storage tanks, and two high-efficiency gas water heaters or boilers located in a 3rd floor mechanical room. The system replaced three lower efficiency gas heaters. The hot water generated is applied to two uses: domestic hot water needs in the terminal building in the area prior to security; and baseline terminal heating, particularly during nonpeak usage in shoulder seasons. Implementation The concept of using a solar thermal and high-efficiency gas system as a replacement for an older generation heating system had been in the planning stage for several years. However, prior to its implementation, the replacement project needed to be programmed and funded, the design refined, and the system developed. Therefore, the airport determined that an appropri- ate way forward was to create a pilot system with capacity to provide domestic hot water for a portion of the terminal. The city applied for an FAA VALE grant that, if approved, would fund 90% of the project cost. The design and funding process followed the VALE project evalua- tion timeline: the VALE application was prepared and approved by the FAA in the spring and summer of 2016, the grant was issued in the fall of 2016, and a contractor was engaged for the work in the spring of 2017. The initial design included a due-south facing panel orientation; however—when modeled as required by the FAA’s Policy on Solar Projects—the results of this design showed potential for adverse glare, requiring an alternative layout with the panels positioned slightly toward the west. Once the FAA glare requirements were met, the solar component of the project was constructed, the heat exchanger and water tanks were connected, and preheated water was ready to feed into the high-efficiency gas heaters, drastically reducing the need for natural gas. The project began full operation in August 2017. Lessons Learned • The airport originally sought to procure vacuum-type solar collector panels for this project. The VALE Program concluded that such a design was not “proven” technology and, there- fore, would not be eligible for a VALE grant. In response, the airport committed to using a conventional solar thermal panel. • The state of technology, particularly that related to system monitoring, advanced in the rela- tively short time between approval of the project and its bid selection. This necessitated added commitments to some technical features, such as a unitized control system that improves overall efficiency, but these additions were not accounted for in the original budget.

50 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts • Unanticipated regulatory reviews for the larger project arose, including load analysis for the roof and for the floor where the system components would be located. Also, all tanks required drains that were capable of tolerating the temperature of water of the design. • Willingness to rework the design in conjunction with funders, administrators, and designers was important throughout the process. Effectiveness • The decrease in natural gas consumption has been more than 85%. • The reduction in GHGs is equivalent to removing 16 passenger cars from the road each year. • The system operates better than expected; at times, the amount of heat generated has exceeded the overall capacity required. Cobenefits • Because of the unique application of this solar thermal heating system, airport staff have been recognized for their technical leadership in the industry. • The project furthers collaboration with the city of Boise and furthers efforts to reach goals named in the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Other Airports Implementing this Measure • In 2013, Abraham Lincoln Capital Airport (SPI), in Illinois, installed solar collectors on the terminal roof to reduce energy required for hot water heating. • In 2012, Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport (BRD), in Minnesota, installed a solar thermal air heat exchanger on the south side of a building to protect forced hot air heating. • Appleton International Airport (ATW), in Wisconsin, installed 12 solar thermal collectors to provide supplemental hot water heating.

Case Examples 51 Introduction Ground transportation operating within an airport’s perimeter has been a major contributor of GHG emissions (Monsalud, Ho, and Rakas, 2015), and there are currently a variety of initia- tives underway to reduce these impacts. Many airports have opted to convert shuttle buses, along with other vehicles in their fleet, from diesel fuel to compressed natural gas (CNG). By adding renewable natural gas (RNG) to their fuel mix, Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) has taken this initiative a significant step further. Derived from the breakdown of organic material, RNG is primarily composed of methane, which, when released into the atmosphere, has a far greater impact on global warming than that of carbon (U.S. Department of Energy, n.d.). When capturing this naturally occurring methane from landfills and converting it into a clean-burning fuel, RNG reduces emissions by up to 70% as compared to gasoline and diesel (Clean Energy Fuels, 2019). In its own move to carbon neutrality, DFW is among the first airports to power its natural gas vehicle fleet with an RNG fuel blend, a measure that is expected to further reduce DFW fleet GHG emissions by approximately 70%. This project illustrates a relatively simple solution—switching fuels—for airports that have already invested in CNG. Project Details The project involves the conversion of a diesel-fueled vehicle fleet into a vehicle fleet operat- ing on CNG that is mixed with increasing amounts of RNG. Currently, 95% of DFW’s airport vehicles are powered by CNG, including 189 shuttle buses and more than 120 trucks and ser- vice vehicles. DFW owns and operates two CNG filling stations (Figure 3-7) used for fueling Ground Transportation GT-14: Convert Airport Fleet Vehicles to Alternatively Fueled Vehicles Renewable Energy RE-14: Utilize Local Landfill Gas (secondary) 3.9 Renewable Natural Gas Fueled Ground Transportation; Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW), TX Airport Type: Large Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Replacing airport’s diesel fleet with RNG • Scope 3: Providing access to CNG filling station for tenants and the public FAA Region: Southwestern Financing: • Renewable fuels standard ACRP Report 56 Category: Ground Transportation ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 5,700 MT CO2e in the first year

52 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts the airport’s CNG vehicles that are also available to tenants and the public. In 2017, DFW executed a contract to add RNG that originates from a nearby landfill to create a more sustain- able natural gas mix for use at these filling stations. DFW’s contract specifies that 10% of the CNG consumed in the first year will be RNG, increasing annually to a total of 90% in 2025. Implementation DFW purchased its first CNG buses in 1999. The primary driver of those purchases was poor air quality in metro-Dallas, which was classified as nonattainment by the EPA for ozone requiring significant reductions in NOx. DFW’s bus fleet travels an estimated 12 million miles a year. The conversion to natural gas had a direct reduction in tailpipe emissions, but it also eliminated diesel truck transport by replacing it with gas delivery by pipeline. The cost of fuel also decreased. DFW has continued to convert buses and make other commitments necessary to support the long-term commitment to CNG and to reduce the number of vehicles on the road. It has committed to building and owning two CNG fueling stations, one of which is wholly owned by DFW and the second of which is close to being wholly owned. DFW also built a consolidated rental car facility that reduced in half the number of vehicles required to transport passengers across the airport. In 2017, DFW executed a contract with Clean Energy specifying its purchase of RNG as a mix of the total amount of compressed natural gas consumed at the two filling stations. The contract confirmed that Clean Energy would supply and DFW would purchase 10% of all gas consumed from the stations in 2018 with incremental annual increases up to 90% in 2025. The renewable natural gas is supplied from a landfill in south Texas. The gas is supplied to the regional natural gas network and DFW obtains credit for its purchase by drawing gas from the same infrastructure. A key component in the economics of RNG is the trading of renewable identification num- bers (RINs) under the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) Program created by U.S. Congress in 2005. The RFS Program is a national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil, or jet fuel. RINs are credits that are generated by renewable fuel producers and are used to confirm fuel producer compliance in meeting the standard. As the fuel producers need to either produce renewable fuels and sell them on the market or purchase RINs from other fuel producers, RINs accrue market value. The South Texas Landfill creates RINs when it delivers landfill gas to the Figure 3-7. Natural gas refilling station at DFW.

Case Examples 53 transportation end user, which decreases the price to customers including Clean Energy and DFW. DFW receives a rebate at the end of the contract year on the basis of the market value of RINs, which results in an RNG cost that is lower than that of conventional CNG. When DFW purchases the RNG, it then can accurately claim ownership and use of the RNG. Lessons Learned • Early adopters at times need to learn by trial and error. When DFW designed and constructed its CNG filling station, there were no other airports that had done so and could report infor- mation on fuel demand. Based on initial operating experience, it learned that it had under- estimated the amount of fuel demand from its fleet, and therefore had to add capacity and build in redundancy. • Because RNG is dependent on the specifics of the RFS, for the project to proceed it was nec- essary for airport staff to get up to speed on the opportunity, and then educate partners and stakeholders to gain support. • DFW has learned that its fuel buying power is more effectively leveraged because it owns the CNG filling stations. • RNG is a drop-in solution requiring no change in operations or infrastructure where a pipe- line already exists. This characteristic keeps costs lower than some other options that require capital improvements. Effectiveness • According to DFW, the use of locally produced RNG has reduced life cycle emissions by 79%. • The use of locally produced RNG has also reduced O&M costs by 39%, or $1 million in annual savings. • In the first year, use of RNG resulted in a reduction in CO2 emissions of 5,700 tons, which is equivalent to removing nearly 1,200 passenger vehicles from the road for a year. Cobenefits • Buses operating on alternative fuels are a visible sign to the public of the airport’s environ- mental commitment. • Progress in converting vehicles to alternative fuels and improving local air quality builds DFW’s reputation with the broader community and demonstrates leadership in the industry. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) in California has been providing RNG, which is supplied by Clean Energy, at its two CNG stations since 2013. • In January 2019, the Port of Seattle in Washington released a request for proposal seeking suppliers of RNG for shuttle buses, including for buses at SEA. • The operator of 16 CNG buses at the consolidated rental car center at SAN has been using RNG since 2016.

54 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction Climate control is critical for all airports to function effectively. In northern climates, heat- ing is fundamental to ensuring that customers are comfortable, airport staff can do their jobs, and machinery can operate as intended. The challenge is amplified in a community like Ketchikan, Alaska, with its cold, rainy climate and remote location where transport distance adds both expense and environmental impact to the use of traditional fossil fuel. Woody bio- mass, an alternative energy resource found in abundance in Southeast Alaska, is growing in use as recent advances in biomass pellet combustion have made systems efficient and fully auto- mated (Tomberlin, 2014). When it needed a boiler replacement for Ketchikan International Airport (KTN), the borough of Ketchikan launched a biomass boiler project to provide a reliable source of heat, take advantage of regional resources, and reduce GHG emissions. Ketchikan’s proximity to softwood forests and local sawmills made the project particularly feasible and significant, as biomass pellets sourced from local forestry waste and sawmill residue show the strongest GHG reduction benefits (Buchholz, Gunn, and Saah, 2017). Project Details The customized facility is a 500 MBH (or 500,000 BTU/hour) biomass boiler capable of providing heat for 90–95% of the airport’s generation (see Figure 3-8). The remaining 5–10% represents peak demand on only the coldest days and is supplied by a supplemental oil unit. KTN made a purposeful decision to not oversize the biomass boiler, enhancing both efficiency and operational life. A 700-gallon water tank was also installed with the oil boiler to provide thermal energy storage that augments the boiler’s overall efficiency. An automated silo with Renewable Energy RE-05: Use On-Site Biomass Energy Systems 3.10 Biomass Boiler Heating Project; Ketchikan International Airport (KTN), AK Airport Type: Nonhub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Reduced combustion of oil from airport heating system FAA Region: Alaskan Financing: • U.S. Department of Agriculture • Alaska Energy Authority ACRP Report 56 Category: Renewable Energy ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 3 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 141 MT CO2e/year

Case Examples 55 a storage capacity of 30 tons of wood pellets was installed adjacent to the boiler building, supplying on-demand delivery when the wood pellet supply reaches a specific load level. The boiler system is located inside an old fish storage building retrofitted for its new purpose. The building includes a large glass viewing window with an educational display allowing visitors to see the boiler and learn about its operations. Implementation KTN’s oil-fired boiler was 45 years old and in need of replacement. A bid was released for a new, more efficient oil-fired boiler system in 2010, with responses to the bid higher than expected. The airport staff learned of recent biomass boiler installations elsewhere in Alaska which, in addition to generating heat, also utilized local renewable resources. Visits were set up at existing biomass installations to learn more about recent operational experiences. The airport discovered that the cost of a biomass boiler was similar to that of an oil-fired boiler and that state grants could potentially reduce the overall cost to the borough. The borough initially received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a feasibility study of a biomass boiler, which confirmed the cost effectiveness of bio- mass and defined the system requirements for the project. With additional grant commitments from the Alaska Energy Authority, the borough proceeded with design and construction and the system became operational in the fall of 2016. Lessons Learned • The airport thoroughly researched the experiences of other in-state installations, helping it better understand the advantages of a biomass boiler heating system, specifically as it would operate in Alaska. Figure 3-8. KTN’s biomass boiler.

56 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts • Previous installations had incomplete combustion, which could be resolved by purchasing different equipment and working with an experienced engineering team. • The airport also purchased the boiler and silo separately, ensuring that it controlled the selection of the most critical components and the bid engineering and installation. Effectiveness • Operating costs of this biomass heating system are $30,000 per year compared with $70,000 per year for the previous oil-fueled system. • Combustion of the regional woody biomass (wood waste and sawmill residue) reduces GHG emissions by 54% when compared with the burning of oil for fuel. Cobenefits • Project was designed as an educational initiative with viewing opportunities and outreach materials. • Project enhanced collaboration between the borough and the state of Alaska in support of local economic development and energy policy. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Grant County Regional Airport in John Day, Oregon, included a biomass boiler in its leader- ship in energy and environmental design (LEED) terminal building built in 2010. • Yellowknife Airport, in the Northwest Territories, Canada, has a 540-kW biomass plant that was built in 2012. • Heathrow Airport in London built a new biomass plant powered by virgin wood chips utiliz- ing combined heat and power (CHP), which provides 1.8 MW of electricity to the campus grid along with 7.8 MW of thermal energy to terminals 2 and 5.

Case Examples 57 Introduction Servicing aircraft at the gate requires an array of specialized vehicles, such as baggage tugs, belt loaders, and pushback tugs. Fleets of GSE have traditionally been powered by diesel, a fuel second only to coal in its high level of CO2 emissions (U.S. Energy Information Administration, n.d.). GSE vehicles are particularly well-suited for electrification given that their patterns of use are characterized by frequent starts and stops, longer idling times, and short driving distances (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2017). However, an electric GSE (eGSE) program not only requires the conversion of diesel vehicles to electric vehicles, but also it requires the instal- lation of electric charging infrastructure. Recognizing the significant GHG reduction benefits of converting to eGSE, Birmingham- Shuttleworth International Airport (BHM) and selected airlines established a partnership whereby the airport would install electric charging stations and the airlines would convert to eGSE. BHM obtained funding for electric charging stations through the FAA’s VALE Program, enhancing the success of the project. Project Details • This eGSE project is currently composed of 13 dual-port charging stations and one single- port station for a total of 27 electric charging ports located on the airside operational apron (see Figure 3-9). • Participating airlines have provided electric baggage carts and belt loaders to replace diesel- powered vehicles. • 14 charging ports have been installed on concourse A and 13 ports on concourse C. Implementation. As part of a Terminal Modernization Program implemented between 2011 and 2014, the Birmingham Airport Authority (BAA) began incorporating sustainability design Ground Support Equipment GS-01: Support Alternatively Fueled Ground Support Equipment 3.11 - Electric Ground Support Equipment; Birmingham-Shuttleworth International Airport (BHM), AL Airport Type: Small Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 2: Increasing airport electricity load • Scope 3: Facilitating tenant conversion to electric GSE FAA Region: Southern Financing: • VALE Program ACRP Report 56 Category: Ground Support Equipment ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: Not available

58 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts elements including the signature designation of the terminal as LEED Gold by the U.S. Green Building Council. To further the success of their sustainability efforts, the BAA initiated discus- sions with airline partners with the goal of identifying an eGSE project in which the charging infrastructure could be funded, in large part, by the FAA’s VALE Program. Under VALE, the BAA could obtain up to 90% of project costs for the electric charging infrastructure equipment and installation. As in all eGSE VALE-funded projects, the BAA would be required to document airline commitment to replace diesel-powered GSE with electric-powered vehicles without any grant funding. The BAA would also be required to provide the 10% project match. The airport’s VALE grant award was announced in September 2015, followed by a bidding and procurement process to select a contractor by January 2016, and all charging ports installed by July 2016. Airline partners Delta and Southwest, which had committed to providing 50% of the eGSE by January 2017 and the remaining 50% by January 2018, improved upon that time- frame and provided all of their required eGSE by January 2017. This significant accomplish- ment was attained through close coordination and cooperation among all parties. The total project cost for BHM was approximately $1 million, with the scope primarily limited by the amount of local funding match that was available. Since project completion, two addi- tional airlines have expressed interest in participating in an expanded program should further resources be made available. One important incentive for airlines at BHM is that the charg- ing ports are owned, operated, and maintained by the airport. And, because this electricity is not directly “metered” at the port but is instead rolled into the airport’s general electricity use, participating airlines are not directly charged for the electricity. The result is the elimination of the airline’s high diesel fuel costs and replacement with lower cost electricity. Additionally, the airport ensures that the charging ports are operational, observes their use, and submits an annual report to the FAA under the VALE grant requirements. Airport technical staff, supported by private consultants, led the data collection for consider- ing this GHG reduction measure. With a clear eye toward the airport’s environmental effects on its local community, leadership also came from the airport executive staff, which was open to implementing environmentally beneficial options. Although this eGSE project was not part of a specific development plan, the staff’s responsive approach allowed the airport to reduce GHG emissions, modernize its infrastructure, and harness significant federal funding. As a further result of this and other sustainably oriented projects, BHM and the Airport Authority are currently developing a comprehensive sustainability plan. Figure 3-9. eGSE charging stations used by Delta.

Case Examples 59 Lessons Learned • Although important for all airport development projects, the participation of and the close coordination with airline partners was essential to the overall success of this project. • Coordination with FAA Airport District Office staff was also critical. Specifically, the FAA originally interpreted the airline’s commitment as purchase of new eGSE for BHM. However, the airlines stated that, because of the level of use, they would instead purchase new eGSE equipment for use at large airports, then transfer refurbished and retrofitted eGSE to BHM. The FAA subsequently determined this transfer met the requirements of the grant, with par- ticular focus on the fact that the project would achieve the emission reduction goals of the VALE Program. • An obstacle arose when airline partners—which each have preferred equipment providers— were required by the FAA grant to accept charging ports obtained through a single procure- ment and open selection process. As the selected charging port was technically compatible with both equipment types, the barrier was a perceived one and was overcome by additional technical support and education on its usage. • Working with a consultant helped make the detailed and sometimes taxing grant approval process more effective and efficient. Effectiveness • Success was measured by implementation of the technology and the inherent benefits asso- ciated with its operation. Cobenefits • Stronger working partnerships with airlines and enhanced cooperation between airport technical and executive staff • Good will with the broader community through a demonstrated willingness to lessen envi- ronmental impacts on local air quality • Reduction in ramp noise Other Airports Implementing this Measure The FAA’s VALE Program has provided funding for eGSE and associated infrastructure, including for BHM’s project. The VALE grants awarded for eGSE are included in Table 3-5. Table 3-5. VALE projects funding eGSE. (continued on next page) 2018 Boston (BOS) 50 dual-port charging stations 99 pieces of eGSE $1,880,335 Washington-Dulles (IAD) 112 charging ports $4,000,000 2017 John F. Kennedy (JFK) 22 four-port and 16 dual-port charging stations $3,973,316 Oakland (OAK) 25 dual-port charging stations $3,171,438 Airport Project Description VALE Funds

60 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Table 3-5. (Continued). 2016 Chicago O’Hare (ORD) 124 charging ports $3,587,891 2015 Birmingham (BHM) 19 dual-port charging stations $900,000 Phoenix (PHX) 28 charging stations $1,019,100 2013 Albuquerque (ABQ) 20 charging stations $446,114 2010 Lehigh Valley (ABE) 8 pieces of eGSE, 6 single-port charging stations $543,464 University Park (UNV) 1 piece of eGSE, 1 single-port charging station $81,366 2009 San Jose (SJC) 11 pieces of eGSE $88,866 Philadelphia (PHL) 25 charging stations $6,589,236 2008 Houston (IAH) 2 pieces of eGSE cargo carts ~$6,000 Philadelphia (PHL) 20 dual-port charging stations $654,110 Westchester (HPN) 25 pieces of eGSE, 13 dual-port charging stations $1,032,949 Note: There at least 22 airports using electric ground support equipment (eGSE) (NREL, 2017). Airport Project Description VALE Funds

Case Examples 61 Introduction Movement of passengers, airport staff, and tenant employees to, from, and around the airport is a major contributor of GHG emissions (Monsalud, Ho, and Rakas, 2015). Personal vehicles, ridesharing services, taxis, hotel shuttles, transit and private bus services, airport-owned buses, and other vehicles constitute airport ground transportation and associated emissions sources. Airports can directly control their own fleet emissions by converting their buses and service vehicles to alter- natively fueled options such as CNG and electric. However, airports can only seek to influence the emissions resulting from vehicles driven to and from the airport by passengers and staff. As a key element of its modernization plan, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) has committed to achieving significant GHG reduction goals of 35% by 2025, and 80% by 2050, based on tracking of GHG emissions levels since 2006 (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2018). A fundamental initiative for reaching these goals is the imple- mentation of a comprehensive vehicle electrification plan for its five airports: John F. Kennedy Inter national (JFK), LaGuardia International (LGA), Newark Liberty International (EWR), New York Stewart International (SWF), and Teterboro (TEB). Project Details PANYNJ’s initial investment in developing an electric vehicle infrastructure network includes the current operation of six electric shuttle buses at JFK (see Figure 3-10) and a total of 15 vehicle Ground Transportation GT-14: Convert Airport Fleet Vehicles to Alternatively Fueled Vehicles GT-01: Provide Priority Vehicle Parking for Emission Friendly Vehicles (secondary) 3.12 Comprehensive Vehicle Electrification Program; Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, John F. Kennedy (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA), Newark (EWR), Stewart (SWF), and Teterboro (TEB) Airports Airport Type: Large Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Converting airport owned vehicles • Scope 2: Purchase renewable electricity for electrification • Scope 3: Influence the public to use electric charging stations FAA Region: Eastern Financing: • Capital budget ACRP Report 56 Category: Ground Transportation ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction (at 2025 goal): • Bus conversion estimated to result in a decrease of 1,620 MT CO2e/year

62 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts charging stations (five each at EWR, JFK, and LGA) at patron parking facilities available to the traveling public. In an effort to increase alternative vehicle options and to accelerate its GHG reduction program in the ground transportation sector, PANYNJ announced in October 2018 a comprehensive electric vehicle and infrastructure development plan to be implemented by 2025. It includes the following: • Thirty-six all-electric shuttle buses at JFK, LGA, and EWR • 50% of PANYNJ’s entire light duty vehicle fleet, representing 600–750 vehicles, converted to electric • A new fast-charging “hub” at JFK with 10 publicly accessible stations providing full electric vehicle recharge in 30 minutes or less Implementation The Comprehensive Vehicle Electrification Program has been developed on the basis of PANYNJ’s experience accounting for emissions through annual GHG inventories and imple- menting various projects to achieve GHG reductions. One of the greatest challenges it faces is the reduction of Scope 3 emissions—those that can only be influenced but not controlled by the airport—which include emissions resulting from ground transportation activities by tenants and the traveling public. PANYNJ determined that while investing in electrification of its fleet will result in direct emissions reduction, it can also influence further changes by its partners and customers. This enhanced benefit will be achieved in two primary ways: (1) by electrifying its own fleet, particularly buses, which sends a highly visible signal to the public regarding the feasibility of electric vehicles, and (2) by installing prominently placed charging stations and electrification infrastructure accessible to the public, the Port, and its tenants, which promotes the ease of electric vehicle adoption. PANYNJ’s broader plan has three main components: buses, light duty vehicles, and a charging hub. • The initial implementation of the electric bus program is underway at metropolitan New York’s three international airports. Six shuttle buses and multiple charging stations were delivered and have been operational at JFK since September 2018. Twelve additional buses, as well as charging infrastructure, are scheduled for delivery to LGA and EWR (six at each Figure 3-10. New electric buses at JFK Airport.

Case Examples 63 airport) in 2019. The Port is also studying the most effective use for an additional 18 electric shuttle buses by planning for details such as location of charging stations and maintenance depots, as well as determining the specifications and optimal distribution of the fleet. • To meet its goal of electrifying 50% of its light-duty fleet, PANYNJ has placed an initial order for 150 vehicles to be delivered in early 2019 and distributed among all Port facilities (not just airports), including vehicles operating at SWF and TEB. The initial 150-vehicle order is split between all-electric (Chevy Volt) and hybrid-electric (Chrysler Pacifica), with more than a third of the entire order for use at airports including JFK, LGA, and EWR. SWF and TEB will not receive vehicles in the first year of procurement. The number and type of vehicles acquired in each subsequent year will depend on market availability with a strong preference for all-electric options. PANYNJ’s goal is to acquire between 600 and 750 electric vehicles for its light duty fleet by 2025. Contractors are installing chargers at various locations accessible to Port vehicles. • The fast-charging hub project planned at JFK is a partnership with New York Power Author- ity under its EVolve Program, which will locate charging hubs 75 miles apart across New York. The hub at JFK will include 10 150-kW fast chargers easily accessible at the existing cellphone parking lot. Charging time depends on vehicle type and battery, but, on average, the fast-charging hub will complete a full charge in 30 minutes. Fully available for public use, the hub will support the expansion of electric vehicles among ridesharing TNCs, private transportation companies, and the general public. The hub is scheduled for construction in early 2019. The schedule and progress of program implementation is on the basis of funding, the electric vehicle market, and coordination with partners. Some issues at hand include constraints from the concurrent funding of major capital improvements at JFK and LGA, as well as the limited commercial availability of all-electric vans, trucks, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Addition- ally, a New York state initiative to develop electric vehicle infrastructure networks and charging stations is advancing the schedule for some aspects of PANYNJ’s program. Lessons Learned • Some of the Port’s fleet is not suitable for conversion to electric power. For example, police vehicles, which comprise 35% of the total fleet, require a substantial amount of technology that is challenging to retrofit. • All-electric vehicle selection is limited, in part because of the Port’s “Buy American” recom- mendation. Competitively priced, all-electric vehicles manufactured in the United States are currently only available in passenger class; however, once U.S. made all-electric SUVs and trucks become available, purchasing is expected to substantially increase. • Siting is critical to ensure ease of access as well as adequate existing electrical infrastructure necessary for sufficient electricity supply, particularly for Level 3 fast-charging hubs, other- wise the costs of installation become prohibitive (Fitzgerald and Nelder, 2017). • Existing charging stations at the terminals are often occupied for days by passengers who park their cars and charge them while out of town. Nonparking, fast-charging hubs will help alleviate this issue and increase overall access to charging stations. Effectiveness • PANYNJ has determined that the replacement of a diesel bus with an electric one is estimated to result in a decrease of 45 MT of CO2e each year. When amplified across the larger vehicle electrification program, the 36 buses alone will result in a reduction of 1,620 MT of CO2e each year.

64 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Airport Project Grant (50% of Project Cost) FY 2017 Indianapolis (IND) 3 electric buses, 3 charging stations $1,000,000 San Jose (SJC) 10 electric buses, 10 charging stations $4,857,478 Raleigh- Durham (RDU) 4 electric buses, 3 charging stations $1,633,300 Sacramento (SAC) 5 electric buses, 5 charging stations, 1 overhead charger $2,056,805 FY 2016 Indianapolis (IND) 6 electric buses, 3 charging stations $2,614,949 FY 2015 Atlanta (ATL) 1 electric bus, 1 inductive charging station $926,789 St. Louis (STL) 4 utility electric carts $28,299 Table 3-6. FAA grants issued under the Zero Emission Vehicle Program. Cobenefits • The electric buses are purposely designed to be highly visible with the goal of positively influ- encing the public’s perception of electric vehicle cost effectiveness and practicality. • The program demonstrates PANYNJ’s commitment to continually improving the air quality at the airports, positively affecting the health of their surrounding neighborhoods. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • More than 79% of STL’s vehicle fleet is powered by alternative fuels. Its green fleet includes 23 electric vehicles, 80 CNG-powered vehicles, and more than 200 biodiesel powered vehicles. • Los Angeles World Airports established an Electric Vehicle Purchasing Policy in June 2017, which requires it to make 50% of its light duty purchases electric vehicles by 2017, 80% by 2025, and 100% by 2035. There are currently 101 publicly available charging stations for public use free of charge at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Van Nuys Airport (VNY). The FAA’s ZEV Program allocates AIP grant funds for these types of projects. Recipients of ZEV grants are listed in Table 3-6.

Case Examples 65 Introduction Nearly 40% of all GHG emissions are attributed to the design, construction, and operation of buildings, with the majority of those emissions resulting from fossil fuel generated electricity, heating, and cooling of building space (Theordor, 2016). One of the best strategies for reducing these emissions is the use of existing technologies to build LEED certified structures. According to the U.S. Green Building Council (2016), the average LEED building uses 32% less electricity and saves 350 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. By stretching efficiencies to the highest levels, and by adding renewable energy systems, new and retrofitted buildings can now achieve a LEED certification of zero net energy (ZNE). ZNE buildings produce as much energy (or more) than they consume annually (see Figure 3-11). In 2014, San Francisco International Airport (SFO) constructed a ZNE-designed office build- ing intended to serve as a model for future development options at emissions-neutral air- ports. In the 2015 report Zero Net Energy Buildings: How California’s Local Jurisdictions Can Lead the Way, the Center for Sustainable Energy notes that municipal buildings, like the airport’s ZNE building, are recognized not only for their immediate emission-reducing impact, but also for their capacity to lead by example. Project Details SFO’s ZNE building, which serves as the nerve center for airport security operations, is an 8,000-square foot airport office building with an attached 8,000-square foot parking garage. The project design includes daylight tubes that maximize the availability of natural light; dynamic glazed windows that automatically tint in response to light thereby reducing heat loading; 3.13 Zero Net Energy Office Building; San Francisco International Airport (SFO), CA Airport Type: Large Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 1: Implementing energy efficiency and renewable energy to avoid emissions from fossil fuel-fired building systems. (All electricity purchased from the grid is from hydropower and considered a carbon-neutral source.) FAA Region: Western/Pacific Financing: • AIP ACRP Report 56 Category: ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: Not available Business Planning BP-08: Use Airport Specific Sustainable Planning, Design, and Construction Guidelines Performance Measurement PM-04: Track Energy Use (secondary)

66 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts LED lighting responsive to specific needs of the occupants; and a variable refrigerant volume HVAC system that uses ambient air and electric power. Solar PV panels have been erected on the building roof and on the top deck of the parking garage to supply the reduced electricity load. Implementation SFO initially identified the ZNE office building to be a test of sustainable building design with successful attributes to be incorporated into plans for the terminal 1 project and other large-scale developments planned at SFO. The building was developed for the airport security department, which had outgrown its space and capabilities, and required a state-of-the-art facility that could support the expanded technological needs of a modern agency. The build- ing was designed and built to meet LEED Gold level with many sustainability features beyond those associated with energy including water conservation, waste reduction, and low-pollutant interior carpets and paints. Once the building was constructed, it was necessary for operations staff to make modifica- tions to the heating and cooling systems and lighting controls to enhance energy efficiency on the basis of occupancy and use patterns. Some adjustments were necessary because of a lack of detail during the testing and commissioning process. For example, staff identified that not all systems had been set to operate at the most efficient mode during start-up. In other cases, changes needed to be made due to the functioning of airport security, which is occupied 24/7. While staffing is more limited at night, lighting and conditioning systems may be triggered by movement of personnel, even when just briefly passing through areas, which results in unnec- essary energy consumption. To increase efficiency, all mechanical systems were consolidated into a single building management system that is controlled and operated from a remote loca- tion. After a period of balancing the systems, operators achieved greater energy efficiency and improved occupant comfort. Another barrier to achieving zero net energy was that the particular energy demands of the security force were not effectively forecasted. For example, large television screens used for security monitoring run 24/7 and alone account for approximately 4–5% of total energy load. Figure 3-11. Zero net energy concept.

Case Examples 67 Handheld radios are also constantly being charged. There is an electric bus charging station in the garage that was not accounted for in the original building forecasts. While the building incorporated the aggressive energy efficiency design components that are the first step toward ZNE, the initial installation included only about half of the required on-site renewable energy generation, which was supplemented in April 2018 by a doubling of the solar photovoltaic system. At the end of 2018, the building had achieved the milestone of one full year of net zero emissions. Lessons Learned • Commissioning of the building and its systems by engineers and designers is critical to ensuring the building operates as designed, particularly given the increased use of complex technology. Airport staff needs to be well-informed about commissioning issues and firmly integrated into commissioning and verification processes. • The intended occupant’s purpose and activities must be closely considered when configuring smart building systems, such as lighting and electricity demands. In this case, energy con- sumption of the airport security building was greater than expected because of the unique activities of the occupants. • A willingness to alter, adjust, or rework ZNE buildings may be necessary to achieve or main- tain overall energy equilibrium as energy demands and/or use patterns shift over time. Effectiveness • The effectiveness of the project has been tracked through regular monitoring of electricity consumption. Changes in operations and building system controls have been made over time, reducing consumption. With the addition of additional solar power in April 2018, the build- ing was able to achieve ZNE measured over the previous 12-month period by the end of 2018. Cobenefits • The project has greatly enhanced SFO staff capabilities to identify technical and operational barriers to decreasing energy efficiency, which has been employed with each successive build- ing project. • As the first U.S. airport to construct an NZE building specifically designed to meet airport needs, SFO’s industry leadership can serve as a model for airports and municipal entities looking to incorporate NZE buildings into their GHG reduction strategies. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Appleton International Airport, in Wisconsin, designed a ZNE general aviation terminal that was commissioned in 2013.

68 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction The Good Traveler Program provides air passengers with a simple and direct opportunity to offset their travel-associated carbon emissions by investing the added cost of associated emis- sions into local carbon reduction projects. People undertake offsetting on The Good Traveler website through a three-step process: (1) calculate the distance of the trip; (2) purchase the offset currently valued at $2 per 1,000 miles flown; and (3) Good Traveler invests the money in carbon reduction projects. Under this last step, the carbon offset credit is formally retired ensuring that the contribution has been officially used for emission reduction. Other offsetting programs exist, but none are specific to airports and their interest to provide their customers with a climate solution. Recognizing this fact, SAN founded The Good Traveler Program to offer carbon offsetting to its customers and to apply the offset value to local projects, generating benefits both locally and globally. SAN made The Good Traveler platform available to other airports in 2016 and engaged the Rocky Mountain Institute to manage the program. At the time of publication, there are 11 airports that are program partners. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL) has been a member of The Good Traveler Program since 2018 and its participation in the program is profiled as an example. Project Details In 2018, ATL joined The Good Traveler as an advisory member, along with SAN and six other airport operators. It has identified a local source of renewable energy for which pas- sengers traveling through ATL can use to offset their emissions. The Dalton-Whitfield and Wolf Creek Landfill-to-Energy projects reduce carbon pollution and provide a reliable source of renewable energy to local industry while supplying enough power for up to 1,500 homes. The city of Atlanta promotes the opportunity for passengers to offset their carbon emissions through The Good Traveler Program through signs (see Figure 3-12), and via a custom-tailored 30-second video feed on monitors in the airport concourses. The city of Atlanta made its own contribution to Good Traveler when it purchased offsets for 71,000 fans who attended Super Bowl 53 in Atlanta in February 2019. The commitment offset Business Planning BP-07: Offer Voluntary Carbon Offsets for Passengers 3.14 The Good Traveler Program; Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), GA Airport Type: Large GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 3: Make a program available to the airport’s customers to purchase carbon offsets for their travel. FAA Region: Southern Financing: • Operating budget with customer participation ACRP Report 56 Category: Business Planning ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 1 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: Not available

Case Examples 69 carbon emissions from 115 million miles of air travel, which is equivalent to 18,000 MT of CO2e, or equivalent to taking 3,822 cars off the road for one year. Implementation While any air passenger can participate in The Good Traveler Program, regardless of the airports used, the active participation of airport partners helps promote the program’s suc- cess and allows airports to connect to that success. Specifically, airport partners can promote passenger offsets inside their terminals and account for those registered from their airport to address Scope 3 CO2 emissions. Some participating airports, like ATL, have commissioned ani- mated video and created signage for terminals, promoting offsetting and allowing passengers to act when traveling. Passengers can select a home airport, which allows airport partners to better understand their ability to influence voluntary carbon reduction through their physical or virtual promotion activities. In addition, not only does participation in The Good Traveler Program allow for the measurement of the emissions from air travel originating at an airport but also it allows for stakeholders to contribute to global climate change emissions. Each credit is invested in local projects providing a direct, verifiable environmental benefit to the partner airport and its community. Airports interested in becoming a partner simply contact The Good Traveler Program and start promoting. Passengers interested in participating in The Good Traveler Program log on to the website, calculate emissions from a trip and cost to offset, and purchase the offset. Lessons Learned • It can be challenging for airports to communicate to the public how offsets benefit the environment. Figure 3-12. Column wrap for Good Traveler.

70 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts • Offsets are relatively new products and education is essential to explain how they work and to cultivate trust in their efficacy. Effectiveness • The total value of the offset purchase goes directly to the associated project. Cobenefits • Program increases the public’s understanding of individual actions and impacts on climate change. • Program offers a direct method that allows passengers to address the hard-to-abate emissions from aircraft. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) • Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) • John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) • LaGuardia International Airport (LGA) • Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR) • San Diego International Airport (SAN) • San Francisco International Airport (SFO) • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA)

Case Examples 71 Introduction Since 2014, TNCs such as Uber and Lyft have had a dramatic effect on how passengers travel to and from airports. As demand for ridesharing services increases, airports are faced with new challenges in influencing the amount of GHG emissions associated with these driver-owned vehicles. [It is important to note that Lyft has created a national carbon offset program which, in 2018, offset more than 1 million metric tons of carbon, ensuring that all Lyft rides are carbon neutral (Lyft, 2018).] Creative solutions are emerging to help mitigate the significant contribu- tion of TNC emissions to an airport’s overall carbon footprint. By calling on TNCs to measure impacts such as average vehicle fuel efficiency, trip distance, and the number of passengers trans- ported, airports can then track the specific contribution of TNCs to overall GHG emissions. In response, airports can create fee structures, improve access to alternative fuels, and establish other incentives to encourage TNCs to reduce their emissions. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority launched its Clean Vehicle Program at San Diego International Airport (SAN) in 2010. While the Airport’s program successfully incen- tivized the conversion of 97% of its taxi fleet to more fuel-efficient vehicles, similarly incentivizing TNCs required another step. In a novel partnership demonstrating that TNCs can both account for GHG emissions and respond to cost-saving incentives, the airport’s TNC GHG Reduction Program establishes mutually agreed on emissions reduction targets and then provides dis- counts to the companies when they meet that target. According to the Airport Authority, this agreement has already resulted in emissions reductions of up to 30% for some participating companies, illustrating the appreciable effects of partnering with the TNC industry. Project Details The TNC GHG Reduction Program establishes annual fuel efficiency standards, records TNC activity via a customized computer platform, and provides operating fee discounts on the Ground Transportation GT-17: Support Alternatively Fueled Taxis and Ridesharing 3.15 Transportation Network Company Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program; San Diego International Airport (SAN), CA Airport Type: Large Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 3: Emissions from companies transporting air travelers to and from the airport FAA Region: Western/Pacific Financing: • Operations budget ACRP Report 56 Category: Ground Transportation ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction (at 2020 Goal): • 30% reduction in emissions from this source after one year

72 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts basis of demonstrated compliance with annual emissions reduction targets. This system includes registering TNC vehicle types, collecting individual trip characteristics, calculating emissions from those activities, and applying more stringent standards each year to document emissions reductions. The program is primarily managed by a software interface used jointly by TNCs and the airport. Implementation Between 2010 and 2017, the Airport Authority’s comprehensive Clean Vehicle Program suc- cessfully reduced taxi fleet emissions by 86% through the conversion to more fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles. This reduction was accomplished by modifying the existing commercial ground transportation permit system to increase charges on traditional fuel vehicles while simultane- ously discounting charges for cleaner alternatives. In partnership with a local nonprofit environ- mental organization and the state of California, grant funding for vehicle conversion was made available to interested taxi operators. Additional incentives were also made available to hotel/ motel shuttles, vehicles-for-hire, and off-airport parking shuttles, while all airport-owned buses and shuttles were converted to alternative fuels by the start of 2017. When TNCs began operating at the airport in 2015, these independent vehicles represented a change in the transportation landscape, as they were not subject to the commercial ground transportation permit system or its fuel efficiency incentives. In response, the Airport Authority engaged TNCs in developing a program that would fold them into the existing permitting system and allow for data collection on their environmental impact. The program records details of each airport trip, including the vehicle make and model, total miles, number of parties, and the associated GHGs. It gives the TNCs credit for measures such as pooling (i.e., higher occupancy trips) and rematch (i.e., an airport and return roundtrip with travelers as opposed to a one-way trip). The program quantifies the reduced vehicle miles traveled as well as GHGs associated with these operations. The San Diego County Regional Airport Authority uses the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fuel Economy website as its central reference for standardizing data on vehicle fuel consumption and GHG emissions. It includes information on fuel consumption by car make and model and presents a greenhouse gas rating (GGR) on a scale of 1 to 10 based on miles per gallon (mpg), with a 10 representing vehicles with 44 mpg or higher (see Figure 3-13). A range of CO2 grams per vehicle-mile is also associated with each GGR category for standardizing GHG emissions accounting. Drawing on this emissions data, TNCs calculate their average fleet GHG emissions inten- sity and pay a trip fee premium if they do not reach targeted GGR levels. In the first year of the program (2017), all of the TNCs met the required fleet mpg of GGR 6, or 26–28 mpg. For sub sequent years, the TNCs are required to improve their GGR level, with the goal of reaching GGR 9, or 38–43 mpg, by 2020 (equivalent to the hybrid taxi fleet). Lessons Learned • This innovative program demonstrates how airports can adapt their GHG reduction efforts to changing market conditions. • It is important to develop relationships with TNCs to understand how to structure the strongest economic incentives to reach GHG reduction targets. • Data collection and standardization was fundamental to the program as there were no estab- lished baselines for GHG emissions from TNC activity, although TNCs are likely to remain somewhat protective of data for competitive reasons.

Case Examples 73 • Developing the formulas for crediting GHG reductions and increasing fees was an obstacle, as there were different pressures associated with striking the correct balance of regulation and incentive to achieve objectives. • A performance-based approach gained support from the regulated community. Effectiveness • In 2017, participating TNC companies reduced emissions by up to 30%. • Continued success is measured by TNC annual compliance with this incentive program. Cobenefits • Local air quality improvement is a significant cobenefit given the San Diego metropolitan area’s EPA classification as a nonattainment zone for ozone. • Increased carpooling supported by program occupancy incentives reduces congestion on roadways and curbsides. • Opportunity for collaboration with the environmental community as it is interested in the impacts of TNCs. • Provides industry leadership of a widely applicable and replicable program. Other Airports Implementing this Measure • Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA) pioneered the TNC regulatory program, which it piloted in 2016. Figure 3-13. Vehicle GHG data from the U.S. Department of Energy.

74 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Introduction In recognition of the significant carbon footprint associated with aircraft operations, the Port of Seattle has directed considerable effort to support the adoption of SAF, a low-carbon alter- native to conventional jet fuel (Figure 3-14). Although GHG emissions from aircraft are the responsibility of airlines, airports and their governing authorities have the ability to influence and support GHG reduction measures, especially as they relate to airports’ Scope 3 landing and takeoff emissions. As a focal point for aviation fuel consumption, the Port of Seattle is exploring the role they can play to aggregate demand for SAF. Over the past decade, the Port of Seattle has worked with multiple airlines, industry experts, and more than 40 regional stakeholders as part of a broad consortium to identify the environmen- tal and economic benefits of developing SAF in the Pacific Northwest (Climate Solutions, 2019). These efforts have culminated in the port’s ambitious goal to have all flights departing Seattle- Tacoma International Airport (SEA) fueled with at least 10% SAF by 2028 (GreenAir, 2014). Project Details The project includes the development of a SAF use plan, an infrastructure plan for blending and delivery of fuel at SEA, a SAF innovative financing study, and a SAF-related memorandum of understanding (MOU) with airlines. Implementation The port’s Sustainable Aviation Fuels Program has been a complex, multiyear effort to solve many previously unanswered questions about the development and delivery of SAF and the role that an airport plays in helping to develop a SAF market. The program grew out of the port’s Airfield Design and Operation AF-13: Support the Development of Alternative Fuels for Aircraft 3.16 Sustainable Aviation Fuels; Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), WA Airport Type: Large Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 3: Fuel burn from airline aircraft FAA Region: Northwest/Mountain Financing: • Operations budget • Private partners ACRP Report 56 Category: Airfield Design and Operations ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 1 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction (at 2028 Goal): • 682,500 MT CO2e/year (~68,250 MT CO2e/year landing and takeoff emissions) based on biogenic emissions

Case Examples 75 participation in the Sustainable Aviation Fuels Northwest Initiative, a regional collaboration of airports, airlines, feedstock growers, researchers, and policy makers formed in 2008 to develop an understanding of the problem and to identify potential solutions specifically for the North- west Region. Out of this collaboration, the port shifted its role from that of research and development support, to direct market development via infrastructure, policy influence, and financing. In 2016, it released the Aviation Biofuels Infrastructure Feasibility Study with support from Boeing and Alaska Airlines. This report produced valuable data for integrating SAF into the airport’s fueling infrastructure, including specifying locations along the pipeline and at the airport for blending and receiving fuels. Since then, SFO commenced its own SAF infrastructure study in collaboration with airlines. Preliminary feedback from SAF producers suggests that fueling infrastructure studies are a best practice for airports interested in accelerating SAF adoption at their airport. In 2017, the port partnered with the Rocky Mountain Institute and SkyNRG on an innovative financial study that explored a large range of possible funding sources to reduce the incremental cost of SAF or support SAF infrastructure (Klauber et al., 2017). SAF’s price premium, com- pared with conventional jet fuel, is a barrier to faster adoption. SEA was interested in learning how it could potentially address this challenge. Importantly, the funding study included ways that an airport could be involved in financial incentives without directly paying for airlines’ fuel, noting that some such incentives are not possible because of FAA requirements around airport revenue. The results of these efforts were drawn into other airport planning processes, including a Sustainable Airport Master Plan within the airport’s Climate Protection Program. In December 2017, the port’s Commission adopted the following sustainable aviation fuel use goals at SEA: • By 2028, 10% of jet fuel available at SEA will be produced locally from sustainable sources, increasing to 25% by 2035, and to the maximum approved blend (currently 50%) by 2050. Figure 3-14. SEA partnering with Alaska Airlines.

76 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts In May 2018, the port announced an MOU agreement with 16 airlines to collaborate on a work plan to supply and consume sustainable aviation fuels at SEA in accordance with the use goals approved by the Commission. A Sustainable Aviation Fuel Strategic Plan (2018) summa- rizes the port’s comprehensive program and implementation schedule. Lessons Learned • SAF market development research required executive level engagement on financial, eco- nomic development, policy, and legal issues. • Airlines have finite staff resources to dedicate to SAF committee work across multiple airports, which has prompted more formal engagement between airport and airline industry associa- tions (ACI–NA and A4A) to develop best practices. • Airports need to cooperate closely with airlines in developing practical targets, noting that prior industry goals (Boeing: 1% of industry fuel use by 2015; FAA: 1 billion gallons by 2018) have not been achieved. • A fueling infrastructure study is a best first step for airports that wish to facilitate SAF adop- tion at their airport. Port staff developed both the infrastructure and financing analysis in such a way to create a template or best practices to reduce work for other airports exploring the same issues. • It is important to manage expectations of both internal and external stakeholders, as SAF is a nascent market that requires time to develop—with fuel producers, airlines, airports, and policy makers all playing different but important roles to achieve success. Effectiveness • Airlines at SEA are projected to use approximately 700 million gallons of jet fuel per year, therefore a 10% reduction would eliminate GHG emissions associated with 70 million gallons of fossil jet fuel (using the GHG Protocol). • Without a policy mechanism like California and Oregon’s Low Carbon or Clean Fuel Standard, SAF adoption is unlikely to be adopted because of cost competitiveness. • Overall, the use of SAF, when compared with conventional jet fuel, results in a 50% to 80% reduction in CO2 emissions fuel over their respective lifecycles (International Air Transport Association, 2019). Cobenefits • Reduces air pollutants, such as particulate matter and sulfur, which improves relationships with surrounding airport communities • Local economic development associated with SAF production in the Pacific Northwest • Enhanced partnerships with airlines, producers, refineries, and pipeline owners • Demonstrating industry leadership Other Airports Implementing this Measure • United Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines flights from Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) contain SAF. • KLM, Scandinavian Airlines, and Finnair flights from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) contain SAF. • Batches of SAF have been delivered to Chicago O’Hare (ORD) for future use.

Case Examples 77 Introduction The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) with funding support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) imple- mented the solar at-gate pilot project to demonstrate one solution for civil aviation authorities and airports to reduce CO2 emissions from international civil aviation consistent with ICAO State Action Plans. The solar at-gate concept was approved by the United Nations as a certified proce- dure for reducing CO2 emissions through a two-step process. In the first step, pre-conditioned air (PCA) units and ground power frequency converters are installed to allow aircraft when parked at the gate to cease operations of the APU and obtain power from the terminal. In the second step of the process, the increased electricity power demand from the gate equipment is supplied by a solar power facility connected to the terminal grid, which ensures the power used by aircraft is carbon free. While many airports have implemented either gate electrification equipment or solar PV, no other airports have demonstrated how the supply of electricity demanded by aircraft is provided by solar. The Jamaica Civil Aviation Authority identified the implementation of gate power systems and solar in its State Action Plan. Funding was directed from UNDP and GEF to ICAO to dem- onstrate the solar at-gate concept at Norman Manley International Airport (KIN) in Jamaica. Project Details The project is composed of a ground-mounted PCA unit and a ground power frequency converter attached to gate 1, where the majority of international flights operate (see Figure 3-15). A 100-kW solar facility attached to a canopy structure is located in the surface parking area 3.17 Solar At-Gate Project; Norman Manley International Airport (KIN), Kingston, Jamaica Airport Type: Medium Hub GHG Protocol Emissions Type: • Scope 2: Limit grid-supplied electricity by producing renewable electricity on-site • Scope 3: Eliminate emissions from aircraft APUs FAA Region: NA Financing: • United Nations Development Programme and the Global Environment Facility ACRP Report 56 Category: Airfield Design and Operations ACRP Report 56 Fact Sheet Indicative Values: • Implementation schedule: 2 of 4 • Estimated annual O&M: 4 of 4 Estimated GHG Reduction: • 583 U.S. tons of CO2 per year Airfield Design and Operations AF-01: Provide Infrastructure for Pre-Conditioned Air and Ground Power Renewable Energy RE-02: Install Building-Mounted or Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Panels (secondary)

78 Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts directly across from the airport terminal. An educational kiosk is located inside the terminal providing real-time information on electricity output from the solar facility. A sign is also located in the parking area adjacent to the solar facility informing the public about the project, its objectives, and its components. Implementation Once ICAO developed the project proposal and was awarded funding, it prepared a tender with technical specifications about the project and the bidding and selection process. The gate equipment was required to be sized to serve Code D aircraft (e.g., Boeing 767, Airbus 310) to ensure adequate cooling capacity and power. Electric meters were required for measuring power demand from the gate equipment to compare solar facility electricity generation and confirm CO2 reductions. The solar facility and canopy structure had to be designed to meet a Category V hurricane standard with new design features developed in the aftermath of hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017. The equipment had to meet industry standards for warranties and the bidder had to provide 2 years of preventative maintenance. The contractor also had to provide training on operations and maintenance of all systems to airport staff and stakeholders, such as ground handlers and airline personnel. A bidders meeting was conducted and, after bids were submitted and reviewed, a contractor was selected for the project. The project construction was completed in the first quarter of 2018 with the formal inaugura- tion occurring in April. The project also funded gate equipment at a second airport in Jamaica, Sangster in Montego Bay, which provided support for attracting private investment in a solar project to complete the solar at-gate concept. Lessons Learned • Delivery time for gate equipment can be long because equipment is manufactured and shipped to order. It may be necessary to plan for 6 months for order and delivery. • Conduct a formal site acceptance testing process that reviews all equipment installed as well as provides documentation that equipment has been commissioned as required by inter- national standards. G a t e 2 G a t e 1 Figure 3-15. Solar at-gate concept partnering with Alaska Airlines.

Case Examples 79 • An initial period operations and maintenance contract is important to ensure that the con- tractor remains involved with the initial operation of the equipment and with getting any glitches ironed out. • Airports without any existing gate equipment and associated procedures for their operation, including contracts with airlines and ground handlers, need to make time for consultation with stakeholders and for the development of use procedures. Effectiveness • Metering and monitoring equipment are important for measuring effectiveness. The solar output can be recorded and observed on a regular basis. The gate equipment also can be configured with a modem for collecting information on operations remotely. Cobenefits • Reduction in ramp air quality and noise when APU is not in operations. • Educational components provide wider benefits of the airport’s environmental initiatives. Other Airports Implementing this Measure No airports in the United States have registered projects for the solar at-gate application. However, there are a number of airports that have both gate electrification equipment and solar power that could claim CO2 reductions from the United Nation’s solar at-gate concept.

Next: Chapter 4 - Conclusions and Suggested Research »
Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Airports in the United States are responding to the demand for increased air travel with sustainable development that incorporates more energy-efficient and lower-emission technologies. Funding for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-reducing technologies, such as electrification, alternative fuels, and renewable energy, has also become more accessible as technologies are proven to be safe, reliable, and cost-effective.

Newer strategies and programs to reduce GHG emissions reach beyond airport operations to incorporate the traveling public. These are among the findings in the TRB Airport Cooperative Research Program's ACRP Synthesis 100: Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. The report assesses (1) the state of practice of GHG emissions reduction initiatives at airports, and (2) the lessons learned to support the successful implementation of future GHG reduction projects.

The report also finds that large airports are taking the lead in moving beyond reduction strategies for their own emissions and tackling those produced by tenants and the traveling public by supporting the use of alternative fuels and directing passengers to airport carbon offset platforms.

It is clear that airports regard energy-efficiency measures to be the most effective practice to reducing GHG emissions. Smaller airports, in particular, are adopting new technologies associated with more efficient heating and cooling infrastructure and lighting systems because they decrease energy consumption and make economic sense. GHG reduction projects are being implemented by different types of airports across the industry because of the cost savings and the environmental benefits of the new technology.

Airports are actively benchmarking emission-reduction progress in comparison with similar efforts at airports around the world by using frameworks employed by the industry globally, such as the Airport Carbon Accreditation Program and the airport carbon emissions reporting tool (ACERT), to measure their GHG emissions.

Innovative approaches are allowing airports to address rapidly changing consumer behaviors, like those presented in recent years by transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft. These policy-based solutions offer the potential for wider adoption as they enable airports to act without significant capital expenditures.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!