Model for Improving Energy Use in U.S. Airport Facilities (2007)

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.

Research Results Digest 2 December 2007 C O N T E N T S Summary, 1 Introduction, 1 Research Approach, 2 Findings, 3 Best Practices for Reducing Energy Use in Airport Facilities, 9 Conclusions and Suggested Research, 16 References, 17 Bibliography, 17 Resources, 18 Glossary of Acronyms, 18 Author Acknowledgments, 19 SUMMARY Expert guidance on reducing airport facilities’ energy use and environmental impacts can help airport management op- erate airport facilities more efficiently. This digest presents data on U.S. airports’ utilization of 11 major energy management practices, offers a set of best practices for reducing energy use, and summarizes three case studies of recent recommissioning proj- ects that resulted in significant reductions in energy use. Appendixes A through D of this digest—“Study of Terminals B and D at Dallas/Fort Worth International Air- port”; “Airport Rental Car Facility Case Study”; “Continuous Commissioning® of the Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City, Utah”; and “Airport Survey Ques- tionnaire”; respectively—are available on the Transportation Research Board (TRB) website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail. asp?id=8265. INTRODUCTION Millions of domestic and international passengers pass through airport termi- nals annually and the number is increasing, driven in part by a vibrant, global economy. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) forecasts the number of boardings to grow from 660 million in 1999 to 1,046 million in 2011 (58.5% increase) (1). As airports have grown larger and more complex, they have also become more numerous, with over 500 commercial and 2,800 general avia- tion facilities. Airports have become some of the largest public users of energy. Energy is often the second largest airport operating expense, exceeded only by personnel. Airport facility managers strive con- stantly to reduce operating expenses to help control costs for their airline tenants (who have been on the verge of bankruptcy, with rare exception, since the attacks of Sep- tember 11, 2001). Limiting or eliminating unnecessary energy use in airport facilities can be an effective means of reducing air- port operating expenses while at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. Research Objective This research on improving energy use in airports was identified by a panel of air- port industry experts as important for air- port facility managers and executives, who need guidance on reducing airport energy use and environmental impacts. The objec- tive of this research is to provide airport facility managers with timely guidance on MODEL FOR IMPROVING ENERGY USE IN U.S. AIRPORT FACILITIES This digest summarizes the findings of Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Project 11-02, “Model for Improving Energy Use in U.S. Airport Facilities.” The research was conducted by the Energy Systems Laboratory at Texas A & M University. Subject Areas: V Aviation, IB Energy and Environment Responsible Senior Program Officer: Michael R. Salamone AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM Sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

significantly reducing energy use in U.S. airport fa- cilities through the following: • Improved energy-related operations and main- tenance (O&M) procedures, • Recommissioning/optimization of major energy-consuming systems, and • Installation of the latest cost-effective energy conservation measures. Energy and Environmental Issues The operating environment for airports, both large and small, has changed dramatically over the last decade. National concern about the security of energy resources has intensified since the attacks of September 11, 2001. At the same time, worldwide demand for energy is growing dramatically, as il- lustrated by the ever-increasing demand from de- veloping countries like China and India. The cost of electricity for airports has escalated to record high levels, driven by the price of natural gas, the fuel mix of generators, and utility deregulation in many states. Air pollutants from power generation and the combustion of fossil fuels can have a major impact on airports located in areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) as non-attainment areas. Also, greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels are now considered a contributing factor to global warming. This complex scenario of energy and environmental factors places significant economic and political pressure on air- port managers to accurately assess their airport’s performance, reduce energy use, and minimize the airport’s environmental footprint. Airport Energy Management Research Needs Most airport facility managers have invested in energy-efficient improvements such as upgrading heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems; upgrading building controls; and installing high-efficiency lighting. However, investments in energy improvements can be costly and often com- pete with other capital improvement projects. Fur- ther, from research in hundreds of buildings in the Texas LoanSTAR program in the 1990s, the Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) at Texas A&M Univer- sity found that retrofit savings are often less than projected without close monitoring; verification and proper commissioning are required to obtain pro- jected performance (2). At the same time, little emphasis or research has been given to low- or no-cost techniques such as O&M and building optimization techniques that can significantly reduce energy use. Also, few attempts have been made to quantify or benchmark the sav- ings potential at airports other than through broad general statements supported with little empirical data and few case studies. Rusty Hodapp, vice president of energy and trans- portation management at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport, stated at an airline industry fa- cilities management conference in February 2004 that “the operations and maintenance budget for air- port facilities constitutes a significant portion of an airport’s overall annual budget” and that “there are no industrywide benchmarks to enable facility man- agers or airport executives to assess where budget improvements—or savings—can be made.” An air- port industry list of generally accepted energy-saving best practices does not exist. RESEARCH APPROACH This project is targeted at improving energy- saving practices in U.S. airports through a study of energy-related O&M best practices, building recom- missioning, and energy conservation retrofit measures (ECRMs) for immediate use by airport managers. The ESL assembled a team of energy engineers, building recommissioning experts, and facility en- ergy managers who have all worked extensively in the area of building energy performance. The re- search team decided that the most effective and ef- ficient approach to determining best practices in airport facility energy use was to conduct a nation- wide e-mail survey/questionnaire and to examine the practices of a complex airport with a history of good energy and environmental management practices. The DFW Airport facilities management team vol- unteered to provide comprehensive information on their award-winning energy and environmental prac- tices. Thus, the project involved two main efforts: an airport industry survey and an on-site assessment of DFW Airport. Airport O&M Best Practices Survey ESL designed an airport facilities survey to cre- ate an energy profile and to examine the utilization 2

of O&M, building recommissioning, and energy retrofit practices. Each airport surveyed was cate- gorized as large, medium, or small—based on the number of annual enplanements. Enplanements are defined by the FAA as the number of passengers boarding mainline or regional carriers. Large airports had greater than 1,000,000 enplanements, medium airports had 250,000 to 1,000,000 enplanements, and small airports had fewer than 250,000 enplanements. The survey instrument (available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id= 8265) was sent to airport managers at 78 regionally diverse airports, grouped by number of annual en- planements. The airports surveyed were selected on the basis of size from an FAA list of more than 500 airports (3). O&M practices, recommissioning prac- tices, and ECRM practices were determined from the survey responses. The ESL evaluated the utilization of energy management best practices. Each practice was evaluated for the three predetermined size group- ings as well as over the full range of airports. The ESL team also evaluated energy utilization indices (EUIs) for benchmarking airport performance. The ESL limited the survey to two pages to in- crease the probability that a busy facility manager would take the time necessary to complete it. The re- sponse rate was approximately 25 percent (20 out of 78). The sample size was approximately 16 per- cent of the FAA list. On-Site Assessment of DFW Airport In addition to responding to the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey distributed for this research, management at DFW Airport permitted the ESL to conduct a physical inspection of the airport facility. The ESL examined the lighting, elevators, escala- tors, moving walkways, passenger loading bridges, and aircraft HVAC systems at DFW Airport’s Ter- minals B and D. The ESL also conducted an in-depth look at the energy-related O&M practices and ECRMs at the two terminals. The ESL studied blueprints, control drawings, mechanical specifications, testing and balancing, and previous commissioning reports. An ESL engineer- ing team also conducted walk-through inspections of the two DFW Airport terminals. The findings of the on-site assessment are incorporated into the sec- tion of this digest entitled “Best Practices for Re- ducing Energy Use in Airport Facilities” and are fully described in “Study of Terminals B and D at 3 Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport” (available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_ detail.asp?id=8265). Finally, a literature search of O&M best practices and ECRMs was conducted to help develop the survey questionnaire and the model best practices. FINDINGS The use of best practices is a proven technique for increasing effective management within an in- dustry. The ESL utilized information gained from the e-mail survey and on-site inspections at DFW Airport to identify energy management best prac- tices of general benefit to the airport industry. O&M and recommissioning, as well as energy upgrades are presented below. Airport O&M Best Practices Survey Results on Energy Management Best Practices The survey focused on energy-related O&M, recommissioning, and energy use improvement top- ics. The ESL analysis of selected survey questions follows. Table 1 and Figure 1 summarize the survey results on airport industry energy management best practices. Use of a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and/or a Building Automation System (BAS) Forty-five percent of respondents use a CMMS, and 70 percent use a BAS. The data indicate that auto- mated CMMSs are used predominantly by larger airports. No smaller airports in the survey used them. One reason for this disparity could be the complex- ity of operating automated CMMSs, the personnel skill level required, and the high front-end cost con- siderations. This wide disparity does not exist for use of a BAS: use of a BAS ranges from 87.5 per- cent for busier airports to 50 percent for airports with fewer enplanements. One reason could be that, in addition to handling energy management func- tions, a BAS is also necessary for fire safety, secu- rity, and indoor air quality. Detailed O&M Manual Sixty percent of the respondents indicated that they had a detailed O&M manual, ranging from a high of 83 percent (medium-sized airports) to a low

of 33 percent (small airports). There is no obvious reason why medium-sized airports should have the highest utilization. The arbitrary survey categories (large, medium, and small airports) could account for this result. Energy Use Tracked as a Performance Measure Forty-five percent of respondents indicated that they tracked energy use as a performance measure for their airports, with a range of 67 percent (medium- sized airports) to 33 percent (small airports). Again, the medium-sized airports had the highest utiliza- tion. This result, again, could be due to the small sample by size category. Use of an Energy Baseline Thirty-five percent of respondents indicated that they utilize an energy baseline for monitoring en- ergy performance, with a range of 50 percent (small airports) to 25 percent (large airports). A lack of trained personnel could account for this smaller utilization rate as well as the frequent lack of sub- metered data at airport facilities. Tenant Energy Sub-Metering Sixty percent of respondents indicated that they had some level of tenant sub-metering, with a range of 67 percent (medium-sized airports) to 58 percent (small airports). This high utilization rate is not sur- prising since airports often pass on energy prices. Sub-metering is an excellent energy conservation tool since it sends the proper price signals, penaliz- ing wasteful tenants. Energy Assessment within the Past 5 Years Forty-five percent of respondents indicated that they had performed some type of energy assessment for ECRMs within the past 5 years, with a range of 50 percent (large airports) to 33 percent (medium- sized airports). This moderate utilization rate could be due to the widespread availability of new cost- effective technologies such as lighting and digital 4 Table 1 Utilization of best practices—results of the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey (December 2006 to January 2007) Large Medium Small Overall (> 1,000,000 (250,000–1,000,000 (< 250,000 Survey question (20 airports) enplanements) enplanements) enplanements) 1. CMMS Use 45% 87.5% 33% 0% 2. BAS Use 70% 87.5% 67% 50% 3. Detailed O&M Manual 60% 62.5% 83% 33% 4. Energy Use Tracked as 45% 37.5% 67% 33% a Performance Measure 5. Use of Energy Baseline 35% 25% 33% 50% 6. Tenant Energy 60% 62.5% 67% 58% Sub-Metering 7. Energy Assessment 45% 50% 33% 50% within Past 5 Years 8. O&M Assessment 30% 37.5% 33% 17% within Past 5 Years 9. Periodic Recommissioning 50% 50% 67% 33% or Optimization of HVAC Systems and Control Systems 10. Implementation of Energy- 55% 87.5% 50% 16.6% Related O&M Measures 11. Implementation of ECRMs 50% 75% 50% 33.3% Average response rate 49.5% 60.2% 53.0% 34.0% for all measures

controls. In many regions, utility cash incentives provide good economic incentives. O&M Assessment within the Past 5 Years Only 30 percent of the respondents indicated that they had conducted an O&M assessment within the past 5 years, with a range of 37.5 percent (large airports) to 17 percent (small airports). This low uti- lization rate could be the result of a lack of metering, which makes it difficult for airport facility managers to know the financial impact of not doing energy- related O&M assessments. Periodic Recommissioning or Optimization of HVAC Systems and Control Systems Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they had recommissioned or optimized their HVAC systems and control systems, with a range of 67 percent (medium-sized airports) to 33 per- cent (small airports). The increased use of recom- missioning (optimizing) existing building and util- ity plants may be explained by factors such as record high energy prices, an increased number of building recommissioning agents, and the in- creased awareness of airport executives and the public of the direct link between energy and the environment. Implementation of Energy-Related O&M Measures Fifty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they have implemented energy-related O&M mea- sures within the past 5 years, with a range of 87.5 per- cent (large airports) to 16.6 percent (small airports). This high response rate indicates that respondents that have an O&M plan (60 percent) are also implement- ing O&M measures. Implementation of ECRMs Fifty percent of the respondents indicated that they had implemented ECRMs. 5 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1. CM MS Us e 2. BA S U se 3. De tai led O& M Ma nu al 4. En erg y U se Tra cke d a s P erf orm an ce M ea su re 5. Us e o f a n E ne rgy Ba se line 6. Te na nt En erg y S ub -M ete rin g 7. En erg y A sse ssm en t in Pa st 5 Y ea rs 8. O& M As ses sm en t in Pa st 5 Y ea rs 9. Pe rio dic HV AC an d C on tro ls O ptim iza tion or Re com mis sio nin g 10 . Im ple me nta tio n o f E ne rgy -R ela ted O& M Me as ur es 11 . Im ple me nta tio n o f E CR Ms Pe rc en t P en et ra tio n Overall Large Medium Small Figure 1 Identification of best practices—Airport O&M Best Practices Survey (December 2006 to January 2007).

Airport O&M Best Practices Survey Results on Utilization of Energy Supply and Storage Systems and the Effect of Air Quality Issues on O&M Decisions The survey examined the utilization of selected energy supply and storage systems (on-site cogener- ation, on-site renewable power, thermal storage, and purchased cooling and/or heating) as well as the ef- fect of air quality issues on O&M decisions. Survey results on use of these energy supply and storage systems and the effect of air quality issues on O&M decisions are presented in Table 2 and discussed below. On-Site Cogeneration Cogeneration is the simultaneous production of electricity and thermal energy. It can provide significant energy cost reduction in cases where steam and electric loads coincide or where a sec- ondary market for excess steam or electricity ex- ists. Absorption chillers are commonly coupled with cogeneration equipment to balance the load profiles. The use of cogeneration is not a simple decision because of fluctuating natural gas and elec- tric prices and high capital costs. The 10-percent utilization rate indicates that it is not widely used by the airports surveyed and then only by larger airports. On-Site Renewable Power Renewable energy is becoming a significant con- tributor to the mix of U.S. energy resources. Some airports reported having green energy in their elec- tric purchases, but none reported having renewable power sources on-site. This response is understand- able, given that few airports are located in regions with adequate renewable resources, such as wind, to make these technologies economically feasible. Thermal Storage Thermal energy storage systems are an effective means of reducing peak electric loads. Airports using thermal storage can benefit from reduction in billed cost even if energy consumption increases by shift- ing the peak cooling load to off-peak periods. This technology works best at facilities with large summer cooling loads, and it requires a dedicated O&M staff and a favorable utility electric rate structure to be eco- nomically viable. The low utilization rate of 10 per- cent, with a range of 25 percent (large airports) to 0 percent (small airports), is therefore understandable. Purchased Cooling and/or Heating None of the airports surveyed purchase thermal energy for heating and/or cooling. An airport would have to be located very close to a district heating and cooling project to consider this technology as a viable option. Effect of Air Quality Issues on O&M Decisions Forty-five percent of all the airports surveyed and 75 percent of the large airports reported that air qual- ity issues are affecting their O&M decisions. These relatively high percentages indicate the importance of environmental issues at the airports surveyed. Air quality tends to be a major concern in large urban centers. This could account for the fact that the high- est percentage of airports responding that air quality issues are affecting O&M decisions was in the large airports category. 6 Table 2 Selected energy supply and storage systems and the effect of air quality issues on O&M decisions Large Medium Small Overall (> 1,000,000 (250,000–1,000,000 (< 250,000 Technology (20 airports) enplanements) enplanements) enplanements) On-Site Cogeneration 10% 25% 0% 0% On-Site Renewable Power 0% 0% 0% 0% Thermal Storage 10% 25% 0% 0% Purchased Cooling 0% 0% 0% 0% and/or Heating Air Quality Issues Affecting 45% 75% 33% 33% O&M Decisions

DFW Airport Responses to Airport O&M Best Practices Survey DFW Airport management responded to the same survey questions as the other 19 airports. DFW Air- port management’s responses were the following: • CMMS and BAS use. DFW Airport is im- plementing a new CMMS. • Detailed O&M manual. DFW Airport does not have an O&M procedures manual. • Energy use tracked as a performance mea- sure. DFW Airport tracks energy consump- tion, but does not use the data for benchmark- ing performance. • Use of an energy baseline. At DFW Airport, baselines are established on a project-by- project basis, as required. DFW Airport does not have an overall energy baseline. • Tenant energy sub-metering. DFW Airport does not sub-meter most tenant energy use. A few major clients purchase energy directly from the utility for hangars and maintenance. • Energy assessment within past 5 years. En- ergy assessments of selected buildings have been carried out in the last 5 years. • O&M assessment within past 5 years. An external O&M assessment has not been per- formed in the last 5 years. • Periodic HVAC system and control systems recommissioning or optimization. DFW Air- port management is currently recommission- ing targeted facilities. • Implementation of O&M measures. DFW Airport management is constantly implement- ing measures to improve the airport’s overall O&M program. • Implementation of ECRMs. DFW Airport is implementing a variety of ECRMs. On-Site Assessment of Best Practices at DFW Airport Terminals B and D The ESL conducted on-site visits at DFW Air- port’s Terminals B and D to develop the questions in the e-mail survey and to develop model best prac- tices. The following observations (from the on-site visit to Terminal D) may be useful to airport man- agers dealing with similar issues: • DFW Airport follows an ongoing, program- matic approach when contracting for O&M services. For example, while contracts do not contain specific energy-related procedures, the contracts do specify the contractor’s obligation to pursue potential rebate opportunities and to work with any energy consultants brought in. • Implementing the new CMMS at DFW Air- port has been a major endeavor. Incorporating energy and environmental parameters such as energy monitoring and process review func- tions within the CMMS is ongoing. • DFW Airport is implementing an active recom- missioning and optimization program and an aggressive 5-year plan to recommission tar- geted airport facilities. On-Site Assessment of Best Practices at DFW Airport’s Rental Car Center In 2004, a recommissioning project at the off- site DFW Airport rental car facility revealed O&M and recommissioning measures that are typical of aviation facilities that operate 24/7. The following optimization strategies were identified: • Improved operation of the attached parking garage lights, • Zone temperature control, • Supply temperature reset schedule, • Static pressure setpoints and reset schedules, • Operation of the economizer cycle, • Control for the return air fans to allow better control of outside airflow, • Terminal box minimum airflow setpoints, • Improved chiller operation, • Reset schedule for the condenser water tem- perature, and • Improved secondary pump control. Energy Utilization Indices and Benchmarks Airport facilities cannot be easily compared to other facilities. Terminals, through which a large number of travelers pass on a daily basis, house a va- riety of commercial entities (e.g., retail and enter- tainment stores, hotels, and restaurants) as well as equipment that supports the airline industry (e.g., jet bridges for passenger boarding and extensive bag- gage handling systems). Given the significant dif- ferences between airports and other facilities, one would expect that airport facility managers would use an airport-specific set of performance metrics to measure the energy efficiency of airports. However, the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey confirmed 7

that airport facilities have no unique performance metrics or indices for analyzing utility costs that often run into the millions annually. The research team concluded that having a set of industry-accepted airport energy/utility indices for benchmarking would allow airport managers to compare the performance of an airport with the per- formance of other airports within the same size range. An airport EUI also would provide an inter- nal gauge of the effectiveness of various measures implemented. Normalizing Factors Energy/utility indices for benchmarking should be adjusted for shifts in local conditions such as weather and use; in other words, indices should be “normalized.” Energy costs should always be normalized for variations in average annual outside air temperature using historical weather data. The amount of energy use per unit of conditioned space (square foot) is the most commonly used factor for benchmarking building energy performance. Per- centage of conditioned space is not always accurate for very large airport facilities because the number of enplanements varies widely, and airports often have a large percentage of mixed-use space. Some airports also have large cargo areas that are not con- ditioned or are only partially conditioned. Enplanements as a Normalizing Factor for Airports A potential normalizing factor for airport facili- ties is the number of passenger boardings (enplane- ments), as these data are readily available from FAA. Enplanements can provide a product-based normal- ization factor that is similar to normalization factors in other industries, such as manufacturing. Enplane- ments are a good indicator of airport activity, which has a direct impact on energy use. Potential Energy Utilization Indices Using data drawn from the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey (and the categories into which sur- veyed airports were grouped—large, medium, and small), the ESL put together potential EUIs for benchmarking airports. The first two columns of Table 3 show two energy indices typically used for benchmarking (utility costs/ft2 and energy costs/ft2). The next two columns show two energy indices specifically tailored to airport facilities (utility costs/enplanement and energy costs/enplanement), and the last column shows the intensity of passenger boardings per square foot (enplanements/ft2). Fig- ure 2 presents a graphic display of the data presented in Table 3. From the airport-specific indices generated from the survey sample (utility costs/enplanement, energy costs/enplanement, and enplanements/ft2), the re- search team drew the following conclusions: Large airports. On average, large airports require the least utility expenditure per enplanement. Large airports enplane 2.58 times as many passengers per square foot as medium-sized airports. From the per- spective of overall facility effectiveness, this is good news for large airports, but that does not mean they do not have energy-saving opportunities. Medium-sized airports. Medium-sized airports have on average the least utility expenditure per square foot and therefore are the most efficient from a conditioned space perspective. Medium-sized air- ports have the lowest number of enplanements per square foot—even fewer than the small airports surveyed. The reason for such a low number of en- planements is not clear. Small airports. The small airports that were sur- veyed are clearly less efficient from a utility cost 8 Table 3 Potential energy indices based on the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey (December 2006 to January 2007) Utility Energy Utility Costs/ Energy Costs/ Group Costs/ft2 Costs/ft2 Enplanement Enplanement Enplanements/ft2 Airports Overall $2.71 $2.55 $1.05 $0.99 2.57 Large Airports $2.79 $2.63 $1.03 $0.97 2.71 Medium Airports $1.63 $1.53 $1.55 $1.46 1.05 Small Airports $3.11 $2.98 $1.88 $1.80 1.65

perspective, regardless of whether dollars per square foot or dollars per enplanement are being considered. Small airport utility costs per square foot are approxi- mately 90 percent greater than costs per square foot for medium-sized airports. BEST PRACTICES FOR REDUCING ENERGY USE IN AIRPORT FACILITIES This section will provide practical guidance for improving airport energy use through proven tech- niques and technologies. The guidance is based on responses to the project surveys, a review of industry literature, interviews, and years of related research by the research team. Art Rosenfeld, California Energy Commissioner, remarked in a 2007 telephone interview that “building recommissioning and enhanced operations and main- tenance of commercial buildings are two of the most cost-effective, low-cost technologies to come along in the past 15 years. The paybacks are extremely attrac- tive and occupant productivity and health are greatly improved.” After recommissioning 50 million square feet of offices, hospitals, airports, laboratories, class- rooms, central utility plants, and courthouses, the ESL recommends three major opportunities for reducing energy use that work interdependently: • Energy-related O&M. This can provide sav- ings of up to 15 percent of whole building en- ergy cost, • Ongoing building recommissioning. This can provide savings of 10 to 25 percent of whole building energy cost, and • ECRMs. These can provide savings of 10 to 20 percent of the whole building energy cost. Energy-Related O&M O&M is defined by the Federal Energy Manage- ment Program (FEMP) as “the decisions and actions regarding the control and upkeep of property and 9 $0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 UTILITY COSTS/ FT2 ENERGY COSTS/ FT2 UTILITY COSTS PER ENPLANEMENT ENERGY COSTS PER ENPLANEMENT ENPLANEMENTS PER FT2 OVERALL LARGE MEDIUM SMALL Note. Utility costs often include water and wastewater, which may be hidden in electric costs at airports that do their own water treatment. Energy costs, which often do not include water pumping/treatment, are the most reliable data in this survey sample. Figure 2 Bar graph of potential energy indices based on the Airport O&M Best Practices Survey.

equipment” (4). Preventing equipment failure is the traditional focus of O&M. Typically, little attention is given to how systematic operation and mainte- nance of building systems also saves energy. Energy use is an excellent indicator of equipment performance, overall efficiency, and system degra- dation. Inadequate energy-related O&M can neutral- ize or reduce the benefits of energy-efficient prod- ucts and systems and is often a cause of premature HVAC equipment failure. Therefore, having a good O&M program in place is critical to both energy- efficient operation and equipment maintenance. The following energy-related O&M best prac- tices are key components of a successful airport en- ergy management program: • Comprehensive energy-related O&M plan. Develop a comprehensive energy-related O&M program with clearly defined goals and bene- fits. Set aggressive goals and secure funding and senior management support. Implement and monitor benchmarked results. • Personnel resources. Identify an airport O&M manager or contractor to manage/coordinate the efforts of the entities involved in performing O&M. For large airports, this position requires significant technical and managerial skills. • Quality control procedures. Develop inspec- tion procedures and identify an inspection team to provide quality control oversight for the staff and contractors performing O&M work. Inspection oversight is a necessity in large facilities. • Measurement and verification plan. Develop a written measurement and verification plan for any O&M, recommissioning, or ECRMs implemented. It is recommended that the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP) developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) be used for this purpose. • Detailed O&M manual. Develop detailed energy-related O&M procedures. Document- ing the O&M procedures in a centralized man- ual reduces dependence on individual special- ized knowledge or expertise regarding airport systems. Utilizing a comprehensive O&M man- ual helps ensure that systems will not deterio- rate and that energy consumption will remain relatively constant. • CMMS. A CMMS is a relatively new tool for O&M management. These systems utilize spe- cialized computer software to help streamline virtually every aspect of defining and manag- ing O&M programs. O&M strategies such as reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), which increases reliability while reducing unneeded maintenance, would be impossible to imple- ment without these advanced tools. A CMMS is not cheap, and considerable commitment is required to implement it properly. The cost of these systems puts them out of reach for many small airports and even some medium-sized ones, as reflected in the survey responses. • BAS. A building automation system (BAS) is also known as an energy management con- trol system (EMCS). When combined with well-trained personnel and comprehensive op- erating procedures, these systems allow the building HVAC and lighting systems to react automatically to the operating environment, ad- just to meet load conditions, and help schedule or identify equipment needing maintenance or adjustment. The BAS can also detect changes in the op- eration of controlled equipment and signal op- erators that attention is needed, reducing down- time and costly repairs as well as unnecessary energy consumption. It is important to note that an improperly configured or poorly operated BAS can also result in higher energy consump- tion. One of the most important maintenance considerations with a BAS is sensor calibration. If sensor calibration is not performed on an on- going basis, energy can be wasted, especially in air-handler operations. • Periodic HVAC system and control system optimization and recommissioning. Periodic HVAC system and BAS recommissioning/ optimization is necessary to offset the normal deterioration of mechanical equipment and re- lated sensors. Often, stop-gap measures are taken to keep systems operating that seem to work fine, but these measures can ultimately compound a problem over time. Commission- ing experts can detect these issues and correct them, saving considerable resources. • Development of an energy baseline. Devel- oping an energy use baseline for a facility is the first step in any energy conservation effort. 10

Neither the potential for benefit nor the result- ing savings can be reliably determined with- out developing an energy use baseline. A base- line is also an important part of a successful recommissioning process. • Energy use tracked as a performance mea- sure. Energy consumption as a performance indicator is fundamental to energy-related O&M. The effectiveness of any measures taken to reduce energy consumption cannot be determined if energy consumption is not tracked. By tracking energy performance, maintenance personnel can know when a build- ing needs to be recommissioned. • Tenant energy sub-metering. Sub-metering tenant energy consumption and billing tenants on the basis of consumption provides them with an incentive to conserve energy. • O&M assessment every 5 years. O&M as- sessments generally focus on O&M procedural issues. Periodic review of O&M procedures performed with the assistance of external ex- perts can result in substantial benefits. • Energy assessment every 5 years. External energy assessments are another important tool for saving energy as they identify poten- tially beneficial equipment upgrades, needed equipment repairs, and beneficial changes in operating procedures. Also, external assess- ments provide critical support for convincing management of the benefits of needed mea- sures. It is suggested that comprehensive en- ergy assessments be performed at least every 5 years. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) has an excellent guide to O&M best practices entitled Fifteen O&M Best Practices for Energy-Efficient Buildings (5). Recommendations for best practices include the following items: • Incorporate goals for energy-efficient building operations into the strategic plan. • Include energy-efficient operations in energy management planning. • Implement an energy accounting system to track energy performance. • Hire an energy manager. • Train operators in energy-related O&M. • Ensure that building service contracts support building-efficient operations. • Include energy-related O&M as a cross-cutting activity. • Document O&M activities. • Utilize O&M diagnostic tools. • Conduct O&M assessments. • Perform O&M optimization activities. • Utilize automated building controls. • Schedule energy-using equipment. • Track performance of major energy-using equipment. • Include energy-related O&M in the preventa- tive maintenance plan. Ongoing Building Recommissioning Ideally, recommissioning of buildings and control systems is an ongoing process that resolves operat- ing problems, improves comfort, optimizes energy use, and identifies retrofits for existing commercial and institutional buildings and central plant facili- ties. Over time, a building’s HVAC systems will de- grade and the function of the building or its occu- pants may change the way the building runs. Ongoing recommissioning involves optimizing the HVAC system and controls system in a building to improve performance. Ongoing recommissioning is a two-step process. Step 1 is the initial assessment phase where oppor- tunities are identified through on-site testing and analysis of energy data and HVAC systems. Step 2 is implementing the building optimization process and verifying project performance. This second step includes the following actions: • Developing a recommissioning plan and form- ing a project team. • Developing performance baselines. • Testing the HVAC system and controls system and developing recommissioning measures. • Implementing recommissioning measures. • Documenting energy savings and comfort improvements. • Recommissioning on a regular basis (4). ECRMs Most energy conservation programs utilize major equipment upgrades and retrofits as primary means to reduce energy use. ECRM payback periods of 2 to 20 years are common in airports and other large in- stitutions. ECRM payback periods are generally 11

much longer than the payback periods associated with instituting energy-related O&M and recommis- sioning measures, which are often under 2 years. A list of energy conservation measures employed by the airports surveyed for this study (including DFW Airport) includes the following: • Lighting and controls upgrades, • Installation of a BAS or upgrades to an exist- ing system, • HVAC system upgrades, • High-efficiency motors and motor systems in- stallation, • High-efficiency pump installation, • Variable speed drive installation, • Water and wastewater system improvements, • Central utility plant and distribution systems improvements, • Installation of heat recovery systems, • Installation of electrical load management devices, • Installation of building and roof insulation, and • Passenger and baggage-handling system im- provements. Not all ECRMs may be applicable. ECRM choice depends on the size, location, age, application, and energy costs of an airport facility. Lighting system controls and HVAC system con- trols are two of most common ECRMs. Lighting sys- tem ECRMs include the following: • Retrofitting existing T-12 magnetic ballast flu- orescent fixtures with new T-8 or T-5 lamps with electronic ballasts. This retrofit will re- duce the electric power needed for lighting by approximately 20 to 25 percent and will have a simple payback period of 2 to 5 years, de- pending on electricity rates and utility rebates. • Replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent (CF) bulbs. The cost of CF bulbs has dropped significantly, and there is a move to outlaw or place a “sin tax” on incandescent bulbs in a few states. CF bulbs use 25 percent of the power of the incandescent bulbs they re- place and last many times longer than incan- descent lights. A CF bulb will typically pro- vide net savings of $50 to $100 during its life. • Retrofitting or replacing inefficient exit signs with new exit signs that use light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Retrofitting existing exit fix- tures is generally highly cost-effective. In 1997, the U.S. EPA Green Lights Program put the net present value of the retrofit at $540 per sign, with $0.08 per kWh electricity. • Using any of the many approaches to, and applications for, retrofitting lighting control, such as photocells and timers to control exte- rior lighting. The ESL often observes control failure, which results in exterior lights remain- ing on all day. Most airports are designed with large expanses of windows. This provides sub- stantial opportunity for daylighting. Since there are many types of daylighting controls, profes- sional assistance is recommended when consid- ering the options. • Installing occupancy sensors, very effective energy-saving devices. They can optimize the operation of lighting systems by turning the lights off when space is unoccupied. Savings normally vary from 20 to 75 percent of the power that would be used without them. Pay- back periods are normally very short, ranging from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the ap- plicationand energy price. Additional consider- ations include customer acceptance and limita- tions such as egress lighting. HVAC equipment efficiency has advanced con- siderably in recent years. Advancements in direct expansion (DX) systems include water-source heat pumps and air-source heat pumps as well as more efficient conventional cooling-only units. ECRMs for HVAC systems and control systems include the following: • Replacing older, inefficient DX systems with newer, more efficient, and properly sized heat pumps or DX systems. Specific evaluation is needed to determine savings, which can be sig- nificant. DX units are often used with jetways, outbuildings, and isolated portions of an air- port facility. • Using thermal storage systems can provide considerable cost savings if the utility rate schedule contains a cost penalty for high peak electrical demand. • Replacing older chillers with newer, properly sized chillers. Because of the large initial cost involved and to provide a shorter payback pe- riod for the overall package, this upgrade is most often bundled with other retrofits, such as lighting and controls upgrades. • Using a BAS (or an EMCS), standard equip- ment for controlling HVAC systems, and, in many cases, other building functions. An ef- 12

fective BAS requires well-trained personnel, ongoing maintenance, calibration, and well- developed control schemes. • Upgrading to direct digital controls (DDCs) for older air-handling units (AHUs) and air- distribution equipment (variable air volume [VAV] boxes) is often very cost-effective. Re- placing old pneumatic control systems that re- quire compressed air with new DDCs can also allow the decommissioning of building con- trol compressed air systems, which consume considerable energy and often require consid- erable maintenance. In cases where the com- pressed air system can be decommissioned, this change helps offset part of the cost of con- version to full DDC. • Retrofitting outside air intakes for “econo- mizer” operation in certain climate zones can result in significant savings. Full economizer operation allows the AHU to provide up to 100% outside air when the temperature and humidity of outside air will provide adequate cooling. This practice can amount to thousands of hours of free cooling and significantly re- duced energy costs. • Variable frequency drives (VFDs) can be added to many existing pumping and air-handling systems to allow dynamic control that responds to the load or ventilation requirements. Motors with more than 5.0 hp are good candidates for VFD retrofits, although some VFDs are in- stalled on smaller motors. System-specific op- erating requirements and appropriate control strategies must be implemented to benefit from these retrofits. • Heat recovery units (HRUs) are used to recover energy from the exhaust air stream. They either remove heat from the incoming air stream by transferring it to the relatively cool exhaust air during cooling operation or add heat to the in- coming air stream by transferring heat from the exhaust air stream during heating operation. There are several designs, and specific expertise is needed to evaluate and apply these properly. • Replacing older boilers, which are often over- sized, with more efficient, properly sized boil- ers and water heating systems can provide sig- nificant energy savings. Replacing oversized boilers can also reduce maintenance costs. • Water treatment system upgrades can provide significant savings by reducing chemical con- sumption and lengthening equipment life. Prob- lems with chemical balance can lead to the overconsumption of supplies and can prevent systems from handling their design loads. Prioritizing Energy Retrofit, O&M, and Recommissioning Measures Most energy conservation programs have major equipment upgrades and retrofits as primary com- ponents. Tables 4 and 5 provide basic shopping lists of equipment upgrades ranked by simple payback period. Duration of payback periods is based on ex- perience gathered over the past 20 years by the ESL and its contractors, as well as the survey and assess- ments conducted as part of this research. Often, projects with longer payback periods (such as HVAC replacements) will be grouped with proj- ects with short payback periods (like recommission- ing or lighting upgrades) to help offset initial costs and improve the return on investment. Ideally, en- hanced recommissioning would also be a part of any ECRM project and prioritized like any other indi- vidual retrofit measure when calculating the overall project payback period. ECRM payback periods are dependent on several factors: (1) utility rates, (2) hours of operation, (3) cli- mate conditions, (4) relative efficiency of equipment and/or controls being replaced, (5) design condition requirements, and (6) interdependency of savings when more than one ECRM is installed. Therefore, the payback period ranges listed in Tables 4 and 5 are for general guidance. Table 4 shows payback pe- riods for lighting ECRMs (short payback period), and Table 5 shows payback periods for HVAC and Mechanical Systems ECRMs (intermediate to long- term payback periods). 13 Table 4 Payback periods for lighting ECRMs Lighting ECRMs Simple payback period Replace exit lights 6 months to 2 years Replace incandescent bulbs 6 months to 2 years with compact fluorescent bulbs Install occupancy sensors 2 to 4 years Replace T-12 with magnetic 2 to 5 years ballasts with T-8 or T-5 with electronic ballasts Install lighting controls 2 to 10 years

Sustainable Airport Facility Best Practices This digest focuses on best practices for reducing airport energy usage. Reducing energy usage not only saves on utility costs, but also is a step toward more sustainable operation. Many different definitions of sustainability exist, but one of the most widely ac- cepted definitions is the Brundtland Commission’s: “meeting the needs of the present without compro- mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (6). Most airport managers see minimiz- ing their airport’s impact on the environment and con- serving natural resources as critical aspects of their operations, as evidenced by the project survey. Sustainable or “green” practices are becoming more common in commercial buildings since they not only reduce costs, but typically result in a more productive and healthier work environment for oc- cupants. The U.S. Green Building Council created the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) system as a benchmarking tool for green buildings. There are many areas to consider on the road to sustainability, but effective O&M, retrofits, and recommissioning are important components. The Pennsylvania Green Buildings Operations and Maintenance Manual is a green O&M manuals (7 ). It describes sustainable O&M procedures for landscaping, snow removal and de-icing, roofing materials, parking garages, HVAC, lighting, and cleaning that can be applied to airports. In addition, airport managers interested in “greening” their fa- cilities may want to assess procedures in the follow- ing areas identified by the ESL in a sustainability as- sessment performed for Texas A&M University (8): • Energy consumption. Important areas to consider are building lighting and plug loads, HVAC consumption, and transportation energy. • Energy sources. Alternative sources of energy may include green power that is purchased from a utility company or on-site renewable energy generated through photovoltaics and other sources. • Water conservation. Water is an essential but limited natural resource, so efficient use and pollution prevention are extremely im- portant. Using low-flow fixtures, waterless urinals, and innovative irrigation technologies are good ways to reduce water usage. • Waste and recycling. A good waste minimiza- tion program coupled with a strong recycling program can significantly reduce the amount of waste in landfills. Proper handling of hazardous waste is also important. • Built environment. Indoor air quality is ex- tremely important to the health and productiv- ity of building occupants. Designs that require sustainable and non-toxic renewable materials in construction can help improve indoor air quality. • Land use. Healthy, aesthetically pleasing, and ecologically sustainable landscapes, where storm water is well managed and pest man- 14 Table 5 Payback periods for HVAC and mechanical system ECRMs HVAC and Mechanical System ECRMs Simple Payback Period Steam trap O&M and/or replacement 6 months to 10 years Optimizing HVAC systems and controls 1 to 4 years Water treatment systems upgrades 1 to 4 years Variable frequency drive (VFD) replacements 3 to 7 years Cooling tower VFD and pump upgrades 3 to 7 years Thermal storage system retrofits 3 to 10 years Economizer equipment upgrades 4 to 8 years Replacement of inefficient motors 5 to 6 years Cooling tower replacement 5 to 20 years Oversized boiler replacement 6 to 8 years DX unit and heat pump replacement 4 to 13 years BAS/EMCS upgrade 6 to 10 years Heat recovery unit upgrade 8 to 10 years High-efficiency boiler replacement 8 to 12 years Chiller replacement 8 to 20 years

agement practices do not harm the health of people or wildlife, are preferable for airports. • Sustainable purchasing. Airports can help conserve natural resources by implementing sustainable purchasing programs. Examples include purchasing recycled-content paper; re- quiring recycled-content, reused, or regional building materials; and using ENERGY STAR equipment. • Food. Healthy eating is an important compo- nent of a healthy lifestyle. Airport vendors can offer fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains as alternatives to refined starches and sugars, artificial preservatives, and processed foods. Airports that purchase food that is locally grown and raised can promote the local econ- omy. Efforts can be made to minimize organic and inorganic waste in dining facilities. • General health and well-being. This cate- gory includes using green custodial practices, maintaining a healthy indoor environment, and encouraging airport employees to use safe practices in all of their work. Recommissioning Case Studies The following case studies are good examples of how many of the best practices discussed in this study can produce excellent savings in large com- plex facilities, including airports. The first case study describes the savings realized from recom- missioning a centralized rental car facility at DFW Airport. The second case study describes a large, ongoing recommissioning project at Texas A&M University, and the third describes a recommis- sioning project at the Matheson Courthouse in Salt Lake City, Utah. DFW Airport Rental Car Center ESL began recommissioning the DFW Airport Rental Car Center in September 2004. Metered sav- ings were $106,000 during the first year, with a 1-year payback period and an 18-percent reduction in en- ergy use. Recommissioning measures included optimiz- ing the supply air reset, chiller operations, condenser water reset, economizer cycle, garage lighting sched- ule, and the air distribution system, as well as elim- inating simultaneous heating and cooling. Figure 3 shows the immediate and dramatic re- duction in electricity use in October 2004, one month after the recommissioning process began. (A detailed description of this project, “Airport Rental Car Fa- cility Case Study,” is available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8265.) 15 Note. CC = Continuous Commissioning® 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1,200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Time (hr) El ec tr ic ity U se (k Wh ) Sep 1st, 2004 [75.5 °F] Oct 20 th, 2004 [75.3 °F] Pre CC Post CC Figure 3 Electricity use at DFW Airport Rental Car Center before recommissioning and 1 month after recommissioning began.

Texas A&M Main Campus The ESL is systematically recommissioning the main campus of Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. Since 1996, energy savings have been more than $35 million from in-depth recommission- ing of 80 buildings (totaling 8 million square feet) and 5 central utility plants. Annual energy savings per building range from 10 to 15 percent, with some build- ings achieving a reduction of more than 40 percent. The overall campus EUI has dropped 34 percent. The Texas A&M main campus is one of the most successful, large-scale recommissioning projects in the United States and is an excellent case for large airports to examine because, like airports, large uni- versity campuses have central utility plants, 24/7 op- erations, a wide range of building types, and a wide range in building age and function. Matheson Courthouse, Salt Lake City, Utah The recommissioning of the Matheson Court- house is an informative case for airport operators to study for two reasons: (1) the Matheson Courthouse is an administrative building, a kind of building that can be found at most airports, and (2) this recom- missioning project illustrates the energy savings potential of recommissioning a new facility that is already relatively energy efficient. The Matheson Courthouse, built in 1998, was designated a U.S. EPA ENERGY STAR building. It had a very low energy cost of $1.07 per square foot prior to recommissioning. After continuous recom- missioning was implemented in 2002 by the ESL, energy cost was reduced by 18 percent with a 1-year payback period. At the same time, there was improved occupant comfort and a reduction in HVAC trouble calls. (A detailed description of this project, “Con- tinuous Commissioning® of the Matheson Court- house in Salt Lake City, Utah,” is available on the TRB website at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp? id=8265.) CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH Conclusions Airport managers and facility operators realize how important controlling utility costs and reducing environmental impacts are for cost-effective airport facility management and to benefit the community that the airport serves. Several general conclusions about controlling utility costs and reducing environ- mental impacts can be drawn from this research: • Awareness may not mean action. Energy and environmental concerns are a major influ- ence on airport operations, according to inter- views conducted in this research. However, increased awareness does not necessarily mean action, since only 30 percent of the respon- dents had conducted an O&M assessment in the last 5 years. • Performance monitoring is minimal. Air- ports are not routinely tracking energy use. Only 35 percent, overall, reported having an energy use baseline, and fewer than half the respondents tracked energy performance. The ESL estimates that as much as 20 percent of cooling and heating energy is wasted. • Low-cost operational improvements are underutilized. Airports could regularly save 10 to 20 percent of their total energy use by implementing energy-related O&M and build- ing recommissioning. For example, the ESL’s recommissioning of the rental car center at DFW Airport yielded annual savings of $106,000, a 1-year payback period, and an 18-percent overall reduction in energy use. Yet, only half of the medium-sized airports and 16.6 percent of the smaller ones reported implementing O&M measures. • Energy technology investments are minimal. In the airport industry, there are significant opportunities for energy reduction through in- creasing the use of new, high-performance, HVAC equipment, controls, and lighting tech- nologies. However, only 45 percent of the sur- vey respondents had conducted a comprehen- sive energy assessment within the last 5 years. Only half the survey respondents indicated implementing ECRMs. Energy-related O&M and recommissioning offer many low-cost, no-cost, and quick-payback oppor- tunities to airport facility managers to reduce energy use up to 25 percent. The results of this re- search suggest, however, that airports are not tak- ing full advantage of these opportunities, despite the significant cost savings involved and the need to reduce environmental impacts. To significantly lower energy costs, airport man- agers can do the following: 16

• Implement the best practices reported in the sec- tion “Best Practices for Reducing Energy Use in Airport Facilities” (with emphasis on energy- related O&M, ongoing recommissioning/ optimization, and ECRM installation), • Develop and implement an energy-bench- marking and energy-tracking program, and • Periodically investigate investments in cost- effective ECRMs. Suggested Research Based upon the research findings, future research areas with high potential to benefit to airport man- agers and facility operators include the following (in order of priority): 1. Developing airport energy benchmarks. It would be helpful if traditional benchmarks, such as EUIs, were developed for large, medium, and small airports so that compar- isons could be made of energy performance within and among airports. Airport-specific benchmarks, such as enplanements per unit of space or cost, should be adequately researched, using a time-series analysis as an indicator of energy effectiveness. 2. Documenting the benefits of sustainable airport O&M. The link between energy and environment is well known, but few case stud- ies document the actual cost savings of sus- tainable O&M and the environmental benefits to airport facilities and surrounding communi- ties. General guidance exists, but no document with sufficient detail to actually guide the im- plementation of sustainable O&M measures was discovered in this research. 3. Developing simplified CMMS software. Because of its price and complexity, CMMS software use is prevalent in the large airports surveyed (87.5 percent), but nonexistent in the small airports surveyed. Low-cost, sim- plified CMMS software for smaller airports would ease implementation and enhance the effectiveness of their O&M programs. REFERENCES 1. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Aerospace Forecasts, Fiscal Years 2007–2020. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Policy and Plans. (no date). www.faa.gov/ data_statistics/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2007- 2020/media/FORECAST%20BOOK%20SM.pdf. 2. Claridge, D. E., M. Liu, Y. Zhu, M. Abbas, A. Athar, and J. Haberl. “Implementation of Continuous Com- missioning in the Texas LoanSTAR Program: ‘Can You Achieve 150% of Estimated Retrofit Savings’ Revisited.” Proc. 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on En- ergy Efficiency In Buildings (Panel 4), American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washing- ton, D.C., pp. 4.59–4.67, 1996. 3. Air Carrier Activity Information System, CY 2005 (database). Federal Aviation Administration, October 31, 2006. http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/ passenger/. 4. Sullivan, G. P., R. Pugh, A. P. Melendez, and W. D. Hunt. Operations and Maintenance Best Practices: A Guide to Achieving Operational Efficiency. Release 2.0. Federal Energy Management Program, U.S. De- partment of Energy, 2004. 5. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Fifteen O&M Best Practices for Energy-Efficient Buildings. O&M Best Practices Series, 1999. www.peci.org/library/ PECI_15BestOM_0302.pdf. 6. World Energy Council. The Brundtland Commis- sion’s Definition of Sustainable Development. http:// en.wikisource.org/wiki/Brundtland_Report. 7. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Green Buildings Operations and Maintenance Man- ual, (no date). www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/green_ bldg/greenbuildingbook.pdf. 8. Texas A&M International University. Sustainability Assessment and Roadmap for a Green Campus Ini- tiative. Texas A&M/Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES) Energy Systems Laboratory, 2007. BIBLIOGRAPHY Airports Council International. The Economic Impact of U.S. Airports, 2002. Clean Airport Partnership, Inc. 10 Airport Survey: Energy Use, Policies, and Programs for Terminal Build- ings. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2003. www. cleanairports.com/reports/cap10airportsurvey.pdf Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Green Buildings Operations and Maintenance Manual, (no date). www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/green_bldg/ greenbuildingbook.pdf. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Aerospace Fore- casts, Fiscal Years 2007–2020. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Aviation Policy and Plans, (no date.) www.faa.gov/ data_statistics/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/2007- 2020/media/FORECAST%20BOOK%20SM.pdf. 17

Liu, M., D. Claridge, and W. D. Turner. Continuous Com- missioning Guidebook: Maximizing Building Energy Efficiency and Comfort. Federal Energy Management Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 2002. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Fifteen O&M Best Practices for Energy-Efficient Buildings. O&M Best Practices Series, 1999. www.peci.org/library/PECI_ 15BestOM_0302.pdf. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Operation and Main- tenance Assessments: A Best Practice for Energy- Efficient Building Operations. O&M Best Prac- tices Series, 1999. www.energystar.gov/ia/business/ assessment.pdf. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Operation and Main- tenance Service Contracts: Guidelines for Obtaining Best-Practice Contracts for Commercial Buildings. O&M Best Practices Series, 1997. www.energystar. gov/ia/business/servicecontracts.pdf. Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Putting the “O” Back in O&M: Best Practices in Preventive Operation, Tracking, and Scheduling. O&M Best Practices Se- ries, 1999. Sullivan, G. P., R. Pugh, A. P. Melendez, and W. D. Hunt. Operations and Maintenance Best Practices: A Guide to Achieving Operational Efficiency. Release 2.0. Fed- eral Energy Management Program, U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. U.S. Department of Energy. Building Commissioning: The Key to Quality Assurance. Rebuild America Series, (no date). www.peci.org/library/PECI_Bldg CxQA1_0500.pdf. Wei, G., T. Giebler, G. Zeig, B. Yazdani, D. Turner, J. Baltazar, and J. Dennis. “Continuous Commissioning of an Airport Rental Car Facility.” Paper presented at World Energy Engineering Congress, Austin, TX, September 14–16, 2005. RESOURCES American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air- Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE). www.ashrae.org Building Commissioning Association (BCA) www.bcxa.org Diagnostics for Building Commissioning & Operation http://imds.lbl.gov/ National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) http://www.nibs.org/ Oregon Office of Energy http://search.oregon.gov/query.html?col=allore&qc= allore&qt=buildings+and+commissioning ORNL Buildings Technology Center www.ornl.gov/sci/btc/ Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. (PECI) www.peci.org Texas A&M Energy Systems Laboratory http://esl.eslwin.tamu.edu/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ENERGY STAR Program www.energystar.gov U.S. Green Building Council www.usgbc.org U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Efficiency and Re- newable Energy www.eere.energy.gov/ U.S. Department of Energy/Federal Energy Management Program www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/ GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ACRP—Airport Cooperative Research Program AHU—air-handling unit BAS—Building automation system CC®—Continuous Commissioning® CF—Compact fluorescent CMMS—Computerized maintenance management system DDC—Direct digital control DFW—Dallas/Fort Worth DX—Direct expansion ECRM—Energy conservation retrofit measure EMCS—Energy management control system ESL—Energy Systems Laboratory EUI—Energy utilization index FAA—Federal Aviation Administration FEMP—Federal Energy Management Program HRU—Heat recovery unit HVAC—Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning IPMVP—International performance measurement and verification protocols LED—Light-emitting diode LEED—Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design O&M—Operations and maintenance PECI—Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. RCM—Reliability-centered maintenance TEES—Texas Engineering Experiment Station U.S. DOE—Department of Energy U.S. EPA—Environmental Protection Agency VAV—Variable air volume VFD—Variable frequency drive 18

AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was performed under ACRP Proj- ect 11-02 by the Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) within the Texas Engineering Experiment Station (TEES), located at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. The ESL was the research contractor for this study, with TEES serving as the fiscal and contract administrator. TEES is the engineering re- search agency for the state of Texas. Dr. W. Dan Turner, ESL Director, was the over- all project director, and Malcolm Verdict and Bah- man Yazdani were co-principal investigators. The other authors of this report are Harold Huff, project engineer, and Kathryn Clingenpeel, graduate research assistant. 19

Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 These digests are issued in order to increase awareness of research results emanating from projects in the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP). Persons wanting to pursue the project subject matter in greater depth should contact the CRP Staff, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001. COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.