260 - Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.
org/27491
Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap (2024)
DETAILS
110 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK
ISBN 978-0-309-71592-8 | DOI 10.17226/27491
CONTRIBUTORS
Susan J. H. Zellers, William C. Bradford, Charles H. Snowden, Jr., Robert J.
Knoedler, Jeffery E. Alexander, Mathew B. Coalson, Joel Sonkin, Catherine
BUY THIS BOOK Foley, William Stinson, Paul Tansey, James F. Smith, Julie Quinn, Katherine
Williams, Louisa Whitfield-Smith; Airport Cooperative Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Airport Energy
Resiliency Roadmap. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/27491.
Visit the National Academies Press at nap.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of publications
– 10% off the price of print publications
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts
All downloadable National Academies titles are free to be used for personal and/or non-commercial
academic use. Users may also freely post links to our titles on this website; non-commercial academic
users are encouraged to link to the version on this website rather than distribute a downloaded PDF
to ensure that all users are accessing the latest authoritative version of the work. All other uses require
written permission. (Request Permission)
This PDF is protected by copyright and owned by the National Academy of Sciences; unless otherwise
indicated, the National Academy of Sciences retains copyright to all materials in this PDF with all rights
reserved.
Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260

Susan J. H. Zellers
William C. Bradford
Charles H. Snowden, Jr.
Robert J. Knoedler
Jeffery E. Alexander
Mathew B. Coalson
Hanson Professional Services Inc.
Indianapolis, IN
Orlando, FL
Jacksonville, FL
Joel Sonkin
Catherine Foley
William Stinson
Paul Tansey
Deloitte Consulting LLC
New York, NY
Arlington, VA
James F. Smith
Smith-Woolwine Inc.
Jackson, MS
Julie Quinn
Katherine Williams
QuinnWilliams LLC
Los Angeles, CA
Louisa Whitfield-Smith
Violet Street Consulting LLC
Jackson, MS
Subscriber Categories
Aviation • Energy • Environment
Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration
2024
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260
Airports are vital national resources. They serve a key role in transpor- Project 02-98
tation of people and goods and in regional, national, and international ISSN 2572-3731 (Print)
commerce. They are where the nation’s aviation system connects with ISSN 2572-374X (Online)
other modes of transportation and where federal responsibility for man- ISBN 978-0-309-70956-9
aging and regulating air traffic operations intersects with the role of state Library of Congress Control Number 2024933605
and local governments that own and operate most airports. Research is
© 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of
necessary to solve common operating problems, to adapt appropriate new
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trade-
technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into the
airport industry. The Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) marks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
serves as one of the principal means by which the airport industry can
develop innovative near-term solutions to meet demands placed on it.
The need for ACRP was identified in TRB Special Report 272: Airport COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Research Needs: Cooperative Solutions in 2003, based on a study spon- Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
sored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). ACRP carries out written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
applied research on problems that are shared by airport operating agen- published or copyrighted material used herein.
cies and not being adequately addressed by existing federal research pro- Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
grams. ACRP is modeled after the successful National Cooperative High- publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
way Research Program (NCHRP) and Transit Cooperative Research understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA,
Program (TCRP). ACRP undertakes research and other technical activi- FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice.
It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and
ties in various airport subject areas, including design, construction, legal, not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or
maintenance, operations, safety, policy, planning, human resources, and reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
administration. ACRP provides a forum where airport operators can
cooperatively address common operational problems. Cover photo credit: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
ACRP was authorized in December 2003 as part of the Vision 100— Energy, August 17, 2015, https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/articles/denver-international
-airport-photovoltaic-system-1.
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The primary participants in
the ACRP are (1) an independent governing board, the ACRP Oversight The cover photo shows the photovoltaic system at Denver International Airport (Denver, CO).
Committee (AOC), appointed by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Transportation with representation from airport operating agencies, other
stakeholders, and relevant industry organizations such as the Airports
Council International-North America (ACI-NA), the American Associa- NOTICE
tion of Airport Executives (AAAE), the National Association of State The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
Aviation Officials (NASAO), Airlines for America (A4A), and the Airport according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Consultants Council (ACC) as vital links to the airport community; (2)
TRB as program manager and secretariat for the governing board; and (3) The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
the FAA as program sponsor. In October 2005, the FAA executed a contract researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transporta-
tion Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or
with the National Academy of Sciences formally initiating the program. the program sponsors.
ACRP benefits from the cooperation and participation of airport
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or spec-
professionals, air carriers, shippers, state and local government officials,
ifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which
equipment and service suppliers, other airport users, and research organi- provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board
zations. Each of these participants has different interests and responsibili- sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices,
ties, and each is an integral part of this cooperative research effort. procedures, or specifications.
Research problem statements for ACRP are solicited periodically but The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the responsibility Medicine; and the sponsors of the Airport Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
of the AOC to formulate the research program by identifying the highest products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names or logos appear herein solely
priority projects and defining funding levels and expected products. because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel

appointed by TRB. Panels include experienced practitioners and
research specialists; heavy emphasis is placed on including airport
professionals, the intended users of the research products. The panels
prepare project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors,
and provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the
project. The process for developing research problem statements and Published research reports of the
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing coop-
AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
erative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activities, ACRP
project panels serve voluntarily without compensation. are available from
Primary emphasis is placed on disseminating ACRP results to the Transportation Research Board
intended users of the research: airport operating agencies, service pro- Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
viders, and academic institutions. ACRP produces a series of research Washington, DC 20001
reports for use by airport operators, local agencies, the FAA, and other
interested parties; industry associations may arrange for workshops, and can be ordered through the Internet by going to
training aids, field visits, webinars, and other activities to ensure that https://www.mytrb.org/MyTRB/Store/default.aspx
results are implemented by airport industry practitioners. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve
complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other
transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the
public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations
of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260

Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program
Brittany Summerlin-Azeez, Program Coordinator
Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications
ACRP PROJECT 02-98 PANEL

Field of Environment
Katherine B. Preston, HMMH, Burlington, MA (Chair)
Erin Cooke, San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco, CA
Anthony Costanzo, TRC, Stamford, CT
Knut Herrmann, City of Phoenix (AZ) Aviation Department, Phoenix, AZ
Jaime Pabon, San Juan Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Alan L. Rao, OST-R/Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA
Aydin Tabrizi, New York State Office of Information Technology Services, Albany, NY
Alan W. Strasser, FAA Liaison
Christopher J. Oswald, Airports Council International–North America Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the following participants in the case studies conducted as part of this
research.
Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport (GUM)

• Artemio Ricardo A. Hernandez – Deputy Executive Manager
• Austin Grant – Executive Assistant
• Jean Arriola – Airport Services Manager
• Victor Cruz – Engineering Supervisor
• Frank Santos – Airport Consultant (TMG)
Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN)

• Rhett Boerger – Director of Capital Projects
City of Orlando
• Mike Hess – Director of Future-Ready City Initiative

Cyril E. King Airport (STT) and Henry E. Rohlsen Airport (STX)

• Jerome Sheridan – Territorial Airport Manager
• Anise Hodge – Deputy Executive Director
• Preston Beyer – Director of Engineering
• Earl Thomas – Electrical Engineer
Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

• Robert Horton – Vice President for Environmental Affairs
• Jesse Dillard – DFW Energy Manager
Eugene Airport (EUG)

• Cathryn Stephens – Airport Director
Gerald R. Ford International Airport (GRR)

• Casey Ries – Director of Engineering and Planning
• Michelle Baker – Environmental Manager
John Glenn International Airport (CMH), Rickenbacker International Airport (LCK), and
Bolton Field Airport (TZR)
• Paul Kennedy – Program Manager: Energy and Environmental
Kissimmee Gateway Airport (ISM)

• Shaun Germolus – Director of Aviation
Lakeland Linder International Airport (LAL)

• Adam Lunn – Acting Assistant Airport Director
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

• Mike Christensen – Chief Operations and Maintenance Officer
• Christine Salvaggio – Senior Civil Engineer, Lead for Utilities Planning
• Carter Atkins – Environmental Specialist, Programs Division
• Tina Backstrom – Supervising Transportation Manager II/LAWA Sustainable Campus Manager
Orange County Convention Center

• Hector Clemente – Facility Operations Manager
• Katerina Chagoya – Sustainability Coordinator
Orlando International Airport (MCO)

• Robyn Dowsey – Owner of Eco-Build Strategies
• Tom Croff – Manager: Aviation Department (Matern Professional Engineering)
Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB)

• Nicole Martz – President and CEO
Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC)

• Keith Mutters – Director of System Planning Reliability Engineering

Memphis International Airport (MEM)

• Thomas Wallace III – Director of Operations and Public Safety
• Lori Morris – Manager of Environmental Services
• Jack Jackson – Building Maintenance Manager
• Jerry Curle – Building Electrical Supervisor
Naval Air Facility El Centro

• Bruce Delling (Civ) – Installation Energy Manager (IEM)
Naval Base Ventura County

• Richard John Mack (Civ) – Installation Energy Manager
Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (SAV)

• Andy Singhas – Airport Operations Manager
Shawnee Regional Airport (SNL)

• Bonnie Wilson – Airport Director
South Bend International Airport (SBN)

• Mike Daigle – CEO and Executive Director
Tallahassee International Airport (TLH)

• Jim Durwin – Deputy Director of Aviation
• Eric Houge – Airport Engineer
• Thomas Vergo – Superintendent: Airport Operations
University of Central Florida (UCF) – Florida Solar Energy Center

• Muthusamy Swami – Program Director, Simulation Software Development
The authors would like to thank the following participants in the primer validation conducted as part
of this research.
Boston Logan International Airport (BOS)

• Tyler Arrigo – Sustainability Project Manager
• Kathy Ledoux – Senior Resiliency Manager
• Shahbaz Soofi – Climate Strategy Manager
Jackson Hole Airport (JAC)

• Dustin Havel – Deputy Director of Aviation – Operations
• Megan Jenkins – Public Information Officer
Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT)

• Tom Woodrow – Senior Vice President, Engineering and Intelligent Infrastructure

FOREWORD
By Marci A. Greenberger
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
Airports are being challenged to meet evolving energy needs and respond to energy power
disruptions. ACRP Research Report 260: Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap and Airport
Energy Resiliency: A Primer are resources to help airports pursue energy resiliency. The primer
will help airport leaders understand the benefits of developing an energy resiliency roadmap,
the broad outlines of what is included in an energy resiliency roadmap, and their role as
leaders to ensure success. ACRP Research Report 260 is intended for those airport practitio-
ners responsible for developing an energy resiliency roadmap or desiring more detailed infor-
mation. This resource provides steps for developing a roadmap that airports of all sizes can
use, as well as suggestions on the stakeholders to include in developing an energy resiliency
roadmap. The report further guides users on monitoring and measuring progress.
Energy plays such an important part in the operation of every aspect of an airport that it
is not enough to meet today’s needs; tomorrow’s needs must also be considered, along with
preparation for power disruptions. An energy resiliency plan considers the source, capacity,
and reliability of an airport’s power supply and the known risks to them. The plan identifies
goals, tools, and strategies to improve energy reliability, efficiency, resiliency, and indepen-
dence, taking into consideration regulatory issues and opportunities for use of renewable
energy. The energy resiliency roadmap takes the plan one step further by accounting for the
time, money, and effort needed to implement the plan and evaluate progress.
Hanson Professional Services began this research by reviewing resources on topics that
were instructive in generating an airport energy resiliency roadmap. Several case studies
were conducted at airports and in other industries to understand, in part, the necessary ele-
ments and stakeholders of an airport energy roadmap. Based on the results of these activities,
the research team has outlined a process for developing a roadmap to energy resiliency for
airports. ACRP Research Report 260 and Airport Energy Resiliency: A Primer will be useful to
airport employees at airports of all sizes.
The primer can be accessed on the National Academies Press website (nap.national
academies.org) by searching on Airport Energy Resiliency: A Primer. ACRP Research Report 260
and a document detailing the conduct of research for ACRP Project 02-98 can be found at
https://doi.org/10.17226/27491.


CONTENTS
1 Summary
P A R T I Establish the Starting Point

9 Chapter 1 Lay the Foundation
9 1.1 What Is Airport Energy Resiliency?
9 1.2 Importance of Energy Resiliency
10 1.3 Why Establish an Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap?
11 1.4 Differences Between Resiliency and Sustainability
12 1.5 Short- and Longer-Term Resiliency: Different but Important
13 1.6 Measuring Energy Use
13 1.7 Defining Critical Infrastructure
15 1.8 Community Benefits of Airport Energy Resiliency
16 1.9 Identifying a Champion
16 1.10 Stakeholder Involvement
18 Chapter 2 Establish Baseline Conditions
18 2.1 Determining Boundaries
19 2.2 Establishing the Baseline Period
19 2.3 Gathering Energy Data
20 2.4 Identifying Existing Supply and Distribution Conditions
23 2.5 Tracking and Reporting Progress
24 2.6 Detecting Vulnerabilities
P A R T I I Plan for the Future

27 Chapter 3 Forecast Future Needs
27 3.1 Engaging with Stakeholders
27 3.2 Best Practices for Entering into Partnerships with Utilities
29 3.3 Identifying Resiliency Gaps
30 3.4 Identifying Gaps Based on Risk and Vulnerabilities
32 Chapter 4 Set Goals
32 4.1 Identifying the Airport’s Energy Resiliency Vision
34 4.2 Goal Considerations: Inputs
35 4.3 Goal Considerations: Outputs
38 4.4 Engaging with Stakeholders to Establish Timeline
39 Chapter 5 Establish Energy Resiliency Strategies
39 5.1 Setting the Strategies
39 5.2 Reliability of Service
39 5.3 Reduce Energy Demand
41 5.4 Calculate and Compare Energy Use Intensity

42 5.5 Identify Infrastructure Critical to Power

43 5.6 Energy Independence
45 5.7 Energy Cost Control
45 5.8 Renewable Energy
50 5.9 New Construction Considerations
51 5.10 Technological Readiness
52 5.11 Using and Relying on Consultants
52 5.12 Using Certifications to Identify Opportunities
53 5.13 Building the Business Case
56 5.14 Other Measurable Benefits
57 5.15 Funding the Roadmap Implementation
62 Chapter 6 Integrate the Roadmap
62 6.1 Strategic Plan
62 6.2 Facility Plans
63 6.3 Operational Plans
64 6.4 Climate Action Plans
64 6.5 Operational/Workforce Strategies
P A R T I I I Measure Progress
69 Chapter 7 Evaluate Implementation
69 7.1 Why Measure?
70 7.2 Potential Measurements
72 7.3 Data Management Tools for Energy Resiliency
73 7.4 Communicate Progress
73 7.5 Other Considerations
73 7.6 Summary
74 Appendix A Case Studies: Questionnaire and Summary Tables
85 Appendix B Glossary
90 Appendix C Example THIRA Analysis
91 Appendix D Steps of a Benefit–Cost Analysis
93 Appendix E Sample Energy Use Intensity Calculation
95 Appendix F Grant Funding Opportunities as of 2023
97 References
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at nap.nationalacademies.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY
Background
An airport needs to be agile to consistently meet its customers’ and tenants’ evolving opera-
tional energy needs and public safety requirements. Concurrently, many airports strive to meet
other strategic goals, including sustainability goals, on a voluntary or mandated basis. At the
same time, an airport’s energy service from the grid may be vulnerable to increasing demands
and costs and the potential for short- and long-term disruptions caused by natural or human-
caused events. Developing an airport energy resiliency roadmap allows an airport to establish
a baseline of its energy use, supply, and vulnerabilities; set goals and related strategies in concert
with stakeholder input to address its energy resiliency; and prioritize and integrate the strate-
gies into other airport planning processes, including funding plans. The implementation of
the roadmap will be an ongoing process, with evaluations a critical part of the implementation
and refinement of the airport’s energy strategies.
For the purposes of the roadmap development, airport energy resiliency is defined as the
ability of an airport to prepare its energy resources to adapt to changing short- and longer-
term conditions and to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Such resiliency
includes an airport’s ability to withstand and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or
naturally occurring threats or incidents. In essence, the goal of airport energy resiliency is
to plan and prepare to diversify and de-risk energy resources, acknowledging the need for
energy availability and the cost to maintain critical operations.
Objective
An airport energy resiliency roadmap provides the step-by-step process that enables staff
and stakeholders to develop a customized plan for their airport and to provide data for deci-
sion makers in order to generate support for the implementation. Airport investments can
have long lead times and involve multiple stakeholders. The purpose of the roadmap process
is to unify stakeholders, define requirements, and establish actionable steps to achieve the
airport’s energy resiliency goals. Complementing the roadmap is Airport Energy Resiliency:
A Primer that will provide airport leadership with tools to energize and support the develop-
ment of the roadmap.

2 Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap
Audience
The roadmap is intended to apply to all sizes of airports. While each airport’s complexity
and budget differ, the roadmap processes are adaptable and pertinent to all airports. The
roadmap is targeted to the following staff and stakeholders:
• Airport technical staff: engineers; energy, sustainability, and environmental managers; and
operations and emergency management staff. The airport’s technical staff will typically
prepare (with the assistance of any hired support) and manage the roadmap.
• Airport financial staff: financial and capital planners. Airport energy resiliency strategies
need to be established based on sound business cases. The airport financial staff are key
members of this process.
• Airport administrators and decision makers: While Airport Energy Resiliency: A Primer,
which complements this roadmap, is targeted to decision makers, they may also use sections
of the roadmap.
Research Process
The research approach was threefold: data collection, data analysis, and the production of
deliverables. The two primary data collection processes were literature reviews and case study
interviews. In addition to an overall literature review, the research team conducted a literature
review for each case study airport and its related entities before the case study. The results of
this review were shared with each interviewee in advance of the case study meeting to help
inform the discussion. A literature review was also conducted on all medium-hub airports.
Case Studies
Seventeen case study interviews were conducted with 17 airport-operating entities, encom-
passing 20 airports, several community entities, and two military bases. One interview may be
more appropriately called a focus group. This case study was conducted with a central Florida
complex community that included four airports and four community entities. This was the
only in-person meeting, although some attendees participated virtually. After each case study,
responses to the interview questions and any additional discussion were summarized and pro-
vided to the participants for correction. A case study was also conducted with two U.S. Navy
bases involved in energy resiliency planning and implementation to provide airports with a
perspective on what similar facilities are doing regarding energy resiliency.
Key observations emerged from the case studies:
• The relationship between an airport and its energy utility providers is crucial, with far-
reaching impacts. It is important for an airport to coordinate with its utility when con-
sidering significant energy conservation measures. Some utilities invoice higher use at a
lower per unit cost. When reducing usage, an airport could find itself paying more for less
energy unless the rate is negotiated in advance of the energy reduction measures.
• Calculating and understanding the airport’s baseline energy use throughout the year is vital
to pursuing airport energy resiliency. This requires an inventory of all energy sources and
uses. Unless the airport knows its starting point, it will not be able to gauge improvements.
However, it is also important to understand system components, identify the major loads,
know how all components are served, and organize them by importance.
• The complexity of energy resiliency and lack of aviation-specific examples and reference
materials create information asymmetry. This can leave airport staff members reliant on
experts, usually consultants, to explain the myriad energy options the airport should consider.
However, consultants may not be neutral experts, especially if associated with a product or

Summary 3
service. It can be challenging for airport staff members to trust that they are knowledgeable
enough to make their own decisions or that the consultants are recommending the best
options for their airport.
• Many airport staff wish they better understood the federal funding landscape and the pro-
grams that are or will be funded by current or future legislation, as well as their airport’s
eligibility and competitiveness. There is no recognized go-to source identifying funders
for energy resiliency projects that houses and explains the opportunities, inclusive of
agencies, application deadlines, and so on.
• Airport tenants and customers are increasingly using electric vehicles, and the use is antici-
pated to grow, particularly given incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. Airports are
working to identify the most appropriate charging station offerings and an associated rate
structure to factor into energy resiliency planning.
Appendix A contains the interview questions and a tabular summary of airport energy
resiliency measures identified or discussed by the case study airports during their inter-
views, organized by subject area. This summary is not intended to encompass all potential
airport energy resiliency measures, but rather to reflect the implementation efforts of the
case study airports.
Data Analysis
Data analysis commenced as soon as information was available from the literature review
and interviews and was used to inform the data collection. As part of the analysis, key defini-
tions related to airport energy resiliency were compiled and are in the Glossary (Appendix B).
From the data collection and analysis, the research team identified two key insights related
to airport energy resiliency.
• There are two important considerations to airport energy resiliency: the ability to withstand
and recover from an energy incident, and the short- and longer-term energy demands that
will increase as building electrification and the aviation and ground transportation indus-
tries evolve.
• The goal is to have adequate, dependable primary energy infrastructure and supply and a
properly sized and reliable backup system for critical infrastructure to meet the airport’s
energy demands.
Although two different time frame considerations may be associated with airport energy
resiliency, the process is similar because the goal is the same. Therefore, both fit within the
same roadmap. The data collected was used in the development of this report and an asso-
ciated publication, Airport Energy Resiliency: A Primer.
Role of the Roadmap and Roadmap Organization

The role of the roadmap is to provide a systematic process for addressing airport energy
resiliency, garnering stakeholder support, and integrating the plan with other airport planning
processes and documents while aligning the plan with community goals.
The roadmap is organized into seven activities:
1. Lay the foundation
2. Establish baseline conditions
3. Forecast future needs
4. Set goals

5. Establish energy resiliency strategies

6. Integrate the roadmap
7. Evaluate implementation
Each activity is important to the process and builds on the information from the previous
activities. Figure S-1 shows these key activities and the associated content of each chapter.
Roadmap Leadership
Development of the energy resiliency roadmap benefits from strong leadership. This
starts at the sponsor and executive levels, with vision and support for actionable delivery.
As part of the actionable delivery, an assigned champion needs to be responsible for the
development of the roadmap and its implementation. This champion may be a person or
team, depending on the organization of the airport. The champion has to be empowered
with the necessary resources to prepare and initiate the implementation and be responsible
for engaging the appropriate stakeholders to obtain their input and buy-in.

Summary 5
Figure S-1. Airport energy resiliency roadmap organization and content.


PART I
Establish the Starting Point


CHAPTER 1
Lay the Foundation
1.1 What Is Airport Energy Resiliency?

Title 10 of U.S. Code § 101(e)(6) defines energy resiliency to mean “the ability to avoid, pre-
pare for, minimize, adapt to, and recover from anticipated and unanticipated energy disruptions
in order to ensure energy availability and reliability sufficient to provide for mission assurance
and readiness, including mission essential operations related to readiness, and to execute or
rapidly reestablish mission essential requirements.”
To provide more context for the development of an airport energy resiliency roadmap, this
definition has been expanded to recognize that airport energy resiliency needs to incorporate
short- and longer-term conditions as well as consider the potential causes of energy disruption.
Airport energy resiliency, for the purposes of roadmap development, is defined as the ability of
an airport to prepare its energy resources to adapt to changing short- and longer-term condi-
tions and to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Such resiliency includes an airport’s
ability to withstand and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring threats
or incidents.
The ultimate goal for airport energy resiliency is energy assurance—confidence in the ability
to respond to an energy emergency, disruption, or major new demand for energy by an airport
stakeholder. This goal also includes the ability to manage the airport’s energy costs.
1.2 Importance of Energy Resiliency

Over the past decade, while energy use and dependency have grown, threats to the energy
industry have expanded, along with the potential risks for domino effects that may magnify the
severity of any incident. While there may be various causes for energy disruption, four sources
have emerged as the most powerful:
• Extreme weather events and natural disasters, including earthquakes, high temperatures,
strong winds, floods, landslides, and forest fires, which are becoming more prevalent every
year
• Geopolitical conflicts between nations that can disrupt the supply of various fuels (oil, gas,
etc.) and raise fuel prices
• Foreign and domestic terrorist activities that have targeted utility generation, distribution, and
transmission facilities with physical damage
• Cybersecurity threats to the systems energy companies use to better manage assets through
smart technologies. These systems have become targets of cybercrime through the prolifera-
tion of ransomware and malware.

1.3 Why Establish an Airport Energy

Resiliency Roadmap?
Denver International Airport The energy resiliency roadmap is a planning tool that should be integrated with other airport
has an energy master plan
plans. Through the development of the roadmap, emergency, capital, financial, and existing and
to guide its energy strategy,
including the implementation future operational needs related to energy demand and supply can be assessed and evaluated; goals
of resiliency measures. can be established; and strategies can be aligned to the goals, detailed, and prioritized to enable the
recommended actions to become implementable projects. As part of the implementation of the
roadmap, it is recommended that the strategies be integrated into the airport’s master plan, capital
improvement plan, emergency management plan, and any other applicable planning and opera-
tional documents, as discussed further in Chapter 6.
All airports can benefit from development of an energy resiliency roadmap. Energy resiliency
strategies for airports are common. However, as described in the following sections, the size and
location of an airport will factor into the roadmap. An airport’s size will influence the complexity
and costs of the resulting strategies and the resources for their implementation. The case study
interviews revealed that an airport’s size was not a limit on its ability to innovate to achieve energy
resiliency. An airport’s location will influence its energy risks and potential strategies, such as the
availability of a renewable resource and a regulated or competitive energy market.
Roadmap Content
An airport’s roadmap to energy resiliency needs to address the following items, which are
covered in the chapters identified after each topic.
• Identifying critical infrastructure (Chapter 1)
• Establishing a group of internal and external stakeholders (Chapter 1)
• Establishing the baseline of demand by fuel source and associated loads (Chapter 2)
• Evaluating the energy supply from generation to the airport and understanding what is within
the airport’s control (Chapter 2)
• Identifying resiliency gaps based on risks and vulnerabilities related to airport location
(Chapter 3 and Appendix C)
• Setting foundational goals and tools/levers (Chapter 4)
• Establishing resiliency strategies (Chapter 5)
• Evaluating the technological maturity of energy resources (Chapter 5)
• Making a business case to prioritize strategies, including considering the cost of inaction
(Chapter 5, Appendix D)
• Identifying potential funding sources (Chapter 5)
• Integrating the roadmap with other airport planning (Chapter 6)
• Evaluating the implementation of strategies, such as using benchmark tools for comparison
against peer facilities (Chapter 7)
Applicability of Roadmap to Climate Change

Climate change has the potential to affect energy resiliency, with direct and indirect impacts.
Among the direct impacts would be greater energy demand for heating and, especially, cooling
associated with more extreme weather conditions. The range of indirect impacts would be far
greater, including an increased fragility of regional power grids, operational disruptions from
extreme weather events such as tornadoes and hurricanes, and a terminal redesign or modification
to counter temperature extremes. Another indirect impact could come from government pres-
sure or regulatory requirements to decarbonize or convert to alternative energy sources as part
of national or regional mandates. This impact may be especially acute for airports because they

Lay the Foundation 11
are often one of the largest electricity users in a region and iconic symbols of their cities. A final
climate change–related impact on airport energy demand is unique to airports at or near sea level:
the energy demands of major construction projects to mitigate sea level rise. The International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) website at https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection
/pages/adaptation.aspx provides resources for the aviation industry to address climate change
impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
1.4 Differences Between Resiliency and Sustainability

Resiliency and sustainability are different but can be complementary. Airport energy resil-
iency actions can be sustainable, and actions within a sustainability plan may have energy
resiliency benefits.
Per the Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance, the 1987 Brundtland Commission defined
sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission 1987,
p. 41). The airport industry typically uses the EONS model for the sustainability of economic
vitality, operational efficiency, natural resources, and social responsibility, depicted in Figure 1-1.
Executive Order 13693: Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade defines resil-
ience as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand,
respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions” (§ 15(w)).
The Federal Energy Management Program of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, as part of its Technical Resilience Navigator Frequently Asked Questions (https://trn
.pnnl.gov/faq), builds on the Executive Order 13693 definition of resilience, adding details on
the response action: “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions
and to withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions through holistic planning
and technical solutions.” Further, it explains that resilient systems should have key attributes of
resourcefulness (able to prepare for and respond to a disruption), redundancy (having backup
systems in place), robustness (able to maintain critical operations during a disruption), and
recovery (able to quickly return to normal operations).
Figure 1-1. EONS sustainability.

San Diego International Airport energy resiliency is more narrowly focused on an airport’s energy needs but should
Airport has a strategic energy
incorporate all the facets of overall resiliency. However, resilience in meeting energy needs may
plan that integrates carbon
neutrality with energy not always be sustainable. This is particularly true if the energy is generated from a nonrenewable
resiliency. resource. When an airport establishes an energy resiliency roadmap, any sustainability, decarbon-
ization, energy-efficiency, or other related goals may influence its energy resiliency strategies.
Even if not driven by other goals, the energy resiliency strategies may provide sustainability or
other environmental benefits, such as reducing energy use, energy demand, and pollutants related
to energy generation. Chapter 6 discusses the integration of the roadmap with other airport plan-
ning, including sustainability, net zero, and climate change, as well as more traditional airport
planning, such as master plans and financial plans.
1.5 Short- and Longer-Term Resiliency:

Different but Important
When preparing the roadmap, an airport needs to consider short- and longer-term resiliency.
The strategies to address each may be different but do not exist in a vacuum. The steps to improve
short-term resiliency may have longer-term benefits.
Short-Term Resiliency
Short-term strategies are more likely to focus on easy-to-implement actions, physically or
financially, and items to assist the airport in responding to an emergency. However, these actions
can provide a foundation for longer-term strategies. Short-term strategies may include installing
more energy-efficient fixtures, retro-commissioning building systems, or implementing opera-
tional improvements such as turning off lights in empty spaces. Short-term strategies tend to last
from less than 1 year to about 3 years.
Longer-Term Resiliency
The strategies for medium- and long-term energy resiliency that address the airport’s risks
related to hazards and vulnerabilities can also have short-term benefits. For example, evolving
technology and the transition from fossil fuels will increase demand for energy at the airport.
This vulnerability does not just emerge in the long term. Improved short-term conditions and
progressive improvements will position an airport to address longer-term resiliency. Longer-
term strategies tend to last from about 3 to 15 years.
One evolving technology is the increased acceptance of electric vehicles (EVs). According to
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the market for EVs has grown rapidly in recent years and is
expected to continue to grow at a fast pace over the coming decade. Electric car sales in the United
States increased from a mere 0.2% of car sales in 2011 to 4.6% in 2021 (Colato and Ice 2023).
Although forecasts for the rate of EV adoption over the next decade vary widely, given rapid
changes in government policies and the auto manufacturing industry, many predict a strong
acceleration in EV adoption. The number of EVs on the road jumped from about 22,000 to a
little over 2 million between 2011 and 2021, and several factors are expected to continue to drive
consumer demand for EVs until 2032 (Colato and Ice 2023). These factors include environmental
concerns, greater vehicle choice, improved battery capacity, and cost savings.
The move to EVs will affect airports. Airports are already experiencing the implementation of
electric ground handling equipment. Further, the use of EVs for ground transportation to and
from an airport is projected to evolve over the short and medium terms. The use of electric aircraft

and other advanced air mobility (AAM) vehicles is expected in the long term, with initial piloted
flights projected for 2025 and a sharp increase in service by 2035 (Mallela et al. 2023). Airports need
to be prepared to meet these and other changing demands from their tenants and customers.
1.6 Measuring Energy Use

Definition of Energy
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines energy as “usable power” and as “the resources for
producing such power.” The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) defines energy as
“the ability to do work” (EIA 2023b). For airport operations, the most common forms of energy
are electricity and hydrocarbon fuels. While the roadmap has an electrical focus, any energy used
at the airport should be considered. Also, alternative fuels for generating energy should be con-
templated. Several potential energy sources could be included in the roadmap:
• Electricity (regardless of source)
• Natural gas
• District cooling, heating, or both
• Diesel
• Propane
• Methane (from a local landfill)
• Jet A fuel
• Hydrogen
• Heat (geothermal, waste heat, captured heat from other processes)
While not addressed in this document, some airports include water as part of their resource
resiliency planning.
Energy Units
A common measurement of energy is the British thermal unit (Btu), the amount of heat required
to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit. It is commonly used as
1,000 Btu or 1 kBtu. The heat (energy) content of various fuels can be reflected in Btus. Conver-
sion to a common unit of measurement permits the compilation of total energy use from multiple
fuels. A common unit for electricity, kilowatt-hours, is a globally accepted measure. For example,
1 kW-h of electricity contains 3,412 Btu, while 1 cubic foot of natural gas contains 1,023 Btu.
A common measure of energy use for buildings is energy use intensity (EUI), the energy ACRP Web-Only Document 27:
consumed within a building in one year (in kBtu) divided by its gross area (in square feet). Methodology to Develop the
Airport Terminal Building
Because EUI is calculated by determining the energy use per square foot annually, it allows for Energy Use Intensity (ATB-EUI)
comparisons across all types of buildings. However, at airports, there are more facilities than just Benchmarking Tool provides
the buildings that use energy, so EUI is only one of several metrics that should be considered. Other a method for airports to
metrics include kBtu per flight operation, kBtu per passenger, energy cost per flight operation, define their annual EUI and
some benchmarking data for
and energy cost per passenger. various areas of the terminal
(Haberl et al. 2016b).
1.7 Defining Critical Infrastructure

Identifying the criticality of an asset is one tool an airport can use when developing airport
energy resiliency strategies and implementation priorities. Typically, the criticality is considered,
along with the vulnerability of the asset. An example of evaluating the criticality of an asset using
the probability of failure and the tolerance for such failure is depicted in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2. Example of risk versus probability of occurrence

matrix used to aid in criticality analysis.
Several ACRP studies have addressed the criticality of airport assets. ACRP Report 69: Asset and
Infrastructure Management for Airports—Primer and Guidebook identifies critical assets as “those
assets that are high cost and/or result in detrimental levels of service and significant consequences
if they fail” (GHD Inc. 2012, p. 59).
TRB Special Report 340: Investing in Transportation Resilience: A Framework for Informed Choices
defines criticality as “importance or value of [an] infrastructure asset, in terms of the cost to users,
owners, and society from a loss in functionality” (TRB 2021, p. 14). Therefore, when reviewing an
airport asset for its criticality, its monetary and functional value should be considered.
ACRP Report 93: Operational and Business Continuity Planning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions
provides a critical path framework for determining recovery priority, which can also be used to
identify the criticality of an asset (Corzine 2013). ACRP Report 93 is focused on the overall airport,
but airport energy resiliency is one component it explores in business continuity planning.
ACRP Report 147: Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Risk Assessment for Airports focuses on
the climate change risks to airports to help them plan adaptation actions and incorporate those
actions into overall airport planning. Conversely, for airport energy resiliency, climate change is
only one factor. Section 6.2.2 of ACRP Report 147 provides a detailed discussion on critical assets
and operations that can be adapted to energy resiliency. It defines criticality as “the importance of
the asset or operation to overall functioning of the airport” (Dewberry et al. 2015, p. 28). ACRP
Report 147 identifies five perspectives from which criticality can be viewed:
• Service/operational
• Public health and safety

• Reputation
• Restoration cost
• Regulatory impacts
The Airport Climate Risk Operational Screening tool provided with ACRP Report 147 includes
the following definitions of the level of criticality:
• Loss of the asset/operation would have a negligible impact on the airport
• Loss of the asset/operation would hamper airport function
• Loss of the asset/operation would significantly affect or shut down the airport until repair,
replacements, and so on were secured
These levels of criticality, along with an airport’s desired level of service, can be used as a starting
point for considering the criticality of an airport asset/operation if power is lost. When considering
the criticality of power, the airport would measure significant impacts in time until power returns
(instead of until the repair or replacement of an asset/operation). The criticality of an asset is a
factor in the risk and vulnerability analysis, as discussed in Section 3.4.
1.8 Community Benefits of Airport Energy Resiliency

The assessment of the criticality of airport assets should align with the airport’s role in the Tallahassee International
community and its emergency response plan. Working toward airport energy resiliency benefits Airport is home to two
solar farms: one 120-acre,
the airport and the community. The airport’s efforts toward energy resiliency may help the com- 20-megawatt (MW) farm
munity meet its resiliency goals, or the airport may lead the community toward energy resiliency. and one 240-acre, 40-MW
farm. The farms were
developed in coordination
Alignment with and Support of Community Goals with City of Tallahassee
Utilities using a third-party
When developing the airport energy resiliency roadmap, the strategies employed should be in vendor to build the solar
alignment with community goals. For some airports, their local community or state has estab- arrays. All energy from the
lished goals related to carbon reduction, climate, or energy efficiency. When there are specific farms goes into the city
grid. The airport received
goals, the roadmap is a useful tool to help the airport achieve its assigned goals. In the absence
land lease payments. The
of community goals, the roadmap is a way for the airport to be a leader in the community. In utility’s customers can
other words, the airport’s interaction with community stakeholders during the development of its choose whether 25%, 50%,
energy resiliency roadmap may help foster similar actions within the community. For example, or 100% of their bill will
the Columbus Regional Airport Authority is an active participant in the Columbus Green Com- come from the solar energy.
For example, the city elected
munity Plan.
to power its government
buildings with 100% solar
energy. Solar power is fully
Emergency Response Resource subscribed by customers,
who benefit from a fixed
The airport is typically an important part of a community’s emergency response plan. Making
rate through 2027 (City of
the airport more energy resilient increases the likelihood of the airport facilities being available Tallahassee, n.d.).
during an emergency. As such, an airport should work with its utility provider to understand
the airport’s role within community emergency response plans. This role should influence the
airport’s priority in the utility’s recovery plan.
Progress Toward Community Energy Reduction Goals

In 2021, electric power accounted for 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (EPA 2023d).
Airports, especially large airports, are significant energy users in the community. Therefore,
implementing the roadmap can help the community through reductions in energy use or growth
in airport energy generation, especially from renewable sources. Reducing demand or the growth
of demand at the airport can aid a community by providing additional energy capacity for other
users without increasing utility generation. Reducing the use of fossil fuel–generated energy aids

in community greenhouse gas and carbon reduction, as well as air quality improvements. As a
large energy consumer, the airport may also be able to encourage the utility toward more renew-
able energy generation that can benefit all users.
1.9 Identifying a Champion

The Columbus Regional Support for developing and implementing airport energy resiliency needs to start with senior
Airport Authority has a staff leadership. Still, a champion should be identified to lead the roadmap development and imple-
position to lead energy and
mentation efforts. The champion should also track energy-related issues for changes that could
environmental management.
affect the roadmap and its implementation.
The position and role of the champion will vary by airport organization, ranging from one
staff member or department to a cross-departmental committee. Senior leadership should
empower the champion with financial support and interdisciplinary involvement to develop the
roadmap. In ACRP Research Report 188: Using Existing Airport Management Systems to Manage
Climate Risk, Chapter 3 describes strategies for building support for managing climate risks.
Similar strategies can be employed for developing airport energy resiliency (ICF; Gresham,
Smith and Partners; and Faith Group 2018).
1.10 Stakeholder Involvement

The airport’s champion should engage stakeholders in the roadmap development process.
Airports have multiple stakeholders internally and externally. Stakeholder input during roadmap
development is important to formulating the roadmap and generating support for its implementa-
tion. A key stakeholder is the airport’s energy utility or utilities. It is critical for the airport to have
or establish a positive working relationship with its energy utility. Building a positive working
relationship with utility representatives promotes productive discussions about resiliency, energy
reduction, cost per unit, “greening” of energy, and so on, and is vitally important.
It is important for an airport Some case study airports work closely with their utility providers and have crafted a shared
to understand how its energy vision for regional energy use and production. Others have a more passive relationship with
use is billed. Some utilities
invoice higher use at a lower
minimal interactions, except during power outages. Stakeholder coordination examples from
per unit cost. When reducing the case studies include frequent interactions with utility providers, the use of a third-party
usage, an airport could find manager for natural gas purchases, and a partnership between the airport and an airline to plan
itself paying more for less for EVs and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
energy use, unless the rate is
negotiated in advance of the One case study airport seemed to have a challenging relationship with its utility provider. The
energy reduction measures. airport discovered the utility provider had given the airport a mandatory energy goal that was
Stakeholder coordination
and a working relationship
hard to reach. This was only discovered when airport officials read an overarching strategic plan.
with the utility can be used The airport was not consulted in the deliberations around the strategy.
to proactively address this
situation.
Other stakeholders, in addition to the utility, should be involved in the roadmap. ACRP Syn-
thesis 65: Practices to Develop Effective Stakeholder Relationships at Smaller Airports defines airport
stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the
airport’s objectives” (Elliot et al. 2015, p. 4). Several considerations will emerge when identifying
stakeholders for the roadmap development and implementation:
• Will the stakeholder contribute to the process or benefit from being involved in this process?
Clearly identifying the benefit of participating in roadmap development or implementation to
a stakeholder allows a greater opportunity for reaching consensus if conflicting initiatives arise.
• Is the stakeholder represented exclusively, or do the entity’s interests receive sufficient support
through another stakeholder interest? Interests that may be represented through an inclusive
interest group may not require additional participation from separate entities represented in
that group.

• Do the stakeholders representing an organization have the authority to represent the larger
stakeholder interest and have vested powers to make decisions on behalf of the group? To avoid
entanglement in two-table negotiation dynamics—in which the group representatives may not
have exclusive decision-making authority on behalf of the stakeholder group’s leadership—
the authority of participants should be clearly established. An airport should carefully vet
the engaged stakeholders to determine the likelihood that its representatives have the appro
priate functional authority to commit on the group’s or the entity’s behalf.
Figure 1-3 identifies potential stakeholders to consider including in the roadmap develop-
ment process. This list is intended to be a starting point and should be tailored to the airport.
An airport’s stakeholders may go beyond those listed, to be inclusive and to maintain program
support and the ability to address challenges.
When working with internal and external stakeholders, there may be differences of opinion,
and the roadmap champion will need to work toward consensus to establish the strategies and
timelines. It is important to note that consensus is overwhelming agreement, not unanimous
agreement, and collaboration does not require consensus.
Working in a collaborative manner throughout the development process will help stakeholders
reach consensus and support for the roadmap’s implementation. By working collaboratively,
stakeholders have an opportunity to
• Develop an understanding of the resiliency gaps that need to be addressed
• Educate each other
• Share in the development of strategies
• Stay informed as the input and plan evolves
The goal of building stakeholder consensus is to develop win-win strategies to improve the
airport’s energy resiliency within its physical, financial, and regulatory parameters.
Figure 1-3. Potential stakeholders in an airport energy resiliency roadmap.

CHAPTER 2
Establish Baseline Conditions
Establishing an accurate energy baseline is the starting point for the roadmap. The baseline
should show current energy usage (demand and consumption) throughout the year in sufficient
detail to reflect each fuel’s largest energy-consuming systems as well as note any projected changes
(increases or decreases) attributed to future airport modifications. Establishing a detailed base-
line is a critical step for planning and, over time, for monitoring changes.
While not required to establish an energy resiliency roadmap, the International Organiza-
tion for Standardization’s Energy Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use
(ISO 50001:2018) identifies a process to establish energy baselines. The standard defines six steps
for developing energy baselines:
1. Determine boundaries—this could be a building, an airport campus, or an operations or busi-
ness sector.
2. Establish the baseline period—typically a year.
3. Gather energy data (demand and consumption for each fuel)—create an energy balance.
4. Determine factors that heavily influence energy consumption—factors including weather,
seasonal flight schedules, and passenger levels.
5. Calculate EUI—refer to Section 1.6.
6. Track and report progress.
In addition to determining which facilities influence energy consumption, airports should
identify the criticality of the function consuming the energy, as discussed in Section 1.7.
Demand is only one part of the baseline conditions. It is also important to assess the supply
baseline. How does the current demand compare with the supply? At what point may demand
outstrip supply without improvements? How reliable is the supply? How is it generated?
2.1 Determining Boundaries

Depending on the users and the complexity of the airport, an airport operator may divide the
airport into separate areas to assess baseline energy use. This may be particularly useful if there
are multiple facilities in the airport or multiple energy meters. When establishing the boundaries,
some forethought can also be given to areas that may need different energy resiliency strategies.
Potential areas to assess independently include
• Airfield
• Passenger terminal
• Landside (parking, rental cars)
• General aviation facilities
• Tenant facilities with energy use billed to the airport
18

Establish Baseline Conditions 19
At more complex airports, the areas may be further divided. For example, Gerald R. Ford
International Airport’s sustainability master plan recommended an energy audit and inventory.
In gathering data, the airport has been submetering for all subdivisions, except airlines, skycaps,
and security.
2.2 Establishing the Baseline Period

Annual usage is the most common baseline period and is used by several of the case study
airports. A year may be used as the baseline, but if the data is available, multiple historical years
should be considered to identify trends in energy use and costs.
2.3 Gathering Energy Data

Once the boundaries and the baseline period have been established, the next step is to identify
the total energy used—identifying metering, utility rate structures, and the entities responsible
for energy monitoring and management. Monthly energy bills and invoices from the past several
years should be examined to help the airport develop an overall load profile and correlate it with
affecting factors, such as weather, passenger traffic, flight schedules, changes in tenants, and tenant
demands.
If the entire airport is being considered, it is assumed the responsibilities for energy control Data enables informed
and management will be divided between the owner and any agencies and tenants whose energy decision making. A case
study airport has already
is metered separately. It is important to consider all energy consumed within the baseline bound- started using its data to
aries and include all responsible parties as stakeholders in the development of the roadmap. forecast energy use, which
allows it to purchase natural
Beyond compiling the total energy through monthly bills and invoices for all metered utilities, gas in advance at a lower
it is important to subdivide the largest energy-consuming systems, identifying the largest systems rate and manage the
and loads. This will call for submetering, as required under recent editions of the most-adopted financial penalties it incurs
energy codes (ASHRAE 90.1 and the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code). Sub- for exceeding a specific
electrical demand.
metering may be accomplished through dedicated meters, power-monitoring systems, and data
loggers; however, this data collection should identify loads by usage (interior and exterior lighting;
heating and cooling via the HVAC system; air distribution; and various tenant and process loads).
Critical Loads Within Total Energy Demand

In addition to identifying total energy demand, it is important to properly identify the opera-
tional requirements of the essential loads of the airport, properly classify the emergency and
standby power loads, and determine the required emergency power supply systems in the event
of a normal power failure. Several case study airports have assessed critical loads within the total
demand. The critical load review will determine how the alternative power sources are consid-
ered, including Level 1 or 2 systems as defined by the National Fire Protection Association’s stan-
dard for emergency and standby power systems (NFPA 110). In addition, a critical load review
can help airports identify emergency and standby loads.
Level 1 systems are defined as those for which equipment failure could result in the loss of
human life or serious injuries and are typically associated with life safety systems (fire alarm,
fire suppression, smoke control, security, etc.). Level 2 systems are divided between those defined
for required standby power and for optional standby power. Optional standby power is depen-
dent on the end user’s needs and applicable codes.
The purpose of identifying critical loads is to understand the difference in their NFPA clas-
sification and where they are powered so that the information can be used for considering and
prioritizing load shedding as part of a resiliency plan. In addition to evaluating loads that are

critical from a regulatory standpoint, an airport should consider that other functions may be
critical to airport operations.
When assessing current critical loads, airports can take note of any connections that are not
as expected, so that revisions can be included as part of the roadmap. For example, in one case
study, an airport found a restaurant tenant had connected its refrigerator to an emergency electrical
panel. The restaurant had deemed the refrigerator critical to its operations, although the refrig-
erator is not critical to keeping the airport functioning.
Factors That Influence Energy Use

As an airport considers its energy resiliency goals and strategies, the factors that influence
energy use need to be considered. Typically, the two areas of highest energy use at an airport are
the airfield with lighting and the passenger terminal at commercial service airports. An airport
may also have a tenant with high energy use, such as a cargo operator; typically, these tenants
contract their energy, although they should be considered as a stakeholder in the airport’s road-
map process. Within these two categories, the efficiency of the energy-using systems influences
the energy use for a given area.
Another variable is weather conditions. An airport’s indoor environmental requirements
and its facilities’ HVAC systems represent a significant energy demand. Areas of the country
with greater ambient temperature extremes use more energy. The type of energy used and the
efficiency of the heating and cooling systems influence overall energy use. Passenger convey-
ance systems, such as moving walkways, escalators, and elevators, are also energy users. As an
airport considers its energy resiliency goals and strategies, the factors that influence energy use
need to be considered.
2.4 Identifying Existing Supply

and Distribution Conditions
While current energy demand and consumption help develop an airport’s baseline use, future
energy demand should be forecast to identify potential capacity and distribution constraints.
In addition, several well-publicized cases of electrical service disruption at airports, including
Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport, highlight
the importance of an airport understanding its energy system vulnerabilities. Future growth
projections and potential vulnerabilities need to be addressed within the airport energy resil-
iency roadmap.
It is equally important to understand the age and condition of the energy supply and distri-
bution infrastructure on and off the airport. Similar to other mechanical and electrical systems,
energy supply and distribution systems require a preventive maintenance program to maximize
uptime. Various equipment (cables, switchgear, breakers, transformers, etc.) under the airport’s
responsibility should be periodically inspected and tested to ensure its reliability and service conti-
nuity. Stocking spare parts of critical components should also be considered to ensure equipment
can be returned to service in the shortest time possible, safeguarding assets and avoiding the loss
of revenue for the airport and its tenants.
The airport should request similar supply and distribution information from its utility pro-
vider. Most utilities employ various data analytics and can provide the following information to
customers:
• History of service disruptions or outages within the airport’s service area
• Information regarding the utility’s predictive and preventive maintenance programs for
supply and distribution equipment under its responsibility

• Potential for redundant service supply from separate substation

• Current demand and available capacity for growth within the service area of the airport
• Renewable energy generating capacity
• Plans to increase generation
Understanding supply and distribution conditions, associated constraints and vulnerabilities,
and programs and plans to mitigate them are important components of an airport’s energy resil-
iency roadmap.
Utilities at a National Scale

Energy providers, particularly electric utilities, face challenges from governmental and envi-
ronmental regulations, technological advancements, and customer demands. The National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s Elec-
tricity System (2017) and The Future of Electric Power in the United States (2021) identify major
trends continuing to develop:
• Growth in the investment and development of renewable energy, particularly solar and wind,
as public and private organizations seek to reduce their carbon footprints
• Use of energy storage systems, particularly batteries, increasing to accommodate grid flex-
ibility (the storage of excess energy and providing backup power during intermittent periods
of generation) as the percentage of renewable energy grows
• Investments in grid modernization, such as advanced metering management, energy distribu-
tion management systems, and demand-side management
• Grid decentralization through the integration of distributed energy resources and microgrids
• Electrification of the transportation sector as the adoption of EVs drives the development and
expansion of the charging infrastructure
U.S. power companies face various challenges to their ability to meet supply chain demands
in the near future. Extreme weather events, such as storms, wildfires, and drought, are becoming
more common, resulting in damage to exposed infrastructure. In addition, material constraints,
including supply chain delays, can hamper utilities’ construction projects, as well as efforts to
restore power during outages.
Nuclear- and coal-powered supplies have declined over recent years as utilities bring renewable
energy sources on line. However, the transition often requires planned maintenance for the aging
transmission grid connecting these distributed energy resources, which may result in rolling
outages during periods of high demand.
Regulatory Environment of the Supply

The U.S. electrical grid is complex. It comprises power plants that generate electricity; a trans-
portation system of substations, transformers, and transmission lines; and distribution lines to
deliver the electricity from generation to the user. Storage of electricity, although evolving, is
not usually available, meaning electricity generally has to be used as it is generated. In the United
States, there are several types of electrical utilities: investor owned, publicly run or managed,
and cooperatives. These are the entities from which an airport typically receives service and an
invoice.
Local electrical grids are connected to larger networks that allow for the transmission of
power between generation facilities to help balance supply and demand, which maintains system
reliability. The continental United States has three major interconnections. The eastern inter-
connect extends from the Great Plains to the East Coast, except for most of Texas, which has
its own interconnect. The western interconnect is the area from the Great Plains and Rocky

Mountains to the West Coast. Within these interconnects are wholesale and retail markets.
In wholesale markets, power is sold between electric utilities and traders before it is sold to
customers. In retail markets, power is sold to the final customers.
Further, there are regulated and competitive energy markets. In a regulated electricity market,
the local utility is responsible for generation, transmission, and distribution, with oversight from
a public (governmental) regulator, such as a public service commission. Customers in regulated
markets cannot choose which entity provides their power and are bound to the local utility
serving that area. Regulated markets dominate most of the Southeast, Northwest, and much of
the West (excluding California).
In a competitive electricity market, participants other than utility companies can own power
plants and transmission lines. In such instances, companies that generate electricity sell electricity
to a wholesale market, and retail energy suppliers purchase this electricity to sell to customers.
The transmission grid is owned and operated by transmission companies or utilities through
regional transmission operators and independent system operators, which are overseen by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Retail markets, whether regulated or competitive,
are established at a state level. An airport in a competitive market has more flexibility, such as
the potential to enter into a power purchase agreement. Figure 2-1 depicts the regulated and
competitive markets (EPA 2023b).
Relationships with Utility Service Providers

Ideally, an airport should work to build a strong relationship with its utility. Several case study
airports are doing so. It is important for an airport to coordinate with its utility service providers
to understand distribution configurations, capacities, and vulnerabilities. Utilities often have
master plans reflecting the projected growth and upgrades to distribution systems in their
Figure 2-1. Retail electric power markets. (Source: EPA, Green Power
Markets: U.S. Electricity Grid and Markets, 2023b.)

various service areas. In addition, utilities have invested more capital and resources in addressing
reliability and resiliency over the past decade. They can share these plans and programs with
their customers to demonstrate their efforts in improving their generation, transmission, and
distribution networks.
Commonly cited resiliency improvements by utilities include
• Smart-grid enhancements, with sensors and remote-controlled switches
• Hardening the grid—upgrading poles and transformers, and moving lines underground
• Cybersecurity measures
• Distributed generation—incorporating multiple energy resources and microgrids
• Increased inventory—adding spare equipment and parts
• Vegetation management
• Mutual assistance agreements with other utility service providers
Utility providers monitor their performance through multiple metrics, including reliability
and resiliency metrics typically focused on impacts to their customers. These impacts are generally
measured through interruption metrics, including total system outage durations, the number of
customers affected by an outage, long-duration outages, restoration speed, and power quality.
An airport should identify and discuss its utility provider’s record in the service area through
these reliability and resiliency metrics.
The airport and its utility provider should discuss the primary generation sources for the An airport should be able
energy delivered to the airport, as well as the transmission and distribution paths. An airport to trace electricity from its
generation to its use in the
should be able to answer the following questions: airport.
• Is the airport primarily served by one generating plant? What is its reliability and capacity?
• What other generating resources can be employed? What are their sources of fuel?
• Are any renewable energy sources available?
• Is the airport fed from a radial feed or a loop feed? Is it possible to have feeds from separate
substations to increase redundancy and reliability?
• Does the utility provider offer any incentives or rebates to customers to assist in any resiliency
or energy conservation efforts?
The airport should have additional discussions with its utility providers regarding its rate
structures and various operational strategies that could result in savings, including load shifting,
load shedding, and demand-response agreements. How the utility can work with the airport on
upgrades will depend on whether it is regulated, as discussed in the section on the regulatory
environment of the supply.
ACRP Research Report 228: Airport Microgrid Implementation Toolkit (Klauber et al. 2021)
includes a section on utility reliability information. The tool identifies a utility system average
interruption duration index and a system average interruption frequency index for comparison
against national averages.
Capacity of Existing Backup Systems

In addition to energy supply from the utilities, any energy backup systems at the airport, such
as generators or solar power, should be inventoried. The inventory should include capabilities
and limitations, such as the equipment the system powers, types of fuel, and days of fuel on hand.
2.5 Tracking and Reporting Progress

The final step in ISO 50001:2018 is to track and report progress. This step will be a part of the
roadmap that involves continuous monitoring and tracking of energy usage.

2.6 Detecting Vulnerabilities

Geography, Weather, and Climate Change
After establishing the energy usage baseline, the airport will identify its energy vulnerabilities. An
airport’s setting will drive its geographic risks and ecological stressors. An airport should review
its emergency management plans to identify the types of weather events covered. These events
are related to geographic risks, such as blizzards versus extreme heat. ACRP Report 160: Address-
ing Significant Weather Impacts on Airports: Quick Start Guide and Toolkit and its associated
Airport Weather Advanced REadiness (AWARE) tool can be used to help an airport identify
weather events, including less frequent events, that should be considered in its planning (ICF
International et al. 2016).
Two case studies were According to the National Climate Assessment, the frequency and severity of disruptive inci-
an island airport and an dents have risen dramatically in the past 20 years and are expected to continue to increase
island airport system.
When making energy
(U.S. Global Change Research Program 2018). According to the National Oceanic and Atmo-
improvements, these spheric Administration, 122 separate billion-dollar disasters have cost the United States more
entities also focus on than $1 trillion in damages in the last 7 years (NOAA 2023).
hardening assets, such as
replacing aerial lines with These events directly affect the reliability of our energy system. Between 2000 and 2021, about
underground systems, or 83% of reported major outages in the United States were attributed to weather-related events.
using lighting carts that can And these events are on the rise—from 2011 to 2021, there were 64% more power outages than in
be stored indoors during
the previous decade (Climate Central 2022). Airports are vulnerable to these energy disruptions
storms instead of light poles.
and, as airports are critical components of the regional and national transportation infrastruc-
ture, the impacts are deeply felt by the broader community. According to FAA, “existing practices
do not adequately account for and prioritize resilience, which is crucial to maintaining com-
munity access to safe and efficient air transportation for passengers and cargo” (FAA 2022, p.1).
ACRP Report 147 provides airports with a tool to evaluate their risks from climate change, such
as rising sea levels, increased flooding, and temperature changes. These vulnerabilities should be
reviewed in light of their risks to airport operations (Dewberry et al. 2015).
Supply Vulnerability
After coordinating with its utility, the airport should be able to quantify its supply-side risks.
This includes identifying the reliability and redundancy of the airport feeds as well as the reli-
ability of the overall system. For communities with carbon neutrality goals, the vulnerability of
the energy portfolio—that is, the ability to meet the goals based on the availability of renewable
power resources—should be considered.
Changing Demand
Electric ground service equipment is becoming standard at airports, as are other electric
airport, rental car, and customer vehicles. What level of supply is needed to charge these vehicles,
and when and where? Further, electric aircraft are anticipated to enter the market within the
next 5 years. As part of the development of the roadmap, an airport needs to plan how to meet
its demands. An airport should also consider how EVs may affect revenue streams and provide
new revenue-generating opportunities.
Major Disruptions
The risks to an airport’s ability to invest in planned energy resiliency should be identified
and their likelihood assessed. The COVID-19 pandemic affected airport revenue streams and,
in some cases, delayed projects. Destructive storms and recovery efforts can affect an airport’s
investments while providing opportunities to rebuild more resilient facilities.

PART II
Plan for the Future


CHAPTER 3
Forecast Future Needs
3.1 Engaging with Stakeholders

The energy used by the airport sponsor may only be part of the demand for power at the airport.
To capture all future needs and assign their criticality, coordination is needed with major tenants,
who should be stakeholders in the energy resiliency roadmap. However, the roadmap champion
should consider stakeholders beyond the airport. Through stakeholder engagement, airports can
be community leaders in resiliency and sustainability planning. Chapter 1 identified potential
airport stakeholders. The stakeholders using or providing energy to the airport should be engaged
in the gathering of baseline data. Additional stakeholders should be invited to participate in pro-
jecting energy use, availability, and sources. This allows the airport to better understand the needs
of all tenants and the community.
The energy utility is a critical stakeholder in the roadmap development and implementation
process. Coordination with the utility provider should start during the baseline process and
continue throughout the development and implementation of the roadmap. Several case study
airports identified a working relationship with their utilities; some even had a dedicated repre-
sentative for the airport to contact.
If local government partners are not already engaged, it is recommended that they be welcomed
to the stakeholder engagement process, even if the airport is not run as a government depart-
ment. If the airport is a city or county department, the entity has likely been involved since
baseline development.
With a broad range of internal and external airport stakeholders, there may be some conflict-
ing priorities, such as prioritization of energy use or funding for project implementation. If
there are conflicts, it will be important to build consensus. Collaboration will need to include sharing
the airport’s energy resiliency goals and their benefits with the stakeholders.
It is preferable that stakeholders proactively collaborate before issues arise. Therefore, a careful
consideration of the stakeholders will aid in establishing an appropriate audience for the devel-
opment of the roadmap. Having an audience in mind will help the airport build consensus on
the roadmap’s goals and strategies. There are three components to consensus-building: identifying
the audience, crafting the message, and developing consensus among the participants.
3.2 Best Practices for Entering into Partnerships

with Utilities
Airport energy resiliency planning and roadmap development should be done in partnership
with the airport’s utility providers. A partnership allows for sharing energy data and forecasts,
coordinating infrastructure planning and development, and sharing funding opportunities.
27

Utilities are interested in maintaining close coordination with their governmental, institutional,
and commercial users because their distribution master plans often depend on the projected
needs of these customers. In addition, utilities face similar resiliency challenges in ensuring
the reliability of their generation, transmission, and distribution systems. Many utilities have
dedicated service representatives with knowledge of specific business sectors (transportation,
healthcare, hospitality, etc.) who understand what is important to customers in these sectors and
what energy and operational issues they face. Utility providers recognize that their customers
with large energy demands are primarily concerned about energy reliability, effective emergency
communications, trustworthiness, and the providers’ ability to keep energy prices down [as
demonstrated by various industry surveys, including the E Source Business Customer Satisfaction
Study (E Source 2021)].
Gerald R. Ford International In addition, technical utility representatives are often familiar with specific types of customer
Airport has received rebates loads and weekly demand and consumption profiles, which helps utilities guide their customers’
from its utility, Consumers
Energy, in recognition
energy use. Utility companies can also offer advice on energy rebates and tax incentives, energy
of its energy-efficiency monitoring, rate and program reviews, and various alternative energy services.
improvements.
With the emphasis on resiliency and the push toward a transition to clean energy, utilities
often have experts with experience in various sustainability and resiliency strategies, including
carbon neutral energy generation, energy-efficient capital investment programs, transitions to
self-generation and distributed energy resources, and energy storage. Through the development
and management of their energy projects and those of other customers, utility companies main-
tain close relationships with equipment and material vendors, as well as contractors working
in the energy industry.
There are several ways an airport and utilities can partner, offering stability to their operations
and to those of the communities they serve:
• Identify a single representative from the airport to be the liaison with the utility provider and
have the utility assign a primary representative as the airport’s contact.
• Communicate often (at least quarterly), sharing the airport’s goals, concerns, and capital
plans.
– Understand the primary generation source, transmission network, and distribution path
serving the airport. Obtain historical data regarding service interruptions and outages and
any steps the utility has taken or is taking to increase its resiliency and reliability in the
airport’s service area. Investigate which redundant service paths exist.
– Share the airport’s energy, sustainability, and capital master plans with the utility, including
any related stakeholders’ plans (airlines, Transportation Security Administration [TSA],
rental car agencies, retail and restaurant tenants, etc.).
– Understand what rebate and incentive programs the utility offers. Find out if or how the
utility can assist customers seeking grants or other funding sources.
– Explore any experience and expertise the utility may have in developing and managing
energy-related projects for its customers.
• Attend conferences and meetings, often with other community officials, where utilities and
their customers share updates on programs and capital plans.
A utility and airport authority partnership is exemplified in Orlando, Florida. The Orlando
Utilities Commission (OUC) has a long history of productive and mutually beneficial part-
nerships with its clients, including the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA), which
operates the Orlando International Airport. Orlando International Airport’s sustainability
efforts have benefited from OUC’s reputation as a pioneer in solar power generation: GOAA
and OUC completed the design and construction of a 123-kilowatt (kW) floating solar array
in December 2020.

Forecast Future Needs 29
In 2021, the GOAA board approved final agreements on a comprehensive partnership with
OUC, which provided the airport with
• Full-time (24/7) staffing of GOAA’s central chilled water system at its central energy plant
• Operation of GOAA’s 28-MW backup generation facility for emergency power distribution
• Additional sustainability initiatives and ancillary services
3.3 Identifying Resiliency Gaps

Future Energy Demand
With the increasing electrification of vehicles and buildings, the ability to meet future energy
needs is likely a gap that will need to be addressed in the roadmap. It will be important to iden-
tify future changes resulting from facility expansion and renovation, the expansion of operating
hours and passenger traffic, additional co-located tenant facilities (rental car facilities, multi-
modal facilities, etc.), and any potential conversions to the energy mix (for example, converting
from natural or liquefied petroleum gas to electric). This will require a close review of the airport’s
master plan and discussions with all affected stakeholders. Where possible, the incorporation
of power-monitoring systems employing submetering technology can help an airport monitor
and document energy demand and consumption, including a detailed schedule of energy use
to assist in assessment of the rate structure analysis.
The rate structure analysis should identify critical loads based on the criticality of the assets
or functions and their associated demand, separate from noncritical loads. Loads associated
with life safety systems (fire alarm, fire suppression, smoke control), security systems (access
control, video surveillance, TSA requirements), FAA communication and navigational control,
and egress and runway lighting are considered critical. In addition, airport-automated control and
metering systems, select tenant loads (airline data systems, tenant refrigeration loads), select
HVAC loads, and various internal transport loads (elevators, escalators, etc.) need to be assessed
regarding their criticality. This analysis enables the selection and sizing of the airport’s standby
power needs and the associated analysis of noncritical loads to be shed and their priority for
reinstatement, based on the demand monitored by paralleling switchgear.
New Facilities
Airport and tenant master plans are a good source when projecting future facility needs.
Master planning documents may not provide airports with sufficient detail to precisely project
future facility energy demand. However, the size of the facility based on planning activity levels
should allow for approximation of demand through the use of EUI or a related energy perfor-
mance indicator. With the future project, any planned improvements in efficiency should also
be considered.
New Airport Uses of EVs and Their Demands

EVs are being used by airports and their tenants, and their use by airport customers is antici-
pated to grow. The Edison Electric Institute, an association of investor-owned utilities, projects
that nearly 10% of cars and light-duty trucks will be EVs by 2030 (EEI 2022).
Further, some communities have established charging station requirements as part of parking
standards. Airport customers’ lengths of stay vary widely, from short-term meet-and-greets to
day trips to extended travel. Airports are working to identify the most appropriate type of charging
stations and an associated rate structure. While the roadmap will recognize planning for EV use,
the specifics related to establishing an EV charging program, with considerations for parking
options and pricing, are evolving, and the airport should gather the most recent information at
the time of its assessment.

Electric aircraft are projected to be at airports later than EVs. ACRP Research Report 243: Urban
Air Mobility: An Airport Perspective (Mallela et al. 2023) projects initial piloted flights in 2025,
with a sharp increase in service by 2035. However, the implementation will be driven by regulatory
requirements and customer adoptions. ACRP Research Report 236: Preparing Your Airport for
Electric Aircraft and Hydrogen Technologies (Le Bris et al. 2022) provides a similar time frame for
the implementation of electric aircraft in three scenarios. This document also summarizes potential
charging infrastructure needs. The growing demand for charging capability for electric ground
and air vehicles is a potential energy risk for airports.
Building Electrification
There is a push for building electrification—the transition from fossil-fuel systems to highly
efficient, all-electric alternatives. Electrification is a tool that may be pursued to reduce emis-
sions. However, it is most effective if the electricity comes from a nonfossil fuel source or at least
a reduced emissions source. If an airport or its tenants are pursuing building electrification,
they can increase the demand for electricity while reducing the demand for other energy
resources. Building electrification can also influence the skill requirements for facility staff.
Projecting Improved Efficiency

Along with projected increases in energy use, any planned efficiency improvements need to be
identified as part of future energy use. Efficiency improvements can assist in offsetting increasing
energy demand.
3.4 Identifying Gaps Based on Risk and Vulnerabilities

Increasing energy demand is only one type of risk. Other sources of potential risk include envi-
ronmental and human-caused threats, supply vulnerability, rising costs, and inaction. Because
each airport is unique, an airport must identify its vulnerability based on its situation. Based on
the risks and vulnerabilities, gaps in airport energy can be identified. Once the gaps are identified,
goals and strategies can be formulated to fill the gaps.
The goal of airport energy resiliency is to have a well-sourced backup to address energy risks,
whether those risks are short or long term. Therefore, it is important to have tools to quan-
tify the vulnerability caused by various risks and evaluate the potential financial investment of
improvements.
Several approaches are used to assess the vulnerability of systems or facilities, but the most
widely used is the Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA) developed
and prescribed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 2019). THIRA is one tool
of the National Risk and Capability Assessment, a suite of assessment products that measures risk
and capability across the United States in a standardized, coordinated process (FEMA 2021).
In essence, a THIRA has four steps:
1. Identifying the potential threats and hazards that a facility or system faces. This process
should seek to include all conceivable threats and involve the full range of stakeholders in
the facility.
2. Assigning a likelihood or probability, P, of that threat occurring, for example, on a scale of
5 (highly likely) to 0 (very unlikely). This is a qualitative judgment based on experience,
expert opinion, literature, regional data, national data, and history.
3. Estimating the impact, I, if a given threat occurs at the facility. This is another qualitative
judgment. A typical scoring system for the impact might be 3 equals destruction, 2 equals

Forecast Future Needs 31
prolonged disruption (more than one week), 1 equals a short disruption (12 hours to one
week), or 0 equals no disruption.
4. Computing the vulnerability, V, for each potential threat or hazard:
V=P×I
The basic THIRA method can be adapted to reflect the degree of mitigation strategies in place
or being considered. This would insert a new Step 4 for the effectiveness of mitigation, M, where
mitigation might be a mutual aid agreement, backup generators, precontracting for debris
clearance, or alternative fuel sources. The mitigation factor would be applied as a modifier to
impact (I):
V = P × (I − M)
Once the vulnerability for each threat or hazard has been computed, the threats and hazards
are usually ranked in order of descending vulnerability, with the intention of pursuing solutions,
such as planning or budgeting for the greatest vulnerability first.
An example table showing the results of a THIRA for airport energy resiliency is in Appendix C.

CHAPTER 4
Set Goals
4.1 Identifying the Airport’s Energy Resiliency Vision

Before identifying the strategies to address resiliency gaps, airport leadership should establish
energy resiliency goals. As discussed previously, the airport is part of a larger community that
includes internal and external stakeholders who should have an opportunity to provide input
during the goal-setting phase. Two types of goals should be established: foundations and tools/
levers. These goals support the strategies that will be identified, as depicted in Figure 4-1.
As the goals increase in flexibility, they will decrease in permanence. Foundational goals
should be long-term goals that an airport is continually striving for and will have little flexibility
to change, based on external inputs. The tool/lever goals used for energy resiliency should have
a bit more flexibility and be adjustable as feedback, external regulations, desired level of service,
and other inputs are received. The strategies will need to be adjusted to enable the airport to remain
flexible and agile in its approach to energy resiliency. An airport should have well-established
feedback cycles that contribute to the adjustment of its strategies.
Foundations
The following four goal categories are permanent and, together, make up the foundation for
an airport’s energy resiliency roadmap. These goals need to be set first and referred to as all other
goals are set.
• Short-term resiliency: The continuity of critical operations during natural or human-caused
events.
• Long-term resiliency: The reliability of supply and the readiness for changing business models,
energy demand, and climate change.
• Economic: The predictability of costs for utilities, operations, and maintenance.
• Reputation: Safety, image or brand, and overall customer experience.
Tools/Levers
Tools and levers are the mechanisms or building blocks for addressing and implementing
strategies that accomplish overall energy resiliency goals. This set of seven categories, which can
be considered in any order, will have a standard definition across airports but will be used differ-
ently depending on the airport’s foundational goals. Tool/lever goals have quantifiable metrics
that can be manipulated to reach the desired overarching resiliency goals. These goals may slowly
change over time based on feedback cycles and input.
• Reliability of service: How reliable is the existing service and the utility’s future ability to meet
the airport’s evolving energy needs? Are there opportunities to improve the existing service
through additional feeds or on-site infrastructure upgrades?
32

Set Goals 33
Figure 4-1. Relationship of goals and strategies.
• Energy efficiency: Higher-efficiency equipment can result in reduced energy needs, but the
cost of the efficiency improvements also needs to be considered.
• Energy resiliency: If an energy service is disrupted, what critical facilities at the airport need
to continue to operate, for how long, and at what level of service?
• Energy independence: How much independence from the grid is desired? What energy genera-
tion or storage systems are needed to provide this independence?
• Energy cost control: Energy demand is anticipated to continue to rise, and likely so will costs.
How much control over peak and base energy costs does the airport desire?
• Renewable energy: Are there renewable energy goals tied to other airport or community
planning?
• Regulatory compliance: Are there federal, state, or local regulations for renewable energy or
emissions tied to energy use that an airport must meet as part of its energy resiliency plan?
Within the tool/lever goals, an airport should consider specific targets, as well as any associated
interim targets, to ensure progress toward meeting the goals. For example, the goal may be to
increase the amount of on-site renewable energy to reduce reliance on the local grid. A target
could be identified as “increase on-site renewable energy by 30% by 2035,” and an interim target
could be “increase on-site renewable energy by 15% by 2030.” The goals and targets identified
will help drive the development of energy resiliency strategies to achieve those goals and will
help airports identify what data needs to be collected to show progress. Coordinating with
stakeholders can assist an airport in establishing achievable goals.
When establishing targets during the goal-setting phase, airports should recognize that
some targets may be revised as energy resiliency strategies are established. Stretch goals are
acceptable, but if a goal becomes infeasible, it is better to revise the overall airport plan to list
an achievable goal than to leave an impossible goal that is ignored.
Strategies
Strategies are the specific actions an airport will employ to meet its goals. They will be unique
to every airport and crafted based on its foundational and tool/lever goals. The strategies can
be easily updated and adjusted on a regular cadence as a roadmap is implemented. Strategies are
covered in more detail in Chapter 5.

As an example, the Department of Defense (DoD) uses a standardized process to identify and
resolve energy resiliency gaps, which includes a goal-setting and strategic planning component
(DoD 2021). All DoD installations are required to create an energy plan that establishes a com-
prehensive document that will empower an installation to work toward its energy resiliency.
The top priority of the plan is to select, prioritize, and sequence how projects and programs will
be implemented to address the installation’s energy resiliency gaps. The installation is encouraged
to work with each of its tenants and key stakeholders to develop an inclusive energy plan, with
buy-in from all parties.
Step 1 of the DoD process, goal identification, establishes a strong base for the plan. This
step uses an inclusive team of stakeholders with unique perspectives and expertise and includes
the largest energy-consuming tenants, while being small enough to make efficient decisions.
To be successful during this stage, the team should identify existing plans, identify regulatory
requirements, brainstorm comprehensive solutions, consider data availability, and communicate
consistently with internal and external stakeholders.
The airport’s goal-setting process should be similar. When establishing the baseline documen-
tation, energy projects that focus on the airport’s development and may affect the overall resiliency
plan should be identified. Understanding existing plans and projects helps airports save resources.
Without this step, the resiliency plan may conflict with or overlap work already scheduled.
Once outside inputs are received, the resiliency planning team should brainstorm to develop
requirements, expected outcomes, and an ideal timeline. The requirements may begin as a broad
wish list from each stakeholder, but each item should be scrutinized by the team to determine
whether it is needed for a more resilient future. The expected outcomes should at this point be
treated as drafts to be refined further as the team identifies its actions. An ideal timeline is an impor-
tant piece of the brainstorming session because it should be used to ground expectations. Although
the team may be inclined to create timelines based on unlimited resources, they should focus on
how quickly their current staff and funding, meeting no roadblocks, could implement each solution.
After brainstorming and setting the parameters for the plan, the team can create goals for all
aspects of the airport’s energy resiliency. The strategies to achieve these goals are location specific
and described in more detail in Chapter 5. When setting the goals, the team should focus on
quantifiable results that may be tracked over time, when possible, or assessed by binary checks
that track whether the airport has achieved or failed to reach a goal. The goals should be com-
municated early and often with leadership and stakeholders to enable adjustments so that the
airport may realize its vision and achieve buy-in during the early planning stages.
4.2 Goal Considerations: Inputs

Before drafting goals, it is vital to look back at the existing ecosystem, as discussed in Chapter 2.
An airport may focus on high-priority goals by creating a baseline in current energy use trends,
missions, and tenants. Standard inputs should include government regulation, critical infra-
structure, anticipated changes, current state utility infrastructure, current energy projects, and
critical tasks that require a continuous supply of energy.
Baselining, as discussed in Chapter 2, is a vital part of goal setting. Only by determining its
energy resiliency baseline can an airport gain a clear sense of what needs to be done to improve
its energy resiliency. The level of detail available for the baseline will vary. Ideally, conditions
such as occupancy, device inventory, nameplate data, and energy consumption rates should be
assessed. Depending on the type of baseline, data should be recorded through inspections, spot
measurements, and short-term metering activities. Once a current state is understood, how to
bring innovation into the goals can be considered. Through exploring the art of the possible,
an airport can better understand future threats and requirements regarding its energy resiliency.

Set Goals 35
The statutory environment is also critical for scoping the airport’s goals. Federal, state, and
local regulations involving greenhouse gas emissions targets, allowable technologies, and tax
incentives must be considered. Many states and local governments have emissions goals tied to
buildings’ energy security and the Scope 1 and 2 emissions (which are owner controlled). For
example, in 2019, New York City passed a law requiring the reduction of greenhouse gases in
large buildings, starting in 2024, to 85% of emissions by 2050. The city’s goal provides a time and
emissions constraint that must be considered in airport goals.
States may not allow for certain technologies or have constraints when a technology is applied
at scale. For example, California requires telemetry when grid-connected distributed generation
(generated close to the demand) exceeds 1 MW. Understanding how goals align to regulations
is valuable when working with newer technologies, so an airport can receive the best return on
investment (ROI) for infrastructure. In the stated example, if a California airport were consid-
ering either a 1.5-MW solar array or a 1-MW solar array based on economic considerations,
it would need to add the telemetry requirement to its calculations. The additional costs may be
a key factor in the decision.
Tax incentives from federal and state governments allow an implementer of a certain technology
or process to receive a rebate. In the Inflation Reduction Act, the investment tax credit allows
for reimbursement up to 30% for the installation of resiliency-driving technologies, such as
solar photovoltaic and microgrid controls. By understanding federal and state tax incentives,
an airport can create goals that will have the greatest ROI and take advantage of innovative
technologies (EPA 2023c).
4.3 Goal Considerations: Outputs

Once all inputs to the system are laid out and the intricacies are understood by the team, the
desired outputs of the resiliency plan can be developed. Outcomes to consider include the level
of energy efficiency, energy independence, the length of recovery time, renewable energy,
and reliability. The goals should be aligned to quantifiable results or binary checks (yes/no) that
allow for ease of reporting to stakeholders.
Reliability of Service
Reliability is the cornerstone of any energy resiliency plan because energy is an expectation,
not a luxury, for the American consumer. Because of its importance, the team may be tempted
to set goals of 100% reliability. Instead, the team must analyze the grid’s actual reliability and the
potential of extreme weather to set expectations. The best goals should aim to improve the SAIDI
(system average interruption duration index) and SAIFI (system average interruption frequency
index) scores of the airport compared with the mean for the local grid.
The goals should aim for a SAIDI and SAIFI above the mean of the local grid. It is critical
for an airport to ensure a reliable power supply to minimize downtime in its operations. Any
interruptions can result in lost revenue, increased maintenance costs, and damaged equipment.
Maintaining a SAIDI and a SAIFI above the mean of the local grid will help airports plan for
sufficient critical operations by providing a margin of safety and reducing the risk of prolonged
power outages. To increase the average of the indexes compared with the local grid, the team can
work with the local grid operator to prioritize the airport’s service above other customers during
periods when the grid cannot supply the full amount of electricity demanded, generate power
on site, or tie into multiple grids or two different local substations, where feasible.
The Denver International Airport has two incoming feeds from separate substations 10 miles
away from each other, and each feed provides enough capacity to fully service the airport.

This geographical distribution reduces the reliance on a single piece of grid infrastructure.
Increasing uptime helps ensure the safety of passengers and personnel while improving the
airport’s overall financial performance. Additionally, these goals can help ensure that crucial
infrastructure and services remain operable during disruptive events, enhancing the overall
resiliency of the operation.
Energy Efficiency
Memphis International Efficiency and resiliency are inextricably tied. As an airport’s energy use efficiency increases,
Airport installed smart it reduces the total energy required for operations. When setting goals for energy efficiency,
glass as part of its terminal
modernization. These
it is important to consider a technology’s ROI through its cost savings and how much reduction is
windows enhance the possible. The best way to measure efficiency is through energy use metrics, as discussed in
passenger experience while Section 1.6.
providing the airport with
energy-efficiency benefits by
maximizing daylight while Energy Resiliency
controlling heat and glare.
Though energy resiliency is as much about prevention as it is about the ability to recover from
energy service disruptions, planning for recovery is important. When setting goals for recovery,
the team must once again look at the damage that will be done to a device or an ecosystem if
an operation is without power for a predetermined amount of time (for example, if the refrigeration
food storage loses power for 12 or more hours, all food must be thrown away and workers sent
home). Once these limitations are understood, the measurement should be a binary of “yes” or “no”
regarding whether the system recovered in an appropriate amount of time. To test the recovery
time of assets, an airport can conduct planned outages of certain systems to simulate the airport’s
ability to recover from a power outage in a controlled environment. While an airport may not be
able to shut down all systems to conduct a full controlled outage and recovery (known as a black
start exercise), testing key assets and systems can help the team identify vulnerabilities and
remediate risks to the airport’s power systems.
DoD has begun implementing black start exercises at military installations to ensure the readi-
ness of critical mission operations for its facilities and personnel. Airports and military instal-
lations are similar in their strict procedures and high levels of security to ensure the safety of
personnel, equipment, operations, and passengers, implying that black start exercises could prove
useful for airports. These exercises will identify weaknesses in the emergency power resources,
help define an appropriate recovery time, and allow officials to combat inefficiencies, so that all
facilities are prepared for a real power outage. By conducting regular black start exercises, an
airport can improve its recovery time and minimize the impact of outages on operations and pas-
senger safety. During a black start exercise, the team should quantify the recovery time of each
asset and determine if the time is appropriate to meet the facility’s operational goals. The check
is binary and used to identify assets that need additional support: “yes, item is sufficient” or “no,
recovery time impeded operations.”
Energy Independence
An airport’s level of energy independence and islanding capability (that is, the airport’s ability to
generate power when the grid is unavailable) is a two-way street for energy resiliency. In other
words, an energy resilient airport will balance redundancy with a reliance on the greater grid.
A connection to the main utility grid adds redundancy to an airport’s potential distributed-
generation assets in case an asset underperforms. To properly set an energy independence goal,
the airport must understand its peak energy requirements: the grid connection must have a power

Set Goals 37
bandwidth large enough that distributed generation will fit the needs of the airport. Quantify-
ing energy independence is difficult but may be best conducted by recording how often critical
operations could not be performed because of a power outage. The need for and level of energy
independence should be based on the risk analysis conducted as part of developing the roadmap.
The most common way to quantify energy independence is by identifying the percentage of
energy generated on site versus the percentage from the grid or external sources. By measuring
the output of on-site energy generation, the airport can determine how prepared it will be for a
grid outage. For additional quantification of resiliency, energy independence may be measured by
how frequently critical operations fail because of power outages. This approach provides a tangible
measure of energy independence by focusing on the airport infrastructure’s ability to maintain
operations during a disruptive and financially impactful time for energy-dependent entities.
Energy Cost Control

By using the right energy resiliency tools, an airport can improve its control of operational
costs while increasing energy security. Cost control is found by reducing the two highest costs
on a utility bill: consumption and peak energy demand. Energy conservation, as discussed in the
section on energy efficiency, is the best way to tackle consumption costs ($/kW-h). Load shifting—
moving demand from peak hours to off-peak hours—is the best way to improve an airport’s
control over peak demand charges (typically the charge for the largest demand in kilowatts over
a 15-minute period). If an airport is switching from fossil fuels to electricity, the total cost of
ownership should be considered.
Renewable Energy
Renewable energy technologies are important distributed-generation assets within an energy
resiliency plan because they provide a level of energy independence from the main grid. Renewable
energy systems in place at case study airports include solar and geothermal. Each renewable asset
must be part of a microgrid to provide resiliency to the airport. Microgrids are a set of assets—
distributed generation, battery storage, and control technology—operating within a defined
boundary. Renewable generation goals should be set based on a system’s capacity in megawatts,
desired energy output in megawatt-hours, and capacity factor (the ratio of renewable energy pro-
duced by on-site renewable energy assets compared with the maximum possible output over a
given period). The measurement technique should be akin to that for energy independence, with
the addition of recording the capacity factor and generation over a given amount of time.
Understanding energy independence and capacity factor is key to quantifying the effect of
renewable energy on an airport’s resiliency. As explained in the section on energy independence,
understanding how the amount of energy generated compares with the amount consumed helps
an airport determine its islanding capabilities. For a better understanding of islanding capability,
the capacity factor of generation should be analyzed. Understanding the capabilities of on-site
renewable energy assets will allow an airport to derive the optimal desired energy output and thus
increase energy independence from the main grid.
Regulatory Compliance
Regulatory requirements are an important input for goal setting. Compliance with regulations
should overlay the other airport energy resiliency goals. These regulations may range from the
requirements of a Part 139 airport certification (Title 14 CFR) to regional requirements regarding
green energy or emissions reductions.

4.4 Engaging with Stakeholders to Establish Timeline

Once goals are established, they should be ranked, prioritized, and analyzed alongside leader-
ship and other key stakeholders to establish an appropriate timeline. If possible, interim targets
and milestones should be established for goals and targets so that incremental progress may be
monitored. All goals should be established with stakeholders in mind to streamline the final
review. Stakeholders will carry the mindset “what’s in it for me,” so when crafting the story and
importance of each goal, the team should identify the impact each goal will have on each stake-
holder. At this point, stakeholders must state how many resources (money and staff) they are willing
to allocate to achieve each goal. After stakeholders’ inputs are received, the goals may be slightly
modified and then ranked for priority. Based on the priority and implicit effort of each goal,
a timeline should be formed.
For the goals to be effective, they need to be prioritized by leadership and communicated across
the organization. The goals or strategies may need to be periodically updated to reflect leadership
or legislative direction. During the update, the same inclusive team of stakeholder representa-
tives should be assembled to determine which considerations have changed and how the estab-
lished outputs will be affected. Once the goals are revised, stakeholder considerations should
be evaluated and the official timeline adjusted.

CHAPTER 5
Establish Energy Resiliency

Strategies
5.1 Setting the Strategies

For each foundational goal and associated tools/levers, an airport should identify energy resil-
iency strategies to make progress toward the goal. The strategies then need to be prioritized for
implementation. The strategies to be employed in the roadmap should be subjected to a business
case analysis and must align with any other airport goals, such as sustainability, carbon reduction
or net zero, and reliability in an emergency. Further, the strategies need to align with an airport’s
location; considerations include the viability of various green energy generation methods and
the vulnerabilities of the regional energy system.
5.2 Reliability of Service

Electrical energy is generated at a plant and sent through a transmission line to a substation
closer to the user. From the substation, distribution lines deliver the electricity to the user. It is
vital for an airport to understand its electrical power, from generation to delivery. This enables
an airport to assess the reliability of the service and potential improvements. Other reliability
assessments should include the potential for damage from severe weather or for power to be
cut off during high winds to reduce fire damage.
If an airport receives power from a single feed, it should consider investing in multiple feeds.
If multiple feeds are already present, their origin should be identified. Ideally, the feeds should
be from different substations, allowing for separate service distribution. All critical infrastructure
should have multiple feeds. Were feeds to come from the same substation, an issue at that sub-
station could disrupt airport service. This occurred at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
Airport in December 2017, when there was a fire at the main substation powering the airport.
As part of assessing the reliability of service, an airport should also assess future energy demands
and the utilities’ ability to meet them. If there will be a shortfall in projected total or peak energy
demand, an airport needs a plan to meet the demand and satisfy customer expectations.
5.3 Reduce Energy Demand

After establishing an initial baseline for energy demand, as described in Chapter 2, various
strategies and techniques for reducing that demand should be considered. Reducing energy
demand would reduce the number of standby or backup sources needed to meet resiliency require-
ments. These strategies and techniques can include
• Energy efficiency (more efficient lighting sources, occupancy and daylighting controls, higher-
efficiency primary heating and cooling equipment, conversion to more efficient distribution
systems such as variable primary pumping, variable air volume systems, etc.)
39

• Energy conservation (implementing efficient control sequences and strategies such as tempera-
ture reset, static pressure reset, optimal start, schedules, and setpoints)
• Energy recovery (for preheating or precooling ventilation air, reheating for humidity control)
• Periodic existing building commissioning or retro-commissioning (verifying optimized
performance and recalibrating, where required)
By reducing demand and consumption, these measures will decrease operating (utility) costs
and, in many cases when implementation costs are low, result in a favorable ROI. During the case
study interviews, an airport reported that it was able to proceed with an energy resiliency project
by focusing on the positive ROI.
Energy Efficiency
One case study airport has One of the most common energy-efficiency measures case study airports implemented was
automated its terminal the transition to light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. LEDs are used in terminals, on the airfield
building. When established
energy use thresholds
for lighting and signage, and on aprons. The airports’ implementation strategies included adjusting
are hit, the conservation the operating budget to use internal manpower to retrofit LEDs, replacing incandescent airfield
system sheds demand lighting systems with LEDs as part of an end-of-useful-life replacement project, and upgrading
load. Software is used to parking area lighting to LEDs. Although all lighting systems can benefit from converting to
operate building systems
at the best start and
LEDs, the most rapid ROI is realized when converting lights that are on 24/7.
stop times to align with
occupancies. This project
resulted in an approximately
Energy Conservation
15% reduction in energy
consumption, exceeding the
Energy conservation strategies use the airport’s existing equipment in a more effective manner,
expected 10% reduction. such as turning equipment or lights off when not in use. A low-cost initial step is establishing a
culture of all users paying attention to conservation measures, turning off lights and adjusting
thermostats when spaces are not in use. At smaller airports, these conservations may be more
manual. At more complex facilities, these adjustments may be automated through building
management systems.
Energy Recovery
Energy recovery is a common strategy employed in the design of HVAC systems, minimizing
the input of new energy to a system by exchanging energy from one subsystem with another.
Examples include using energy from an exhaust air stream to preheat or precool ambient ventila-
tion air and using waste heat from a primary cooling system to preheat water for domestic or process
use. For example, Dallas Fort Worth International Airport’s thermal system uses waste energy to
supercool liquid at night and circulate it during the day for terminal cooling (Munoz 2021).
Commissioning or Retro-Commissioning
Building-systems commissioning is a quality assurance and risk management process that
verifies project requirements are met and facilities’ systems perform as designed and speci-
fied in contract documents. Third-party commissioning provides the owner with the expert
oversight of an engineer or highly experienced technician who reviews design documentation,
observes system installation, and directs and witnesses functional testing to ensure proper
system integration and operation. Commissioning is required under several energy codes
(such as ASHRAE 90.1 and the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code) and most sus-
tainability certifications (including Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED]
and Green Globes).

Establish Energy Resiliency Strategies 41
Even the most optimal building systems degrade over time as operations or facilities are adjusted.
To optimize these systems, the EPA Energy Star program recommends retro-commissioning
every 3 to 5 years. Several factors may influence the schedule for retro-commissioning a building:
• A sale or an equivalent change in use (most applicable to airport-leased premises)
• Changes in function, equipment, occupancy, or furnishings that could affect the building’s
cooling and heating load
• Changes in the types of tenants or space modifications inside a building
• Loss of operating tolerance or deterioration of systems over time
• Increased heating, cooling, or energy consumption and associated costs that cannot be easily
explained or corrected
5.4 Calculate and Compare Energy Use Intensity

It is important for an airport to understand its highest demands for energy. To allow for
comparison between facilities, EUI is commonly calculated in kBtu per square foot. As defined
in Chapter 1, EUI is the total energy consumed within a site (that is, a building) in one year
(in kBtu) divided by its gross area (in square feet). An example of a typical calculation for EUI
based on compiled energy data is in Appendix E. (A companion metric, source EUI, not only
captures the energy consumption specific to a site, but also quantifies the energy generation,
transmission, and delivery losses.)
While finding data on energy end use for office buildings and warehouses is relatively easy,
variations among airport terminals make comparing energy end uses difficult. In addition, because
energy end uses for airport terminals have not often been tracked, there has not been an effective
way to benchmark the data airports can use to help justify, prioritize, and determine replacement
or retrofitting decisions. ACRP Project 09-10 provided a Methodology to Develop the Airport
Terminal Building Energy Use Intensity (ATB-EUI) Benchmarking Tool and the complementary
CD-ROM 178: ATB-EUI Benchmarking Tool, which can be used to benchmark and profile airport
terminal energy end uses (Haberl et al. 2016a, b). The CD includes the raw data used to develop
the tool. With this tool, an airport can complete a form for developing an EUI profile to bench-
mark against other terminals.
Once developed, EUI can be used to compare energy performance and efficiency against peer
airports. With the selection of applicable peer airports, a variety of factors, including airport size,
flight activity, passenger count, and geographic (climatic) location, need to be considered. The
purpose of the peer comparison is to find areas for potential energy-efficiency improvements.
In addition to the tool developed under ACRP Project 09-10 and CD-ROM 178, several other
commonly used benchmarking tools employ facilities’ EUIs in some capacity. These include the
EPA’s Energy Star Portfolio Manager (https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/benchmark), the
DOE Building Energy Asset Score (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-energy-asset
-score), and ASHRAE’s Building Energy Quotient (https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources
/building-eq). These tools help in comparing the energy performance of similar facilities.
ISO 50001:2018 defines an energy performance indicator (EnPI) as “a quantitative value
or measure of energy performance, as defined by the organization.” Although EUI works well
for buildings, airports should consider other metrics for nonbuilding areas. In addition to
energy baselines and benchmarks, there are additional EnPIs for facilities with specific uses.
For airports, typical EnPIs reflect energy demand and consumption per flight operation or
per passenger count. These metrics can be particularly useful to monitor the airport’s energy
use over time.

5.5 Identify Infrastructure Critical to Power

Energy resiliency is the ability to prevent energy service disruption and to recover quickly.
After addressing the reliability of an airport’s energy service and reducing its demands, the next
step is to identify which infrastructure components must remain powered and the order of
priority for further recovery.
Standby Requirements and Restoring Operational Service

It is important for an airport to use its critical infrastructure and associated loads, along with
the results of the risk and vulnerability analysis, to decide the capacity and operational period of
any standby energy systems. Critical loads must be identified, along with noncritical loads that
may be shed during normal power interruptions. This analysis should consider the time and
costs associated with fuel delivery, fuel storage, and energy storage.
The considerations for noncritical or shed loads need to include acceptable times for an
interruption of service and the time required for restart and return-to-normal operating
conditions. All stakeholders should be engaged in discussing and establishing the priorities for
restoring noncritical loads. For example, if standby power capacity is limited and the period of
normal power interruption is extended, there may be a need to duty cycle (rotate shed loads
on and off for short periods of time) to provide intermittent service. For example, rotating the
operation of noncritical HVAC equipment may prevent a complete loss of indoor environmental
conditions in key areas of the airport.
Standby Generators and Fuel

Historically, standby power generators have been the power generation of choice for life safety
and airfield system backup power. Standby power generators are driven by internal combus-
tion engines and are one of the most common means to back up a percentage of an airport’s
operations. The generators depend on a reliable source of fuel, most commonly diesel; however,
other gaseous fuels (natural gas and liquid propane) may also be used. Combined fuel options
also exist. Dual-fuel generators can operate on natural gas or liquefied petroleum (LP) (liquid
and vapor), while bi-fuel generators run on diesel fuel and natural gas simultaneously, using the
benefits of each.
Most of the case study airports have some standby power-generating capability. The amount
of generating capability varies with the airports, ranging from specific functions to several days
of airport operations (typically coupled with other energy generation or efficiency measures).
A common area of risk for a standby generator is the fuel supply, specifically the resupply in a
natural disaster.
Whereas natural gas is a piped utility, diesel fuel and LP are delivered by truck. Airports need
to consider how much fuel is required to provide the desired period of generator operations
in the airport’s resiliency goals. In the case studies, some airports have been investigating the
ability to power generators with jet fuel, as the airports already store jet fuel at a large capacity.
Diesel fuel is usually stored on site with the generator to provide good initial reliability. Diesel-
powered generators can also be located on sites without access to natural gas service. However,
diesel fuel has drawbacks. The first concern is whether delivery of additional fuel will be possible
during prolonged outages. If an airport has multiple generators, it should have a priority order
for refueling should fuel become limited. Also, the EPA requires standby generator applications
to use ultra-low-sulfur diesel, which, if not maintained, will degrade over time. These issues
can be mitigated by instituting an ongoing fuel testing and maintenance program, including

fuel-polishing systems. Airports considering the use of diesel-powered generators must also
consider the EPA’s emissions regulations and the cost of diesel fuel.
Natural gas is more environmentally friendly than diesel fuel because it emits less nitrogen
oxide and prevents the fuel contamination issues and environmental concerns associated with
storing large quantities of diesel fuel. As such, natural gas may be considered a bridge fuel in
some areas of the country as more renewal options are developed. Another benefit of natural gas
is its long running time because it is provided by a utility rather than stored on site. However,
off-site storage may also be perceived as a potential issue because the availability of natural gas is
outside the airport’s control and may be subject to delivery disruptions.
LP-fueled standby power systems can run on LP liquid or LP vapor configurations, although
LP vapor is typically slightly more prevalent in backup power systems. All the benefits noted for
natural gas apply to LP fuel as well; however, LP must be stored on site.
Airports are also starting to use battery energy storage systems (BESSs) for backup power.
A BESS collects and stores energy from the grid or another energy generator, such as a solar
array, and discharges it when needed.
5.6 Energy Independence

To achieve greater resiliency, an airport may consider energy independence by establishing
the capability to generate some to all of the energy it needs to operate. It would be critical to
examine various strategies and their associated feasibility, costs, time frames for implementa-
tion, and risks.
Microgrids
Microgrids consist of connected loads and energy resources that can operate independently
of the local utility grid. Microgrids are typically composed of distributed energy resources
that can provide independent power to designated critical loads upon the loss of their primary
source of energy. However, a microgrid is distinct from an emergency backup system in that
it can interact with the utility (primary) grid and operate in grid-connected or islanded mode.
Microgrids typically interact with the electrical grid in competitive electrical markets.
When a microgrid is connected to the electrical grid for backup, as at the Pittsburgh Inter
national Airport, the airport should expect to pay the utility for the interconnect and equipment
use. This cost would cover the utility maintaining the availability of service and the equipment.
This cost, typically issued monthly, needs to be included in project planning.
Microgrids are typically managed through a central controller that monitors the system’s
operating parameters, coordinates distributed energy resources, balances and controls electrical
loads, and regulates the disconnection and reconnection of the microgrid to the primary grid,
as depicted in Figure 5-1. Microgrids can be an effective option for increasing an airport’s energy
resiliency because they provide a functional electric power system that can operate indepen-
dently of the main grid.
ACRP Research Report 228: Airport Microgrid Implementation Toolkit (Klauber et al. 2021)
provides airports with instructions and a toolkit for considering the development of a microgrid.
Microgrids can be powered by renewable or nonrenewable resources, depending on an airport’s
location and other related goals. For grid-connected microgrids, cybersecurity is an important
issue that needs to be addressed during planning.
Microgrids as a technology have been established since the early 20th century. At the time,
most generation hardware was co-located with the demand, as when coal power plants were sited

Figure 5-1. Microgrid control. (Source: EPA, CHP’s Role Providing Reliability and Resiliency, 2023a.)
The microgrid at Pittsburgh at industrial factories. Long-distance transmission lines and related technologies did not yet
International Airport (PIT)
exist. As the infrastructure was built, these microgrids were eventually interconnected, forming
takes advantage of its
location atop a natural gas large grids that span multiple geographic areas. Recently, microgrids have become popular as
reserve, with five natural a way to gain resiliency and redundancy and to modulate the intermittency of renewable energy
gas–fired generators that sources. The increasing availability of smart technology, which uses live market data to drive
can produce 20 MW of decisions on buying or selling power to the larger grid or using internal generation methods,
electricity. It also has a
solar array that can provide
has made microgrids a cost-effective resiliency strategy.
an additional 3 MW of
Recognizing the importance of energy to its missions, DoD has been an early adopter of
electricity. PIT has a 20-year
agreement with an outside microgrids. ACRP Research Report 228 (Klauber et al. 2021) cites DoD examples as information for
utility to own, finance, airport systems. Additional information on DoD microgrids is available in Microgrids for Energy
maintain, and operate the Resilience: A Guide to Conceptual Design and Lessons from Defense Projects (Booth et al. 2020).
microgrid. Through the
agreement, PIT purchases
power from the microgrid Bidirectional Charging
at below-market rates
to power the airport but An emerging technology is bidirectional charging, also known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) or
remains connected to the vehicle-grid integration, by which power is drawn from EVs to a smart grid or user. Vehicles
grid for emergency backup.
Excess power from the
need to be capable of bidirectional energy flow for V2G. With the increasing use of EVs, V2G
microgrid can be sold by may provide airports with backup power options that lessen or eliminate the use of fossil-fuel
the utility to the wholesale generators. V2G might also be used for energy management.
market (Nolan 2021).
Induction Charging
Although not a storage system, another evolving technology is induction charging. Induction
charging is a wireless charging system. The goal is to have a vehicle charged while over the system,
ideally while operating or paused, such as when a bus picks up passengers.

Combined Heat and Power Plants

Combined heat and power (CHP) plants, also called co-generation plants, are on-site energy Bradley International
generation resources that can produce electricity and thermal energy 24 hours a day. CHP systems Airport has a CHP plant that
uses waste heat for heating
operate with a wide range of fuels; however, the most common energy source is natural gas. and to power a hot water
Other fuel sources include coal and biomass (often in the form of wood and wood-processing absorption chiller. The plant
waste). CHP systems are available almost 98% of the time to provide facilities with continuous was developed to increase
electricity and thermal energy (only needing to be taken offline for routine maintenance) (EPA energy security and lower
operating costs (DOE 2016).
2023a). CHP systems can be designed to operate independently from the grid.
By continually providing electric and thermal energy to facilities with the ability to operate
independently of the grid, CHP plants can provide critical power reliability for many airports.
As a distributed resource, CHP plants also put less load on the grid, which means CHP plants
enhance grid stability and relieve grid congestion.
CHP plants can play an important role in supporting the energy reliability and resiliency of
microgrids by providing baseload power and heat to connected buildings. In addition, CHP
plants can enable microgrids to extend beyond electrical reliability and resiliency. The heat pro-
duced by CHP plants can be incorporated into a district energy system, ensuring an airport has
total energy reliability and resiliency during an outage.
5.7 Energy Cost Control

An airport’s electrical load is defined by the amount of electricity consumed and when it is
consumed. Electricity consumed during high or peak usage times is more commonly charged at
higher rates because it costs a utility more to be prepared to meet peak energy demand. In addi-
tion, an airport’s location has a significant impact on its energy costs. Areas with cold and snowy
winters face unpredictable energy demands based on the weather. Areas with hot weather can be
exposed to increased peak costs during HVAC cooling season.
There are a number of best practices for controlling energy costs, beginning with analyzing San Diego International
the airport’s utility rate structures, exploring alternate rate structures and potential incentives Airport installed a 2-MW/
4-MWh BESS. Paired with
and rebates from the utility, and incorporating energy storage, where feasible. If an airport is being the airport’s 5.5 MW of solar
charged a peak rate, consideration should be given to peak shaving or load-shifting technologies capacity, the BESS reduces
that reduce peak usage, such as using stored energy. energy charges during
peak demand. According
In addition to energy conservation measures and peak shaving or load-shifting technologies, to Engie Storage Services
there are additional best practices for controlling energy costs, including retro-commissioning NA, provider of the energy
and implementing behavioral energy-efficiency programs for employees and tenants. Energy storage system, this equates
to approximately 40% of the
conservation also assists in controlling costs. airport’s monthly electricity
costs. The airport uses
EIA (https://www.eia.gov/) collects and disseminates energy data daily. In addition, it pub-
software that draws on its
lishes reports regarding the short-term and annual outlook for the domestic and international past and present energy
energy industries. generation and usage data
to calculate optimal charge
and discharge cycles for the
5.8 Renewable Energy lithium-ion batteries.
Renewable energy sources are replenished by nature and abundantly available throughout the
world, provided by the sun, wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth. In addition, renewable
energy sources emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air. ICAO provides an
Eco Airport Toolkit (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Documents/Energy%20at
%20Airports.pdf) to assist airports in evaluating renewable energy. ICAO also provides infor-
mation on renewable energy case studies (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection

/Documents/ecoairports/Final%20Energy_at_Airports_Case_Studies.pdf). One of the case studies

is a solar photovoltaic (PV) project at San Diego International Airport.
Though fossil fuels still account for more than 80% of global energy production, renewable
energy sources are gaining ground (Ritchie and Rosado 2020). In addressing the integration
of sustainability master plans with resiliency roadmaps, an airport needs to consider various
renewable energy systems. ACRP Synthesis 110: Airport Renewable Energy Projects Inventory and
Case Examples (Barrett 2020) identifies the scope of renewable projects at airports through the
end of 2019. At the time of the report, 225 renewable energy projects were cataloged at 146 airports
in the following categories:
• Solar PV
• Geothermal heat pumps
• Bioenergy (biomass)
• Wind power
• Solar thermal
• Hydrogen fuel cells
• Energy storage
The most common type of renewable energy project was solar PV, with geothermal heat
pumps being the second.
Solar Photovoltaic
An airport may consider three types of solar PV deployment. The types are differentiated by
size and scale. Although each category does not have a standard size, the following definitions
include the typical size range for each type:
• Commercial solar is a large form of distributed solar energy that typically encompasses
rooftop and ground-mounted deployment. Commercial solar deployments typically range
from 100 kW to 2 MW.
• Community solar, also referred to as shared solar, is another form of distributed energy in
which customers can buy or lease a portion of an off-site shared solar project. Community
solar sites are typically less than 5 MW.
• Utility-scale solar deployments are ground-mounted systems that feed their generated elec-
tricity directly into the electrical grid. Utility-scale solar deployments can range from 5 MW
to 100 MW.
A rooftop solar system can maximize the use of airport property because it would be installed
on existing development and may start at a smaller scale. An airport should conduct feasibility
studies for potential solar farms on its property to consider a number of factors: expansion plans
for the airport and its runways, siting and infrastructure tie-ins to the utility grid and airport dis-
tribution systems, and the location and orientation of solar panel modules with respect to flight
paths, among others. In addition, an airport needs to coordinate with key organizations, including
FAA, state energy offices, local utilities, and potentially other community-based organizations
with respect to the development of solar farms, especially for grid-connected systems.
Because of fluctuating generation from solar PV systems, more developers are considering
energy storage systems: various technologies that capture electricity, store it as another form
of energy (chemical, thermal, mechanical, etc.), and release it for use when it is needed. The most
frequent energy storage coupled with solar power plants is electrochemical storage (batteries),
the most common being lithium-ion battery systems. Combining energy storage with solar PV
systems can have multiple advantages:

• Balancing electricity loads: When energy generation is high and demand is lower, storage
can be charged (filled) so that energy can be used when demand is higher. Without storage,
electricity must be generated and consumed simultaneously.
• “Firming” solar generation: Short-term storage can ensure that quick changes in generation
do not have a great effect on the output of a solar farm.
• Building resiliency: Solar PV generation with storage can contribute to a microgrid, providing
backup power during interrupted electrical service. In areas of an airport where a secondary
feed is not feasible, a solar installation can provide an additional power source.
Some municipalities may have ordinances controlling the installation of battery-type energy
storage systems, such as requiring metal casings, sprinkler systems, or other components. An
airport should review local codes and ordinances regarding any requirements for energy storage
systems.
At federally obligated airports with control towers, FAA requires that proposed solar farms The U.S. Virgin Islands, like
most island communities,
be analyzed for glint and glare to make sure there are no visual impacts on the pilots and air
has relied on imported fossil
traffic control tower personnel. Even with a glare study, if problems are identified after con- fuel for energy. A 450-kW
struction, the airport is required to mitigate them. FAA does not require that a specific program solar PV system was installed
be used or the results submitted. However, when the airport files its Form 7460-1: Notice of at Cyril E. King Airport on
St. Thomas. It produces
Proposed Construction or Alteration, it must include a statement indicating that the project
energy for the grid and in
will not cause visual impacts (FAA 2021a). return, the airport receives
credits toward its bill, saving
about $400,000 per year.
Geothermal
Geothermal energy is a form of energy conversion in which heat energy from within the
Earth is captured and harnessed for space and domestic water heating, electrical power genera-
tion, space cooling, and other uses. Geothermal energy use can be divided into three categories:
direct-use applications, geothermal heat pumps, and electric power generation. Although the
most common use for geothermal is for lower-temperature systems such as space heating, cooling,
and heat pumps, there are three main types of geothermal power plant technologies for creating
electricity through turbines: dry steam, flash steam, and binary cycle.
The type of conversion is part of the power plant design and generally depends on the state of
the subsurface fluid (steam or water) and its temperature. Specifically, the ability of geothermal
energy to generate electricity depends on the temperature and the fluid (steam) flow. The heated
fluid from a geothermal resource is tapped by drilling wells and is extracted by pumping or by
natural artesian flow (whereby the weight of the water forces it to the surface). Water and steam
are then transported through insulated pipelines or to the power plant to generate electricity.
The most economical and efficient electricity-generation facilities are placed close to the geo
thermal source, and costs can be further contained by locating the facility near electrical trans-
mission lines.
The environmental effects of geothermal development and power generation include the changes An airport needs to
in land use associated with exploration and plant construction, noise and sight pollution, and understand its geography
before investing in geo
the discharge of water and gases. Compared with other renewable energy sources (such as solar
thermal. A case study airport
and wind), the main advantage of geothermal energy is that its base load is available 24/7. The identified that geothermal
main disadvantage of geothermal energy development is the high initial investment cost in was not feasible after a
constructing the facilities and infrastructure and the high risk of proving the resources. nearby neighborhood that
used shallow in-ground heat
South Bend International Airport (SBN) has two geothermal systems. An initial horizontal pumps discovered that in
7 to 10 years, the benefits
geothermal system was constructed for a concourse expansion. Later, the balance of the terminal
disappeared because the
was transitioned from a traditional boiler system to a vertical geothermal system. There are installations warmed the
advantages and disadvantages with both types of systems. During the case study interview, ground.

SBN said that with the geothermal system serving the terminal, the airport has sufficient capacity
to provide its own power to operate if the grid drops. All future projects are being planned to
maintain this redundancy (see SBN 2015).
Biomass
Biomass is renewable material from plants and animals; many times, it is waste that is used
as an energy source. Sustainable aviation fuel is an example of a biomass energy product, along
with several others:
• Wood and wood-processing wastes: firewood, wood pellets, wood chips, lumber and furniture
mill sawdust and waste, and black liquor from pulp and paper mills
• Agricultural crops and waste materials: corn, soybeans, sugarcane, switchgrass, woody plants,
algae, and crop and food processing residues, mostly to produce biofuels
• Biogenic materials in municipal solid waste: paper, cotton, and wool products, and food, yard,
and wood wastes
As detailed in ACRP Synthesis 110 (Barrett 2020), Ketchikan International Airport has a boiler
that provides 90% to 95% of the airport’s heating needs. The biomass boiler uses wood pellets,
a plentiful byproduct of the forestry industry. To avoid oversizing the biomass boiler, the airport
has an oil boiler backup that is also used to meet peak heating needs.
Wind
Because of the height of wind turbine generators (often several hundred feet above the ground),
the development of a wind farm close to an airport can be challenging.
• Interference with radar used for pilots operating aircraft causes “clutter” and other signal dis-
turbances, adversely affecting air traffic control’s ability to provide services to pilots.
• Alterations to the flow of visual flight rule traffic resulting in a bottleneck.
• The climb gradient for departing aircraft is increased to prevent impacts to the wind turbine
generators.
• The minimum descent altitudes or decision heights at which pilots may operate aircraft during
instrument approach procedures are increased.
Any consideration of wind farms on airport property or adjacent parcels of land requires an
in-depth study and a review by FAA.
Solar Thermal
Solar thermal technologies absorb the heat of the sun and transfer it to useful applications,
such as space or water heating for buildings. Several major types of solar thermal technologies are
in use, including flat-plate solar collectors, evacuated tube solar collectors, concentrating solar
systems, unglazed solar collectors, and transpired solar air collectors. The major constraints on
solar heating technologies are the temperature limits and the availability of sunlight relative to
when heating energy is needed most. Depending on the location, system designers can optimize
the angle of incidence of a solar collector array to address concerns about seasonal availability.
Although solar thermal technologies may not support the entire heating load, they can pro-
vide preheating to supplement a conventional heating process. Because a considerable amount
of energy is needed to raise the temperature of water, even a modest amount of preheating can
reduce an airport’s dependence on fossil fuels, saving money in the process. Various solar thermal
applications can include preheating boiler feed water and domestic hot water.

ACRP Synthesis 110 (Barrett 2020) inventoried 10 solar thermal projects at airports. Eight of
the systems are used to heat water for domestic building heat. The other two are used for building
heat via a forced-air system.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Hydrogen is considered a clean fuel that only produces water when it is consumed in a fuel
cell. Hydrogen can be produced from a variety of sources, including natural gas, nuclear power,
biomass, and renewable power. Hydrogen fuel can be produced through several methods, with
the most common being natural gas reforming (a thermal process) and electrolysis. Other methods
include solar-driven and biological processes.
Fuel Storage
Physical (size and location) and environmental constraints are critical to the consideration
of any fuel storage systems associated with on-site power generation systems. Building and life
safety codes limit the locations and capacity for the storage of liquid fuels, as well as dictate any
associated spill containment requirements (double wall tanks and piping, leak sensors, etc.).
Most of these code constraints are similar to those imposed on the storage of aircraft fuel.
Per the Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (NFPA 30), storage requirements for liquid
fuels are based on whether the fuel is combustible or flammable as assessed by the fuel flash
point. Conventional diesel fuel is considered a combustible liquid; however, when diesel fuel is
blended with ethanol (E-diesel) to reduce emissions, the blended diesel fuel has a lower flash
point and is therefore considered a flammable liquid, requiring the management of associated
fire and explosion hazards.
The size (capacity) of bulk liquid fuel storage tanks serving standby or emergency power supply
systems will depend on several factors, including the classification of the emergency or standby
power supply system in its respective application. Bulk tanks can be installed aboveground, within
a storage tank vault, underground (direct buried), or within a storage tank building.
Aboveground tanks must be provided with emergency relief venting that will release internal
pressure if the tank is exposed to fire. In addition, all aboveground tanks must be provided with
a means to control (contain) spills. Storage tank buildings are subject to minimum separation
distances from property lines, public ways, and other occupied buildings on the same property.
These storage tank structures must have at least a two-hour fire resistance rating and be equipped
with manual or fixed fire control equipment.
Energy Storage
Energy storage is the process of accumulating generated power in particular equipment
or systems for later use, when needed. Energy storage systems are vital when dealing with
an intermittent power source, such as wind or solar, that is installed to improve resiliency.
However, even without an intermittent power source, energy storage can provide valuable
backup. As discussed in the solar photovoltaic section, more developers are considering energy
storage systems to capture electricity, store it as another form of energy, and release it for use
when needed.
A power-plus-storage combination captures excess power during peak production, when more
power is produced than required. The excess power may come from on-site energy generation or
could be pulled from the grid when energy costs are lower. Energy storage is a critical component
in enabling power grids (especially microgrids) to function with more flexibility and resilience.

Stored energy may be used in two scenarios. The first is as an emergency backup in case of
an outage or grid disruption, when limited power is being produced. The second is to flatten the
demand curve from the grid, which reduces strain and utility cost when more power is required
than what is being produced or on site.
Managing energy storage is becoming increasingly important to ensure sustainable and reliable
operations. The process of energy storage involves the conversion of certain forms of energy into
those more convenient to store. There are different types of energy storage, and an airport con-
sidering storage must assess its needs, including scalability, physical size, potential code require-
ments, the duration of charging and discharging cycles, storage costs, and what effect the system
or materials may have on the environment.
Some of the more prominent types of energy storage are
• Mechanical: pumped hydro storage, flywheel energy storage, compressed air storage
• Electrochemical: rechargeable batteries (lithium-ion and lead-acid), flow batteries
• Electrical: capacitor, supercapacitors, superconducting magnetic energy storage
• Thermal: sensible (chilled water, molten salt), latent (ice storage air conditioning, phase
change materials)
Not every storage technology is technically and economically feasible for storing large elec-
trical capacity (in MWh), and the best energy storage scale may depend on market and location.
One of the most popular systems for electrical storage uses lithium-ion batteries. These batteries
typically have a higher energy density and typical efficiency rates of approximately 95% (with
a low self-discharge rate of approximately 5%). In addition, these batteries require minimum
maintenance and are easy to scale. However, lithium-ion batteries have a finite life span, based
on a limited number of charge/discharge cycles, and their capacity and efficiency will decrease
over their life.
The economics of energy storage depend highly on the reserved service required. However,
the costs of installing and operating large-scale battery storage systems have declined over the
past several years, enabling owners to support more capacity to store electrical energy. For
example, as highlighted in Section 5.6, San Diego International Airport has an Engie storage
battery system with a capacity of 2 MW/4 MWh.
Electricity storage can positively affect the environment, especially when it is used to help
energy systems integrate more renewable energy. However, batteries contain raw materials such
as lithium and lead, and if they are not properly disposed of or recycled, they can negatively
affect the environment.
Hydroelectric
Hydroelectric power uses moving water to turn generators to produce electricity. To tap this
renewable resource, an airport would need to be near a water source. No U.S. airports generate
hydroelectric power. The topography typically associated with hydroelectric generation—
escarpments, canyons, and steep slopes—is incompatible with airfields. However, according to
EIA (2023a), hydroelectric accounted for about 19% of renewable energy in 2021, which was
about 12% of primary energy consumption in the United States.
5.9 New Construction Considerations

New construction allows the greatest flexibility to reduce fossil-fuel use, install more energy-
efficient systems, and accommodate resilient design features. Many times, these more efficient
systems are part of overall project costs and not considered an energy resiliency project. This may

enable the airport to fund the improvement more easily or win grant funding under the larger
project. Among new construction considerations for energy efficiency are facility siting and
envelope material selection that will provide robust weather and thermal resiliency, structural
accommodations against potential natural and physical threats, grouping of critical loads and
circuits, and infrastructure accommodations for renewable or standby energy systems (equipment
space, wiring or piping chases, and switchgear or metering connections).
One resiliency measure best explored during a project’s design phase is thermal resiliency.
A space is thermally resilient if it can achieve indoor thermal comfort levels during an emer-
gency when there is no electricity. If a building is properly oriented, well insulated, and designed
to minimize summertime cooling loads and benefit from passive solar heating in the winter,
it should remain safe to occupy during a power outage. With advanced thermal modeling soft-
ware, designers can anticipate those temperature conditions.
Major renovations and remodeling may encounter challenges with structural limitations and
vulnerabilities, as well as physical (site and space) constraints, which would require repurposing
spaces and revising infrastructure to accommodate resilient features.
If budget constraints prohibit the incorporation of redundant or standby systems, the planning
and design process should consider resiliency requirements through accommodations for future
equipment and associated infrastructure connections and controls.
When developing a capital program for the construction of facilities, whether an expansion,
a replacement, or a renovation, an airport should consider energy resiliency as one of the owner’s
project requirements. Once energy resiliency is identified and accepted as a critical requirement
of the project, the stakeholders and the design team can evaluate its final scope. This evaluation
needs to include a life cycle analysis of alternate implementation strategies, considering the
initial cost, equipment or system type, capacity, related maintenance and operational costs,
funding, incentives, rebates, and utility and local regulatory requirements.
One of the case study
airports will purchase
5.10 Technological Readiness one or two pieces of new
technology to test before
Technology is evolving quickly in the alternate and renewable energy markets. Its develop- making a larger investment.
ment is driven by the public and private sectors’ push to combat climate change and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to increase resiliency. Actions such as Executive Order Orlando International
14057: Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, although Airport’s new South Terminal
applicable only to the federal government—the largest single landowner, energy consumer, and Complex contains state-of-the-
art mechanical and electrical
employer in the country—will drive innovation for everyone. However, when considering new
infrastructure equipment and
technologies in the development of energy roadmaps, an airport should include a technology associated baggage-handling
readiness assessment (TRA) to evaluate the maturity of these technologies and whether they are and people-moving systems.
developed enough to incorporate into facilities and associated infrastructure with minimal risk. When the new baggage-
handling systems were
Several metrics and risk measurements are used in TRA, including technology readiness levels, energized for preliminary
as a method for estimating the maturity of various systems and equipment. TRAs can be an operation, the high-
efficiency motor loads had an
important tool in decision-making, with respect to the funding and implementation of various
unanticipated effect on the
systems associated with energy generation, storage, and resiliency. Several publications are electrical power systems in
related to TRA, including the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Technology Readiness the form of negative kilovolt-
Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Evaluating the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition amperes-reactive readings
recorded on power quality
Programs and Projects (GAO 2020).
monitoring systems installed
When putting in systems new to the airport, regardless of the TRA, it is important the air- in the complex. By testing
the equipment, the airport
port understand the maintenance requirements and costs so they can be included in the appro- addressed the issue before
priate budgets and asset management and operational plans. It is also important to test the new the systems were put into
systems to understand how they will operate. operation.

5.11 Using and Relying on Consultants

Consultants are individuals with specific expertise and experience who provide advice within
their field of practice. Public entities and private corporations often hire consultants in resil-
iency, sustainability, and energy management to assess conditions, recommend modifications,
and develop master plans or roadmaps.
The decision to engage consultants may result from various reasons. There may be a lack of
expertise and experience in the organization that requires consultants to address the problems and
projects in-house resources cannot complete. Engaging a consultant allows for objective assessments
and opinions and the cross-pollination of ideas from other organizations and industries.
With respect to energy resiliency roadmaps, consultants may include professional engi-
neers, mechanical and electrical engineers, energy management professionals, certified energy
managers, certified commissioning authorities, and sustainability experts (including LEED- and
Envision-accredited professionals).
In addition to assisting in the development of the energy resiliency roadmap, these consultants
can provide related services, including the analysis of utility rate structures, energy audits, retro-
commissioning, and renewable energy feasibility studies.
5.12 Using Certifications to Identify Opportunities

Although a certification is not a requirement for energy resiliency, a certification program
can help an airport identify potential opportunities through its tools and recognize progress and
achievements.
LEED
LEED is a building rating system through the U.S. Green Building Council. Per the LEED
website (https://www.usgbc.org/about/mission-vision), “Green buildings save money, improve
efficiency, lower carbon emissions, and create healthier places for people. They are critical
to addressing climate change and meeting [environmental, social, and governance] goals,
enhancing resilience, and supporting more equitable communities.” LEED has four levels of
certification in different rating systems by building type and phase. Its primary credit areas
cover climate change, human health, water resources, biodiversity, green economy, and com-
munity and nature resources.
Performance Excellence in Electricity Renewal

Performance Excellence in Electricity Renewal (PEER) is another certification program
through the U.S. Green Building Council that focuses on improving power system performance
and electricity infrastructure. The certification is for three core project areas: cities and utilities,
campuses, and transit. Projects can earn points in reliability and resiliency; energy efficiency and
environmental sustainability; operations, management, and safety; grid services; innovation;
exemplary performance; and regional priority. Information on PEER certification is available at
https://peer.gbci.org/.
Envision
The Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure partnered with the Harvard Graduate School of
Design’s Zofnass Program for Sustainable Infrastructure to create the Envision program. The
program focuses on sustainable, resilient, and equitable infrastructure projects in multiple areas,

such as energy, water, waste, information, and transportation, including airports. Envision has
five main categories for credits: quality of life, leadership, resource allocation, natural world,
and climate and risk. Similar to LEED, it has multiple levels of sustainability and resiliency that
can be achieved using various attributes of a project.
Green Globes
Green Globes is a certification program through the Green Building Initiative. The program con-
siders the environmental sustainability, health, wellness, and resiliency of commercial real estate.
The program can be used for new buildings and when considering improvements to buildings.
Additional information on the program is available at https://thegbi.org/why-green-globes/.
5.13 Building the Business Case

After identifying strategies to meet the airport’s energy resiliency goals, an important step is
establishing the business case for implementing the strategies. The business case, combined with
funding opportunities and an alignment with the airport’s strategic plan, can be used to prioritize
the implementation of strategies. A business case is rooted in recognizing a problem, identifying
a solution, and assessing the solution’s benefit to the business.
A business case provides justification for undertaking a project or initiative. It evaluates the
benefits, costs, and risks, as well as alternative options, and provides a clear rationale for the
preferred solution. Evidence is then assembled to support the proposed solution. The product
of the business case is a presentation of the solution and why it is superior to other alternatives
considered in promoting the long-term health of the organization. When the business case for a
proposed project has been effectively made, its value will be evident, and approving and imple-
menting the project should proceed efficiently.
Basis of a Business Case

The business case approach in this report is structured to align with ACRP Report 151: Devel-
oping a Business Case for Renewable Energy at Airports because of its relevancy and to ensure
maximum consistency across documents (Barrett et al. 2016).
Vision Statement
Every airport is unique. In identifying energy resiliency projects or programs, airport staff
should start by reviewing the airport’s broad vision and evaluating how the energy resiliency
strategy or project supports that vision. Airport visions are articulated in different ways. Some-
times visions are expressed, sometimes they are only implied. A vision may also be written in
documents or websites, but in general, a vision is found where the airport’s mission is described.
This statement, taken from the airport’s other planning activities, presents the purpose of the
airport and its value to the public. The importance of developing a vision as part of a strategic
plan to direct project implementation is described in ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the
Airport Industry (Ricondo & Associates Inc. et al. 2009).
From the vision, the need for the project can be prepared and communicated and its alignment
with the organization’s strategic goals described. It is important for a business case to establish
the project’s strong foundation and alignment with the airport’s long-term development goals
and strategic plan. An energy resiliency project is likely to support goals associated with develop-
ing and operating a modern and efficient airport capable of mitigating economic and business
disruption risks.

Problem and Solution

The business case must start with the relevant problem that the proposed project will solve.
Each airport will have a different objective that can be fulfilled by an energy resiliency project,
as in the following example:
Problem: an airport is vulnerable to upstream electricity disruption and high peak rates.
Potential solution: a microgrid powered by on-site energy generation.
Once a potential solution is identified as part of the airport’s strategic goals, it is time to define
the characteristics of the project or program. An airport should
• Assess the applicability of different technologies.
• Identify and evaluate potential sites.
• Review planned or contemplated capital projects for potential alignment.
• Identify at least one viable alternative worthy of further consideration.
• Perform an initial financial assessment, including public and third-party financing options,
potential grants, or other government incentives. The concept of financial master planning
is described in ACRP Report 49: Collaborative Airport Capital Planning Handbook (Cullen
et al. 2011).
• Socialize the project concept with internal stakeholders, including management, decision-
making staff, and facilities staff likely to be affected by or responsible for operating the pro-
posed project or program.
Justification and Guiding Principles

Justification involves making the case for why a project is necessary and worthy of consid-
eration alongside (or in front of) competing nonresiliency capital projects and programs. This
definition is a distillation of why the problem is significant and how the solution resolves the
problem, provides sufficient benefits to justify the cost, or both.
The guiding principles are the essential outcomes of the project that must remain intact
through the project’s life cycle. These elements are critical throughout the project’s life span:
• Building initial support
• Comparing the project against other prospective nonresiliency projects
• Defending the project when issues are raised
• Avoiding core components of the project being value engineered before construction
Return on Investment
One major challenge with convincing leadership to invest in an energy resiliency project is
that it may be difficult to quantify the benefit of risk avoidance or avoided loss. This can place
resiliency projects at a distinct disadvantage.
In several of the case studies, airports used ROI to evaluate or pursue projects related to
energy resiliency. An ROI uses tangible costs (typically the project cost) and benefits (typi-
cally the expected savings from the project). An ROI can be a useful tool on projects for which
the cost can be clearly identified and there are limited other factors. The simple ROI can be stated
in total investment cost, less the actual cost savings, and in months or years for the cost savings
to equal the investment. For example, a $100 investment with a $20 per month cost saving equals
5 months for the ROI to break even.
However, most energy resiliency projects do not have a clear ROI, because the events that the
projects are designed to protect against may not have occurred in the past and are not guaranteed to

occur in the future. Further, the costs of these potential future events are difficult to quantify.
Pricing the benefit for ROI purposes is possible, but it generally requires significant upfront
investment involving data-driven scenario planning. This results in a quantitative assessment of the
likelihood of the disruptive event and its direct and indirect economic impacts. An “annualized
cost of inaction” assigns a dollar figure to loss avoidance through a probabilistic model that
considers the likelihood and economic impact. The cost of inaction can represent cost savings
against the investment in an ROI model.
Resiliency ROI (RROI) has been more recently introduced for use in considering investment
redundancy and other measures related to enhancing resiliency. The use of RROI allows airports
to recognize that resiliency measures may need to be assessed over a longer period. Also, RROI
can emphasize the soft benefits of staying operational, such as an airport’s image or brand
(Smith 2023). Alternatively, an airport can choose to use a benefit–cost analysis that allows for
the consideration of qualitative factors.
Benefit–Cost Analysis
Benefit–cost analysis provides a means to consider tangible and intangible benefits and costs.
Appendix D outlines the steps in a benefit–cost analysis. Before considering whether and how
to apply a benefit–cost analysis to airport energy resiliency, including the need to meet future
demands, it is useful to consider the pros and cons of the method (Gaille 2018).
Pros:
• It provides an added level of clarity.
• It considers a project’s overall feasibility.
• It demonstrates current affordability.
• It can help provide insight into the unknown.
• It can help develop beneficial policies.
Cons:
• It can lead to false confidence.
• It can function as a validation of preconceived beliefs.
• It does not always factor in indirect benefits.
• It may add more value to biased variables.
• It may offer numerous unknown variables.
• It may offer much room for subjectivity.
• It does not assign specific benefit values in certain areas.
Despite these caveats, the performance of a rigorous ROI or benefit–cost analysis, as best fits
the project, is essential for any energy resiliency–related project for several important reasons:
• Most projects to improve long-term energy resiliency are expensive.
• Energy resiliency projects often compete with other airport priorities for funding.
• Multiple approaches to solving a threat to energy resiliency may have widely differing costs
for procurement, installation, construction, operations, and maintenance.
• Such indirect or “soft” costs, such as recruiting specialized workers or training, need to be
assessed and evaluated.
• The relative timing of investment in an energy resiliency method versus the demand and
revenue (or costs) of that method need to be carefully considered to minimize fiscal stress
on the airport.
• Detailed benefit–cost analysis results can support an application for grant funds or an approval
of bond issuance.

The bottom line is that any energy resiliency measure should be the subject of a financial
analysis. The effort will force a comprehensive determination of costs, an estimation of revenues,
an estimation of future demand, an evaluation of the effects of doing nothing (the no-action
alternative), and an estimation of the hard and soft benefits. Involving the full range of stakeholders
at an airport will maximize the usefulness of the resulting benefit–cost analysis. Framework for
Quantitative Evaluation of Resilience Solutions: An Approach to Determine the Value of Resil-
ience for a Particular Site (https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports
/PNNL-28776.pdf), prepared for the DOE, provides a detailed process for a benefit–cost analysis
(Weimar 2022).
Life Cycle Cost and Benefit Analysis of Resilient Assets

One of the case study A life cycle cost analysis considers all the costs associated with obtaining, owning, and dis-
airports stressed that life posing of an investment. With respect to a facility, such as an airport or any associated supporting
cycle cost analysis is necessary
systems, the analysis includes the initial costs, operating costs, preventive maintenance costs,
so that energy efficiency or
resiliency actions that may service costs, and disposal costs (or salvage value). All costs within the life cycle of the building
have a higher initial cost but (or system) are known as its life cycle cost.
a lower life cycle cost are
not removed from a project Historically, selecting an option with a lower initial (procurement) cost versus a higher initial
through a value-engineering cost option with similar performance has not always led to the economically optimal alternative
evaluation. being chosen for the life cycle of the facility or system. Many owners, therefore, use the life cycle
cost approach to select the most economically desirable option. However, resilient alternate solu-
tions often lead to a higher level of complexity and upfront costs and require further analysis.
Additional factors need to be evaluated along with life cycle cost when considering options
associated with increasing energy resiliency in the built environment. These may require increas-
ing system reliability and reducing system downtime through redundant or more robust design
solutions.
An airport should use performance-based metrics to measure the potential impacts of invest-
ments to increase energy resiliency. Evaluating these investments requires quantifying and
valuing their impact on the facility’s overall operations and those of its tenants and customers.
These investments must involve benefit–cost decisions, requiring owners to weigh the cost of
resiliency-based measures against the value (or benefit) they provide. For example, a proposed
resilient measure may extend the operational duration of standby power. This measure should
be evaluated against losses and disruptions that can be avoided through the extended operating
time, and whether the financial benefit of same exceeds the investment cost.
Multiple resources are available to assist the airport in undertaking resiliency planning, assessing
potential resiliency gaps, and quantifying costs associated with energy disruptions or outages.
The Federal Energy Management Program offers various tools and training courses on its website
at https://www.energy.gov/eere/femp/resilience-planning-and-implementation. The website also
includes the Technical Resilience Navigator at https://trn.pnnl.gov/ to help organizations identify
and address site vulnerabilities and the customer damage function calculator at https://www
.energy.gov/femp/articles/customer-damage-function-calculator to assist in calculating the
cost of a grid outage.
5.14 Other Measurable Benefits

Depending on an airport’s strategic plan, the roadmap may be focused on energy or include
other sustainability goals, as discussed in Chapter 6. Even if the roadmap is primarily focused
on energy goals, achievement of those goals can have other measurable benefits. For example,
encouraging the use of public transit or a reduction of fuel deliveries can result in less traffic and

its resulting emissions. The reduction in trips or volume of fuel used is measurable. More efficient
systems and renewable energy generation can reduce emissions, which is also measurable. The
transition from indoor use of fossil fuel to electric systems can improve air quality. More stable
HVAC systems can increase customer comfort. To the extent feasible, other measurable benefits
should be assigned a value in benefit–cost analysis.
5.15 Funding the Roadmap Implementation

If a strategy has a favorable ROI or benefit–cost analysis, the next step is typically to identify a Case study airport
funding source. The implementation of the roadmap may be subject to competing priorities and recommendation: Be an
energy opportunist. Be
funding constraints. It is therefore important to identify a variety of potential funding resources. able to take advantage of
While it is important to position the airport to be able to take advantage of energy funding opportunities when they
opportunities, meeting the airport’s operational needs must remain the priority. arise, but do not let energy
drive airport operations.
Local Funding
Most grant programs require a local match, but a project can also be accomplished with local
funding. The strongest candidates for local funding are typically those with a short-term ROI.
Local funding generally provides the most flexibility for project implementation because grant
programs typically have project scope restrictions. An airport should also explore whether any
state grant funding opportunities are available.
FAA Airport Improvement Program Grants

The FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) is a traditional source of airport grant funding.
FAA Order 5100-38D: AIP Handbook (https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook) (2019)
outlines the projects eligible for funding in FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
(NPIAS). Energy-related projects eligible for AIP funding include conducting an airport energy-
efficiency assessment, preparing a sustainability plan, installing LED lighting systems and guid-
ance signs, building energy-efficiency projects (FAA 2019, Table 3-43), and increasing the energy
efficiency of an airport’s power sources. The primary challenge with using AIP grant funds toward
energy resiliency is that the funds may already be programmed for other airport improvement
projects. With that being the case, and with energy resiliency programs rising to the top of the
priority list, an airport should consider including these needs into its master and annual capital
improvement plans so they will be programmed with FAA.
FAA Voluntary Airport Low Emissions Grants

Grants from FAA’s Voluntary Airport Low Emissions (VALE) Program are available to com-
mercial service airports that are in National Ambient Air Quality Standards nonattainment
and maintenance areas. Although the grants are focused on projects that reduce air emissions,
some emissions reduction projects could aid in energy resiliency.
Other Grant Programs

In addition to programs through AIP and VALE, as of 2023, there are other federal funding
sources; however, they may not recur. Examples are the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the
Inflation Reduction Act. Airports should track evolving funding opportunities, noting that
airports with “shovel-ready” projects appear to have the greatest success obtaining funding
from new sources. Appendix F contains additional details on grant funding as of 2023.

Power Purchase Agreements

In addition to grant funding, there are also opportunities for private funding options.
A physical power purchase agreement (PPA) is a financial arrangement in which a third-party
developer owns, operates, and maintains an energy system on a customer’s property, while the
customer agrees to purchase the system’s energy output from the developer or provider for a
predetermined period. A PPA typically allows the customer to receive stable electricity at a com-
petitive price with no upfront cost while enabling the system developer to take advantage of tax
credits and receive income from the sale of electricity. Although commonly used for renewable
energy systems (solar PV, wind turbines), a PPA may be applied to other energy technologies,
such as CHP plants. Figure 5-2 reflects the relationship between the various parties in a PPA.
To be eligible for a PPA, a project must be in a state or jurisdiction where third-party ownership
of energy generation equipment is allowed (a competitive energy market). Some states limit or
restrict nonutility providers in regulated markets from selling electricity. A sleeved or virtual PPA
can be an option in these states. In a sleeved PPA, an intermediary utility company is respon-
sible for handling the transfer of energy and money. For customers uncomfortable with their
knowledge of the energy market, a sleeved PPA reduces risk, with the utility company bearing
any risk for fluctuations in the wholesale power market price.
Figure 5-2. Relationships in a PPA.

Unlike a physical PPA, which includes the installation of a distributed energy system on a
customer’s property, a virtual PPA (VPPA) is mainly a financial contract that provides renewable
energy certificates from a renewable energy source. Physical electricity is not delivered via a
VPPA, allowing customers to invest in renewables without the constraints of geographic location
or building conditions. Instead, the electricity is delivered to the grid, and companies pay a fixed
price for the clean electricity produced.
A PPA has key benefits for customers:
• Minimal (or no) upfront costs: The project developer handles the financing, procurement,
and installation.
• Low risk: The developer is responsible for the energy system’s performance and maintenance.
• Economical energy: The plans typically have a fixed rate or a fixed escalator plan, often leading
to energy cost savings for the customer.
• Increased property value: Typically, the addition of the energy generation system increases
property values.
• Tax credit leverage: Energy system developers are typically capable of using tax credits to
reduce the overall cost of the system.
Besides resiliency, airports are seeking to become more sustainable and decrease their carbon
footprints. An airport should consider using space for distributed-generation facilities, poten-
tially through a PPA, to increase resiliency. This use of space needs to be integrated into the overall
airport plans.
Performance Contracting
Another delivery method for an airport with limited capital seeking energy-efficiency and
resiliency upgrades is performance contracting through energy service companies (ESCOs).
In this procurement model, energy and operational savings over a specified period are used to
fund infrastructure improvements through an arrangement provided by a third-party financial
institution. Many contracts include a project mix that addresses various systems in a client’s
buildings. The only requirement is that the annual energy and operational savings are greater than
or equal to the required payments over the term of the contract, leaving a net neutral impact on
the owner’s budget.
Projects typically include energy-efficiency improvements associated with building mechanical
and electrical systems; however, they can include renewable energy or resiliency installations,
reductions in greenhouse gases or carbon emissions, water efficiency upgrades, and training for
operations and maintenance (O&M) staff. In addition, the ESCO will guarantee some, if not all,
of the energy and operational savings during the contract term. If the guaranteed savings are
not realized, the ESCO pays the owner the difference between what is saved and the guaranteed
amount, meaning the risk of performance rests with the ESCO.
The ESCO takes complete turnkey responsibility for the project, including the performance of
an energy audit (typically a Level 3, investment-grade audit), detailed design and engineering,
a business case analysis, installation, commissioning, and performance measurement and verifica-
tion. However, many owners engage a third-party consultant to measure and verify the annual
validation of the calculated savings.
Although the financing, turnkey approach, and guaranteed savings are advantages, performance-
contracting projects are typically more expensive because the risk is borne by the ESCO. In most
contracts, the ESCO receives a higher percentage of the savings at the beginning of the contract
term. Another potential disadvantage of any performance contract concerns the control the ESCO

has over the O&M of all system improvements associated with the project throughout the con-
tract term. If the owner wishes to modify schedules, setpoints, or other operating parameters that
would compromise the original saving calculations, the performance contract with the ESCO
will have to be modified.
There are two common types of performance contracting:
• An energy service agreement (ESA) is a contract between an ESCO and a customer for typical
performance-contracting work. With an ESA, the service company makes energy-efficiency
upgrades with third-party financing and payback provided through the customer’s energy
savings.
• A managed energy service agreement (MESA) is structured similarly to an ESA, but typically
includes the management of the customer’s (facility’s) utility bills in exchange for a series of
payments based on prior bills. Unlike an ESA, MESAs do not necessarily include capital invest-
ments but provide more general management of overall electricity use. Many companies
providing managed energy services use software-based solutions incorporating advanced
monitoring and analytics.
Energy as a Service
Energy as a service (EaaS) is a business model in which customers pay a third-party provider for
select energy and associated management services without having to make any upfront capital
investment. The customer pays only for ongoing services and avoids infrastructure and equip-
ment charges, much like a software as a service model. The services can be tailored to the cus-
tomer’s goals, which may include reducing energy usage, increasing energy efficiency, increasing
resiliency and security, and increasing sustainability and decarbonization. Figure 5-3 depicts
the relationships in an EaaS.
With public and private interest in decreasing carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, increas-
ing energy efficiency, and decentralizing power generation, EaaS models are gaining popularity
and are being implemented globally, with the delivery model incorporating hardware, software,
and associated services.
Various service-level agreements are available based on the scope and goals of the customer
and their contract with the service association (provider team).
Rebates
Several case study airports Through the relationship an airport establishes with its utility during roadmap development,
have received rebates by
the opportunity for rebates or other credits should be explored. These will likely vary by location
installing and documenting
energy efficiency measures,
but may provide an additional funding mechanism. Even if rebates do not fund the entire project,
such as LED lighting and their availability may allow for a more favorable business case that enables a project to proceed.
high-efficiency motors.
Besides private capital funding of performance contracting and PPA, potential funding oppor-
tunities for energy resiliency projects are available through various sources, depending on the
energy technology, applicant, and program requirements. In some cases, if a program is not
directly available to the airport, it may be available through state or local governments or related
community organizations. Some of these programs are available through various government
or quasi-government agencies:
• Commercial property–assessed clean energy: financing for resiliency
• State and community energy programs: revolving loan funds and grants
• Loan program office: various programs
• ARPA-E, or Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
• State energy programs

Goals
Energy delivery
Energy infrastructure
Financing and ownership
Resiliency
Decarbonization
Service
Performance
Association
Guarantees Utility privatization
Cost-effective, assured EaaS and energy companies
energy delivery Business O&M contractors
State-of-the-art secure systems Model
General design and
Reduced capital expenditure
build contractors
Reduced risk
Financing partners
Service-Level
Agreements
Performance contracting,
PPAs and MESAs
Figure 5-3. EaaS business model.
Lists and descriptions of available funding programs are available through the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/eere-funding
-opportunities and https://www.energy.gov/eere/better-buildings/better-buildings. Funding
resources for resiliency projects are listed by the Office of State and Community Energy Programs
at https://www.energy.gov/scep/slsc/federal-financial-assistance-programs-resilience-activities.
Potential funding sources for microgrids are available in the National Association of Regulatory
Utility Commissioners’ Private, State, and Federal Funding and Financial Options to Enable Resilient,
Affordable, and Clean Microgrids (2021).

CHAPTER 6
Integrate the Roadmap
An energy resiliency roadmap needs to align with and integrate with other airport plans. This
integration is a necessary element of internal decision-making related to the implementation
of the roadmap. This chapter discusses how other interconnected airport plans can support the
roadmap and how the roadmap can support other airport planning.
Airports develop and maintain several required, recommended, and best-practice plans, varying
with the airport’s size and complexity. The energy resiliency roadmap needs to be integrated into
those plans. ACRP Research Report 188, Chapter 4, provides strategies for integrating climate
risks into airport plans (ICF; Gresham, Smith and Partners; and Faith Group 2018). Similar strat-
egies should be employed to incorporate energy resiliency risks and roadmap-identified actions
into the airport’s other plans and processes. Figure 6-1 depicts the relationship of the roadmap
to examples of the most applicable common airport plans.
6.1 Strategic Plan

An airport’s strategic plan establishes the airport’s vision, mission, and priorities. Airport
energy resiliency needs to be evaluated with other priorities and should become a part of the
airport’s strategic plan. Conversely, priorities within the strategic plan may be used to establish
and prioritize energy resiliency goals and strategies.
6.2 Facility Plans

Airports typically have multiple plans related to their physical facilities. These plans include
• Airport master plan: a long-range planning document to identify future needs
• Airport layout plan: graphics of existing and planned facilities
• Airport capital improvement plan: a prioritized plan of capital investments in airport facilities
• Asset management plan: a plan to manage the life cycle costs and performance of physical assets
• Airport land use plan: a plan to identify the intended use of airport property, which may be
part of an airport master plan
• Energy master plan: a plan for a facility’s current and future energy needs; this plan typically has
a resiliency element but may be more focused on efficiency and a reduction in emissions
Recommended strategies from the roadmap need to be incorporated into the facility plans.
Also, the facility plans should be used to inform the roadmap plans for the future, in terms of
energy demand and available space for the development of energy generation or other airport
energy resiliency–related systems.
Capital expenditures recommended in the roadmap need to be integrated into and prioritized
with the airport’s other capital improvements. This allows the airport to better prioritize capital
spending to support the airport’s highest needs.
62

Integrate the Roadmap 63
Figure 6-1. Relationship of energy resiliency

roadmap to common airport plans.
6.3 Operational Plans

The development of the roadmap should include input from staff members who are or will
be operating the energy system. In addition, some energy resiliency strategies may come through
operational plan enhancements. Therefore, the roadmap should interface with the airport’s
operational plans, such as
• Airport certification manual: an operational plan for compliance with Part 139 requirements
• Airport emergency plan: a plan to address emergency situations at or near the airport
• Airport business continuity plan: a plan to recover critical airport functions quickly after
a significant or prolonged disruption
• Airport operating budget: a spending plan for noncapital expenses
• Airport organizational staffing plan: the identification of the number, role, and responsibility
of airport staff to meet the airport’s needs and goals
• Concessions plan: a plan for providing food, beverage, retail, and other services to the public
at the airport
• Enterprise risk management plan: a structured approach to managing risk across the airport
• Safety management plan: a process to detect and correct safety issues before an incident
• Wildlife management plan: methods and responsibilities for mitigating wildlife hazards
The airport’s energy resiliency strategies should be established to support Part 139 require-
ments; therefore, the certification manual may be helpful in identifying airport energy resil-
iency goals or strategies. A more energy resilient airport provides more options in planning
for human-caused or natural emergencies. Energy resiliency strategies could be an asset if they
reduce costs, because some implementation actions may be paid with operating funds.
Tenants or tenant representatives at an airport should be stakeholders in developing the
roadmap. Recommendations related to operations in tenant spaces should be incorporated into
the planning of concessions.

An enterprise risk management (ERM) plan is typically used to inform the goals and strategies
in the roadmap. Improved energy resiliency may be a factor to be considered in a safety manage-
ment plan. Any energy resiliency strategies should be reviewed to avoid the development of
wildlife attractants. For an airport desiring to implement ERM, ACRP Report 74: Application of
Enterprise Risk Management at Airports provides background on ERM and the process (Marsh
Risk Consulting, HNTB Corporation, and Direct Effect Solutions Inc. 2012). Energy resiliency
would be one potential risk to be addressed through an ERM plan.
6.4 Climate Action Plans

With the publication of the United States 2021 Aviation Climate Action Plan (FAA 2021b), which
includes a chapter on airports and the launch of FAA’s Airport Climate Challenge, airports are
increasingly focusing on efforts to be more environmentally sustainable. These efforts may include
plans and associated actions, such as
• Airport sustainability plan: a plan for an airport to meet economic, natural resource, opera-
tional, or social responsibility goals
• Climate change adaptation plan: a plan to identify and address climate change risks to the
airport
• Carbon neutral or net zero plan: a plan for reducing or mitigating airport greenhouse gas
emissions, typically focused on airport-controlled emissions. ACRP Synthesis 100: Airport
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts summarizes current practices at U.S. airports (Barrett
2019). ACRP Research Report 220: Guidebook for Developing a Zero- or Low-Emissions Road-
map at Airports provides airports with information on developing a carbon neutral plan
(Morrison et al. 2021).
The roadmap and climate action plans should be synergistic. The goals of climate action plans,
whether airport specific or community driven, need to be incorporated into the airport’s energy
resiliency goals. Airport energy resiliency strategies, such as increasing efficiency and using
renewable energy resources, can be tools to aid in emissions reductions and support climate
action plans. Table 6-1 shows how energy resiliency strategies can have corresponding benefits to
climate-related plans.
6.5 Operational/Workforce Strategies

One case study airport Depending on an airport’s energy resiliency actions, supporting the roadmap’s implemen-
invests in its long-term tation, introducing new energy systems, or transitioning away from fossil-fuel sources may
employees to help them
keep up with newer
necessitate changing the airport’s workforce by encouraging the development of new skill sets.
technology skills and Per ACRP Synthesis 40: Issues with Airport Organization and Reorganization, “The primary
in-demand positions, triggers for airports to change their structure are functional reassignment, strategic change,
such as 400-V electricians.
Table 6-1. Relationship of airport energy resiliency roadmap to

other environmental planning.
Roadmap Strategies Mutual Benefits

Sustainability Climate Adaptation Carbon Neutral/Net
Plan Plan Zero Plan
Reliability of service X X
Energy efficiency X X
Energy resiliency X
Energy independence X X X
Energy costs control X
Renewable energy X X
Regulatory compliance X X

Integrate the Roadmap 65
accountability, workload issues, and the need to upgrade employee skills and abilities to meet
operational requirements” (Kenville and Smith 2013, p. 25). Implementing the roadmap is a
strategic change that likely requires upgrading employees’ skills and abilities to meet the new
operational requirements. An airport should be prepared to assist staff in transitioning into
new roles through the addition or enhancement of skills. When airport staff are part of a larger
municipal system based on an employee’s classification, as in one case study airport, there may
be an extended process to assign new duties.
ACRP Research Report 240: Primer for Airport Organizational Redesign (Cronin et al. 2022)
identifies eight recommendations for organizational redesign:
• Ensure strategy drives structure
• Use process mapping for organizational restructuring
• Create metrics for key performance indicators to measure success at each phase of redesign
• Align performance management to organizational redesign objectives
• Engage employees in the redesign process
• Prioritize the definition of core function before determining staffing strategy
• Identify risks in advance of airport redesign
• Align the organization redesign process with diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives
Reviewing these recommendations reveals key elements to address workforce strategies for
roadmap implementation:
• Ensuring that strategies within the roadmap drive any staffing structure changes
• Engaging employees in the process with two-way communication
• Defining the new core functions before determining staffing needs
• Considering diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to retain, retrain, and attract individuals
with valuable skill sets


PART III
Measure Progress


CHAPTER 7
Evaluate Implementation
7.1 Why Measure?

Roadmap implementation activities need to be monitored and measured to evaluate the prog-
ress and success of the strategies, as well as to make modifications and improvements.
Value of Measurement
What an airport needs to measure will be driven by the goals in the airport’s roadmap. Measur-
ing an asset’s impact to verify the business case is a valuable part of the resiliency process.
Energy-efficient and renewable energy technologies can generate energy savings over time.
Measurement is the key to validating investments in technologies to help airports understand
savings and payback and inform future technology selections.
The cost of measurement is tied to the technique deployed to measure. The greater the granu
larity required for a measurement, the more it will cost. An airport should determine how much to
spend on a measurement based on the value the measurement can deliver. Therefore, measure-
ments should be aimed at assessing energy-driven goals and not solely for garnering publicity.
For an asset to be eligible for the federal government’s production tax credit (PTC), the asset’s
production must be measured down to the kW-h.
The PTC is a federal program intended to reduce the overall cost of renewable energy projects.
It allows tax credits or direct payments for certain eligible electricity-generation equipment,
including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass. Taxpayers and certain nontaxable entities, such
as state and local governments, are eligible for PTC benefits. In this case, a larger investment in
high-sensitivity equipment is recommended, because the added granularity may have a large
ROI for the airport. On the other hand, little should be invested in measuring a binary result,
such as whether an asset turned on when it needed to.
Asset-Specific Measurement
Whether the impact of energy resiliency investments is understood depends on measure-
ment technique. An airport must first understand the goal and strategy to determine how and
why to measure progress toward it. The measurement plan should begin in the early planning
stages of an asset’s development, so baselines are established and any required measurement
equipment may be installed along with the asset. The DOE defines four measurement tech-
niques that depend on the type of asset being deployed:
• An isolation approach uses an engineering analysis of measurements of the most critical
parameters. The accuracy depends heavily on the comparison of baseline measurements
against measurements received during the comparison period.
69

• A system-level approach uses an engineering analysis of measurements of all relevant parameters.

Like the isolation approach, this approach relies on a comparison of baseline measurements with
periodic measurements, but the system is continuously monitored. The intent of this option is
to verify long-term performance by periodically or continuously measuring relevant parameters.
• Whole-building verification monitors the energy use of an entire building when multiple
systems in the building have been affected by installed technology. Energy savings are usually
based on the energy consumption measured by the utility meters, often combined with simple
modeling to accommodate variables such as weather.
• Whole-building or component-level verification relies on computer modeling of the system
to predict savings. All components of the building or system are entered as a baseline, then
real-time weather data and other inputs are used to determine savings.
7.2 Potential Measurements

Measurements create the opportunity for an organization to make data-driven decisions regard-
ing progress toward a goal. Metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) may be used to track
progress. When monitoring and measuring progress, an airport should incorporate all three types
of measurements where each is most appropriate: metrics, KPIs, and qualitative assessments.
Metrics
An energy resiliency metric is a qualitative measurement of how an operation, asset, system,
or process is performing. This metric allows an airport to use data to track progress toward its
energy resiliency goals. Metrics may combine multiple sources of data to provide relevant infor-
mation for decision makers.
An airport must approach metric development from an operational and strategic stand-
point. By understanding what resources are being measured (inputs) and how they are being
analyzed (capacities or capabilities), an airport can determine what is being produced (per-
formance) and what exactly is being achieved (outcomes). The metrics are found within the
performance and outcome categories highlighted in Figure 7-1, from a report by the Rand
Corporation sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, Measuring the Resilience of Energy
Distribution Systems (Willis and Loa 2015).
Figure 7-1. Metric categories. (Source: H. Willis and K. Loa, Measuring the Resilience of Energy
Distribution Systems, 2015.)

Evaluate Implementation 71
Metrics can range from specific measurements to more qualitative or binary measures, covering
a range of functions across the organization to offer the necessary management insights. An airport
should be intentional when determining which metrics to follow, understanding how each metric
ties into the airport’s system and goals.
Key Performance Indicators

All KPIs are metrics, but not all metrics are KPIs. A KPI is a metric that helps an airport assess
status toward its key resiliency goal, while a metric may be any recorded qualitative measure-
ment for a resiliency process. KPIs should go beyond the raw data, quantifiable measurements,
or lower-level indicators related to a single area of the airport. For example, energy use in kW-h
is a metric that conveys how much energy is used, whereas a percentage decrease in energy use
is a KPI that conveys a measure of progress over time.
Crafted with the stakeholder in mind, a KPI should highlight the effects that actions or invest-
ments have on overarching goals for the airport. This requires that an airport combine energy
resilient measurements with other airport data to achieve its goals. If an airport’s goal is reli-
ability to its customers, then a strong KPI would be “customers experienced airport facilities
downtime caused by energy-related events.” This indicator is specific, has the end goal in mind,
and incorporates multiple metrics. KPIs may be different for short-, intermediate-, and long-
term goals.
Case study airports offered several examples of their KPIs:
• Reduction of energy use
• Reduction in EUI
• Percentage increase in renewable energy
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
• Increase or decrease in total energy cost per enplaned passenger
• Increase or decrease of total energy cost per flight operation
• Change of days of fuel on hand
• Reduction of time to recover from an outage
• Percentage change of probability of surviving an outage of a predetermined length
ACRP Report 19: Developing an Airport Performance-Measurement System provides infor-
mation on establishing effective measures for strategic plan implementation (Infrastructure
Management Group Inc., The Performance Institute, and Counter Technology Incorporated
2010). These same strategies can also be applied to estimating performance measures for imple-
menting the energy resiliency roadmap.
Qualitative Assessments
KPIs are typically applied to hard benefits that are easy to measure and cost. Consideration
should also be given to identifying soft benefits. Soft benefits are related to the community, social
aspects, and the airport’s brand. These types of benefits tend to be more qualitative but typically
have a hard connection, such as the monetary value of a facility and staff prepared to stay opera-
tional as part of a local disaster response (Smith 2023).
An airport will need to use qualitative assessments when a measurable goal is too difficult
to record quantitatively. These goals may focus greatly on the subjective experience of the
operator or customer. The airport may survey its customers to receive feedback and analyze
reviews. Although it is harder to automate qualitative data collection, such insightful value is
worth the extra effort to unlock.

7.3 Data Management Tools for Energy Resiliency

Data is like a liquid; it does not have a shape unless it is given one. Understanding the
end goal with planned metrics and KPIs is not enough. An airport must strategically structure
how data is stored, updated, and accessed. A handful of best practices are recommended in this
section, along with innovative tools emerging in the market, to deliver the best energy data
measurement results.
Leading Practices
Data management must be thoughtfully engineered to reduce the effort required to produc-
tively use the data. The first step is having an authoritative data source for all energy data across
an airport’s operations. Because energy is involved in all aspects of an airport, multiple systems
may track different types of data. The airport should have all systems fed to the same data ware-
house or find ways to reduce redundancies in recorded data—end users cannot trust redundant,
unaligned data. Regular data inputs are required but depend on the type of data collected. For
example, peak energy load data is collected at 15-minute intervals, while consumption may be
collected hourly.
Many decision makers find large amounts of data overwhelming. Creating a dashboard to
fit each decision maker’s objectives helps improve the efficiency of data-driven decision-making.
A dashboard should be designed with the required granularity and cadence the stakeholder
needs. Some dashboards may be viewed daily to provide a status on current operations, while
another may be used in a quarterly report. An airport may consider investing in a data manage-
ment software system to assist in monitoring the metrics and KPIs identified in the roadmap.
Smart Meters
Automated reporting can reduce labor costs and errors. By investing in smart metering or an
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), an airport may greatly improve its data management.
The DOE defines AMI as an integrated system of smart meters, communication networks, and
data management systems that enables two-way communication between utilities and customers.
A smart meter is a device that reports its data to the customer and utility.
A smart meter allows for automation and improves the flow of data across the organization,
which may help reduce costs. Smart metering is a tool that helps a customer track its energy use
data to specific operations or assets. Through the greater granularity, a customer may identify
and more thoroughly inspect irregularities, which may result in cost savings if the problem is
easily addressed.
The many insights unlocked through smart metering technology come at a cost, in money
and security. To reap the benefits of a smart meter, a customer must be willing to pay the upfront
capital expenditure. And although savings may accrue over time with the improved insights,
an increased requirement for cybersecurity may negate much of the savings. A cybersecurity risk
emerges when a device is connected to the internet, as a typical smart meter is. Cyberthreats,
as mentioned in Chapters 1, 2, and 5, are present at the grid and the internet interface, and must
be mitigated at many levels.
A smart metering system requires a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA)
For security, one case study system to operate effectively. SCADA is a mix of hardware, with sensors, controls, and telemetry
airport had a separate SCADA units, and uses software as the human–machine interface. This interface is the data management
system. Staff can use a laptop software the user will interact with and should include intuitive control descriptions, graphical
to access the system to view
data and create reports,
visualizations, and actionable data, and it should be usable on a mobile device for field use.
but all system controls are By using the right SCADA package with an AMI, an airport can improve its reporting, decrease
hardwired, not networked. maintenance, and develop a more in-depth understanding of its energy data.

Evaluate Implementation 73
Digital Twins
One tool some airports use is a digital twin, a model of the airport. Dallas Fort Worth Inter
national Airport is developing a digital twin that includes every aspect of energy. The model
will replicate the geometry and operations of the airport to enable decision makers to test
changes virtually before making capital and operational commitments, thereby reducing
the investment risk.
7.4 Communicate Progress

Energy resiliency improvements may be hard to see. To build support, an airport should
use its measurements to communicate progress. Even if an improvement starts small, a demonstrable
benefit can help an airport build momentum for an energy resiliency roadmap. Sharing the
airport’s progress can also encourage other community entities to take steps toward energy
resiliency. Because the airport and its energy demands may change over time, year-to-year
comparisons may become difficult. However, the airport can still communicate that its actions
have led to improvement compared with no action.
7.5 Other Considerations

Although this roadmap is focused on energy, an airport may consider other critical utilities in
its resiliency planning. An airport should develop a resiliency plan for any service or commodity
it relies on for operations. Examples include water, sewage, internet, and fuel delivery systems.
Limited access to any of these commodities could severely affect operations and should, there-
fore, be included as part of the resiliency roadmap.
The airport should also consider the energy required by its users, particularly airlines. As
sustainable aviation fuel becomes readily available, storage facilities will be required. Until this
fuel type replaces traditional Jet A, airports will be required to identify additional space for its
storage.
Hydrogen-fueled aircraft are also in development. Hydrogen will have specific storage require-
ments. ACRP Research Report 236: Preparing Your Airport for Electric Aircraft and Hydrogen
Technologies (Le Bris et al. 2022) provides additional information to assist the airport in preparing
for electric and hydrogen-powered aircraft.
7.6 Summary
An energy resiliency roadmap should become a living document for an airport. Measuring
progress will allow an airport to refine its tool/lever goals and strategies as progress is made
toward energy resiliency. The roadmap also needs to be adjusted for unforeseen challenges or
new opportunities to best meet the airport’s strategic plan related to energy and customer needs.
Adjustments may include validating the foundation of the plan as well as updating the baseline
as the basis for reviewing and updating, as needed, the roadmap to continue to enhance the
airport’s energy resiliency.

APPENDIX A
Case Studies: Questionnaire

and Summary Tables
ACRP Project 02-98, “Airport Energy Resiliency Primer

and Roadmap,” Case Study Airport Interview Questions
(1) What are the greatest risks to your airport’s energy security and its ability to absorb dis-
ruptions (what keeps you up at night)?
(2) Have you forecasted energy use?
(3) Has your airport taken any steps toward energy reduction? If yes, what steps?
(4) Has your airport taken any steps toward alternate energy use? If yes, what steps?
(5) How have you funded energy reduction or other energy-related projects?
(6) From any energy-related actions, are there lessons learned you would be willing to
share?
(7) Are there any constraints on energy reduction or source measures you would like to
implement?
(8) Which tenants/concessionaires are raising the most concerns about energy demands and
its reliability?
(9) Have you had any coordination with your utility provider or other outside stakeholders
regarding energy supply?
(10) How have you valued from a benefit–cost perspective any energy-related improvements
made by your airport?
(11) Do you use any energy- or resiliency-related metrics?
(12) What would be useful in an energy resiliency roadmap for your airport?
(13) What do you wish senior leaders better understood about airport energy resiliency?
(14) What haven’t we asked you that you would like to tell us or tell other airports that are
beginning to address energy resiliency?
Case Study Summary Tables

Seventeen case study interviews were conducted involving 17 airport-operating entities, encom-
passing 20 airports, several community entities, and two military bases. A case study with two
U.S. Navy bases involved in energy resiliency planning and implementation also occurred. The
purpose of the U.S. Navy interviews was to provide airports with a perspective of what similar
facilities are doing regarding airport energy resiliency. This appendix contains tabular summaries
of airport energy resiliency measures identified or discussed by the case study airports during
their interviews, organized by subject. These summaries are not intended to encompass all
potential airport energy resiliency measures, but rather reflect the implementation efforts of
the case study airports at the time of the case studies.
The evaluation is qualitative based on the research team’s insights and expertise as well as the
information shared by the airports. The following key is used for the summary tables:
74

Case Studies: Questionnaire and Summary Tables 75
Key
Maturity of technology/activity: 1 = operational now to 5 = theoretical or nascent
Ease of implementation: 1 = easy, can adapt existing infrastructure, to 5 = requires complete
rebuilding of major facilities
Relative cost: 1 = affordable within single year’s budget to 5 = multiyear project requiring major
financial commitment
O = Operational now (* = partial)
I = Being implemented now
P = In planning stages
C = Under consideration
Identifying Baseline Data

Establishing an accurate energy baseline is the starting point for the roadmap. The baseline has
three key components: calculating demand, understanding supply, and identifying vulnerabilities.
The baseline should show the existing energy usage (demand and consumption) in sufficient
detail to reflect each fuel’s largest energy-consuming systems and note any projected changes
(increases or decreases) attributed to future airport modifications or evolving transportation
technologies.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 1
Baseline Data
Uninterruptable
1 1 2 O O O O
power supplies
1 2 1 Forecast energy use O O O O I O O I O O O O O
Monitor power
1 2 1 O O O O O
quality
1 2 2 Submeters O O
Energy baseline and
2 3 3 benchmarks O O O O O O O
established
Know total
operations well and
2 5 1 O I C
interaction with
energy usage

Resiliency and Energy Operations Planning

When establishing an energy resiliency roadmap, it is important to spend time developing
goals for the plan, recognizing the differences that exist between time scales. The goal of airport
energy resiliency is to plan and prepare to diversify and de-risk energy resources while con-
sidering energy availability and the cost to maintain critical operations.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Resiliency Planning
N
4 1 O O O O O O
A Resiliency culture
Dual
1 4 4 O O O O O O
feeds/substations
Energy efficiency
2 2 2 considered in facility O O O O O O O O O O
design
Good load-shedding
2 3 2 O O O O O O C
plan
Energy- or
2 4 1 resiliency-related O O C O O I O O
metrics
Facility energy
2 4 2 O O O O O O
resiliency plan
Facility
2 4 2 O O O O O
sustainability plan
Environmental
2 5 5 threats to energy O O O O O
resiliency
Energy resiliency
3 2 2 considered in facility O O O O O O O O O
design
Assess threats of
evolving tenant
3 3 2 C
energy demands to
energy resiliency
Assess threats to
3 4 2 energy resiliency O O
from rising costs
Assess threats to
energy resiliency
3 5 5 O
from human-caused
threats

Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Energy Operations
Planning
N Senior management
4 1 O O O O O O O O O O O
A support
Projected useful life
1 1 1 of systems/rate of O O O
obsolescence
Maintenance costs of
1 2 1 O O O O O
systems
Time-of-day pricing
1 4 2
for tenants
Cybersecurity of
2 4 2 energy control O
systems
2 5 1 Digital twin O I
Life cycle costing
3 4 1 O O O
for energy
ROI considered in
3 4 1 O O O C O O O
energy decisions

Efficient and Renewable Energy

After an initial baseline for demand is established, various strategies and techniques for
reducing energy demand should be considered, because this would reduce the amount of
standby or backup sources needed to meet resiliency requirements. Renewable energy sources
are replenished by nature and are abundantly available throughout the world, provided by the
sun, wind, water, waste, and heat from the Earth.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Energy-Efficiency
Measures
1 1 2 LEDs—airfield O O I O P O
LEDs—taxiway
1 1 2 O I I O I P O
signage
1 1 2 LEDs—aprons O I O O I O I P O
1 1 2 LEDs—terminal O I O I O I I P O O
1 1 2 LEDs—roadways O O I O I P P O O
LEDs—parking
1 1 2 O O I I O I P P O O
structures
Retro-
1 1 3 O O
commissioning
High-efficiency
1 2 2 O O
motors
Upgrade boilers or
1 2 2 O O O O
HVAC
Smart fixtures/time-
1 2 2 O O O
of-day programming
Smart glass in
1 2 3 O O O
terminal
Energy recovery on
2 3 3 O O
HVAC systems
Harvest heat from
3 3 3 C
sewer line
LED compatibility
4 4 2 with night vision P I P O
systems

Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Renewable Energy
Solar array atop new
1 1 2 C O O
buildings
Solar lighting in
1 1 1 O
parking lot
Solar-powered
1 1 1 O
roadway signs
1 2 2 Solar farm on facility I I P P C P C O O O C O O O
Solar farm off
1 2 2 C C C P P O O
facility
Solar array atop
1 4 4 C I P O O
existing buildings
Geothermal—
1 2 3 O O
vertical wells
Geothermal—
1 4 3 O
horizontal wells
Wind energy on
1 5 5 O P
facility
Wind energy off
1 3 3 O O
facility
Reverse charging
2 3 3
from vehicles
5 5 5 PV runways C

Storage and Alternative Energy Sources

To achieve greater resiliency, an airport may consider energy independence by establishing the
capability to generate some to all the energy it needs to operate. It is critical to examine various
strategies and their associated feasibility, costs, time frames for implementation, and risks. Refer
to Chapter 5 for additional information.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Generators
Days fuel supply for
emergency
1 2 1 3 7 3
generators (O if
number provided)
Emergency
1 2 2 O O O O O O O O O O
generators—airfield
Emergency
1 2 3 generators—life O O O O O O O O O O O O
safety
Emergency
1 2 4 * O O O * O * O O *
generators—full load
Alternative fuel for
emergency
2 3 3 O O I P I
generators, including
Jet A
Alternative Energy
Sources
Collect cooking oil
1 1 1 C
for sustainable fuel
Propane-fueled
1 1 3 O
surface vehicles
On-site natural gas
1 3 5 O
production
1 4 4 Microgrid C C C O C O
1 4 4 Cogeneration C C C O C O *
Hydrogen hub for
4 5 5 C
facilities
Energy Storage
Electric storage—
2 4 3 O
chilled water
Electric storage—
4 5 4 C P C C C C C O O
batteries/BESS
Electric storage—
5 5 5
liquid sodium

Facility Certifications
While a certification is not a requirement for energy resiliency, a certification program can
assist airports in identifying potential opportunities through its tools and can be used by an
airport as a means to recognize its progress and achievements.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 18
Facility 19
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility
Certifications
LEED Silver for
1 2 3 C O
new construction
LEED Gold for new
1 3 4 O O C
construction
LEED Platinum for
1 4 5 C
new construction

Electric Vehicles and Aircraft

Airports are already experiencing the implementation of electric ground handling equip-
ment and electric airport, rental car, and customer vehicles. What level of supply is needed to
charge these vehicles and when and where? The use of electric aircraft and other AAM vehicles
is expected in the long term. As part of the development of the roadmap, an airport needs to plan
how to meet its demands. An airport should also consider how EVs may affect revenue streams
and provide new revenue-generating opportunities.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Electric Vehicle
Charging Capability
EV charging for
ground handling
2 3 3 P O O
equipment and
facility vehicles
EV charging for
2 4 5 P P P O P I P
rental cars
EV charging for
3 5 5 P P I P
public parking
EV charging for snow
4 2 4 C
removal equipment
Potential autonomous
4 3 3 snow removal C
equipment
Advanced Air
Mobility
Hub for electric
4 5 5 P C P
aircraft
4 5 5 Charging for AAM P P

Funding and Planning Coordination

If a strategy has a favorable ROI or benefit–cost, the next step is typically identifying a funding
source. The implementation of the roadmap may be subject to competing priorities and funding
constraints. Therefore, it is important to identify a variety of potential funding resources.
Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 19
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Coordination with
Other Planning
Local energy
procurement
1 2 1 consultant to buy O O O
energy on
deregulated market
Close coordination
between facility and
2 2 1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O
its electricity
provider
Close coordination
between facility and
2 2 1 O O O
its natural gas
provider
Facility input into
3 1 1 city, county, or state O O O O O O
plans
City, county, or state
plan facility is
3 3 3 O O O O O O
required to conform
to

Relative Cost
Maturity
Ease
Energy Resiliency
Measure or
Technology Facility
Facility 1
Facility 2
Facility 3
Facility 4
Facility 5
Facility 6
Facility 7
Facility 8
Facility 9
Facility 10
Facility 11
Facility 12
Facility 13
Facility 14
Facility 15
Facility 16
Facility 17
Facility 18
Facility 19
Project Funding
P3 arrangement for
1 3 1 O P O O O
solar
P3 arrangement for
1 3 2
cogeneration
5 5 3 P3 for AAM services C
n Utility company
1 1 O O O O O
a rebates
n Utility company
1 1
a grants
n Environmental
3 1 O
a grants
Use consultant
n seminar to learn
2 1 O
a about federal
funding
n n n
O O O
a a a AIP funding use
n n n FAA VALE funding
O O
a a a use
n n n Car rental facility
O
a a a fees use
n n n Use of loan to
O O
a a a facility
n n n
C
a a a Use of facility bonds
Bipartisan
n n n
Infrastructure Law C C O O C C
a a a
funding use
n n n Inflation Reduction
C C C C
a a a Act funding use
n n n FEMA post-disaster
O
a a a funding use
n n n State, regional, or
O O O
a a a local funding use
Base Realignment
n n n
and Closure funding O
a a a
use
n n n COVID relief
O O
a a a funding use

APPENDIX B
Glossary
alternate fuel vehicle: A vehicle that uses alternative fuels, whether as a primary fuel source or
as one of multiple fuel sources.
anthropogenic greenhouse gas: A gas produced by human activity, such as carbon dioxide and
chlorofluorocarbons, that contributes to the greenhouse effect.
battery swap technology: A method that involves replacing an electric vehicle battery that
has been discharged with one that is charged.
benefit–cost analysis: Projecting the value of an action and comparing it with the action’s
estimated costs as a decision-making tool.
carbon footprint: The quantity of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds released as a
result of a person or group’s consumption and use of fossil fuels.
carbon neutral: Capturing or offsetting as much carbon as is emitted by the total activity of a
group or building.
carbon offset: A measure taken to offset carbon dioxide emissions that are produced elsewhere.
carbon offset credit: A transferable, certified instrument representing the emissions reduction
of one metric ton of carbon dioxide or other equivalent greenhouse gases used to convey the
net climate benefit from one entity to another.
central energy plant (CEP)/central utility plant (CUP): An energy plant serving multiple
facilities that provides efficiencies of scale to produce chilled water or hot water for less
energy per unit of thermal energy, relative to a smaller system.
charging station: An electrical outlet for recharging electric vehicles. The U.S. Department of
Energy has three levels of charging stations based on the time to recharge: Level 1, Level 2,
and Level 3 with Level 3 being the fastest.
chiller: Mechanical equipment that moves heat from one fluid to another to reduce the tem-
perature in a building. The transfer fluid is commonly water or air.
clean electricity/energy: Electrical power or other energy generated by renewable energy
resources that does not emit greenhouse gases as a byproduct of power generation.
climate action plan: A detailed roadmap that identifies activities an organization may under-
take to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions.
cogeneration facility: A facility that concurrently generates electricity and usable heat by
capturing and repurposing its waste heat.
compressed natural gas (CNG): Natural gas (methane) compressed to less than 1% of its volume
while retaining its gaseous state.
85

decarbonization: Changing energy systems to reduce or stop greenhouse gas emissions from
entering the atmosphere.
de-peak electric demand: An event or series of events that prevents normal operations for a
period of time.
digital twin: A virtual representation of a real-world object, structure, or system.
distributed energy resource: A small decentralized energy generation device that can power
local needs or flow power into the grid.
ecological stressor: Ecological (or biological) stress occurs when a physical factor has an
adverse impact on an ecosystem or its biotic components. In living organisms, this may
result in risks to survival or restrictions in growth or reproduction (Alexander 1999).
electric vehicle: A vehicle that uses an electric motor instead of an internal combustion engine,
drawing its energy from a rechargeable battery.
emergency power generator: A secondary power generation system that only operates when
the primary energy generation or delivery system has failed.
emerging trend in energy demand and usage: A new or developing technology and shifting
demands in energy generation, use, and efficiency.
energy conservation: The practice of using less energy by altering practices, such as turning off
equipment not in use.
energy consumption: The amount of energy used over a period of time, measured in kilowatt-
hours.
energy demand: The consumption rate of energy for a defined time period, measured in
kilowatts.
energy demand baseline audit: An assessment of the peak energy draw of a facility in kilowatts
over a period of time, typically measured in one-month intervals.
energy distribution: The transportation of energy from the generator to the user; for electricity,
this is through a power grid.
energy efficiency: The use of less energy to perform the same task or achieve the same result.
energy grid: The means by which electricity is transmitted from the energy generation plant
to users.
energy master plan: A plan to meet a facility’s current and future energy needs and achieve
an organization’s energy goals. The plans are typically tiered and show sequential progress
toward a long-term goal.
energy resiliency: The ability to prepare energy resources to avoid or adapt to changing short-
and longer-term conditions and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions, including
the ability to withstand and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring
threats or incidents.
energy security: Actions that prevent against, and improve the response to, human-caused
and natural disasters that would otherwise disrupt energy resources.
energy storage: Chemical, thermal, or mechanical methods for capturing and storing energy
for later use.
energy use intensity: The energy used in a building, facility, or campus, measured in kilowatt-
hours or thousands of British thermal units divided by the square footage of the space.

Glossary 87
facility plan: A short-, medium-, and long-term maintenance, replacement, and upkeep plan
that includes design drawings, schedules, and cost estimates. The plan can be used to facilitate
the transfer of knowledge between employees to mitigate institutional knowledge loss.
fritted glass: A special type of glass that uses ceramic-enamel coatings in a visible pattern, such
as dots or lines, to control solar heat gain. The pattern is created by opaque or transparent
glass fused to the substrate glass material under high temperatures. The substrate is heat-
strengthened or tempered to prevent breakage caused by thermal stresses (Illustrated Dictionary
of Architecture, n.d.).
generator: A machine that converts one form of energy into another, such as a fuel source
into electricity.
geothermal system (vertical and horizontal fields): A closed or open loop system that uses a
medium, typically water, to transfer energy from a heating or cooling system into the ground
or the water. The loop fields are vertical or horizontal.
glare study: An analysis of where solar glare can occur over the course of a year, when the sun
is at different positions in the sky, with a specified photovoltaic array.
green power: An energy source generally considered to be any electricity generated without
producing greenhouse gases.
heat pump: A heating and cooling system that transfers heat from a hotter area to a colder
area, and vice versa, through mechanical means.
heat recovery: An energy-efficiency solution that captures waste heat, typically through
mechanical means such as an energy wheel, heat exchanger, or cross airflow system.
hydrogen fuel cell: An electricity-producing cell that uses the chemical energy of hydrogen or
other fuels.
ice energy air conditioner/ice storage air conditioning: A thermal energy storage method for
cooling systems that produces ice when variable-rate electrical charges are lower and uses
the ice to assist in cooling when electricity charges are higher.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): A framework for healthy, efficient
carbon- and cost-saving green buildings. LEED certification is a globally recognized symbol of
sustainability achievement and leadership.
Level 1 charging station: An electric vehicle charging station with a 120-V system.
Level 2 charging station: An electric vehicle charging station with a 208- to 240-V system.
Level 3 charging station: An electric vehicle charging station with a system of 400 V or more.
light-emitting diode (LED): A semiconductor that glows when voltage is applied; used in
many forms of lighting.
liquefied petroleum gas (LP): Any of several liquid mixtures of the volatile hydrocarbons
propene, propane, butene, and butane (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).
load shifting: An electrical energy use management technique that shifts peak demand to
off-peak times, with reduced time-of-day rates from the utility company.
meter: A device that measures the use of electricity.
microgrid: A self-contained energy generation system tied to a nearby load that does not
require a connection to the larger electrical grid but can include one.
natural gas: A flammable gas largely composed of methane that is often used as a fuel source.

net zero: The state at which greenhouse gases produced and emitted into the atmosphere are
balanced with the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Minimizing greenhouse
gas production is typically part of a net zero strategy.
on-site energy generation: Electricity production directly connected to the building or facility
owner.
peak energy demand: The period of time that the rate of consumption of energy is highest.
Performance Excellence in Electricity Renewal (PEER): A certification program that mea-
sures and improves power system performance and electricity infrastructure (Green Business
Certification Inc. n.d.).
power purchase agreement: An agreement for the long-term purchase of electricity, hot
water, chilled water, or another energy medium, typically between an energy producer
and a customer.
public–private partnership (P3): A collaboration between public and private entities, com-
monly for projects such as public transportation, governmental buildings, roadways, and
airports.
renewable energy: Energy from a source that is not exhausted when used; typical examples
are wind and solar power.
renewable energy certificate: A market-based instrument that represents the property rights to
the environmental, social, and other nonpower attributes of renewable electricity generation.
Certificates are issued when one megawatt hour of electricity is generated and delivered to
the electricity grid from a renewable energy resource (EPA 2023e).
return on investment (ROI): The quantification of how long it will take an investment to
return a profit.
smart-grid technology: The use of digital technologies and advanced communication tech-
nologies, such as fiber optics, to detect and react to localized changes in energy use. This term
is typically used with regard to a utility company’s reactions to energy use demand.
smart technology: The use of computing and telecommunication to improve the operations
and performance of devices that did not have that ability in the past.
smart windows (smart glass): A window that includes glass or glazing that automatically alters
the tint to increase ambient lighting or reduce radiative heating loads.
social contract: An actual or implicit agreement governing behavior among the members of a
society to cooperate for social benefits.
solar farm: An area of land with a large number of solar panels. There is not an officially recog-
nized minimum size to qualify a solar field as a solar farm.
solar panel: An instrument designed to use the sun’s energy to generate a direct current electric
charge.
state, regional, and local sustainability plan (effects on airports): A sustainability plan made
by state, regional, or other localities that can affect airports through changes in code regulation,
requirements, and enforcement.
submeter: A sensor that can measure electrical current over time and is used to monitor the
power usage of an area, system, or device.
sustainability: The capacity to prevent natural resource’s depletion in order to preserve the eco-
logical balance.

Glossary 89
sustainable airport master plan: A document that focuses on the integration of sustainabil-
ity into an airport’s long-term planning to reduce environmental impacts, accrue economic
benefits, and improve community relations.
uninterrupted power supply: A method of supplying energy, typically electricity, in the case
of grid failure or power interruption. These systems use short-term battery backup, genera-
tors, or long-term energy storage to operate critical systems.
utilities master plan: A plan to efficiently meet a facility’s current and future utility needs and
achieve the organization’s energy goals. The plans are typically tiered and show sequential
progress toward a long-term goal.
variable-frequency drive: An electromechanical drive that modulates the alternating current
motor’s speed by adjusting the voltage or the current of the electricity; commonly used to
control fans, pumps, and compressors.

APPENDIX C
Example THIRA Analysis
This example table shows the results of a THIRA for an airport for energy resiliency, using
several representative risks and arbitrary ratings for probabilities and impacts.
Energy Resiliency THIRA for Airport X

Threat/Hazard Probability Impact Mitigation Vulnerability
P I M I−M V
Hurricane 1 2 0 2 2
Tornado 2 1 0 1 2
Regional grid failure 4 2 1 1 4
Fuel shortage 2 2 1 1 2
Bomb threat 5 1 0.5 0.5 2.5
Tank farm fire 2 2 0.5 1.5 3
This arbitrary example shows that mitigation activities can significantly affect vulnerability.
Taking the regional electric grid failure as an example, having dual feeds from two separate
sources might score M = 1, adequate backup generators with fuel supply to run the airport for a
week might score M = 2, and cogeneration plus a microgrid might score M = 4.
The THIRA method, as described thus far, applies to short-term resiliency—the ability to
bounce back from a serious sudden disruption. A THIRA can be adapted to plan for long-term
resiliency in the face of changing demands for various energy sources, emerging energy tech-
nologies, the effects of climate change, changing costs, or increased efficiencies of systems or
conservation abilities. The approach remains the same, but “change” becomes the first column
instead of “threat/hazard.” Because all the factors—probability, impact, and mitigation—will
potentially change rapidly, a series of vulnerability tables should be created, perhaps annually.
The use of a THIRA in the face of temporal energy trends will be much less mechanistic than
its use for emergency management. If the proposed annual energy resiliency vulnerability tables
are created, they should be viewed as useful input for strategic planning and capital investment
planning, not as an absolute determinant of priorities.
The series of THIRA tables for energy resiliency approaches being a subset of a digital twin for
aspects of an airport’s energy subsystems. However, the digital twin process will demand a precise
quantification of P, I, and M, rather than the qualitative relative values used in a THIRA.
The THIRA process, as discussed thus far, has looked at impacts in terms of operational disrup-
tion, not economic disruption. Although economic losses to the airport and its community may
be severe in the case of short-term resiliency, the THIRA model is not easily adaptable to include
the effects of temporal trends in energy demand, usage, sources, storage, cost, or conservation on
an airport’s long-term resiliency. For long-term resiliency, a THIRA should be combined with a
benefit–cost analysis. The THIRA can provide useful input to the benefit side of such an analysis.
90

APPENDIX D
Steps of a Benefit–Cost Analysis
Step 1: Define the Project

The first step is to define the project and its objectives. What elements should be included as
part of the project being assessed? What is the time frame to consider? What are the goals and
desired outcomes? If the project is part of a larger program, what are the limits of the proposed
action being considered so that the related benefits and costs can be measured equally? In addi-
tion to defining the proposed action’s limits, the system or setting in which it is considered is
important. If an airport energy resiliency project could have regional impacts, those should be
identified as part of defining the project.
Step 2: Compute the Costs and Benefits

The costs and benefits related to the proposed project need to be calculated. The units used to
measure the benefits and costs should be the same. As part of defining the project, the units to
be used should be identified. The most common unit is dollars. If all the benefits are not initially
measured in the chosen units, the conversion to those units should be defined; for example, staff
time savings will be assessed at a rate of X dollars per hour.
Assigning a Value to Risk Avoidance

Energy resiliency projects may be undertaken to minimize risk, such as downtime, a disrup-
tion to operations, etc. This benefit must be quantified in the same terms as the other benefits and
costs. The following factors can be considered to assign a value to risk avoidance:
• Identify the risks and impacts in business terms.
• Identify the remediation to the risks.
• Identify the potential cost if the remediation is not put in place, i.e., the cost if the event occurs.
• Identify the potential frequency of the risk: monthly, annual, once every X years, etc.
• Align the frequency of the risk with the life of the improvement to identify the value of the risk
avoidance over the life of the project.
There are several types of costs and benefits that should be considered: direct, indirect, and
induced.
Costs
Direct costs, which are typically one-time expenditures to accomplish a project, commonly
include
• Development costs, such as planning, design, and construction costs
• Operational costs, such as staff time, new or obsolete parts inventory, downtime
91

Indirect costs, which are commonly life cycle costs required for the project to operate, may
include
• Utility charges
• Rental fees
• Subscription fees (such as for software programs)
Induced costs, which can be outcomes on other entities, such as reduced business caused by
a changed traffic flow during a project or additional travel time from rerouting traffic during a
project.
Direct costs are usually the easiest to quantify, but all costs should be considered. The basis
for assigning costs, especially for induced costs, should be documented as part of the process,
as preferably established, before tallying the costs to avoid bias in the outcome. As the costs are
identified, considering the associated benefits at the same time can help develop a thorough
assessment.
Benefits
Direct benefits are commonly
• Savings as a result of the project: dollars, time, reduced emissions, etc.
• Increased revenue
• Increased capacity
• Increased reliability or reduced risk
Indirect benefits can include
• Cost avoidance as a result of increased reliability
• Improvement in system operations (doing more with less)
• Improved customer service
Induced benefits is where benefits beyond those implementing the project can be captured.
While difficult to measure, there may be competitive advantages, or a positive influence on a
reputation can be considered.
Step 3: Assess the Outcome

After assigning values to all the costs and benefits, the two categories should be compared.
Benefits that outweigh costs provide the basis for a business case for the project to proceed. If
the costs outweigh the benefits, are there alternatives or modifications to the project that may deliver
a more favorable business case? While a benefit–cost analysis can be used to build a business
case for a project, it can also be used to evaluate alternatives to meet the goals and objectives.
A benefit–cost analysis is only a part of the decision-making process for airport energy
resiliency; there may be projects that, even after alternatives are considered, have a less-than-
favorable benefit–cost ratio but need to proceed based on the project’s goals, such as to meet a
regulator’s requirement.

APPENDIX E
Sample Energy Use

Intensity Calculation
A two-story airport facility includes the landside terminal, airside gates, and administrative
office space. The first level totals 100,000 square feet (sq ft) in area, while the second level is
80,000 sq ft. The facility is served by chilled water from an adjacent central plant for cooling and
has local gas-fired boilers for space heating, gas-fired domestic water heaters, and separately
metered gas services for two food service tenants at the airport.
Electrically, primary power is provided by the local utility; however, the airport has a small
solar PV system on the roof of an adjacent parking deck, which provides a portion of its electrical
needs, as available. Utility electricity is metered separately for the airport authority and for four
tenant spaces. In addition, the airport has on site diesel-fired standby generators that support the
critical electrical loads upon the loss of utility power. The airport’s annual metered energy usage,
per fuel, is as follows:
• Electricity (utility, airport, less tenants): 1,004,000 kW-h
• Electricity (solar PV-generated, airport): 230,000 kW-h
• Electricity (Tenant 1): 170,500 kW-h
• Chilled water from central plant: 2,478,656,000 Btu
• Natural gas (airport less tenants): 1,399,641 cubic feet (cu ft)
• Natural gas (Tenant 1): 45,000 cu ft
• Natural gas (Tenant 2): 54,000 cu ft
• Diesel fuel (generators): 1,800 gal
Total conditioned area of the airport: 100,000 sq ft—first level
80,000 sq ft—second level
180,000 sq ft—total
Convert all metered utilities into kBtu:
• 1,004,000 kW-h/year × 3.412 kBtu/kW-h = 3,425,648 kBtu/year
• 230,000 kW-h/year × 3.412 kBtu/kW-h = 784,760 kBtu/year
• 2,478,656,000 Btu/year × 1 kBtu/1,000 Btu = 2,478,656 kBtu/year
• 1,399,641 cu ft/year × 1,023 Btu/cu ft × 1 kBtu/1,000 Btu = 1,431,833 kBtu/year
93

• 45,000 cu ft/year × 1,023 Btu/cu ft × 1 kBtu/1,000 Btu = 46,035 kBtu/year

• 54,000 cu ft/year × 1,023 Btu/cu ft × 1 kBtu/1,000 Btu = 55,242 kBtu/year
• 1,800 gal/year × 138,690 Btu/gal × 1 kBtu/1,000 Btu = 249,642 kBtu/year
Total: 10,780,034 kBtu/year

10,780,034 kBtu/year ÷ 180,000 sq ft = 59.89 kBtu/year per sq ft for EUI (site)

APPENDIX F
Grant Funding Opportunities

as of 2023
Some grant funding opportunities have a fixed period of availability. Airports should track
evolving funding opportunities. Aviation associations and trade groups are an avenue to do so.
Airports with “shovel-ready” projects appear to have the most success when funding becomes
available.
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law opened additional grant funding opportunities for airports.
The three most applicable programs from the law are highlighted below.
Airport Infrastructure Grants Program

The law provides airport-specific grant funding and other energy-related funding opportunities.
The Airport Infrastructure Grants Program, administered by FAA, provides allocated funding to
airports based on NPIAS classification and needs, as well as competitive programs. The allocated
funds generally follow AIP and passenger facility charge eligibility. Allocated funds that are
unobligated after the fifth year will go into a discretionary program that will be used to reduce
airport emissions, noise impacts, and a dependence on the electrical grid or to provide benefits to
the surrounding community. Within the airport funds from the law, there is a program for terminal
improvements that could include energy resiliency projects. Having this additional funding source
could help move energy planning and resiliency projects to a higher-priority funding category for
discretionary grants.
Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing

Transportation Grants Program
The purpose of the Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART)
Grants Program is to conduct demonstration projects focused on advanced smart city or com-
munity technologies (U.S. DOT 2022a). The program includes two stages: planning and proto-
typing grants (Stage 1) and implementation grants (Stage 2). It is anticipated that only recipients
of Stage 1 grants will be eligible for Stage 2 grants. These grants include eight focus areas; the two
most applicable to energy resiliency draw on the use of innovative aviation technology and smart
grids. An annual notice of funding opportunities is anticipated to be issued for the program.
Additional information on the grant program is available at the DOT’s SMART website at https://
www.transportation.gov/grants/SMART.
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity

Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity grants, also known as
RAISE grants, are for surface infrastructure programs that will improve safety, environmental
95

sustainability, quality of life, mobility, community connectivity, economic competitiveness, and

opportunity, including tourism, a state of good repair, partnership and collaboration, and inno-
vation (U.S. DOT 2022b). These grants may apply to the surface transportation component of
an airport project.
Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is designed to invest in actions to reduce emissions, sup-
port disadvantaged communities, and generate clean energy. While the IRA is focused on
emissions reduction, energy roadmap projects related to renewable energy and supporting zero-
emission vehicles may have funding opportunities under the act. Based on the IRA summary,
there are potential areas within the IRA that could connect with airport energy resiliency (EPA
2023c). These include alternative refueling infrastructure credit, EV charging (although likely
focused on underserved and underrepresented communities), the retrofitting and upgrading
of facilities, and fleet electrification. The renewable fuels are anticipated to include a sustainable
aviation fuel credit and alternative fuel and low-emissions aviation technology program. The
IRA includes funding for the replacement of Classes 6 and 7 heavy-duty vehicles with zero-
emission vehicles, including the installation of infrastructure to operate and maintain the
zero-emission vehicles (including charging) and workforce development to support vehicle
adoption and deployment.

References
Alexander, D. E. 1999. Ecological Stress, in Encyclopedia of Environmental Science (Springer, Dordrecht), 159–60,
https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4494-1_94.
Barrett, S. 2019. ACRP Synthesis 100: Airport Greenhouse Gas Reduction Efforts. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25609.
Barrett, S. 2020. ACRP Synthesis 110: Airport Renewable Energy Projects Inventory and Case Examples. Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25942.
Barrett, S. B., P. M. DeVita, J. Kenfield, B. T. Jacobsen, and D. Y. Bannard. 2016. ACRP Report 151: Developing a
Business Case for Renewable Energy at Airports. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://
doi.org/10.17226/22081.
Booth, S., J. Reilly, R. Butt, M. Wascon, and R. Monohan. 2020. Microgrids for Energy Resilience: A Guide to
Conceptual Design and Lessons from Defense Projects. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72586.pdf.
City of Tallahassee. Tallahassee Solar: Growing Clean Energy. https://www.talgov.com/you/solar. Accessed
May 12, 2023.
Climate Central. 2022. Surging Power Outages and Climate Change. https://www.climatecentral.org/report
/surging-power-outages-and-climate-change.
Colato, J., and L. Ice. 2023. Charging into the Future: The Transition to Electric Vehicles. Beyond the Numbers,
Vol. 12, No. 4. https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/charging-into-the-future-the-transition-to-electric
-vehicles.htm.
Corzine, S. 2013. ACRP Report 93: Operational and Business Continuity Planning for Prolonged Airport Disruptions.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/22531.
Cronin, C. B., R. Smart, J. Souder, A. Bisker, J. C. Batarse, K. L. Norris, and L. Pavlik. 2022. ACRP Research Report
240: Primer for Airport Organizational Redesign. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://
doi.org/10.17226/26642.
Cullen, L., A. D’Amato, N. LaFarge, and H. Park. 2011. ACRP Report 49: Collaborative Airport Capital Plan-
ning Handbook. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://
doi.org/10.17226/14542.
Dewberry; Gresham, Smith and Partners; GCR Inc.; and R. Marchi. 2015. ACRP Report 147: Climate Change
Adaptation Planning: Risk Assessment for Airports. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.17226/23461.
DoD (U.S. Department of Defense). 2021. Metrics and Standards for Energy Resilience at Military Installations.
Memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense. https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads
/IE/Metrics%20and%20Standards%20for%20Energy%20Resilience%2020%20May%202021.pdf.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy New England CHP Technical Assistance Partnership). 2016. Project Profile:
Bradley Airport Energy Center. https://chptap.ornl.gov/profile/22/BradleyAirportpp.pdf.
EEI (Edison Electric Institute). 2022. “EEI Projects 26.4 Million Electric Vehicles Will Be on U.S. Roads in 2030.”
Edison Electric Institute press release, June 20. https://www.eei.org/News/news/All/eei-projects-26-million
-electric-vehicles-will-be-on-us-roads-in-2030.
EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2023a. U.S. Energy Facts Explained. https://www.eia.gov
/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/. Accessed May 10, 2023.
EIA. 2023b. What Is Energy? https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/what-is-energy.
Elliot, B. O., R. B. Chapman, and L. W. Kelly. 2015. ACRP Synthesis 65: Practices to Develop Effective Stakeholder
Relationships at Smaller Airports. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
https://doi.org/10.17226/22114.
97

Encyclopedia Britannica. n.d. Liquefied Petroleum Gas. https://www.britannica.com/science/liquefied-petroleum-gas.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2023a. CHP’s Role Providing Reliability and Resiliency. https://
www.epa.gov/chp/chps-role-providing-reliability-and-resiliency. Accessed September 5, 2023.
EPA. 2023b. Green Power Markets: U.S. Electricity Grid and Markets. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets
/us-electricity-grid-markets. Accessed April 7, 2023.
EPA. 2023c. Inflation Reduction Act Overview. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/12%2009
%202022_OAR%20IRA%20Overview_vPublic.pdf.
EPA. 2023d. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas
-emissions. Accessed September 5, 2023.
EPA. 2023e. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/renewable-energy
-certificates-recs. Accessed February 5, 2023.
E Source. 2021. E Source Business Customer Satisfaction Study. https://www.esource.com/business-customer
-satisfaction-study.
FAA. 2019. Order 5100.38D: Airport Improvement Program Handbook, Change 1. U.S. Department of Transpor
tation. https://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/aip_handbook/media/AIP-Handbook-Order-5100-38D-Chg1.pdf.
FAA. 2021a. FAA Issues Policy on Solar Projects at Airports. Federal Aviation Administration press release,
May 26. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-issues-policy-solar-projects-airports.
FAA. 2021b. United States 2021 Aviation Climate Action Plan. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www
.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2021-11/Aviation_Climate_Action_Plan.pdf.
FAA. 2022. Improving Airport Resilience to Climate Change and Severe Weather. U.S. Department of Transpor
tation. https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-09/Airport_Resilience_Factsheet_2022_09.pdf.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2019. 2019 National Threat and Hazard Identification and
Risk Assessment (THIRA): Overview and Methodology. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/fema_national-thira-overview-methodology_2019_0.pdf.
FEMA. 2021. National Risk and Capability Assessment. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www
.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/risk-capability-assessment.
Gaille, B. 2018. 13 Benefit Cost Ratio Advantages and Disadvantages. Brandon Gaille: Small Business and Marketing
Advice (blog), June 27. https://brandongaille.com/13-benefit-cost-ratio-advantages-and-disadvantages.
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2020. Technology Readiness Assessment Guide: Best Practices for
Evaluating the Readiness of Technology for Use in Acquisition Programs and Projects. Product GAO-20-48G.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-48g.
GHD Inc. 2012. ACRP Report 69: Asset and Infrastructure Management for Airports—Primer and Guidebook.
Green Business Certification Inc. n.d. PEER Certification. https://peer.gbci.org/.
Haberl, J. S., G. Zilbershtein, J. C. Baltazar, C. Mao, A. Ugursal, I. Nelson, P. Parker, and others. 2016a. ATB-EUI
Benchmarking Tool (CD-ROM 178), Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/173795.aspx.
Haberl, J. S., G. Zilbershtein, J. C. Baltazar, C. Mao, A. Ugursal, I. Nelson, P. Parker, and others. 2016b. ACRP
Web-Only Document 27: Methodology to Develop the Airport Terminal Building Energy Use Intensity (ATB-EUI)
Benchmarking Tool. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/23495.
ICF; Gresham, Smith and Partners; and Faith Group. 2018. ACRP Research Report 188: Using Existing Airport
Management Systems to Manage Climate Risk. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://
doi.org/10.17226/25327.
ICF International, Burrst Inc., KRAMER Aeroteck Inc., and S. Barrett. 2016. ACRP Report 160: Addressing
Significant Weather Impacts on Airports: Quick Start Guide and Toolkit. Transportation Research Board,
Illustrated Dictionary of Architecture. n.d. Fritted glass. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Fritted+glass.
Infrastructure Management Group Inc., The Performance Institute, and Counter Technology Incorporated.
2010. ACRP Report 19: Developing an Airport Performance-Measurement System. Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/14428.
Kenville, K. A., and J. F. Smith. 2013. ACRP Synthesis 40: Issues with Airport Organization and Reorganization.
Klauber, A., J. Cathcart, L. Shwisberg, I. Toussie, A. Naslé, K. Fahy, S. Mitchell, Z. Pecenak, M. Stadler, W. Rickerson,
M. Pringle, S. Barrett, and J. Crites. 2021. ACRP Research Report 228: Airport Microgrid Implementation Toolkit.
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26165.
Le Bris, G., L-G. Nguyen, B. Tagoe, P. Jonat, C. Y. Justin, E. Reindel, K. B. Preston, and P. J. Ansell. 2022. ACRP
Research Report 236: Preparing Your Airport for Electric Aircraft and Hydrogen Technologies. Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26512.
Mallela, J., P. Wheeler, G. Le Bris, and L-G. Nguyen. 2023. ACRP Research Report 243: Urban Air Mobility: An
Airport Perspective. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26899.

References 99
Marsh Risk Consulting, HNTB Corporation, and Direct Effect Solutions Inc. 2012. ACRP Report 74: Applica-
tion of Enterprise Risk Management at Airports. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Morrison, G., D. Fordham, E. Emil, C. Fields, K. Blynn, T. Patel, and J. Schroll. 2021. ACRP Research Report 220:
Guidebook for Developing a Zero- or Low-Emissions Roadmap at Airports. Transportation Research Board,
Munoz, R. 2021. Behind Dallas-Fort Worth’s Grand Goals to Be the Greenest Airport on the Planet. Skift. May 3.
https://skift.com/2021/05/03/behind-dallas-fort-worths-grand-goals-to-be-the-greenest-airport-on-the
-planet/.
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 2021. Private, State, and Federal Funding and Financial
Options to Enable Resilient, Affordable, and Clean Microgrids. Arlington, Va. https://www.naseo.org/Data
/Sites/1/naseo_microgrid.pdf.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Enhancing the Resilience of the Nation’s
Electricity System. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/24836.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Future of Electric Power in the United States.
National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25968.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Information).
2023. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/. Accessed
May 10, 2023.
Nolan, P. 2021. Pittsburgh Int’l Boosts Energy Resiliency, Reliability. Airport Improvement, October. https://
airportimprovement.com/article/pittsburgh-int-l-boosts-energy-resiliency-reliability.
Ricondo & Associates Inc., Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., George Mason University, and National Service Research.
2009. ACRP Report 20: Strategic Planning in the Airport Industry. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/14339.
Ritchie, H., and P. Rosado. 2020. Energy Mix. Our World in Data, July. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix.
SBN (South Bend International Airport). 2015. SBN Completes Geothermal Project and Receives Recogni-
tion. South Bend International Airport press release, December 18. https://flysbn.com/sbn-completes
-goethermal-project-receives-recognition/.
Smith, J. F. 2023. Using Return on Investment and Resiliency Return on Investment for Preparedness. Public
Administration Review 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13677.
Transportation Research Board. 2021. TRB Special Report 340: Investing in Transportation Resilience: A Framework
for Informed Choices. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/26292.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2022a. SMART Grants Notice of Funding Opportunity. https://www
.transportation.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/regulations/2022-20597.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 2022b. Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transporta-
tion’s National Infrastructure Investments (i.e., the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability
and Equity [RAISE] Grant Program) Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (“Bipartisan Infra-
structure Law”), Amendment No. 2. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2023-02/RAISE
%202023%20NOFO%20Amendment2.pdf.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2018. Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and
Adaptation in the United States. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/.
Weimar, M. 2022. Framework for Quantitative Evaluation of Resilience Solutions: An Approach to Determine the
Value of Resilience for a Particular Site. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Wash. https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports
/PNNL-28776.pdf.
Willis, H., and K. Loa. 2015. Measuring the Resilience of Energy Distribution Systems. Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, Calif. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR883.html.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development: Our Common Future. New York: United Nations Secretary-General.


Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Transportation Research Board

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
ISBN 978-0-309-70956-9
90000
9 780309 709569

260 - Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

260 - Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

260 - Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This PDF is available at http://nap.nationalacademies.

Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap (2024)

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260

Research sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260

Once selected, each ACRP project is assigned to an expert panel

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR ACRP RESEARCH REPORT 260

ACRP PROJECT 02-98 PANEL

Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport (GUM)

Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (BZN)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Cyril E. King Airport (STT) and Henry E. Rohlsen Airport (STX)

Dallas Fort Worth International Airport (DFW)

Eugene Airport (EUG)

Gerald R. Ford International Airport (GRR)

Kissimmee Gateway Airport (ISM)

Lakeland Linder International Airport (LAL)

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)

Orange County Convention Center

Orlando International Airport (MCO)

Orlando Sanford International Airport (SFB)

Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Memphis International Airport (MEM)

Naval Air Facility El Centro

Naval Base Ventura County

Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (SAV)

Shawnee Regional Airport (SNL)

South Bend International Airport (SBN)

Tallahassee International Airport (TLH)

University of Central Florida (UCF) – Florida Solar Energy Center

Boston Logan International Airport (BOS)

Jackson Hole Airport (JAC)

Pittsburgh International Airport (PIT)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

P A R T I Establish the Starting Point

P A R T I I Plan for the Future

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

42 5.5 Identify Infrastructure Critical to Power

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Role of the Roadmap and Roadmap Organization

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Airport Energy Resiliency Roadmap

5. Establish energy resiliency strategies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Figure S-1. Airport energy resiliency roadmap organization and content.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Why Establish an Airport Energy

1.5 Short- and Longer-Term Resiliency:

2.4 Identifying Existing Supply

3.2 Best Practices for Entering into Partnerships