HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-27 City Council Agenda PacketCITY OF PALO ALTO Special Meeting
CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers
June 27, 2011
6:00 PM
Agenda posted according to PAMC Section 2.04.070. Supporting materials are
available in the Council Chambers on the Friday preceding the meeting.
1 June 27, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Call to Order
City Manager Comments
Oral Communications
Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda; three minutes per speaker. Council reserves the
right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.
Consent Calendar
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by two Council Members.
1.Adoption of a Resolution Vacating a 20-Foot Wide Public Utilities Easement at
211 Quarry Road
2.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a Grant
and Execute an Agreement with the California State Coastal Conservancy for
Funds to Control Non-Native Cordgrass (Spartina) in the City-Owned Baylands
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
HEARINGS REQUIRED BY LAW: Applications and/or appellants may have up to ten minutes at the outset of the
public discussion to make their remarks and put up to three minutes for concluding remarks after other members of the public have spoken.
Action Items
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials,
Unfinished Business and Council Matters.
3.Transmittal of Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study to Council and
Opportunity for Council Direction on Completing Final Feasibility Study
4.Direction on Submission of Letter of Interest to Foothill College Regarding new
Education Center at Cubberley Community Center
2 June 27, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
5.Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1, W-
3, W-4 and W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure
Council Member Questions, Comments and Announcements
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)
AT THIS TIME THE COUNCIL WILL CONVENE AS THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Closed Session
Public Comments: Members of the public may speak to the Closed Session item(s); three minutes per speaker.
6. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and Regulations (James Keene,Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: Palo Alto Police Officers Association (PAPOA)
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
City Designated Representatives: City Manager and his designees pursuant to Merit
System Rules and Regulations (James Keene, Pamela Antil, Dennis Burns, Lalo
Perez, Joe Saccio, Sandra Blanch, Marcie Scott, Darrell Murray)
Employee Organization: International Association of Fire Fighters, (IAFF) Local
1319
Authority: Government Code Section 54957.6(a)
Adjournment
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA)
Persons with disabiltities who require auxilliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who
would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may
contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the Public are entitled to directly address the City Council/Committee concerning any item that is
described in the notice of this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the
Council/Committee on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located on the table
at the entrance to the Council Chambers, and deliver it to the City Clerk prior to discussion of the item. You are not
required to give your name on the speaker card in order to speak to the Council/Committee, but it is very helpful.
3 June 27, 2011
MATERIALS RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THIS AGENDA SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER
DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET ARE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION IN THE CITY
CLERK’S OFFICE AT PALO ALTO CITY HALL, 250 HAMILTON AVE. DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS.
Additional Information
Standing Committee Meetings
Standing Committee Packets from the Administrative Services
Standing Committee Packets from the City Clerk
Action Minutes
Action Agenda from the City Clerk
Schedule of Meetings
Schedule of Meetings from the City Clerk
Tentative Agenda
Informational Report
1.Implementation of the S-1 Trail Alignment along Deer Creek Road between
Page Mill Road and Arastradero Road
2.NOTICE OF VACANCIES ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FOR TWO
TERMS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 (Terms of Lee and Malone-Prichard)
Public Letters to Council
Public Letters to Council from the City Clerk
Supplemental Information
Staff Reports
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1705)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 2
(ID # 1705)
Summary Title: Resolution to Vacate a PUE at 211 Quarry Road
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Vacating a 20-Foot Wide Public Utilities
Easement at 211 Quarry Road
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt the attached Resolution Summarily Vacating a 20-foot
Public Service Utilities Easement (PUE) at 211 Quarry Road, Palo Alto.
Discussion
The owners of the property at 211 Quarry Road (Stanford University), have requested that the
City vacate a 20-foot wide PUE which is no longer necessary due to the relocation of utilities in
connection with the new parking structure being built at this location. Stanford has completed
the relocation of utilities at this property formerly within this PUE and has granted the City new
easements for the placement of those utilities. Therefore, this PUE is no longer necessary for
any future public purpose. Staff has notified AT&T (formerly SBC Communications), the City
Utilities, Public Works and Planning Departments of the proposal to vacate the PUE and all
concur with the vacation. Therefore, the 20-foot wide PUE to be vacated is not necessary for
any present or future use and it may be summarily vacated in accordance with Section 8333 of
the California Streets and Highways Code.
Resource Impact
The easement vacation processing fee of $1,675.00, as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule,
has been paid by Stanford.
Policy Implications
The recommendation does not represent any change to City policies. The Planning Department
has determined that the vacation of the 12-foot wide strip of PUE is in conformity with the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan.
Environmental Review The proposed summary vacation of the 20-foot strip of PUE is
categorically exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15305 as a minor alteration in land
use limitations.
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 2
(ID # 1705)
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Summary Vacation Resolution (PDF)
Prepared By:Martha Miller, Manager, Real Property
Department Head:Lalo Perez, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1784)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1784)
Summary Title: Coastal Conservancy Grant To Control Spartina
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for a
Grant and Execute an Agreement with the California State Coastal Conservancy
for Funds to Control Non-Native Cordgrass (Spartina) in the City-Owned
Baylands
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Community Services
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached resolution (Attachment A)
to:
1.Authorize the submittal of a grant application to the California State Coastal
Conservancy under its invasive Spartina treatment and eradication project,
and approve the terms and conditions of the grant agreement.
2.Authorize the City Manager or his designee, as the person responsible for the
administration of the grant on behalf of the City, including certifications and
any amendments.
Executive Summary
The California State Coastal Conservancy initiated a regional grant funding
program to pay for the costs of control and eradication of non-native Spartina
throughout the nine-county Bay Area. The Invasive Spartina Project is a
coordinated regional effort dedicated to preserving California's extraordinary
coastal biological resources through the elimination of introduced species of
cordgrass. The City of Palo Alto has received annual grant money from this
program since 2003. The Coastal Conservancy proposes that the grant program
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1784)
to the City of Palo Alto continue for an additional two years in the amount of
$11,500.
Background
An aggressive species of non-native cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) was
introduced in the Alameda marina in 1975, and since that time has infected
areas of marshland throughout the San Francisco Bay estuary. This non-native
cordgrass is a threat to the Palo Alto marshes because it crowds out native
cordgrass and saltgrass and displaces nesting habitat for the endangered
California Clapper Rail by its tall, dense foliage.Cordgrasses are highly
aggressive invaders that significantly alter both the physical structure and
biological composition of tidal marshes, mudflats and creeks.
In 1998, the California State Coastal Conservancy initiated a regional program to
combat the spread of non-native Spartina throughout the nine-county Bay Area.
The Invasive Spartina Project is a coordinated regional effort among local, state
and federal organizations dedicated to preserving California's extraordinary
coastal biological resources through the elimination of introduced species of
cordgrass.
In order to enable local agencies to effectively control the spread of the non-
native cordgrass, a grant funding program was established to pay for the costs
of control and eradication. The City of Palo Alto has received grants from this
program for the past eight years. The Coastal Conservancy proposes that the
grant program to the City of Palo Alto continue for an additional two years in the
amount of $11,500 (Grant Agreement –Attachment B).
June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1784)
The Palo Alto marshes, which comprise approximately 1,000 acres, have a
relatively small area (.418 acres) of non-native cordgrass. The invasive species
was identified in two areas of the Palo Alto marshes in 2001, and since that time
the City has hired special skill contractors to systematically treat the non-native
cordgrass during September of each year when birds are not nesting.
Discussion
The proposed grant from the State Coastal Conservancy would reimburse the
City of Palo Alto for all costs incurred with the control of Spartina. The annual
expense for contracted spraying is approximately $5,000. This grant would
reimburse the City for its expenses.
Resource Impact
Work covered by the grant application is the on-going responsibility of the
Community Services Department’s Open Space Division staff. Approval of the
grant will not affect other scheduled park or community facility projects or their
completion timelines.
The systematic containment of Spartina now, while its infestation in Palo Alto
marshes is relatively minor, will reduce the amount of expenditures required in
the future if the plant is not adequately controlled.
Policy Implications
These recommendations are consistent with existing City policies for the
protection of natural resources and protection of wildlife species at the Baylands
Nature Preserve.
Environmental Review
June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1784)
The application for a grant is not considered an action subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act; therefore, no environmental assessment is needed at
this time. Environmental review has been conducted by the Coastal Conservancy
on approved methods of treatment.
Attachments:
·Attachment A-Spartina Grant Resolution (DOC)
·Attachment B-Spartina Grant Agreement Facesheet (PDF)
·Attachment B-Spartina Grant Agreement (PDF)
Prepared By:Daren Anderson,
Department Head:Greg Betts, Director, Community Services
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1
110405 sh 0073531
Resolution No._____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing
the City Manager to Submit to the California State Coastal
Conservancy a Grant Application for Funds which the City
Intends to Expend on Spartina Treatment and Eradication In
the Palo Alto Baylands
WHEREAS, the California State Coastal Conservancy (the “Conservancy”) provides grant funds for the treatment, monitoring and eradication of invasive, non-native cord grass
(Spartina alterniflora) in the marshes of the San Francisco Bay Estuary; and
WHEREAS, the Conservancy accepts, annually, grant applications for projects that
preserve and protect marsh habitat around the bay; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto wishes to accept a grant from the Conservancy that
will result in the reimbursement to the City for funds ($11,500) that are expended in connection
with the proposed control, monitoring and eradication of non-native cord grass (Spartina)in the
Palo Alto Baylands.
NOW, THEREFORE,the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to submit a grant application to, and accept on behalf of the City of Palo Alto a grant of funds made by, the
California State Coastal Conservancy in order that the City may be reimbursed for funds which the City intends to expend on proposed habitat restoration and conservation in the City-owner
Baylands.
SECTION 2. The Council hereby certifies that the City’s staff has reviewed and
understands the General Provisions contained in the Project Contract shown in the Procedural Guide.
SECTION 3. The Council hereby designates the City Manager or his designee as the
person responsible for the administration of the grant application.
SECTION 4. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution, which authorizes the submittal of a grant application, does not constitute a project under the California
Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2
110621 sh 0073531
ATTEST:APPROVED:
____________________________________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:______________________________
City Manager
______________________________
Sr. Asst. City Attorney ______________________________
Director of Community Services
______________________________
Director of Administrative Services
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGREEMENT NUMBER AM. NO.10-099
TAXPAYERS FEDERAL EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NO.
94-6000389
STANDARD AGREEMENT
Std. 2 (Grant - Rev 08/08)
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ____ , 2011,
in the State of California, by and between State of California, through its duly elected or appointed, qualified and acting
TITLE OF OFFICER ACTING FOR STATE AGENCY
Executive Officer State Coastal Conservancy
GRANTEE'S NAME City of Palo Alto
, hereafter called the Conservancy, and
, hereafter called the Grantee.
The Grantee, for and in consideration of the covenants, conditions, agreements, and stipulations of the Conservancy hereinafter expressed,
does hereby agree as follows:
PRIOR GRANT AGREEMENT AND INCORPORATION OF CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS
The State Coastal Conservancy (“the Conservancy”) and the City of Palo Alto (“the grantee”) had previously
entered into Grant Agreement No. 03-074 (which, including all amendments, is referred to as “the prior
agreement”) by which the Conservancy provided to the grantee funds in the total amount of $27,574 for invasive
Spartina treatment and eradication and associated activities under the Invasive Spartina Project (“ISP”) Control
Program. The grant of funds under this agreement enables the grantee to continue with the same activities.
The Conservancy and the grantee have entered into a new agreement, rather than amending the prior grant
agreement, in order to eliminate the administrative burden associated with utilizing an agreement with multiple
amendments, to update and add agreement provisions and to streamline future augmentation of this agreement by
amendment, as contemplated by the parties, if additional funding is available.
(Continued on following pages)
The provisions on the following pages constitute a part of this agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, upon the date first above written.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRANTEE
AGENCY GRANTEE (If other than an individual, state whether a corporation, partnership, etc.)
State Coastal Conservancy City of Palo Alto
BY (Authorized Signature) BY (Authorized Signature)
" "
PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON SIGNING
Samuel Schuchat, Executive Officer Daren Anderson, Division Manager – Parks, Open
Space, and Golf
ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER ADDRESS
1330 Broadway, 13th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510) 286-1015
3201 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 496-6950
AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT PROGRAM/CATEGORY (CODE AND TITLE)
Capital Outlay
FUND TITLE Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality…
I certify that this agreement
is exempt from Department
of General Services’
approval.
Erlinda Corpuz
Contracts Manager
$11,500.00 (OPTIONAL USE) Invasive Spartina Project
PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS AGREEMENT ITEM
CHAPTER STATUTE FISCAL YEAR
$-0- 3760-301-6051(1)(F) 1XXX 2009 09/10
TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED
TO DATE OBJECT OF EXPENDITURE (CODE AND TITLE)
$11,500.00 San Francisco Bay
I hereby certify upon my own personal knowledge that budgeted funds are available for the period and purpose of the
expenditure stated above.
SIGNATURE OF ACCOUNTING OFFICER DATE
"
GRANTEE ACCOUNTING PROJECT MANAGER CONTROLLER STATE AGENCY
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 1
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 2
PRIOR GRANT AGREEMENT AND INCORPORATION OF CONTINUING
OBLIGATIONS (Continued)
As of the effective date of this agreement, the prior agreement will be terminated and void and of
no further effect. Notwithstanding the termination of the prior agreement, the following terms and
provisions will survive the termination and will be incorporated into this agreement as continuing
obligations of the grantee:
1. The grantee will continue to indemnify and hold harmless the State and Conservancy claims
for injuries to persons or damage to property arising out of acts or omission of the grantee
under the prior agreement, as specified in the “INDEMNIFICATION” section, below, and
shall agree to diligently pursue insurance coverage under any insurance policies maintained by
the grantee under the prior agreement for claims for injuries to persons or damage to property
that arose from or in connection with any activities by the grantee undertaken pursuant to the
prior agreement.
2. To the extent that the grantee undertook work under the prior agreement that was reimbursed
by outside funds (which the prior agreement indicated), the grantee remains bound by all
requirements of the outside funds.
3. To the extent and for as long as applicable, the grantee will continue to comply with all
requirements for the work done by the grantee under the prior agreement including the
requirements of: any permit or approval, including those identified in the site-specific
Biological Opinion; all mitigation and monitoring measures for the work under the San
Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report: Spartina Control Program (FEIS/R); and any
approved site-specific plan.
4. If any “non-expendable equipment” (see definition in “EQUIPMENT” section, below) was
acquired by the grantee under the prior agreement, the grantee shall use, maintain, operate and
dispose of that equipment subject to the requirements of the EQUIPMENT section, below.
The grantee shall continue to retain records and permit audit and examination of records as and to
the extent required under the “AUDITS/ ACCOUNTING/ RECORDS” or similar section of the
prior agreement or any other section of the prior agreement relating to the management and
maintenance of records or requirement of audit or inspection of records.
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Chapter 4.5 of Division 21 of the Public Resources Code, Conservancy (“the
Conservancy”) hereby grants to the grantee a sum not to exceed $11,500 (Eleven thousand five
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 3
SCOPE OF AGREEMENT (Continued)
hundred dollars), subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement. These funds shall be used
by the grantee to undertake Spartina treatment and eradication and associated activities (the
project) at the Palo Alto Baylands in the City of Palo Alto and County of Santa Clara, as detailed
in Exhibit A, “2011-2015 ISP Site-Specific Invasive Spartina Treatment Sites”, which is
incorporated by reference and attached.
All funds provided under this agreement, along with in-kind services as may be provided by the
grantee, shall be used by the grantee to plan, prepare for, undertake and complete treatment
activities for the eradication and control of invasive Spartina in the sites identified. The funds may
also be used for activities required for such treatment work, including: (a) the purchase of
herbicide, surfactant and other supplies reasonably needed to complete the treatment activities; (b)
restoration work required as a mitigation measure; or (c) subsequent mapping and monitoring to
determine the effectiveness of the treatment activities.
The grantee shall carry out the project in accordance with this agreement, a site-specific plan and a
work program to be approved by the Executive Officer of the Conservancy (“the Executive
Officer”) pursuant to this agreement. The grantee shall provide any funds beyond those granted
under this agreement which are needed to complete the specific project work for which funding
has been provided.
The specific work to be undertaken by the grantee with the initial funding under this agreement (“the
Initial Project Work”) is specified below; in the event additional funding is available in the future and
the parties agree to augment this agreement, the specific work to be undertaken by the grantee under
the amendment (“the Amendment Project Work”) will be specified in the amendment.
Initial Project Work
The grantee will undertake treatment and eradication and associated activities, with initial funds in
the amount of $11,500, for two treatment seasons from May 2011-December 2011 and from May
2012- December 2012, as follows:
1. Treatment and eradication of the invasive hybrid Spartina at the Palo Alto Baylands.
a. Acreage: .418
b. Methods of treatment: Herbicide application via backpack and truck.
All Initial Project Work, except for ongoing monitoring under the “OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE” section, below, shall be completed by December 31, 2012 (the “Initial
completion date”).
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 4
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT AND
DISBURSEMENT
The grantee shall not commence the Initial Project Work or any Amendment Project Work under
this agreement and the Conservancy shall not be obligated to disburse any funds for such work
unless and until the following conditions precedent have been met with respect to the Initial
Project Work or to any Amendment Project Work:
1. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto has adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of
this agreement or, as to any Amendment Project Work, authorizing an amendment to this
agreement and approving its terms and conditions. The resolution may delegate to any officer
or director of the grantee the authority to execute the agreement or amendment and to approve
its terms and conditions.
2. The Executive Officer has approved in writing:
a. The site-specific plan for each site at which treatment and eradication activities are
proposed, including mitigation measures, and a work program for the specific project work
under the initial funding or under any subsequent amendment.
b. All contractors that the grantee intends to employ in connection with the project work.
3. The grantee has provided written evidence to the Conservancy that the grantee has provided for
required insurance coverage, including additional insured endorsement, as described in the
“INSURANCE” section, below.
4. All permits and approvals necessary to the commencement and completion of the project work
under applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations have been obtained, including,
without limitation, any required Biological Opinion for project work. The Conservancy’s ISP
contractor will obtain all permits and approvals required under state and federal law; the
grantee will obtain all local permits and approvals.
ADDITIONAL GRANT CONDITIONS
1. In carrying out the project, the grantee shall comply with all applicable mitigation and
monitoring measures that are: identified in the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report: Spartina Control
Program (FEIS/R); set forth in the approved site-specific plan; or required by any permit or
approval for the project including those identified in the site-specific Biological Opinion.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 5
ADDITIONAL GRANT CONDITIONS (Continued)
2. For any project work that is on property that is not owned by the grantee, the grantee shall
obtain either (a) written authorization from the owner of the property to undertake the
treatment and eradication activities on that property or (b) written authorization of a state or
local public entity to enter the property for or on behalf of that entity to undertake the activities
and the state or local entity has legal authority to enter the property for the activities and has
undertaken all procedures required to exercise that authority, or (c) the grantee has legal
authority to enter the property for the activities and has undertaken all procedures required to
exercise that authority. The grantee shall provide to the Conservancy documentation of such
authorization prior to commencement of project work on the property.
3. The grantee shall use the herbicide(s) and the surfactant(s) which have been recommended in
writing by the Conservancy as the most appropriate and effective for the site-specific
treatment. If the use of an alternative herbicide or surfactant is proposed by the grantee, the
grantee shall provide for review and written approval of the Executive Officer a request for use
of an alternative and documentation establishing that the alternative is as (or more) effective
and/or appropriate than the identified herbicide(s) or surfactant(s) in the context of the site-
specific treatment.
TERM OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall be deemed executed and effective when signed by both parties and received
in the offices of the Conservancy together with the resolution described in the “CONDITIONS
PRECEDENT TO COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT AND DISBURSEMENT” section of this
agreement. An authorized representative of the grantee shall sign the first page of the originals of
this agreement in ink.
This agreement shall run from its effective date through May 31, 2016, (“the termination date”)
unless otherwise terminated or amended as provided by the agreement. However, all work shall be
completed by the completion date specified in the Scope of Agreement for that work. The grantee
shall submit a final Request for Disbursement no later than 60 days after the completion date for
the project work (“the final invoice date”).
The grantee, in reliance on the grant authorization, may have undertaken administrative activities
for the project, such as preparation for contractor selection, prior to the effective date of this
agreement, in order to meet the timelines for on-the-ground project work. These administrative
activities were done at grantee’s risk and without the Conservancy’s obligation to compensate the
grantee for such work. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, the costs of such work may, in
the sole discretion of the Executive Officer, be reimbursed, if determined to have been necessary to
timely completion of the project and done in a manner consistent with the terms of this agreement.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 6
AUTHORIZATION
The signature of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy on this agreement or on any subsequent
amendment certifies that this agreement or amendment is executed pursuant to an authorization of
the Conservancy by resolution included in a staff recommendation, attached and incorporated,
adopted at a regular or special meeting, as follows:
Initial Project Work: Meeting of March 17, 2011. Staff recommendation attached to this
agreement as Exhibit C.
Work under this agreement or under any subsequent amendment to this agreement is funded, in
whole or in part, with outside grant funds, if specified in the “Scope of Agreement section, above.
The Executive Officer's signature on the first page of this agreement or on any subsequent
amendment certifies that the outside funds were awarded specifically for the work under this
agreement or under the amendment.
WORK PROGRAM
Before starting the Initial Project Work or any subsequent Amendment Project Work, the grantee
shall submit a detailed work program for that work to the Executive Officer for review and written
approval of its consistency with this agreement. The work program shall include:
1. Site-specific plans, including mitigation and monitoring measures. The grantee shall prepare
and review the plans on-site with the Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina Control Program Field
Operations Manager.
2. A detailed work program, including a schedule of completion for treatment and eradication
work at each site, a final project completion date, and a detailed project budget. The project
budget shall describe all labor and materials costs to be incurred to complete each component
of the project. For each project component, the project budget shall list all intended funding
sources, including the Conservancy’s grant, the grantee’s contribution and all other sources of
monies, materials, or labor.
The site-specific plans and work program shall have the same effect as if included in the text of
this agreement. However, the site-specific plans and work program may be modified without
amendment of this agreement upon the grantee’s submission of modified site-specific plans and
work program and the Executive Officer’s written approval of it. If this agreement and the site-
specific plans and work program are inconsistent, the agreement shall control.
If all or any part of the project to be funded under this agreement will be performed by third parties
(“contractors”) under contract with the grantee, prior to initiating any request for contractor bids,
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 7
WORK PROGRAM (Continued)
the grantee shall submit the bid package to the Executive Officer for review and written approval
as to consistency with the purposes of this grant agreement. Upon approval by the Executive
Officer, the grantee shall proceed with the bidding process. Prior to final selection of a contractor,
the grantee shall submit to the Executive Officer for written approval the names of all contractors
that the grantee intends to hire. The grantee shall then comply with the above paragraph regarding
submission and approval of a work program prior to implementation. If the grantee retains a
public entity or a local Conservation Corps organization to do work under this agreement, the
grantee need not solicit bids for the work. If the grantee has previously selected a contractor to
conduct work under the prior grant agreement though a bid process, the grantee may continue to
use the contractor under this agreement, without the need for additional bid process.
The grantee shall carry out the project in accordance with the approved work program.
COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
Upon determination by the Conservancy that all “CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO
COMMENCEMENT OF PROJECT AND DISBURSEMENT” have been fully met, the
Conservancy shall disburse to the grantee, in accordance with the approved project budget, a total
amount not to exceed the amount of this grant, as follows:
Disbursements shall be made on the basis of costs incurred to date, less ten percent, upon
satisfactory progress in accordance with the approved work program and upon the grantee’s
submission of a “Request for Disbursement” form, which shall be submitted no more frequently
than monthly but no less frequently than quarterly. Disbursement of the ten percent withheld shall
be made as follows:
1. Project Work Completion – Treatment Season. The ten percent withheld with respect to any
Initial Project Work or Amendment Project Work for any one treatment season shall be
disbursed to the grantee upon the grantee’s satisfactory completion of the Initial Project Work
or the Amendment Project Work for that treatment season and compliance with the applicable
requirements of the “PROJECT OR TREATMENT SEASON COMPLETION” section of
this agreement, and upon the Conservancy’s acceptance of the work.
2. Project Completion. Any remaining amount of the ten percent withheld shall be disbursed to
the grantee upon the grantee’s satisfactory completion of the project and compliance with the
applicable requirements of the “PROJECT OR TREATMENT SEASON COMPLETION”
section of this agreement, and upon the Conservancy’s acceptance of the project.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 8
COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS (Continued)
The grantee shall request disbursements by filing with the Conservancy fully executed “Request
for Disbursement” forms (available from the Conservancy). The grantee shall include in the forms
its name and address, the number of this agreement, the date of the submission, the amount of the
request for disbursement, the period during which the work was actually done, and an itemized
description, including time, materials, and expenses incurred, of all work done for which
disbursement is requested. The forms shall also indicate cumulative expenditures to date,
expenditures during the reporting period, and the unexpended balance of funds under the grant
agreement.
An authorized representative of the grantee shall sign the form. Each form shall be accompanied
by:
1. All receipts and any other source documents for direct expenditures and costs that the grantee
has incurred.
2. Invoices from contractors that the grantee engaged to complete any portion of the work funded
under this agreement and receipts and any other source documents for costs incurred and
expenditures by any such contractor, unless the Executive Officer makes a specific exemption
in writing.
3. A supporting progress report summarizing the current status of the project and comparing it to
the status required by the work program (budget, timeline, tasks, etc.) including written
substantiation of completion of the portion of the project for which the grantee is requesting
disbursement.
The Conservancy will reimburse the grantee for expenses necessary to the project when
documented by appropriate receipts. The Conservancy will reimburse travel and related expenses
at actual costs not to exceed the rates provided in Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 3, Subchapter 1,
Article 2 of the California Code of Regulations (“CCR”), except that reimbursement may be in
excess of these rates upon documentation that these rates are not reasonably available to the
grantee. Reimbursement for the cost of operating a private vehicle shall not, under any
circumstance, exceed the current rate specified by the State of California for unrepresented state
employees as of the date the cost is incurred. The Conservancy will reimburse the grantee for
other necessary expenses if those expenses are reasonable in nature and amount taking into
account the nature of the project, its location, and other relevant factors.
The grantee’s failure to fully execute and submit a Request for Disbursement form, including
attachment of supporting documents, will relieve the Conservancy of its obligation to disburse
funds to the grantee unless and until the grantee corrects all deficiencies.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 9
EQUIPMENT
If approved under a separate work program, the grantee may purchase equipment that is necessary
to carry out the project.
Title will vest in the Conservancy to any equipment for which funds are disbursed to the grantee
for purchase under this contract (“ISP equipment”).
Throughout the term of this agreement, the grantee shall maintain the equipment in good working
condition and pay all costs of operation and maintenance. The grantee shall also comply with all
requirements related to equipment purchased with any outside funding. The contractor shall
promptly notify the Conservancy if any ISP equipment is damaged, lost, or stolen, and
Conservancy may require the grantee to repair or replace any damaged, lost, or stolen equipment to
the satisfaction of the Conservancy with no expense to the Conservancy. In the event of theft of
any non-expendable equipment, the grantee shall promptly cause a police report to be filed.
The grantee shall utilize equipment purchased under this agreement for the project. The
Conservancy may, at its discretion and on written request of the grantee, provide prior written
approval for the grantee to use non-expendable equipment for other public programs if such other
use does not interfere with the work on the project and provided that the use is consistent with the
requirements of the source of funding used for the original purchase of the equipment and
compatible with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code.
The contractor shall maintain an inventory record for each piece of non-expendable ISP
equipment, including the date acquired, cost, serial number, model identification, and any other
information or description necessary to identify said equipment. A copy of the inventory record
must be submitted to the Conservancy on request.
On termination of the contract, the Contractor will provide an inventory of all non-expendable
equipment, including information from which to reasonably determine whether the equipment has
residual value or not and identifying the source of funding used to acquire the equipment. If the
Conservancy determines that there is remaining residual value in the non-expendable equipment,
the Conservancy may, at its option: (1) request that the equipment be returned to the Conservancy,
with costs incurred by the grantee for such return being reimbursed by the Conservancy; (2)
authorize the continued use of the equipment for work to be performed under a different agreement
or contract; 3) authorize the continued use of the equipment for Spartina eradication and
treatment work; 4) authorize the use or disposition of the equipment under an alternative proposal
made by the grantee, provided that the alternative use or disposition is consistent with the
requirements of the source of funding used for the original purchase of the equipment and
compatible with Division 21 of the California Public Resources Code.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 10
EQUIPMENT (Continued)
“Non-expendable” equipment, as used in this section, means equipment that has a normal life
expectancy of one year or more and an approximate unit price of $250 or more or equipment that,
although having a unit price of less than $250, is of significant value and is theft-sensitive.
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDING AMONG BUDGET
ITEMS
The grantee shall expend funds in the manner described in the approved project budget for the
Initial Project Work or, as applicable, in the approved budget for any Amendment Project Work.
The allocation of the Conservancy’s total grant among items contained in the project budget may
vary by as much as ten percent with the prior approval of the Executive Officer and upon provision
of a revised work program budget to the Executive Officer with the proposed changes identified in
the revised documentation. The Conservancy may withhold payment for changes in particular
budget items which have not received the approval required above. The total amount of this grant
may not be increased except by amendment to this agreement. Any increase in the funding for any
particular budget item shall mean a decrease in the funding for one or more other budget items
unless there is a written amendment to this agreement.
Any proposed change in the approved project budget must also comply with all requirements
imposed by outside funding that will reimburse the grantee for work covered by that budget, which
may include the prior approval of the outside funder.
PROJECT OR TREATMENT SEASON COMPLETION
Within sixty days of completion of the project or of all Initial Project Work or Amendment Project
Work for any one treatment season, the grantee shall supply the Conservancy with evidence of
completion by submitting a final report or a final treatment season report which includes:
1. A “Mitigation Checklist” for treatment work at all sites and subsites signed by the grantee and
by a representative of the Conservancy’s ISP contractor, Olofson Environmental Inc., or one of
its authorized subcontractors.
2. A final report, detailing the activities undertaken and documenting the completion of the project
or the completion of all treatment activities for the treatment season under the site-specific
plan(s) and work program, including acreages treated, maps showing the boundaries of areas
treated, and photographs documenting the implementation of the required treatment.
3. In the case of a final report, a fully executed final “Request for Disbursement” form.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 11
PROJECT OR TREATMENT SEASON COMPLETION (Continued)
Within thirty days of grantee’s compliance with this paragraph, the Conservancy shall determine
whether the project or Initial Project Work or Amendment Project Work for the treatment season
has been satisfactorily completed. If the Conservancy determines that the work has been
satisfactorily completed, the Conservancy shall issue to the grantee a letter of acceptance of the
project or of the Initial Project Work or Amendment Project Work for the treatment season, which
shall be deemed complete as of the date of the letter of acceptance.
EARLY TERMINATION, SUSPENSION AND FAILURE TO PERFORM
Before the project is complete, either party may terminate this agreement for any reason by
providing the other party with seven days notice in writing and the Conservancy may suspend the
agreement upon written notice. In either case, the grantee shall immediately stop work under the
agreement and take all reasonable measures to prevent further costs to the Conservancy. The
Conservancy shall be responsible for any reasonable and non-cancelable obligations incurred by
the grantee in the performance of this agreement prior to the date of the notice to terminate or
suspend, but only up to the undisbursed balance of funding authorized in this agreement. Any
notice suspending work under this agreement shall remain in effect until further written notice
from the Conservancy authorizes work to resume.
If the grantee fails to complete the project as required, or fails to fulfill any other obligations of this
agreement prior to the termination date, the grantee shall be liable for immediate repayment to the
Conservancy of all amounts disbursed by the Conservancy under this agreement. The
Conservancy may, at its sole discretion, consider extenuating circumstances and not require
repayment for work partially completed. This paragraph shall not limit any other remedies the
Conservancy may have for breach of this agreement.
The parties expressly agree to waive, release and relinquish the recovery of any consequential
damages that may arise out of the termination or suspension of this agreement under this section.
The grantee shall include in any agreement with any contractor retained for work under this
agreement a provision that entitles the grantee to suspend or terminate the agreement with the
contractor for any reason on written notice and on the same terms and conditions specified in this
section.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Upon completion of the project the grantee shall work with the Conservancy’s Invasive Spartina
Project to continue control efforts on the project site(s) and shall continue to regularly monitor the
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 12
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (Continued)
site(s) for re-infestations of invasive Spartina for three years following the completion date for the
work under this agreement and shall notify the Conservancy in the event of any re-infestation.
INSPECTION
Throughout the term of the agreement, Conservancy shall have the right to inspect the project area
to ascertain compliance with this agreement.
INDEMNIFICATION
The grantee shall be responsible for, indemnify and save harmless the Conservancy, its officers,
agents and employees from any and all liabilities, claims, demands, damages or costs resulting
from, growing out of, or in any way connected with or incident to this agreement, except for active
negligence of the Conservancy, its officers, agents or employees. The duty of the grantee to
indemnify and save harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Civil Code Section 2778.
This agreement supersedes the grantee’s right as a public entity to indemnity (see Gov. Code
Section 895.2) and contribution (see Gov. Code Section 895.6) as set forth in Gov. Code Section
895.4.
Nothing in this agreement is intended to create in the public or in any member of it rights as a third
party beneficiary under this agreement.
INSURANCE
Throughout the term of this agreement, the grantee shall procure and maintain insurance, as
specified in this section, against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property that may arise
from or in connection with any activities by the grantee or its agents, representatives, employees,
volunteers, or contractors associated with the project undertaken pursuant to this agreement. As an
alternative, with the written approval of the Executive Officer, the grantee may satisfy the
coverage required by this section in whole or in part through: (a) its contractors’ procurement and
maintenance of insurance for work under this agreement, if the coverage otherwise fully satisfies
the requirements of this section; or (b) the grantee’s participation in a “risk management” plan, self
insurance program or insurance pooling arrangement, or any combination of these, if consistent
with the coverage required by this section. The grantee shall maintain property insurance, if
required below, throughout the term of this agreement. Any required errors and omissions liability
insurance shall be maintained from the effective date through two calendar years after the
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 13
INSURANCE (Continued)
completion date. The grantee shall maintain all other required insurance from the effective date
through the completion date.
1. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
a. Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence
Form CG 0001) or ISO Comprehensive General Liability form (1973) or comparable with
Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability endorsement.
b. Automobile Liability coverage: ISO Form Number CA 0001, Code 1 (any auto).
c. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California.
2. Minimum Limits of Insurance. The grantee shall maintain coverage limits no less than:
a. General Liability:
(Including operations, products and
completed operations, as applicable)
$1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If
Commercial General Liability Insurance or other
form with a general aggregate limit is used, either
the general aggregate limit shall apply separately
to the activities under this agreement or the
general aggregate limit shall be twice the required
occurrence limit.
b. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
3. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be
declared to and approved by the Executive Officer.
4. Required Provisions. Each insurance policy required by this section shall be endorsed to state
that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty days’ prior written notice
by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Conservancy. The general
liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the
following provisions:
a. The State of California, its officers, agents and employees are to be covered as insureds
with respect to liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or
on behalf of the grantee; and with respect to liability arising out of work or operations
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 14
INSURANCE (Continued)
performed by or on behalf of the grantee including materials, parts or equipment furnished
in connection with such work or operations.
b. For any claims related to this agreement, the grantee’s insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the State of California, its officers, agents and employees.
5. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance shall be placed with insurers admitted to transact business
in the State of California and having a current Best’s rating of “B+:VII” or better or, in the
alternative, acceptable to the Conservancy and approved in writing by the Executive Officer.
6. Watercraft. If the grantee is to engage in work involving the use of watercraft, the contractor
or its subcontractor(s) shall provide and maintain insurance covering injury to person or
property, which may include, as appropriate, an endorsement to a Commercial General
Liability policy covering non-owned watercraft liability or Protection and Indemnity Insurance
or Jones Act coverage. Coverage shall be in a reasonable amount in light of the nature of the
activity and shall be verified by certificates of insurance and endorsements and approved by
the Executive Officer.
7. Verification of Coverage. The grantee shall furnish the Conservancy with original certificates,
in the form attached as Exhibit D to this agreement amendatory endorsements effecting
coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and
approved by the Executive Officer before work commences. The Conservancy may, at any
time, require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including
endorsements affecting the coverage.
8. Contractors. The grantee shall include all contractors as insureds under its policies or shall
require each contractor to provide and maintain coverage consistent with the requirements of
this section.
9. Premiums and Assessments. The Conservancy is not responsible for premiums and
assessments on any insurance policy.
AUDITS/ACCOUNTING/RECORDS
The grantee shall maintain financial accounts, documents, and records (collectively, “records”)
relating to this agreement, in accordance with the guidelines of “Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles” (“GAAP”) published by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The
records shall include, without limitation, evidence sufficient to reflect properly the amount, receipt,
deposit, and disbursement of all funds related to implementation of the project. Time and effort
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 15
AUDITS/ACCOUNTING/RECORDS (Continued)
reports are also required. The grantee shall maintain adequate supporting records in a manner that
permits tracing from the request for disbursement forms to the accounting records and to the
supporting documentation.
Additionally, the Conservancy or its agents may review, obtain, and copy all records relating to
performance of the agreement. The grantee shall provide the Conservancy or its agents with any
relevant information requested and shall permit the Conservancy or its agents access to the
grantee’s premises upon reasonable notice, during normal business hours, to interview employees
and inspect and copy books, records, accounts, and other material that may be relevant to a matter
under investigation for the purpose of determining compliance with this agreement and any
applicable laws and regulations.
The grantee shall retain the required records for a minimum of three years following the later of
final disbursement by the Conservancy, and the final year to which the particular records pertain.
The records shall be subject to examination and audit by the Conservancy and the Bureau of State
Audits during the retention periods.
If the grantee retains any contractors to accomplish any of the work of this agreement, the grantee
shall first enter into an agreement with each contractor requiring the contractor to meet the terms
of this section and to make the terms applicable to all subcontractors.
The Conservancy may disallow all or part of the cost of any activity or action that it determines to
be not in compliance with the requirements of this agreement.
NONDISCRIMINATION
During the performance of this agreement, the grantee and its contractors shall not unlawfully
discriminate against, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for
employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, ethnic group
identification, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition,
marital status, age (over 40) or sexual orientation (Government Code section 12940). The grantee
and its contractors also shall not unlawfully deny a request for or take unlawful action against any
individual because of the exercise of rights related to family-care leave (Government Code
sections 12945.1 and 12945.2). The grantee and its contractors shall ensure that the evaluation and
treatment of their employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination,
harassment and unlawful acts.
Pursuant to Government Code section 12990, the grantee and its contractors shall comply with the
provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900 et seq.) and
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 16
NONDISCRIMINATION (Continued)
the applicable regulations (California Code of Regulations Title 2, section 7285.0 et seq.). The
regulations of the Fair Employment and Housing Commission regarding Contractor
Nondiscrimination and Compliance (Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of
Regulations) are incorporated into this agreement by this reference.
The grantee and its contractors shall give written notice of their obligations under this clause to
labor organizations with which they have a collective bargaining or other agreement. This
nondiscrimination clause shall be included in all contracts and subcontracts entered into to perform
work provided for under this agreement.
PREVAILING WAGE AND LABOR COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Work done under this grant agreement may be subject to the prevailing wage and other
provisions of the California Labor Code requirements (see Labor Code sections 1720 et
seq.). The grantee shall pay prevailing wage to all persons employed in the performance of
any part of the project and otherwise comply with all associated requirements and
obligations, if required by law to do so.
This agreement is funded in whole or in part with funds from the “Safe Drinking Water,
Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006”
(“Proposition 84”). Section 75075 of the Public Resources Code imposes on a body
awarding any contract for a public works project financed in any part with Proposition 84
funds responsibility for adoption and enforcement of a “labor compliance program” under
Labor Code section 1771.5(b). The grantee shall review these statutory provisions and
related provisions and regulations to determine its responsibilities.
INDEPENDENT CAPACITY
The grantee, and the agents and employees of grantee, in the performance of this agreement, shall
act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of the State of California.
ASSIGNMENT
Without the written consent of the Executive Officer, the grantee may not assign this agreement in
whole or in part.
City of Palo Alto
Grant Agreement No. 10-099
Page 17
TIMELINESS
Time is of the essence in this agreement.
EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S DESIGNEE
The Executive Officer shall designate a Conservancy project manager who shall have authority to
act on behalf of the Executive Officer with respect to this agreement. The Executive Officer shall
notify the grantee of the designation in writing.
AMENDMENT
As expressly provided in this agreement, no change in this agreement shall be valid unless made in
writing and signed by the parties to the agreement. No oral understanding or agreement not
incorporated in this agreement shall be binding on any of the parties.
LOCUS
This agreement is deemed to be entered into in the County of Alameda.
Draft Grant Agreement: City of Palo Alto
Invasive Spartina Project
3/25/11 Marilyn Latta for Daren Anderson review
18
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1632)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Summary Title: Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal
Title: Transmittal of Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study to Council and
Opportunity for Council Direction on Completing Final Feasibility Study
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review the attached Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility
Study and direct staff to submit a Final Feasibility Study in early October 2011 as
planned.
Executive Summary
The City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI), has prepared a Draft Feasibility
Study for a possible Energy/Compost Facility, as directed by Council in staff report
#1550 (Attachment A). The attached Draft Feasibility Study (Attachment B) addresses
many, but not all, of the public and Council comments received on the Preliminary
Analysis prepared by ARI. Staff recommends that Council review the Draft Study and
direct staff to submit the Final Feasibility to Council in early October 2011.
Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location
for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council with
recommended supplemental actions to address additional alternatives, some of which
are outside the current scope. These supplemental actions would address the co-
management of biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings.
The analysis and public review to date has been most successful in vetting the original
alternatives and suggesting even more promising ones for next steps, either within Palo
Alto or elsewhere.
Background
Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force (BRTF) recommended to Council that an
Anaerobic Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water
Quality Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and
wastewater solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been
problematic because of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been
specified for such a facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as
3
Packet Pg. 37
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Parkland (Byxbee Park).
Following receipt of the BRTF Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10, Attachment C),
Council directed staff to:
1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion;
2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9-
acres of Byxbee Park;
3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo
Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan-
Facility Planning process; and
4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo
Alto.
Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Dry Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been
pursuing both nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be
produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto
Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of
the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the
Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and
March 9, and City Council conducted a Study Session on March 21.
Discussion
Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic
Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study
Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. ARI has prepared
a Draft Feasibility Study making the following changes and additions to the Preliminary
Analysis:
1)Including additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet
Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP).
2)Lifting the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the
summary tables.
3)Including the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator
in those alternatives involving the incinerator.
4)Conducting more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing
new data points with respect to the following input parameters:
a.Land Rent Value
b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”)
c.Interest Rate for Loans
d.Contingency Amount
e.Amount of any Grants
5)Summarizing the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the
3
Packet Pg. 38
June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time.
Cost Analysis
The Draft Feasibility Study compares three main alternatives:
1)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (DAD) at the Palo Alto 9-acre site adjacent to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
2)A combination of a San Jose Dry Anaerobic Digestion site (for food scraps), a
Gilroy compost site (for yard trimmings), and the Palo Alto Wastewater
Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”).
3)A combination of a Gilroy compost site (for food scraps and yard trimmings) and
the Palo Alto Wastewater Treatment Plant (for wastewater solids, or “biosolids”).
Several sub-alternatives were explored under each alternative. Results are contained in
the Summary Table (Attachment D) and the report itself (Attachment B).
Table 1 contains data from key runs of the economic model developed by the
Consultant to estimate the costs of each alternative studied. Four different alternatives
are believed to be most representative for comparison and are brought forward to
Table 1:
Alternative 1a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for all three organic streams (biosolids,
food scraps and yard trimmings) at the 9 acre Palo Alto site.
Alternative 1c:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps and yard trimmings on the
9 acre Palo Alto site and Wet Anarobic Digestion for biosolids at the
Wastewater Plant site.
Alternative 2a:Dry Anaerobic Digestion for food scraps at the San Jose site,
composting of yard trimmings at the Gilroy site, and Wet Anaerobic
Digestion at the Wastewater Plant.
Alternative 3a:Composting of food scraps and yard trimmings at the Gilroy site
and Wet Anaerobic Digestion for biosolids at the Wastewater Plant.
The cost analysis is driven by a series of assumptions, including certain policy
assumptions that have not yet been made by the Council (such as land rental rates).
To address the variability of these assumptions, for each Alternative, three scenarios
were analyzed. The three scenarios were based on comments received from the public.
The first scenario contains assumptions that favor the construction of a facility within
Palo Alto (Alternatives 1a and 1c). The assumptions for this scenario are enumerated
at the bottom of the Scenario 1 column in Table 1.
Scenario 3 contains assumptions that favor exporting food scraps and yard trimmings
outside Palo Alto (Alternatives 2a and 3a), and Scenario 2 contains staff’s suggested
assumptions. The assumptions for each are listed in Table 1.
3
Packet Pg. 39
June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Table 1
Energy/Compost Economic Evaluation
Net Present Value (NPV)
Alternatives Scenario 1
(Local Compost)
Scenario 2
(Staff
Scenario 3
(Export Compost)
1a –(PA-DAD)$59 M $72 M $96 M
1c –(PA-Mixed)$111 M $133 M $169 M
2a –(SJ-Food)$94 M $94 M $82 M
3a –(Gilroy based)$89 M $89 M $78 M
Assumptions
Ownership Public Private Private
Financing Below Market Market Rate Market Rate
Grant Funds 15%15%0%
Rent $1/Year $108,000/Year $908,000/Year
CO2 Adder $20/Ton $20/Ton $0/Ton
Contingency ( for export )15%15%0%
The lowest (estimated) cost for two of the scenarios, but the alternative least
demonstrated, is Alternative 1a, where all three types of organic residuals are placed in
separate Dry Anaerobic Digestors in Palo Alto. Adding Wet Anaerobic Digestors for
wastewater biosolids makes Alternative 1c more costly, and the highest of the four for
all scenarios, but at this planning level of analysis, not altogether non competitive with
the export options. However Alternative 1c has been used at more facilities.
Of the export alternatives, 2a (sending food scraps to San Jose) and Alternative 3a
(composting of food scraps and yard trimmings in Gilroy) are comparable.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Analysis
Table 2 contains Greenhouse Gas (GHG) estimates for the four alternatives listed in
Table 1:
Table 2
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Estimates
Alternative CO2 Equilvalents per Year (Metric Tonnes)
1a 13,800
1c 14,200
2a 16,400
3a 15,800
3
Packet Pg. 40
June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Alternative 1a is estimated to produce the least GHG, with the other Alternatives
estimated as shown. Extensive pilot testing would be required for alternative 1a prior
to constructing a full scale facility. All four alternatives are more favorable than the
City’s “no action” Alternative (Alternative 3) which was estimated to be 22,700 Metric
Tonnes/year.
Relationship to Palo Alto Climate Action Plan
The Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan adopted in 2007, set greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction goals for the City and community.These goals were expanded by the City
Council on April 19, 2010.The current mid term goal for 2012 is to reduce the
emissions from City operations by 20% and to reduce the combined City and
Community emissions by 5% from 2005 baseline levels. It should be noted that the City
operations emissions are only approximately 4% of the combined City and community
emissions.The current long term goal for the combined City and Community emissions
is 15% by 2020 from 2005 baseline levels.Based on the assumptions in the
greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent environmental (as part of the ARI team), and
depending on the alternative analyzed, this project could reduce emissions from City
operations by 15% from 2005 baseline levels.It could reduce community emissions by
1.2-1.4% from 2005 baseline levels.The reductions would almost entirely be the result
of retirement of the incinerator and generation of renewable power,and therefore
alternatives that do not involve retirement of the incinerator or that generate less
renewable power show correspondingly lower greenhouse gas reductions.This data is
being provided because members of the public and Council asked staff to show the
GHG reductions relative to the City’s Climate Protection Plan. The Energy/Compost
facility is not in the Plan, nor is the City relying on such a facility to meet the goals of
the Plan. The information is provided simply to show the relative scale of the GHG
reductions. A detailed analysis is available in Attachment E.
Conclusions
The Alternatives studied to date are close enough in costs that it does not appear
warranted to eliminate any of them from further consideration at this time. Therefore,
staff is recommending completing the Feasibility Study in early October as planned.
Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a location
for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and recommend a
new course of action, addressing more alternatives, which were outside the current
scope.
Other Alternatives
The principal comments on the Preliminary Analysis which were not addressed in the
Draft Feasibility Study have to do with a more detailed analysis of alternatives which
were beyond the scope of this study. Gasification, partnering with others, and
integrating Wastewater Plant processes more fully with refuse processes were the key
ones. A status report on Gasification and partnering was presented in Staff Report
#1550 (Attachment A) and no new developments have occurred. With respect to the
3
Packet Pg. 41
June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1632)
Wastewater Plant the Long Range Facilities Planning Process for it continues, and is
expected to conclude in the summer of 2012. The Consultant for that effort (Carollo)
has been asked to begin to look at the interface between wastewater solids and organic
refuse. Specifically they will consider the amount and type of food scraps that could be
co-digested (or otherwise managed) with wastewater biosolids at the wastewater Plant
site. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot Initiative and establish a
location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, staff would return to Council and
recommend new actions to more fully consider the possibilities of co-managing biosolids
and organic refuse. One idea is to utilize the new acreage (should it be approved by
voters) for the aerobic finishing step following anaerobic digestion, some or all of which
would occur at the Plant site. This would require further data gathering.
Resource Impact
Preparing the Final Feasibility Study as planned will not require additional funds.
Council has previously approved funding for ARI to complete this task as part of the
existing contract with ARI. Should the voters approve the November 2011 Ballot
Initiative and establish a location for a Palo Alto Energy/Compost Facility, and should
Council approve studying further alternatives for that site, funding would need to be
identified.
Environmental Review
The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined as CEQA and no enviromental
review is required at this point in the process.
Attachments:
·a:A -Staff Report 1550 with attachments (PDF)
·b:B -Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (PDF)
·c:C -CMR:165:10 (PDF)
·d:D -Summary Table (PDF)
·e:E -Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (PDF)
·f:F -Council Presentation -June 27, 2011 (PPT)
·g:G -Public Letter to Council (PDF)
Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
3
Packet Pg. 42
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1550)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 4/11/2011
April 11, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1550)
Summary Title: Council direction on Energy/Compost Study
Title: Request for Council Direction on Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
due to Council in June 2011
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1)Submit a Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study on an Energy/Compost Facility
in early June 2011, based upon the Preliminary Analysis submitted to Council on
March 21, 2011, and Council and Public Comments.
2)Present a manageable number of scenarios in the Draft Feasibility Study
containing a range of input values which reflect the range of comments received.
Executive Summary
Staff is recommending that Council direct staff to submit a Draft Feasibility Study on an
Energy/Compost Facility in early June 2011, as envisioned in the established schedule
for the City’s consultant, Alternative Resources, Inc. (ARI). This will provide Council with
a draft study reflecting Council and public comments. This will provide Council the
opportunity to terminate the work at that point should Council determine that an
Energy/Compost Facility in Palo Alto does not need further study at that time.
Background
Palo Alto’s Blue Ribbon Compost Task Force recommended to Council that an Anaerobic
Digestion Facility be pursued in the vicinity of the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Plant) to manage the City’s yard trimmings, food scraps and wastewater
solids (“biosolids”). The exact location of such a facility has been problematic because
of Palo Alto’s urbanized nature, the fact that no land has been specified for such a
facility, and the fact that the Landfill has been dedicated as Parkland (Byxbee Park).
Following receipt of the Compost Task Force Report, on April 5, 2010 (CMR:165:10,
Attachment A), Council directed staff to:
1)Hire a consultant to evaluate Dry Anaerobic Digestion;
2)Prepare an applicable level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) focused on 9-
3.a
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
April 11, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1550)
acres of Byxbee Park;
3)Study energy conversion-technologies including Anaerobic Digestion at Palo
Alto’s Wastewater Treatment Plant as part of its Long Range Master Plan-Facility
Planning process; and
4)Pursue partnering opportunities for organics processing within 20 miles of Palo
Alto.
Palo Alto hired ARI to conduct the Anaerobic Digestion Study, and staff has been
pursuing Nos. 3 and 4 above. An appropriately scoped EIR (No. 2 above) will be
produced at the appropriate time should Palo Alto continue to pursue a Palo Alto
Facility. Council members requested that a Preliminary Analysis be completed ahead of
the full Feasibility Study. The Preliminary Analysis was done by ARI and placed on the
Palo Alto website on January 26, 2011. Public meetings were held on February 23 and
March 9,and public comments have been received in writing and at the meetings. City
Council conducted a Study Session on March 21 and staff indicated it would return to
Council for further direction on April 11, 2011.
Discussion
Public comments and Council comments on the Preliminary Analysis of Dry Anaerobic
Digestion on the Landfill/Byxbee Park 9-acre site were received at the Council Study
Session on March 21, 2011. Earlier comments had also been received. Staff has
analyzed those comments and has planned to prepare a Draft Feasibility Study in June
based upon the Preliminary Analysis and the comments received. Should Council direct
staff to continue the Draft Feasibility Study, staff would make the following changes and
additions to the Preliminary Analysis:
1)Include additional “export” (non-Palo Alto site) alternatives in which Wet
Anaerobic Digestion is used in place of incineration at the Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP).
2)Lift the Net Present Value (NPV) analysis from the detailed analysis to the
summary tables.
3)Include the replacement costs of the wastewater solids (biosolids) incinerator in
those alternatives involving the incinerator.
4)Conduct more runs of the economic and greenhouse gas models, providing new
data points with respect to the following input parameters:
a.Land Rent Value
b.Greenhouse Gas Value (“CO2 Adder”)
c.Interest Rate for Loans
d.Contingency Amount
e.Amount of any Grants
5)Summarize the data such that Council can determine whether to complete the
Feasibility Study or forego further work at that time.
In summarizing the data (in No. 5 above) for the Draft Feasibility Study in June, staff
3.a
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
April 11, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1550)
will assist Council in efforts to determine alternatives with the greatest environmental
benefits at the lowest costs. A manageable number of scenarios will be presented to
reflect a range of perspectives. All alternatives will assume that the current RWQCP
Multiple Hearth Incinerator must be replaced at some point.
Other Comments
Staff’s above proposal modifying the Preliminary Analysis does not address all
comments received. Some comments would require substantially more time and
funding. Examples include:
1)A new alternative to combine biosolids and food scraps in wet anaerobic
digesters and then combine the digestate with yard trimmings, using some
combination of the RWQCP site and the Landfill/Byxbee park site;
2)Full integration of the Energy/Compost Feasibility study and the Long Range
Facilities Planning for the RWQCP; and
3)Consideration of gasification and other high temperature conversion technologies
in Palo Alto.
Initiative
It is likely that a Citizen Initiative to undedicate Parkland for an Energy/Compost Facility
will appear on the November 2011 Ballot in Palo Alto. Several points related to the
Feasibility Study can be made:
1)The Initiative does not require construction of a facility, but only allows it. City
Council would ultimately decide whether a facility is constructed.
2)The Initiative contains a provision allowing Council to re-dedicate the site as
parkland after 10 years, if some or all of the area is not used for an
Energy/Compost Facility.
3)The Initiative does not exclusively focus on Dry Anaerobic Digestion and would
allow other “equally environmentally protective” technology alternatives. The
Preliminary Analysis focuses on Dry Anaerobic Digestion. Neither the Preliminary
Analysis nor the Draft Feasibility Study was scoped to provide a quantitative
analysis of all technologies which may be “equally environmentally protective”.
Resource Impact
The additional work described to prepare the June Draft Feasibility Study will require
additional funds. Those funds are being taken from other future tasks in the ARI
contract so that the schedule can be adhered to and the Draft produced in June.
Specifically, the work to prepare the California Envrionmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial
Study will be delayed to allow the more critical work to be completed. Should it be
decided to ultimately complete the CEQA Initial Study, a contract amendment will be
prepared and submitted to Council for approval. This contract ammendment would
require additional funding, but is not the subject of this CMR.
3.a
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
April 11, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1550)
Environmental Review
The Feasibility Study itself is not a “project” as defined by CEQA and no environmental
review is required at this point in the process.
Attachments:
·Attachment A: CMR:165:10 (PDF)
·Attachment B: Public Comment Letters (PDF)
Prepared By:Philip L. Bobel, Manager, Environmental Compliance
Department Head:J. Michael Sartor, Interim Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
3.a
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
•
..-: .. ,.:;
City of Palo Alto 11
City Manager's Report
TO: ' HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 5,2010 CMR:165:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct Staff: 1) To Defer Further Action on an
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility or Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
Composting Facility Within Palo Alto, Until and Unless a Usable Site
is Identified; 2) To Examine the Feasibility of Energy Conversion
Technologies (Including AD Technologies) During the Upcoming
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Planning Process;
3) To Pursue Local Partuering Opportunities with SMaRT® Station
Partners and/or Local Organic Waste Processing Companies that are
Developing Private or Energy Conversion Facilities Within a 20-Mile
Radius of Palo Alto; and 4) To Resume Acceptance of Commercial
Garbage at the Landfill
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1. . Defer further action on an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility or aerated static pile (ASP)
composting facility within Palo Alto, until and unless a usable site is identified;
2. Examine the feasibility of energy conversion technologies (including AD technologies)
during the upcoming Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master PI arming
Process;
3. Jnvestigate and pursue local pannering opportunities with SMaRT® partners andlor local
organic waste processing companies who are developing private AD or energy
eonversion facilities within a 20-mile radius of Palo Alto; and
4. Resume acceptance of commercial garbage at the landfill.
BACKGROUND
Thc City currently maintains a 7.5 acre conventional windrow composting facility for yard
trimmings on an active section of the Palo Alto Landfill (located within Byxbee Park) which is
expected to close within 12 months after the landfill reaches the permitted grading levels. The
landfiIl is expected t(j reach permitted capacity near the end of 20 II. The
green material managed at the facility includes source ,separated yard trimmings such as lawn
clippings, lcaves, tree and shrub clippings, brush, and other vegetative materials generated
through landscape maintenance activities. Additionally, leaves accumulated through the City's
street sweeping operations "selected screened loads" and clean tree trunk/limb wood grindings
(I to 2-inch chips) are also managed at the facility.
CMR:165:10 Page 1 of6
3.a
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep
compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and
approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study
and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council
directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get
the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009
(CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a
citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At
that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options.
On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council
(CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential
impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council
directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from
October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives:
1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report)
submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF);
2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost
operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response;
3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate
an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting
on an interim basis;
4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the
northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations;
5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities;
6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could
work, this would take no more than 90 days;
7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport,
its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County;
8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any
proposals, and
9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed.
In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic
compo sting system, at an unspecified location.
Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders
at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting
are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport
property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff
report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that
public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and
answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010.
CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6
3.a
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
DISCUSSION
Short-term Recommendations
Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations
contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The
analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as
interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an
ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an
interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy
facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost
Facility.
Loeal Siting Options
Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest
comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way),
is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After
furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero
Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that
site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along
Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient
property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and
tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous
individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing
the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way.
With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the
current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to
be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts.
Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for
final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009
Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force.
However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park
site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the
constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is
best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate
mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of
this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate
based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly
the same location on Byxbee Park.
Regional O)2portunities
Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT®
Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately
developed anaerobic digestion facilities.
Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging
quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their
CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6
3.a
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future.
Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the
City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View
and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established
relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021.
Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to
meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an
anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility.
The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being
developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business
partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste
Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages
of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12
miles from Palo Alto.
In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40
acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is
anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant
anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce
biofuel and compost.
GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste,
recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with
GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our
yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also
pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not
identified any specific faeility location yet.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan
Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be
procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including
anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future.
The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year.
Feedstocks and End Products
Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion
technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products
are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed
and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single
technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto.
For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain
feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to
concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will
CMR165:10 Page 4 of6
3.a
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term.
Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is
not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private
facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the
aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to
explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional
locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above.
Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn
On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision:
"The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting
City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF."
Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial
garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council
confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above.
Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0
Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study
Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB
to park use.
As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010,
Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random
voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment
about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing
and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for
less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse
Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language
could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this
type of community outreach.
Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned
areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially
be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter
sentiment towards such a land swap idea.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report
beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan
(CMR:123:07).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CMR165:1O PageS of6
3.a
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies. The recommendation
is consistent with the Council adopted Zero Waste Plan and Council priorities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notes from Public Meeting on November 4, 2009
Attachment B: Notes from Public Meeting on December 9, 2009
Attachment C: Staff Memo on Further Compost Facility Evaluation
Attachment D: Staff Memo Addressing Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 20 10
Attachment E: Map of Potentially Offsetting Areas from Study Session Presentation
PREPARED BY: ~<t·a~~
APPROVED BY: 1l:1~----'
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . J
/ City Manager
Page 6 Qf6
3.a
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
A) Plllllose:
Meeting Summary
1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting
(4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport)
ATTACHMENT A
To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no
imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.)
B) Attendees:
Airport
Community Members
Chuck Byer
Harry Hirschman
Ralph Britton
Pat Roy
Larry Shapiro
Michael Baum
C) Summary:
Former Compost
Task Force Members
Bob Wenzlau
Emily Renzel
Palo Alto City Staff
Cara Silver
Steve Emslie
Phil Bobel
The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated
with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management
(OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations
which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in
Part D).
1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned
buildings) ..
2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and
locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero
Way (currently privately owned buildings).
D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport:
1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10
acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a
I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become
parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no
physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action
involving separate analysis.
IMPACTS:
No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were
reCognized and addressed:
Page I
u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc
3.a
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT A'
a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval
may be needed,
b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft
wingspan.
c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted
access to prevent people and animals from entering.
d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be
augmented in light of sea level rise.
e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North
Runway site which must be maintained.
2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt
facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This
option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the
OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding
would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues.
b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the
Airport access road would be impacts.
c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic
and proximity to fuel storage.
d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur.
e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated
with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply.
3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the
LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities
per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council.
IMPACTS:
The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this
concept.
4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or
both sides of Embarcadero Way.
IMPACTS:
The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out
to be actual impacts on the Airport:
a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated.
Page 2
U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc
3.a
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT A
b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard
waste.
c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste.
5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of
Embarcadero Way are now.
IMPACTS:
No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird
attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero
Way.
6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. FAA approval would be needed
b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety
Issues.
c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed.
d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed.
7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated
static piles) on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating
safety issues.
b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed.
c. FAA approval would be needed.
8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland
(approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as
"Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%.
Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in
the "no airport impact" category.
Page 3
U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc
3.a
Packet Pg. 55
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENTB
On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's
10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be
presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the
following concepts:
1. Interim Aerated Static Piles:
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on
line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is
the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility).
2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto:
a. Airport Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport
and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport.
b. Embarcadero Way Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing
landlbuildings.
c. Landfill CByxbee) Site
. Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a
feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain
availability of the site and the high cost of a
. feasibility/environmental study.
3. Areas to Pursue:
a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic
digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose
(Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the
Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z-
Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility
at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an
idea at this point.
b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master
Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy
recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning
gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings,
or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.)
3.a
Packet Pg. 56
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
The following feedback was received at the meeting;
Comments from Public
On Palo Alto Staff Presentation
at 12/09/09 Public Meeting
ATTACHMENTB'
Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to
questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10:
I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics
management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site.
2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be
revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed.
3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed.
4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which
operating facilities exist should be discussed.
S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show
what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there.
6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it
is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material.
7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the
"long term build-up" issues described.
8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored
to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto
facility schedule. . .
9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs
shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule.
10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a
.Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted.
11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and
biosolids?
12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in
Palo Alto?
13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should
be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process.
14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants
should be described.
15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be
presented.
16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park".
3.a
Packet Pg. 57
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC
Staff Evaluation
Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations
For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The
City of Palo Alto
n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of
sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. .
The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing
composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a
closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic
wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that
could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food
scraps in their green waste carts.
Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of
developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no
land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term.
Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any
existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has
prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility.
2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites.
Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road
Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this
portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated
by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below
summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation
to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1.
If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition
costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely
that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be
necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently
leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road
appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and
development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties
for an organics processing facility.
Page I of 8
3.a
Packet Pg. 58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC
Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES
High Mid Low
Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts
Sold 7/06 lor approx.
WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently
refurbIshed ~ avail
SIDE for lease
2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites -
several vacancies
! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building -
available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased
i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty
Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904
COMPARABLE DATA:
2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006
$4,200,000
1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price
$5,300,000'" $246,51/51
CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure):
Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the
greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project
Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for
business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to
be compensated, .
NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS:
East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP
APN: Assessor's Parcel Number
sf: Square Feet
Page 2 of8
3.a
Packet Pg. 59
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1/10 AITACHMENTC
Figure 1: EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTY LOCATIONS
Airport
I
\
Baylands
. \
" \
Site #2 Embarcadero Road/Airport Site
Based on meetings held with Airport stakeholders, there are no options within the airport
property that have no negative impacts on its operations, finances, or relationships with the FAA
or Santa Clara County,
Page 3 of8
3.a
Packet Pg. 60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC
Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park)
Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of
the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that
could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates
dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill)
and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill.
Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land
adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the
landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this
site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest
elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL.
Permits and Approvals
Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State
permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This
entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline
Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two
EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility
would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use
issues.
• An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may
be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and
later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals;
• A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary;
• A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would
likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would
meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology).
• New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited
partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as
an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in
accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B).
• Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan,
Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc.
Page 40f8
3.a
Packet Pg. 61
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
31111 0 ATTACHMENTC
• The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued
operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features
would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap.
• An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary
for the improvements.
Other Impacts
Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape
screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be
installed at the perimeter of the new facility.
Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned
at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance
of the park/landfill could still be undertaken.
Development Costs
Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary
cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system
that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost
estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity
genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials
handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required
to run a c~mposting system.
The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility
is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput
of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before
these costs could be accurately developed.
3) Evaluation of Other Options
Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of
developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming
RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or
private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities.
Page 5 of 8
3.a
Packet Pg. 62
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Figure 2" C " onceptual Grad" Facility on B b mg Plan for AD yx ee Park
ATIACHMENT"C 3.a
Packet Pg. 63
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2010
IMMEDIATE
"J!
'" ..
" a
'"
BY COUNCIL
Projected Schedule
RFP • Request for Proposal
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
EIR • Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2011 • 2012
Council Decision
2010)
(Apr 2010)
Landfill
TIMELINE IN YEARS
2013 2014
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
2012)
" (Nov 2012)
2015 2016
Selection of
Design-Build
AD Vendor
(JuI2012)
Begin Design,
Focused EIR,
.......... Permits and
Approvals
(JuI2012)
MATERIAL TO SmaRT
2017 2018 2019
Complete and Certify EIR,
rReceive All Pennits and Approvals.
(JuI2016)
. ,
I I , I
I I
Construction
and Startup
(Dec 2017)
P E KIVIAI'II t:: I'll
FACILITY
D . I I AD eSlgn, I Constr I I J • 1 Feasibility I Lag I Vendor CEQA, ! & Startup---1
• • Study/EIR • !TimeL RFP Permit (17 Mos)
(24 Mos) (8 MOS)(9 Mos) (48 Mos)
o
3.a
Packet Pg. 64
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
l '" co
!2. co
NO IMMEDIATE
COUNCIL ACTION
REQUIRED
Staff Driven
(Limited AD at WQCP)
Staff Driven
(Track Partnering Opportunities)
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
Figure 4: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIME LINES
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Begin Feasibility
rMaster Plan
TIMELINE IN YEARS
(June 2010) Landfill Closes
Compost Facility Closes
2011)
Landfill Closes
Complete Feasibility
,..........Master Plan
(May 2012)
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
TRACKIN<iPA~ERING OPPORTUNITIES WITH NEW REGIONAL AD FACILITIES
g
I
~ -i
()
3.a
Packet Pg. 65
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD
Staff Memo
Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010
Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally
paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This
complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that
this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along
with the Composting Report?
The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated:
1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and
Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including
provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation
budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and
approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as
interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to
report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of
the Motion in a timely manner.
Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill
Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas
in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to
fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have
settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and
spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these
already capped landfill areas.
The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to
provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access.
This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas
collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements
to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include
money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks &
Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park
construction.
Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system
underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of
earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two
discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and
Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open
these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction
on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded.
Page 1 of5
3.a
Packet Pg. 66
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
TABLE 1
BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK
I
ESTIMATED
TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE
1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations
IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010
I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010
3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles)
4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001)
5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001)
6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure
reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget
7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure
I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget
I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ???
»-
8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission
('J ::c
9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;::
~
10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action
..,
"
3.a
Packet Pg. 67
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use
would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers?
Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and
closed portions of the landfill:
City of Palo Alto I
Landfill Rent
Schedule
Rent
Payment
(Smoothing
Rent Charged Schedule)
2004-05 7420925 4,288,747
2005-06 7420925 4288747
2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747
.2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747
2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747
2009-10 7420925 4,288,747
2010-11 7420,925 4,288747
2011-12 0 4,288,747
2012-13 0 2,094,332
. 2013-14 0 2,094,331
2014-15 0 2,094331
2015-16 0 2,094,331
2016-17 0 2,094,331
2017-18 0 2,094,331
2018-19 0 2,094331
2019-20 0 2,094,331
2020-21 0 881,851
This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active
and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for
composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill
is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a
longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted.
The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill
closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of
Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for
use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to
Page 3 of5
3.a
Packet Pg. 68
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D
the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively
using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates
are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping
at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping
moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of
determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is
a need for an updated appraisal.
Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the
value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately
that amount?
Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the
property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for
the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely
research and development/industrial use.
Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland -
will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland?
Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and
related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe
appropriate setbacksl buffer zones.
Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the
April 5 discussion?
For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are:
I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection
program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best
or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being.
2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting
facility, and
3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids
and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan.
Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only
if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required.
Page 4 of5
3.a
Packet Pg. 69
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90%
solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing
the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a
full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general
environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A
food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint.
It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other
Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo
Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at
the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City
Council.
Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to
the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion
facility.
Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study
combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be
identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed
$250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services
Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the
proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified,
staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic
digestion at this time.
Page 5 of5
3.a
Packet Pg. 70
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
I I >. 0 C)
c: CO c: en --0 --I , CO I , I ,
--c: Cl) Cl) I ,
CO Cl) ~ s.... « u I ,
0 0 0 c... .....I
April 5, 2010 CMR 165:10
3.a
Packet Pg. 71
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 72
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 73
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 74
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 75
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 76
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 77
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3.a
Packet Pg. 78
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ÿþ
3.a
Packet Pg. 79
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
-
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
1
5
5
0
w
i
t
h
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
1784-5
DRAFT
Energy–Compost Feasibility Study
And
Environmental Impact Initial Study
Prepared For
City of Palo Alto
Prepared By
Alternative Resources, Inc.
in Association with
Ascent Environmental, Inc.,
Douglas Environmental, Inc.,
and
Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc.
June 8, 2011
3.b
Packet Pg. 80
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
i
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1
2.0 Executive Summary............................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 Approach............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 General.......................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis .......................................................................... 3-3
3.3 Economic Analysis...................................................................................... 3-5
3.3.1 Overview...........................................................................................3.5
3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed................................................3.6
3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs................................................................... 3-8
3.3.4 General Information ....................................................................... 3-10
4.0 Results of Study .................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis ......................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Economic Analysis ..................................................................................... 4-2
4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options,
Grants and Other Funding Opportunities....................................................4-5
4.3.1 Project Delivery Options...................................................................4-5
4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery............................................. 4-5
4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different
Project Delivery Methods................................................. 4-6
4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology .... 4-10
4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ........ 4-11
4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options ............................ 4-11
4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities ....................... 4-12
5.0 Next Steps.............................................................................................................5-1
Appendices
Appendix A: Request for Information
Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI
Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates
Appendix D: GHG Model
Appendix E: Economic Model
3.b
Packet Pg. 81
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Table of Contents (continued)
ii
Tables
Table 2-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 2-3
Table 2-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 2-4
Table 2-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-4: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 2-7
Table 2-5: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 2-9
Table 3-1: Study Alternatives.......................................................................................... 3-1
Table 3-2: Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities......... 3-2
Table 3-3: RFI Respondents........................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-4: Construction Costs........................................................................................ 3-8
Table 3-5: Operation & Maintenance Costs.................................................................... 3-9
Table 3-6: Renewable Electric Power Generation ........................................................ 3-13
Table 3-7: Inputs for Export Cases............................................................................... 3-14
Table 4-1: GHG Model Results....................................................................................... 4-1
Table 4-2: Summary of Economic Analyses................................................................... 4-3
3.b
Packet Pg. 82
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for
managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is
evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility at its landfill to
convert food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy
(electricity or fuels) and useable compost.
The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill, next
to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that
the City had dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally,
become part of that park when the landfill closes. An affirmative vote by the electorate will
be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A petition has been filed for such a vote in
the November 2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are
advocates for an AD facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use.
The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility
at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the
City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to
and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be
initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food
waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are
currently incinerated at the RWQCP.
In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management
of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD
facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water
pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost
facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at
the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at
the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study
as part of long range planning efforts for that facility.
The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that
on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard
trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5%
solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost
Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the
biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and
compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids
would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings.
Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the
next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion
technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility
study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD
technology.
3.b
Packet Pg. 83
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
1-2
This report presents the results of the feasibility study, as conducted by Alternative
Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works.
Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and
Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies).
As noted above, the proposed site for the dry AD facility is located at the City landfill, an
unlined landfill, on land the City has dedicated for future park use. The site is on Byxbee
Park and would, operationally, become part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by
the electorate would be required to use this site for a dry AD facility. A petition for such a
vote in a November 2011 election has been filed.
The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the
compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be
used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another
alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas
collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD
facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the
RWQCP biosolids incinerator.
The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers.
The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In
addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station
is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may
consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility.
As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long
range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for
biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP,
consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry
AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system.
This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City
information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from
other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information
(RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI
process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD
project specific to meeting the City’s needs.
The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine
whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other
means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a
comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost.
The draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and
they were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010.
Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in
January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive
3.b
Packet Pg. 84
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
1-3
public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were
received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again,
extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City
Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments.
Further, it was decided to delay preparation of a CEQA Checklist until the draft feasibility
report was prepared. This draft report presents the findings of these most recent analyses.
Subsequent to this draft report, and based on City Council and public review and comment,
a final report will be prepared.
Included in the remainder of this report is an Executive Summary and sections describing
the Approach, Results and Next Steps.
3.b
Packet Pg. 85
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-1
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The City of Palo Alto, California, is currently seeking to determine the best means for
managing food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids. As part of that assessment, it is
evaluating the feasibility of developing a dry anaerobic digestion (AD) facility to convert
food scraps and yard trimmings and potentially biosolids to renewable energy (electricity or
fuels) and useable compost.
The proposed location for the facility is a nine (9) acre site at the existing City landfill next to
the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed site is on land that the
City has dedicated for park use, as part of Byxbee Park, and would, operationally, become
part of that park when the landfill closes. A vote by the electorate would be required to use
this site for a dry AD facility. A petition has been filed for such a vote in the November
2011 election. This is a controversial issue within the City. There are advocates for an AD
facility and advocates for keeping the land for future park use.
The City currently composts yard trimmings at a traditional, open windrow compost facility
at the landfill. Residential food scraps are currently mixed with and collected as part of the
City’s municipal solid waste, taken to the Sunnyvale SMaRT Station, and transported to
and disposed at the Kirby Canyon Landfill in South San Jose. In the future, the City will be
initiating curb side collection of source separated residential food waste. Commercial food
waste is collected separately, transported to and composted in Gilroy. Biosolids are
currently incinerated at the RWQCP.
In addition to consideration of dry AD technology, other long term options for management
of food scraps and yard trimmings include transport and processing at an out of City AD
facility proposed to be built by a private company, Greenwaste, adjacent to the water
pollution control plant in San Jose or transport of these materials to the Z-Best compost
facilities near Gilroy. Options for management of biosolids include continued incineration at
the RWQCP, dry or wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, wet anaerobic digestion at
the RWQCP and other alternatives being evaluated at the RWQCP site in a parallel study
as part of long range planning efforts for that facility.
The City estimates that in 2015, the first year that a dry AD facility may be operating, that
on average approximately 14,000 tons per year (tpy) of food scraps and 21,000 tpy of yard
trimmings will be generated. In addition, approximately 27,000 tpy of biosolids (at 26.5%
solids) will be generated at the RWQCP. In an October 2009 report, the City’s Compost
Task Force recommended that food scraps and yard trimmings, and potentially the
biosolids, be processed by dry anaerobic digestion to produce renewable energy and
compost as part of the City’s long term plan for management of these wastes. Biosolids
would be handled in a separate dry AD cell from the food waste and yard trimmings.
Biosolids would be transported by truck from the RWQCP to the landfill site. One of the
next steps identified was conducting a feasibility study to evaluate dry anaerobic digestion
technology. After considering the Task Force report, City Council directed that a feasibility
study be conducted based on the Task Force recommendations for consideration of dry AD
technology.
3.b
Packet Pg. 86
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-2
This report presents the results of the feasibility study as conducted by Alternative
Resources, Inc. (ARI) in conjunction with City staff at the Department of Public Works.
Subconsultants to ARI included: Ascent Environmental, Inc. (for estimates of greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG); Douglas Environmental, Inc. (to complete a CEQA Checklist); and
Facility Builders & Erectors, Inc. (for completion of site preparation studies).
The City landfill currently receives self haul waste from City residents and is the site of the
compost facility for yard trimmings. The landfill will close in 2011. Interim measures will be
used by the City for yard trimmings and food scraps until the dry AD facility, or another
alternative for long term management, is operational. There is currently a landfill gas
collection system, the gas from which could be used with that produced by the dry AD
facility to produce energy. The landfill gas is currently used in the afterburner at the
RWQCP biosolids incinerator.
The City has a municipal utility that provides electricity and natural gas to City customers.
The municipal utility may purchase electricity and/or gas produced by the dry AD facility. In
addition, the City operates a CNG fueling station for its fleet of vehicles. The CNG station
is located within a few miles of the proposed site for the dry AD facility. The City may
consider purchase of CNG if it is produced by a dry AD facility.
As stated earlier, in parallel with the dry AD feasibility study, the City is conducting long
range planning for its RWQCP. Part of that planning includes consideration of options for
biosolids management at the RWQCP. Should a new project go forward at the RWQCP,
consideration would be given to piping any gas produced at such a new facility to the dry
AD facility at the landfill, which could have a common energy production system.
This feasibility study is based on information included in the Task Force report, City
information, input from interested public groups, the general public, published studies from
other locations, as well as information provided in response to a Request for Information
(RFI) that was distributed to companies in the anaerobic digestion industry. The RFI
process was used to obtain current information from technology suppliers for a dry AD
project specific to meeting the City’s needs.
The feasibility study is intended to provide information to the City so that it can determine
whether a dry AD project is feasible and if it is preferable, or not, when compared to other
means of management of yard trimmings and food scraps. Of key interest to the City is a
comparison of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, and cost.
Draft economic and greenhouse gas models were developed as part of this study, and they
were made available to the public for review on the City’s web site in December 2010.
Further, the draft results of the options considered were provided via the City’s web site in
January 2011. In February and March 2011, two public meetings were held to receive
public comment on these draft results. Extensive written and oral comments were
received. In March 2011, the draft results were presented to City Council. Again,
extensive comment was received. In April 2011, at DPW staff’s recommendation, City
Council approved additional modeling efforts to address City Council and public comments.
Further, to focus on these additional modeling efforts, it was decided to delay preparation of
3.b
Packet Pg. 87
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-3
a CEQA Checklist until the draft feasibility report was prepared. This draft report presents
the findings of these most recent analyses. Subsequent to this draft report, and based on
City Council and public review and comment, a final report will be prepared.
Included in the remainder of this Executive Summary are summary descriptions of the
study approach, results and next steps.
General Study Approach
This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG
emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and
biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options
identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard
trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included
dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and
yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and
incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and
yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export
options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion
at the RWQCP. Table 2-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further
evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and
Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas
for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also
considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes.
Table 2-1. Study Alternatives
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids
Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell)
Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill
Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP
Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Alternative 2: Export
Case 2 Proposed San Jose
AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 2a Proposed San Jose
AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
Alternative 3: Export
Case 3 Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 3a Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST
Wet AD at RWQCP
The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and
biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last
year for a 20-year planning period. Table 2-2 presents those estimates.
3.b
Packet Pg. 88
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-4
Table 2-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings
and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year)
Food Scraps Yard
Trimmings Biosolids Total
First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000
Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000
To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and
operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions,
an RFI was prepared and issued in September 2010. The RFI described the sensitivity of
the site as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the
respondent was to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular
emphasis on needs for odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility.
All food scrap, yard trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully
enclosed with odor control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered,
with odor control, or enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company
participation in the RFI process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost
information, the RFI specified that cost information provided would not be released or
identified specifically by company name in this feasibility report or a public meeting.
Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2011. See Table 2-3.
All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each
of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in
Appendix B of this report.
Table 2-3. RFI Respondents
Technology Respondent
Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group
BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures
Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost
DRANCO Organic Waste Systems
GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power
Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp
Valorga Urbaser
3.b
Packet Pg. 89
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-5
The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of
approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs.
Consequently, the approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs
representative of the lower cost technologies and those representative of the higher cost
technologies. A range of costs was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives
and options identified by the City in Table 2-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would
provide a suitable system for the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings
available in the City. The higher cost systems typically become more economically
competitive when larger quantities of these materials are available.
To supplement the construction and operating costs for Dry AD facilities prepared by the
companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates
prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of
the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper
foundation considering construction on fill material and the geotechnical properties of the
underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates were
prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to the
RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately
2.5 acres and 9 acres.
When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a
planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not
firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal
market procurement for the desired facility and services.
Approach to Greenhouse Gas Analysis
The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting
activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the
establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting
activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities
were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in
the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations
from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses
some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling).
The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these
activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the
California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of
GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the
RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and
incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being
performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The
GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions.
Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e)
3.b
Packet Pg. 90
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-6
according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under
each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives.
In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each
alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were
estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e.,
20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the
tally for each alternative.
The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model
indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation
used to compute the value. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D to this report.
Results of Greenhouse Gas Analysis
The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 2-4.
The total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a, followed by Alternatives 1c and
1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is subject to anaerobic digestion,
the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates that the incineration of biosolids
(under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a high level of CO2-e emissions relative to other
activities included in the model. This is largely due to the fact that the incineration of
biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of natural gas, and because no
methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable electricity. For those
alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas can be
used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to produce electricity. Electricity
produced from biogas would be considered renewable and would displace the consumption
of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from conventional sources, thereby
resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded to pipeline-quality natural gas
and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural gas; however, the combustion of
natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels of GHG emissions as the
consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no reduction would be achieved.
As shown in Table 2-4, the net level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to
produce electricity for those alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with
biogas recovery.
Approach to Economic Analysis
The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected from
the use of the technology applications described above for the management of food scraps,
yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated costs for
alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to existing or proposed
facilities in San Jose and Gilroy, and to the in-City processing of biosolids by either
incineration or wet AD. The analysis projected a tipping fee for the first year of facility
operations (2015) and for subsequent years over a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle
costs and net present value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed.
3.b
Packet Pg. 91
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-7
Table 2-4. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production)
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year
Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831
Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234
Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207
Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106
Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids) 23,329
Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD
Biosolids at RWQCP) 16,430
Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids) 22,716
Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at
RWQCP) 15,818
In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, and then
revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recyclable materials
and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to the City for each
option.
For the AD cases, based upon the information provided by the RFI respondents, it became
apparent that there were two cost groupings, a lower technology cost group and a higher
technology cost group. Therefore, it was decided to model both groups of technologies,
selecting a representative technology from each group. Further, high and low technology
pricing was applied to several cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were
analyzed for three scenarios, Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the
impact of selected values for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing,
potential grant levels, rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate
Action Plan, and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for
those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to anaerobic
digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The individual
scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided by the RFI
respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as financing
approaches and values for products were applied.
Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through March
2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and requests by City
Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses that are presented in
this report.
3.b
Packet Pg. 92
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-8
Results of Economic Analysis
The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three
Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases for low and high cost AD technologies, and four export
cases, a total of 48 model runs. See Table 2-5 below. Recognizing that these are
planning level economic analyses, the key findings can be summarized as follows.
1. For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly than
or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at
the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry
AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food
scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids
processed by wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export cases 2 and 3
that include the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed
incinerator constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the
PALF) is less costly than export cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing
via wet AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are also competitive with export cases
2a and 3a, although somewhat more expensive.
2. For Scenario 2, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard
trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of biosolids,
with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly than export
cases 2 and 3, and case 1d is competitive with export cases 2 and 3; only case 1a is
less costly than or competitive with export cases 2a and 3a.
3. For Scenario 3, case 1a is competitive with export cases 2 and 3, but somewhat
more expensive that export cases 2a and 3a.
4. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present
costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD
technologies or the export cases.
5. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple
hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is
a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids.
Discussion of Project Delivery Options
There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility. These
methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design, construction and
operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project development for public works
infrastructure has been the “public model” with public ownership, public financing, the
“design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design, bidding and construction activities, and public
operation. In the past 20 years, increased interest has grown in alternatives to this
traditional public model, particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that
may not have a long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available
through alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential
3.b
Packet Pg. 93
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses
2-9
Base Cases
Alternative 1
(at Palo Alto Landfill)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill
(PALF)1
$69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet
AD – all @ PALF
$130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP
$129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Incinerated @
RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed
Incinerator on line in 2031
$101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010
High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ PALF
$238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD –
all @ PALF
$213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Wet AD @ RWQCP
$212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized
Bed Incinerator on line in 2031
$177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488
1 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data
3.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
9
4
Attachment: B - Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Table 2-5. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued)
2-10
Scenario 1 & 2 Scenario 3
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility,
Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility
(via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at
RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351
Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer,
Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy
Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at
RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD
Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting
Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids processed via
Wet AD @ RWQCP
$103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002
Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer,
Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy
Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via
Wet AD @ RWQCP
$97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302
3.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
9
5
Attachment: B - Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
2-11
opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction schedules,
and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where appropriate, from a
public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for financing and technical
and economic performance is particularly attractive for development of AD technologies,
which at this time, while operating commercially outside the United States, are only now
being constructed or considered for commercialization in the United States. In addition,
recent Federal funding options including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be
available to private companies.
Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project delivery
methods and the current status of AD technology development in the U.S., it is
recommended that either the Private Model or the design-build-own-operate-transfer
(DBOOT) project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design, construction
and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are the most
advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology facility as they place
financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the private company as well as the
responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT provides a means for public purchase of
the conversion technology facility. These are the least risky approaches for the public
entity. They provide the protection of guaranteed long-term operating performance at the
least technical, environmental and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact
that the public entity does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put
on and train staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as
an AD facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least
initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these
circumstances.
In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies and use
of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT delivery. Lastly,
certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are available only to
privately-owned projects.
Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as a
means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a design-build-operate
(DBO) project delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt
payment risk with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the
Private Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and
operational responsibility and risk.
Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities
There are two fundamental means of financing an AD project: public or private financing.
Section 4.3.2 provides a discussion of these financing options. Also, although it cannot be
guaranteed, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs through mechanisms
such as grants and low-interest loans from both State and Federal funding sources. As a
matter of record, a project in California of a similar nature has this year received a State
grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a facility. Also, Federal grants up to
30% have been awarded, and in one case up to 50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In
addition, by requiring California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the
3.b
Packet Pg. 96
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2-12
percentage of electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and
to provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted
California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic support for
renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered in this study.
Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured.
However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is needed to
support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many sources rely on annual
State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties regarding both State and
Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess whether such funding will be available
at the time (2013) that any of the facilities contemplated by this study would be nearing
financing. The in-depth investigation of potential funding sources will become appropriate
as a project becomes better defined, and the technology, performance and financial
aspects of a project can be matched with the funding opportunities available at that time.
For example, the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) priorities for 2011, according to its
2011-2012 investment plan, are transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other
energy priorities would be included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels
might be, are unknown.
Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support
mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low-interest
loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a part of the
financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case (Scenario 1) and for one
private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed private financing at market rates
without the benefit of a grant.
Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project and,
depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may influence the project
delivery approach adopted.
Next Steps
Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the
results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another
technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some
other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next
steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost
proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort,
firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer
export options. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by
the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications,
consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of
desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for
Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project.
Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further
comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration.
3.b
Packet Pg. 97
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-1
3.0 APPROACH
3.1 General
This feasibility study addresses the economic and environmental issues, including GHG
emissions, associated with options to manage the City’s food scraps, yard trimmings and
biosolids. Alternatives included in-City options and export options. In-City options
identified by the City included dry anaerobic digestion (Dry AD) of food scraps and yard
trimmings at a site at the landfill adjacent to the RWQCP. Options for biosolids included
dry anaerobic digestion at the landfill site, but in a separate unit from the food scraps and
yard trimmings, wet anaerobic digestion at the landfill site or at the RWQCP, and
incineration. In addition, the City identified two alternatives for export of food scraps and
yard trimmings, to existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. For the export
options, the biosolids would either be incinerated or processed via wet anaerobic digestion
at the RWQCP. Table 3-1 provides a tabular listing of the alternatives and options. Further
evaluation was completed to assess beneficial use of the biogas produced by the Dry and
Wet AD processes. Options included generation of electricity and production of natural gas
for insertion into the natural gas pipeline. Use of methane gas from the landfill was also
considered to supplement the gas produced from the AD processes.
The City provided estimated projections for the quantity of food scraps, yard trimmings and
biosolids for 2015, the first year a Dry AD facility could be operating, and for 2034, the last
year for a 20-year planning period. Table 3-2 presents those estimates.
Table 3-1. Study Alternatives
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids
Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell)
Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill
Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet Ad at RWQCP
Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Alternative 2: Export
Case 2 Proposed San Jose
AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 2a Proposed San Jose
AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
Alternative 3: Export
Case 3 Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 3a Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST
Wet AD at RWQCP
3.b
Packet Pg. 98
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-2
Table 3-2. Projections of Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings
and Biosolids Quantities (Tons/Year)
Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids Total
First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000
Last Year: 2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000
To obtain representative, current, market-based information for the cost of constructing and
operating a Dry AD system, as well as technology specific estimates for GHG emissions, a
Request for Information (RFI) was prepared and issued in September 2010 (a copy of the
RFI is included as Appendix A to this report). The RFI described the sensitivity of the site
as part of Byxbee Park and stressed environmental considerations that the respondent was
to take into account for facility design and operation, with particular emphasis on needs for
odor and noise control and minimizing the visual impact of a facility. All food scrap, yard
trimming and biosolids receiving and processing areas were to be fully enclosed with odor
control, and any final curing area for the digestate was to be covered, with odor control, or
enclosed in a building with odor control. To encourage company participation in the RFI
process, particularly to facilitate their providing sensitive cost information, the RFI specified
that cost information provided would not be released or identified specifically by company
name in this feasibility report or a public meeting.
Seven, experienced companies responded to the RFI in November 2011. See Table 3-3.
All seven companies have operating, commercial facilities in Europe. A description of each
of the companies, their technology and photographs of reference facilities are provided in
Appendix B.
Table 3-3. RFI Respondents
Technology Respondent
Axpo-Kompogas St. Engineering Group
BEKON Energy Technologies Mustang Renewable Power Ventures
Bioferm Energy Systems McGill Compost
DRANCO Organic Waste Systems
GICON Bienergie GmbH Harvest Power
Strabag-Linde KCA Ecocorp
Valorga Urbaser
3.b
Packet Pg. 99
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-3
The technologies offered by the respondents to the RFI represent a broad spectrum of
approaches for Dry AD, each having advantages and disadvantages and associated costs.
The technology approaches include simple, manual systems and highly automated
systems, different levels of preprocessing and post AD processing to remove contaminants,
batch feed and continuous feed systems, horizontal and vertical digestion chambers, one
stage and two stage digestion, mixing systems or not in the AD chamber, methalphic and
thermophilic temperature regimes in the digesters, and different methods for curing the
digestate to make compost product. As a result of these different technical approaches,
the space requirements and costs provided by the companies for constructing and
operating the AD systems varied by a large amount; however, the responses fell into two
groups-those with a simpler technology, smaller footprint and lower cost, and those with a
more automated technology, larger footprint and more costly approach. Consequently, the
approach taken for the feasibility study was to identify costs representative of the lower cost
technologies and those representative of the higher cost technologies. A range of costs
was analyzed, “low” and “high”, for each of the alternatives and options identified by the
City in Table 3-1. It is likely that the lower cost options would provide a suitable system for
the City with the quantities of food scraps and yard trimmings available in the City. The
higher cost systems typically become more economically competitive when larger
quantities of these materials are available.
To supplement the construction and operating costs for dry AD facilities prepared by the
companies responding to the RFI, site preparation work was identified and cost estimates
prepared by the ARI team. Site preparation work included landfill excavation, placement of
the excavated material on other areas of the landfill, and provision for pilings for a proper
foundation considering construction on waste fill material and the geotechnical properties of
the underlying natural sediment of San Francisco Bay. Site preparation cost estimates
were prepared specific to facility design requirements provided by companies responding to
the RFI. The facility footprints required by the companies varied between approximately
2.5 acres and 9 acres. A site drawing is provided in Appendix C, as well as the engineering
estimates for site preparation requirements and costs.
When considering the results of this feasibility study, it should be recognized that this is a
planning level analysis and estimates of GHG emissions and project economics are not
firm, fixed figures. To obtain firm, fixed figures it will be necessary to conduct a formal
market procurement for the desired facility and services.
3.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis
The GHG analysis quantified the annual emissions level associated with all GHG-emitting
activities that would occur under each alternative. The first step in this process was the
establishment of an “assessment boundary” to determine the type of GHG-emitting
activities that were analyzed. Generally, the determination of which GHG-emitting activities
were included in the model is consistent with the assessment boundary recommended in
the Climate Action Reserve’s Organic Waste Digestion Project Protocol. Any deviations
from this guidance relate to the fact that the Climate Action Reserve’s protocol addresses
some processes that are not applicable to the City (e.g., manure handling).
3.b
Packet Pg. 100
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-4
Specifically, the assessment boundary of the GHG model begins after the local collection of
food scraps, yard trimmings, and biosolids. This is because these collection activities
would be performed in the same manner under all the alternatives being analyzed (i.e.,
including curbside collection and hauling from local residences and businesses) and also
occur, under existing conditions. Other activities within the assessment boundary include
the following, where applicable:
• additional hauling of yard trimmings and food scraps after local collection in the City,
• dewatering of biosolids at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant,
• transport of biosolids to a dry or wet anaerobic digester (by truck or pump),
• operation of dry and/or wet anaerobic digesters,
• composting of organic material after digestion and/or without digestion,
• incineration of biosolids and associated ash disposal,
• hauling of compost to retailers, and
• hauling of contaminants and residuals to the appropriate landfill.
The end of the assessment boundary includes the final consumption of any energy
produced with the organic wastes, as well as any displacement of GHG-emitting, fossil fuel-
based energy. The end of the assessment boundary also includes the distribution of
compost products made from the organic wastes to local retailers, if applicable. Activities
outside the assessment boundary of the GHG model include those drilling, refining, and
distribution of fossil fuels (e.g., diesel and CNG used in truck hauling, natural gas used for
incineration) and the manufacturing of haul trucks and capital equipment (e.g., pumps,
digesters). The GHG model also does not include reductions in GHG emissions associated
with the replacement of nitrogen-based fertilizers with compost produced from the City’s
organic wastes. Worksheet 2 of the GHG model presents which particular GHG-emitting
activities occur under each alternative. All GHG emission estimates were based on waste
throughput levels projected for the year 2015 (i.e., 14,000 tpy of food scraps, 21,000 tpy of
yard trimmings, and 27,000 tpy of biosolids). Generally, the emissions would adjust
proportionally to changes in the waste throughput during subsequent years.
The types of GHGs emitted by the aforementioned activities include carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Emission levels were estimated for each of these
activities using methodologies established by the California Air Resources Board, the
California Climate Action Registry, the Climate Action Reserve, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and/or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The levels of
GHGs associated with dry anaerobic digestion were based on information provided in the
RFI responses. The level of GHGs associated with wet anaerobic digestion and
incineration of biosolids were based on information provided by a recent study being
performed for the City that evaluates options for handling biosolids from the RWQCP. The
GHG model does not differentiate between biogenic and anthropogenic emissions.
Emissions of CH4 and N2O were converted to units of carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e)
according to their global warming potential. The CO2-e emissions from all activities under
each alternative were tallied to allow for the direct comparison of the alternatives.
3.b
Packet Pg. 101
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-5
In addition, emissions associated with the construction of new facilities under each
alternative (e.g., dry anaerobic digestion facility, wet anaerobic digestion facility) were
estimated and then amortized over the projected operational life of the facility (i.e.,
20 years). The emissions were also converted to CO2-e, as needed, and included in the
tally for each alternative.
The GHG model consists of a system of related worksheets. For transparency, the model
indicates the units of every numerical value, the source of the value and/or the calculation
used to compute the value. Generally, each individual worksheet in the GHG model
represents one of the GHG-emitting activities that would occur under at least one of the
alternatives. Each worksheet is numbered to allow for ease of navigation. Blue text on
each worksheet indicates the next GHG-emitting activity that applies to each alternative, as
well as the corresponding worksheet. The full GHG model is presented in Appendix D.
3.3 Economic Analysis
3.3.1 Overview
The economic analysis was performed to estimate the costs that could be expected
from the use of the technology applications described above for the management of
food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids, and to compare those costs to estimated
costs for alternatives based on the export of food scraps and yard trimmings to
existing or proposed facilities in San Jose and Gilroy. The analysis projected a first
year tipping fee for the first year of facility operations (2015), tipping fees for each
year thereafter for a 20-year operating period, total life-cycle costs and net present
value (NPV) costs for the various alternatives and cases analyzed.
In all cases, capital and operations and maintenance costs were estimated, then
revenues anticipated from sale of products (e.g., electricity, recovered recycled
materials and compost) were subtracted from the total costs to provide a net cost to
the City for each option. For the dry AD cases, based upon the information provided
by the RFI respondents, it became apparent that there were two cost groupings, a
lower technology cost group and a higher technology cost group. Therefore, it was
decided to model both groups of technologies, selecting a representative technology
from each group. Further, high and low technology pricing was applied to several
cases as described in Table 2-1. Those cases were analyzed for three scenarios,
Scenario 1, Scenario 2, and Scenario 3, representing the impact of selected values
for key assumptions, including those for ownership, financing, potential grant levels,
rent, application of a “carbon cost adder” based on the City’s Climate Action Plan,
and application of a contingency on the cost of export. The selected values for
those assumptions resulted in variations in cost that were more favorable to
anaerobic digestion in Scenario 1 and more favorable to export in Scenario 3. The
individual scenarios are described in Section 3.3. In addition to information provided
by the RFI respondents and the City, market-based information on factors such as
financing approaches and values for products were applied. Individual cost and
revenue factors would change over time, and depending on the factor, would be
3.b
Packet Pg. 102
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-6
affected by either inflation, increases in throughput, or both, as shown in the
economic proformas in Appendix E.
Preliminary analyses were prepared and reviewed with the City in January through
March 2011. Following that review process, and with substantial public input and
requests by City Council, the initial analyses were revised, resulting in the analyses
that are presented in this report.
3.3.2 Alternatives and Scenarios Analyzed
With the differentiation between higher cost technology and lower cost technology
pricing levels established, the following alternatives and cases were defined:
Alternative 1(In-City Options for Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings and Biosolids)
Four cases were defined for Alternative 1, all including the development of AD
facilities and, in one case, including biosolids incineration.
Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids would be processed by
dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF). The facility would have
separate processing cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids. All AD
gas produced would be processed at the PALF site.
Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD.
Biosolids would be processed separately by wet AD. Both processes would be
located at the PALF site. All AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF
site.
Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a
facility located at the PALF site. Biosolids would be processed in a wet AD
facility located at the Palo Alto regional water quality control plant (RWQCP). All
AD gas produced would be processed at the PALF site.
Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings would be processed by dry AD in a
facility at the PALF site. Biosolids would be incinerated at the existing RWQCP
multiple hearth incinerator, with ash transported to and disposed of at the
Kettleman Hills Landfill. Further, the existing incinerator would be replaced by a
new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
Alternatives 2 and 2a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids
incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility
at the RWQCP)
Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to and processed at the
planned new San Jose AD facility (“Zanker”). Yard trimmings would be transported
to the SMaRT facility and, from there, transported to and processed at the Gilroy
composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently, as follows:
3.b
Packet Pg. 103
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-7
Case 2 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to
and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be
replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
Case 2a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the
RWQCP.
Alternatives 3 and 3a (Export of Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings. Biosolids
incinerated at the RWQCP or processed at a new, Wet Anaerobic Digestion Facility
at the RWQCP.)
Two cases were defined. Food scraps would be transported to the San Jose transfer
facility, then transported to and processed at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”).
Yard trimmings would be transported to SMaRT, then transported to and processed
at the Gilroy composting facility (“ZBest”). Biosolids would be managed differently,
as follows:
Case 3 - - Biosolids would be incinerated at the RWQCP, with ash transported to
and disposed of at the Kettleman Hills Landfill. The existing incinerator would be
replaced by a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
Case 3a - - Biosolids would be processed at a new wet AD facility located at the
RWQCP.
The Alternatives were further categorized by defining three project scenarios,
influenced by specific factors regarding ownership and financing, the cost of rent for
the use of the site, the impact of the potential CO2 “carbon cost adder” as described
in the City’s Climate Action Plan, and whether the export cases would include a
contingency on assumed costs:
Scenario 1 assumed - - public ownership and financing (with a below market I-
Bank loan up to a capped amount of $10,000,000 combined with market rate tax-
exempt financing for the balance); a 15% grant on construction costs; no rent
charged for the use of the PALF site; costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per
ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in 2007) , and, a 15% contingency added to the
assumed costs for export of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City
processing facilities.
Scenario 2 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest
rates; a 15% grant on construction costs; PALF site rent set at $108,000/year;
costs for the CO2 “carbon adder” ($20 per ton of CO2 equivalent emissions in
2007) and, a 15% contingency added to the assumed costs for export of food
scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities.
Scenario 3 assumed - - private ownership and financing at market-set interest
rates; no grants for construction; PALF site rent set at $908,000/year; no CO2
“carbon adder” costs; and, no contingency added to the assumed costs for export
of food scraps and yard trimmings to out-of-City processing facilities.
3.b
Packet Pg. 104
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-8
3.3.3 Assumptions and Inputs
The principal inputs and assumptions discussed below were applied.
Capital, construction and operating costs
Through the RFI process, several technology contractors provided construction and
operations costs estimates. While the costs can be considered reasonable
estimates for comparative purposes, they should not be considered indicative of
formally proposed prices that would result from a City-sponsored competitive
procurement and should not be considered commitments on behalf of the
companies. The cost estimates were provided in current dollars, then escalated to
the assumed construction year, 2013. Costs for a wet AD facility and for the
prospective fluidized bed incinerator that would be constructed in 2030 were
developed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. as part of their effort for future planning for the
RWQCP The construction cost estimates applied are included in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Construction Costs
($$ Millions)
Case Facility Feedstock 2013 Cost
(Higher Cost)
2013 Cost
(Lower Cost)
1a Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, yard
trimmings, biosolids
$108.6 $39.9 (1)
1b Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.3 $28.4
Wet AD @ PALF Biosolids $40.3 $40.3
1c Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $28.3
Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4
1d Dry AD @ PALF Food scraps, year trimmings $66.7 $26.6
1d, 2,
3
Multiple-Hearth
Incinerator @ RWQCP
Biosolids Existing/no
additional cost
Existing/no
additional cost
1d, 2,
3
Fluidized Bed
Incinerator @ RWQCP
Biosolids $314.8 ($2030) $314.8 (2030)
2a, 3a Wet AD @ RWQCP Biosolids $39.4 $39.4
(1) Uncertainties remain regarding the construction cost provided for Case 1a due to limited data.
Consequently a larger contingency (30%) was applied to the construction cost for Case 1a as compared to
the other cases (15%).
Annual operating costs include the costs for the annual operations and maintenance
of the facility, including facility and equipment repair and replacement. The cost
estimates were provided in 2010 dollars, and then escalated to the assumed first
year of operation, 2015. Costs for items such as residuals transportation and
3.b
Packet Pg. 105
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-9
disposal were separately calculated (see General Information, below). The
operating costs applied are as provided by the RFI respondents or Carollo
Engineers, as appropriate. The operation and maintenance cost estimates applied
are included in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5. Operation & Maintenance Costs
Case Facility 2015 Cost
(Higher Cost)
2015 Cost
(Lower Cost)
1a Dry AD @ PALF $8,140,307 $2,743,042 (1)
1b Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @
PALF
$5,694,922 $4,288,598
1c Dry AD @ PALF; Wet AD @
RWQCP
$5,683,124 $4,276,800
1d Dry AD @ PALF; incineration @
RWQCP
$6,965,874 $5,237,005
2 Export to San Jose (food scraps),
Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids
incineration @ RWQCP (2)
$5,795,634 $5,795,634
3 Export to Gilroy (food scraps,
yard trimmings); biosolids
incineration @ RWQCP (2)
$5,505,615 $5,505,615
2a Export to San Jose (food scraps),
Gilroy (yard trimmings); biosolids
wet AD @ RWQCP (2)
$6,369,577 $6,369,577
3a Export to Gilroy (food scraps,
yard trimmings); biosolids wet AD
@ RWQCP (2)
$6,079,589 $6,079,589
(1) As with capital costs for this case, uncertainties remain regarding the operating costs provided,
due to limited data. Consequently, a contingency of 15% was used for Case 1a as compared to 10%
for the other cases.
(2) Assuming 15% contingency on export costs.
Capital costs also include the costs for financing. Both public and private ownership
approaches were analyzed.
• For public ownership under Scenario 1, it was assumed that the facility would
be financed through a combination of a below-market California I-Bank loan
and tax-exempt revenue bonds. Because individual I-Bank loans are limited to
$10 million per project, it was assumed that the balance of the financing
required for each option would be tax-exempt revenue bond debt. A blended
rate that reflects the combination of these two financing sources was applied,
with the I-Bank loan priced at 3.50% and the remaining tax-exempt debt at
3.b
Packet Pg. 106
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-10
5.00%. For Scenario 1, it was also assumed that the City would be eligible for
a grant equal to 15% of total facility construction costs. As is customary in
revenue bond financings, the tax-exempt portion also included capitalized
interest during the assumed two year construction period and a conservative
15% factor to account for financing costs and the establishment of a debt
service reserve fund (which would earn interest annually and be applied to pay
debt service in the final year of debt amortization).
• For private ownership under Scenarios 2 and 3, it was assumed that the private
developer would need to provide equity and/or grant funds, in effect as a “down
payment” for a financing. Given current market conditions, the total “down
payment” requirement was set at 30%. For Scenario 3, it was assumed that all
of that amount would be funded through equity provided by the developer. For
Scenario 2, it was assumed that the “down payment” would be a combination of
equity (15%) and a construction grant (15%). This difference is important in
that the developer would expect to earn a rate of return on its equity, which
would represent a cost to the project. Thus, the lower the amount of equity
required, the lower will be the annual cash needed for a return on that equity.
Assuming improved conditions over time, a lower equity requirement might be
achievable, which would reduce overall financing costs and tipping fees. It was
assumed that tax-exempt private activity debt would be used, and that that
would carry an interest rate of 5.25%. This represents a 0.25% premium over
governmental purpose tax-exempt bonds to reflect the private ownership of the
project. The owner’s equity was assumed to have a targeted return of 25%
pre-tax (as modeled, the cash flow associated with equity includes both the
return of the equity invested and the return - - profit - - on the equity invested).
As with the public ownership cases, the private ownership approach assumed a
two year capitalized interest period and a 15% factor for financing costs and a
debt service reserve fund.
For all cases, a 20-year debt amortization period with level annual “mortgage-style”
debt service (principal and interest) was assumed.
Actual financial market conditions and project structures at the time of a financing
would affect aspects such as the debt/equity ratio, equity rate-of-return
requirements, financing “soft costs,” interest rates and the term of the financing.
3.3.4 General Information
General information required for the economic analysis included the following
modeling assumptions: inflation rate, discount rate, cost basis year, operations
starting year, study period and facility capacity/waste throughput assumptions.
• Inflation Rate: Inflation rates were used to escalate costs from 2010 dollars to
future dollars. The Consumer Price Index-based inflation rates applied were
based upon recent experience. For construction, the inflation rate applied was
3.90%, as derived from Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost
3.b
Packet Pg. 107
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-11
Indices data for the 1999-2010 period for San Francisco. For operations costs,
the inflation rate applied was 2.40%. This rate was derived based upon US
Department of Labor Statistics consumer price index data (US cities average) for
the preceding 12 years. This rate was used to escalate O&M costs to the first
year of operations (2015), then to escalation those costs each year throughout
the 20-year study period. The escalation of specific costs, the residue tipping
fees at the Kirby Canyon landfill and the costs for the CO2 “carbon adder,” were
escalated at 3.00%/year and 5.00%/year, respectively, as stipulated by the City
based on contract and the City Climate Action Plan.
• Discount Rate: The discount rate is used to calculate net present value (NPV)
costs. NPV can be a useful analytical tool for comparing alternatives, in that it
presents the total costs of a project over the project's life span (in this case, over
a 20-year study period) in current dollars. Because NPV is used to compare
potential costs to the City for various alternatives, the discount rate for NPV
calculation was set at the City’s cost of capital for tax-exempt revenue bonds
(which was assumed to be 5.00%), rather than any potential contractor's cost of
capital.
• Cost Basis Year: The cost basis year is 2010. All companies participating in the
RFI process presented cost estimates in 2010 dollars.
• Operations Starting Year: The economic model is based on the assumption that
waste acceptance and facility operations would begin in 2015, accounting for
estimated times for procurement, permitting, design/construction, and startup
activities.
• Study Period: The study period was assumed to be 20 years of waste
processing and facility operations, as the term for a service contract between the
City and a contractor. A term of 20 years is a common industry practice for these
types of projects.
• Waste Throughputs: Three feedstocks were assumed, as follows, based upon
Year 1 and Year 20 estimates provided by the City, reflecting projected increases
in the generation of individual waste flows:
Waste Year 1 TPY Annual Increase Year 20 TPY
Food scraps 14,000 1.79% 19,000
Yard trimmings 21,000 0% 21,000
Biosolids 27,000 1.30% 34,000
Total 62,000 - - 74,000
• Site Lease Costs: In response to the conclusions presented in the October 2010
Hulberg & Associates appraisal report on prospective alternative costs for the
lease of the site, three site lease cost options were analyzed: Scenario 1, no
3.b
Packet Pg. 108
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-12
costs ($1) for the use of the site; Scenario 2, site lease costs of $108,000/year;
and Scenario 3, site lease costs of $908,000/year.
• Residue Costs: In all cases, whether as residuals from AD processing or ash
from biosolids incineration, a certain amount of residual materials would result
that would require disposal via landfilling. For the modeling performed, the
following residual disposal cost assumptions were applied:
– It was assumed that the residuals produced from AD processing would be
disposed of at the Kirby Canyon Landfill, at a cost that would include
transportation, tipping fee and the landfill tax. The Year 1 costs applied were:
transportation ($11/ton), tipping fee ($41/ton), landfill tax ($20.57/ton).
– It was assumed that incinerator ash would be disposed of at Kettleman Hills
Landfill, at a cost of $226,003 (Year 1).
• Electricity: All of the scenarios and alternatives analyzed assume that the energy
product of the facilities would be electricity. Table 3-6 summarizes estimated
electricity production (kWh/year) and average electricity production (kWh/ton of
materials received for processing). Differences in electricity production are
inherent in different technologies. In all cases, the electricity produced was
assumed to be renewable power that would be sold at renewable energy pricing
levels. The price estimate (assuming a levelized price) estimated by the City for
the power (including both energy and capacity components) was $14.264/MWh
or $0.14264/kWh. Since initial analysis did not show an appreciable difference in
the costs to a project between electricity and gas sales, the final analyses did not
assess the potential to produce and sell biogas, but focused on electricity sales.
• Other Products: In addition to electric power, the other products generated
included compost from AD processing of food scraps and yard trimmings, and
from biosolids. The compost produced from food scraps and yard trimming was
assumed to have a sale value of $30/ton. The compost produced from biosolids
was assumed to have no sale value, and therefore, no revenue to a project.
Cases 2, 2a, 3 and 3a
The input data regarding the export components of these cases, the current
incineration costs and the costs for a new fluidized bed biosolids incinerator, as
assumed for Cases 2 and 3, were provided by the City. The wet AD costs for Cases
2a and 2b were the same as those applied to Case 1c, with the wet AD facility
located at the RWQCP. Those costs are as follows:
3.b
Packet Pg. 109
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-13
Table 3-6. Renewable Electric Power Generation
(Alternative 1 Cases)
Case Generation
(kWh/Year)
Generation
(kWh/Ton)
Higher Cost Cases
1a 16,021,455 (1) 258
1b 8,412,083 401
1c 8,412,083 401
1d 8,412,083 401
Lower Cost Cases
1a 10,138,590 164
1b 11,989,155 193
1c 11,989,155 193
1d 6,188,490 177
(1) It appears that the respondent misinterpreted the data provided in the RFI, in effect
doubling the amount of food scraps and yard trimmings available, resulting in this
particularly high power generation estimate.
3.b
Packet Pg. 110
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3-14
Table 3-7. Inputs for Export Cases
Alternative 2
Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $2.60
Food scraps processing at San Jose AD facility, 2010 ($/ton) $85.00
Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00
Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting
facility, 2010 ($/ton)
$26.00
Biosolids incineration (multiple hearth incinerator), 2010 ($/year) $2,159,440
Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030
(construction cost)
$314,784,895
Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations
cost, $/year)
$4,465,406
Alternative 3
Food scraps transportation to San Jose AD transfer facility, 2010
($/ton)
$2.60
Food scraps transport to and process at Gilroy composting facility,
2010 ($2010)
$70.00
Yard trimmings transportation to SMaRT, 2010 ($/ton) $2.00
Yard trimmings transport to and processing at Gilroy composting
facility, 2010 ($/ton)
$26.00
Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2030
(construction cost)
$314,784,895
Biosolids incineration (fluidized bed incinerator), 2031 (operations
cost, $/year)
$4,465,406
Cases 2a & 3a
Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP 2013 construction year, food scraps
and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above
$39,349,806
Biosolids wet AD at RWQCP operations cost, 2015 ($/year), food
scraps and yard trimmings same as Alternatives 2 and 3 above
$1,678,134
3.b
Packet Pg. 111
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-1
4.0 RESULTS OF STUDY
4.1 Greenhouse Gas Analysis
The total CO2-e emissions generated under each alternative is summarized in Table 4-1
and on worksheet 1 (Bottom Line) of the GHG model. This text summarizes the annual
mass of CO2-e emissions associated with the handling of all three waste types – food
scraps, yard trimmings, and wastewater biosolids – under each alternative. As shown in
Table 4-1, and worksheet 1, the total CO2-e emissions are lowest under Alternative 1a,
followed by Alternatives 1c and 1b, respectively. Generally, the more organic waste that is
subject to anaerobic digestion, the lower the total CO2-e level. The model also indicates
that the incineration of biosolids (under Alternatives 1d, 2, and 3) generates a higher level
of CO2-e emissions relative to other activities included in the model. This is largely due to
the fact that the incineration of biosolids is energy-intensive, consuming high levels of
natural gas, and because no methane is recovered and then used to produce renewable
electricity. Detailed emission estimates for biosolids incineration are shown on
worksheet 17 of the model.
For those alternatives that include dry and/or wet anaerobic digestion, the recovered biogas
can be used in two beneficial ways. Biogas can be combusted to power a turbine that
produces electricity. Electricity produced from biogas would be considered renewable and
would displace the consumption of equal amounts of fossil fuel-based electricity from
conventional sources, thereby resulting in a GHG reduction. Biogas can also be upgraded
to pipeline-quality natural gas and used in place of conventional fossil-fuel based natural
gas; however, the combustion of natural gas made from biogas would result in equal levels
of GHG emissions as the consumption of fossil-fuel derived natural gas and, thus, no
reduction would be achieved. This is indicated in worksheet 1 which shows that the net
level of GHG emissions is lower when biogas is used to produce electricity for those
alternatives that include some form of anaerobic digestion with biogas recovery. Detailed
calculations for energy production are shown on worksheet 16.
Table 4-1. GHG Model Results (With Electricity Production)
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year
Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids) 13,831
Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill) 14,234
Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP) 14,207
Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids) 21,106
Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)
23,329
Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD
Biosolids at RWQCP)
16,430
Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids)
22,716
Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids at
RWQCP)
15,818
3.b
Packet Pg. 112
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-2
4.2 Economic Analysis
The economic analyses performed resulted in six sets of model runs, including three
Scenarios, 28 individual AD cases, and four export cases, a total of 48 model runs. The
results are summarized in Table 4-2. In summary, the results are as follows:
1. As described below, and primarily for Scenarios 1 and 2, several of the lower cost
AD cases are, at the planning level, competitive with export options. Because of the
limited information available, an application of a 30% contingency factor on
construction costs was assumed for Case 1a (as compared to 15% for Cases 1b, 1c
and 1d) for dry AD and a 15% contingency factor was assumed for Case 1a for
operations and maintenance (as compared to 10% for Cases 1b, 1c and 1d) for dry
AD. Case 1a is defined as food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by
dry AD at a facility at the Palo Alto Landfill, with separate processing cells for food
scraps/yard trimmings and biosolids.
• For Scenario 1, several of the lower cost AD technology cases are less costly
than or competitive with export options. Cases 1a (all materials processed via
dry AD at the PALF), 1b (food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at
the PALF and biosolids processed by wet AD at the PALF) and 1c (food scraps
and yard trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and biosolids processed by
wet AD at the RWQCP) are less costly than the export cases 2 and 3 that include
the continued incineration of biosolids with a new fluidized bed incinerator
constructed in 2030. Case 1a (all materials processed via dry AD at the PALF) is
less costly than export cases 2a and 3a that include biosolids processing via wet
AD at the RWQCP. Cases 1b and 1c are also competitive with export cases 2a
and 3a, although somewhat more expensive.
• For Scenario 2, all cases except for 1d (that includes food scraps and yard
trimmings processed by dry AD at the PALF and continued incineration of
biosolids, with a new fluidized bed incinerator constructed in 2030) are less costly
than export cases 2 and 3, and case 1d is competitive with export cases 2 and 3;
only case 1a is less costly than or competitive with export cases 2a and 3a.
• For Scenario 3, case 1a is competitive with export cases 2 and 3, but somewhat
more expensive that export cases 2a and 3a.
2. For Scenarios 1, 2 and 3, for all cases, the higher cost AD technologies present
costs which are significantly more expensive than either the lower cost AD
technologies or the export cases.
3. The option of continued incineration at the RWQCP using the existing multiple
hearth incinerator, then replacing that with a new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030, is
a more costly solution than dry or wet anaerobic digestion for treatment of biosolids.
3.b
Packet Pg. 113
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses
4-3
Base Cases
Alternative 1
(at Palo Alto Landfill)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill
(PALF)2
$69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD
– all @ PALF
$130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Wet AD @ RWQCP
$129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized
Bed Incinerator on line in 2031
$101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010
High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ PALF
$238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids Wet AD
– all @ PALF
$213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Wet AD @ RWQCP
$212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF, Biosolids
Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized
Bed Incinerator on line in 2031
$177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488
2 Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data
3.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
1
4
Attachment: B - Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Table 4-2. Summary of Economic Analyses (continued)
4-4
Scenario 1 & 2 Scenario 3
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility,
Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via
SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New
Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351
Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard
Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy
Composting Facility, Biosolids incinerated at
RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export)
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Year 1
(2015)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
Year 20
(2034)
Tipping Fee
($/ton)
NPV Total
Costs Over 20
Years
Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility,
Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via
SMaRT), Biosolids processed via Wet AD @
RWQCP
$103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002
Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer,
Yard Trimmings to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy
Composting Facility, Biosolids processed via Wet
AD @ RWQCP
$97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302
3.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
1
5
Attachment: B - Draft Palo Alto Feasibility Study w-o Appendices (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
4-5
4. All cases are sensitive to financing assumptions. Today, with the exception of
internal private financing, private financing and ownership, even when grant funds
are assumed, is likely a more costly approach for project development. However,
private financing and ownership also presents the least risk to the City; i.e., the City
is not responsible for debt service payments. In the context of a formal competitive
procurement, it is possible that prevailing market conditions at the time of the
procurement would result in more favorable private financing results.
5. All cases are sensitive to site rent payment assumptions. For example, while the
Scenario 2 cases assumed a site rent of $108,000/year, which added about
$1.75/ton to the cost for Scenario 2 cases, the Scenario 3 cases assumed a site rent
of $908,000/year, which added nearly $15/ton to the cost for Scenario 3 cases.
It can be concluded for Scenario 1 that the economic analysis indicates a sufficiently
favorable comparison of several of the lower cost AD technology cases (Cases 1a, 1b, and
1c) to the export cases to support securing firm pricing proposals for both AD options and
export options; thereby, allowing a more definitive comparison of alternatives. For
Scenario 2, Case 1a provides a similar competitive comparison to export options.
4.3 Discussion of Project Delivery Options, Financing Options, Grants and Other
Funding Opportunities
4.3.1 Project Delivery Options
Project delivery methods, their advantages and disadvantages, and
recommendations regarding AD technology projects are presented below.
4.3.1.1 Methods of Project Delivery
There are many project delivery methods available for developing an AD facility.
These methods involve different approaches for ownership, financing, design,
construction and operation of the facility. The traditional approach for project
development for public works infrastructure has been the “public model” with public
ownership, public financing, the “design-bid-build” (DBB) approach for design,
bidding and construction activities, and public operation. In the past 20 years,
increased interest has grown in alternatives to this traditional public model,
particularly for projects that are costly, utilizing new technology that may not have a
long “track record”, or technology that is licensed and only available through
alternative project delivery options. Such interest has resulted due to the potential
opportunities for private financing, lower cost, shorter design and construction
schedules, and the ability to shift design, construction and performance risk, where
appropriate, from a public entity to a private company. This potential to shift risk for
financing and technical and economic performance is particularly attractive for
development of AD technologies, which at this time, while operating commercially
outside the United States, are only now being constructed or considered for
commercialization in the United States. In addition, recent Federal funding options
including grants, loans or loan guarantees may only be available to private
companies.
3.b
Packet Pg. 116
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-6
Public Model
With traditional design-bid-build, the public entity contracts with an engineer to
design the project, prepare bid specifications and, typically, oversee construction,
and with a separate contractor(s) to construct the project. The public entity is
responsible for directing the separate contractors and assuring overall project
coordination. Operation can be either public or private.
The most utilized alternative project delivery methods for public infrastructure (with
the public model) include design-build (DB), design-build-operate (DBO) and design-
build-own-operate-transfer (DBOOT). DB and DBO methods allow public ownership
and financing for the facility, but the approach for designing and constructing the
facility changes from the traditional “design-bid-build” approach to design-build or
design-build-operate. With DB and DBO, the responsibility for designing, bidding
and constructing the facility is vested in a single entity, responsible to its public client
for overall system performance. With DB, operation of the facility can be public or
put out under separate contract to a private entity. With DBO, operation of the
facility is the responsibility of the private DBO company. With both DB and DBO,
financing and ownership are by the public client. With the DBOOT approach, a
private entity assumes project development risk and provides private financing along
with design, construction and operation of the facility. Initially, the private entity owns
the facility. At the end of a specified term, ownership of the facility would be
transferred to the public entity and the public entity would be responsible for
continued operation of the facility, either by public employees or through a private
operating contract.
Private Model
The private model is another alternative to traditional DBB. With the private model,
a private entity is responsible for project development, financing, designing,
constructing and operating the facility. The private entity owns the facility and
provides a service to the public; i.e., receives and processes municipal solid waste
for a fee. Unlike the DBOOT approach, ownership is not transferred to the public
entity at some agreed to time.
4.3.1.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Project Delivery Methods
Design-Bid-Build Method
The key advantages of using the DBB method include its acceptance by public
officials, its wide use, and the opportunity for control it provides the public entity in
directing design; i.e., making design decisions, approving the design, and
establishing equipment and facility specifications. Public officials are familiar and
experienced with its procedures, from procurement of the design engineer through
project design, bidding and construction; have practices and documents in place to
facilitate future use of this delivery method; are knowledgeable of the companies that
provide the services needed; and are generally comfortable in its application. Also,
3.b
Packet Pg. 117
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-7
many public entities feel strongly that their communities are better served by their
having the ability to control design to the extent allowed by this delivery method.
Disadvantages of DBB include the potential for: higher overall project cost due to the
requirement to bid to a prescribed design (i.e., little latitude by contractors to select
and implement alternative designs that may also do the job at less cost and/or
improve facility performance); a longer project completion schedule, and the
inefficiencies in communication and job completion with separate responsibility for
design and construction; reduced work quality due to the requirements during
bidding to accept the “low bid” for construction; increased cost risk since there is no
guarantee by a single party of a fixed price for design and construction; the potential
for an increase in the number of change orders, claims, or disputes since there is no
single party accepting the risk for both design and construction; and longer project
design and construction schedules since construction cannot commence until design
is 100% complete and bidding completed; and increased public exposure to risk
associated with non-performance (i.e., there is no single point of guarantee for
facility price, the schedule for completion and facility performance). Again, this
higher risk posture results primarily because there is no single point of company
responsibility for design and construction as there are separate contracts for design
and construction between the public entity and the responsible companies. If
something doesn’t work properly regarding price, schedule, or performance, the
potential exists for the designer to point to the construction contractor for poor
performance and for the construction contractor to point to poor design. Resulting
disputes must be resolved by the public entity and ultimately may lead to the public
entity paying to “fix” the problem, and dispute resolution procedures may cause
schedule delays. The public entity will be responsible for long-term facility
performance during operations, unless a private operating contract is let. In such a
case, however, since it would not have participated in design or construction, the
private operator may not be willing to accept operating performance risk to the
extent desired by the public entity, or it may do so, but at a higher cost than might be
possible with DBO or DBOOT.
It should be noted that both the advantages and disadvantages cited above have
been noted by those that practice in this field. As a result, variations to DBB have
developed. They include Construction Manager at Risk, in which the Construction
Manager assumes responsibility for subcontractors during construction; and
Design/Construction Manager at Risk in which the public entity retains a single party
for design and to manage construction. Neither of these methods, however, reaches
the level of private contractor responsibility inherent in DB, DBO, or DBOOT
methods of project delivery discussed below.
Design-Build, Design-Build-Operate, and Design-Build-Own Operate-Transfer
Methods
The key advantages of using the DB, DBO or DBOOT method include the following:
they provide for integration of design and construction and, in the case of DBO and
DBOOT, operation activities, which facilitates communication, efficiency of
performance and reduces the potential for oversights; they use a performance-
3.b
Packet Pg. 118
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-8
based specification in procurement which allows consideration of alternative
designs, which can result in lower project cost for equivalent performance; they
provide the ability to select a contractor based on criteria other than just low cost (for
example the qualifications or risk sharing profiles offered by individual proposers),
which reduces the potential for reduction in project quality; they offer the potential for
lower overall project cost due to flexibility in design, a shorter design and
construction schedule and more efficient completion of work resulting from one point
of management for integrated services and more efficient communication; they
reduce the number of potential change orders, claims, and disputes since there is
one party responsibility for design and construction; they allow a shorter overall
schedule for design, and a guaranteed price and schedule for design and
construction, and for DBO and DBOOT, for operations; and they provide a
guarantee for project performance. In addition to DB and DBO advantages, DBOOT
also provides for private financing and ownership of the facility, and the shifting of
the risks inherent in both to the private owner. DBOOT also provides for the sale of
the facility to the public client at an agreed to date. DB, DBO, and DBOOT project
delivery allow contracting with companies that have a substantial management,
financial and technical resource base, both nationally and internationally. Such
expertise can be helpful in research, planning, trouble-shooting, training, regulatory
review and optimization, particularly for AD technologies only now being introduced
commercially in the United States.
In the case of DBO and DBOOT, private operations also allows for a long-term
(typically up to 20 years, and in some cases longer) performance guarantee and
substantial operations cost and performance risk being passed on to the private
operator, including maintenance, repair and replacement, staffing, staff training, staff
licensing and certification, labor negotiations, compliance with performance
specifications, meeting environmental permit and safety requirements, and, with the
general exception of unforeseen circumstances, such as acts of God or changes in
law, price risk. Typically, in a private operations contract, the private operator is paid
a fixed annual service fee (or fixed unit price, such as $/ton) with adjustment allowed
for inflation. This feature of private operations provides the benefit of predictable
future costs specified by contract, which assists community financial planning and
budgeting. With DBOOT, the service fee is also typically subject to escalation by an
inflation index.
Other benefits of DBO and DBOOT project delivery include less need for day-to-day
public management of operations, allowing the public entity to focus its efforts on
long range planning and implementing those projects necessary for meeting public
needs.
Financial benefits of DBO and DBOOT include the private entity’s bearing of the cost
and risk associated with some or all of the up-front project development activities,
such as permitting.
DBOOT provides for private financing of the facility. Either DB or DBO project
delivery may also provide the option for private financing (with initial private
ownership) of the design and construction of the facility or improvements thereto,
3.b
Packet Pg. 119
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-9
with permanent “take out” financing by the public client (and transfer of ownership to
the public sector) upon completion and acceptance of the facility or improvements
and, with DBO, private financing of capital improvements to the operating facility
over time.
Disadvantages of DB, DBO and DBOOT include: diminished control over approval of
detailed design decisions since the project is based on performance based
procurement specifications (although design review can be conducted by the public
entity with DB, DBO or DBOOT project delivery); and if there is not public oversight,
the potential for diminished quality in work during design and construction of the
facility. For DBO and DBOOT, disadvantages also include: without public oversight,
the potential for inadequate maintenance and upkeep of facilities during operation;
the potential for a reduction in the level of service, if the operation’s contractor is not
adequately monitored; the lack of flexibility in providing service with public
employees when and where one wants to do so to meet a public need; the potential
for reduced competition for designing and constructing future capital improvements
to the facility, as others may perceive that the operator has a competitive edge in
bidding such work; and in some instances, resistance by the public and organized
labor to private operations of public infrastructure. This resistance to private
operations by the public and organized labor can lead to difficult decision making by
elected officials.
Those practicing DB, DBO and DBOOT project delivery (both public entities and the
private DB, DBO and DBOOT companies) have developed means to mitigate the
disadvantages cited above. Those means include: developing a strong, protective
contract which includes provisions for liquidated damages for nonperformance and
contract termination for provisions that include the right to termination for default and
can include the right to termination for convenience; provision of substantial financial
security by the company to ensure compliance with contract standards; providing for
rigorous public and independent engineering and financial oversight of contractor
services to ensure that performance standards are met over the full term of the
contract; conducting regular and unannounced facility inspections; insisting on
regular reporting (monthly, quarterly and annually) and daily communication; and if
there is a transition from public to private operation, providing offers of employment
to public employees at wages and benefits equivalent to those they enjoyed while
public employees. Suitable contracts and procedures have been developed and are
readily available for consideration and use by those public entities that select DB,
DBO and DBOOT project delivery.
With DB there may be some companies that are unwilling to provide their license to
use the technology to a public operator. That might also be the case with DBO and
DBOOT, if the public entity is to become the public operator, after an initial term of
private operation. Discussions with technology providers would be necessary to
determine which providers would make use of their technology subject to private
operation. In addition, with DB and DBO with public ownership, use of Federal
funding assistance with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and
through Department of Energy (DOE) is not possible.
3.b
Packet Pg. 120
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-10
Private Model Delivery Method
The key advantages of the private model are full risk assumption by the private
company for the project’s success, including the technical, environmental,
performance and cost risk of project development, financing (and assumption of debt
payment responsibility), design and construction and operation, and all necessary
activities to provide service. The private model presents the least number of
obstacles for rights for use of a particular technology, as the private company has
licensing rights which may only be available through private ownership. As noted
earlier, the private model also offers the opportunity to seek Federal funding
assistance through ARRA and DOE.
The disadvantages include the loss of public ownership and control of key municipal
infrastructure, and likely higher costs for service. Generally, the cost of capital for
private financing, including the cost of equity participation, is higher than that which
could be expected under public financing and ownership (which then would increase
overall project costs). Moreover, other options (such as DBO and DBOOT) can offer
a similar level of design, construction, schedule, performance and cost risk
protection to the public sector. A major difference is that with the private model, the
public entity is not obligated to make debt service payments, but must agree to a
service contract for purchase of services.
4.3.1.3 Project Delivery for Anaerobic Digestion Technology
Based on the consideration of the advantages and disadvantages of the project
delivery methods presented above and the current status of AD technology
development in the U.S., it is recommended that either the Private Model or the
DBOOT project delivery method be considered for use for financing, design,
construction and operation of an anaerobic digestion technology facility. These are
the most advantageous means to provide for development of an AD technology
facility as they place financing, design, build and operational responsibility on the
private company as well as the responsibilities of ownership. If desired, DBOOT
provides a means for public purchase of the conversion technology facility. These
are the least risky approaches for the public entity. They provide the protection of
guaranteed long-term operating performance at the least technical, environmental
and financial risk to the public entity. It also reflects the fact that the public entity
does not currently operate AD technology or similar facilities. To put on and train
staff to operate and maintain a complex waste management facility, such as an AD
facility, may not be an easy undertaking, nor would it be advantageous, at least
initially, to accept the risk of facility performance during operations under these
circumstances.
In addition, the licenses for many AD technologies are held by private companies
and use of such technology may only be available through private or DBOOT
delivery. Lastly, certain funding opportunities such as under the ARRA and DOE are
available only to privately-owned projects.
3.b
Packet Pg. 121
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-11
Should the City want to consider a public ownership option, with public financing, as
a means to reduce project financing costs, it is recommended that a DBO project
delivery approach be considered. Although the City will assume debt payment risk
with public ownership, a DBO project delivery will provide the benefits of the Private
Model or DBOOT model regarding private assumption of design, construction and
operational responsibility and risk.
4.3.2 Financing Options, Grants and Other Funding Opportunities
4.3.2.1 Public and Private Financing Options
The two fundamental means of financing an AD project are public financing and
ownership and private financing and ownership.
Public Financing and Ownership
Under public financing and ownership, a public agency such as the City would
finance the project and own the project as a public asset. The project could be
revenue-based and financed with revenue bonds, resulting in an “off balance sheet”
transaction to the public sector. Public financing would usually result in the lowest
cost of capital, since upwards to 100% of project costs could be financed with tax-
exempt debt. Publicly-owned projects might also be eligible for State and/or Federal
supports such as grants or loan guarantees.
Public ownership enables the greatest public sector control over technology, design
and construction standards and requirements. Public ownership that follows an
implementation approach such as DB or DBO can include strong cost and
performance guarantees from the contractor.
Revenue sharing arrangements can be structured into an approach such as DBO
with public ownership. The structure can provide for public sector step-in or
contractor replacement rights in the event of contractor breach or default. No
purchase option is required to assure permanent public sector ownership.
However, public ownership creates a greater exposure to the public sector to
ownership (debt payment responsibility) and operations performance and cost risks
than does private ownership.
Private Ownership and Financing
As with public ownership and financing, private ownership and financing would be
“off balance sheet” to the public entity and could include strong contractor cost and
performance guarantees. It could also include an option for the public sector to
purchase the project, as well as revenue sharing arrangements. As with public-
ownership, privately owned projects may be eligible for State and/or Federal support
such as grants or loan guarantees.
3.b
Packet Pg. 122
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-12
Most importantly, the private owner would bear the risks of ownership. The public
sector would be protected against the financial consequences of the worst case
scenario, the financial or technical failure of the project. For example, many publicly-
sponsored projects that are based on private financing and ownership now require
the private ownership to post security that will guarantee the demolition and removal
of a facility in the event of a default that leads to contract termination.
However, a private owner may resist extensive public sector control over technology,
design and construction elements.
Most importantly, private financing typically results in a higher cost of capital than
does public financing. Although a private financing can include tax-exempt debt,
that debt would carry a somewhat higher interest rate than would customary tax-
exempt municipal revenue bonds. Moreover, the debt providers (lenders) in private
financings usually require an equity investment (a “down payment”) on the part of
the private owner (see the financing discussion in Section 3.3, above). Equity is
considered higher-risk capital than is debt and, as such, is significantly more
expensive. For example, while in today’s financial climate long-term tax-exempt
bonds may carry interest rates in the 5.00% to 5.25% range, equity will carry a rate-
of-return requirement (analogous to an interest rate) in the range of 15% to 25%.
This requirement becomes even more onerous because, in today’s climate, lenders
might require an equity “down payment” of up to 30%. Thus, even though the debt
interest rate may be attractive, a substantial portion of the overall private financing
structure might need to consist of expensive equity. An alternative to this type of
equity financing is for a private company to fund the project from internal funds or
from an existing banking relationship. This can reduce or eliminate the high cost of
equity financing.
4.3.2.2 Grants and Other Funding Opportunities
Given State and Federal policies and incentives, particularly for the development of
renewable energy sources, there may be opportunities to off-set a project’s costs
through mechanisms such as grants and low-interest loans. Also, by requiring
California utilities to increase their “renewable portfolio standard” (the percentage of
electric power generated by renewable energy sources) to 33% by 2020, and to
provide above-market pricing for the purchase of such power, the recently enacted
California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant economic
support for renewable energy facilities such as the conversion technology facilities
considered in this study.
In California, potential pertinent funding sources include the California Energy
Commission (CEC), which provides grants to renewable energy projects (primarily to
private parties) and the Infrastructure State Revolving Loan Program (I-Bank), which
provides below-market low interest loans to public entities. Favorable pricing for
renewable energy under the California Renewable Energy Resources Act acts as a
financial support to renewable energy facilities. Another financing avenue is the use
of tax-exempt private activity bonds, which enable private borrowers (such as CT
facility developers) to borrow money at tax-exempt rates, avoiding higher cost
3.b
Packet Pg. 123
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
4-13
commercial financing, for projects. In California, private activity bonds are issued by
the California Pollution Control Financing Authority, California Statewide
Communities Development Authority and California Industrial Development
Financing Advisory Commission.
At the Federal levels, one of the most accessible programs is the loan guarantee
program of the US Department of Energy, which provides guarantees on loans to
privately developed and owned renewable energy projects. Other Federal agencies
that provide financing support include the Department of Commerce/Economic
Development Administration (which provides loans and grants to projects in
economically-depressed areas) and the Department of Agriculture (which provides
grants and loan guarantees to renewable energy projects which do not necessarily
need to be located in agricultural areas).
As an example of the grant potential, a project in California of a similar nature has
this year received a State grant on the order of 20% of the construction cost of a
facility. Also, Federal grants up to 30% have been awarded, and in one case up to
50% by U.S. DOE in a matching grant. In addition, as discussed above, the recently
enacted California Renewable Energy Resources Act provides a significant
economic support for renewable energy facilities such as the AD facilities considered
in this study.
Potential funding sources will warrant consideration as a project is being structured.
However, the type of project-specific technical and financial information that is
needed to support such consideration is not available at this time. Also, many
sources rely on annual State or Federal budgeting, and given current uncertainties
regarding both State and Federal budgeting, it is difficult to definitively assess
whether such funding will be available at the time (2013) that any of the facilities
contemplated by this study would be nearing financing. The in-depth investigation of
potential funding sources will become appropriate as a project becomes better
defined, and the technology, performance and financial aspects of a project can be
matched with the funding opportunities available at that time. For example, the
CEC’s priorities for 2011, according to its 2011-2012 investment plan, are
transportation and vehicular programs. Whether other energy priorities would be
included in plans for later years, and what the funding levels might be, are unknown.
Given such uncertainties, for the analyses performed, two potential funding support
mechanisms were modeled: public financing (Scenario 1) that would include a low-
interest loan I-Bank loan (which is not directly dependent on State budgeting) as a
part of the financing structure, and a 15% grant for the public ownership case
(Scenario 1) and for one private-ownership case (Scenario 2). Scenario 3 assumed
private financing at market rates without the benefit of a grant.
Any State or Federal support mechanism would improve the economics of a project
and, depending upon the availability and value of any one mechanism, may
influence the project delivery approach adopted.
3.b
Packet Pg. 124
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
5-1
5.0 NEXT STEPS
Should the site at Byxbee Park become available, and the City determine based on the
results of this feasibility study that it will further consider anaerobic digestion or another
technology for food scraps and yard trimmings, with or without anaerobic digestion or some
other solution for biosolids at the site or at the RWQCP, it is recommended that the next
steps include completing the CEQA checklist and then obtaining firm technical and cost
proposals from private companies for the desired facility and services. As part of this effort,
firm technical and cost proposals should also be obtained from companies that would offer
an export option. Obtaining Proposals for in-City and export options will entail definition by
the City of the facility concept and/or services, identification of performance specifications,
consideration of facility ownership and financing options, as appropriate, and definition of
desired business terms and contract principles, all to be made part of a Request for
Proposals (RFP). The issuance of an RFP does not obligate the City to pursue a project.
Resulting Proposals will provide firm technical and cost information necessary for further
comparison of in-City and export options and project consideration.
3.b
Packet Pg. 125
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Request for Information
Appendix B: Description of Companies, Technologies Responding to RFI
Appendix C: Site Drawing; Site Preparation Requirements and Cost Estimates
Appendix D: GHG Model
Appendix E: Economic Model
3.b
Packet Pg. 126
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
B
-
D
r
a
f
t
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
w
-
o
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
•
..-: .. ,.:;
City of Palo Alto 11
City Manager's Report
TO: ' HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: APRIL 5,2010 CMR:165:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct Staff: 1) To Defer Further Action on an
Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility or Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
Composting Facility Within Palo Alto, Until and Unless a Usable Site
is Identified; 2) To Examine the Feasibility of Energy Conversion
Technologies (Including AD Technologies) During the Upcoming
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Planning Process;
3) To Pursue Local Partuering Opportunities with SMaRT® Station
Partners and/or Local Organic Waste Processing Companies that are
Developing Private or Energy Conversion Facilities Within a 20-Mile
Radius of Palo Alto; and 4) To Resume Acceptance of Commercial
Garbage at the Landfill
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to:
1. . Defer further action on an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility or aerated static pile (ASP)
composting facility within Palo Alto, until and unless a usable site is identified;
2. Examine the feasibility of energy conversion technologies (including AD technologies)
during the upcoming Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master PI arming
Process;
3. Jnvestigate and pursue local pannering opportunities with SMaRT® partners andlor local
organic waste processing companies who are developing private AD or energy
eonversion facilities within a 20-mile radius of Palo Alto; and
4. Resume acceptance of commercial garbage at the landfill.
BACKGROUND
Thc City currently maintains a 7.5 acre conventional windrow composting facility for yard
trimmings on an active section of the Palo Alto Landfill (located within Byxbee Park) which is
expected to close within 12 months after the landfill reaches the permitted grading levels. The
landfiIl is expected t(j reach permitted capacity near the end of 20 II. The
green material managed at the facility includes source ,separated yard trimmings such as lawn
clippings, lcaves, tree and shrub clippings, brush, and other vegetative materials generated
through landscape maintenance activities. Additionally, leaves accumulated through the City's
street sweeping operations "selected screened loads" and clean tree trunk/limb wood grindings
(I to 2-inch chips) are also managed at the facility.
CMR:165:10 Page 1 of6
3.c
Packet Pg. 127
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
On August 6, 2007, Council directed staff to develop a work plan to explore options to keep
compo sting in Palo Alto. A work plan for a composting feasibility study was presented and
approved by Council on January 22, 2008 (CMR: 116:08). Staff prepared the feasibility study
and presented the results of the study on April 28, 2008 (CMR:219:08). At that point Council
directed staff to table the issue until the Baylands Master Plan update was approved and to get
the input of the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and the Planning and Transportation
Commission (PTC). On December IS, 2008 (CMR:470:08) and January 12, 2009
(CMR: 116:09), Council further discussed the composting issue and made a decision to convene a
citizen-based Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) to further examine the composting question. At
that time, Council specifically directed the BRTF to avoid parkland location options.
On October 19, 2009, the BRTF presented its results and recommendations to Council
(CMR:402:09). The lead site recommended by the BRTF would have had resulted in potential
impacts on the Palo Alto Airport operations, as expressed to Council. Therefore, Council
directed staff to further examine the other alternatives and return to Council. The motion from
October 19, 2009 consisted ofthe following directives:
1) Accept the September 9, 2009 Palo Alto Compost Task Force Final Report (Report)
submitted by the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF);
2) Direct Staff to implement the short term recommendations for CUl'l'ent compost
operations contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the Staff response;
3) Request Staff to retum with analysis and recommendation of whether to incorporate
an interim solution of aerobic static pile composting or consider off site composting
on an interim basis;
4) Staff to evaluate the two options (Embarcadero Road/Airport site and 5-6 acres in the
northwest corner of the current landfill site) on the locations;
5) Staff to consider an option of partnering with another city or cities;
6) Staff to consider whether there are other locations on Embarcadero Way that could
work, this would take no more than 90 days;
7) Location of any facility would not have any negative impact on the Palo Alto Airport,
its operations, finances, and relationship with the FAA or Santa Clara County;
8) Staff to work closely with the airport community in the development of any
proposals, and
9) Staff to take into consideration the Airport Business Plan being developed.
In a separate action, Council adopted a statement of intent to proceed toward an anaerobic
compo sting system, at an unspecified location.
Since the last Council action on composting, staff held a public meeting with airport stakeholders
at West Valley Flying Club Meeting Room on November 4,2009. Minutes from that meeting
are included as Attachment A and further documented the negative impacts of a site on Airport
property. Staff also held a public meeting to discuss the expected recommendations of this staff
report at Cubberley Community Center, Room A-6 on December 9, 2009. Notes from that
public meeting are included as Attachment B. In addition, staff presented information (and
answered questions) to the Council in a study session on March 8,2010.
CMR:165:10 Page 2 of6
3.c
Packet Pg. 128
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
DISCUSSION
Short-term Recommendations
Staff has implemented all of the short-tenn recommendations for current compost operations
contained in the BRTF Report as modified by the staff response (Directive No.2, above). The
analysis of aerated static pile (ASP) composting within Palo Alto or off site composting as
interim solutions (Directive No.3, above) is contained in Attachment D. Staff concludes that an
ASP facility is too expensive and that there is no site that could be ready in time to serve as an
interim facility. Therefore the current interim plan of taking yard trimmings to the Z-Best Gilroy
facility should continue to be the shortcterm approach, JlPon closure of the Palo Alto Compost
Facility.
Loeal Siting Options
Evaluation of three pennanent siting options (the Embarcadero Road/Airport site, the northwest
comer of the eurrent landfill Byxbee Park site, and private properties along Embarcadero Way),
is also summarized in Attachment C, consistent with Directives No. 4 and 6, above. After
furthereonsultation with the Airport community, staff concludes that the Embareadero
Roadl Airport site would negatively impact that community and proposes no further work on that
site in confonnance with Directive No.7, ahove. With respect to the possible sites along
Embarcadero Way referenced in Directive No.6, staff concludes that procurement of sufficient
property would be too expensive and potentially disruptive for the existing land .owners and
tenants .. The site closest to the RWQCP entrance is a self-storage facility with numerous
individual tenants. In addition there would be neighborhood compatibility hurdles with utilizing
the properties on the west side of Embarcadero Way.
With respect to the construction of an Anaerobic Digestion facility in the northwest comer of the
current landftlllByxbee Park site, staff concludes that a detailed Feasibility Study would have to
be conducted by an engineering consultant to detennine costs and fully evaluate impacts.
Projected cost data obtained by Staff from venders has not been verified and is not sufficient for
final decision making. An Anaerobic Digestion facility is consistent with the October 19, 2009
Council direction and with the recommendations of the Compost Blue Ribbon Task Force.
However, given the key constraint (site is on dedicated parkland) of the landfilllByxbee Park
site, staff does not recommend moving forward with the Feasibility Study until and unless the
constraintis removed (Recommendation No.1, above). A Feasibility Study of this magnitude is
best completed in conjunction with an Enviromnental Impact Report so that appropriate
mitigations are identified and incorporated into the project design. The total estimated cost of
this detailed analysis would exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. This is a staff estimate
based on experience with the formerly proposed Enviromnental Services Center (ESC) at nearly
the same location on Byxbee Park.
Regional O)2portunities
Additionally, staff is actively exploring conversion technology options with the otherSMaRT®
Station partner cities, as well as opportunities to send organic materials to potential new privately
developed anaerobic digestion facilities.
Regiollal opportunities for anaerobic or other advanced processing are preliminary, but emerging
quickly. Several jurisdictions in the area are begiuning to express interest and explore their
CMR16S:10 Page 3 of6
3.c
Packet Pg. 129
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
abilities to build and operate regional facilities to provide organics processing in the future.
Currently no firm commitments exist, but opportunities for collaboration eould be pursued by the
City as they are identified. For example, the City's SMaRT® Station partners, Mountain View
and Sunnyvale, both have adopted zero waste goals. In addition, the City has an established
relationship with them in owning and operating a transfer and processing facility through 2021.
Both of these cities have an immediate interest in developing or using conversion technology to
meet their waste reduction goals and would likely be potential partners to build and operate an
anaerobic digestion or other conversion facility.
The primary private sector processing OPP011unity available in the near term is a facility being
developed by GreenWaste Recovery, Inc (Green Waste). GreenWaste, along with their business
partner from Germany, KOMPOFERM, have formed a subsidiary company called Zero Waste
Energy Development Company, Inc. (Zero Waste Energy). They are in the fmal planning stages
of designing a IS0,000-ton per year anaerobic digester in San Jose located approximately 12
miles from Palo Alto.
In September 2009, the City of San Jose and Zero Waste Energy executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) regarding their intent to develop lease terms for use of approximately 40
acres of a closed landfill site loeated beside the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control
Plant· for a biogas facility. The first phase of the processing site, 50,000 tons per year, is
anticipated to be ready for operation as soon as late 2011. Initially, the processing plant
anticipates taking a blend of food scraps and yard trimmings from jurisdictions to produce
biofuel and compost.
GreenWaste is the collection and processing provider for the City of Palo Alto's solid waste,
recyclables, yard trimmings, and food scraps. Staff has had preliminary discussions with
GreertWaste about utilizing this facility for the City'S food scrap tonnage, and some or all of our
yard trimmings. Finally, staffhas also met with another company, Harvest Power, that is also
pursuing development of a regional AD facility for the south bay area. Harvest Power has not
identified any specific faeility location yet.
Regional Water Quality Control Plant Master Plan
Under the existing adopted Capital Improvement Project (CIP) WQ-IOOOl, staffwill soon be
procuring consultant services to prepare a Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control
Plant. The draft scope of work requests an analysis of energy conversion technologies (including
anaerobic digestion) that might be suitable replacements for biosolids incineration in the future.
The Master Plan Work is scheduled to begin later this year.
Feedstocks and End Products
Regardless of whether the City pursues partnership with a private firm or a regional conversion
technology facility, it is important to nnderstand our various feedstocks and what end products
are to be produced and marketed. A feedstock is the raw waste material that would be proeessed
and includes food waste, sewage biosolids, yard trimmings, and soiled paper. A single
technology may not be best for the various organic material feedstocks that exist in Palo Alto.
For example, certain feedstocks require greater vector and odor control than others. Certain
feedstocks may also affect the marketability of any end product compost material due to
concentrations of metals, fecal coliform bacteria, and other contaminants. These issues will
CMR165:10 Page 4 of6
3.c
Packet Pg. 130
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
continue to guide the City into a solution that will best serve Palo Alto's needs for the long term.
Because of the upcoming Master Plan and the various prospects for new regional facilities, it is
not yet clear whether a joint venture with other communities, a processing contract with a private
facility, an anaerobic digestion facility at the RWQCP, or some combination of the
aforementioned are in the City's best interests. Therefore, staff is recommending continuing to
explore advanced tecImoiogies at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant and at Regional
locations in the South Bay area, as expressed in Recommendations 2 and 3 above.
Commercial Garbage Disposal Moratorimn
On January 12, 2009 Couucil passed a motion containing the following provision:
"The City shall suspend accepting commercial garbage at the Palo Alto dump while awaiting
City Council action on the recommendations ofthe BRTF."
Staff interprets this provision to mean that it is to recommence acceptance of commercial
garbage upon further action by Council on the compo sting issue. Staff is seeking Council
confirmation of this interpretation through Recommendation No.4, above.
Follow-up to Study Session on March 8, 20 I 0
Attachment D contains further staff responses to questions and comments raised at the Study
Session on March 8,2010, including the potential early conversion oflandfill Phases IIA and lIB
to park use.
As a follow-up to the community· response at the Council Study Session on March 8, 2010,
Council may wish to provide specific direction to staff about conducting a scientific random
voter survey regarding the Byxbee Park site option. This survey would gage resident sentiment
about the possible undedication of a portion of Byxbee Park for an organic material processing
and energy generation facility. Similar voter surveys have been performed about other issues for
less than $25,000. Staff could therefore procure these polling services using unspent Refuse
Fund operating budget for program and project consultants. Survey questions and language
could be referred to the Policy and Services Committee if the Council moves to proceed with this
type of community outreach.
Attachment E is an aerial map from the Study Session presentation that shows two City-owned
areas of the Baylands that are not currently dedicated as parkland. These areas could potentially
be swapped for land within the current Byxbee Park. A potential survey could also gage voter
sentiment towards such a land swap idea.
RESOURCE IMPACT
There. is no additional resource impacts associated with the recommendations in this report
beyond what has already been anticipated in the Council adopted Zero Waste Operations Plan
(CMR:123:07).
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The staff recommendations in this report do not constitute a "project" as defined by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CMR165:1O PageS of6
3.c
Packet Pg. 131
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation does not represent changes to existing City policies. The recommendation
is consistent with the Council adopted Zero Waste Plan and Council priorities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Notes from Public Meeting on November 4, 2009
Attachment B: Notes from Public Meeting on December 9, 2009
Attachment C: Staff Memo on Further Compost Facility Evaluation
Attachment D: Staff Memo Addressing Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 20 10
Attachment E: Map of Potentially Offsetting Areas from Study Session Presentation
PREPARED BY: ~<t·a~~
APPROVED BY: 1l:1~----'
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: . J
/ City Manager
Page 6 Qf6
3.c
Packet Pg. 132
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
A) Plllllose:
Meeting Summary
1114/09 CompostlAirport Public Meeting
(4:00-5:30 pm -Palo Alto Airport)
ATTACHMENT A
To explore potential sites for organics material management which would have "no
imp!j.ct" on the Palo Alto Airport (per I 0/19109 direction from the Palo Alto Council.)
B) Attendees:
Airport
Community Members
Chuck Byer
Harry Hirschman
Ralph Britton
Pat Roy
Larry Shapiro
Michael Baum
C) Summary:
Former Compost
Task Force Members
Bob Wenzlau
Emily Renzel
Palo Alto City Staff
Cara Silver
Steve Emslie
Phil Bobel
The group brainstormed and identified impacts to the Palo Alto Airport associated
with seven (7) different location configurations of Organics Material Management
(OMM) facilities. (See D. below for details). There appear to be three configurations
which are likely to have no impact on the Airport (with several qualifiers noted in
Part D).
1. Locating. the OMM on Embarcadero Way (currently privately owned
buildings) ..
2. Locating the OMM on the Los Altos Treatment Plant (LA TP) site and
locating the municipal operations planned for the LATP site on Embarcadero
Way (currently privately owned buildings).
D) Identification ofImpacts on the Airport:
1. Locating OMM on the current Landfill site. and swawing aWfoximately 10
acres of the North Runway site (22 acres total) as dedicated parkland. Thus, a
I b acre strip of the North Runway site, the eastern half, would become
parkland. The group assumed that the dedication itself would involve no
physical changes; that any physical changes would be a separate action
involving separate analysis.
IMPACTS:
No impacts tq the Airport were identified as long as the following points were
reCognized and addressed:
Page I
u; lPWDIADMINIKAREN\CMRI040510i 165-10 C ompC31lng Resp.nselAlltlChmenC A.doc
3.c
Packet Pg. 133
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT A'
a. The FAA must be consulted for any rules they may have. Their approval
may be needed,
b. Sufficient "buffer" must be allowed adjacent to the runway for aircraft
wingspan.
c, The new Parkland (North Runway site) would have to have restricted
access to prevent people and animals from entering.
d. The existing levee must be maintained. In fact, it may need to be
augmented in light of sea level rise.
e, There may be a habitat mitigation area at the north end of the North
Runway site which must be maintained.
2. Locating OMM on Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocating Ailll0rt
facilities per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to PA Council. This
option would move the Heliport and Terminal to avoid impacts from the
OMM in the southeastern corner of the Airport.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. The changes to the layout of Airport operations are major and funding
would be needed. Both the amount and source of funds would be issues.
b. Cost of moving Embarcadero Road and resurfacing (at a minimum) of the
Airport access road would be impacts.
c. New location of the Heliport is not safe due to incoming fixed wing traffic
and proximity to fuel storage.
d, Negative visual impacts to the Airport would occur.
e .. ' All of the negative impacts identified in the Task Force Report associated
with the Embarcadero Road/Airport site would apply.
3. Locating OMM at the LATP site and move the activities plarmed for the
LATP site to the Embarcadero Road/Airport site and relocate Airport facilities
per the 9/09/09 memo from Barney, et all to the P A Council.
IMPACTS:
The negative impacts listed as 2.a -2.d above would also apply to this
concept.
4. Locating OMM on land riow occupied by privately owned buildings on one or
both sides of Embarcadero Way.
IMPACTS:
The following issues would have to be addressed and mayor may not turn out
to be actual impacts on the Airport:
a. The potential for a bird attraction hazard would have to be investigated.
Page 2
U:IPWDIADMfNlKAREMCMRI0405fOIf65·fO Com posting ResponselAltachmenCA.doc
3.c
Packet Pg. 134
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENT A
b. A· 1,200 foot distance would have to be achieved with respect to yard
waste.
c. A 1 mile distance would have to be achieved for food waste.
5. Locating the OMM at the LATP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site where the privately owned buildings on one or both sides of
Embarcadero Way are now.
IMPACTS:
No impacts on the Airport were identified, assuming that there were no bird
attraction issues from the operations that would be located on Embarcadero
Way.
6. Locating the OMM at the LA TP site and locate the activities planned for the
LATP site on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. FAA approval would be needed
b. Access would have to be provided which does not exist, creating safety
Issues.
c. Oversight of contractors and City staff would have to be addressed.
d. Bird attraction would have to be addressed.
7. Separate the OMM activities, locating only the curing piles (possible aerated
static piles) on the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
The following impacts on the Airport were identified:
a. Access which does not now exi1;t would have to be provided, creating
safety issues.
b. The bird attraction issue would have to be addressed.
c. FAA approval would be needed.
8. Locating the OMM on the Landfill site and creating offsetting parkland
(approximately 10 acres) at the North Runway site.
IMPACTS:
There is no guarantee that the FAA will accept dedicating 20 acres as
"Parkland" and thereby reducing the available Palo Alto airpark land by 20%.
Until further clarification is gained on this item, it should not be included in
the "no airport impact" category.
Page 3
U:\PWD\ADMINlKAREMCMR\0405JO\J65~1O Compos{ing RespanseiAUachmen(A doc
3.c
Packet Pg. 135
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ATTACHMENTB
On 12/9/09 City Staff presented its preliminary thinking in response to Council's
10/19/09 directives. The responses will undergo more work, and likely be
presented to Council on 2/1/10. Staff sought, and received, feedback on the
following concepts:
1. Interim Aerated Static Piles:
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to cost, length of time to bring on
line, and lack of an authorized site. (The interim (post 2012) "fallback" is
the Z-Best (Gilroy) compost facility).
2. Long Term Sites in Palo Alto:
a. Airport Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to impacts on the Airport
and the Council directive to have "no Impact" on the Airport.
b. Embarcadero Way Site
Staff is unlikely to recommend this due to high cost of purchasing
landlbuildings.
c. Landfill CByxbee) Site
. Sfaff is unlikely to recommend conducting a
feasibility/environmental study at this time due to uncertain
availability of the site and the high cost of a
. feasibility/environmental study.
3. Areas to Pursue:
a. Nearby Sites » Staff will pursue taking organics to a new anaerobic
digestion facility likely to open as soon as 2010 in San Jose
(Greenwaste, Zanker Road). approx. 12.5 miles from the
Embarcadero/101 interchange ( Note: Much closer than Z-
Best which is 53 miles ). » Staff will purs.ue the possibility of an energy recovery facility
at the SMaRT Station in Sunnyvale, although it is just an
idea at this point.
b. Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) Master
Planning » Staff will consider anaerobic digestion and other energy
recovery possibilities at the RWQCP as the Master Planning
gets underway in 2010. (Not able to handle yard trimmings,
or all food waste within the RWQCP, however.)
3.c
Packet Pg. 136
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
The following feedback was received at the meeting;
Comments from Public
On Palo Alto Staff Presentation
at 12/09/09 Public Meeting
ATTACHMENTB'
Individual members of the public suggested that the following thoughts (or ansVjers to
questions) be included in the report back to City Council on (or about) 211/10:
I. Indicate that there is citizen support (as well as citizen opposition) to an organics
management. facility on the landfill (Byxbee) site.
2. The City's Solid Waste Management Plan filed with the County would have to be
revised if a new Palo Alto Compost Facility were to be developed.
3. The regional situation with respect to organics management should be discussed.
4. For Aerated Static Piles (ASP) and Anaerobic Digestion (AD), the extent to which
operating facilities exist should be discussed.
S. The emerging responses to the Santa Barbara RFP should be summarized to show
what technologies are actually being proposed by bidders there.
6. The quality of the food scraps processed at Z-Best (Gilroy) should be mentioned as it
is apparently contaminated with plastics and other non-food material.
7. The quality of biosolids should be discussed with the "hazardous waste" issue and the
"long term build-up" issues described.
8. The schedule for developing Greenwaste's Zanker Road facility should be explored
to determine why it is happening so much faster than Staffs estimation of a Palo Alto
facility schedule. . .
9. A resident "Initiative" would shorten the schedule by eliminating one of the two ErRs
shown on the Palo Alto Staff schedule.
10. The Waste Management Board management staff were much more optimistic about a
.Palo Alto schedule and should be consulted.
11. Wh~n will Greenwaste's .Zanker Road facility be able to take yard trimmings and
biosolids?
12. What has the experience to date been of taking commercial food waste in Palo Alto in
Palo Alto?
13. The process outputs (e.g., energy, compost) of an organics processing facility should
be fully considered as a decision is made on the type of process.
14. The sensitivity of the facility location to noise, light,. traffic, dust and pollutants
should be described.
15. Drawings showing what the various site locations would look like should be
presented.
16. Make it clear that the "Landfill site" is on "Byxbee Park".
3.c
Packet Pg. 137
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/111 0 ATTACHMENTC
Staff Evaluation
Follow-up to Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) Recommendations
For Developing an Organics Processing Facility Within The
City of Palo Alto
n Staff analysis and recommendation for developing an interim Aerated Static Pile (ASP)
composting operation within Palo Alto versus adopting the Zero Waste Operations Plan of
sending yard trimmings to SMaRT/ZBest. .
The advantages of the City developing an ASP composting facility in Palo Alto after the existing
composting facility closes are mainly: reduced greenhouse gas vehicle emissions through a
closer destination facility; and that the City could control the facility and add other organic
wastes to the process (biosolids, food scraps, etc). Control of the facility and organic wastes that
could be processed could allow the City to implement residential curbside collection of food
scraps in their green waste carts.
Disadvantages of the City developing its own facility in the interim are the high cost of
developing an ASP operation ($3 million initial capital investment); and the fact that there is no
land readily available for the placement of an ASP facility in the intermediate term.
Staff does not believe that the $3 million investment for an ASP Facility developed on any
existing City-oWned property is warranted because of the interim nature of the ASP (Council has
prioritized Anaerobic Digestion) and because there is no readily available site for the facility.
2) Evaluation of Three Potential Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Facility Sites.
Site #1 Other Unspecified Locations Along Embarcadero Road
Staff focused primarily on the existing commercial properties along Embarcadero Way for this
portion ofthe evaluation. Five properties ranging in size from I to almost 4 acres were evaluated
by the Real Estate Division of the Administrative Services Department. Table 1 below
summarizes the potential acquisition costs for these properties. The properties' layout in relation
to the Airport and the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is shown in Figure 1.
If only the three properties along the east side of Embarcadero Way are considered, acquisition
costs could range between $8.2 to $13.7 million for these 3.15 acres ofland. It is very unlikely
that even just these three properties would be easy to acquire. Eminent Domain would likely be
necessary. One of these three properties houses California Self Storage and another is currently
leased by Victor Aviation Services. Only the property at the comer of Embarcadero Road
appears to be vacant at the time of this report. It contains a two-story structure for research and
development and offices. Staff does not recommend pursuing the acquisition of these properties
for an organics processing facility.
Page I of 8
3.c
Packet Pg. 138
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1/1 0 AITACHMENTC
Table 1: ROUGH ACOUISITION ESTIMATES FOR EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTIES
High Mid Low
Street Number APN Acres $100/sf $80/sf $60/sf Facts
Sold 7/06 lor approx.
WEST 1880 008-03-027 1.19 $5,183,640 $4,146,912 $3,110,184 $4,250,000 recently
refurbIshed ~ avail
SIDE for lease
2440 008-03-072 3.95 $17,206,200 $13,764,960 $10,323,720 Newer R&D Sites -
several vacancies
! 1900 008-03-071 1.14 $4,965,840 $3,972,672 $2,979,504 Olo.r building -
available for lease EAST Older building -• SIDE 2415 008-03-030 1 $4,356,000 $3,484,800 $2,613,600 currently leased
i 2425 008-03-068 1,01 $4,399,560 $3,519,648 $2,639,736 Self storage facmty
Totals 5,14 $22,389,840 $17,911,872 $13,433,904
COMPARABLE DATA:
2525 E, Bayshore Road -1,44 acres, same age bldg -Comp Value per Real Quest $6,250,000 -Sold 4/2006
$4,200,000
1010 Corporation Way -Currently for sale -21 ,500 sl, Bldg, Office/R&D, Vacant, 1,10 ac lot size -for sale price
$5,300,000'" $246,51/51
CONDEMNATION COSTS CONSIDERATIONS (assume +30% to above mid range flgure):
Courts must find that: 1) public Interest and necessity require the project; 2) the project is compatible with the
greatest public good and least private Injury; and 3) the property is necessary for the project
Costs to consider: Fair market value, plus attorney fee$, appraisal fees, relocation expenses, payment for
business fixtures, equipment and good will, and if leased possibly relocation andlor tenants leasehold interest to
be compensated, .
NOTES and ABBREVIATIONS:
East Side parcels represent the lots next to RWQCP
APN: Assessor's Parcel Number
sf: Square Feet
Page 2 of8
3.c
Packet Pg. 139
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1/10 AITACHMENTC
Figure 1: EMBARCADERO WAY PROPERTY LOCATIONS
Airport
I
\
Baylands
. \
" \
Site #2 Embarcadero Road/Airport Site
Based on meetings held with Airport stakeholders, there are no options within the airport
property that have no negative impacts on its operations, finances, or relationships with the FAA
or Santa Clara County,
Page 3 of8
3.c
Packet Pg. 140
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/1!1 0 ATTACHMENTC
Site #3 Northwest Corner of Current Landfill Site (Byxbee Park)
Staff has conceptually developed a 4.7 acre grading plan (Figure 2) at the Northwest comer of
the landfill adjacent to the PAR WQCP that might be large enough for a large AD facility that
could accommodate the City's entire organic waste throughput. The grading plan incorporates
dedicated park acreage from the area adjacent to the PARWQCP fenceline (facing the landfill)
and overlying approximately 2 acres of the existing landfill.
Implementing this conceptual grading plan would mean raising the grades of the existing land
adjacent to the landfill approximately 5 feet to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level
(MSL). This conceptual site would partially overlie the landfill final contours approved by the
landfill architect (Hargreaves Associates, April 2008). If an AD building were developed on this
site then the top of a building could be as high as 40 feet above MSL -lower than the highest
elevations ofthe landfill that are 60 feet above MSL.
Permits and Approvals
Permitting an AD facility at the Northwest corner of the landfill would involve CEQA, State
permits and local approvals and voter approval to undedicate a portion of Byxbee Park. This
entire development process would be expected to take 7 or 8 years to complete (See timeline
Figure 3). Because this site overlies the landfill and because this site would probably require two
EIRs and a vote to undedicated parkland, the schedule for development of a large AD facility
would be expected to take three to four years longer than a site that did not have these land use
issues.
• An Environmental Impact Report (ElR) would be required. It is likely that two EIRs may
be required - a programmatic EIR to support the vote to undedicate the parkland and
later, a design level EIR that would support the permits and approvals;
• A new or revised solid waste facility permit would be necessary;
• A new Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Facility Pennit would
likely be required. A new high technology organics facility with emissions control would
meet the BACT standards (Best Achievable Control Technology).
• New or revised Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) will probably be required from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board since the proposed operation would be sited
partiallyi'on the landfill. Flatter grades overlying the landfill can be permitted as long as
an 'effective system for diverting surface drainage and preventing ponding is designed in
accordanee'with California Code of Regulations Title 27 Section 21090 (b)(1 )(B).
• Local permits and approvals would inelude revising the Baylands Master Plan,
Planning/Site & Design Review approvals, voter approval to undedicate parkland etc.
Page 40f8
3.c
Packet Pg. 141
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
31111 0 ATTACHMENTC
• The City would need to modifY the landfill's post-closure plan to reflect this continued
operation on the closed landfill. Also, a facility operations layer and drainage features
would need to be designed and constructed to protect the landfill's cap.
• An amendment to the landfill lease with the State Lands Commission would be necessary
for the improvements.
Other Impacts
Sino;:e the proposed facility can be incorporated into the PARWQCP, the existing landscape
screen trees would need to be removed and new landscaping improvements would need to be
installed at the perimeter of the new facility.
Access to Byxbee park could still be available via the existing parking lot. Some trails planned
at the north end of the landfill would need to be rerouted to avoid the new facility. Maintenance
of the park/landfill could still be undertaken.
Development Costs
Hilary Gans from the Blue Ribbon Task Force completed and presented to Council a preliminary
cost estimate of $ 13.75 million for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) w/ Energy Recovery system
that is large enough to handle the City's yard trimmings and some food waste. This capital cost
estimate includes the cost of a specialized building, gas collection system and electricity
genenitjng equipment but did not include the cost of an asphalt operating surface or materials
handling equipment cost since the City (\lready owns all the necessary heavy equipment required
to run a c~mposting system.
The cost' per ton calculation to process the City'S organics would depend on what type of facility
is developed, what type of organic wastes would be managed at the facility and what throughput
of tonnage would be possible. A consultant feasibility study would need to be performed before
these costs could be accurately developed.
3) Evaluation of Other Options
Figure 4 presents timelines for two recommended courses of action: 1) study the feasibility of
developing energy recovery facilities for biosolids and limited foodwaste during the upcoming
RWQCI' Master Planning project, and 2) pursue partnering opportunities with SMaRT and/or
private ventures building nearby anaerobic digestion facilities.
Page 5 of 8
3.c
Packet Pg. 142
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Figure 2" C " onceptual Grad" Facility on B b mg Plan for AD yx ee Park
ATIACHMENT"C 3.c
Packet Pg. 143
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
2010
IMMEDIATE
"J!
'" ..
" a
'"
BY COUNCIL
Projected Schedule
RFP • Request for Proposal
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
EIR • Environmental Impact Report
Figure 3: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE
CITY OF PALO ALTO
2011 • 2012
Council Decision
2010)
(Apr 2010)
Landfill
TIMELINE IN YEARS
2013 2014
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
2012)
" (Nov 2012)
2015 2016
Selection of
Design-Build
AD Vendor
(JuI2012)
Begin Design,
Focused EIR,
.......... Permits and
Approvals
(JuI2012)
MATERIAL TO SmaRT
2017 2018 2019
Complete and Certify EIR,
rReceive All Pennits and Approvals.
(JuI2016)
. ,
I I , I
I I
Construction
and Startup
(Dec 2017)
P E KIVIAI'II t:: I'll
FACILITY
D . I I AD eSlgn, I Constr I I J • 1 Feasibility I Lag I Vendor CEQA, ! & Startup---1
• • Study/EIR • !TimeL RFP Permit (17 Mos)
(24 Mos) (8 MOS)(9 Mos) (48 Mos)
o
3.c
Packet Pg. 144
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
l '" co
!2. co
NO IMMEDIATE
COUNCIL ACTION
REQUIRED
Staff Driven
(Limited AD at WQCP)
Staff Driven
(Track Partnering Opportunities)
AD • Anaerobic Digestion
Figure 4: ANAEROBIC DIGESTION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT TIME LINES
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Begin Feasibility
rMaster Plan
TIMELINE IN YEARS
(June 2010) Landfill Closes
Compost Facility Closes
2011)
Landfill Closes
Complete Feasibility
,..........Master Plan
(May 2012)
Compost Facility Closes
(Dec 2011)
TRACKIN<iPA~ERING OPPORTUNITIES WITH NEW REGIONAL AD FACILITIES
g
I
~ -i
()
3.c
Packet Pg. 145
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/30/10 ATIACHMENTD
Staff Memo
Follow-up to Council Questions from Study Session on March 8, 2010
Council Email Ouestion: The Composting [Blue Ribbon Task Force] Report was originally
paired with a Colleagues memo on Early Opening of Portions of Byxbee Park. This
complementary item was amended and passed on Nov 2, 2009. It was stated at that meeting that
this item on the Early Opening would return 'quickly'. Will it be on the Agenda on AprilS along
with the Composting Report?
The COUNCIL MOTION from November 2,2009 stated:
1) Direct Staff to work with the Parks and Recreation Cormnission and Hargreaves and
Associates to develop fmal park design goals for Phase II of Byxbee Park including
provision to access and views and return j.o Council with a proposed impl()lUentation
budget, and 2) Direct Staff to take the necessary steps to open the completed and
approved landfill area (Phase II AlB in the Baylands Master Plan) to the public as
interim open space by the end of 2011 or sooner; 3) Amended to direct Staff to
report back to Council with an estimated budget for the work in both parts of
the Motion in a timely manner.
Staff Response: The attached Table 1 outlines the steps necessary to prepare closed Landfill
Phase IIA and Phase lIB for early public access. Staff will begin adding clean soil to low areas
in the previously closed sections within the next few months (weather permitting) in order to
fulfill the post-closure responsibility of addressing settlement. Most ofthe top-deck areas have
settled one to two feet. (or more) within the last several years. The current goal is to accept and
spread enough clean soil to bring the closed sections up to the original designed grades of these
already capped landfill areas.
The proposed FY 2011 budget for the Landfill Closure (CIP RF-llOO 1) has been adjusted to
provide $600,000 for the work required to prepare Phase IIA and Phase IIB for public access.
This will include: changes to the environmental control systems (leachate and landfill gas
collection piping) to place piping and well heads underground, minor grading and improvements
to site access roads, and removal of perimeter fencing. The Refuse Fund budget does not include
money to prepare final park design goals in conjunction with Hargreaves and the Parks &
Recreation Commission, final park design (which should include Phase lIC), nor final park
construction.
Staff believes it would be more efficient and cost effective to bury the piping system
underground when the Phase lIC closure is completed because there will be the efficiency of
earth moving equipment and a single contractor to mobilize rather than administering two
discrete projects successively. If Council decides to initiate the early opening of Phase IlA and
Phase lIB and to bear the extra expense, it would prohably only speed up the potential to open
these areas by about one year earlier than if the work was combined with the closure construction
on Phase lIC. It is also not clear yet how the park-related improvements will be funded.
Page 1 of5
3.c
Packet Pg. 146
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
TABLE 1
BYXBEE PARK -PHASE IIA & PHASE liB CLOSED LANDFILL PREPARATION WORK
I
ESTIMATED
TAS.q DESCRIPTION STATUS COST SOURCE OF FUNDS TIME LINE
1 IAdjust the setUed surface with new topsoil to raise the IN $50,000 PWD -Refuse: Landfill Complete by October 201 0 finished grade back to the permitted elevations PROGRESS Operations
IRevegetate surface following settlement remediation IN PWD -Refuse: Landfill 2 IPROGRESS $25,000 Operations Complete by December 2010
I Seek Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) approval for I PLANNED I PWD -Refuse: staff-level Complete by December 2010
3 (assuming no permitting "early" public access to Phase IIA & Phase liB task hurdles)
4 I Design, plan and permit changes to environmental control PLANNED $50,000 PWD -RefuSe: Closure Pending FY 2011 Budget systems (leachate and landfiU gas collection piping) reserve (CIP RF-11 001)
5 I Modify environmental control systems to place piping and PLANNED $500,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure I Pending FY 2011 Budget well heads underground reserve (CIP RF-11001)
6 IMinor greding and improvementof site access roads I PLANNED $25,000 IPWD -Refuse: Closure
reserve (CIP RF-11001) IPending FY 2011 Budget
7 I Remove perimeter' fencing IPLANNED $25,000 PWD -Refuse: Closure
I reserve (CIP RF-11001) Pending FY 2011 Budget
I Prepare Final Park Design Goals in conjunction with I PLANNED ICSD: ???
»-
8 $25,{)00 Pending Council action ~ Hargreaves and the Parks & Recreation Commission
('J ::c
9 I Final Park Design (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED $470,000 ICSD: ??1 IPending Council action a;::
~
10 I Final Park Construction (including Phase IIC) IPLANNED I $4,700,000 leSD: 1?? IPending Council action
..,
"
3.c
Packet Pg. 147
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Study Session Question: Refuse fund has right to parkland until June 30, 2011 future use
would require $3.7 million annual payment? Is that built into the numbers?
Staff Response: CMR 104:07 established the following rent schedule for both the active and
closed portions of the landfill:
City of Palo Alto I
Landfill Rent
Schedule
Rent
Payment
(Smoothing
Rent Charged Schedule)
2004-05 7420925 4,288,747
2005-06 7420925 4288747
2006-07 7420,925 4,288,747
.2007-08 7420,925 4,288,747
2008-09 7,420,925 4,288,747
2009-10 7420925 4,288,747
2010-11 7420,925 4,288747
2011-12 0 4,288,747
2012-13 0 2,094,332
. 2013-14 0 2,094,331
2014-15 0 2,094331
2015-16 0 2,094,331
2016-17 0 2,094,331
2017-18 0 2,094,331
2018-19 0 2,094331
2019-20 0 2,094,331
2020-21 0 881,851
This rent schedule encompasses the entire landfill area (approximately 100 acres of both active
and closed). The amount of rent attributable to the piece of land being considered for
composting would be proportionally less. The current annual rent payment for the entire landfill
is approximately $4.3 Million. If the Refuse Fund occupies any portion of Byxbee Park for a
longer period than contemplated in the rent schedule, the schedul~ would have to be re-adjusted.
The schedule was based on the information available at the time that assumed a projected landfill
closure on June 30, 2011. The schedule adopted by the Council in 2007 contained a number of
Council-directed policies, including: (1) the Refuse Fund should be paying the General Fund for
use of the inactive portion until it is formally converted to park use; (2) the rent attributable to
Page 3 of5
3.c
Packet Pg. 148
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3/30/10 ATTACHMENT D
the inactive portion should be less than fair market rent since the Refuse Fund is not actively
using the property and (3) the rent payments should be amortized over time so that Refuse rates
are not substantially impacted. The current economy which has led to less commercial dumping
at the landfill together with the temporary City Council imposed commercial dumping
moratorium may result in a slightly later landfill closure date. The City is in the process of
determining whether there is a need for further refining this rental schedule al).d whether there is
a need for an updated appraisal.
Study Session Question: If there is a de-aunexation of the parkland, the parkland will take on the
value of commercial properties around it. Refuse Fund would have a liability for approximately
that amount?
Staff Response: If the parkland is de-alUlexed and the Refuse Fund continues to utilize the
property for Refuse purposes (including composting), the Refuse Fund would be responsible for
the payment of rent. The rent would be based on the highest and best use which is most likely
research and development/industrial use.
Study Session Question: Concerned about buffer betWeen industrial activities and parkland -
will there be an EIR to estimate the impact on Parkland?
Staff Response: Yes, an ErR for a compost project would address land use compatibility and
related aesthetic issues. The zoning ordinance governing the new use could also prescribe
appropriate setbacksl buffer zones.
Study Session Question: 90% solution email by Bryan Long -can his solution be part of the
April 5 discussion?
For reference, the recommendations in Bryan Long's 90% solution email are:
I. Improve collection rates of our new commerciaVmultifamily food waste collection
program, and implement a residential food scrap collection program. Utilize Z-Best
or other regional facility to compost or digest these food wastes for the time being.
2. After landfill closure, divert yard trimmings to Z-Best or other regional composting
facility, and
3.. Direct RWQCP staff to incorporate alternatives for anaerobic digestion ofbiosolids
and Palo Alto's food scrap collections into their comprehensive [Master 1 plan.
Direct staff to consider yard trimmings as well, but as a secondary priority and only
if it does not significantly increase the cost or lengthen the timeframe required.
Page 4 of5
3.c
Packet Pg. 149
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
3i30/10 ATTACHMENTD
Staff Response: Staffs recommendation is largely in line with what is referred to as the 90%
solution. The upcoming RWQCP Master Plan will include an analysis of options for managing
the biosolids that are currently incinerated. The analysis ofbiosolids options won't constitute a
full "Feasibility Study". However it will include site specific cost and revenue estimates, general
environment impact analysis and life cycle estimates of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Taking some food waste ",ill be analyzed, but it is very unlikely that anything close to all the P A
food waste could be handled within the RWQCP footprint.
It is important to note that the RWQCP is funded 35% by Palo Alto and 65% by its other
Partners. Therefore, expenditures (including planning) for waste streams generated by only Palo
Alto would have to be funded by 100% Palo Alto funds .. Major Capital Improvement Projects at
the RWQCP also require approval by the Partner City Councils in addition to the Palo Alto City
Council.
Study Session Concerns: Numerous questions posed by Council at the study session related to
the size, cost, operations, buffer zones, and environmental impacts of an anaerobic digestion
facility.
Staff Response: These types of questions are best answered through a detailed feasibility study
combined with a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) so that all mitigation measures can be
identified and properly estimated for cost. The cost of such a detailed study would exceed
$250,000. Previously a similar effort for the project known as the Environmental Services
Center (ESC) would have cost over $400,000 (CMR 125:05). The largest portion of the
proposed ESC was the composting area. Because no readily available site has been identified,
staff does not recommend moving forward with a full scale feasibility study for anaerobic
digestion at this time.
Page 5 of5
3.c
Packet Pg. 150
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
I I >. 0 C)
c: CO c: en --0 --I , CO I , I ,
--c: Cl) Cl) I ,
CO Cl) ~ s.... « u I ,
0 0 0 c... .....I
April 5, 2010 CMR 165:10
3.c
Packet Pg. 151
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
C
-
C
M
R
:
1
6
5
:
1
0
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Palo Alto, California May 31, 2011
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Summary of Tipping Fee Projections
Scenarios Alternatives (All Scenarios)
Scenario 1 1. Alternative 1
1. Public ownership and financing (below market I-Bank loan Case 1a - - Food scraps, yard trimmings and biosolids processed by dry anaerobic digestion (AD) at a
combined with market-rate tax-exempt financing). facility at the Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) site. Separate AD cells for food scraps/yard trimmings and bisolids
2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed. All AD gas processed at PALF.
3. No site rent cost included. Case 1b - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion, biosolids processed by wet anaerobic
4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included.digestion; all at a facility at the PALF site. All AD gas processed at PALF.
5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. Case 1c - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF, biosolids
processed by wet anaerobic digestion at the Palo Alto wastewater treatment plant (RWQCP). All AD gas processed at PALF.
Case 1d - - Food scraps and yard trimmings processed by dry anaerobic digestion at a facility at the PALF. Food scraps
Scenario 2 and yard trimmings gas only processed at PALF. Biosolids incinerated at RWQCP, with ash transported to/disposed of
at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
1. Private ownership and financing at market rate.
2. 15% grant on construction costs assumed.2. Alternatives 2 and 2a
3. $108,000/year site rent cost included.
4. Costs for CO2 "carbon adder" included.Case 2 - - Food scraps taken to and processed at new San Jose AD facility (Zanker). Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT,
5. 15% contingency added to cost of export options. transferred to and processed at Gilroy composing facility (ZBest). All biosolids incincerated at RWQCP. Existing
incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030. Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed of
at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
Scenario 3 Case 2a - - Same as Case 2, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP.
1. Private ownership and financing at market rate.3. Alternatives 3 and 3a
2. No construction grant assumed.
3. $908,000/year site rent cost included. Case 3 - - Food scraps taken to San Jose transfer facility, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest).
4. No CO2 "carbon adder" costs included.Yard trimmings taken to SMaRT, transferred to and processed at Gilroy composting facility (ZBest). All biosolids incinerated
5. No contingency added to cost of export options. at RWQCP. Existing incinerator replaced by fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.Biosolids incinerator ash transported to and disposed
of at Kettleman Hills Landfill. Existing incinerator replaced by new fluidized bed incinerator in 2030.
Case 3a - - Same as Case 3, except biosolids processed via wet AD facility at RWQCP.
Alternative Resources, Inc.3.
d
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
5
2
Attachment: D - Summary Table (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
City of Palo Alto, California
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Summary of Projections
May 31, 2011
Base Cases
Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs
Alternative 1 (At PALF) Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years
($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton)
Low-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a $69 $32 $58,568,589 $86 $50 $71,993,438 $120 $73 $96,226,397
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD
In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data. Uncertainty remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data.
Case 1b $130 $71 $112,537,531 $157 $102 $133,759,937 $209 $138 $170,950,938
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD
Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF
Case 1c $129 $71 $111,355,915 $155 $101 $133,119,590 $207 $137 $169,007,164
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP
Case 1d $101 $441 $137,096,645 $113 $453 $146,947,702 $129 $459 $154,505,010
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030
High-Cost Range Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Case 1a $238 $135 $201,195,623 $281 $183 $235,149,874 $361 $245 $294,370,715
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD
In Separate Cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF)
Case 1b $213 $109 $179,740,533 $254 $156 $211,590,278 $331 $214 $268,294,477
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD
Biolsolids Wet AD - - All @ PALF
Case 1c $212 $109 $178,939,857 $253 $155 $210,617,095 $329 $213 $267,027,894
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP
Case 1d $177 $472 $199,061,822 $206 $502 $221,509,086 $248 $530 $249,502,488
Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings Dry AD @ PALF
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030
Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 2 of 3
3.
d
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
5
3
Attachment: D - Summary Table (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
City of Palo Alto, California
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Summary of Projections
May 31, 2011
Scenarios 1 & 2 Scenario 3
Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years
($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton)
Case 2 - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$93 $486 $139,527,960 $72 $455 $116,714,351
Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030
Case 3 - - (Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $89 $477 $134,349,833 $68 $448 $112,511,650
Biosolids Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2030
Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs Year 1 (2015) Year 20 (2034) NPV Total Costs
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export)Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years Tipping Fee Tipping Fee Over 20 Years
($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton) ($/Ton)
Case 2a - - Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT)$103 $129 $94,312,261 $92 $107 $81,747,002
Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
Case 3a - - Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to SMaRT - Then Both to Gilroy Composting Facility $97 $121 $89,266,458 $89 $100 $77,544,302
Biosolids Processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
Alternative Resources, Inc.Page 3 of 3
3.
d
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
5
4
Attachment: D - Summary Table (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
REPORT OVERVIEW
ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure:
Yard
Trimmings
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Dry
Anaerobic
Digester
Wet
Anaerobic
Digester
1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING
Municipal Emissions
Community Emissions
Global Emissions
In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the
Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be
global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol.
This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto
(as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local
Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas
emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various
project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility
Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011.
Alternative
Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting
voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City
emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include
emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude
operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private
company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting,
or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project.
It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a
wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols.
Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption,
vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed
in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised
since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline.
The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and
this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if
the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and
community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste.
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 1 of 13
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.e
Packet Pg. 155
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic)
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 2 of 13
3.e
Packet Pg. 156
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local
and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 3 of 13
3.e
Packet Pg. 157
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3)
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the loca
and community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 4 of 13
3.e
Packet Pg. 158
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City
(% of 2005 Baseline)*
-5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
*Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on
changing reporting protocols.
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community
(% of 2005 Baseline)*
-0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
*Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on
changing reporting protocols.
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 5 of 13
3.e
Packet Pg. 159
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
City Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
City Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community
Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
Community
Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community:
Other
Emissions
(Scope 3)
Not reported:
Construction
Emissions & Green
Power From SJ
Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450)
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450)
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047)
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047)
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074)
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074)
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368)
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
Other
Biogenic
Emissions Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership Other Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817
17,682 13,503
1,178 15,887
17,682 12,810
1,178 15,187
20,075 9,793
17,582 11,977
3,571 12,170
1,078 14,355
3,598 12,197
1,104 14,382
3,598 11,806
(179)14,009
City Community
15,466
6,893
16,18718
15,077
17,279
15,077
17,261
15,077
17,261
5,783
7,968
6,163
11,823
11,823
18
11,823
18
2,203
18
14,008
2,203
ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO
PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND
BIOSOLIDS
BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF
YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Community
Biogenic
Emissions
City
Biogenic
Emissions
*The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not
match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are
counted in both the City and Community emissions categories
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD
TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Total Emissions
Total Emissions
Total Emissions
2,203
-
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 6 of 13
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
0
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO
PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND
BIOSOLIDS
BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF
YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
*The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not
match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are
counted in both the City and Community emissions categories
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD
TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
City Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
City Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community
Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
Community
Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community:
Other
Emissions
(Scope 3)
Not reported:
Construction
Emissions & Green
Power From SJ
Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global*
(4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060)
(4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751) 27 (10,060)
(4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657)
(4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,657)
(4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684)
(4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315) 39 (9,684)
159 49 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680)
- (100) 368 (2,402) (567) 21 (2,680)
- - - - 36 (1,001) (965)
(4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 249 (983) (7,978)
--- - - - -
(4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545) 229 17 (6,998)
Other
Biogenic
Emissions Global*
- (1,437)
- (1,437)
- (1,437)
- (1,437)
- (1,437)
- (1,437)
- 1,074
- 1,074
2,313 1,583
2,313 (919)
--
- (2,512)
Other Global*
27 (11,497)
27 (11,497)
39 (11,094)
39 (11,094)
39 (11,121)
39 (11,121)
21 (1,605)
21 (1,605)
1,313 619
1,330 (8,897)
--
17 (9,510)(16,504) 6,749
(16,504) 6,028
--
(100) (1,327)
- (730)
(16,605) 5,422
2,393 (3,512)
(16,578) 5,422
(14,111) 3,237
3,237
(17,861) 5,440
(14,085) 3,237
9,293
City Community
(14,084)
(730)
(11,805) 8,573
--
10,368
2,185 (1,110)
- 1,074
8,183
(11,805) 10,368
(9,620) 8,183
Community
Biogenic
Emissions
(9,620) 8,183
(11,823) 10,386
City
Biogenic
Emissions
(9,620)
(11,805)
-
(11,805)
Change in Emissions
Change in Emissions
Change in Emissions
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 7 of 13
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
1
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - -
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 8 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
2
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 9 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
3
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Alternative 2
Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - - - - - -
Alternative 2a
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Alternative 3
Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - - - - - -
Alternative 3a
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 10 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
4
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
OTHER
(SCOPE 3)
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
In-town,
City-owned
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor
Biosolids
Disposal,
In-town,
City-owned
Biosolids
Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor
Reduction in
Emissions
from
Community
Power Use
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
Out of town,
Contractor
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)-
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)-
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184
Alternative 2 --5,859 -787
Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000
Alternative 3 --5,859 -751
Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980
Alternative 1a
only.
Included in
"Food/Yard
Waste
Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor"
and "In-town,
City-owned"
column
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 11 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
5
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 2
Alternative 2a
Alternative 3
Alternative 3a
Waste Disposal,
Contractor,
In-town
Waste Disposal,
Contractor,
Out of town
Waste Disposal,
City-owned
Biosolids Disposal,
City-owned
Biogenic
Emissions
Associated with
Green Power
3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910
5,369 - - - 11,910
- 3,166 2,185 18 11,910
2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910
- 3,166 2,185 18 11,910
2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910
- - 2,185 11,823 5,783
2,185 - - 11,823 5,783
- 6,163 - 11,823 -
- 9,339 - 18 6,127
- 6,893 - 11,823 -
- 10,059 - 18 6,127
BIOGENIC EMISSIONS
(NOT REPORTED)
COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 12 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
6
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206) 869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206) - (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278)
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278)
Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36
Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161
Alternative 3 ---------
Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140
ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
*For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester
over the life of the project
GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 13 of 13 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
7
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Municipal Emissions: Scope 1
City Government operations – fuel
use and fugitive emissions
Municipal Emissions: Scope 2
Power used in City Government
operations
Community Emissions: Scope 3
Emissions from community waste
processed outside the community
Community Emissions: Scope 1
a) Emissions from community waste
processed inside the community
b) In-city vehicle miles driven
(If waste handling
is City owned)
(If waste handling
is City owned)
Categories of Reportable Emissions Affected by the Anaerobic Digester Project
Community Emissions: Scope 2
Emissions from community power
consumption
Each scenario in the Energy /
Compost Feasibility Study affects
one or more of these categories.
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
6
8
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
REPORT OVERVIEW
ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Green Waste Processing:Ownership Structure:
Yard
Trimmings
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Dry
Anaerobic
Digester
Wet
Anaerobic
Digester
1a Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 (Base Case) Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
OVERVIEW OF CITY OF PALO ALTO CLIMATE REPORTING
Municipal Emissions
Community Emissions
Global Emissions
In this analysis, global emissions represent the emissions savings included in the analysis done by Ascent Environmental as part of the
Energy / Compost Feasibility Study. It is based on the draft analysis released January 24, 2011. That analysis was intended to be
global in scope and included all GHG impacts, regardless of whether they were included in a reporting protocol.
This analysis assesses the impact of a new dry and/or wet anaerobic digester on the greenhouse gas emissions of the City of Palo Alto
(as reported through the California Climate Action Register (CCAR)) and the Palo Alto community (as reported under the ICLEI - Local
Governments for Sustainability reporting protocol). In addition, it summarizes the impact of the project on global greenhouse gas
emissions, which can be different from the reportable emissions. The source for the quantity of emissions associated with the various
project alternatives is a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis done by Ascent Environmental titled "Energy/Compost Feasibility
Study, Greenhouse Gas Projections," May 27, 2011.
Alternative
Municipal or City emissions represent the carbon emitted by City operations. The City has tracked its emissions to-date by reporting
voluntarily through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR). When this analysis shows the impact of anaerobic digestion on City
emissions the numbers are based on the CCAR reporting protocols. Among other things these protocols require the City to include
emissions from waste processing facilities run by the City, regardless of where the waste comes from. It requires the City to exclude
operations run by a contractor (such as waste hauling, in the case of Palo Alto). If the anaerobic digester were operated by a private
company, its emissions would not be included in a CCAR report. They would, however, be included in community emissions reporting,
or in a separate comprehensive analysis of the global impact of the project.
It should be noted that the City is migrating its reporting to The Climate Registry (TCR), an organization that tracks emissions over a
wider geographic area. TCR reporting protocols are very similar to CCAR protocols.
Community emissions represent the carbon emitted by the community, including emissions from community power consumption,
vehicle use, and the emissions associated with waste generated by the community. The community's 2005 emissions were assessed
in the Climate Protection Plan and are considered a baseline against which to measure progress. This baseline has been revised
since 2005, and there may be future revisions. This analysis uses the most recent published revised baseline.
The "'ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability" protocols are a commonly used protocol for assessing community emissions, and
this analysis conforms to those protocols. There can be some overlap between community and municipal emissions. For example, if
the City operates a waste handling operation that handles the community's waste, it would be counted in both municipal and
community emissions. The community emissions would only include the emissions generated by the community's share of the waste.
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 1 of 45
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.e
Packet Pg. 169
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Global Emissions Savings (Anthropogenic)
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 2 of 45
3.e
Packet Pg. 170
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Change in Reported City Govt. Emissions (Anthropogenic)*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
City Direct Emissions (Scope 1)City Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - City*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing Biosolids Incineration with A/D Generating Green Power Other
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 3 of 45
3.e
Packet Pg. 171
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Change in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Community Direct Emissions (Scope 1)Community Indirect Emissions (Scope 2)
Community: Other Emissions (Scope 3)
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions by Source - Community*
(12,000)(10,000)(8,000)(6,000)(4,000)(2,000)-2,000
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
Replacing biosolids incineration with digestion Generating green power Other
*Some emissions sources are included in both the community and local government inventories, meaning the sum of the local and
community emissions for an alternative may be greater than its actual global savings
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 4 of 45
3.e
Packet Pg. 172
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - City
(% of 2005 Baseline)*
-5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
1a - Public
1a - Private
1b - Public
1b - Private
1c - Public
1c - Private
1d - Public
1d - Private
2
2a
3
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
*Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on
changing reporting protocols.
Reduction in Reportable GHG Emissions - Community
(% of 2005 Baseline)*
-0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
1a
1b
1c
1d
2
2a
3 (Base Case)
3a
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
Emissions Reductions (MT CO2-e / yr)
*Based on the revised baseline presented in CMR 194:10, April 19, 2010. This baseline is subject to future revisions based on
changing reporting protocols.
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 5 of 45
3.e
Packet Pg. 173
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
City Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
City Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community
Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
Community
Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community:
Other
Emissions
(Scope 3)
Not reported:
Construction
Emissions & Green
Power From SJ
Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 435 961 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450)
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 1 (180) 1,676 (4,946) - 27 (3,450)
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 961 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047)
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 812 1,631 (4,946) 436 39 (3,047)
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 434 935 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074)
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 785 1,604 (4,946) 436 39 (3,074)
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 4,674 1,393 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,244 6,227 (2,402) 184 21 3,930
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 787 (1,001) 5,645
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 1,000 (983) (1,368)
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A 4,515 1,344 5,859 - 751 - 6,610
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 274 885 1,266 (2,545) 980 17 (388)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
Other
Biogenic
Emissions Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A - 17,279
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A - 17,279
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public - 17,279
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public - 17,279
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A - 19,791
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A - 19,791
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 2,313 20,300
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 2,313 17,797
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A - 18,716
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public - 16,205
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership Other Global*
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A 27 13,829
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A 27 13,829
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,232
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,232
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public 39 14,206
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 39 14,206
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A 21 23,721
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 21 23,721
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A 1,313 25,945
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public 1,330 16,429
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A -25,326
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public 17 15,817
*The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not
match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are
counted in both the City and Community emissions categories
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD
TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Total Emissions
Total Emissions
Total Emissions
2,203
-
2,203
ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO
PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND
BIOSOLIDS
BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF
YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Community
Biogenic
Emissions
City
Biogenic
Emissions
18
2,203
18
14,008
11,823
11,823
18
11,823
18
15,077
17,279
15,077
17,261
15,077
17,261
5,783
7,968
6,163
15,466
6,893
16,187
3,598 11,806
(179) 14,009
City Community
3,598 12,197
1,104 14,382
3,571 12,170
1,078 14,355
20,075 9,793
17,582 11,977
17,682 12,810
1,178 15,187
17,682 13,503
1,178 15,887
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 6 of 45
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
4
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Impact on Climate Inventories (MT CO2-e / yr)
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
Alternative Yard Food Biosolids
Dry AD
Ownership
Wet AD
Ownership
1a - Public Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Public N/A
1a - Private Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD Private N/A
1b - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1b - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1c - Public Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Public Public
1c - Private Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
1d - Public Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Public N/A
1d - Private Dry AD Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2 Compost Dry AD Incinerate Private N/A
2a Compost Dry AD Wet AD Private Public
3 Compost Compost Incinerate N/A N/A
3a Compost Compost Wet AD N/A Public
*The sum of the community, local government, and "other" emissions categories does not
match the "Global" category due to the fact that certain waste-handling emissions are
counted in both the City and Community emissions categories
TOTAL ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF YARD
TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
ANTHROPOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO
PROCESSING OF YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND
BIOSOLIDS
BIOGENIC ANNUAL EMISSIONS RELATED TO PROCESSING OF
YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
City Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
City Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community
Direct
Emissions
(Scope 1)
Community
Indirect
Emissions
(Scope 2)
Community:
Other
Emissions
(Scope 3)
Not reported:
Construction
Emissions & Green
Power From SJ
Digester (Alt. 2/2a) Global*
(4,081) (383) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060)
(4,514) (1,524) (4,183) (4,946) (751)27 (10,060)
(4,082) (383) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657)
(4,241) (532) (4,228) (4,946) (315)39 (9,657)
(4,082) (409) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684)
(4,241) (559) (4,255) (4,946) (315)39 (9,684)
159 49 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680)
- (100) 368 (2,402) (567)21 (2,680)
----36 (1,001)(965)
(4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)249 (983)(7,978)
--- - - - -
(4,241) (459) (4,593) (2,545)229 17 (6,998)
Other
Biogenic
Emissions Global*
-(1,437)
-(1,437)
-(1,437)
-(1,437)
-(1,437)
-(1,437)
-1,074
-1,074
2,313 1,583
2,313 (919)
--
-(2,512)
Other Global*
27 (11,497)
27 (11,497)
39 (11,094)
39 (11,094)
39 (11,121)
39 (11,121)
21 (1,605)
21 (1,605)
1,313 619
1,330 (8,897)
--
17 (9,510)
Change in Emissions
Change in Emissions
Change in Emissions
City
Biogenic
Emissions
(9,620)
(11,805)
-
(11,805)
Community
Biogenic
Emissions
(9,620)8,183
(11,823)10,386
8,183
(11,805)10,368
(9,620)8,183
10,368
2,185 (1,110)
-1,074
(730)
(11,805)8,573
--
9,293
City Community
(14,084)3,237
(17,861)5,440
(14,085)3,237
(16,578)5,422
(14,111)3,237
(16,605)5,422
2,393 (3,512)
(100)(1,327)
-(730)
(16,504)6,749
(16,504)6,028
--
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 7 of 45
Jon Abendschein
Resource Planner
Utilities Department
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
5
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Alternative 1a - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - -
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 298 1,141 - - 1,926 277
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1a - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP 1 - - - 26 - - - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1b - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1b - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 1,018 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 8 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
6
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Alternative 1c - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1c - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (45) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (139) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (16) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (6) - - - -
Alternative 1d - Public DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities 136 - - 24 150 - - 1,926 259
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Alternative 1d - Private DAD Ownership
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (22) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (67) - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 9 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
7
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from Sludge
Cake Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
OPTIONAL EMISSIONS
(BIOGENIC)
MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ACTION REGISTRY CATEGORIES)
Alternative 2
Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - - - - - -
Alternative 2a
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Alternative 3
Buildings/Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - - - - - -
RWQCP - 4,515 - - 1,344 9,207 2,616 - -
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - - - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - - - - - -
Alternative 3a
Buildings/Facilities - - - - (23) - - - -
Process/Fugitive Emissions - - - - (71) - - - -
RWQCP - - - 274 991 - - - 18
Solid Waste Facilities - - - - - - - - -
Street Lights / Traffic Signals - - - - (8) - - - -
Water Delivery - - - - (3) - - - -
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 10 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
8
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
INDIRECT
(SCOPE 2)
OTHER
(SCOPE 3)
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
In-town,
City-owned
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor
Biosolids
Disposal,
In-town,
City-owned
Biosolids
Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor
Reduction in
Emissions
from
Community
Power Use
Food/Yard
Waste Disposal,
Out of town,
Contractor
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership 1,574 74 28 (4,946)-
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership -1,648 28 (4,946)-
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership 309 30 1,292 (4,946)436
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership -338 1,292 (4,946)436
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership 309 30 1,266 (4,946)436
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership -338 1,266 (4,946)436
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership 309 59 5,859 (2,402)184
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership -368 5,859 (2,402)184
Alternative 2 --5,859 -787
Alternative 2a --1,266 (2,545) 1,000
Alternative 3 --5,859 -751
Alternative 3a --1,266 (2,545)980
Alternative 1a
only.
Included in
"Food/Yard
Waste
Disposal,
In-town,
Contractor"
and "In-town,
City-owned"
column
DIRECT EMISSIONS
(SCOPE 1)
COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 11 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
7
9
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership
Alternative 2
Alternative 2a
Alternative 3
Alternative 3a
Waste Disposal,
Contractor,
In-town
Waste Disposal,
Contractor,
Out of town
Waste Disposal,
City-owned
Biosolids Disposal,
City-owned
Biogenic
Emissions
Associated with
Green Power
3,166 - 2,203 - 11,910
5,369 - - - 11,910
- 3,166 2,185 18 11,910
2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910
- 3,166 2,185 18 11,910
2,185 3,166 - 18 11,910
- - 2,185 11,823 5,783
2,185 - - 11,823 5,783
- 6,163 - 11,823 -
- 9,339 - 18 6,127
- 6,893 - 11,823 -
- 10,059 - 18 6,127
BIOGENIC EMISSIONS
(NOT REPORTED)
COMMUNITY EMISSIONS (BASED ON ICLEI PROTOCOL)
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 12 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
0
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Impact of Anaerobic Digester on Global, City, and Community GHG Emissions
City of Palo Alto
5/31/2011
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Replacing
Biosolids
Incineration
with A/D
Generating
Green Power Other
Alternative 1a - Public
DAD Ownership*(5,126) (206) 869 (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718
Alternative 1a - Private
DAD Ownership*(5,832) (206) - (5,832) (4,946) 897 (5,832) (4,946) 718
Alternative 1b - Public
DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)309 (4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1b - Private
DAD Ownership (4,567) (206)-(4,567) (4,946)24 (4,567) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1c - Public
DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)309 (4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1c - Private
DAD Ownership (4,593) (206)-(4,593) (4,946)24 (4,593) (4,946) (144)
Alternative 1d - Public
DAD Ownership -(100)309 -(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278)
Alternative 1d - Private
DAD Ownership -(100)--(2,402) (199)-(2,402) (278)
Alternative 2 ----36 -(1,001)36
Alternative 2a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593) (3,545) 161
Alternative 3 ---------
Alternative 3a (4,593) (106)-(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593) (2,545) 140
ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE
*For Alternative 1a, 44.8% of the dry anaerobic digester emissions are allocated to biosolids. The allocation is based on tons of material going into the dry anaerobic digester
over the life of the project
GLOBALCOMMUNITYCITY
Data Source:
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
Greenhouse Gas Projections
Ascent Environmental
5/27/2011
Page 13 of 45 3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
1
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
INDIRECT EMISSIONS CALCULATION
Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2 Alt 2a Alt 3a
Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101 0.0003101
Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043 0.0004043
Unspecified CPAU power replaced by A/D power kWh 12,745,063 12,745,063 12,745,063 6,188,490 6,556,573 6,556,573
Other power replaced by A/D power kWh 2,475,396 2,475,396
Total emissions saved (TCR) MT CO2-e (3,953) (3,953) (3,953) (1,919) (2,033) (2,033)
Total emissions saved (CPP) MT CO2-e (5,152) (5,152) (5,152) (2,502) (2,651) (2,651)
Biogenic emissions for A/D power (CPAU) MT CO2-e 11,910 11,910 11,910 5,783 6,127 6,127
Biogenic emissions for A/D power (Outside) MT CO2-e 2,313 2,313 -
Wholesale Power Purchases (CY 2015) MWh 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019 1,004,019
Emissions savings rate (TCR) MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0039) (0.0019) (0.0020) (0.0020)
Emissions savings rate (CPP) MT CO2-e/MWh (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0051) (0.0025) (0.0026) (0.0026)
Additional biogenic emissions MT CO2-e/MWh 0.0119 0.0119 0.0119 0.0058 0.0061 0.0061
Emissions savings not included in TCR or CPP MT CO2-e 1,001 1,001
Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) calculation:
CO2 CH4 N2O
Annual total output emissions rates lb/MWh 681 0.0283 0.0062 2010 EPA eGrid emissions rate (CAMX)
Global warming potential lbCO2-e / lb 1 21 310
Emissions rate lb CO2-e/MWh 681 0.5941 1.9313
Emissions rate MT CO2-e/MWh 0.3090 0.0003 0.0009
Emissions rate for unspecified power (TCR) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0003101
Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) calculation:
Rate used by CPAU for avoided emissions lb/MWh 891
Emissions rate for unspecified power (CPP) MT CO2-e/kWh 0.0004043
REDUCTION IN EMISSIONS FOR ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
Municipal Emissions (TCR)
Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a
Emissions savings rate (TCR) MT CO2-e/MWh (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.003937) (0.001912) (0.002025) (0.002025)
Reported 2009 Savings:
Consumption Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a
kWh MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e
Buildings/Facilities (Reported CY2009)11,555,596 (45) (45) (45) (22) (23) (23)
Process/Fugitive Emissions (Reported CY2009)35,201,985 (139) (139) (139) (67) (71) (71)
Street Lights / Traffic Signals (Reported CY2009)4,098,015 (16) (16) (16) (8) (8) (8)
Water Delivery (Reported CY2009)1,483,049 (6) (6) (6) (3) (3) (3)
Community Emissions (CPP)
Savings:
Alt 1a Alt 1b Alt 1c Alt 1d Alt 2a Alt 3a
MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e MT CO2-e
Community emissions (4,946) (4,946) (4,946) (2,402) (2,545) (2,545)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
2
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck 1
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136
Digester power consumption 1,141
Fugitive emissions (CO2)277
Fugitive emissions (CH4)298
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
3
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1A (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In‐
town
Contractor, Biogenic,
In‐town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
27
30
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
4
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck 1
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
5
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1A (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
27
30
136
1,141
277
298
1,926
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
6
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump 27
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136
Digester power consumption 150
Fugitive emissions (CO2)259
Fugitive emissions (CH4)24
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991.3
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
7
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1B (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
17
30
392
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
8
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump 27
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991.3
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
8
9
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1B (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
17
30
136
150
259
24
1,926
392
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
0
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136
Digester power consumption 150
Fugitive emissions (CO2)259
Fugitive emissions (CH4)24
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991.3
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
1
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1C (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
17
30
392
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
2
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991.3
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
3
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1C (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
17
30
136
150
259
24
1,926
392
3,166
36
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
4
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 136
Digester power consumption 150
Fugitive emissions (CO2)259
Fugitive emissions (CH4)24
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 1,926
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
5
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1D (PUBLIC DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
30
184
21
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
6
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
7
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 1D (PRIVATE DAD OWNERSHIP) DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
21
30
136
150
259
24
1,926
184
21
8
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
8
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
1
9
9
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 2 DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
302
54
60
104
9
770
148
184
5,289
27
3
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
0
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991.3
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
1
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 2A DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
17
302
54
60
104
9
770
148
5,289
392
3,166
42
3
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
2
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 2,732
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)2,616
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)1,783
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)9,207
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 1,318
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
3
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 3 DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
308
228
184
6,893
27
4
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
4
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 0
Digester power consumption 991
Fugitive emissions (CO2)18
Fugitive emissions (CH4)274
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
5
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
ALTERNATIVE 3A DETAIL
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town Construction
17
308
228
6,893
392
3,166
48
4
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
6
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Summary of Processing Method DAD @
landfill
WAD @
landfill
WAD @
RWQCP
Incineratio
n @
RWQCP
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3 5 NA NA NA
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3 NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA 17 NA NA NA
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA 26 3 NA
Dewatering Biosolids 8 NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 26
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)
By truck 9 NA NA 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
By pump 10 NA NA NA NA NA 27 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12 0 NA NA NA
Digester power consumption 11, 12 991 NA NA NA
Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12 18 NA NA NA
Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12 274 NA NA NA
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA 0 NA NA NA
Digester power consumption 13 NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA 991 NA NA NA
Fugitive emissions (CO2)13 NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA 18 NA NA NA
Fugitive emissions (CH4)13 NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA 274 NA NA NA
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 NA NA NA NA
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,732
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 2,616
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,783
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 9,207
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1,318
Hauling of ash to landfill 17 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 184
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20 NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA 392 NA NA NA
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA
Hauling Compost to End Users 22 15 15 15 NA
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23 NA NA NA NA
Subtotal, by feedstock 4,498 4,901 4,874 17,866
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16 6,127 6,127 6,127 NA
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 ‐2,650 NA
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16 1,225 1,225 1,225 NA
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16 1,783 1,783 1,783 NA
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 2,762 2,762 2,762 NA
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,762 ‐2,607
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
150
259
2424
136
150
259
24
14,207 23,722
13,578 19,195 19,168 26,545
7,474
21
1,926 1,926
8
21
8
136
150
Alternative 1d
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Applicable
Sheet
Number(s)
Alternative 1a Alternative 1b Alternative 1c
21
259
6,072
2,607
‐2,607
‐2,501
‐2,607
1,157
5,856
7,448
2,573
20,440
‐2,501
2,607
1,157
DAD @ landfill
2,573
‐2,501
21
21 21
1,926
5,783 5,783
2,573
8
21
1,926
2,573
7,071
8
5,783
DAD @ landfillDAD @ landfill
136
150
259
24
136
2,573
2,607
2,342
‐2,501
13,831 14,234
1,157
2,573
5,783
21
2,342 2,342 2,342
1,157
5,783
2,607 2,607
5,856
1,157
1,157
‐2,501
2,573
5,783
2,573
5,783 5,783
‐2,501
5,856
6,072
2,607
‐2,607 2,607 2,607 2,607
‐2,607
2,607
6,072
DAD @ landfill
2,342
‐2,501
1,157
2,342
5,856
‐2,501
2,342
1,157
2,342
2,607
6,072
‐2,607
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
7
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids 8
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)
By truck 9
By pump 10
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 11, 12
Digester power consumption 11, 12
Fugitive emissions (CO2)11, 12
Fugitive emissions (CH4)11, 12
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment 13
Digester power consumption 13
Fugitive emissions (CO2)13
Fugitive emissions (CH4)13
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas 17
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)17
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)17
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)17
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption 17
Hauling of ash to landfill 17
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
Applicable
Sheet
Number(s)
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Yard
Trimm
Food
Scraps Biosolids
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
DAD @
Zanker
Incinerati
on @
RWQCP
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
DAD @
Zanker
WAD @
RWQCP
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
Incinerati
on @
RWQCP
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
Composti
ng @ Z‐
Best
WAD @
RWQCP
21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000 21,000 14,000 27,000
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA 17 NA NA NA NA NA 17
259 43 NA 259 43 NA 259 49 NA 259 49 NA
NA NA 26 NA NA NA NA NA 26 NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0
NA NA NA NA NA 991 NA NA NA NA NA 991
NA NA NA NA NA 18 NA NA NA NA NA 18
NA NA NA NA NA 274 NA NA NA NA NA 274
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
148 NA NA 148 NA NA 148 80 NA 148 80 NA
NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA NA NA 2,732 NA NA NA
NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA NA NA 2,616 NA NA NA
NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA NA NA 1,783 NA NA NA
NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA NA NA 9,207 NA NA NA
NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA NA NA 1,318 NA NA NA
NA NA 184 NA NA NA NA NA 184 NA NA NA
5,289 NA NA 5,289 NA NA 5,289 1,604 NA 5,289 1,604 NA
NA NA NA NA NA 392 NA NA NA NA NA 392
NA NA NA NA NA 3,166 NA NA NA NA NA 3166
22 4 NA 22 4 15 22 4 NA 22 11 15
2 0.2 NA 2 0.2 NA NA NA
17,866 4,874 17,866 4,874
NA 6,127 NA 6,127
NA ‐2,650 NA ‐2,650
NA 1,225 NA 1,225
NA 1,783 NA 1,783
NA 2,762 NA 2,762
NA ‐2,762 NA ‐2,762
7,466
NA
NA
NA
NA
7,466
NA
NA
7,466
NA
NA
NA
15,349
‐1,043
8,165
Alternative 3a
4
7,466
12,340
NA
NA
15,818
NA
8,079
463
937
1,043
11,640
2,313
‐1,000
16,430
104
9
770
6,766
Alternative 2a
54
60
54
60
104
9
NA
25,32628,811
1,157
937
1,043
1,043
18,828
Alternative 3
770
4
NA
25,326
7,4606,766
2,313
‐1,000
Alternative 2
25,945
24,633
937
1,157
1,043 NA
463
6,766
NA‐1,043
7,460
NA
NA
25,326
NA
2,313 NA
NA
1,043 NA
6,766
2,313
7,460
7,460
8,165
NA
937
‐1,000
8,079
1,043 NA
‐1,000
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
8
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL DIRECT INDIRECT OPTIONAL
Applicable GHG
model Sheet
Number(s)
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
CO2 from
Sludge Cake
Combustion
CO2 from
Landfill Gas
Combustion
Fugitive CO2
from Digester
Mobile
Combustion
Stationary
Combustion
Process
Emisions
Fugitive
Emissions
Purchased
Electricity
Composting
Digestate
Fugitive CO2
from digester
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)4
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester 3
Wet Anaerobic Digester 3
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection 6, 7
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)8 X
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)9, 10
By truck X
By pump X
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations 11, 12
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X
Digester power consumption X
Fugitive emissions (CO2)X
Fugitive emissions (CH4)X
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations 13
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment X
Digester power consumption X
Fugitive emissions (CO2)X
Fugitive emissions (CH4)X
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber 11 X
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)14, 15
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal 17
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas X
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)???
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)X
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)X
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption X
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best 18, 19
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility 20
Composting Biosolids Digestate 21
Hauling Compost to End Users 22
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill 23
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator 16
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating 16
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas 16
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users 16
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline 16
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER STUDY
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO2‐e/year)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
0
9
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Summary of Processing Method
Mass of Feedstock Processed (tons/year)
Feedstock Processing Activities
Construction, Amortized
Dry Anaerobic Digester
Wet Anaerobic Digester
Operations
Additional Hauling of Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps after City Collection
Dewatering Biosolids (Power consumed by belt press)
Transporting Biosolids to DAD or WAD (via truck or pump)
By truck
By pump
Dry Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion Operations
Diesel combustion by off‐road equipment
Digester power consumption
Fugitive emissions (CO2)
Fugitive emissions (CH4)
Composting Digestate from Yard and Food DAD Chamber
Transfer from SMaRT Station (yard) or GreenWaste Transfer Station (food)
Incineration of Biosolids and Ash Disposal
Incinerator (1): Combustion of natural gas
Incinerator (2): Combustion of landfill gas (CH4‐>CO2 + CO2 pass thru)
Incinerator (3): Combustion of sludge cake (N2O)
Incinerator (4): Combustion of sludge cake (CO2)
Incinerator / ash collection power consumption
Hauling of ash to landfill
Composting Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps at Z‐Best
Hauling Biosolids Digestate to Synagro's Composting Facility
Composting Biosolids Digestate
Hauling Compost to End Users
Hauling Contaminants/Residuals to Landfill
Subtotal, by feedstock
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS, FOOD SCRAPS, AND BIOSOLIDS
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, all feedstocks
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
INCLUDING YARD TRIMMINGS AND FOOD SCRAPS ONLY (No Biosolids)
Subtotal for Feedstock Processing Activities, for Yard Trimmings and Food Scraps Only
Energy Production ‐ Option 1: Electricity Generation
Combustion of Biogas by Electricity Generator
Avoided Consumption of Electricity from Grid
Net GHG Emissions with Option 1 (MT CO2‐e/year)
Energy Production ‐ Option 2: Production of Pipeline‐Quality Natural Gas
Combustion of Biogas for Digester Heating
Emissions during Upgrading Biogas to Pipeline‐Qual. Natural Gas
Consumption of Upgraded Biogas by End Users
Avoided Consumption of Fossil Fuel‐Produced Natural Gas from Pipeline
Net GHG Emissions with Option 2 (MT CO2‐e/year)
CATEGORY IN GHG MODEL CREATED FOR ANAEROBIC DIGESTER S
Summary of Comparative Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Alternative (MT CO
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, In
town
Contractor,
Biogenic, In town
Contractor,
Anthropogenic, Out
of town
Contractor,
Biogenic, Out of
town OTHER
X
X
X (SOME)X (SOME)
X
X
X
X
X
X (SOME)X (SOME)
X (SOME)X (SOME)
3.
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
1
0
Attachment: E - Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (1632 : Draft Energy/Compost Feasibility Study Transmittal)
Replacing biosolids
incineration with digestion
Generating
green power Other
1a (10,060) (5,832) (4,946) 718
1b (9,657) (4,567) (4,946) (144)
1c (9,684) (4,593) (4,946) (144)
1d (2,680) - (2,402) (278)
2 (965) - (1,001) 36
2a (7,978) (4,593) (3,545) 161
3 (Base Ca - - - -
3a (6,998) (4,593) (2,545) 140
Global Emissions
Savings
(Anthropogenic)
Global Anthropogenic Emissions Savings by Source
3.e
Packet Pg. 211
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Community Direct
Emissions (Scope 1)
Community Indirect
Emissions (Scope 2)
Community: Other
Emissions (Scope 3)
Replacing biosolids
incineration with digestion
(4,183) (4,946) (751)(5,832)
(4,228) (4,946) (315)(4,567)
(4,255) (4,946) (315)(4,593)
368 (2,402) (567)-
- - 36 -
(4,593) (2,545) 249 (4,593)
- - - -
(4,593) (2,545) 229 (4,593)
Community Anthropogenic EChange in Reported Community Emissions (Anthropogenic)
3.e
Packet Pg. 212
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
Reduction in Reportable
GHG Emissions -
Generating
green power Other (% of 2005 Baseline)*
(4,946) 897 1.3%
(4,946) 24 1.3%
(4,946) 24 1.3%
(2,402) (199) 0.3%
- 36 0.0%
(2,545) 249 0.9%
- - 0.0%
(2,545) 229 0.9%
Emissions Savings by Source
3.e
Packet Pg. 213
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
E
-
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
i
p
t
o
P
A
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
ENERGY/COMPOST
DRAFT FEASIBILITY
STUDY
COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 27, 2011
Attachment F
3.f
Packet Pg. 214
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Introduction
p Council and Public comments have been
addressed in a new “Draft Feasibility Study”.
p “Scenarios”have been developed to deal with
different assumptions suggested by the Public
and Council Members.
p New data on cost and greenhouse gasses is
available.
p At the preliminary planning level, none of the
four key alternatives should be screened out as
infeasible.
3.f
Packet Pg. 215
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Council Direction
p Hire Consultant/Evaluate Dry Anaerobic
Digestion
p Prepare applicable level EIR focused on 8-
9 acres of Byxbee Park
p Study energy-conversion technologies at
Palo Alto Wastewater Plant as part of
Facilities Planning
p Pursue partnering opportunities for
organics within 20 miles of Palo Alto
3.f
Packet Pg. 216
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3.f
Packet Pg. 217
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Current Organics
Management and Plans
p Food Scraps
n Commercial: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy
(Greenwaste Facility)
n Residential: Not yet Source Separated
p Yard Trimmings
n Current: Palo Alto Aerobic Composting Facility
n In 2012: Aerobic Composting near Gilroy (Greenwaste
Facility)
p Wastewater Solids (“Biosolids”)
n Incinerated at Palo Alto Wastewater Plant
n Alternatives being studied via Long Range Facilities
Planning Process and Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
3.f
Packet Pg. 218
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Managing Palo Alto’s Source Separated Organics
(Food, Yard and Wastewater Solids)
3.f
Packet Pg. 219
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Feasibility Study Schedule
p 1/26/11 –Preliminary Analysis Released
p Public Meetings and Comment Period
p 3/21/11 –Council Study Session
p 4/11/11 –Council Direction
p Early June –Draft Feasibility Study
p 6/27/11 –Council Direction
p Late September –Final Feasibility Study
p Early October –Council Meeting
3.f
Packet Pg. 220
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Alternatives
1.Palo Alto
a)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (all three materials)
c)Dry Anaerobic Digestion (food and yard)
Wet Anaerobic Digestion for Biosolids at
RWQCP
2.San Jose
Food in Dry Anaerobic Digestion in San Jose
Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy
Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP
3.Gilroy
Food and Yard in Aerobic Composting in Gilroy
Biosolids in Wet Anaerobic Digestion at RWQCP
3.f
Packet Pg. 221
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Public and Council Comments
(Doable by Early June)
(From 4/11 Council Meeting)
p Incinerator Replacement Costs
p Net Present Value
p Land Rent
p CO2 “Adder”
p Loan Interest Rate and Type of Financing
p Contingency Amount
p Grant Amounts
3.f
Packet Pg. 222
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Public and Council Comments
(Not Doable by Early June)
(From 4/11 Council Meeting)
p New Combined Alternative (9-acre site and
RWQCP)
p Full integration of RWQCP Planning and
Energy/Compost Feasibility Study
p Consideration of gasification and other high
temperature conversion technologies
3.f
Packet Pg. 223
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Scenarios/Assumptions
0%15%15%Export
Contingency
$0/Ton$20/Ton$20/TonCO2Adder
$908K/Yr$108K/Yr$1/YrRent
0%15%15%Grant Funding
Market
Rate
Market
Rate
Below
Market
Financing
PrivatePrivatePublicOwnership
32 (Staff)1
Scenarios
Assumptions
3.f
Packet Pg. 224
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Results
(Scenario 2 –Staff)
$893a)Gilroy (Partial)
$94 2a)San Jose (Partial)
$72
$103 Avg
$133
1a)Palo Alto –Dry
1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet
Net Present Value
(Millions of $)
Alternatives
3.f
Packet Pg. 225
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Cost Conclusions
At the preliminary planning level, none of
the four preceding alternatives should be
screened out as infeasible.
3.f
Packet Pg. 226
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Next Steps
1.Final Feasibility Study–
Late September 2011
2.Informational Staff Report to Council–
Early October 2011
3.Vote on Ballot Initiative–
Early November 2011
4.Recommendations to Council for Next
Steps–December 2011
3.f
Packet Pg. 227
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
SUPPORTING SLIDES
3.f
Packet Pg. 228
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Greenhouse Gas Results
15,8003a)Gilroy (Partial)
16,4002a)San Jose (Partial)
13,800
14,200
1a)Palo Alto –Dry
1c)Palo Alto –Dry and Wet
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (Tons of
CO2 Equivalents/Yr)
Alternatives
3.f
Packet Pg. 229
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Greenhouse Gas/Climate Action Plan
Relationship to PA Climate Action Plan (CAP)
1.2 –1.4%15%5%
% of Community
CO2 Emissions
15%-20%
% of City
Operations
CO2 Emissions
PA Anaerobic
Digestion Projected
Reduction
2020
CAP
Goal
2012
CAP
Goal
(% Reduction from 2005 Base)
3.f
Packet Pg. 230
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Energy Conversion Technologies
p Anaerobic Digestion
p Gasification
p Pyrolysis
p Incineration (Fluidized Bed replacing
Multiple Hearth)
3.f
Packet Pg. 231
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Regional Partnering
(within 20 miles)
p Greenwaste (ZWED) [NEW]
n Dry Anaerobic Digestion/North San Jose
p Food Scraps
n City of San Jose/Harvest Power [NEW]
p Gasification/North San Jose
p Wastewater Solids/Wood
n Sunnyvale-Palo Alto-MV/SMaRT Station
[No Plans for Conversion Technologies at this time.]
3.f
Packet Pg. 232
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
June 27, 2011
1784-6
3.f
Packet Pg. 233
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
Food Scraps Yard Trimmings Biosolids
Case 1a Dry AD Dry AD Dry AD (Separate Cell)
Case 1b Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at Landfill
Case 1c Dry AD Dry AD Wet AD at RWQCP
Case 1d Dry AD Dry AD Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Alternative 2: Export
Case 2 Proposed San
Jose AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 2a Proposed San
Jose AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
Alternative 3: Export
Case 3 Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 3a Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
21
3.f
Packet Pg. 234
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Study Scenarios
Input
Assumption
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Ownership Public Private Private
Financing Public Private Private
Financing Rate Below Market Market Rate Market Rate
Grants 15%15%0%
Site Rent (Annual)$1 $108,000 $908,000
Carbon Adder
Cost
Yes Yes No
Contingency on
Export Options 15%15%0%
22
3.f
Packet Pg. 235
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Food Scraps Yard
Trimmings Biosolids Total
First year: 2015 14,000 21,000 27,000 62,000
Last Year:
2034 19,000 21,000 34,000 74,000
23
3.f
Packet Pg. 236
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site MT CO2-e/Year
Case 1a (All Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids)13,831
Case 1b (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill)14,234
Case 1c (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)14,207
Case 1d (Dry AD –Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)21,106
Alternative 2: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy ; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)23,329
Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD
Biosolids at RWQCP)16,430
Alternative 3: Export MT CO2-e/Year
Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids)22,716
Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids
at RWQCP)15,818
24
3.f
Packet Pg. 237
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Summary of Economic Analyses: Lower Cost AD Technology
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD
in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Uncertainty
remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data
$58,568,589 $71,993,438 $96,226,397
Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids
Wet AD –all @ PALF $112,537,531 $133,759,937 $170,950,938
Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $111,355,915 $133,119,590 $169,007,164
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed
Incinerator on line in 2031
$137,096,645 $146,947,702 $154,505,010
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351
Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$94,312,261 $94,312,261 $81,747,002
Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$89,266,458 $89,266,458 $77,544,302
25
3.f
Packet Pg. 238
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Summary of Economic Analyses: Higher Cost AD Technology
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 1a:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ PALF $201,195,623 $235,149,874 $294,370,715
Case 1b:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids
Wet AD –all @ PALF $179,740,533 $211,590,278 $268,294,477
Case 1c:Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP $178,939,857 $210,617,095 $267,027,894
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator
on line in 2031
$199,061,822 $221,509,086 $249,502,488
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings
to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated
at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$139,527,960 $139,527,960 $116,714,351
Case 3:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to
SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$134,349,833 $134,349,833 $112,511,650
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2a:Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$94,312,261 $94,312,261 $81,747,002
Case 3a:Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT –then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$89,266,458 $89,266,458 $77,544,302
26
3.f
Packet Pg. 239
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Summary Findings Economic Analyses
—Scenario 1: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are less costly than exportwith incineration, but, although somewhat higher in cost, competitive with export options with Wet AD
—Scenario 2: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export options, Cases 1b and 1c are approximately same cost as export with incineration, more costly than export with wet AD
—Scenario 3: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is more costly than export with Wet AD of biosolids, but less costly than export with incineration
—For all Scenarios, Higher Cost AD Technology is more costly than export cases.
—Continued Incineration of Biosolids with existing incineration, then replacing it with a fluid bed incinerator in 2030, is more costly than Dry or Wet AD of biosolids.27
3.f
Packet Pg. 240
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Project Delivery Options
—DBOO(T) –Private ownership and financing; private
design, construction, operation
—DBO –Public ownership and financing; private
design, construction, operation
—DBB –Public ownership and financing; City
responsible for design, construction, operation
28
3.f
Packet Pg. 241
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Next Steps
Should Site become available and City decides to
further consider AD, other technologies:
—Complete CEQA checklist
—Obtain Firm Technical and Price Proposals for City
and Export Options (performance-based RFP process;
does not commit City)
—Review Proposals, Compare Options, Determine
Course of Action
29
3.f
Packet Pg. 242
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3.f
Packet Pg. 243
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3.f
Packet Pg. 244
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3.f
Packet Pg. 245
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
F
-
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
-
J
u
n
e
2
7
,
2
0
1
1
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
3.g
Packet Pg. 246
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
G
-
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
(
1
6
3
2
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
e
r
g
y
/
C
o
m
p
o
s
t
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
T
r
a
n
s
m
i
t
t
a
l
)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1866)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 1866)
Summary Title: Cubberley Community Center
Title: Direction on Submission of Letter of Interest to Foothill College Regarding
new Education Center at Cubberley Community Center
From:City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to submit a Letter of Interest to
Foothill College to pursue discussions to locate a new Education Center on
the City owned 8 acres at the Cubberley Community Center.
Executive Summary
Foothill/DeAnza Community College District continues to express interest in
building an Education Center in Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto owns eight
acres on the northern end of the Cubberley Community Center. The
balance of the site, 27 acres, is owned by Palo Alto Unified School District
and is leased back to the City.
Foothill will be completing it evaluation of various sites in and around Palo
Alto this summer and has asked the City to indicate its interest by early-
mid July. A non-binding letter of interest, at this initial stage,enables the
City to pursue exploratory discussions with Foothill that will inform a
subsequent public decision regarding the City’s eight acres.
Background
Foothill/DeAnza Community College District has issued a Request for
Offers as a part of the process for locating a new Education Center in Palo
Alto, Mountain View, or Sunnyvale. In their Request for Offers for a site
for an new Education Center, they describe the new Center as follows:
The new Education Center will provdie a state-of-the-art educational
4
Packet Pg. 247
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 1866)
facility serving Silicon Valley through programs and partnerships that
seamlessly transition individuals from high school to community
college to the university and the workplace as well as offering a rich
array of lifelong learning opportunities.
While their Request for Offers established a June 20, 2011 submission
deadline for offers from private sector brokers, the Foothill Board has also
directed Foothill staff to explore possible sites within the City of Palo Alto
and the City of Sunnyvale. Staff’s understanding is that the city responses
are not due on June 20, 2011 but are expected soon after to be considered
by the Board later this summer. City offers may take a different form than
the response guidelines for private sector brokers. The eight acres the City
owns at Cubberley is the Palo Alto location that would be considered, if the
City responds.
Staff expects that we need to formally respond to Foothill by early-mid
July. If at all interested in the possibility of consideration, the City of Palo
Alto will need to provide a formal Letter of Interest to Foothill soon.
Foothill has informed the City that during July, Foothill staff will review all
submissions and then at their August Board meeting, the Foothill Board will
select a respondent to explore more in-depth discussions with and
negotiations potentially leading to an agreement “regarding conveyance or
sale” of the land for the new Education Center.
Action that will be needed by the City Council within the next few weeks is
whether or not to submit a Letter of Interest. If the Council decides it will
not submit a letter, that decision eliminates Palo Alto from consideration as
a location for a new Education Center and Foothill will locate in another
city. We can also expect a dramatic reduction in Foothill programs offered
at Cubberley as well as a significant reduction in lease payments to the
City.
If the City does submit a Letter of Interest, it is no guarantee that the City
of Palo Alto will be chosen at the August Foothill Board meeting as the
preferred location. And if we are selected, then in depth discussions and
negotiations will follow. As with any such discussions, there is no
guarentee that an agreement will be reached.
4
Packet Pg. 248
June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 1866)
If the City were ultimately considering sale of its eight acres, the Palo Alto
Unified School District (PAUSD) has the right of first refusal and may
purchase the City’s eight acres at the current market value. PAUSD must
exercise its option within 90 days of receiving notice from this City of its
intent to sell to another party. Because a Letter of Interest is non-binding
and merely initiates discussions, the PAUSD first right of refusal would not
be triggered. The City would seek as much support as possible from
PAUSD in these preliminary discussions knowing that it would ultimately be
able to exercise its option to purchase in the future.
Discussion
In order to keep the conversation going with Foothill and to have time for
our own Council and community discussion, staff recommends that the City
submit a Letter of Interest. If the Council wants to end the conversation
now, you will want to direct us to not respond to Foothill.
The City Manager has been talking to PAUSD as these Foothill timelines
unfolded this spring. PAUSD has been having their own discussions
regarding Foothill’s interest in the City’s eight acres and the details of their
proposal. Finally, if there is other information or discussion the Council
wants to have, we can continue this discussion as needed to your July 11,
2011 meeting.
There has been some misinformation and confusion about the potential
action the City might take at this Council Meeting on June 27. This Action
Item is not the Council decision to sell it’s eight acres at Cubberley. It is a
discussion and potential action on indicating its desire to enterr into
discussions and negotiations with Foothill about a possible sale or lease for
use as a new Education Center.
Attachments:
·a:Attachment A-Cubberley (PDF)
·b:Attachment B-Cubberley (PDF)
·c:Public Letters to Council-Cubberley-1 (PDF)
·d:Public Letters to Council -Cubberley-2 (PDF)
4
Packet Pg. 249
June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 1866)
Prepared By:Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager
Department Head:James Keene, City Manager
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene,City Manager
4
Packet Pg. 250
4.a
Packet Pg. 251
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.a
Packet Pg. 252
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.a
Packet Pg. 253
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.a
Packet Pg. 254
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.a
Packet Pg. 255
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.a
Packet Pg. 256
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.b
Packet Pg. 257
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.b
Packet Pg. 258
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
B
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.c
Packet Pg. 259
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
1
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.c
Packet Pg. 260
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
1
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.d
Packet Pg. 261
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
2
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.d
Packet Pg. 262
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
2
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.d
Packet Pg. 263
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
2
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
4.d
Packet Pg. 264
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
L
e
t
t
e
r
s
t
o
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
-
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
-
2
(
1
8
6
6
:
C
u
b
b
e
r
l
e
y
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1857)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/27/2011
June 27, 2011 Page 1 of 8
(ID # 1857)
Summary Title: Water Utility Rate Increases for Fiscal Year 2012
Title: Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Water Utility Rate Schedules W-1,
W-3, W-4 and W-7 or Selection of an Alternative Water Utility Rate Structure
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to develop water rates based on one of the
two alternative options presented in this staff report. Council can also choose to adopt the
attached resolution, based on staff’s original rate proposal to:
1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached.
Direction to develop alternative water rates will trigger the notice and protest hearing
procedures under Proposition 218.
Executive Summary
Staff assessed expected costs, demand, short-term risks and reserve guidelines, and
determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five years. Staff projects
a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requested a revenue increase of $3.4 million
or an average rate increase of 12.5% for FY 2012. Staff also recommended, in concurrence with
Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and Finance Committee discussions in October and
November 2010, a redesign of the residential and commercial rate structures and a re-
allocation of revenue collection by rate class.
Both the UAC at its February 2, 2011 meeting and the Finance Committee at its March 1, 2011
meeting indicated agreement with the staff recommendation on the annual revenue increase
of 12.5% and the revenue-neutral rate adjustments between distinct rate classes reflecting the
relative cost to provide service.Both the UAC and Finance Committee also agreed to the
addition of tiers to residential and commercial rate classes and a reallocation of costs between
fixed and volumetric rate recovery mechanisms. However, neither the UAC nor the Finance
Committee was unanimous in their recommendations for the rate redesigns.
Subsequently, at their June 20, 2011 meeting, the City Council expressed concern at the
June 27, 2011 Page 2 of 8
(ID # 1857)
addition of tiers to the residential and commercial rate structures. Council directed staff to
return on June 27, 2011 with additional information for Council consideration including new
rate options as follows:
·2-tiered residential rates and 1-tiered commercial rates;
·a budget that assumes $2.8 million from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves; and
·a Fiscal Year 2012 Financial forecast consistent with the budget;
Per Council’s direction staff presents the following two rate options:
·Alternative 1:2-tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 6 ccf (same "tier
breakpoint" as in staff's proposed 3-tiered rate proposal), and Tier 1 priced at $3.60
(same as in staff's proposed 3-tiered rate proposal), and one tier for commercial rates.
·Alternative 2:2-tiered residential rates with the Tier 1 breakpoint at 7 ccf (same as rates
in effect today), and Tier 1 priced $3.95 (same as rates in effect today), and one tier for
commercial rates.
For background and perspective, staff is also presenting a comparison of the two rate
alternatives with today’s rates (those effective as of June 27, 2011) and staff’s current water
rate proposal (3 tiers for residential rates and 2 tiers for commercial rates). Table 1 compares
today’s volumetric rates for residential customers with the three other options. The rates
under the current staff proposal would become effective July 1, 2011, but the alternatives
would not be effective until October 2011 because they would trigger the notice and protest
hearing procedures under Proposition 218. The fixed charge component for a residential
customer with a 5/8’’ meter would increase from $5/month to $10/month under each option,
which is designed to phase in the full fixed charge of $14.75 over a two-year period.
Table 1: Comparison of volumetric rates under alternative rate designs for residential
customers
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Volume Rates
(per ccf)
Volume Rates
(per ccf)
Volume Rates
(per ccf)
Today’s Rates 0 -7 ccf $3.949 Over 7 ccf $5.624 N/A
Current Staff Proposal
(Starting July 2011)
0 -6 ccf $3.60 7 -29 ccf $6.08 Over 29 ccf 7.64
Alternative 1
(Starting Oct 2011)
0 -6 ccf $3.60 Over 6 ccf $7.34 N/A
Alternative 2
(Starting Oct 2011)
0 -7 ccf $3.95 Over 7 ccf $8.10 N/A
(Note: Alternatives 1 and 2 collect the Council approved revenue requirement for the Water
Utility over a 9 month period beginning in October 2011. Staff’s proposed rates assume a 12-
month collection period beginning July 2011.)
Background
June 27, 2011 Page 3 of 8
(ID # 1857)
During Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 staff initiated a Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) for the Water
Utility. A COSA is conducted to review utility rate structures and the alignment of revenues
with the cost of providing service for each customer class. Based on the results of the COSA,
and a review of Water Utility rate structures, staff analyzed water customer use patterns and
various alternative rate structures in preparation for revisions to rate structures to ensure
equitable rates for all customer classes.
The COSA determined:
1)The appropriate percentage of revenue to be collected from each of the rate classes as a
whole;
2)The appropriate amount of revenue that should be collected as a fixed charge rate
component based on meter size; and
3)The appropriate amount of revenue that should be collected from volumetric (usage
based) charges from each rate class as a whole.
In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC)
and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect
to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City, utilizing the cost of service
analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain rate making
objectives.
Staff recommended, in concurrence with these discussions and in addition to the 12.5%
revenue increase, a redesign of the residential and commercial rate structures and a re-
allocation of revenue collection by rate class. Under the proposed changes residential rates
would increase from two to three tiers, and tiered rates (two tiers) would be introduced for
commercial rates. Tiered rates meet the objective of providing effective price signals to
promote water conservation and are in line with the California Constitution Article X, Section 2
that requires that water resources of California “be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of
which they are capable, and that the waste and unreasonable use or unreasonable method of
use of water be prevented”. California’s Water Code, Section 375 also explicitly allows water
conservation measures to be adopted, including water “rate structure designs” that meet
certain conditions.
Although Palo Alto has sufficient water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) in normal water years, new water supplies for the state are very expensive
to develop. Many agencies, including the SFPUC, are considering new projects to increase
water supplies such as desalination, recycled water, and new water storage reservoirs. These
new water supply resources can cost from $5 per ccf to over $20 per ccf. Tiered rates that
encourage water conservation create an incentive to use water efficiently, and help prevent
unreasonable use and waste of water, and the need for these high cost supplies.
Discussion
Table 2 and Table 3 show the rates in effect as of June 27, 2011 and staff’s proposed water
rates modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W3, W4 and W7 rate schedules. Table 2 shows the
June 27, 2011 Page 4 of 8
(ID # 1857)
volumetric rate changes and Table 3shows the changes to the fixed charge components of the
rates by meter size. If the Council approves these current proposed rates, they will go into
effect on July 1, 2011 because the City has already completed the Proposition 218 notice and
public hearing procedures. With only 128 protests against the proposed rates, City Council can
choose to impose these rate changes.
Table 2: Staff’s Proposed Volumetric Rates for FY 2012
Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.600 ($0.349)-8.8%
Over 7 ccf $5.624 7-29 ccf $6.080 $0.456 8.1%
W1 –Residential
Over 29 ccf $7.640 $2.016 35.8%
All ccf $4.946 First 14 ccf $4.486 ($0.460)-9.3%W4 –Commercial
Over 14 ccf $4.946 $0.000 0.0%
W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $6.325 $1.379 27.9%
Table 3: Staff’s Proposed Fixed Monthly Charges for FY 2012 by Meter Size
Rate Schedule Meter
Size
Current
Monthly
Charge
Proposed
Monthly
Charge
Change ($)Change (%)
Residential / Commercial 5/8 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 3/4 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1”$6.50 $13.00 $6.50 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1 1/2 ”$12.27 $27.00 $14.73 120.0%
Residential / Commercial 2”$19.37 $43.00 $23.63 122.0%
Commercial 3”$77.65 $114.00 $36.35 46.8%
Commercial 4”$130.60 $195.00 $64.40 49.3%
Commercial 6”$260.43 $406.00 $145.57 55.9%
Commercial 8” $383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Commercial 10”$383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Private Fire Service 4”$4.20 $7.27 $3.07 73.1%
Private Fire Service 6”$7.00 $16.13 $9.13 130.4%
Private Fire Service 8”$10.75 $28.53 $17.78 165.4%
Private Fire Service 10”$15.75 $44.48 $28.73 182.4%
Table 4 and Table 5 show the volumetric rates in effect as of June 27, 2011 and the two
alternative volumetric water rate modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W4 and W7 rate
schedules. The changes to the fixed monthly charges will be the same as shown in Table 3. If
City Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with one of these alternative rate designs,
the City will be required to conduct the Proposition 218 notice and protest hearing procedures
again. Alternative rates will go into effect in October 2011 if there is not a majority protest
against the new rate changes. Any delay in taking a final rate recommendation to the City
Council beyond August 1, 2011 will further delay the effective increase of water rates.
June 27, 2011 Page 5 of 8
(ID # 1857)
Table 4: Alternative 1 -2-tiered residential rates with Tier 1 breakpoint and rate set same as in
current proposal, and one tier for commercial rates
Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.60 ($0.349)-8.8%W1 –Residential
Over 7 ccf $5.624 Over 6 ccf $7.34 $1.716 30.5%
W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 All ccf $4.93 ($0.016)-0.3%
W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $7.80 $2.854 57.7%
Table 5: Alternative 2 -2-tiered residential rates with Tier 1 breakpoint and rate set same as
rates in effect today, and one tier for commercial rates
Current Rates Current Proposed Rates ChangeRate Schedule
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
First 7 ccf $3.949 0-7 ccf $3.95 $0.001 0.0%W1 –Residential
Over 7 ccf $5.624 Over 7 ccf $8.10 $2.476 44.0%
W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 All ccf $4.93 ($0.016)-0.3%
W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $7.80 $2.854 57.7%
Table 6 shows the monthly bills and bill changes compared to today’s rates for residential
customers with a 5/8’’ meter under the current staff proposed rates and the two alternatives
To give an indication of the number of customers that fall into the residential usage levels
shown in the table below, the table is highlighted as follows:
AA Is the annual average residential usage (14 ccf for all residential customers and 13 ccf
for residential customers with a 5/8’’ meter)
SA Is the summer usage average for residential customers
WA Is the winter usage average for residential customers
The tables also indicate the number of customers at or below each usage level:
A3 Annually 30% of residential customers use 6 ccf or less
A5 Annually 50% of residential customers use 10 ccf or less
A9 Annually 97% of residential customers use 40 ccf or less
W5 In the winter 50% of residential customers use 6 ccf or less
S85 In the summer 85% of residential customers use 29 ccf or less
June 27, 2011 Page 6 of 8
(ID # 1857)
Table 6: Monthly bills and percentage increase in monthly bills under the different rate
options for a selection of residential customers
W1 Rat e for 5/8"
Current
Meter Size
3/4"5.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$ 10.00$
5/8"5.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Tier 1 7 6 6 7
Tier 2 Over 29 Over Over
Tier 3 Over
Tier 1 3.949 3.600 3.600 3.950
Tier 2 5.624 6.080 7.340 8.100
Tier 3 7.640
All W1 Monthly Usage Bill Change Bill Change Bill Change
0 5.00 10.00 100%10.00 100%10.00 100%
1 8.95 13.60 52%13.60 52%13.95 56%
2 12.90 17.20 33%17.20 33%17.90 39%
3 16.85 20.80 23%20.80 23%21.85 30%
4 20.80 24.40 17%24.40 17%25.80 24%
5 24.75 28.00 13%28.00 13%29.75 20%
A3,W5 A3 6 28.69 31.60 10%31.60 10%33.70 17%
7 32.64 37.68 15%38.94 19%37.65 15%
8 38.27 43.76 14%46.28 21%45.75 20%
WA WA, A5 9 43.89 49.84 14%53.62 22%53.85 23%
A5 10 49.52 55.92 13%60.96 23%61.95 25%
11 55.14 62.00 12%68.30 24%70.05 27%
12 60.76 68.08 12%75.64 24%78.15 29%
AA 13 66.39 74.16 12%82.98 25%86.25 30%
AA 14 72.01 80.24 11%90.32 25%94.35 31%
15 77.64 86.32 11%97.66 26%102.45 32%
16 83.26 92.40 11%105.00 26%110.55 33%
SA 17 88.88 98.48 11%112.34 26%118.65 33%
18 94.51 104.56 11%119.68 27%126.75 34%
SA 19 100.13 110.64 10%127.02 27%134.85 35%
20 105.76 116.72 10%134.36 27%142.95 35%
21 111.38 122.80 10%141.70 27%151.05 36%
22 117.00 128.88 10%149.04 27%159.15 36%
23 122.63 134.96 10%156.38 28%167.25 36%
24 128.25 141.04 10%163.72 28%175.35 37%
25 133.88 147.12 10%171.06 28%183.45 37%
26 139.50 153.20 10%178.40 28%191.55 37%
27 145.12 159.28 10%185.74 28%199.65 38%
28 150.75 165.36 10%193.08 28%207.75 38%
S85 29 156.37 171.44 10%200.42 28%215.85 38%
30 162.00 179.08 11%207.76 28%223.95 38%
35 190.12 217.28 14%244.46 29%264.45 39%
A9 40 218.24 255.48 17%281.16 29%304.95 40%
45 246.36 293.68 19%317.86 29%345.45 40%
50 274.48 331.88 21%354.56 29%385.95 41%
55 302.60 370.08 22%391.26 29%426.45 41%
60 330.72 408.28 23%427.96 29%466.95 41%
65 358.84 446.48 24%464.66 29%507.45 41%
70 386.96 484.68 25%501.36 30%547.95 42%
Start October Delay scenarios
Proposed Two tiers Two tiers
Alt 1 Alt 2
June 27, 2011 Page 7 of 8
(ID # 1857)
Timeline
If City Council approves the current proposed water rates, they will go into effect on July 1,
2011 because the City has already completed the Proposition 218 notice and public hearing
procedures. If City Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with one of the alternative
water rate designs, the City must complete another Proposition 218 procedural process, and
absent a majority protest alternative rates will go into effect in October 2011. Any delay in
taking a final rate recommendation to the City Council beyond August 1, 2011 will further delay
the effective increase of water rates.
Assuming:
·Council directs staff to return on August 1, 2011 with an alternative rate design;
·The revised water rates do not need to be reviewed by the Utilities Advisory
Commission or the Finance Committee;
·A transfer of $2.8 million from the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (as currently
proposed); and
·No further updates to the financial forecast.
The following schedule could be achieved if there are no other delays:
August 1 ... New rates for Council review at regularly scheduled Council meeting
August 14 ... Prop 218 notices sent to customers (in coordination with refuse rates increases)
October 3 ... Public Hearing
October 4 ... New rates in effect if less than 50% +1 "no" votes
Resource Impact
If the City Council imposes the current proposed rate changes, the new rates will increase the
water fund revenues by approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012. A rate increase will have a
positive net impact to the General Fund of $20,000 with the Utilities User Tax collections
exceeding increased water costs for the General Fund by approximately $20,000. The
alternative water rates could also increase the water fund revenues by approximately $3.4
million for FY 2012 if there is not a majority protest against the new rate changes.If there was
a majority protest then the water fund revenue shortfall would increase by $3.4 million in FY
2012 beyond the projections in the approved FY 2012 budget. If a rate increase is not
approved, there would also be a negative net impact to the General Fund of approximately
$20,000.
Environmental Review
The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a)(1) and (3).
June 27, 2011 Page 8 of 8
(ID # 1857)
Attachments:
·A Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF)
·B W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·C W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·D W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·E W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·F Final Staff Report ID 1628_Water Util Rate Incr FY 2012 (PDF)
·Public Letters to Council (PDF)
Prepared By:Debra Lloyd, Manager
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60
Tier 2 usage ........................................................................................................................ 6.08
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)...................................................................................... 7.64
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 6.50
Deleted: 12.27
Deleted: 19.37
Deleted: 77.65
Deleted: 130.60
Deleted: 260.43
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 3.949
Deleted: (All usage over 100% of Tier
1)
Deleted: 5.624
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level
of 0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29 ccf.
For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 33
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection....................................................................................................... $7.27
6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13
8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53
10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.20
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: $ 7.00
Deleted: $ 10.75
Deleted: $ 15.75
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2
5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 ........................................................................................................................ $4.486
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................ 4.946
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Per ccf
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $6.325
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1628)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 6/13/2011
June 13, 2011 Page 1 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Summary Title: Water Utility Rate Increases for Fiscal Year 2012
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Approval of Water Utility Rate Changes pursuant to
Proposition 218
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
The Finance Committee and Staff request that the City Council adopt a resolution to:
1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached.
The recommended rate increase triggered the notice and protest hearing procedures under
Proposition 218.
Executive Summary
This report and attachments discuss the projected costs and revenue requirements for the
Water Fund for FY 2012 through FY 2016,as well as recommended rate revisions for FY 2012.
Staff assessed major cost drivers and expected costs, the short-term risks, reviewed reserve
guidelines, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five
years. Staff projects a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requests a revenue
increase of $3.4 million or an average rate increase of 12.5% for FY 2012. Due to sufficient
reserve levels in the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (WRSR), the remaining shortfall of $2.8
million in FY 2012 will be drawn out of the reserves. The five year projections beyond the
budget year indicate requirement for additional rate increases of 17%, 16% and 8% for FY 2013
through FY 2015. Staff requests the Council adoption of rate changes for FY 2012 only at this
time. The average rate adjustments projected for FY 2013 through FY 2016 are provided for
information purposes and are subject to change. The proposed rate adjustments achieve a
gradual increase of the revenue stream required to fund the expected operating expenses facing
the Water Fund over the next five years. The projected adjustments achieve the goals of
ensuring that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) is adequate and
within the Council-approved reserve guideline levels for FY 2012 and for the long-term forecast
horizon. In the interim years of FY 2013 and FY 2014, W-RSR is projected to go below the
June 13, 2011 Page 2 of 6
(ID # 1628)
minimum guidelines but recover starting in FY 2015 and end within the guidelines at the end of
the forecast horizon.
In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC)
and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect
to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City, utilizing cost of service
analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain rate making
objectives. Staff recommends, in concurrence with these discussions including feedback from
the UAC and direction provided by the Finance Committee, a re-allocation of revenue collection
by rate class, in addition to the 12.5% revenue increase. The revenue-neutral rate adjustments
result in an average rate increase of 4.2% for the residential class, an average rate decrease of
9.9% for the commercial rate class, an average increase of 14.2% for the irrigation rate class, and
an average increase of 93% for the private fire hydrant rate class. Staff also recommends
structural changes to existing residential (W-1) and commercial (W-4) rate schedules in order to
promote more efficient use of water. The structural change involves adding one more tier to
residential and commercial rate schedules resulting in a total of three tiers in residential rates
and two tiers in commercial rates. Multiple usage tiers (inclining block rates) are used to
provide a stronger price signal (financial disincentive) to high water use. They are characterized
by an increasing unit price of water for incremental water block or tier.
Both the UAC at its February 2, 2011 meeting and the Finance Committee at its March 1, 2011
meeting indicated agreement with the staff recommendation on the annual revenue increase of
12.5%, the revenue-neutral rate adjustments between distinct rate classes reflecting the relative
cost to provide service, and the addition of tiers to residential and commercial rate classes. The
UAC and the Finance Committee, however, voted differing amendments to the “within” class
rate designs, particularly regarding the allocation of costs between fixed and volumetric rate
recovery mechanisms.
The UAC voted by five to two in favor of recommending that the Council adopt the rates
proposed at the February 2011 meeting with the following modifications:
·Residential tier 1 and tier 2 prices would be increased slightly from current prices, and
the additional revenue would be used to lower the fixed service charges;
·There would be no bill reduction for commercial customers as a result of proposed rate
revisions.
The Finance Committee voted by three to one in favor of recommending that the Council adopt
the rates proposed at the March 2011 meeting with the following modification:
·Fixed service charges to be increased to 50% of the Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
recommendation.
Table 1 shows the current and proposed water rates incorporating Finance Committee’s
modifications for FY 2012 for the W1, W3, W4 and W7 rate schedules.
June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Table 1 -Proposed Rates for FY 2012
Current Rates Proposed Rates Change
Rate Schedule Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
Applicable
Volume
Rates
(per ccf)
$
(per ccf)
Percent
Change
W1 –Residential First 7 ccf $3.949 0-6 ccf $3.600 -$0.349 -8.8%
Over 7 ccf $5.624 7-29 ccf $6.080 $0.456 8.1%
Over 29 ccf $7.640 $2.016 35.8%
W4 –Commercial All ccf $4.946 First 14 ccf $4.486 -$0.460 -9.3%
Over 14 ccf $4.946 $0.000 0.0%
W7 –Irrigation All ccf $4.946 All ccf $6.325 $1.379 27.9%
Rate Schedule Meter
Size
Current
Monthly
Charge
Proposed
Monthly
Charge
Change ($)Change (%)
Residential / Commercial 5/8 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 3/4 ”$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1”$6.50 $13.00 $6.50 100.0%
Residential / Commercial 1 1/2 ”$12.27 $27.00 $14.73 120.0%
Residential / Commercial 2”$19.37 $43.00 $23.63 122.0%
Commercial 3”$77.65 $114.00 $36.35 46.8%
Commercial 4”$130.60 $195.00 $64.40 49.3%
Commercial 6”$260.43 $406.00 $145.57 55.9%
Commercial 8” $383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Commercial 10”$383.67 $644.00 $260.33 67.9%
Private Fire Service 4”$4.20 $7.27 $3.07 73.1%
Private Fire Service 6”$7.00 $16.13 $9.13 130.4%
Private Fire Service 8”$10.75 $28.53 $17.78 165.4%
Private Fire Service 10”$15.75 $44.48 $28.73 182.4%
Discussion
The Water Utility’s revenue requirement increase is primarily driven by the rapidly rising cost of
water supply. The City of Palo Alto (City)’s water supply costs are projected to increase by 37
percent in the next fiscal year and double by 2016, largely as a result of the infrastructure
projects currently undertaken by the City’s primary water supplier, the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC). SFPUC’s $4.6 billion initiative includes the repair, replacement
and seismic upgrades of the regional system’s deteriorating pipelines, tunnels, dams, reservoirs,
pump stations and other facilities. The City Council supports this program (CMR: 311:00), the
cost of which is shared by all of the SFPUC’s water customers.
Safe and reliable water delivery is also a local priority. The Water Utility has planned capital
improvement projects for our local City water supply infrastructure, including necessary seismic
retrofitting of Palo Alto’s water tanks and this is reflected in the new rates.
Customer Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 2 shows the impact of the proposed rate increase on customer bills based on different
consumption levels for the residential and commercial classes.
June 13, 2011 Page 4 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Table 2: Impact of Proposed Rate Increase on Customer Bills
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Current
Monthly
Bill ($)
Proposed
Monthly
Bill ($)
Increase
Amount
($)
Percent
Increase
Small Residential (5/8” Meter)
6 $ 28.69 $ 31.60 $2.91 10.1%
Medium Residential (5/8” Meter)
14 72.01 80.24 8.23 11.4%
Large Residential (5/8” Meter)
35 190.12 $ 217.28 27.17 14.3%
Medium Commercial (3" Meter)
300 1,561.45 1,591.36 29.91 1.9%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter)1200 6,195.63 6,334.76 139.13 2.2%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter) (irrigation only) (W-7)3000 15,098.43 19,381.00 4,282.57 28.4%
If approved by Council, the proposed $3.4 million increase for FY 2012 results in a total revenue
increase of $2.5 million (17%) from the residential customers and $0.9 million (8%) from the
business customers. The impact of the proposed FY 2012 water rate adjustments is an
additional $8.23 on an average1 residential customer’s current monthly water utility bill of
$72.01. The impact on an individual customer will vary depending on customer class and
individual customer water usage levels.
Comparison of Palo Alto Water Rates and Surrounding Cities
For several years, Palo Alto's retail water rates have generally been higher than those in
surrounding areas. Staff initiated a Benchmark Study for the Water Utility in May 2010 and
presented its findings to the UAC in October 2010 and to the Finance Committee in November
2010 and submitted to the Council in March 2011. The objective of the study was to develop
benchmarks and to provide insight as to the main reasons for the higher water rates in Palo
Alto. The findings of this study highlighted some key areas such as more spending by Palo Alto
for replacement of aging infrastructure; lack of access to lower cost water supply; more
expensive service terrain to serve; higher quality of service; and higher rent payment for its use
of real estate in the service territory. Rent charges for the Water Utility’s use of real estate in
the service territory are adjusted annually to market value based on a survey conducted by the
City.
Table 3 below, which compares monthly water bills using municipal water rates as of January 1,
2011 for Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Menlo Park, indicates that the average
residential customer in surrounding cities pays approximately 24% less than the average Palo
1 Average residential customer is defined as a single family customer with 5/8” meter using 14 ccf (hundred cubic
feet) of water per month.
June 13, 2011 Page 5 of 6
(ID # 1628)
Alto residential customer. The residential bill comparison with the average benchmark city is
seven percentage points lower this year compared to the same period a year ago as other cities
facing similar cost increases have begun raising their water rates as well. There are indications
that nearby cities that purchase water supplies from the SFPUC will continue to raise rates in FY
20122. At this time, the certainty or magnitude of their rate increases is not known.
Table 3 –Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison (rates in effect as of Jan. 1, 2011)
Water
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park
Redwood
City
Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
Average
Benchmark
(%)
Diff.
Small 6 $28.69 $38.95 $33.07 $20.78 $16.44 $27.31 -4.8%
Average 14 $72.01 $73.14 $60.37 $48.04 $38.36 $54.97 -23.7%
Large 35 $190.12 $165.38 $185.45 $153.21 $95.90 $149.98 -21.1%
Difference from CPAU 1.6%-16.2%-33.3%-46.7%-23.7%
Proposition 218 Water Rate Increase Procedure
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements
that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property-related fee. Since
Proposition 218 applies to the water rate increases described here, the City must provide
written notice by mail to water customers subject to the proposed fees (notices were mailed
April 25, 2011), followed by a public hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed
(the June 13, 2011 Council meeting). Per the requirements, the notice included the amount of
the fee, the basis upon which the fee is calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date, time
and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests against
the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee.
Possibility of Water Use Restrictions due to Water Shortage
In the event of a water shortage, the SFPUC will declare a water shortage emergency and
impose mandatory water use reductions. If this action is taken, then staff will return to the
Council with an updated proposal for a rate adjustment and water rate schedules. Staff does
not expect a water shortage for FY 2012 at this time.
Board/Commission Review and Recommendations
The Finance Committee considered staff’s recommendation at its March 1, 2011 meeting. The
Committee members discussed the five-year financial projections and the possible impacts on
the reserve levels. They also discussed the rate design changes proposed by staff and the UAC,
including the cost of service adjustments between customer classes,the impact of increasing
the fixed service charge component in one year, and the level and effectiveness of the
2 Based on the FY 2009 BAWSCA survey, the share of SFPUC as source of water supply was 89% for Menlo Park,
100% for Redwood City, 86% for Mountain View, and 12% for Santa Clara.
June 13, 2011 Page 6 of 6
(ID # 1628)
volumetric rates. Motions were made to direct staff to return to the Finance Committee with
various alternatives to the fixed and volumetric rate components.
The Finance Committee voted by three to one in favor of recommending that the City Council
approve staff’s and the UAC’s recommended Water Utility Rate Adjustments with the following
amendment:
·Fixed service charges to be increased to 50%of COSA recommendation.
An excerpt of the minutes from the Finance Committees March 1, 2011 meeting are provided
as Attachment G.
Resource Impact
Approval of this rate proposal will increase the Water Fund retail sales revenues by
approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies.
Environmental Review
The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a)(1) and (3).
Attachments:
·Attachment A: Resolution for Water Rate Changes effective July 1 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment B: W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment C: W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment D: W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment E: W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (PDF)
·Attachment F: Staff Report to Finance Committee (PDF)
·Attachment G: Excerpts from Finance Committee Meeting Minutes 3-1-11 (PDF)
·Prop 218 Water Protests (PDF)
Prepared By:Ipek Connolly, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval: James Keene, City Manager
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge: Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ............................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ............................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ............................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rate: (To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage ........................................................................................................................ $3.60
Tier 2 usage ........................................................................................................................ 6.08
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)...................................................................................... 7.64
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection ........................................................................ $6.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: 6.50
Deleted: 12.27
Deleted: 19.37
Deleted: 77.65
Deleted: 130.60
Deleted: 260.43
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 383.67
Deleted: 3.949
Deleted: (All usage over 100% of Tier
1)
Deleted: 5.624
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.2 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level
of 0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 6 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29 ccf.
For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 33
Deleted: 7
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
1. Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant.................................................................................................... $5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection....................................................................................................... $7.27
6-inch connection....................................................................................................... 16.13
8-inch connection....................................................................................................... 28.53
10-inch connection..................................................................................................... 44.48
2. Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage .......................................................................................................... $10.00
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
1. Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2. No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3. For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
4. Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 4.20
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: $ 7.00
Deleted: $ 10.75
Deleted: $ 15.75
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 11-1-2008 Sheet No W-3-2
5. Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6. Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Deleted: 7-1-1992
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 ½-inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 ........................................................................................................................ $4.486
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................ 4.946
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: ¶
Deleted: Per ccf
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2. Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A. APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B. TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C. RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ................................................................................................$ 10.00
For 3/4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 10.00
For 1-inch meter ................................................................................................ 13.00
For 1 1/2 inch meter ................................................................................................ 27.00
For 2-inch meter ................................................................................................ 43.00
For 3-inch meter ................................................................................................ 114.00
For 4-inch meter ................................................................................................ 195.00
For 6-inch meter ................................................................................................ 406.00
For 8-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
For 10-inch meter ................................................................................................ 644.00
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Per Ccf ........................................................................................................................ $6.325
D. SPECIAL NOTES:
Deleted: 5.00
Deleted: $5.00
Deleted: $6.50
Deleted: $12.27
Deleted: $19.37
Deleted: $77.65
Deleted: $130.60
Deleted: $260.43
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: $383.67
Deleted: 4.946
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 7-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
1. Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
Deleted: 2009
Deleted: 11-1-2008
City of Palo Alto (ID # 1398)
Finance Committee Staff Report
Report Type:Meeting Date: 3/1/2011
March 01, 2011 Page 1 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Council Priority: {ResProject:ClearLine}
Title: Water Utility Rate Changes
Subject: Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long Term Financial
Projections
From:City Manager
Lead Department: Utilities
Recommendation
Staff requests that the Finance Committee recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution
to:
1.Increase overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent or $3.4 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2012; and
2.Amend Utility Water Rate Schedules W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, as attached.
The recommended rate increase will trigger the notice and protest hearing procedures under
Proposition 218.
Executive Summary
This report discusses the projected costs and revenue requirements for the Water Fund for FY
2012 through FY 2016, as well as recommended rate revisions for FY 2012.
Staff assessed major cost drivers and expected costs, the short-term risks, reviewed reserve
guidelines, and determined the revenue requirements for the Water Fund for the next five
years. Staff projects a revenue shortfall of $6.2 million in FY 2012 and requests a revenue
requirement increase of $3.4 million or an average rate increase of 12.5%, for FY 2012 followed
by additional rate increases of 17%, 16% and 8% for FY 2013 through FY 2015. Due to sufficient
reserve levels in the Water Rate Stabilization Reserves (WRSR), the remaining shortfall of $2.8
million in FY 2012 will be drawn out of the reserves. Staff requests the Finance Committee
recommend adoption of rate changes for FY 2012 only at this time. The average rate
adjustments projected for FY 2013 through FY 2016 are provided for information purposes and
are subject to change. The proposed rate adjustments achieve a gradual increase of the revenue
stream required to fund the expected operating expenses facing the Water Fund over the next
five years. The projected adjustments achieve the goals of ensuring that the balance of the
Water Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) is adequate and within the Council-approved reserve
March 01, 2011 Page 2 of 19
(ID # 1398)
guideline levels for FY 2012 and for the long-term forecast horizon. In the interim years of FY
2013 and FY 2014, W-RSR is projected to go below the minimum guidelines but recover starting
in FY 2015 and end within the guidelines at the end of the forecast horizon.
In October 2010 and November 2010, staff brought to the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC)
and the Finance Committee respectively, an assessment of existing rate structures with respect
to the relative cost to serve distinct customer classes within the City of Palo Alto (City), utilizing
cost of service analysis. Staff also discussed with the UAC and the Finance Committee certain
rate making objectives. Staff recommends, in concurrence with these discussions and direction
provided by the UAC and the Finance Committee, a re-allocation of revenue collection by rate
class. The revenue-neutral rate adjustments result in an average rate increase of 4.2% for the
residential class, an average rate decrease of 9.9% for the commercial rate class, an average
increase of 14.2% for the irrigation rate class, and an average increase of 93% for the private fire
hydrant rate class. At its February 2, 2011 meeting, the UAC indicated acceptance of staff
recommendation on the cost of service adjustments between various customer classes. The
UAC voted 5-2 on staff’s proposal with amendments to the “within” class rate designs,
particularly regarding the allocation of costs between fixed and volumetric rate recovery
mechanisms and the manner in which the additional $3.4 million in cost increases are proposed
to be recovered.
If approved by Council, the proposed $3.4 million increase for FY 2012 results in a total revenue
increase of $2.5 million (17%) from the residential customers and $0.9 million (8%) from the
business customers.The impact of the proposed FY 2012 water rate adjustments is an
additional $10.07 on an average residential customer’s current monthly water utility bill of
$72.01. The impact on an individual customer will vary depending on customer class and
individual customer water usage levels.
Background
The City’s Water Utility (Utility) serves about 20,000 customers over an area of approximately
26 square miles. The City’s average daily consumption of water in FY 2010 was 10.2 million
gallons per day (mgd) or 5.0 million ccf (hundred cubic feet) of water for the year. The Utility is
responsible for the operations and maintenance of the system and purchases all of its water
from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) through a contract that runs
through June 2034.
In order to maintain the financial viability of the Utility, staff conducts an annual review of
major cost drivers and expected costs facing the utility; evaluates risks and adequacy of
reserves; and determines the revenue requirements of the Water Fund for the next five years.
The revenue requirements and resulting rate adjustment targets depend on a number of
factors. They include sales projections,water supply costs, distribution system operating and
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)expenses, prudent funding of the Water Rate Stabilization
Reserve (W-RSR), the Emergency Plant Replacement (EPR) Reserve, and debt service payments.
Any change in these factors can trigger an adjustment to the revenue requirement. During the
budget process, staff forecasts customer load, revenues and utility expenses to quantify the
March 01, 2011 Page 3 of 19
(ID # 1398)
annual revenue requirement. Changes to forecasted revenues or expenses are reflected in
adjustments to the budget during the mid-year budget adjustment process.
In FY 2010, staff hired Utility Financial Solutions, LLC (UFS), an external consulting firm to
conduct a cost of service analysis (COSA). COSAs are conducted to review utility rate structures
and the alignment of revenues by customer class with the cost of providing service to each
customer class. COSAs also fulfill Proposition 218 requirements for determining the proper
allocation of costs to customers. Based on the results of the COSA, and a review of existing
Water Utility rate structures, staff analyzed various alternative rate structures to ensure
equitable rates for all customer classes. Staff discussed with the UAC at its October 2010
meeting and the Finance Committee at its November 2010 meeting various alternatives to
water rate structures in order to meet certain rate making objectives, and general
recommendations from those meetings are incorporated in this report.
Discussion
Financial Projections
Table 1 below shows financial projections for the Water Fund for FY 2010 to FY 2016. For FY
2010, both budgeted and realized actuals based on City’s Audited Financial Report (CAFR) are
shown. For FY 2011, both budgeted and projected financial expectations are shown. The
projected column for FY 2011 reflects revised Retail Sales Revenue and Wholesale Water
Purchase Costs based on the actual water consumption levels realized in the first half of the
year, and revised projections for the second half.
Cost Drivers
Total expenses1 were $31.2 million in FY 2010. This is $2.9 million higher than budgeted due
mainly to debt financing expenses associated with the Water Bond issued that year. This
overage was mitigated somewhat by lower than expected purchase costs and operations
expense. In FY 2011, total expenses are expected to be slightly lower than budgeted, reaching
$32.0 million as a result of lower than expected water use in Palo Alto. Starting in FY 2012,
however, total expenses are projected to increase sharply, reaching $42.4 million in FY 2016,
driven in large part by increases in water supply purchase costs and CIP-related expenses.
1 Refers to Row 20 in Table 1: Total expenses excluding Bond Financed Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
March 01, 2011 Page 4 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 1
Five-Year Financial Plan –Projected Costs (in $thousands)
$(000')s
Adopted Adopted
Budget Actual Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 % CHANGE IN RETAIL RATE 5.0%5.0%0.0%0.0%12.5%17.0%16.0%8.0%0.0%
2 PROJECTED SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE ($/CCF)5.21 5.23 5.21 5.21 5.86 6.85 7.95 8.59 8.59
3 PROJECTED COMMODITY COST ($/CCF)1.70 1.66 2.00 1.92 2.57 2.96 3.17 3.37 3.84
4 SALES UNITS (THOUSAND CCFs)5,543 4,955 5,504 5,143 5,256 5,195 5,170 5,143 5,120
5 PROJECTED CHANGE IN RETAIL SALES REVENUE 1,375 1,234 0 0 3,422 5,174 5,670 3,272 0
6 REVENUE
7 Utilities Retail Sales 28,948 25,851 28,808 26,926 30,795 35,539 41,013 44,174 44,113
8 Service Connection & Capacity Fees 682 694 692 692 767 776 785 795 750
9 Other Revenues plus Transfers In 131 648 766 766 158 159 161 162 162
10 Interest & Gain or Loss on Investment 1,265 1,375 1,050 1,050 595 665 627 976 1,449
11 Sub Total 31,026 28,568 31,316 29,434 32,314 37,140 42,586 46,107 46,475
12 CIP Bond Proceeds / Reserve 35,000 35,000 3,500 3,500 0 0 0 8,000 16,000
13 Total Sources of Funds 66,026 63,568 34,816 32,934 32,314 37,140 42,586 54,107 62,475
14 OPERATING EXPENSE
15 Water Supply Purhcases 10,354 9,061 12,043 10,834 14,790 16,840 17,949 18,986 21,541
16 Operations 10,094 8,428 10,721 10,721 10,603 10,709 10,816 10,924 11,034
17 Debt Service & Other Related 775 5,379 2,981 2,981 2,734 2,741 2,753 2,762 2,778
18 Rent 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,128 2,150 2,171 2,193 2,215
19 CIP (Non-Bonded)4,914 6,189 5,348 5,348 4,869 9,924 9,413 5,051 4,871
20 Sub Total 28,244 31,165 33,201 31,992 35,124 42,364 43,102 39,916 42,439
21 CIP (Bonded)22,500 22,500 3,500 3,500 8,000 16,000
22 Total Uses of Funds 50,744 53,665 36,701 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 47,916 58,439
23
24 Into/ (Out of) Reserves 15,282 9,903 (1,885)(2,558)(2,811)(5,224)(516)6,191 4,036
25
26 Ending Rate Stabilization Reserve 14,089 13,536 10,851 10,978 8,167 2,943 2,427 8,618 12,654
27 Portion held for Bond CIP 3,500 0
28 Ending Plant Replacement Reserve 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
29 Ending Debt Service Reserve 5,080 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347
30
31 Short Term Assessment of Risks 3,765 3,765 3,766 4,168 4,169 5,190
32 Rate Stabilization Guidelines
33 Miniumum 4,330 3,887 4,300 4,017 4,619 5,342 6,166 6,625 6,596
34 Maximum 8,660 7,774 8,600 8,035 9,238 10,684 12,332 13,250 13,191
35
Fiscal Year
Date: Nov 30, 2010
City of Palo Alto
Water Utility Financial Projections
Water supply costs are projected to more than double from their current levels of $10.8 million
in FY 2011 to $21.5 million in FY 2016. This is due to planned infrastructure upgrade projects
that are being undertaken by the City’s primary water supplier, the SFPUC. The City Council
supports this infrastructure upgrade effort as it will repair and upgrade the regional water
supply system (CMR: 311:00). All of the SFPUC’s water customers share the cost of this project.
Chart 1 presents the SFPUC’s wholesale water prices for both the historical period from 1971 to
2011 and projections through 2021, as of January 2011. The latest wholesale price projections
are significantly higher than last year’s projections. This is primarily due to lower water use by
all SFPUC’s water customers and the fact that SFPUC’s water system costs are all fixed and not
dependent on water use levels. SFPUC is currently reviewing its wholesale water rate structures
and may propose a new rate setting approach for FY 2012. Depending on the outcome of the
rate setting mechanism adopted by SFPUC, Palo Alto’s water supply costs are projected to
increase from $10.8 million in FY 2011 to between $14.4 and $15.6 million in FY 2012. Staff
March 01, 2011 Page 5 of 19
(ID # 1398)
assumed $14.8 million for the financial projections presented in this report based on an earlier
analysis.
Chart 1
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
1971
1976
1981
1986
1991
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
2021
Commodity Cost ($/AF)
SFPUC's Wholesale Water Prices
Actual Rates
February 2010 Projection
February 2011 Projection
Another sizeable expenditure is for the new CIP projects planned for FY 2013 and FY 2014.
Recent investigations of Palo Alto’s water storage tanks have shown the need for additional
retrofits required for seismic protection as well as improvements needed for tank coatings.
These projects are projected to take three years, with costs anticipated to be $2.7 million in FY
2012, $4.0 million in FY 2013, and $4.4 million in FY 2014. Due to the new project costs
anticipated for FY 2012, an existing water main replacement project2 of $3.2 million will be
deferred from FY 2012 to FY 2013.
Bond-funded CIP projects in FY 2010 include the Water Reservoir and Well Rehabilitation
project, which is proceeding as planned. Staff is also considering another large capital project to
extend the recycled water distribution system that may impact the Water Fund within the five-
year forecast horizon. The capital expenditure for this project could total over $32 million and
significant expenditures could start in FY 2015. The sources of funds for the project have not
been identified at this time, but are likely to include a combination of state and federal grants
and a state low interest loan. Additional funds for the recycled water project could come from
2 Water Main Replacement Project # 25.
March 01, 2011 Page 6 of 19
(ID # 1398)
project partners that have not yet been identified and bond proceeds for the balance of the
project costs.
For the other cost items, the Debt Service payments reflect ongoing payments on the two
outstanding water bonds of $775 thousand (2002 Utility Revenue Bonds, Series A) and $2.0
million (2009 Water Revenue Bonds, Series A). Debt Service charges for FY 2010 also include
$3.8 million for the water reservoir and well rehabilitation bond issuance.
Staff projects a long-term net cost increase of 1% per year in other operating expenditures such
as operations, maintenance and administration costs, allocated cost plan and Utilities
administration charges, rents, and other transfers.This conservative assumption reflects the
current expectations for the economic activity for the region. Depending on the final outcome
of labor negotiations and other budgetary decisions, final Operating Budget proposals will be
determined and presented to the Finance Committee at its May 2011 meeting.
Revenue Projections
Retail Sales constitute the largest source of revenue for the Water Fund. In FY 2010, total Retail
Sales amounted to $25.8 million. This was $3.1 million (10.7%) lower than budgeted. Water
demand projections are discussed in detail in the following section. Other revenues in FY 2010
include Service Connection and Capacity Fees of $694,000 and Transfers In of $648,000.
Interest and Gains on Investments totaled $1.4 million in FY 2010. Additionally, the City issued
Water Bonds of $35.0 million to finance the Emergency Reservoir and Well Rehabilitation
Project during FY 2010. Going forward, the Utility plans to acquire external funding3 for the
recycled water project related expenses shown for FY 2015 and FY 2016. Interest and Gains on
Investments in future years are calculated assuming a 3% return on investment.
Water Demand
Water demand has a significant impact on the financial position of the Water Fund. A 1% drop
in water demand results in a 0.95% loss in sales revenue or 0.87% loss in total revenue, and
since most costs facing the water utility are fixed, this results in a corresponding need to
increase water revenues and, therefore, rates.
Water demand in the City has been declining since its peak in the early 1970’s. During the last
forty years, the City and the region experienced two periods of drought, the first one during
1976-77, and the second one lasting a longer time span from 1987 through 1992. The City
aggressively pursued water conservation and community outreach programs during these
years. Coupled with drought rates, these measures resulted in an average of 38% reduction in
water consumption in the City during each occurrence. As can be seen in Chart 2, while some of
the consumption resumed after the drought was over, the City’s water use levels nevertheless
have declined since 2000 despite the growth in population and employment. While some of the
decrease was due to the availability of recycled water, significant long term reduction in water
3 Table 1 Row 12 and Row 21 –CIP Bond Proceeds and Expenses of $8.0 million in FY 2015 and $16.0 million in FY
2016
March 01, 2011 Page 7 of 19
(ID # 1398)
demand was achieved as a result of continuous improvements in building plumbing codes,
various City ordinances, and resulting investments in water efficient equipment.
Recently, the region as well as the City has been experiencing another significant decline in the
demand for water. Water consumption levels observed in FY 2010 were the lowest since the
drought of 1992. The recent decline in water use is attributable to a combination of factors
including the regional weather conditions, the state of the economy and the effect of the City’s
continuing water conservation effort. The City’s water consumption in FY 2010 was 9% lower
than consumption in FY 2009 and 14% lower than consumption in FY 2008.
For financial forecasting purposes the question is how the City’s and the region’s water
consumption will continue into the future. In order to evaluate the impact of water demand on
the financial forecast for the Water Fund, three scenarios were developed.
Under the base case scenario, water demand increases by 3.6% in FY 2011, but due to slow
economic recovery and expected rate increases during the earlier part of the forecast horizon,
it is projected to decrease at an average rate of 0.7% per year for the following three years.
With the expected recovery taking effect during the latter part of the forecast horizon, demand
is expected to gradually increase at an average rate of 0.8% per year for the rest of the forecast
horizon. The base case also reflects the expected impact of planned water conservation
program implementation to meet goals in the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Under the
low scenario, water demand decreases an additional 5.4% in FY 2011, followed by a 1.0% per
year decline throughout the forecast horizon. In contrast, under the high scenario, water
demand increases by 8.9% in FY 2011, followed by a 1.5% per year increase for the rest of the
forecast horizon.
Chart 2 presents the historical water consumption levels in the City from FY 1960 through FY
2010 and the results of the demand scenarios analyzed. The financial projections presented in
this report are based on the base case scenario for water demand. The sensitivity of the
projections to the low and high demand scenarios is presented in the reserves and risk
assessment section.
March 01, 2011 Page 8 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Chart 2
Palo Alto Water Consumption
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Millions
Fiscal Year
Annual Usage (CCF/year)
High
Base
Low
ForecastActual
Revenue Requirement
The revenue requirement of the Water Fund is the total amount of revenue that the Utility
must collect in order to meet its operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, water supply
purchases, debt service payments and rate-financed CIP expenditures. Without a rate
adjustment, under the base scenario demand forecast, the Water Fund is projected to have a
revenue shortfall of $6.2 million and $13.1 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 respectively. Due to
its healthy reserves in FY 2011, staff recommends smoothed rate increases of 12.5% for FY 2012
and 17% for FY 2013 rather than a smaller increase in FY 2012 and a very large (greater than
20%) increase in FY 2013.
As discussed earlier, the revenue requirement in the Water Fund is very sensitive to demand
projections. For example, even with the recommended rate adjustments, under the low
demand scenario, the Water Fund would need an additional $3.7 million in FY 2012, and $4.3
million in FY 2013, in order to maintain reserves at the same levels as in the base scenario.
Conversely under the high demand scenario, the revenue shortfall would be much lower,
estimated to be $1.4 million and $3.8 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013 respectively.
Reserves and Risk Assessment
The Water Fund’s Rate Stabilization Reserve (W-RSR) Guidelines are established by the City
Council. The Council reviews reserve adequacy periodically and adjusts the guidelines as
needed. The W-RSR Guidelines were lowered in June 2009 (CMR:281:09) from 50% and 20% to
30% and 15% of sales revenues for maximum and minimum reserve levels, respectively.
March 01, 2011 Page 9 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Additionally, as required by the guidelines, staff performs an annual assessment of short-term
risks for the fund. This analysis involves estimating the revenue shortfall due to the maximum
observed budget-to-actual variance in one year during the past ten years, plus a variance of
10% of planned CIP expenditures for the budget year.
Table 2 summarizes the short-term risk assessment values for FY 2012 and FY 2013 and the
minimum and maximum guideline levels for the W-RSR. With the proposed 12.5% and 17%
rate increases for FY 2012 and FY 2013, respectively, the estimated end-of-year balance for the
W-RSR is $7.9 million in FY 2012 and $2.9 million in FY 2013. This is above both the short-term
risk assessment values as well as the minimum guidelines for FY 2012 but falls short of both the
risk assessment and minimum guideline levels for FY 2013. Staff is proposing approval of rate
adjustments for FY 2012 only at this time, and FY 2013 projections are provided for information
only. Staff will come back next year during the budget process for FY 2013 with the updated
financial projections and propose revised rate adjustments if necessary.
Due to the high volatility in water demand and the significant impact it can have on water utility
financials, staff performed an additional level of analysis this year using the low and high water
demand scenarios discussed earlier in this report. As shown in Table 2, the estimated end of
year balances under these scenarios would be significantly different. Staff will monitor and
report water sales levels throughout the fiscal year and may propose additional rate
adjustments during the mid-year budget adjustment process, if necessary.
Table 2: Water Rate Stabilization Reserve Guideline Levels and Short Term Risk Assessment
($M)
Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
As mentioned earlier, staff hired UFS in October 2009 to conduct a COSA study for the Water
Utility. UFS has experience in completing over 300 COSA studies for municipal utilities around
the nation. The analysis involved an in-depth review of utility financial data, customer class
load profiles, and the specific costs associated with providing utility services. It was conducted
based on industry-recognized procedures involving functional classification of utility assets and
expenses, and allocation of costs to customer classes based on the cost to provide the service.
Specific customer class attributes included quantity of service and/or resource consumed;
variability of use during the year; and, peak demands created on the system by each class.
WATER RATE STABILIZATION RESERVE FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -BASE 11.0 7.9 2.9
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -LOW 8.7 2.1 (7.4)
ESTIMATED END OF YEAR BALANCE -HIGH 12.3 11.0 8.5
RISK ASSESSMENT 4.2 4.2 5.2
MINIMUM LEVEL GUIDELINES 4.6 4.6 5.3
MAXIMUM LEVEL GUIDELINES 9.3 9.2 10.7
March 01, 2011 Page 10 of 19
(ID # 1398)
The result of the study is a recommended adjustment to rate schedules to accurately align
future revenues collected from each customer class with the costs attributable to serving that
class. The original study used financial data prepared for FY 2011 Long Range Financial
Projections presented to the UAC in February 2010. The study also relied on billing data for all
of FY 2008 and part of FY 2009. The original study results were updated with FY 2010 customer
usage data as it became available in September 2010. Table 3 presents the summary of updated
COSA results for the Water Utility. Attachment G and H provide the Technical Memorandum for
the updated results and the original Cost of Service Study, respectively.
Table 3 –Summary of COSA Results
RATE
SCHEDULE
CUSTOMER CLASS PROJECTED
REVENUE
COST OF SERVICE COSA
ADJUSTMENT
W-1 RESIDENTIAL $14,304,899 $14,910,404 4%
W-4 COMMERCIAL 11,357,704 10,230,499 -10%
W-7 IRRIGATION 2,977,646 3,397,634 14%
W-3 PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS 25,388 49,039 93%(*)
W-3 PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS -78,253 N/A(**)
TOTAL $28,665,638 $28,665,830 0%
(*) The W3 Private Fire Hydrant COSA adjustment represents an adjustment to meter
charge based on meter size. For example, for a 4 inch meter, the current monthly
service charge of $4.20 must be increased to $7.20 to properly recover utility costs.
(**) The suggested adjustment for W3 Public Fire Hydrant service is an annual charge of
$78,253 for the Municipal Class. Currently the City is not charged for public fire hydrant
service.
Water Utility Customer Profile and Revenue Collection
As of June 2010, the City’s Water Utility had approximately 20,000 water service accounts.
Table 4 provides the distribution of accounts by customer segment and meter size. While
approximately 81% of customer accounts fall into the residential classification, this represents
49% of revenues. The remaining 51% of revenues are collected from commercial customers
through a combination of the W4, W7 and W3 rate schedules. Table 5 provides the distribution
of revenue by rate schedule and rate component. Currently, approximately 7% of revenues are
collected through the fixed monthly service charges and 93% through volumetric charges.
March 01, 2011 Page 11 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 4 –Number of Accounts (FY 2010)
Meter
Size RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IRRIGATION
PRIVATE FIRE
PROTECTION
W1 W4 W7 W3
5/8 "13,692 1,058 53 -
3/4 "526 80 7 -
1 "1,862 592 75 -
1 1/2"171 370 62 -
2"66 622 112 -
3"- 79 13 -
4"- 51 5 236
6"- 24 1 217
8"- 10 1 133
10"- - - 8
TOTAL 16,317 2,886 329 594
Table 5 –Sales Revenue (FY 2010)
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL IRRIGATION
PRIVATE FIRE
PROTECTION TOTAL
W1 W4 W7 W3
1,049,849$ 596,544$ 73,887$ 47,296$ 1,797,900$
11,544,391$ 10,338,903$ 2,160,287$ 11,340$ 24,073,244$
12,594,239$ 10,935,448$ 2,234,173$ 58,636$ 25,871,144$ Total Revenue
REVENUE SOURCE
Service Charge
Volumetric Charge
Chart 3 shows the monthly water use profile for each customer class4. The residential sector’s
water use varies significantly throughout the year and peaks the highest, whereas the
commercial sector exhibits a flatter water use profile. Irrigation customers’ peak-to-average
ratio is the highest among all customer classes. Peak-to-average ratio is defined as the peak
month usage divided by the average usage during the year, and is used in determining how
some of the system costs are allocated among customer classes. The ratio is used to allocate
costs associated with meeting usage requirements in excess of base usage. Such costs include
operating and capital costs for plant and system capacity installed beyond that required to
meet average use consumption.A review of historical peak-to-average ratio over time as
presented in Chart 45 shows that residential customers’ ratio has increased while the ratio for
commercial customers has been in decline. As residential customers’ contribution to the peak-
to-average ratio increases relative to commercial customers so does their share of the cost of
service.
4 Customer use profile is based on two year averages of billing data covering FY 2009 and FY 2010. 5 Peak-to-average ratio is based on two year averages of billing data covering FY 2002 –2010.
March 01, 2011 Page 12 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Chart 3
Chart 4
Customer Class Peak to Average Water Use Ratio
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fiscal Year
Ratio
Residential
Commercial
Irrigation
Current Rate Schedules and Recommended COSA Alignments
Current water rates consist of two components: a monthly customer charge (service charge)
and a commodity rate (volumetric rate). The monthly service charge per customer varies based
on meter size and the volumetric rate varies for residential customers based on usage tier. The
residential volumetric rates are also referred to as “inverted block rates” where the lower
usage tiers are charged at a rate that is lower than higher usage tiers. For non-residential
accounts a single volumetric rate is used. The Tier 1 usage block for residential accounts is
March 01, 2011 Page 13 of 19
(ID # 1398)
defined as 0.233 ccf per day or, for a 30 day billing period, 7 ccf per month. Any usage over 7
ccf per month falls into Tier 2. Table 6A shows current water rates and COSA results by meter
size and customer segment for the W1, W4 and W7 rate schedules, and Table 6B shows the
same for the W3 rate schedule.
Table 6A -Current Water Rates and COSA Results
(W1, W4 and W7 Rate Schedules)
Meter
Size $/Month Customer Segment Monthly
CCF $/CCF Meter
Size $/Month Customer Segment Monthly
CCF $/CCF
3/4 "$ 5.00 0-7 3.949$ 3/4 "$ 14.75 Residential(W-1)All 4.340$
5/8 "$ 5.00 > 7 5.624$ 5/8 "$ 14.75 Commercial (W-4)All 4.120$
1 "$ 6.50 Commercial(W-4)All 4.946$ 1 "$ 19.97 Irrigation(W-7)All 5.570$
1 1/2"$ 12.27 Irrigation (W-7)All 4.946$ 1 1/2"$ 42.49
2"$ 19.37 2"$ 67.49
3"$ 77.65 3"$ 150.05
4"$ 130.60 4"$ 259.52
6"$ 260.43 6"$ 551.53
8"$ 383.67 8"$ 903.63
CURRENT RATES
Residential(W-1)
(W1, W4 & W7)
Service Charge Volumetric Charge
COST OF SERVICE RATES
(W1, W4 & W7)
Service Charge Volumetric Charge
Table 6B -Current Water Rates and COSA Results
W3 (Private Fire Hydrants) Rate Schedule
Unit Meter Size CURRENT COSA
$/month 4 "$ 4.20 $ 7.27
$/month 6 "$ 7.00 $ 16.13
$/month 8 "$ 10.75 $ 28.53
$/month 10 "$ 15.75 $ 44.48
Volumetric $/ccf All $ 10.00 N/A
CURRENT AND COSA RATES
(W3)
Service Charge
Note that the COSA results are based on FY 2011 financial projections, and do not include an
overall system-wide rate adjustment of 12.5% for FY 2012.
Rate Design
Staff presented three rate design objectives to the UAC at its meeting in September 2010 and
to the Finance Committee at its meeting in October 2010. The objectives presented were to
adjust rate schedules to:
·reflect updated COSA,
·provide effective price signals to promote water conservation, and
·avoid rate/bill shock and financial hardship.
March 01, 2011 Page 14 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Based on the feedback received from both the UAC and the Finance Committee, staff proposed
a set of changes to the current rate structure for both the Residential (W-1) and the
Commercial (W-4) Rate Schedules and presented these changes to the UAC at its February 2011
meeting. With the proposed changes residential rates will increase from two to three tiers, and
tiered rates (two tiers) will be introduced for commercial rates. Tiered rates meet the objective
of providing effective price signals to promote water conservation and are in line with the
California Constitution Article X, Section 2 that requires that water resources of California “be
put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste and
unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented”. California’s Water
Code, Section 375 also explicitly allows water conservation measures to be adopted, including
water “rate structure designs.”
Although Palo Alto has sufficient water supplies from the SFPUC in normal water years, new
water supplies for the state are very expensive to develop. Many agencies, including the
SFPUC, are considering new projects to increase water supplies such as desalination, recycled
water, and new water storage reservoirs. These new water supply resources can cost from $5
per ccf to over $20 per ccf. Tiered rates that encourage water conservation create an incentive
to use water efficiently, comply with both AB 2882 and the California constitutional directive to
avoid unreasonable use and waste of water,and help avoid the need for these high cost
supplies.
Additionally, staff proposed to increase the monthly fixed service charge in line with the cost of
service for each rate schedule. Service charges represent the costs associated with serving
customers regardless of usage level or usage characteristics. Service costs include cost of meter
reading, meter installations, billing and collection, service connections, and a portion of the
operation and maintenance expenses of the distribution system and allocated administration
costs. When aligned with cost of service levels, revenue collection through fixed charges would
increase from 5% in FY 20116 to 15% in FY 2012. This is well within the California Urban Water
Conservation Council (CUWCC) guideline level of less than 30% for conservation based rates.
With increased fixed service charges, additional tiers for both residential and commercial rate
structures, and the alignment of average rates with the cost of service by rate class, the
proposed changes meet the objectives set forth during the UAC and Finance Committee
meetings.
For the W3 and W7 rate schedules, no structural change to the rates is proposed; and proposed
FY 2012 rates consist of adjustments for COSA together with the 12.5% revenue requirement
increase applicable to the W7 rate schedule.
The UAC recommended by a vote of five to two to recommend the Council to adopt proposed
rates at the February 2011 meeting with some modifications. The requested modifications were
that:
6 Based on customer sales data used for cost of service study.
March 01, 2011 Page 15 of 19
(ID # 1398)
·Residential tier 1 and tier 2 prices would be increased slightly from current prices, and
the additional revenue would be used to lower the fixed service charges;
·There would be no bill reduction for commercial customers as a result of proposed rate
revisions.
After incorporating these modifications, the increase in fixed service charge component of the
bill is reduced from the original 200% proposed to the UAC in February 2011 to 50%. The
difference is reflected in the increase in the volumetric charges for residential tier 1 and tier 2.
Staff anticipates that with the projected 17% increase planned in FY 2013, full implementation
of fixed charges at cost of service levels will be achieved over a two year period. With these
changes, revenue collection through fixed charges is estimated to be 8%.
Table 7 shows the current and proposed water rates incorporating UAC modifications for FY
2012 for the W1, W4 and W7 rate schedules.
Table 7 -Proposed Rate for FY 2012
Meter
Size Current Proposed
3/4 "$ 5.00 $ 7.50
Monthly
CCF $/CCF Monthly
CCF $/CCF
5/8 "$ 5.00 $ 7.50 Tier 1 0-7 3.949$ 0 - 6 4.100$
1 "$ 6.50 $ 9.75 Tier 2 > 7 5.624$ 7 - 29 6.248$
1 1/2"$ 12.27 $ 18.41 Tier 3 --> 29 7.642$
2"$ 19.37 $ 29.06 Tier 1 All 4.946$ 0 - 14 4.769$
3"$ 77.65 $ 116.48 Tier 2 --> 14 4.946$
4"$ 130.60 $ 195.90 Irrigation (W-7)All All 4.946$ All 6.266$
6"$ 260.43 $ 390.65
8"$ 383.67 $ 575.51
Proposed
Service Charge ($/month)Volumetric Charge ($/CCF)
Rate Schedule Usage
Tiers
Current
Residential (W-1)
Commercial (W-4)
Customer Bill Impact of Proposed Rate Changes
Table 8 below shows the impact of the proposed rate increase on customer bills based on
different consumption levels for the residential and commercial classes.
March 01, 2011 Page 16 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 8: Impact of Proposed Rate Increase on Customer Bills
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Proposed
Monthly Bill
($)
Amount of
Proposed
Increase ($)
Percent
Increase
Small Residential (5/8” Meter)6 $ 32.10 $3.41 11.9%
Medium Residential (5/8” Meter)14 82.08 10.07 14.0%
Large Residential (5/8” Meter)35 221.66 31.54 16.6%
Medium Commercial (3" Meter)300 1,597.80 36.35 2.3%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter)1200 6,323.37 127.74 2.1%
Large Commercial or Industrial (6"
Meter) (irrigation only) (W-7)3000 19,068.65 3,970.22 26.3%
Comparison of Palo Alto Water Rates and Surrounding Cities
For several years, Palo Alto's retail water rates have generally been higher than those in
surrounding areas. Staff initiated a Benchmark Study for the Water Utility in May 2010 and
presented its findings to the UAC in October 2010 and to the Finance Committee in November
2010. The objective of the study was to develop benchmarks and to provide insight as to the
main reasons for the higher water rates in Palo Alto. The findings of this study highlighted
some key areas such as more spending by Palo Alto for replacement of aging infrastructure;
lack of access to lower cost water supply; more expensive service terrain to serve; higher
quality of service; and higher rent payment for its use of real estate in the service territory.
Rent charges for the Water Utility’s use of real estate in the service territory are adjusted
annually to market value based on a survey conducted by the City.
Table 9 below, which compares monthly water bills using municipal water rates as of January 1,
2011 for Mountain View, Redwood City, Santa Clara and Menlo Park, indicates that the average
residential customer in surrounding cities pays approximately 24 % less than the average Palo
Alto residential customer. The residential bill comparison with the average benchmark city is
seven percentage points lower this year compared to the same period a year ago as other cities
facing similar cost increases have begun raising their water rates as well. There are indications
that nearby cities that purchase water supplies from the SFPUC will continue to raise rates in FY
20127. At this time, the certainty or magnitude of their rate increases is not known.
7 Based on the FY 2009 BAWSCA survey, the share of SFPUC as source of water supply was 89% for Menlo Park,
100% for Redwood City, 86% for Mountain View, and 12% for Santa Clara.
March 01, 2011 Page 17 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Table 9 –Monthly Residential Water Bill Comparison (rates in effect as of Jan. 1, 2011)
Water
Customer
Usage
(ccf)
Palo
Alto
Menlo
Park1
Redwood
City
Mountain
View
Santa
Clara
Average
Benchmark
(%)
Diff.
Small 6 $28.69 $38.95 $33.07 $20.78 $16.44 $27.31 -4.8%
Average 14 $72.01 $73.14 $60.37 $48.04 $38.36 $54.97 -23.7%
Large 35 $190.12 $165.38 $185.45 $153.21 $95.90 $149.98 -21.1%
Difference from CPAU 1.6%-16.2%-33.3%-46.7%-23.7%
1. Menlo Park rates based on California Water Service-Bear Gulch district –proposed for
1/1/11
Proposition 218 Water Rate Increase Procedure
Proposition 218 amended the California Constitution and set forth procedural requirements
that public agencies must follow in order to enact or increase a property-related fee. Since
Proposition 218 applies to the water rate increases described here, the City must provide
written notice by mail to water customers subject to the proposed fees, followed by a public
hearing held not less than 45 days after notice is mailed. The notice must include the amount
of the fee, the basis upon which the fee was calculated, the reason for the fee, and the date,
time and location of the public hearing. If a majority of customers submit written protests
against the proposed fees, the City may not impose the fee.
Possibility of Water Use Restrictions due to Water Shortage
In the event of a water shortage, the SFPUC will declare a water shortage emergency and
impose mandatory water use reductions. If this action is taken, then staff will return to the
UAC with an updated proposal for a rate adjustment and water rate schedules. Staff does not
expect a water shortage for FY 2012 at this time.
Alternatives
Staff evaluated alternative revenue-neutral rate changes based on COSA recommendations,
and the rate making objectives identified. One alternative is to implement more tiers for both
residential and commercial rate schedules. This alternative was rejected due to the increased
complexity with this alternative and the fact that it would achieve effectively the same results
as the proposed rate structures. Another alternative is to introduce different tier usage blocks
based on meter size. This alternative has the advantage of addressing the size differences
between customers especially for commercial customers. This alternative was rejected due to
its complexity as well as the additional implementation costs required for billing system
configurations.
Board/Commission Review and Recommendations
The UAC considered staff’s recommendation at its February 2, 2011 meeting. The
Commissioners discussed in detail the rate design changes proposed by staff, including the cost
of service adjustments between customer classes, the impact of increasing the fixed service
charge component in one year, and the level and effectiveness of the volumetric rates. The
March 01, 2011 Page 18 of 19
(ID # 1398)
Commissioners also discussed the proposed 12.5% revenue requirement increase for 2012 and
that, under the current five-year projections, the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve would be
below the minimum guidelines of FY 2013 and FY 2014.
The Commission voted by five to two in favor of recommending that the City Council approve
staff’s recommended Water Utility Rate Adjustments with the following amendments:
a)The rate adjustment proposal by staff be modified so that no commercial customer’s bill
would be decreased;
b)The volumetric rates for residential customers for usage in tiers 1 and 2 be increased
and the fixed charges be reduced; and
c)The Council is made aware that the UAC is aware that the five-year financial projections
show that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization Reserve falls below the minimum
guideline level for two years.
Draft minutes from the UAC’s February 2, 2011 meeting are provided as Attachment I.
Resource Impact
Approval of this rate proposal will increase the Water Fund retail sales revenues by
approximately $3.4 million for FY 2012.
Policy Implications
This recommendation does not represent a change to current City policies.
Environmental Review
The restructuring of water rates to meet operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not
subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public
Resources Code Sec. 21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec.
15273(a)(1) and (3).
ATTACHMENTS:
·A Water Fund Financial Projections (FY2012-FY2016)(PDF)
·Attachment A: Water Fund Financial Projections (FY2012-FY2016)(PDF)
·Attachment B: Utility Rate Schedule W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·B W-1 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment C: Utility Rate Schedule W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·C W-3 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment D: Utility Rate Schedule W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·D W-4 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment E: Utility Rate Schedule W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·E W-7 effective 7-1-2011 (DOC)
·Attachment F: Draft Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF)
March 01, 2011 Page 19 of 19
(ID # 1398)
·F Draft Resolution for Water July 1 2011 (PDF)
·Attachment G: Water Technical Memorandum (DOC)
·G Water Technical Memorandum (PDF)
·Attachment H: Water Cost of Service Report (PDF)
·H Water Cost of Service Report (PDF)
·Attachment I: Draft UAC Minutes of February 2, 2011 (DOCX)
·I Draft Excerpted Minutes of February 2, 2011 UAC Meeting (PDF)
Prepared By:Ipek Connolly, Sr. Resource Planner
Department Head:Valerie Fong, Director
City Manager Approval:James Keene, City Manager
Adopted Actual Adjusted Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
1 % CHANGE IN RETAIL RATE 5.0% 5.0% 0.0% 12.5% 17.0% 16.0% 8.0% 0.0%
2 SYSTEM AVERAGE RATE ($/CCF)5.21 5.23 5.21 5.86 6.85 7.95 8.59 8.59
3 SALES UNITS (CCFs)5,543 4,955 5,143 5,256 5,195 5,170 5,143 5,120
4 WATER UTILITY REVENUE
5 SALES REVENUE:27,493 24,679 26,783 27,373 30,438 35,437 40,896 43,971
6 RATE ADJUSTMENT 1,375 1,234 0 3,422 5,174 5,670 3,272 0
7 PRORATION IMPACT (57) (51)0 (143) (216) (236) (136)0
8 TOTAL ADJUSTED SALES 28,810 25,862 26,783 30,652 35,397 40,871 44,031 43,971
9 UNMETERED SALES/OTHER 138 (10)142 142 142 142 142 142
10 INTEREST 1,265 1,375 1,050 595 665 627 976 1,449
11 OTHER REVENUE 131 648 766 158 159 161 8,162 16,162
12 CONNECTION FEES 682 694 692 767 776 785 795 750
13 FROM RESERVES:
14 RATE STABILIZATION 0 0 6,058 2,811 5,224 516 0 0
15 CIP BOND PROCEEDS 35,000 35,000 000000
16 TOTAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES 66,026 63,568 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 54,107 62,475
17 OPERATING EXPENSES
18 PURCHASES 10,354 9,061 10,834 14,790 16,840 17,949 18,986 21,541
19 CUSTOMER DESIGN & CONN. (CIP)400 569 410 420 430 440 450 232
20 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT(CIP) - Nonbond 4,514 5,620 4,938 4,449 9,494 8,973 4,601 4,639
21 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT(CIP) - Bond 22,500 22,500 3,500 0 0 0 8,000 16,000
22 OPERATIONS, & MAINT, OTHER ADMIN.7,385 6,378 7,604 7,680 7,757 7,835 7,913 7,992
23 ALLOCATED CHARGES:
24 COST PLAN CHARGES & OTHER 1,106 410 1,076 1,087 1,097 1,108 1,119 1,131
25 UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION 1,346 1,171 1,600 1,616 1,632 1,648 1,664 1,681
26 TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITIES 47,604 45,709 29,962 30,042 37,251 37,953 42,734 53,216
27 DEBT SERVICE & RELATED 775 5,379 2,981 2,734 2,741 2,753 2,762 2,778
28 TRANSFERS:
29 RENT 2,107 2,107 2,107 2,128 2,150 2,171 2,193 2,215
30 OTHER TRANSFER 258 282 442 221 223 225 227 229
31 SUB-TOTAL TRANSFER 2,365 2,389 2,549 2,349 2,372 2,396 2,420 2,444
32 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 50,744 53,477 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 47,916 58,439
33 RESERVE ADDITIONS:
34 PLANT REPLACEMENT 00000000
35 RATE STABILIZATION 10,982 7,336 00006,191 4,036
36 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE 4,300 2,567 000000
37 TOTAL RESERVE ADDITIONS: 15,282 9,903 00006,191 4,036
38 TOTAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT 66,026 63,380 35,492 35,124 42,364 43,102 54,107 62,475
39 RESERVES BALANCES
40 PLANT REPLACEMENT 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
41 RATE STABILIZATION 14,089 13,536 10,978 8,167 2,943 2,427 8,618 12,654
Portion set aside for Bond 3,500
42 CIP DEBT SERVICE 5,080 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347 3,347
43 TOTAL RESERVES BALANCES 20,169 21,383 15,325 12,514 7,290 6,774 12,965 17,001
44
45 Short Term Risk Assessment Value 3,765 3,765 4,168 4,169 5,190 9,249 9,938 9,893
46
47 Long Term Rate Stabilization Guidelines
48 RSR Minimum 4,330 3,887 4,017 4,619 5,342 6,166 6,625 6,596
49 RSR Maximum 8,660 7,774 8,035 9,238 10,684 12,332 13,250 13,191
50
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
City of Palo Alto Water Utility
WATER
Fiscal Year
E
X
P
E
N
S
E
S
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
R
E
S
E
R
V
E
S
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all separately metered single family residential water services.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge:Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...........................................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4 inch meter ...........................................................................................................5.00 7.50
For 1 inch meter ...........................................................................................................6.50 9.75
For 1 1/2 inch meter ...........................................................................................................12.27
18.41
For 2-inch meter ...........................................................................................................19.37
29.06
For 3-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...........................................................................................................
383.67575.51
Commodity Rate:(To be added Customer Charge and applicable to all pressure zones.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
Tier 1 usage .......................................................................................................................
$3.9494.100
GENERAL RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-1
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-1-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-1-2
Tier 2 usage (All usage over 100% of Tier 1).......................................................................5.624
6.248
Tier 3 usage (All usage over Tier 2)......................................................................................7.642
Temporary unmetered service to residential
subdivision developers, per connection .......................................................................$6.00
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2.Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.233 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2 water
usage shall be calculated and billed based on usage greater than Tier 1 and up to a level of
0.967 ccf per day, rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of
service. Tier 3 encompasses all usage over Tier 2 levels. As an example, for a 30 day
bill, the Tier 1 level would be 0 through 67 ccf, and Tier 2 would be between 7 and 29
ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration, refer to Rule and Regulation
11.
{End}
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 11-1-20087-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-1 dated 7-1-199211-1-2008 Sheet No
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to all public fire hydrants and private fire service connections.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
1.Monthly Service Charges
Public Fire Hydrant....................................................................................................$5.00
Private Fire Service:
4-inch connection ......................................................................................................$4.207.27
6-inch connection ...................................................................................................... $ 7.0016.13
8-inch connection ......................................................................................................$ 10.7528.53
10-inch connection ....................................................................................................$ 15.7544.48
2.Commodity (To be added to Service Charge unless water is used for fire extinguishing or
testing purposes.)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet
All water usage..........................................................................................................$10.00
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Service under this schedule may be discontinued if water is used for any purpose other
than fire extinguishing or water used in testing and repairing the fire extinguishing
facilities. Such water used for other purposes is illegal and will be subject to the
commodity charge as noted above and fines.
2.No commodity charge will apply for water used for fire extinguishing purposes.
3.For a combination water and fire service, the general water service schedule shall apply.
FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-3
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 11-1-20087-1-2011
Supersedes Sheet No W-3-2 dated 7-1-199211-1-2008 Sheet No
4.Utilities Rule and Regulation No. 21 provides additional information on Automatic Fire
Services.
5.Repairs and testing of fire extinguishing facilities are not considered unauthorized use of
water if records and documentation are supplied by the customer.
6.Unauthorized use of water which is unrelated to fire protection is subject to criminal
prosecution pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
{End}
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service in the City of Palo Alto and its distribution
area. This schedule is also applicable to multi-family residential customers served through a master
meter.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 1-inch meter ...............................................................................................$6.509.75
For 1 ½-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$12.2718.41
For 2-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$19.3729.06
For 3-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
GENERAL NON-RESIDENTIAL WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-4
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-4-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-4-2
Tier 1 Per ccf .......................................................................................................................
$4.9464.769
Tier 2 (All usage over Tier 1)................................................................................................4.946
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
2.Calculation of Usage Tiers
Tier 1 water usage shall be calculated and billed based upon a level of 0.467 ccf per day
rounded to the nearest whole ccf, based on meter reading days of service. Tier 2
encompasses all usage over Tier 1 levels. As an example, for a 30 day bill, the Tier 1
level would be 0 through 14 ccf. For further discussion of bill calculation and proration,
refer to Rule and Regulation 11.
{End}
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-1 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-1
A.APPLICABILITY:
This schedule applies to non-residential water service supplying dedicated irrigation meters in the
City of Palo Alto and its distribution area.
B.TERRITORY:
This schedule applies everywhere the City of Palo Alto provides water services.
C.RATES:
Per Meter
Monthly Customer Charge Per Month
For 5/8-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 3/4-inch meter ...............................................................................................$5.007.50
For 1-inch meter ...............................................................................................$6.509.75
For 1 1/2 inch meter ...............................................................................................
$12.2718.41
For 2-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$19.3729.06
For 3-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$77.65116.48
For 4-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$130.60195.90
For 6-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$260.43390.65
For 8-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
For 10-inch meter ...............................................................................................
$383.67575.51
Commodity Rates: (to be added to Customer Charge)
Per Hundred Cubic Feet (ccf)
Per Month All Pressure Zones
IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE
UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE W-7
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
Issued by the City Council
Effective 7-1-20092011
Supersedes Sheet No W-7-2 dated 11-1-20087-1-2009 Sheet No W-7-2
Per Ccf .......................................................................................................................
$4.9466.226
D.SPECIAL NOTES:
1.Calculation of Cost Components
The actual bill amount is calculated based on the applicable rates in Section C above and
adjusted for any applicable discounts, surcharges and/or taxes. On a customer’s bill
statement, the bill amount may be broken down into appropriate components as
calculated under Section C.
{End}
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
Resolution No. _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Utility
Rate Schedules W-1, -3, W-4 and W-7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
Council of the City of Palo Alto may by resolution adopt rules and regulations governing
utility services and the fees and charges therefore; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID Sec. 6 of the California Constitution, on
June _, 2011, the City of Palo Alto held a public hearing to consider all protests against the
proposed water rate increases; and
WHEREAS, the total number of written protests presented by the close of the
public hearing was less than fifty percent (50%) of the total number of customers and
property owners subject to the proposed water rate increases;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE
as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-1 (General Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to read
in accordance with sheets W-1-1 and W-1-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-3 (Fire Service Connections) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-3-1 and W-3-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-4 (General Non-Residential Water Service) is hereby amended to
read in accordance with sheets W-4-1 and W-4-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
The foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to Section 12.20.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Utility Rate Schedule W-7 (Irrigation Water Service) is hereby amended to read in
accordance with sheets W-7-1 and W-7-2, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The
foregoing Utility Rate Schedule, as amended, shall become effective July 1, 2011.
SECTION 5. The Council finds that the revenue derived from the authorized
adoption enumerated herein shall be used only for the purpose set forth in Article VII,
Section 2, of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
//
//
//
*Not Yet Approved*
110126 dm 6051532
SECTION 6. The Council finds that a restructuring of water rates to meet
operating expenses and financial reserve needs is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to California Public Resources Code Sec.
21080(b)(8) and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Sec. 15273(a)(1) and (3).
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
___________________________ ___________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
___________________________ ___________________________
Senior Deputy City Attorney City Manager
___________________________
Director of Utilities
___________________________
Director of Administrative
Services
DATE: December 7, 2010
PREPARED FOR: City of Palo Alto Utilities – Water Department
PREPARED BY: Mark Beauchamp, CPA/Utility Financial Solutions
SUBJECT: Cost of Service with Updated Billing Units
Purpose
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to compare the results of the cost of service study with
updated billing statistics for 2010. The original study was based on fiscal years 2008 and 2009 usage
patterns for each customer class. This update used the original costs with updated usage patterns using 2009
and 2010. This memorandum compares the summary results of original study with the updated usage
patterns.
Water Cost of Service Results:
Table One – Comparison of Original Study Results with Updated Study
Customer Class Original Study
With 2010 Billing
Statistics Original Study
With 2010 Billing
Statistics
W-1 Residential 15,219,495$ 14,910,404$ 6% 4%
W-4 Commercial 10,210,142 10,230,499 -10% -10%
W-7 Irrigation 3,108,767 3,397,634 4% 14%
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174 49,039 94% 93%
Public Fire Protection - Hydrants 78,253 78,253
Total 28,665,830$ 28,665,830$
The update of the usage patterns had the most significant impact on the W-7 Irrigation class of service. This
class uses a majority of its usage during months when customers sprinkle lawns. The cost of service study
averages the usage over a two year period in order to smooth out annual variation in billing statistics; despite
this however, there can be significant changes in cost of service results during extremely dry years that
require substantial lawn sprinkling or years with substantial rainfall that limits the amount of lawn
sprinkling. The change resulted in a 10% change in cost of service results for the irrigation class, and a 2%
change in the results for the residential class. The change for commercial class and fire protection were
insignificant.
Page Two – Updated Water Study Results
The table below is the updated cost of service results for the monthly customer and usage charges:
Table Two – Comparison of cost based charges
Customer Class Meter Size
Using 2010
Billing
Statistics
Original
Study
Using 2010
Billing
Statistics
Original
Study
W-1 Residential 3/4 14.75$ 13.94$ 4.34$ 4.52$
W-1 1 19.97 18.54 4.34 4.52
W-1 1.5 42.49 39.27 4.34 4.52
W-1 2 67.49 61.77 4.34 4.52
W-4 Commercial 3/4 14.75 13.94 4.12 4.16
W-4 1 19.97 18.54 4.12 4.16
W-4 1.5 42.49 39.27 4.12 4.16
W-4 2 67.49 61.77 4.12 4.16
W-4 3 150.05 137.16 4.12 4.16
W-4 4 259.52 236.62 4.12 4.16
W-4 6 551.53 500.00 4.12 4.16
W-4 8 903.63 812.02 4.12 4.16
W-7 Irrigation 3/4 14.75 13.94 5.57 5.10
W-7 1 19.97 18.54 5.57 5.10
W-7 1.5 42.49 39.27 5.57 5.10
W-7 2 67.49 61.77 5.57 5.10
W-7 3 150.05 137.16 5.57 5.10
W-7 4 259.52 236.62 5.57 5.10
W-7 6 551.53 500.00 5.57 5.10
W-7 8 903.63 812.02 5.57 5.10
Monthly Meter Charges CCU Charges
CITY OF PALO ALTO UTILITIES
WATER COST OF SERVICE & RATE STUDY
Fiscal Year 2011
2/3/2011 1
CITY OF PALO ALTO – WATER COST OF SERVICE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Introduction 2
Utility Revenue Requirements 3
Cost of Service Summary 5
Cost of Service Components 12
Significant Assumptions 13
Accountants Compilation Report 14
2/3/2011 2
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared to provide the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department (CPAU) with a
water cost of service study and a comprehensive examination of its existing rate structures by an
outside party. Utility Financial Solutions was contracted to review revenue requirements and the
cost of providing service to CPAU’s water customers. This purpose of the study includes:
1) Determine Water Utility’s revenue requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 based on
budget and financial projections provided by Palo Alto staff
2) Allocate utility’s revenues requirements to customer classes
3) Identify the cost to provide service to customer classes
5) Review the current Water Utility rate structure and propose alternative rate structures.
6) If possible, propose rate structures to encourage conservation and efficient use of
resources
The report is structured in the following manner:
.
• Introduction
• Utility Revenue Requirements for Fiscal Year 2011
• Cost of Service Summary
• Recommended Rate Adjustment
• Cost of Service Components
• Significant Assumptions Used in Analysis
• Recommendations
• Compilation Report
2/3/2011 3
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
CPAU’s financial projections were used to evaluate the current and projected financial
statements. The table below is the accrual basis revenues and expenses for CPAU’s Water
Utility. (Cash basis is listed on page three of this report). CPAU’s projected rate adjustments are
incorporated into the financial projection with rate adjustments of 0.0% for FY 2011; 8% for FY
2012 and 9% for FY 2013 – FY 2015. The projected operating income for FY 2011 is $3.53
million and is projected to increase to $5.4 million in 2015.
Table One – Projected Financial Statements FY 2011 – FY 2015 (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
RATE ADJUSTMENT 0.0% 8.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
REVENUES
SALES REVENUES 28,666$ 31,336$ 34,179$ 37,291$ 40,687$
DISCOUNTS / UNMETERED 138 138 138 138 138
OTHER / OP TRANS IN 337 341 344 348 351
CONNECTION FEES / CAPACITY FEES 767 776 785 795 804
TOTAL REVENUES 29,907$ 32,590$ 35,445$ 38,571$ 41,980$
EXPENSES
SUPPLY 12,808$ 15,018$ 17,984$ 20,342$ 22,028$
DISTRIBUTION 5,201 5,254 5,306 5,359 5,413
CUSTOMER SUPPORT SERVICES 1,612 1,628 1,645 1,661 1,678
ALLOCATED CHARGES 2,484 2,509 2,534 2,560 2,585
RENT AND TRANSFERS OUT 2,331 2,354 2,377 2,401 2,425
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 1,943 2,077 2,214 2,354 2,479
TOTAL O&M EXPENSES 26,380$ 28,839$ 32,060$ 34,676$ 36,608$
OPERATING INCOME 3,528$ 3,750$ 3,386$ 3,895$ 5,372$
NON OPERATING INCOME AND EXPENSES
INTEREST INCOME 1,265$ 804$ 731$ 1,160$ 1,714$
INTEREST EXPENSE (1,201) (1,227) (1,262) (1,308) (1,356)
TOTAL OTHER OPR. INCOME AND EXPENSES 64$ (423)$ (532)$ (148)$ 358$
NET INCOME 3,592$ 3,327$ 2,854$ 3,747$ 5,730$
2/3/2011 4
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
UTILITY REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
The table below is projected cash flows and cash reserves from FY 2011 through FY 2015. The
projected cash available for FY 2011 is $10.3 million (excluding cash committed to previous CIP
programs). Cash is projected to decline each year and approximate $8.0 million in FY 2015.
Table Two – Projected Cash Balance (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
Add Net Income 3,592$ 3,327$ 2,854$ 3,747$ 5,730$
Add Back Depreciation Expense 1,943 2,077 2,214 2,354 2,479
Debt Service Principal 1,172 1,507 1,479 1,445 1,406
Cash Available from Operations 4,363$ 3,897$ 3,589$ 4,657$ 6,804$
Estimated Annual Capital Additions 5,348 5,479 5,612 5,003 5,106
Net Cash From Operations (985)$ (1,582)$ (2,023)$ (346)$ 1,697$
Beginning Cash Balance 14,437$ 13,452$ 11,870$ 9,847$ 9,501$
Ending Cash Balance 13,452 11,870 9,847 9,501 11,198
Bond Reserve Fund 3,155 3,155 3,155 3,155 3,155
Available Cash Reserves 10,297$ 8,715$ 6,692$ 6,346$ 8,043$
2/3/2011 5
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The purpose of a cost of service study is to allocate costs to customer classes based on quantity
of water consumed, variability of flow during the year, peak demands created on the system for
each class and costs associated with metering, billing and accounting. The cost of service study
is based on recognized procedures for allocating several categories of costs to customer
classifications. Costs were allocated in proportion to each classification's use of the facilities
and services.
The table below summarizes revenues projected from customers for FY 2011 and compares the
projected revenues with the cost of providing service to each class of customers.
Cost of Service = Cost of providing water service to customers
Projected Revenues = Projected revenues recovered from current rate design
Percent Difference = Variation between cost of service and current rate design
Positive = Percent increase to meet cost of service
Negative = Percent decrease to meet cost of service
Table Three – Cost of Service Summary
Class Cost of Service
Projected
Revenues
Percent
Difference
W-1 Residential 15,219,495$ 14,304,899$ 6%
W-4 Commercial 10,210,142 11,357,704 -10%
W-7 Irrigation 3,108,767 2,977,646 4%
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174 25,388 94%
Public Fire Protection - Hydrants 78,253 -
Total 28,665,830$ 28,665,638$ 0%
The cost of service study identified variations between the current rate design and cost of
service results a discussion of each class is listed below:
Residential Class - W-1 Rate Schedule
The cost of service results identified the need for a 6 percent overall rate adjustment for the
residential class. The variation between current charges and cost of service results are due to
reduced monthly meter charges, CPAU currently charges a $5.00/month meter charge, when
compared with cost of service charge of $13.94/month. (Please see table 9) CPAU may
consider placing greater increases in the monthly meter charge component and less of an
increase in the commodity component.
Irrigation Meters - W-7 Rate Schedule
Customers on the W-7 irrigation rate use a majority of water during the summer season and little
water the remainder of the year. The W-7 irrigation rate class contributes substantially to
CPAU’s peak system loadings and the cost of service results can vary significantly depending on
the weather patterns. The cost of service study identified a 4% increase in rates is needed to
meet cost of service requirements.
2/3/2011 6
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Commercial Class - W-4 Rate Schedule
The current rate charged to commercial customers is on average 10 percent greater than the
cost of providing the service. It is recommended the W-4 rate be adjusted to move the rate
closer to cost of service in future years.
Fire Hydrants – W-3 Rate Schedule
To meet cost of service requirements a 94% increase is needed for the W-3 rate (private fire
protection). Public fire protection (City Hydrants) is currently a service not allocated to the City
of Palo Alto. The total annual cost to operate and maintain public fire protection is $156,505. In
discussion with CPAU staff it was assumed 50% of the cost should be shared by all customer
classes to reflect the benefit that fire hydrants provide the entire water system. Flushing of the
hydrants helps to clean the water system and is a benefit to all users of the system. As a result,
only $78,253 (the remaining 50% of $156,505) was allocated directly to the public fire protection
– City Hydrants.
Table Four – Fire Hydrants Revenue Requirements
Cost of Service
Projected
Revenues
Percent
Difference
W-3 Private Fire Protection 49,174$ 25,388$ 94%
Public Fire Protection - City Hydrant 78,253 -
Fire Hydrants and Private Fire
Protection
*Public Fire Protection - City hydrants, $78,253 represents the full cost to be recovered.
**CPAU should consider increases to the monthly customer charges for private fire protection.
Table Five – W-3 - Comparison of Current Meter Charges and Cost of Service
Meter Size Current
Monthly Meter
Cost of
Service
W3 - Private Fire Service- 4 Inch 4.20$ 7.27$
W3 - Private Fire Service- 6 Inch 7.00 16.13
W3 - Private Fire Service- 8 Inch 10.75 28.53
W3 - Private Fire Service- 10 Inch 15.75 44.48
2/3/2011 7
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The allocation study was modeled after the “Base & Extra Capacity Method” for allocating costs
to customer classifications. The method is described in the 2007 and prior editions of the Water
Rates Manual, published by the American Water Works Association. The four basic categories of
cost responsibility are base, extra capacity, customer and fire protection costs. The following
discussions present a brief description of these costs and the manner in which they were
allocated.
Base Costs are costs that tend to vary with the quantity of water used, and include costs
associated with supplying, treating, pumping and distributing water to customers under average
load conditions, without the elements necessary to meet peak demands. Base costs are
allocated to customer classifications by their average daily usage.
Extra Capacity Costs are costs associated with meeting usage requirements in excess of the
base. They include operating and capital costs for plant and system capacity installed beyond
that required to meet average use consumption. The extra capacity costs are subdivided into two
categories; costs necessary to meet “maximum day extra demand” and costs to meet “maximum
hour extra demand”. The extra capacity costs are allocated to customer classifications based on
each class’s contribution to the systems maximum- day and-maximum hour usage.
Table Six - Classification Percentages between Base and Extra Capacity Costs:
Average Day Max Day Max Hour
CCF's 15,803 23,963 26,948
Average Day to Max Day Percent 66% 34%
Average Day to Max Hour Percent 59% 30% 11%
Costs related to investment in assets and a portion of the distribution costs are allocated 59
percent on usage (base costs); 30 percent on maximum day and 11 percent on maximum hour
(extra-capacity) The values were calculated using the peak to average ratios discussed below.
2/3/2011 8
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
The table below identifies the ratios used to determine the extra capacity costs and is based on
the calculated peaking factor. Classes with higher ratios typically increase usage during peak
system times and results in greater use of system capacity. Listed below are peak ratios for
each customer type for 2008 and 2009, the average of the two years was used in the analysis to
allocate costs for 2011. (A factor of 1.0 was used for fire protection)
Table Seven – Peak to Average Usage Ratio
Customer Class
CCF Usage
during
peak month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
CCF Usage
during peak
month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
CCF Usage
during peak
month
Average
Monthly
Usage per
year - CCF
Peak to
Average
Ratio
W1 - Residential 351,418 228,518 1.54 343,051 213,906 1.60 694,469 442,424 1.57
W2 - Contruction Water Use 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00
W3 - Private Fire Service 1.00 1.00 - - 1.00
W4 - Commercial 199,202 155,155 1.28 253,996 187,877 1.35 453,198 343,031 1.32
W7 - Irrigation 90,509 48,840 1.85 101,013 47,196 2.14 191,522 96,036 1.99
Total System 641,129 432,513 1.48 698,060 448,978 1.55 1,339,189 881,492 1.52
2008 Peak Factor 2009 Peak Factor Two Year Average
The peaking factor is based on the ratio between the usage during the peak month and average
usage during the year for each class. The residential peak ratio of 1.57 means the usage in the
peak month is 1.57 times greater than annual usage. The commercial class usage is relatively
constant during the year with a two year average peak to average ratio of 1.32. The least
efficient class is irrigation (W-7) with a two year average peak to average ratio of 1.99. The
peaking factors in Table Seven above were applied in the table below to calculate values for
base, maximum day and maximum hour.
Customer Class Annual Use
Average
Rate
Capacity
Factor
Total
Capacity
Extra
Capacity
Capacity
Factor
Total
Capacity
Extra
Capacity
W1 - Residential0.75 2,308,194 6,323.8 1.57 9,926 3,603 1.78 11,225 4,901
W1 - Residential1 447,514 1,226.1 1.57 1,925 698 1.78 2,176 950
W1 - Residential1.5 73,178 200.5 1.57 315 114 1.78 356 155
W1 - Residential2 41,011 112.4 1.57 176 64 1.78 199 87
W1 - Residential3 33 0.1 1.57 0 0 1.78 0 0
W3 - Private Fire Service-4 185 0.5 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-6 463 1.3 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-8 350 1.0 1.00 1 1.00 1
W3 - Private Fire Service-10 72 0.2 1.00 0 1.00 0
Public Fire Hydrants - - 1.00 - 1.00 -
W4 - Commercial-0.75 247,341 677.6 1.32 895 218 1.50 1,014 336
W4 - Commercial1 205,951 564.3 1.32 745 181 1.50 844 280
W4 - Commercial1.5 265,294 726.8 1.32 960 233 1.50 1,087 360
W4 - Commercial2 740,393 2,028.5 1.32 2,680 651 1.50 3,034 1,006
W4 - Commercial3 261,040 715.2 1.32 945 230 1.50 1,070 355
W4 - Commercial4 169,826 465.3 1.32 615 149 1.50 696 231
W4 - Commercial6 141,177 386.8 1.32 511 124 1.50 579 192
W4 - Commercial8 252,711 692.4 1.32 915 222 1.50 1,036 343
W7 - Irrigation0.75 10,683 29.3 1.99 58 29 2.16 63 34
W7 - Irrigation1 25,342 69.4 1.99 138 69 2.16 150 81
W7 - Irrigation1.5 72,049 197.4 1.99 394 196 2.16 426 229
W7 - Irrigation2 163,129 446.9 1.99 891 444 2.16 965 518
W7 - Irrigation3 100,716 275.9 1.99 550 274 2.16 596 320
W7 - Irrigation4 59,577 163.2 1.99 326 162 2.16 353 189
W7 - Irrigation6 111,558 305.6 1.99 610 304 2.16 660 355
W7 - Irrigation8 70,322 192.7 1.99 384 192 2.16 416 223
Total 5,768,111 15,803 23,963 8,160 26,948 11,145
Base Maximum Day Maximum Hour
2/3/2011 9
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Customer Costs (Meter Costs) are costs associated with serving customers regardless of usage
level or usage characteristics. Customer costs include the operation and maintenance expenses
related to meter installation, meter readings, billing and collecting. The customer costs are
allocated to each class based on the cost of installing meters and services and the cost of
providing customer service to different classes of customers. Customer costs considered fixed
and allocated to the customer charge component include the following items:
1. Cost of meter reading
2. Cost of meter installations
3. Cost of service connections
4. Forty percent of the operation and maintenance expenses of the distribution system
(Based on the ratio of Max Day to Average Day usage)
5. Billing & collection costs
6. Allocated amount of administration costs based on total expenses as a ratio of customer
cost expenses
7. Reduced by other revenue items based on total expenses as a ratio of customer cost
expenses
The tables below are meter cost ratios and the meter demand ratios used to determine customer
costs for each meter size.
Meter Cost Ratio (Initial Cost for CPAU to install a meter)
Meter Size -
Inches
Costs to
Install a
Meter in $
0.75 147$
1 147
1.5 326
2 423
3 962
4 1,573
6 2,829
8 3,252
2/3/2011 10
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Meter Demand Ratio (Potential demand for water based on size of meter)
Meter
Size in
Inches
Area of
Meter -
Square
Inches
Meter Ratio
using a base
of 0.75 inch
0.75 0.44 1.00
1.00 0.79 1.78
1.50 1.77 4.00
2.00 3.14 7.11
3.00 7.07 16.00
3.00 7.07 16.00
4.00 12.56 28.44
6.00 28.26 64.00
8.00 50.24 113.78
10.00 78.50 177.78
The meter ratio is a calculated value based on the potential volume that can pass through the
meter. This value determines the maximum potential demand a customer can create on the
water system. The formula is calculated as follows:
(Radius of meter squared) X value of Pi
where: Meter Size/2 = Radius of meter and Pi = 3.14
2/3/2011 11
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
Fire Protection Costs are costs associated with installing facilities to meet expected peak
demands of fire protection services. Operating and capital costs for hydrants were allocated
directly to fire protection classifications. Certain parts of the water system are required to be
oversized to help ensure adequate capacity exists to fight fires. Water towers are specifically
oversized to meet the fire flow requirements of the community. The portion of towers allocated
directly to fire protection is 20.6% of water tower costs and is based on the calculation listed
below.
Table Eight – Fire Hydrants Water Requirements
GPM
Hour
Requirement
Total
Requirement
in MGD
Fire Flow Requirement 6,000 6.00 2.16
Reservoir Capacity 10.50
Percent of Total 20.6%
GPM – Gallons per minute requirement
2/3/2011 12
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
COST OF SERVICE
COST OF SERVICE COMPONENTS
The table below identifies cost of service rates and identifies the monthly charge and
consumption charge for each meter size and each customer class.
Table Nine – Comparison of Current Charges with Cost of Service Charges
Customer Class Meter Size
Monthly
Meter
Charges
CCU
Charges
Average
COS Rate
Monthly
Meter
Charges
Current
Rate First
Block
Current
Rate
Second
Block
Average
Current Rate
W-1 Residential 3/4 13.94$ 4.52$ 5.61$ 5.00$ 3.949$ 5.624$ 5.11
W-1 1 18.54 4.52 5.50 6.50 3.949 5.624 5.35
W-1 1.5 39.27 4.52 5.68 12.27 3.949 5.624 5.64
W-1 2 61.77 4.52 5.77 19.37 3.949 5.624 5.78
W-4 Commercial 3/4 13.94 4.16 4.99 5.00 4.946 5.23
W-4 1 18.54 4.16 4.80 6.50 4.946 5.15
W-4 1.5 39.27 4.16 4.80 12.27 4.946 5.13
W-4 2 61.77 4.16 4.71 19.37 4.946 5.11
W-4 3 137.16 4.16 4.52 77.65 4.946 5.12
W-4 4 236.62 4.16 4.78 130.60 4.946 5.26
W-4 6 500.00 4.16 4.95 260.43 4.946 5.34
W-4 8 812.02 4.16 4.61 383.67 4.946 5.14
W-7 Irrigation 3/4 13.94 5.10 5.51 5.00 4.946 5.19
W-7 1 18.54 5.10 5.27 6.50 4.946 5.10
W-7 1.5 39.27 5.10 5.10 12.27 4.946 5.03
W-7 2 61.77 5.10 5.19 19.37 4.946 5.06
W-7 3 137.16 5.10 4.95 77.65 4.946 5.01
W-7 4 236.62 5.10 5.08 130.60 4.946 5.08
W-7 6 500.00 5.10 4.89 260.43 4.946 4.98
W-7 8 812.02 5.10 4.98 383.67 4.946 5.01
Current ChargesCost of Service Charges
2/3/2011 13
CITY OF PALO ALTO WATER UTILITY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT, COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN
SIGNIFICANT ASSUMPTIONS
This section outlines the procedures used to develop the cost of service for CPAU’s Water Utility
and related significant assumptions.
REVENUE FORECAST
Sales revenues and rate adjustments were provided by CPAU. The table below projects
revenues from FY 2011 – FY 2015.
Table Ten – Projected Revenues (thousands)
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015
RATE ADJUSTMENT 0.0% 8.0% 9.0% 9.0% 9.0%
REVENUES
SALES REVENUES 28,666$ 31,336$ 34,179$ 37,291$ 40,687$
FORECASTED OPERATING EXPENSES FOR FY 2011
Forecasted expenses were provided by CPAU and are listed in the table below:
Table Eleven – Palo Alto Projected FY 2011 Expenses (thousands)
Category Amount
Supply 12,808$
Distribution 10,549
Support Services and Admin 1,612
Debt Service 2,373
Rent and Transfers Out 2,331
Rate Stabilization (985)
Other Revenues and Expense (23)
Totals 28,666$
CUSTOMER USAGE INFORMATION
Usage patterns for customer classes were based on monthly number of customers and
monthly volumetric usages listed on table seven.
Utility Financial Solutions
185 Sun Meadow Ct.
Holland, MI 49424
Phone: 616-393-9722
Fax: 616-393-9721
ACCOUNTANTS' COMPILATION REPORT
City of Palo Alto Utilities Department
The accompanying forecasted statements of revenues and expenses of the City of Palo Alto Water
Department were provided by CPAU and compiled for the year ending June 30, 2011 through June
30, 2015. CPAU’s projection was restated in accordance with guidelines established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants and reflected in this report.
The purpose of this report is to assist management in determining the cost to service each customer
class. This report should not be used for any other purpose.
A compilation is limited to presenting, in the form of a forecast; information represented by
management and does not include evaluation of support for any assumptions used in projecting
revenue requirements. We have not audited the forecast and, accordingly, do not express an opinion
or any other form of assurance on the statements or assumptions accompanying this report.
Differences between forecasted and actual results will occur since some assumptions may not
materialize and events and circumstances may occur that were not anticipated, some of these
variations may be material. Utility Financial Solutions has no responsibility to update this report after
the date of this report.
This report is intended for information and use by the City of Palo Alto, Utilities Department for the
purposes stated above. This report is not intended to be used by anyone except the specified
parties.
UTILITY FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS
Mark Beauchamp, CPA, CMA, MBA
Holland, MI
January 11, 2011
EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES OF UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
Meeting of February 2, 2011
ITEM 1: ACTION: Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long -Term Financial Projections
Senior Resource Planner Ipek Connolly provided a presentation on the water utility’s five-year
financial projections and proposed rate adjustments for FY 2012. Connolly noted that over the five-
year planning period, the cost of water purchases is expected to increase from $10.8 million in FY
2011 to $21.5 million in FY 2016. Regarding the rate adjustments, staff proposed to make the
cost-of-service analysis (COSA) adjustments between customer classes and between fixed and
volumetric charges in one year, along with a 12.5% ($3.5Million) increase in overall sales revenue.
This translates to a 17.4% increase in residential sales revenue and an 8% increase in business
sales revenue since the COSA realignment between customer classes is a 4% increase in
residential rates and a 10% reduction in commercial rates, and a 14% increase in commercial
irrigation rates. The adjustment to the fixed charge component would increase the revenue
collected from fixed charges from 5% to 15% of total sales revenue. The staff proposal would also
add a tier to residential and commercial rates. The financial projections illustrated the impact of the
revised (higher) SFPUC supply rate increases, lower water demand projections, and additional
capital improvement projects. Connolly also presented a couple of alternative scenarios suggested
by UAC members. One alternative was to raise rates sooner to avoid more increase later and
avoid going below the minimum reserve guideline. Another alternative was to try and achieve
stable rate increases (i.e., the same percentage over the 5 year planning horizon).
Commissioner Eglash asked for an explanation of how revenue from commercial customers was
increasing when they were getting a 10% decrease. Director Fong and Connolly explained that the
10% decrease was for the cost of service realignment between customer classes. With the
proposed FY 2012 increase of 12.5% in overall revenue requirements and the COSA increase of
14% for irrigation accounts the net increase to the commercial customers overall was 8%.
Commissioner Melton stated that he thought it was a well thought out proposal but expressed his
concern about dropping below minimum reserve guidelines for two years. He acknowledged that it
would take a large increase in FY 2012 to stay above the minimum guidelines in future years, but
requested that it be made clear to the Council of that possible outcome.
Chair Waldfogel and Commissioner Berry discussed alternatives to reduce the impact of the CIP
increase. Chair Waldfogel suggested stretching the CIP over three years, and Commissioner Berry
asked if the two new projects could be financed instead of paid for out of current ratepayer
revenues. Director Fong replied that she would not recommend delaying the projects as they were
safety related, and bond financing was not the typical way of financing such projects, but that it is
something that could be considered.
Commissioner Keller asked if the demand reduction was mainly from the business sector and
economy driven. She also observed that the reserve calculations were very sensitive to demand
projections, so the Commission should not get too focused on the reserve projections for future
years. Connolly replied that the demand reductions were partly driven by the economy, but also by
the weather and conservation actions.
Commissioner Cook asked how the tiers were determined, and if the tiers were effective in
encouraging conservation. Connolly explained that tier points had been selected based on the
percentage of customers that would fall into them for winter and summer usage. For example, tier
one was set based on winter usage and was designed so that 50% of customers would not exceed
tier one based on their winter usage. Connolly also explained that price response is low but there is
some, and the response is higher for low income customers and irrigation use.
Chair Waldfogel indicated that the UAC received a letter from Canopy and read the questions in
the letter:
1. Do we know what impact these rate changes might have on the landscape and health
of trees in particular?
2. Was Planning Arborist Dave Dockter consulted on this matter?
3. Is demand for water usually elastic to price? Does this elasticity vary tier to tier?
4. If the rate change is accompanied by additional encouragements to conserve water in
the landscape (such as the removal of irrigated lawns), could instructions be given
regarding the need to provide alternate irrigation for trees that are currently irrigated
indirectly through the watering of lawns?
Commissioner Keller recognized that the COSA resulted in a 4% residential increase, but she
asked if the cost could be split differently so that low usage customers could still have the ability to
lower their bills. She was concerned that the drop in volumetric rates for residential tiers one and
two did not give a conservation signal and was a confusing message to customers. Director Fong
stated that staff’s proposal was to increase the fixed charge to the COSA recommendation
especially since there is strong sentiment among the Council to avoid ramifications to the Water
Fund when usage drops based on the experience of the Refuse Fund. However when fixed rates
increase, volumetric rates must decrease to maintain the same revenue.
Commissioner Eglash summarized the “big picture”; water rates are rising dramatically, water is a
finite resource, and the City needs a rate structure to encourage conservation and has an
obligation to send correct price signals. There are significant avoided costs from conserving water.
He indicated that we have a responsibility to bring in the third usage tier to incent efficient use. He
recognized there was some concern about trees but he did not think most trees relied solely on
irrigation because of the relatively high water table in Palo Alto. Although he didn’t think trees
would be impacted, he indicated that if they were we would need to find a solution to that problem.
He expressed a preference for keeping commercial rates flat rather than having some commercial
customers having bill reductions and suggested applying Commissioner Keller’s suggestion to
commercial rates in not having their volumetric charges reduced.
Commissioner Foster expressed his appreciation for staff’s report and asked for clarification on
COSA legal requirements. He asked if the City was under a legal obligation to follow COSA, if
there was any arbitrariness to COSA studies, and if there was any obligation to move to the COSA
fixed charge recommendation. Staff replied that yes, regulations (Proposition 218) required that
rates be based on cost of service and the COSA study used industry standard cost causation
models for assigning cost of service. The fixed cost was a rate design issue, but that the current
low fixed costs were not collecting the full cost of service from low usage customers.
Commissioner Foster recognized that the proposed rate increases are painful and he would rather
the COSA be phased in more gradually so as to avoid the rate increase differential between low
usage residential customers and commercial customers. He would like to see all customers share
some of the required increase. He also would like a more gradual move to the fixed cost increase
(he would prefer no fixed costs). He also advised that staff communicate clearly the projected rate
increase over the next few years.
Commissioner Melton asked why staff proposed to move to full COSA alignment by customer
classes in one year although both the UAC and the Finance Committee previously indicated a
preference to move to the class alignment over more than one year. Staff indicated that since the
Water Fund’s reserves are currently healthy and, therefore, it was possible to somewhat reduce
the requested revenue increase for FY 2012 and include the COSA alignment in one year.
Additionally, staff indicated its preliminary assessment that it would recommend no increase to gas
or electric rates, so the total bill impact from the one-year COSA alignment for water rates was
doable.
Chair Waldfogel noted that the commission has several choices, including: 1) approve staff’s
proposal now; 2) approve the proposal with tweaks now; 3) appoint a subcommittee to work with
staff to develop new proposals; or 4) ask staff to return with a new proposal based on the
commission’s input. Commissioner Eglash opposed delaying action and noted that the
Commission needs to grapple with the issues now.
ACTION:
Commissioner Melton moved to recommend staff’s proposal with the change that staff make the
adjustments necessary so that no customer would get a bill decrease. Commissioner Foster
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Eglash offered a friendly amendment regarding lower usage customers: that the
volumetric rates for tiers 1 and 2 not be reduced from current levels and the fixed charge be
lowered to account for the higher volumetric charges, the tier 3 residential rate would stay at the
level proposed by staff. Commissioner Melton accepted the amendment offered by Commissioner
Eglash, but stated he would not accept elimination of the residential 3rd tier.
Chair Waldfogel offered an amendment to have a 14% increase in the revenue requirement for FY
2012 to have stable rate increases planned over the 5 year projection. Commissioner Berry
seconded the motion, but then withdrew his second when he understood the net impact on
residential customers of the revenue requirement increase and the COSA adjustment. Chair
Waldfogel offered an amendment to remove the residential tier 3, but there was no second.
Commissioners Eglash and Keller proposed modifying the first amendment so that residential tiers
1 and 2 rates would increase slightly instead of remaining at current levels. Commissioner Melton
accepted the revised amendment and reiterated his earlier request that the Council be well
apprised of the fact that the five-year financial projections show the reserves going below the
minimum guidelines for two years.
The final restated amended motion was: to recommend Council approve amendments to the water
rates such that: a) overall retail water rates and annual revenues for the Water Fund increase by
12.5%, or $3.5 million, in Fiscal Year 2012; b) the rate adjustment proposal by staff be modified so
that no customer’s bill would be decreased. These modifications will require that the volumetric
rates for residential customers for usage in tiers 1 and 2 and for commercial customers be
increased and the fixed charges be reduced; and c) the Council be made aware that the UAC is
aware that the five-year financial projections show that the balance of the Water Rate Stabilization
Reserve falls below the minimum guideline level for two years.
The motion passed (5-2) with Chair Waldfogel and Commissioner Berry opposed. Chair Waldfogel
indicated that his opposition was due to the fact that the customers most affected by the proposal
are those with large landscaped areas. Commissioner Berry indicated that he couldn’t support the
motion since he couldn’t see that actual proposed rates that would result from the proposed
modifications.
Excerpts from Finance Committee Regular Meeting March 1, 2011
2. Proposed Water Utility Rate Adjustments and Long Term Financial Projections.
Senior Resource Planner, Ipek Connolly reviewed her presentation. Staff
requested that the Finance Committee recommend adoption of the changes to
four Water Utility Rate Schedules for residential, commercial, fire hydrant, and
irrigation water services. If these changes were approved by the Council, the
rate changes would increase overall revenues for the Water Fund by 12.5
percent. There would be a 17 percent increase in residential revenues as a
result of the proposal. Different customer groups were identified because cost
drivers were different. The Cost of Service Study recommendations had been
incorporated. She reviewed a table summarizing how the proposal would affect
the customer’s monthly utility bill. For example, a residential customer that
used 14 CCF would see a $10 increase in their monthly bill. For wastewater, to
be discussed later, there would be a $3 increase. No adjustments were
expected for the electric and gas funds. With all rate changes, the total impact
would be $14 for an average customer. She discussed the background to the
changes. The proposal was brought before both the Finance Committee and
the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC). There was general agreement on the
objectives presented. One member from each group questioned the tiered
structure. The UAC approved the proposal 5-2 with some recommended
changes. She spoke regarding the drivers for the proposed changes. The
water supply cost was a main factor. There were on-going system
improvements that factored into the proposal. She stated the water demand
levels, across the region, were dropping. She reviewed charts demonstrating
water costs and demands. The sudden drop in demand was a problem as most
of the costs were fixed. She offered a high level view of the next five years
projections. With existing rate levels, and proposed rate increases, they would
not cover their costs each year. The reserves were healthy, and therefore they
were proposing only a moderate increase in an effort to maintain the objective
of stabile prices. There will be a need in the future for increased revenues. The
City Council approved minimum and maximum levels for the stabilization fund,
and they are within those parameters. Staff had proposed full implementation
of the Cost of Service Study levels for both customer class levels and fixed
service charge levels. The UAC agreed with the proposal, but recommended
Staff redesign the volumetric versus fixed rate component so there would be an
increase in Residential Tier 1 and Tier 2. The UAC wanted to provide a price
structure that rewarded customers that conserved water. Another
recommendation was that there should not be a bill reduction for any
customers. The California Urban Water Conservation Guidelines would be met.
The volumetric charges had a number of proposed changes, including an
additional third tier. The pricing of the tiers would be higher for higher users.
The proposal included two tiers for commercial users. Irrigation rates would
increase to $6.27. Fire hydrant rates would change to $7.27, consistent with
the Cost of Service Study requirement. A residential small customer’s monthly
bill would increase by approximately $3.41. For a medium customer, the bill
1
would increase by approximately $10 per month. Large customers would see a
22 percent increase. Commercial customers’ biggest impact would be seen in
irrigation. If the Finance Committee recommended a rate proposal to be
approved by the Council, letters would be sent to customers and a budget
review would be held in May. There would be a public hearing in June. If more
than 50 percent of the customers sent written protests the Council may not
adopt the proposed rates.
Council Member Shepherd asked about the consistent operational costs.
Ms. Connolly said Staff made a conservative assumption of one percent annual
growth, which may be adjusted based on labor negotiations. The amount
represented in the presentation included salaries, benefits, and all operational
expenses. The Consumer Price Index for the current year was one and a half
percent. It was her belief this would likely rise after the recession. Staff
attempted to maintain a low-level of cost.
Utilities Director, Valerie Fong said what was not spent was placed into
reserves.
City Manager, James Keene said Staff would try to correlate operational costs
with factors contained within the City’s Long Range Financial Forecast.
Council Member Shepherd inquired on the non-bond revenue. She felt the 17
percent in 2013 would not be needed until 2015.
Ms. Connolly said 17 percent was needed because of the prior four years.
Council Member Shepherd stated in W-RSR Guidelines lowered in June 2009
from 50 percent and 20 percent to 30 percent and 15 percent of sales revenues
for maximum and minimum reserve levels, respectively.
Ms. Connolly presented a graph displaying the short-term risk assessment.
Staff performed a short-term risk assessment annually. Staff made an
adjustment recommendation to Council to lower minimums.
Ms. Fong said Staff’s recommendation aligned the long term minimum with the
short term risk assessment.
Council Member Shepherd asked whether the redlined minimum indicated how
Staff expected the risk reserves to operate in managing rate increases.
Ms. Fong stated yes.
Council Member Shepherd stated the City would dip down to $2 million and
spike up with aggressive increases. She stated 2012 through 2014 could be
2
problematic.
Ms. Fong said Staff was providing a forecast using current information. She
stated the biggest unknown was the water utility demand.
Council Member Shepherd stated a low projection was used on water utility use
and consumption. She stated Staff expected a large drawdown on reserves.
Ms. Fong agreed.
Ms. Connolly said Staff felt comfortable moving forward with the information
available. If conditions worsen, Staff would return with this information next
year.
Council Member Shepherd stated the Finance Committee would be
recommending 12.5 percent.
Ms. Connolly confirmed the recommendation of 12.5 percent.
Council Member Yeh inquired on the reserve levels dipping below the range.
He inquired whether the City was at risk of having its credit rating downgraded.
Ms. Fong said the City initially pledged all of its reserves to support the water
bond.
Administrative Services Director, Lalo Perez said the graph indicated the City
would return above the range. The funds were monitored on a regular basis.
Ms. Connolly said that rating agencies looked at how frequently the City
adjusted rates. Staff reviewed rates annually and adjustments were made
accordingly.
Ms. Fong said rating agencies favored Council approved Staff adjustment
recommendations.
Mr. Keene said rating agencies agreed with this type of multi-year forecasting
and adjustment. Rating agencies favored transparency.
Mr. Perez said Staff was finalizing interviews for the hiring of financial advisors.
Council Member Yeh asked if Staff would be returning to the Finance Committee
by June 2011 with additional rate adjustment recommendations.
Ms. Connolly said yes.
Council Member Yeh said water demand went down 14 percent between 2008
and 2010. He inquired whether usage would remain flat, or if there would be a
3
further decrease due to water efficiency initiatives.
Ms. Fong said Staff would continue with water efficiency initiatives. She said it
would depend on business growth in Palo Alto.
Senior Resource Planner, Debra Lloyd-Zannetti stated water usage was
expected to trend down.
Council Member Yeh inquired whether fixed charges would trend upward.
Ms. Connolly said it was desirable to have a higher percentage of revenues
through fixed charges, as it provided revenue stability. On the other hand, the
more this was done the fewer customers would conserve. Staff’s plan was to
keep service charges at the levels indicated in the Cost of Service Study.
Council Member Schmid spoke on the importance of understanding the basis of
the reallocation process for residents. He inquired whether the peak-to-
average ratio, contained in the Cost of Service Study, was a driving force.
Ms. Connolly said yes. She stated that information was incorporated in the
Staff Report.
Council Member Schmid said the model assumed that if the rate varied over
time the system would be required to create an extra capacity. Thus, the share
of the basic cost would rise to manage the extra capacity.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct. Costs were allocated by the peak to
average ratio. In order to meet short-period demands, Staff was required to
have an adequate sizing mechanism and charge accordingly.
Council Member Schmid disagreed with the customer classes and peak to
average ratio. He felt it sounded perverse that if a customer, who saved water
in the summer, would end up paying more.
Ms. Connolly said one factor was how much irrigation load a customer imposed
on the system in the summer. There was a base load used in the household
throughout the year.
Council Member Schmid said the vast majority of residential users had a ¾ inch
pipe.
Ms. Connolly said it was infrastructure costs that were looked at, and not the
size of the pipe traveling to the customer.
Council Member Schmid said Staff was penalizing customers that conserved
4
during certain seasons.
Ms. Connolly said there were separate meters that were dedicated to outdoor
and indoor irrigation.
Council Member Schmid said commercial customers who used large amounts of
water for irrigation had the highest peak to average ratio and should pay more.
Ms. Connolly said Attachment G showed that proposed irrigation rates were
based on updated results from the 2010 billing statistics. The method proposed
was used by the industry.
Council Member Schmid felt residents would pay a larger portion with the
proposed rate system.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said residents who filled their water pipes constantly would
pay higher utility bill.
Council Member Schmid said this customer class would bear a larger share of
the total cost.
Ms. Connolly said the peak to average ratio appeared to be rising because the
Finance Committee was looking at it in terms of lower winter usage.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the $5 million annually was due to
the water tanks on the Foothills.
Ms. Connolly said water supply costs were rising.
Council Member Schmid said the five-year fiscal plan projected a water supply
increase of $2 million, and a CIP non-bonded increase of $5 million. This figure
would potentially stay flat for two additional years creating $10 million in CIP
spending.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct. Staff considered this a one-time increase
and did not propose to increase revenues.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether the Cost of Service Study should
reflect the utility users that would benefit.
Ms. Fong said Council Member Schmid was speaking in regards to residents in
the Foothills. The benefit was mainly on fire suppression in the Foothills and
the Open Space area.
Council Member Schmid felt there were heavy water users west of the Foothills
as Council had approved an increase in square footage in this area.
5
Ms. Fong said these residences would be in the higher tier.
Council Member Schmid said this would be part of the CIP discussion in 2013.
Council Member Schmid inquired why the fixed cost was not higher in the Cost
of Service Study.
Ms. Fong said Staff was operating under a recommendation from the Utilities
Advisory Commission (UAC) to balance costs between commercial uses and low
residential utility users.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the UAC wanted to ensure consistency in the City’s
message on water conservation.
Council Member Schmid said Staff felt a known fixed charge was good for the
system. He inquired why the fixed charge was not higher, with a zero volume
charge for the first five cubic feet of water.
UAC Vice Chair, Jon Foster spoke on his support for Staff’s proposal. He said
volumetric charges were important to send a rate signal to utility users.
Chair Scharff inquired whether the rate would rise 12.5 percent, plus four
percent.
Ms. Fong said that was correct for residential customers. She said it would rise
eight percent for businesses customers.
Chair Scharff said residential users would see a 16.5 percent increase. Due to
water conservation, Staff under-budgeted by ten percent or $3.1 million.
Ms. Connolly said under-budgeting, due to conservation, was only one driver to
the loss. She said weather conditions and the economic slowdown were also
drivers.
Chair Scharff said there was a ten percent reduction in water use. The
reduction in water usage directly related to the proposed 12.5 percent rate
increase. The process was similar to the Refuse Fund in that zero waste
equaled zero dollars. He inquired whether a sensitivity analysis had been
performed.
Ms. Connolly said the demand scenarios were the sensitivity analysis. The
finding was a one percent reduction annually.
Chair Scharff inquired whether the system would crash if there was a ten
percent reduction, as seen as in past years.
6
Ms. Connolly said yes.
Chair Scharff said using less water translated into less revenue for the City, as
seen in the Refuse Fund.
Ms. Fong said this situation was why Staff recommended a fixed charge, and
reported to the Finance Committee annually.
Chair Scharff said returning to the Finance Committee may result in further rate
increases.
Ms. Fong said this was a possibility.
Chair Scharff said the conundrum was that higher rate increases would drive
customers to use less water. He felt Staff was subsidizing customers with fixed
rates. He inquired on cost-cutting measures.
Ms. Connolly said most costs were fixed in the Water Fund, and a demand
reduction translated into a similar percent rate increase. The City used ten
percent less water, so the bill dropped by ten percent. With a fixed cost, Staff
was achieving the same bill with a lower use of water.
Chair Scharff said residents were getting charged more for water and the rates
were increasing.
Ms. Fong said if less water was used the customer would not pay for those units
of water.
Chair Scharff said that was a volumetric charge. The Staff Report stated most
charges were fixed costs.
Ms. Fong said the City only paid for what it used annually.
Chair Scharff inquired on the percentage of fixed costs. He said 70/30 percent
was his guess.
Ms. Fong said it was approximately 50 percent water and 50 percent
distribution.
Ms. Connolly said next year whatever was not recovered would be incorporated
into the following year’s rates. She disagreed with the statement that the City
was paying more for water utilities. It was the Council’s direction to use less
resources.
Chair Scharff agreed with the use of fewer resources. He spoke on his concern
for dropping below zero and not looking into cost-cutting.
7
Ms. Fong said Staff was conscious about ensuring there were no additional
costs. It was her belief there were no programs that could be cut in utility
services.
Chair Scharff inquired whether there were ways to bring fixed costs down to
ensure that each resident received a benefit using less water over time. He
said goals and the rate structures were not aligned.
Ms. Fong said goals and the rate structure were a balancing act.
Mr. Keene said the City had other monopoly services, such as police and fire
services. There were requirements and impacts to cutting services. Staff was
conducting an organizational review in the Utilities Department.
Chair Scharff inquired on any research performed on the third tier.
Ms. Connolly said there was a general assumption of a one percent reduction
for every ten percent rate increase built into the projection.
Chair Scharff inquired whether that had held true historically.
Ms. Connolly said there had not been studies done specifically in Palo Alto.
Ms. Fong said there were aggressive conservation programs which created a
decline in water demand.
Ms. Connolly said historically water demand had gone down and rates had gone
up. The largest driver in demand had been in the change of building and
plumbing codes.
Mr. Keene said Chair Scharff’s concern was with the conservation of water
leading to higher utility rates.
Chair Scharff stated the Cost of Service Study suggested a 200 percent
increase. He inquired whether a law would be violated if this increase was not
enacted.
Ms. Fong said that Proposition 218 compliance was an issue Staff had consulted
with City Attorney’s office about. There would not be a violation of Proposition
218,
Chair Scharff inquired whether the Finance Committee should move forward
with a larger fixed charge.
Ms. Fong said the original recommendation would have created a larger bill
impact. Staff was comfortable with what the UAC recommended and felt it was
8
a rational approach to develop rates for customers.
MOTION: Council Member Yeh moved, seconded by Council Member Shepherd,
that the Finance Committee recommend to the City Council the adoption of
changes to the four water utility rate schedules for residential, commercial, fire
hydrant, and irrigation water service, W-1, W-3, W-4, and W-7, per Staff
recommendations.
Council Member Yeh said the addition of the third tier and volumetric charges
sent an effective price signal to customers in terms of water conservation. He
spoke on Staff’s recommendation to phase in fixed charges.
Council Member Schmid spoke on his skepticism for the extra capacity model
and its effectiveness. He suggested a higher fixed cost model, with zero
volume for the first 600 cubic feet, and a five category ladder system with
moderate categories to provide a series of incentives.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid moved, seconded by
Council Member XXX, to establish a higher fixed-cost model with zero volume
for the first 600 cubic feet and a five category ladder system.
Council Member Yeh said that would be a separate analysis required by Staff.
The UAC had discussed adding an additional fourth tier.
Council Member Schmid said his recommendation could not return after the
Motion.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Council Member Shepherd said Council Member Yeh’s comments were to direct
Staff for next year. Next year would bring larger structural changes.
Council Member Yeh felt specifying five tiers would be too specific.
Chair Scharff inquired on the volumetric fixed charge amount that would be
established in the next two years.
Ms. Fong said the charge would be a 200 percent increase.
Ms. Connolly said the increase would go from $5 to $7.50 to $15.00.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council
Member XXX to direct Staff to increase the service charge to $15 within two
years.
9
Ms. Fong felt the Finance Committee may want to postpone this
recommendation until the bill impacts were confirmed. There may be other
rate increases on City services.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND
Chair Scharff said Staff wanted to implement this service charge within the next
two or three years.
Ms. Fong said that was correct. Staff had not analyzed this impact with other
increases in City services.
Chair Scharff recommended that the City move toward a $15 service charge.
Council Member Shepherd spoke on the City’s labor contract and its effect on
operational costs.
Council Member Yeh inquired on the timing of Staff’s return on the fixed cost
analysis.
Ms. Fong said conducting a fixed cost analysis, on a two-year timeframe, would
be challenging because Staff did not know what was occurring with other utility
rates. After May 2011, Staff would have more information to work with.
Mr. Keene recommended an additional Motion for Staff to return with an
analysis regarding an accelerated fixed charge rate increase.
Mr. Perez recommended that the rate impact be up to $15 in the Motion.
Mr. Keene said rushing a rate increase to Council precluded them from holding
a discussion. If the rate was set at the higher level the Council would have the
authority to reduce it.
Ms. Connolly inquired whether Mr. Keene was discussing next year’s rate
increase.
Mr. Keene stated the rate increase would take effect on July 1, 2011.
Ms. Fong clarified that the Finance Committee wanted to treat all customer
classes the same.
Ms. Connolly said Ms. Fong’s clarification went back to the proposal prior to
UAC’s recommendation. Some customers would be receiving a reduction in
services, and some customers would see an increase in water utility services.
She requested clarification on the change that the Finance Committee would
like to see.
10
Council Member Yeh inquired when Staff would return with an analysis on the
impact on customers’ bills.
Ms. Fong said an analysis would likely return in January 2012.
Mr. Keene said the Finance Committee sought an assessment of the proposed
changes. He felt a post budget adaption analysis could be done on the relative
impact that kept the existing factors the same without redoing the CIP.
Ms. Connolly stated Staff could provide this information.
Mr. Keene said the Finance Committee could chose to hold another session.
Staff could use the forecast to show the bill impact on distributing fixed costs
versus volumetric costs.
Ms. Fong said Staff could return with this information.
Council Member Schmid inquired whether this action was tied into the Motion.
Mr. Keene said this analysis would be brought to Finance Committee after the
rates were set for Fiscal Year 2012.
Council Member Schmid said he was convinced that a rate increase was needed
in 2012. It was important to move forward but there were outstanding issues,
including researching alternatives to the extra capacity model.
Ms. Fong said Staff could rerun the Cost of Service Study upon request.
Council Member Schmid said an outstanding question was how this rate change
would effect consumption. He said this would effect the total revenue brought
into the City.
Ms. Fong said Staff did not know which City programs, or if the economy, would
effect water consumption.
Ms. Connolly said financial projections were performed with low-demand and
high-demand scenarios. Staff could present this information upon request.
Council Member Shepherd said there would be many more Cost of Service
studies moving forward, and the Council would be revising these next year.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2, Schmid, Scharff no
Council Member Schmid said next steps were needed to deal with the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC). He said scheduling a new meeting or formulating
an alternative was needed to find a resolution.
11
Chair Scharff inquired on the timeline for this item returning to the Council.
Ms. Connolly said the public notice needed to be completed by April 15, 2011.
Chair Scharff inquired on the subject matter for future Finance Committee
meetings.
Mr. Perez said items scheduled on March 15, 2011 included the Mid-Year
Budget Report and the Stanford Development Agreement.
Ms. Fong said the Amendment to the Motion would be based on the full Cost of
Service Study for the 200 percent fixed charge.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the former Motion contained a third
tier.
Ms. Fong said the former Motion contained a third tier.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Schmid to request
Staff return to the Finance Committee with a proposal that did not include a tier
three.
MOTION FAILED: 2-2, Yeh, Shepherd no
Mr. Keene inquired whether it was best to return to the Finance Committee for
discussion, or return to the Council with alternatives.
Chair Scharff stated the Motion’s intent was for the Staff Report to return to the
Finance Committee.
Council Member Shepherd said she supported the Staff Report returning
directly to the Council.
Mr. Perez said Staff may need to run the documents without any indication of a
rate to stay with the current timeline.
Council Member Shepherd said if the Staff Report returned straight to the
Council, the Finance Committee would not need to discuss this item on March
15, 2011.
Council Member Schmid said the Staff Report could return on the March 14,
2011 Council agenda.
Mr. Keene inquired whether the Finance Committee would be able to select a
recommendation for the Council to consider if alternatives were brought back to
the Finance Committee on March 15, 2010.
12
Chair Scharff said he believed they could.
Mr. Keene said, as an alternative, recommendations could be taken straight to
Council.
Chair Scharff believed there would be no timing issue if the recommendation
returned to the Finance Committee prior to Council.
Ms. Fong said if there was a split vote made by the Finance Committee, Staff
would face two production issues.
Council Member Shepherd said the Motion, as it stood, moved for the
recommendation to return straight to Council.
Mr. Keene said the March 14 Council meeting was full.
Ms. Fong said Staff had PowerPoint slides on water rates available from the UAC
meeting for the Finance Committee to view.
Chair Scharff said the issue on the table was volumetric versus non-volumetric
percentage charge. He said Council Member Yeh recommended moving the
volumetric charge up, and removing the fixed concept.
Council Member Shepherd said the matrix would shift and analysis would need
to be processed.
Ms. Connolly presented PowerPoint slides depicting the current and proposed
fixed charges, and current volumetric rates, shown on two tiers. She spoke on
UAC and Staff recommendations as proposed. She spoke on the proposal,
recommended by the UAC for an increase to Tier 1, Tier 2, and to have a fixed
charge to Tier 3. The percentage increase would be a 200 percent increase on
the fixed cost. The pre-UAC recommendation contained fixed charges, moving
to wholesale levels, where small customers would see a 28 percent increase,
medium customers 11 percent, and large customers 16 percent increase in
monthly bills. It showed a decrease on commercial customers. Meter charges
affected all customer classes and resulted in revenue collection on the
commercial sector. Staff was bound by the Cost of Service Study, and was
required to lower the volumetric charges in this instance. This scenario resulted
in a bill increase for commercial customers. The UAC recommended not using
this scenario.
Council Member Schmid inquired why Staff used the same fixed cost charge.
Ms. Connolly said it was based on Cost to Service Study revenue requirements.
13
Ms. Fong said Staff recommended that phasing be done similarly across the
board.
Ms. Connolly said customer service, at these charges, were the same for all
customer classes.
Council Member Schmid felt commercial and small customer meters were not
the same.
Ms. Connolly said commercial customers had larger meters and had a larger
customer charge. Customer charges were based on meter size.
Council Member Schmid disagreed with pushing additional costs onto residential
customers. He inquired why Staff could not collect 100 percent of fixed charges
for residential customers and 20 percent fixed charges for commercial
customers, and collect the balance for the volumetric from the commercial
customers.
Ms. Connolly stated there would be a violation of the Cost of Service Study.
Council Member Schmid said Staff remarked that they must divide commercial
and residential customers. They were therefore not treated identically.
Ms. Connolly said there were different cost types. Revenues collected through
the service charges did not vary by customer class, but varied by size of
customer.
Ms. Fong said the same principles were applied at the same levels. The
principles were consistently applied.
Council Member Shepherd said this was a large spike for residential customers
and reduction for commercial customers, except that irrigation would be
brought forward for commercial customers with large landscapes.
Mr. Keene said small and large customers had larger spike increases under
Staff’s scenario, than under the UAC scenario.
Chair Scharff confirmed that the Finance Committee had a Motion to return
both scenarios to the Council.
Ms. Fong said that was correct.
MOTION: Chair Scharff moved, seconded by Council Member Yeh to have a 100
percent increase in fixed charges for residential customers with the rate system
designed around this increase, and for the Finance Committee to accept the rest
of the increases, per Staff’s recommendations.
14
Mr. Fong inquired whether that would include the three tiers.
Chair Scharff said yes.
Council Member Yeh stated the Motion would result in a reduction for
commercial customers. He inquired whether that could be penciled out. He
was open to the decision for this to go directly to the full Council.
Ms. Connolly said that was correct.
Council Member Shepherd inquired whether the scenario would recover the
revenue in order to support the service.
Ms. Fong said Staff would construct the proposal so that it covered the service’s
expenses.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the fixed charge would increase, and there would be a
reduction in the volumetric from what was proposed this evening. But it would
be less of a reduction than the alternative presented in the PowerPoint. The
Motion would not achieve the UAC’s objectives.
Ms. Connolly said the volumetric rates would need to be decreased to create a
signal for water conservation.
Ms. Fong inquired whether the Finance Committee requested to treat residential
and commercial customers differently.
Chair Scharff said the customers could be treated equally.
Ms. Fong said every customer would get 100 percent of the fixed charge
increase, and Staff would figure out the volumetric charge to obtain the correct
revenue for the individual customer classes. She indicated the Motion would
include three tiers.
Ms. Lloyd-Zannetti said the Motion would approve 50 percent of the fixed
charge increases that were suggested, which would result in a 100 percent
increase in current fixed charges.
Chair Scharff felt this Motion would achieve the two-year timeline that Staff
proposed and allow flexibility. He felt it was a good compromise between the
UAC and the Staff proposals.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Council Member Schmid, seconded by Council
Member XXX moved that the first tier be relatively low so the net impact on low-
water users was minimal.
15
16
Council Member Yeh inquired whether the Amendment would create inequality
between the steps in the residential tiers.
Council Member Schmid said the steps would not be as high because more would
be covered in fixed costs.
Ms. Connolly said that would take away incentives to conserve on the small
customers by turning their bill into a primarily fixed charge bill.
Council Member Shepherd said she would not be supporting the Amendment.
She appreciated the incentives in place to conserve water resources. She
inquired whether a Cost of Service Study would be performed next year.
Ms. Fong said the current Cost of Service Study would be updated next year.
Council Member Yeh said the Motion would incentivize conservation efforts, but
not to the extent of the UAC proposal. He did not recommend returning to the
Council with no recommendation.
AMENDMENT FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND
Mr. Perez said the recommendation to Council would return as part of the
Budget process in June 2011.
Council Member Yeh said, if the recommendation passed this evening, the
Proposition 218 notice would proceed with 50 percent of the increase of the
fixed charge.
Council Member Schmid felt strongly that a rate increase was needed.
MOTION PASSED 3-1, Shepherd no
J
• Robert K. Stitt ...•
919A.marilloAvenue, Pal~!Alto, CA 943~rYOF PAL .
. . Phone: 650493-5900, FAX: 650493-0636 .. .ITy CLERK~~V;' CA
. E-Mail rks3ataad@yahoo.com II H . feE
.... ~y ... S PH 2: OJ
May 2,2011
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto; CA 94301
RE:
Gentlemen,
Objection to Proposed Utility Rate Increases
I am writing this letter to object to the increase in the utility rates .. This increase
would adversely affect most, those with the lowest earnings and the retired and
elderly.
Very truly yours,
~--L~a?
Robert K. Stitt
Pau Acct. #: 132153-42677
I I • J _ ,,,,,, . I J I I
I
I
I • CITY Of PALO . CITY t"l. AL10.CA CLERK S OFFICE
I
I
I
I
I
II MAY 16 AM It: Oi \. PA ~ of' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f.' }
I
I
I
'li2(lbL AAe. ~~c( j);Uj)-0-
f1 ~k£' -+ W~ AJVl eA.£ ML .Aft'l Wa -l-0~ cur1 q
W uJJh;JJa ~ A tt +£5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I{{l-H~-y_/u lluS ·
/--I-{ "SO LV B(u{~Jf) 0 ~ +t: I
f 0..(0 Jt ['10. CA-Cllf~a "3
({ ~y -=t:t=-"'> () a () <t, J b Z.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Himanshu bWivedi
2410 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
To whom it may concern:
-.
Gel/TrY OF PALO ALTO. CA Y CLERK'S OrnCE.
, f HA Y I 2AM 10: 5!
"f'" ~'.
I am writing this letter to protest the proposed Wastewater and water rate increases. I live at 2410
Bryant Street; Palo Alto, CA.
l-i
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto CA 94301
Dear City Council:
763 E. Charleston Rd.
Palo Alto CA 94303£4706
2. 0 II }llo. 23 7
CITY OF, P,~L9 ALTO, CA cn Y CLERI, S OFfICE
II HAY 26 PH 3: 32
r )
This is a protest against the proposed utility rate changes as apply to the parcel of address 763 E.
Charleston Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303-4706.
I protest the proposed increase in the monthly wastewater rate.
I protest the proposed increase in the monthly water service charge.
Sincerely,
~~"-~e.~~~
Michael C. Fischer
May 9, 2011
City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
e· Richard C Placone
601 Chimalus Drive CdlY OF PAL9 {~LTO,CA
Palo Alto, California 94J(J6 TY CLERK S OFFICE
Voice: (650) 493=7217 If MAY r r PM 12: 07
E-mail: rcplacone@sbcgobalnet
Re: Protest of proposed utility rates for 2011
Attn City Clerk and City Council;
Acct Number: 300 12674
Parcel Number 137-08-054-00
Address See letterhead above
This letter is written to protest the proposed increases in water rates and waste water rates. The city
currently extracts millions of dollars form the sizable profits made by the utility department,
including, if! understand this correctly, profits from the water utility. The city management and the
Council have demonstrated over the years, that the utility department profits are used to balance the
city's General Fund. While a certain amount of this transfer of profits may be justified, the ever
increasing amounts are not in my opinion, especially when the Council continues to spend funds for
special interest groups like the children's theater and zoo, while wei are faced with years of annual
deficits. Giving the Council more money only prolongs the inevitable when the Council and the
managers must bring spending to the level the city can afford and stops spending money on
unneeded consultants and such.
In addition, it is my understanding, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HA VB CORRECT INFORMATION
ON TIDS SUBJECT IF I AM WRONG, that it is against state law to use water utility profits for any
purpose other than for the water utility needs. If the city is transferring water profits along with gas
and electric profits, then the law is being violated and this practice must stop. All the more reason
why the water rates should not be increased.
That the city owns the utility department is supposed to be reason for our rates to be lower than
PG&E. They are not. The city should be making efforts to accomplish this once promised benefit.
,'1
Sincerely, ,li ....•. /./ .. y/I" .. /"I./.~{##::-;y. /.'
/t(.pc;t.&.</ ( ~~;;;~
Richard C. Placone --,,-
~
PROTESTING RATE INCREASES
f do not agree the proposed rate increase for water and waste
. water that will be effective~, 2011. .
Property owner name: ManKie Ng'
Property .address: 4250 EI Camino Real #A303. Palo Alto, Ca I:
') ... ;: .... '. /' '184ao:6
. . .
Pa rcel'ti:l.67 .. 55-080-00 . :' -' ~ . -'", :" ' . . . '
"". ",'." "
~d
sj3/JD // -of? -:::j""'"f i! .... c<
-< ("')0 , r-"
\,Q f;J~
~r.-""0 u)O :::c <::j);.
f'\) "'1lCj .. :2:!o Q n-"-oJ Dlj;
lO; ('; *:'J of-p.lo A 1+0
C(-rj cl~y-lL
J-50 ttw,,,,;J tov--AiK,
f"Jo 111 +v I cA1 q f 30 I
fvn~: 1-', I 'll JJ~
loiS [",\Po-v-cv--J e .-0 ~
po.-i 0 ft' to) CIt Cf13~3 ~ ~ 1 J V'" w0V ~ fr> fyVt~st IJ.-o~ -tk. t-J"J.eA-~ W0--5+~ Wbtt,ex'" l;ttili-M:J y""t~ lA.v{j\Ast~.
I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.;lOII
I
, . ;q" . • .. f'''' ,
(.
I
•
May 9, 2011
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Alma Silverth~~
3339 Kenneth Drive
Palo Alto, California 94303
Palo Alto, California 94301
Dear Council Members:
First, thank you for your service to our city.
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE·
" KA Y I I PM 12: 0 I
Second, I wish to protest the proposed water and wastewater rate increases.
Our utilities are operating at a profit, and last year's annual payment to the
city was excessive. Public Utilities should not be operated with the same
principles as for profit corporations.
Please, give us a break for once.
Sincerely,
t/t.m/f ~/t/.ud,Ar'
Alma Silverthorn
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
• CUY OF-PALO'ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE .!
" HA ~ 16 AM U = 01
•
4194 King Arthur Ct
Palo Alto CA 94306
May12,2011
, '. ' ~, ,
SUBJECT: WATER RATE INCREASE PROTESTAtioN.
Location: 4194 King Arthur Ct. Palo AltoCA 94306
Parcel Number 137 .. 27-017-09
Utility Account Number 30021657
The proposed water rate increase is yet another indication of the total lack of
competent financial management in Palo Alto government.
We are requested to save water and then we are told that since we did a good job
in conserving water that we now must pay more.
Anyone can postpone truly solving fiscal problems by raising taxes and fees and
spending money we don't have. It takes a real manager to solve problems with
the means at hand. How about showing realleadersbip (and demonstrating how
we can live within our means. Unfortunately many of us who are retired do not
have the luxury of just telling government to give us more money because we
saved water.
Very truly yours
Ct))L G-.-O(fl ~ ·
John A. Martin
'"76 tuho/Y} if" P'Jo,,' c"" c""",,·
:etA""" 5V\b-rY)~{,;b\.l\lI) h ~\'s. w-<d:,b~~' r{"u~e~-\--"-~\.V\~-\
~u....
C. ~o..<~e..s -bho...t w \\\ a..~~eLt f>~~l~ \" ke. 'l'Y)e tV,~ ",1\, "IV\. \ ~~.l
f Y\Cof'f)'e .• I o..-cY'\ ~ \"'N)(.:)S{ c.. ~ YecJ-<({.. ulJ c.v~VVlQ'<\ LJ"4 o l' S
\ l Vi 1"1<.:,) cJ J.J-~ CL q'). Ye~,(s c \J. YY'lo--l","~V'"'. . .
r ~ u.. \-c::. -b ~\('u tes·1 -f:. '-t \' s. C "'-.0.. V\.C';) -e ./ b u... h !='o., c ~q.~~~ Y\"
v.v\\-<. v\~w v'\ Cu. -l ,-,--.f"C.-(-~)"t + ~ 0. V) .:. V\ Co 'I'v\.. --E:. h 0., '-< ~ \ Y t'V\. ~ u.. OJ '-t ttG
(p~'7 ·to-< Ct-V1y't k"vL~ 1t&lJ bo....<;~ 6<'\ f'Y11 ~\'~\A.CA.l".\CVl €.Ve..1
~ e"(")'v\ i C..:> '-'C-.J\, \. 5" <;~ "'< -.ci 1 0... "'\. ch .~ "'-0.. V\ \'<. Y <::> ~-
,/o\.J...,r'So
A,-",,' Q 0 t:t~-c-
'?o-.'fC~ \ ),\u-\.M.bCt\..\ 11.7 -70 -0/'-1-00
'?,7 '5 q K ~ \1\1\..0.... .\;;, ~ L <'>'.:'" ~. 'f. v.\ t CI4 '1Y '3P J..
\.) +~l\'i\'eS u..cC.o ...... V\.{ 10u(~ ~ '3 Y 5
C-. C Z ,
:Do-
::It -..•
0
W
('")~
-'--i -1-< -< ('")0 ,-n
/"1'1," :::0 ):"-..
~, we
0)::>
-rrCj 2:!o n' fTf('") :>
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA .r
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
c;rq C/,tJI/z' If ,-tAY J 6 AM": 05
~~-/7a4?J///m-~,
,P~ i?L~ 1!/2,1 ?~:J~/
D~~~:
~ M/sR ~~~7~ ~e ~ ~
~}n-~ ~ cUA<lk.4/~. 11 ~=cuL.
fllO, /-0 /$'7./:r-~//-<P'<P'. /lief cu/d~,~ 3~7/ 7~C2-~
t;4uz d a-<:-C!C>~ r., 5~o/.:L5'"S~,
~tf~~/·
$U/)d-2J~~&
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
•
736 Layne Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
May 10,2011
CITY OF PALO CITy CLERK'SAOLTO., CA . FFICE
II HAY 16 AM II: 0.
We hereby protest the proposed water and wastewater rate increases as announced
in your notice of April 25, 2011.
Jo Ann Fahnestock
736 Layne Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
•
384 Madeline Court
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Utility account #: 30042376
"
RE: PROTEST AGAINST UTILITY RATE CHANGE
City Clerk
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Madam/Sir:
•
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
r 'HAY-4 AM ~:26
, ~, , f ,"/.
April 30, 2011
(
This letter is to protest against the proposed increase in wastewater and water meter
service charges for the 2011 fiscal year. We urge the City of Palo Alto Utility
Department to investigate and implement cost-saving measures of operation instead of
increasing 'customer utility charges.
Sincerely,
itlJ)lfiye<
Tetyana Obukhanych
c c
CitvtlerR ccc
··~~!~r~~1;~ .
•
CITY Q& PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OF'F't'cE
l' HAY -5 PH 2=05
. c cc· •• c cccc .cc. c.c .• l,etterto protest the proposa~ the cit~ council consider~d about raising th"S~8
rnrnc .. mac"'vvat~r,.andS1 wasterwater collection services rates for the fiscal year that begms m
. c c conserve water the best we can and been doing our best in our daily life to
cccc 'th~<~nvironment. When we first moved in to the city, we have chosen to pay a much
....... cq .... c CC prpperty) price to clive in a solar powered community in the Vantage of Palo Alto. 13.2%
i'n wastewater charge and 100% increase in monthly water service charge are not
~rr''''n'r~ble, ev~n though it means less than $10 a month for our household of six.
Please reconsider your proposal. Thank you.
c Sincerely:
Kok Hoong Chan & Pei Vee Lee
Account No.: 30021250
Service Address: 935 Mallard Lane, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Larry Hootnick
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Clerk, Palo Alto
Laurence Hootnick
Proposed Water Rate Increase
•
8HY(:Jf' PAL.U ALTO C
After reviewing the data supporting your proposecl_i:lier'Mcrease, I am extremely disappointed for the following two
reasons:
The data as presented are insufficient to make any judgment on the proposal. The premise is that the in~rease is ',~. ,~. primarily due to the cost of purchased water. Yet, nowhere do you show the actual increase for the purchased water or
any data comparing 2011 and 2012. The only data shown is a pie chart by expense element for 2011. I don't understand
why you didn't show detailed cost data by expense element for 2011 and proposed for 2012. Had you showh this, we
could see how much each element is projected to change/grow and what amount and percent of the growth is for
purchased water versus all other cost elements. Additionally, you state that the purchased water costs are expected to
double in 5 years -you should provide a 5 year projection if you have these costs.
Interestingly, for 2011 the non purchased water/capital improvements account for 52% of spending. You do not address
what actions you have taken to reduce the other 48% of the spending. For example, since debt service is 9%, have you
attempted to refinance at lower rates to reduce expenses? Also, do you have the same labor cost/pension problems in
almost every other area of the public sector? If so, what is your action plan to reduce these expenses?
Overall, this analysis is woefully inadequate and gets a no vote from me until these questions are satisfactorily
answered.
While I have no problem in concept with expanding the number of volume levels from 2 to 3 to charge residential users
more if they use a lot more, I find this proposal grossly unfair if you don't provide relief for property owners like myself
who have I~rge lots ( mine is almost an acre with mature planting). While 29 cef seems to be very reasonable for run rate
usage with non or minimal irrigation usage, it is very inadequate during the peak watering billing season from July to
October. Without any upward seasonal adjustment to cover the higher water needs for irrigation during this peak period
the proposed rate change is extremely discriminatory to owners of larger lots like myself. I would not vote for this
proposal unless there is a "peak usage" adjustment. Since your data show that irrigation accounts for 40% of total water
usage, there is no way I could be below 29cef during peak irrigation periods and maintain any reasonable level of
planting.
Overall, I vote no unless more cost data is presented to justify your proposed increases and a fair treatment for owfiers
~ma~~/}
ce-~ce Hoot~~
421 r r II rutTer.iaw.
Palo Alto, California 94306
30022624
1
May 1, 2011 .1
Subject: Protest of water and wastewater rate adjustment
Address: 3021 Ross Road"Palo Alto, CA 94303
, $,' . "'f'';'
Dear City Clerk,
I am writing to officially protest the utility rate adjustments for wastewater and water.
~~
Seavan Sternheim
Homeowner: 3021 Ross Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
To:
Re:
City of Palo Alto
Utility Rate Change
To Whom it may concern
CITY OF PALO ALTO, CA
CITY CLERK'S g.FfICE
II HAY I 8 PM 2: 3.
__
From: Johnny Naber
~~;Ros$'Road'
I received your "Notice of Utility Rate Change" dated April 25, 2011 wherein it specified I
may submit a written protest. The following is my protest. .
I have always and will always believe that a person should take care of the~s~lvfi~ and
pay their own way through life. I have no complaint with paying my fair share$itlhe City
needs more funds to pay for the services I receive. That's only fair. What I strongly C
object to .however is the same solution the Federal Government is using, asking midtUe
class workers to bear the majority of the burden while giving special breaks to over-
privileged people and big business.
A wastewater hookup in and of itself does not put any burden at all on a wastewater
treatment plant. A burden is created only by actual waste that is sent to that plant. The
more waste that is sent the larger the burden on the treatment plant. My modest single
bathroom home sends down an extremely small amount of waste. A vast majority of that
comes from the shower and kitchen sink, both of which need little or no treatment at all.
That leaves a single toilet as my very modest burden on the wastewater treatment pJant.
l;Jasic rates tor. Residential, Restaurants and Commercial customers have all been
!ncreaSed thEi 'sam~ amount anct that's Jelir. th.eburden pl,ac.~~ qn tbe was~~w.ater tre~tment .. planfbyF{t:)staYrant~arid9qmrne.rcial c.~,~tOr1ler~'h9w,evefcah·t;)e,· a~d.· ',:',"
usually is,enormously larger ttlan what my hO'rnE)"rould pdssibl~i' breiifeso'there'is 'a
tiere~ .rate. schedule for those customers. Those rates are going down and that is the
opposite' o.f fa Jr. The waste from .Restaurants and Comrn~rcial custQmers is the source
of the vasfmajority of the burden.on a treatment plant and:theygetareduced:rate1
How do you justify that'? . (That's a rhetorical question, of'course Y9u cannot justify it.)
I have the same issue with the water rates. I do not evenwaterthelawns now to'
conserve water and I see my rates will decrease 8.8% for the first 6 Hundred Cubic Feet
but then for the next two rate tiers they go up 8.1 and 35.8%!!!!! respectively whereas
Commercial rates go down 9.3% for 14 Hundred Cubic Feet and do not increase at all
above that. Again that is the opposite of fair. Again the vast majority of the burden on the
water system/supply is coming from the Commercial sector and yet they get a bigger
break. If I for example were to use 50ccf of water it would cost $321.88 but a
Commercial customer would only pay $178.42 for the same amount of water. In fact
they could use 66.27ccf of water and still pay less than I would. Another way to describe
their s~vi.ngs is they .could get 1,627 CU,bjc Feet = 12,170,8 gailoris of, water forfree.
~~1.I~;fre~ t(),them, nQtfi"e,~ for me~ I ~nd, other m'~Q,le. ¢ICl$S.nom~pWller~ will b.e, ·paYi.ng
~~::~~~:t~f~~;~~:-~~n:~m,~~~~~~~~t(r~'~ir~~~e~Utrurgeyouto
mq':l~r:e. the.s,~me sac.rific.~$ from ~y.erY(m~,flPt.P..lAt mQstqnb~ .burden '~rl,h()s~ who can
:a~k,hy:;tolhu··~,·leasi,.·.·· ·"//5)'I··~V~)" .:£j>~> ' , .. ' ..... ,
,///'/ / // / /.
John Naber ~~/ .'" L/·:· ( c_ t l ".r ~
// {/
~J'1 (;/~.a/&./J...../
c/'/??'l~dsC«eW-0 Av 2"o/~~/~M->d/
;::U~~U -duB -??7u&:,:UcjJ /~b~~ ~~'-:J / C?/7!/LC-~4j $/?7~-?7~/f ~t..L/ ,~-G ~V P-c~ '~~14'7g;0
a,i:td L't~~r? / C'7V:>~~ §V~--C-:l?<:?' .' ~--L£0 ~?/ Yv,~ P?;7v' /~. v ~//t &.,;/ r / / _ -/' 7L -;4. 7 v -• 'b~k' , / .-
A-/:Y) (;/ZLA..£e..,,::J/ t:~r..-~ ec77J~t--U&0 ~?-/~/~ ~C~n:..//7c:V>d~~
>J1 ~ ~~7j/~£A/ fi" d/ U'Z;://A/ hz/?V /~LIU/?-~'
/~n?/v~d; ~c~£<Ptf/?O~~~ ~/~0?~rbfP<:C(:;/
4t17Z/ r:~ /-;t:!/A~) ~-rz/ A£ 4!L'L~/ Z; /l77~c'7/' ~~//'-;?t-/
~r.v; ~/. --?' ~ k&V.42() crd :Y ~~'C;::-4>~ d<UV
-Vn/ I/~£b ~ Cc~~_?n~ ~vZdu~au: VLdA-£.'
Un:<:/7W~LC:o//-V~CU£Ud/.~n./~~/J'-·t;u-.V--.
d/~' ~t--,~t---~ '. ,-Y ?t/}?z/;f ~~/"/~ 4.6, ';rne::::e://;Je:./.. ,~/ ~~
d" ~. J ".' ~/; ~ • V J ~) /77cz/ /'1l-£' /~~ /lccY r Z' ~ ~ /0/' kh t:0~. H-&/{,//J7 ff' 6e-.
,//'P~~~///,/YJ7~~/YyL~~~/ . .--e;£c~~ /;??~'
--1:::,<7/ C' /7'F~ .
,.J/~ C7 /77 ~~~/C/"« ,,/ ~CL'/ucf< A 7vDZ~'a;~
/ / j£/'-U/ ;:t~~/~&~£vc..£o'utC~/ c} t?n-<udjC:~/7e./ ,,-6' -Z:h/'
~d-~u/U.7/"ZL£~ ~-t/?7 c/U/£,64J c:~c~:,/'jc:u.,v
~/ /z;;ft;/L?~Cf ;7~~ ~~I/~c::?n c'L./ ?<-z:Lv_6r~/~7&7:?U./
,/U/lj' iL,r7~ ;/ ~~C.L' ~ , -
t:!
~~~/ /. C ~'Lo/4C/,?5, (-k2dP'7d
£tVe~;// ff C~rhoA
,,,3Yd7!fOS5!/oc:tL
7~/o ////-0 Y~~3c/.3
I
J ,;201 1
I
City Clerk
CITY OF P}\LO ALTO. CA
CITY CLERWS OFFICE
II MAY 26 PM 3: 32
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Sir,
•
.f
614 Wellsbury Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
May 22,2011
We're responding to the "Notice of Utility Rate Chang~". We object
to the utility rate adjustment increases to both the water and waste water
rates. We are against all of the proposed charges.
Our assessor's parcel number is, 132-56-019-00 and our utility
account number is 300 22364.
Marjorie and David Masters
j
•
TO: City of Palo Alto
FROM: Frank Kwong & Caly Chiu
CITY OF PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
" riA Y I I PH 12: 0'
RE: Written Protest AGAINST all of the proposed charges on water, wastewater and
refuse)
DATE: 5/2/2011
WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST ALL OF THE PROPOSED CHARGES (WATER
AND REFUSE).
Assessor's Parcel Number: 086-18-003-00
Property address: 837 Wintergreen Way Palo Alto,CA 94303
City of Palo Alto Account Number: 119973-30315
We protest the rate increase on both water and refuse.
Thank you.
Signed:
j