HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 1632City 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
)