HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-04-2021 Climate Action CommissionOlowa City Climate Action Commission Agenda
Monday, January4, 2020, 3:30-5:00 p.m
Electronic Meeting, Zoom Platform
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda
item by going to https:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/
tJUvd0ispigtGtxkBMyE5erAibbmvPGO via the Internet to visit the
Zoom meeting's registration page and submit the required
information.
Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to join
the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the
ID number found in the email. A meeting password may also be
included in the email. Enter the password when prompted.
If you have no computer or smartphone, or a computer without a
microphone, you may call in by telephone by dialing (312) 626-6799.
When prompted, enter the meeting or webinar ID. The ID number for
this meeting is: 912 3148 37080
Once connected, you may dial *9 to "raise your hand," letting the
meeting host know you would like to speak. Providing comments in
person is not an option.
Meeting Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Dec. 7, 2020 minutes
4. Public Comment of items not on the Agenda
-Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 3 minutes. Commissioners shall
not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items.
5. Staff Announcements
a. Action items from last meeting
b. Updated Action Plan report (see attachment)
6. Old Business:
a. Discussion of ideas to restructure working groups
7. New Business:
a. Nomination and election of commission chair and vice chair
b. Presentation by HDR on the Methane Feasibility Study
c. Updates on working groups (see reports in agenda packet)
i. Buildings (Krieger, Karr, Soglin, Grimm)
ii. Transportation (Leckband, Giannakouros, Grimm)
iii. Outreach (Krieger, Fraser, Holbrook, Bradley)
iv. Equity/Adaptation (Tate, Hutchinson)
v. Waste (Bradley, Grimm)
8. Recap of actionable items for commission, working groups, and staff
9. Adjourn
If you will need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please contact
Sarah Gardner, Climate Action Engagement Specialist, at 319-356-6162 or at sarah-gardner@iowa-
cit .or . Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION
D E C E M B E R 7, 2020 — 3:30 PM — FORMAL MEETING
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible
or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission
members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
ELECTRONIC MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madeleine Bradley, Stratis Giannakouros, Ben Grimm, Grace
Holbrook, Kasey Hutchinson, John Fraser, GT Karr, Jesse
Leckband, Becky Soglin, Eric Tate
MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Krieger
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Ashley Monroe
OTHERS PRESENT: James Bechtel, Nancy Porter
CALL TO ORDER:
Soglin called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 2, 2020 MINUTES:
Fraser moved to approve the minutes from November 2, 2020.
Tate seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 10-0.
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
James Bechtel introduced himself as a public health systems analyst at Johnson County Public
Health. They've been interested in trying to move forward on some climate action efforts and
trying to find some alignment opportunities with Iowa City. He hopes to better understand where
there are mutually beneficial opportunities on tackling some of this work. He said he was
listening in to the meeting to learn more. Hopefully in the near future he'll be able to provide
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 2of8
updates on some of the things that they're doing that intersects with some of this Commission's
work.
STAFF/COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Action Items from last meeting: Gardner noted the first item was for her to send out an email
reminder with the dates to send updates to staff so they can include them in the agenda packet.
She did send that out about a week after the last meeting and hoped that was helpful. She will
continue that practice in the future. There was an action item asking staff to reach out to the
consultant that has done the methane feasibility study to gauge their availability to give a
presentation in January after new climate commission member comes on board. Monroe stated
she has not heard back from that group but will check in again about the firm's availability. The
next action item was for the Commissioners to provide updates that can be included in the
agenda packet on the working group activities. Gardner noted staff did receive an item from the
building working group. Additionally, the Commission was to provide feedback to the building
working group about the draft memo that they were putting together to submit to City Council.
Krieger had an action item to submit working group expectations so that they could be included
in the agenda packet for this month. That did not happen, in part because there have been
ongoing discussions about restructuring some working groups, which was included as an
agenda item for this meeting. Next was an action item for Commissioners to review the work
plan that had been submitted in the packet last month. Finally, there was an action item asking
staff to update the membership of different Commissioners in the working group listed on the
agenda, which Gardner did.
Climate Action and Outreach Office Updates: Gardner noted in terms of recent activity, it's
been a busy couple of months in the office. The City has launched their TIF-funded climate
action incentive program focused on commercial and industrial properties in the urban renewal
areas. They have an outreach letter and flier developed, and have reached out to some of the
entities in areas that are going to sunset first to make sure that they know this funding
opportunity available to them. Staff has had a conversation with the owner of the Sycamore Mall
and they will have a conversation later this week with P&G. Sycamore Mall had a number of
projects already in mind, so staff are anticipating being able to fund something in the near
future. As the program was structured, they settled on a forgivable loan program with loans up
to $250,000 for projects such as HVAC and lighting system upgrades, building automation
controls, solar power and water heating systems, envelope improvements, mechanical
upgrades, and alternative refrigerate systems. Gardner noted the last item was an interesting
one that came up in the project design process, as it wasn't something on staff's radar
previously but it seems to have the potential to make a big difference in the emissions profile.
Gardner also included updates for Green Iowa AmeriCorps, which has been working steadily
since coming on board in September. Instead of offering home energy audits (due to COVID-19
concerns), they have shifted toward the Home Energy Kit delivery, which is a contactless
service. Both the energy kits and the home energy audits are included in their tally of services
provided so far and they have provided services to 162 households here in Iowa City. They
have also organized 41 different education and outreach events within the community, most of
which have happened virtually. In terms of energy efficiency outreach, staff has been having
some very productive conversations with the Home Builders Association in Iowa City and have
agreed to sponsor a home entry for the Parade of Homes. They're looking to showcase a
2
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 3of8
project that has been designed with a high number of energy efficiency measures. The HBA has
been reaching out to its membership to make them aware of this opportunity.
Staff also has planning underway for a Neighborhood Energy Blitz in the coming year. This as
an action item called for in the Climate Action Plan. They are currently looking at rolling out the
blitz in conjunction with Earth Day. They've been having some very productive discussions
exploring partnerships with school environmental clubs and getting AmeriCorps to partner with
them as well. They're envisioning a door-to-door campaign rather than a campaign where they
ask everybody to come together in one centralized location, given current COVID conditions.
Gardner noted with enough boots on the ground this approach actually may result in a higher
level of outreach and engagement than if they did ask people to come to one event.
Gardner next discussed the marketing RFP. they have had interviews with the two highest
scoring firms and staff is in the process of checking references for those firms. The next step in
that process is a consensus meeting scheduled for tomorrow to determine whether to continue
conversations or refine the proposals, but they're looking to have someone on board before too
long.
Gardner stated they are going to be wrapping up the training of the Climate Ambassadors in two
weeks. This week is the week the Ambassadors have been charged to conduct their climate
conversations in the community, and staff has made the offer to help set up Zoom meetings for
anybody who'd like to conduct their meetings that way. Others are going to be calling on friends
and family. In the final week of the training, the Ambassadors will be reporting back to staff
about how those conversations went. Staff has started thinking ahead to get training underway
for the next cohort so that program continues to roll forward and take on momentum.
Gardner then gave a quick update on current grant -funded projects. The EV Readiness Plan is
moving forward at a steady clip. They had a second steering committee meeting in mid -
November. Members of the steering committee have been asked to submit names of
stakeholders from their individual communities to be involved in a virtual meeting that will be
conducted virtually in January. The plan is to offer an EV 101 webinar/project overview to
stakeholders in early January so that any who might be new to the conversation or want to
understand the plan a bit better before coming in and offering their input will have a chance to
do so. The webinar also will be recorded and made available for others to view in the future.
Two weeks after the webinar they will have the stakeholder meeting which will be an interactive
meeting. The consultant, ICF, is looking to use a platform called Mural, which is a virtual
whiteboarding platform that allows facilitators to collect and consolidate feedback in real time as
the meeting takes place. As for the carbon sequestration project, Gardner reported they have
received a draft of a carbon management plan for Iowa City that is currently under review. Staff
are going to have a discussion with the other cities participating in that project later this week to
talk about what kinds of revisions they hope for from the consultants who are working on that
project.
Finally, Gardner updated the Commission on staffing. They have hired a part-time
communication assistance, Bridget Williams, who's been great at helping develop some
materials, including the flier mentioned earlier being sent out to area businesses about funding
opportunities. Interviews are also currently underway with the final candidates for the climate
action analyst position.
3
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 4 of 8
Monroe noted that staff are in budget preparation mode for next year's budget to start in July.
Staff has a draft budget set and are preparing the presentation to Council in January, but the
budget itself comes out for public review about two weeks from now. There will be funding
dedicated from the emergency levy funds to address the climate action initiatives for the
upcoming year.
Soglin asked whether properties eligible for the TI F-funded energy projects are being required
to first check if they can do a utility program or do this in conjunction with a utility rebate
program. Gardner said she can't speak to the application itself, which is in development, but a
discussion of whether or not they're participating in the utility offered programs has been part of
the discussion with the businesses they've reached out to already. The expectation is that they
would exhaust those funds first and the City would in turn would provide complimentary funding
or fund an alternate project. A good example being in the Sycamore Mall conversation, there
was a discussion about funding EV charging stations, which the City wants to encourage, but
those stations can be more or less fully funded through the utility so while they pursue that
avenue, the City will talk to them about some other projects.
OLD BUSINESS:
Development Density and Carbon Emissions Draft Memo: Soglin noted this memo was
submitted by the building working group and asked if anyone has any major concerns to please
raise them now so the entire group can discuss them. If there are line edits or typos, please
email Krieger or Soglin with those types of changes.
Hearing no comments, Soglin stated the memo will then be presented to City Council.
Implicit Bias Training Discussion: Soglin noted several Commissioners attended the training
last week. She thought what was very interesting was that it was about personal bias and how
to respond to it, but also had a great emphasis on the structural issues. It really melded those
two issues together. For her a big takeaway was that not all bias is bad, bias can serve a useful
purpose in one's life, but obviously racial bias is not is not something that should be continued in
any way. Awareness of it depends on both individual efforts, how they act as a Commission,
and what policies bias may impact.
Fraser stated he was struck by the idea of "doing no harm." The challenge in doing no harm, he
said, is something that all commissions, and specifically members of this Commission, need to
be really cognizant of because the danger is doing harm and not realizing it. He noted it's one
thing to say you have structural bias or personal bias, which are related, but in your hurry to do
good for mankind you may miss the fact that for some segment you are doing harm. Fraser
noted the challenge to him personally is asking himself enough challenging questions, not just
"Is it going to be harmful in anyway?" He stated there are so many potentials for bias and
causing harm when one is in a lucky, privileged class. One of the ways he finds helpful to think
through potential harm is to talk to a lot of other people and really brainstorm any potential
negative implications for any process, procedure, regulation, rule, or change that they cause to
happen through their work. Frasier stated one person can't figure out whether there's potential
harm -- it really takes others challenging each other. He was also reminded that, by definition,
unconscious bias is not a ticket to cause harm because someone doesn't know he was causing
harm. He said he really needs to challenge himself and have other people challenge him.
4
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 5of8
Karr observed the training could have been four or five hours long. It seemed like it provided a
good overview, but at the end they were just starting to possibly have some good conversation
or the opportunity for that. Additionally, he would highly recommend this as a good orientation
for any new commissioners, whether it would be delivered by the gentleman from Des Moines
that presented the training or by someone else. Soglin suggested staff find out if the
presentation was recorded.
Grimm stated he also felt like it was a good introductory course. He shared he also has to go
through some of this training within the school district, and it takes a conscious effort to reflect
on yourself and how you're thinking and how you're proceeding forward. He agreed anybody
coming into the Commission should at minimum have an introductory course, but also there
should be continuing training in some capacity for all Commissioners.
Giannakouros asked if the primary form of bias that was discussed was racial. Soglin said it was
primarily racial and secondarily addressed sexism. She added she has a concern about
consistency in these trainings and discussions from commission to commission or board.
Fraser shared that a number of years ago business schools at universities began teaching a
class in ethics in particular because of what happened with two or three major organizations
relative to unethical behavior. However, sometimes that class sounded more like how not to get
caught than it did to change anyone's deep thoughts on what is ethical and what they should not
be doing. As a result a lot of schools decided this one ethics class standing in isolation was kind
of a waste, which echoes this discussion that bias training is not just a one-off and should be
discussed in all Commissions and all meetings.
NEW BUSINESS:
Discussion of New Members and Commission Chair: Gardner noted this is the last meeting
Karr will attend, and that his tenure on the Commission has been of great value. He has elected
with the completion of his term to take on other projects and make space for some new voices
and new perspectives on the Commission. Megan Hill has been appointed by the City Council
to replace Karr. Hill is one of the AmeriCorps members who works on the energy audits and the
Home Energy kits in Iowa City. She has been highly engaged with climate issues for several
years now and had applied a while back to be a member of the Commission. Hill also attended
the implicit bias training that took place last week so she has a good head start on her work as a
Commission member.
Gardner also noted that Krieger's term as Commission Chair is also coming to a conclusion. He
would like to ask his fellow Commission members to give some serious consideration as to
whether someone else would like to step up as Chair so that the responsibilities are being
shared out among different members and so that there is a chance for a different perspective or
a different approach to these meetings and to guiding the work of the Commission. Soglin
suggested at the January meeting to have nominations for Chair and Vice Chair and then have
a vote.
Gardner wanted to recognize Karr as having been critical in helping get things moving with the
Neighborhood Energy Blitz, noting he did a lot of that legwork and is anticipating continuing to
be involved with that project. She is looking forward to that ongoing collaboration.
5
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 6of8
Discussion of Idea to Restructure Working Groups: Gardner stated in the last several
months the Commission has had ongoing discussions about the working groups and how to
make sure they're using them efficiently, whether that means shifting to a project based model
or some other way of structuring them. In the last several weeks she has spoken with several
members one-on-one about the working groups and how they might move forward. In some of
the working groups such as Waste, although Transportation is another example, there are
dedicated departments and City staff that are managing related projects from the Climate Action
Plan. For example, Resource Management handles recycling projects, has been spearheading
the methane feasibility study, and also looking at ways to increase composting in the
community. The same could be said for transportation, there is a transportation services
department that has been helping with the electrification of the transit fleet and has been
spearheading the transit study to help meet the goal of doubling transit ridership. They are also
looking at increased EV adoption and participating in the EV Readiness Study. Therefore, it
might not make sense to have working groups on the Commission that effectively duplicate
some of these efforts, so the question becomes might there be other ways to use the talents
and resources of Commission members more effectively. Gardner added as part of that
discussion they started thinking ahead to the next Climate Action Plan update and the areas
that they know they'd like to take a special look at to strengthen and build on what's already
been done. In particular, they've been giving a lot of thought to the adaptation section, which is
the section that addresses efforts they can make now to mitigate or prepare for some of the
effects of climate change. She added we know that some of the effects of climate change are
already locked in and we're not going to be able to prevent them. The work as a City is twofold,
one is to make sure that those effects don't get any worse, but two, also to prepare for the
changes that are coming. Therefore, one idea for the working groups might be to allow the
Transportation and Waste groups to stand down for the time being and to talk about maybe
forming an adaptation working group that could begin laying some of the groundwork for the
plan update in the future. Gardner noted in her discussions with Krieger she had outlined about
a seven or eight month work plan that she could envision for this group taking on and there
would be a clear plan going in with objectives and discussion ideas already laid out to achieve.
Gardner noted they already have an adaptation group, it is combined with equity, so one of the
ideas is for the new group to focus more explicitly on adaptation, and then have all the groups,
Outreach, Adaptation, and Buildings, funnel their work through the Equity group, so that there's
a chance to do an equity review for any of those discussions that are happening. Gardner
believes this may allow for a more efficient workflow for all of the working groups but they want
the whole Commission to have input and discussion on this.
Tate agreed and said they can start by maybe making a clear delineation between mitigation
and adaptation, because it seems like within working groups some of the things that they are
looking at could be thought of as adaptation strategies as well. Also, even though they have this
Equity and Adaptation group they've mostly been framing things around equity so if there's a
clear charge the adaptation group it should be formed separately.
Fraser noted they could have ad hoc functional groups with representatives from each of the
four working groups work together on a voluntary basis to bring a project to fruition and then the
ad hoc groups dissolve when the project is completed. He is wondering if there's any merit in
drawing from each of these four or five working groups, one person or two people for specific
projects with beginning and ending dates, so people wouldn't be stuck forever, just to get a
project wrapped up. Then they would have somebody from communications or outreach,
working with the transportation people and working with the equity people, instead of putting the
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 7of8
onus just on that one working group that, in theory, might be more effective with a
representative from each of the working groups on the project group until the project was done.
Soglin liked that idea, however she acknowledged it would require staff to coordinate all of their
participation. She suggested perhaps the Commission would like to consider this at the next
meeting. The first idea is to have a Building Working Group, an Outreach, an Equity, and then
one that combines Mitigation and Adaptation. Then the mitigation piece would be project based
but would require the Commissioners to be more involved. Fraser gave the example if it's a
transportation project, somebody from Transportation Working Group would be the chairperson
of that ad hoc group and they would draw from the other five groups, to bring somebody over
from Outreach and bring someone from Equity, etc. and wouldn't put the work back on the staff
person. He said staff are really busy and up to their ears already, so they don't want to add
more work to the staff. Soglin agreed, however understanding since most of the projects relate
back to what staff may be working on having the Commission originating new projects could
create more work in that respect.
Grimm agreed and noted since he's new it has been hard to figure out what some of the
working groups were supposed to be accomplishing. He likes the idea Fraser has of if
something came up regarding transportation to pull from those other groups to form an ad hoc
committee to address that one issue and then collapse it after they've accomplished that goal.
Having spent time both the Waste and Transportation committees he has seen compared to the
building working group there's a lot more work on building working group, so they could better
use their resources if they focused in on those groups that have something to work on do the
rest in an ad hoc kind of situation.
Gardner added in some ways what's being proposed is actually is a bit of what Fraser is
discussing too. The idea would be to form an Adaptation Working Group to take a look in a
more intensive way about what is and isn't in the adaptation section for the Climate Action Plan,
take a look at what adaptation measures are included in other adaptation plans that are out
there, and then make recommendations as to what should be looked at and explored when it
comes time for the Climate Action Plan to be updated. Once they have come up with those
recommendations, the Adaptation Working Group could stand down having completed that
project.
Giannakouros agreed and said sitting on the Transportation Working Group, he is basically just
showing up to meetings and gets overwhelmed with thinking about transportation infrastructure.
However, there are things that are initiative based that they can be working on with City staff,
things that are identified in the Plan, where the group can give advice to or help move forward. It
would be good to be more flexible. For example, the solar study that's being proposed, that's
something that might be able to produce some results with some help for thinking about a
renewable energy future.
{Side note, Grimm introduced his newborn daughter Ximena}
Soglin asked if Gardner would be willing to draft a paragraph outlining this idea to be discussed
at the next meeting.
Update on Working Groups: Soglin noted that group updates were included in the agenda
packet.
Climate Action Commission
December T 2020
Page 8of8
RECAP OF ACTIONABLE ITEMS FOR COMMISSION, WORKING GROUPS, AND STAFF:
Gardner will first check in with Wendy Ford, the economic development coordinator, about the
TI F funded initiative to double check that they are requiring participants in the program to
disclose any participation in utility -funded energy efficiency programs. Staff will also look into
whether the implicit bias training was recorded and can be shared in the future. Finally, Gardner
will draw up a description of the ideas for restructuring the working groups and share it with
Soglin and Krieger to comment on and review in advance and then include it in the agenda
packet for next month's meeting for all to discuss.
ADJOURNMENT:
Karr made a motion to adjourn.
Tate seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
Progress update on "Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Actions" as of 12-30-20
Note: Many actions initiated in 2020 have continuing activities. There is an expectation that the actions will continue to develop over time, as they become integrated throughout City and
community operations.
New/
Action
Next
Plan
Month to
Workplan
Equity Focus
Status
Alignment
Initiate
Step
dh
Solar Partnership with
New
1.5
April
Brought forward one project to City Council in
Elements of the JCED solar feasibility study will
nderway
MiclAmerican
April 2020 and was not approved. Will assess
require a study of equity measures, engagement
opportunities as locations or chances present
efforts, and actionable measures to confidently go
themselves. since Oct. report, City and
forward with concepts for solar infrastructure and
Commission moved ahead with JCED
placement.
partnership proposal to create a solar
feasibility study for Iowa City to plan for
potential solar sites and engage community in
conceptual conversations. Mapping, technical
information gathering, and work plan
development has started with a community -
led committee of stakeholders.
Encourage the Local Realtor
New
1.1 & 1.6
May
Staff met with local realtors from ICAAR
Benefits for informed buying/selling, may need
nderway
Community to Include Energy
about housing trends and potential for
incentive assistance later on, if concentration of
Performance in the Multiple
education and cooperation on energy
activity falls within only a few neigborhoods or
Listing Services (MLS)
efficiency and projects benefitting residential
stakeholder interest lacking. Education for all
Property Inventory
properties. ICAAR and City exploring example
residents and renters about housing with energy
programs and will plan to meet again in 2021.
efficiency and indoor air quality speaks to equity
In the iterim, City staff is finishing a
concerns. Commission and Working Group
complilation of information about assistance
recommendations and feedback needed.
programs, many of which enhance climate
action initiatives. ICAAR is supportive of
sharing these programs with the community.
ICAAR shared that several initiatives
supporting sustainability measures are in
development. Staff has conceptualized new
ideas for partnering with ICAAR but has not
New
May
In August 2020, Council finalized approved
Launch a TIF-funded climate
1.2 & 5.4
nderway
action incentive program
aimed at reducing industrial
establishing and approving Urban Renewal
Areas at Heinz, Sycamore, and Scott Six and
energy consumption
approved changes to downtown URA in Sept.
2020. Staff is beginning to engage with
businesses in these areas and is encouraging
them to take advantage of funding assistance
in remaining years of the TIF agreement.
Interest from at least one property owner so
far with additional meetings planned and an
informational handout has been created to
supplement the application for assistance,
which is in the final stages.
w
A
Advocate for State Adoption New 1.1-1.4 May
of Advanced Energy Codes
The spring 2020 meeting was delayed by
Could support these efforts with help from education Underway
COVID, with hopes to reconvene later in the
and advocacy from underserved groups that directly
year. We do not have confirmation that a
benefit from housing improvements. Staff reached
meeting was held. City Council legislative
out to several aligned groups in September but did
priorities included this, noting that although
not hear back. Discussions may need to take place
approval is administrative, assistance and
when equity planning/outreach is further along.
support from Iowa policymakers will help.
Advocate for Aggressive New 1.1-1.4 May Eligible staff voted for adoption of new IECC Could support these efforts with help from education i
erway
Energy Code Development codes earlier in 2020. City Council legislative and advocacy from underserved groups that directly
and Adoption *(New) priorities included this, with a request for the benefit from housing improvements. Staff reached
State of Iowa to develop an energy plan or out to several aligned groups in September but did
update that will address climate actions. not hear back. Discussions may need to take place
when equity planning/outreach is further along.
Promote Energy Efficiency
Next
1.1-1.2, 1.6
June
Initiate planning and needs assessment.
Imperative. Review of equity report and assistance In
and Performance Tips to the
Identify resources, contacts, and content.
from EHR staff essential. Commission and Working Development
Public
Assess web access and source development,
Group recommendations and feedback needed.
method of dissemination. Support eventual
actions with strategy from communications
plan (Action 5.1 - EDU); Communications RFP
proposals received. Selected a consultant and
working out contract agreement. Staff
discussions with community groups are
positive and developing ideas. Promotion of
programmable thermostats went out in fall.
Additional promotion planning underway.
New
June
Started introduction to organizations, several
Partner with Stakeholders to
1.1-1.4
Use equity report to ensure stakeholders from Underway
Promote Green Building and
more meetings and expansion of contacts
impacted groups are represented, and feedback is
Rehabilitation
necessary. Met with City development staff
shared with development community, landlords, and
and Home Builders Association. Plan to
builders. Staff is continuing work on an equity
engage small group of stakeholders to discuss
outreach plan that involves community -based
barriers and interest in pursuing green build
organizations that may provide valuable insights on
strategies to create new alliances/education
needs, benefits, and barriers. Commission and
opportunities. Writing up proposed ideas and
Working Group recommendations and feedback
will schedule meetings with community
needed.
stakeholders. Support more actions with
strategy from eventual communications plan
(Action 5.1- EDU).
Assisted households currently meet federal income nderway
Enhance Energy Standards for
Next
1.1
June
Received updated report from NDS on
City Rehabilitation Projects
current activity and efforts. Staff currently
requirements. Establish a mapped GIS inventory of
exploring alternatives for rehab projects and
energy efficiency assessments and investments.
ability for City to support incentives or
Ensure access to energy effciency and other
supplemented energy efficent equipment if
sustainable design elements in each project through
homeowners cannot/won't pay the difference
education and engagement. Adding Greenlowa
to upgrade. Have met with two local HVAC
AmeriCorps energy assessment property addresses to
providers to identify key issues and ideal
GIS Equity Map, to further gauge possible geographic
projects. Proposal still in development; will
or demographic gaps in program services and
bring to Commission and community
outcomes.
stakeholders for feedback and further
guidance. Education components also
necessary - communications strategy
outcomes. GIS equity mapping underway; will
bring mapping tool and toolkit info to
New
1.1 -1.2
June
Create a More Robust Energy
Additional inspector budgeted in FY21. Met
Commission/Working Groups should assist with how Underway
Code Inspection Program
with NDS staff in September to review items
they would like to measure equity and what should
staff will be looking at and addressing
be reported to show progress.
through compliance checks, such as pre -
drywall conditoins, R and U values of walls
and windows. Altered inspections program
and initial education about necessary
inspections planned for initiation shortly after
additional inspector hired.
Develop or Partner with Local
New
1.1-1.4
July
As discussions with community organizations
Approach to populations served critical. Commission In
Stakeholders on a
progress, new ideas for how to accomplish
and Working Group recommendations and feedback Development
Comprehensive Climate
this task are being generated. Commission
needed for further development.
Action Rehabilitation Program
will need to weigh in on neighborhood pilot
program/s which are in conceptual
development. Explore RFQ for external
partner/s to implement a program.
Significant interest in supporting youth or
young adult skills training program. GIA crew
conducted first in -home energy assessments
in late October but held off on indoor visits
from November through the end of the year.
Instead, they have delivered energy saver kits
for residents to install themselves for over
160 households. Planning for this item
continues into 2021.
Incorporate Stricter Energy New 1.3 —1.4 Aug
Standards into Tax Increment
Financing Policies
Offer Free Home Energy
Assessments through Green
Iowa AmeriCorps
Coordinate Neighborhood
Energy Blitz Events
Additional Notes
Next 11.1
New 11.1
Sept
Fal
This row shares more information for Commission members,
including probable action steps and questions from staff. For
reference, follow up items are started with the Action code (far left
of charts) (i.e. "BIT' (Building Incentives, project 3))
Begin review of options, develop revisions to
Greater equity can be achieved through a geographic
policy, introduce for Council adoption. While
distribution of benefits. Education and advocacy
codifying these efforts is not fully in motion
could benefit populations impacted and served by
due to existing project load, staff continues to
policy implementation.
encourage and require actions informally
through the development process. Elements
of recent development approvals require
energy efficiency measures, including LEED
Silver standard build (minimum of 8 points
from energy category), rooftop solar, low flow
fixtures, and incorporated stormwater
improvements. These measures will be
administrative components of the process
until these measures or enhancements are
amended into Code.
Energy Assessments with the Green Iowa
Americorps is focused on certain groups - seniors, low
Americorps team look slightly different this
income, veterans. Not sure how they track or report
year but still are included in their
these demographics. Education delivery and
responsibilities. Supplemental weatherization
equipment installation/provision alternatives
kits available through GIA, available to IC
probably needed in short term. Development of a
residents have been shared with many
mapped GIS inventory of energy efficiency
households this fall. Exploring non-
assessments and investments is underway.
AmeriCorps group to perform other
weatherization services.
Coordinate efforts with Neighborhood
Assess equity report to determine any areas of focus.
Planner, Recreation, and community
NDS can assist with housing/permit data that can
organizations; Support actions with strategy
help focus on neighborhoods with less efficient
from communications plan (Action 5.1- EDU).
housing stock. Outreach to underserved groups may
Party in the Park efforts cancelled due to
spur interest in blitz programs or projects. Working
COVID-19. Climate Action Grant awarded to
Group recommendations and feedback needed. GIS
Green Iowa AmeriCorps for a lightbulb
equity mapping in progress.
exchange. Staff and community stakeholder
planning in progress, will bring concepts to
Commission for feedback and review. Plan to
launch first project in spring around Earth
Day, hoping to include students and
neighborhood residents as volunteers.
Commission
Working Group
BE1 & BE2 discuss plans for educating and
BR1 - define how City should measure equity in
engaging residents and business; B12 - await
housing inspection program; B15 - Recommendations
staff proposal for enhancing Energy standards
needed to develop comprehensive energy efficiency
for City rehabilitation projects; B13 - direction
building rehab programs, identify best practices,
on neighborhood energy blitz programs,
suggest example programs, assist with equity efforts;
including type, scale, areas of focus for
BR2 - involvement in stakeholder review when
programs
proposal shared later in year
In
Development
nderway
In
Development
New/
Action Next Plan Month to Workplan Equity Focus Status
Step Alignment Initiate J& A
4
Complete the Transit Study New 2.1
and Implement
Recommendations to Bolster
Service and Increase
Ridership
Establish an Electric and Fuel -
Efficient Vehicle Purchasing
Policy
Ongoing Completed study in early fall; was somewhat
delayed from Covid-19. Presentation of
proposed measures went to City Council for
initial discussion on October 6. Interest in
moving forward with recommended system
route changes, more information coming for
consideration of service expansions and rate
changes. Primary implementation of
recomendations to begin in 2021.
Dependent upon study recommendations and I
erway
selected actions for implementation. Goal is to serve
residents most needing transit service. Components
of public messaging to be part of upcoming
development of Communications Strategy.
Commission and Working Group recommendations
needed.
New 2.2 May Written policy completed in Sept. New text Although every vehicle the City purchases cannot be P omplete
includes preference for EVs, describes process EV at this time, continually increasing the presence of
by which new vehicle purchases are non -emitting vehicles creates a healthier air quality as
considered and directs purchase when City vehicles move about and provide services in the
multiple factors determine EV appropriate community.
option and available for needs. Included in
Nov 2020 CAC aizenda for reference.
' Track Adherence to City Idling
Next
2.7
May
AVL equipment provides idling data. 37
nderway
Policy
vehicles currently have the technology and
another AVL for another 60 will be ordered in
FY2021. Reformatting reports to make it
easier to read for improved use and analysis.
Staff will compile data and CAO will assist
with reporting. Transportation Working
Group needs to define and clarify their
recommendation before staff can pursue
Significant Transportation
The Climate Ambassador program included
Review equity Report to identify groups and locations nderway
New
2.3
August
Education and Outreach
segments about transportation. Must
to focus attention. Explore language translations.
Campaigns
continue to identify how we will engage all
Components of public messaging to be part of
residents. A significant portion of this effort
upcoming development of Communications Strategy.
will come from a combination of the
Commission and Working Group recommendations
developing climate action communications
and feedback needed.
strategy and coordination of marketing by the
Transportation Services Department.
Transportation reporting metrics are defined.
Additional Notes
Commission:
Working Group:
This row shares more information for Commission members,
TPP1 - Continued feedback on proposed
TPP1 - Continued feedback on proposed Transit
including probable action steps and questions from staff. For
Transit Study
Study, TE1 - Working group may want to contribute
reference, follow up items are started with the Action code (far left
ideas and suggestions for initiatives, partnerships,
of charts) (i.e. "1313" (Building Incentives, project 3))
and outreach.
Action
New/
Next
Step
Plan
Alignment
Month to
Initiate
Workplan
Equity Focus Status
Initiate a Methane Feasibility
Next
3.7-3.8
May
Preliminary models discussed by staff in
Consideration will be given after final
nderway
Study
September. Plans and estimated costs are
recommendations, to impacts on fiscal health of
being refined and should be presented to
Enterprise funds and needs to supplement with rate
Council by year end. Study is complete and
changes over time.
presentation from consultant will be made to
Commission at January 4, 2021 meeting.
Engage the Public to Compost
Next
3.2
June
Resource Mangagement and NDS engaged in
Focus is reliant upon meetings with staff, current
nderway
Organic Waste
composting education. Course materials
efforts, working Equity Working Group, equity report,
created for educators Determine how to
translations services available, and outcomes from
tailor it with equity in mind. Expand
Communications strategy.
opportunities with local businesses. Ties into
carbon sequestration project underway. Plans
for increased downtown access to
composting budgeted in FY2022. An
education unit for Climate Ambassadors
focused on waste.
Require All Park/Public Space
Staff reconnected for this project and
Must assess whether new requirements impact Underway
New
3.5
June
Rentals to Recycle and Use
finalized simple agreements for sports
populations differently. Working Group
"Green" Event Best Practices.
organizations renting athletic facilities.
recommendations needed.
Community education needed. Testing results
with athletics first but the next step to
general facility rental requirements will
require community and equity input.
Education Campaigns for
Met with Resource Management to assess
Focus reliant upon meetings with staff, current
nderway
Next
3.3
July
Neighborhoods to Reduce
current materials. Staff is coordinating efforts
efforts, working Equity Working Gorup, equity report,
Waste/Consumption at the
with Neighboorhood Planner, local schools,
translations services available, and outcomes from
Source
and other City staff to share information.
Communications strategy.
Specific messaging about reduced
consumption or minimizing waste at the
source forthcoming, ideas welcome. An
education unit for Climate Ambassadors
Additional Notes
Commission:
Working Group:
WP1- When project is presented to Council,
WCP1- Review new contracts for parks athletics use
Commission members may consider
and provide guidance for general parks rentals,
preparing a response or recommendation
including equity review; WE1 and WE2 - feedback or
direction on how these programs are going.
New/
Action
Next
Plan
Month to
Workplan
Equity Focus
Status
Alignment
Initiate
Step
Adaptation
AE-1
Develop Climate Amassador
New
4.2
May
First cohort is successfully complete. A new
Development of program includes application process Complete
Team
cohort will begin in early 2021. Continued,
not reliant upon technology to participate. If tech is
regular engagement with the Ambassadors is
necessary, funding available to purchase tablets or
planned.
other device to loan to ambassador participants for
training activities. Special attention paid to
connection with local groups that can recommend
ambassador applicants. Initial cohort varied in
background and experience.
APP-2
Continue Implementation of
New
4.5-4.6
May
Work agreement executed with AES in May.
Geographic distribution, education variables
nderway
the Natural Areas
Significant follow up with neighborhoods
dependent on groups impacted. Engage natural area
Management Plan
required during process. Planned
advocacy groups that can assist with public
concentration on intensive maintenance in
education.
neighborhood park prairies. Education
needed about purpose, need and care for
natural areas; build community partnerships
with advocacy groups. About 60 acres of
public land areas were prepared for prairie
plantings this fall. Discussions held between
staff and the University of Iowa about
additional opportunities to expand support
APP-4
Equity Review of
Next
4.1-4.2
May
Commission review of project equity review
Emphasis on highly impacted groups, targeted
nderway
Neighborhood and
tool for City and other community climate
outreach and collaboration for development and
Population Outreach; Develop
projects. Staff is developing a mapping
implementation of each climate action. Staff and GIA
Outreach Plan for Populations
tool/resource requested by Equity Working
are coordinating an expansion on the USDN Equity
Highly Impacted by Climate
Group. Additionally, staff is exploring better
report completed last summer. Their efforts include
Change
documentation for City climate equity efforts.
cataloguing community based organizations in a way
Theupcoming development of a
that speaks to equity and climate impacts, connection
Communications Strategy will also
and communication with the City, and strengthening
incorporate a signficant emphasis on equity
resources for future engagement and outreach.
Next
4.5
June
and true engagement with highly impacted
Met with Stormwater Team. Collected and
Involving various community groups dependent on
nderway
APP-1
Flood Mitigation and
Stormwater Management
reviewed current volunteer lists. Assessed if
makeup of existing volunteer listing and schedules.
Programs/Projects; Buyouts
we need to promote existing program.
Review equity report to verify benefits and
Streamlined City operations for managing
participation equitable. Recent stormwater
creek clean ups and volunteer processes.
management projects are included as a layer in the
AE-1
Partner with Project Green on
Underway
New
4.6
July
Root for Trees tree planting program began
Commission provided recommendations and
a Tree Planting Partnership;
in October with high interest and over 250
feedback on program proposal. Income eligible
Incentives for Private Tree
vouchers requested. Residents are able to use
properties will be permitted a greater discount. City
Planting
a voucher for a discount on tree purchase
is tracking planting addresses (but no other
from Iowa City nurseries. Low income
identifying information) to monitor geographic
residents are permitted greater discount for
distribution. Additionally, staff engagement will be
tree purchase. Parks and Recreation
focused in areas that have less tree canopy than
Department is managing program and will
other parts of town. Engagement will also provide an
conduct targeted interpersonal and
opportunity to inform about the utility discount
neighborhood outreach. Need to connect
program. Program participation is included as a layer
with Project Green for additional
in the GIS Equity Map.
opportunities for education and outreach
AR-1
Street Tree Ordinance
Next
4.6
August
NDS will draft ordinance. Research has begun
but needed a meeting with stakeholders in
fall. Drafting beginning in early 2021.
Provided Tree Canopy memo in 9-17-20
New Ordinance will apply to new developments. In
Development
_
APP-3
Expand Public Tree Planting
Next
4.6
September
Review inventory maps, locate areas in need, target In
Information Packet for Council review and
workplan outreach accordingly. Emphasis on benefits Development
discussion; demonstrates need for
of tree canopy in low -mod neighborhoods. Soon -to -
incremental tree canopy replacement
be -hired Climate Action Analyst will lead this analysis.
activities. Possible small group discussion
with impacted groups - residents, landlords,
City staff, businesses or development groups.
Address negative perceptions through
modifcations or education.
AE-2
Educate and Coordinate with
Next
4.3
October
Staff held preliminary meeting with Invest
Equity reach will become more clear with agency nderway
Local Agencies on Health
Health partner to identify current needs and
coordination and partnering. Can use equity
Impacts
to explore co -benefits of climate action
scale/report to identify starting agency discussions. If
projects centered on public health issues.
full stakeholder meeting held for Invest Health with
Stakeholder group would serve as connection
focus on climate issues, will seek participation from
for further meetings with Johnson County
Commission.
Public Health, University of Iowa, etc.
Meeting date yet to be set but stakeholders
agree to reconvene this initiative.
Additional Notes
Commission:
Working Group:
AE2 - attend invitation to public health
APP4 - gudiance on areas of focus or process for
stakeholder meeting (unscheduled), consider
equity review; AE1- could restart discussions with
guidance about ideal projects, or other
Project Green, Master Gardeners, etc. to plan
partners
additional projects
New/
Action
Next
Plan
Month to
Workplan
Equity Focus Status
Alignment
Initiate
Step
Launch a Green Business
Next
5.5
June
Pilot awards program introduced and
Initial program relies heavily on voluntary Complete
Program: "Climate Action at
received applications in summer 2020.
participation. Potential for granted funding tied to
Work"
Awarded five businesses. Additional
participation. Will need to make a greater effort to
opportunities for business -related programs
identify and work with businesses with less access to
will be to build a network of businesses with
resources. Geographic access and type of business
climate interests that can support additional
should also be taken into account. Mapped
demand and resources for infrastructure and
geographic participation. Need assistance from
policy upgrades. Program confirmed and
Economic Development staff, Equity & Outreach
content in development with Iowa City Area
Working Groups, and other econ dev and small
Business Partnership.
business assistance groups. For Climate Action at
Work Awards, contacted over 80 community groups
Released RFP for consultant to develop
with an emphasis on diversity, inviting their
Equity principles will integral to the process. Selected nderway
Develop a Climate Action
Next
5.5
June
Strategic Communications
marketing plan; drafted in June, reviewed by
consultant (yet to come to an agreement) greatly
Plan
Commission and received proposals in
emphasized equity and integrating stakeholder
September. Plan will be focused on Iowa City
feedback from a variety of community populations.
attributes, alignment with current initiatives,
Commission member participated in consultant
focused attention to branding, models for
interviews.
promotional rollout schedules, template
materials for modification by project or
program, equity and "language" for how to
frame climate activities as broadly appealing
content.
Host Sustainability Forum and
September
Climate Festival held week of Sept 19-25.
Intentional outreach with underserved groups to omplete
Next
5.5
Events
Activities included digital and written
ensure access to awareness, education, and
storytelling, coordinated
participation. Staff, planning committee, and CAC
indvidual/community acivities, and expanded
Working Group to connect with local ogranizations
local partnerships. Outreach began in
willing to partner on activities, promotion, or hosting
June/July, finalized steps and promotions in
remote event. Efforts underway to include translated
August. Next significant programs in planning.
festival materials in digital and print formats.
Community Garden
September
Working with Parks Department to see if
Equity mapping for plot rentals exists. New Analyst In
Next
5.5
Expansion/Additions
there are plans for additional community
will identify gaps in geographic coverage and gaps in Development
garden areas.
possible access for certain groups. Need focused
outreach to see where needs might be to connect
unresourced individuals with plot availability in
upcoming years; will assist in identifying
needs/potential for pocket gardens in ROW, or
working with local organizations that may host new
garden plots on private property.
Expand Community Climate
November
Consider adding non-profit and business
Follow Equity Report recommendations to identify In
Next
5.4
Grants
categories and define what the new program
and connect with preferred applicant agencies from Development
will look like next year. Identify how grant
first tier needs. Community organizations geared
program ties into other City funding
towards underserved and highly impacted groups
initiatives. Initial discussions underway,
could also fall into this expansion, or, the next year's
seeking Commission feedback on
funding could be introduced specifically to certain
considerations that will guide staff in
groups from equity report and an info session can be
finalizing the 2021 grants process.
held by invitation for these groups, like other
Additional Notes
Commission:
Working Group:
SLE1 - Feedback on Climate Festival; SLE2 -
SL11 - WG can offer suggestions or thoughts on grants
Feedback on Climate Action at Work program
program focus, eligible entities, increments, etc.
Workplan for 2021 "Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Actions" (12-30-20)
Note: Actions below are identified as Phase 2 of the Accelerating Climate Actions report and can begin between 2021 and 2023. The following is a proposed workplan for these actions,
prioritized by initiatives already in motion and based upon availability of City staff and coordination with outside agencies.
New/
Action Next Plan Month to Workplan Equity Focus Status
Alignment Initiate
Step
• Consider a Building Permit New 1.3 Feb-21 Discussion with NDS, identify requirements, Understanding that locally, incremental home "price Not Started
Fee Rebate Program for
Enhanced Energy Standards
Initiate a Net -Zero House New
Design Competition
Complete a Net -Zero New
Demonstration
Rehabilitation Project
Launch an Electrification New
Incentive Program
potential costs, and offset. Present to local
stakeholders and Commission for feedback.
Aug-21 Have determined that competition should
creep" tends to price homebuyers out for every
$1,000 more, we need to keep inflation of housing
costs to a minimum and ensure that the program
does not add costs. Geographic review could also
ensure that program is applied somewhat evenly
through all areas of new
In
1.3
Potential for outcome of contest to be constructed by
include student and professional categories
the City with income -requirements for
Development
but needs further shaping. Potential for
hoemownership. Modified competition categories
resulting designs to be functionally built.
could define different pricing models and occupant
Modification of this program includes a
populations. Working group can provide suggestions
category for retrofit/remodel at lower energy
and feedback.
savings.
Mar-21 lin discussion with NDS about upcoming
Equity will be required in review of the project
Not Started
1.1 & 1.4
project opportunities. Budgeted FY22 funds
placement, occupants, and local impacts.
for preliminary or complete
rehabilitation/construction.
1.1-1.2 & 1.4
May-21 Starting with a few rental induction stovetop
-
Explore opportunities for multi family properties.
In
appliances to begin to introduce residents to
Working group and stakeholder feedback helpful.
Development
non -natural gas technology. Development of
a rebate program in early part of the year will
require research and stakeholder feedback.
Incorporate Strict Energy New 1.3-1.4 2022
Standards into Height and
Density Bonuses
Initiate Energy Benchmarking Next 1.6 2022
Requirements
Develop Climate Action New r1.1 & 1.7 Jun-21
Requirements for all Existing
and Future Rental Permits
Net -Zero Public Housing I Next 11.1 & 1.7 12022
At this time, NDS is working on an update to
the Riverfront Crossings District Code, in
which the height and density bonuses apply
more frequently than other zoning districts.
Application of the height bonus provision is
discretionary and staff has been instructed to
require energy efficiency measures as a
category for height bonuses. These provisions
closely mirror the existing TIF standards.
Recent projects that have come before
Council and upcoming projects are
incorporating these provisions and the City
will continue this until the Code is amended. _
Initial research. Consideration of current laws,
existing programs in and out of Iowa needed
before application of this type of regulation.
Discussions with NDs and stakeholders,
including property owners, landlords,
realtors, renters, and development
community.
Must determine where this project would
take place or be retrofitted. Discussions likely
underway in 2021, no final actions until 2022.
Not Started
Not Started
Renters should be impacted as little as possible while Not Started
receiving benefits of any improvements made to
comply with a proposed program.
Additional Notes Commission Working Group
This row shares more information for Commission members, As work progresses on BR3, BR4 & BR5 will Feedback and recommendations welcome for B16,
including probable action steps and questions from staff. For require Commission feedback and B17, B18, B19.
reference, follow up items are started with the Action code (far left recommendations.
of charts) (i.e. "1313" (Building Incentives, project 3))
Not Started
Action
•. . 1 1
Launch an Eco-Driving
Campaign Alongside
Employers
Incentivize Public Transit
Options
New/
Plan Month to
Next Workplan
Alignment Initiate
Step
New 12.5
New 12.2
Review Parking Regulations New 2.6
and Consider Innovative
Ways to Encourage
Alternative Modes of Travel
Complete Electric Vehicle
(EV) Readiness Plan and
Implement
Recommendations
Achieve Gold Friendly
Bicycle Friendly Community
Status and Begin Work
Toward Platinum Status
Additional Notes
Action
k
Next 12.2
Equity Focus
Status
Jul-21
Grants planned for employer installation of Not Started
EV charging ports. Paired with an
informational campaign and car -free week.
Education campaigns must be coordinated
with employers. Post -pandemic expand to
shared driving or transit campaign.
Coincide any education with Transportation Not Started
Sep-21
Services rollout and preparation for system
changes. Can accompany passes for riders,
celebrations/thank you's to dedicated riders,
and supplement transit facility or stop
improvements.
Fall 2021
Start with NDS review. Some issues may be Considerations include pricing models, transit Not Started
identified during the development of the alternatives, physical access to housing and work, last
updated affordable housing action plan, mile options.
starting 2021.
Project is on track. Stakeholder meeting will Recommendations to come from Study. nderway
Jul-21
be held in January and final report should be
delivered in summer 2021.
Next 2.3 Aug-21 Bicycle infrastructure continues to be a focus (Education and access components include equity
of the City and teh network has grwon practices.
considerably in the last few years.
Unfortunately, the pandemic year prevented
some of the planned bicycle education and
enagement components that are standard for
Gold -level Bicycle Friendly Communities and
therefore the application was delayed by one
year. The City plans to apply for a Gold
designation again in August.
Commission Working Group
Commission should weigh in on staff Recommendations welcome for TE2 and TI:
proposals for TR1 when drafts of policy,
ordinance or plans ready. Recommendations
or priority issues for TR1 welcome between
New/
January and August. ir
Plan Month to
Next Alignment Initiate Workplan Equity Focus
Step
Underway
status
Develop a Policy/Ordinance
New
3.4
Feb-21 Although some initial discussions and
Not Started
Requiring Specific Demolition
research have started at a staff level, this
or Deconstruction Recycling
initiative will begin in 2021. Policy examples
Standards/Procedures
and research are needed, as well as
exploration of programs that can assist with
meeting requirements of recycling and
New
3.1
Mandating Signage to Assist
Jan-21 Staff continues to field calls from multi -family
Ensuring signed containers in multi -family properties
In
Waste Collection
areas that do not feel they either have access
will help renters with access to recycling, preventing
Development
to recycling or are witnessing improper use of
additional trips, and recycling stream contamination.
waste containers. Many times, this is traced
Additional emphasis will be put on language
back to a lack of simple signage. Plan is to
accessibility.
Additional Notes
work directly with haulers to get voluntary
labeling on waste and recycling containers.
After this effort is made, staff will assess
whether any legal requirements will be
necessary.
Commission Working Group
Priority issues for WR1 welcomed, in order to draft Suggestions or program model examples welcomed
more comprehensive policy, ultimately for WR1. Feedback helpful for WR2.
recommended to Council by CAC.
Action
Adaptation - 2021- 2023
AE-3 Establish "Resilience Hubs"
AE-4 liConcentrated Education
Campaign for Private
Properties about Native
Plantings, Permeable
Pavement, Rain Gardens, Soil
Health, Rain Barrels and
Cisterns
New/
Plan Month to
Next
Alignment Initiate
Step
New 4.2 Apr-21
Next 14.5 Apr-21
AE-5 Coordinated Efforts with Local Next' 4.3-4.4 Mar-21
Emergency Agencies and
Utility Agencies Providing
Critical Infrastructure
AR-2 Increase Tree Planting New 4.6
Requirements in Landscaping
Standards, Parking Lot
ami Standards and Upon Renewal
of Rental Permits
ACP-1 Develop Review Standards for New 5.7
New City Facility Construction
and Major Rehabilitation that
Accounts for Climate
Adaptation Principles
Additional Notes
Workplan
Equity Focus
Status
Begin with consultation between public Ideally, the community stakeholders will identify their Not Started
health and community stakeholders. Plan to own preferred resilience hub and this project will
hold events at these identified resilience hubs include their ideas and feedback, as well as the buy -in
to connect them as places for help, security, from the property itself. Language accessibility,
and comfort for nearby residents.
cultural competence, and geographic proximity all
play roles in this effort. _
Equity involved in rain barrel initiatives, as well as In
Staff led campaign, will align with developing
communications strategy. Budgeted
educational opportunities. Geographic analysis Development
promotional materials and activities. Green
required prior to planned activities.
Iowa AmeriCorps have interest in rain barrel
program, in addition to their standard
educational programs and activities and Parks
and Recreation native prairie planting
education opportunities. Additionally, City
and University staff have discussed crossover
native planting education and volunteer
opportunities for students and community
Not Started
Discussion must be scheduled for further
development of actions.
Fall 2021 Initial research and planning required by NDS.
2022
Initial research and planning required by NDS
and PW. Supplemented by analysis by Climate
Action Analyst. Possible that a City facility
construction or improvements could be made
earlier than 2022, with sustainable design
review and engineering.
Commission
Working Group
CAC should provide any priority issues for City
Suggestions about anything related to resilience hubs
to consider in landscaping standards (AR1)
(AE3) welcome. Working group feedback on natural
and developing review standards for City
areas and stormwater management programs
buildings (ACP1).
welcome (AE4), identify any priority issues to be
brought up with emergency management -
specifically equity concerns (AE5).
New/
Plan Month to
Action Next Workplan
Alignment Initiate
Step
Sustainable1 1 _
Local Procurement Campaign -New 5.3
Buy -in from Local Commercial
Groups
Develop a Green Next 5.3
Procurement
Policy
Ak
Jun-21 City staff in discussion with community
7partnerss about local consumption/reduced
consumption campaign. Small budget of
funding to promote and support local
economy and resident access to goods and
2022 City Purchasing division went through recen
re -organization and needs a little time befor
they're able to support the development of
such a policy. In the meantime, there may b
opportunties internally to start gathering
existing procedures and modifying, with loci
and sustainable acquisition principles in min
quity Focus
Not Started
Not Started
Status
J L ■
1
May be able to identify equity issues through In
research on existing similar programs. Working group Development
feedback and recommendations welcome
Develop a City Sustain
Operations Guide and
Available to Organizat
Throughout Iowa City
Additional Notes
The City's staff Climate Action Committee can
begin to collect best practices to create an
outline for the guide. Research may result in
an existing guide from another location that
could be modified to meet the needs of our
community.
Commission
Working Group
Welcome examples and feedback on SLE3 and SLCP2.
Not Started
Draft Proposal for Climate Action Commission Working Group
Restructuring
Currently, the Climate Action Commission has five working groups focused on different aspects
of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CARP) for Iowa City: Buildings, Transportation,
Waste, Equity/Adaptation, and Outreach. Two of these groups, Buildings and Outreach, have
regular monthly meetings, while the other groups have experimented with meeting on a
monthly, quarterly, and/or as -needed basis. Recent discussions about restructuring the working
groups have explored options to help make more efficient and productive use of the working
groups, some of which have struggled to find and maintain a good work flow.
Two ideas were brought forth in the November meeting of the Climate Action Commission to
explore. The first would be to allow the Transportation and Waste Working Groups to stand
down or dissolve, as the majority of the projects identified in the CAAP in these areas are
currently undertaken by City staff in departments responsible for transportation and resource
management services. A new working group could then be formed to review adaptation plans
and actions in other communities with a goal of making recommendations for the next CAAP
update, a project not currently assigned to a specific department/City staff. The Outreach
Group would continue to function as it currently does, and the Building Group would
potentially revert to meeting approximately every other month instead of monthly until
another major project is assigned. The Equity Working Group would focus primarily on equity
while allowing the new Adaptation group to assume that half of its responsibilities. All
Commission members would have the opportunity to move or stay in the working group(s) that
most aligns with their knowledge and interests. Once the Adaptation group completed its
project, it could then stand down until again needed.
The second idea brought forth was to move toward a project -based model for forming new
working groups. Specific projects needing attention and input from Commission members
would be identified, and then representatives from some or all of the five current working
groups would be assigned to this subcommittee, so that perspectives related to buildings,
transportation, waste, outreach, and equity/adaptation could be brought to bear on the
projects as needed. Once the projects were completed, the subcommittee would dissolve. This
model would require members to participate in both the current working groups as well as the
project subcommittees to which they are assigned.
r
,� CITY OF IOWA CITY
"��� MEMORANDUM
Date: December 28, 2020
To: Climate Action Commission
From: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Re: Methane Feasibility Study Documents
At the January 4, 2021 Climate Action Commission meeting, HDR will be presenting the results
of the Methane Feasibility Study conducted in 2019 and 2020. This study was conducted to
meet the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan initiatives 3.7 and 3.8. (https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/0/edoc/1803121/Climate%20Action%20Plan.pdf). Two of the resulting reports,
Feasibility Report and Facility Evaluation provide good overviews of the project and are
provided for your reference in this packet.
The HDR team evaluated current and future biogas generation potential and identified
alternatives for utilizing biogas at the Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and/or the
Landfill and Recycling Center (Landfill). HDR used its Sustainable Return on Investment (SR01)
process to measure the feasibility of the objectives. The study was based on three categories
for feasibility: net greenhouse gas emissions; net energy impact; and economics. Three
alternatives were evaluated at each facility with three different scenarios for diversion of organic
wastes from the Landfill. These study parameters led to seventy different combinations of
alternatives and scenarios between the two facilities, of which, they will present an overview of
the project and highlight top recommendations. HDR will present their findings and be available
for questions in order to assist the Commission, City Council, staff, and other interested parties
with any next steps.
If you have specific questions, Joseph Welter, Senior Civil Engineer, managed this project and
has offered his contact information. Please feel free to email or call Joe at joe-welter(C-D-iowa-
cit .or and 319-356-5144.
F)l
Biogas Utilization
Feasibility Report
CARP — Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Completed by HDR Engineering, Inc. on behalf of
the City of Iowa City, to support the Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan (CARP) and the associated
Action Items 3.7 and 3.8.
Iowa City Iowa
December 30, 2020
VERSION: 2
! l 1
4
r is
r IIIJ p
CITY OF IOWA CITY
5815 Council Street NE Suite B Cedar Rapids, IA 52402-5893 hdrinc.com
(319) 373-2536
Contents
ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................. ES-1
1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1
2 Project Background........................................................................................................1
2.1 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan......................................................................1
2.2 Feasibility Study....................................................................................................2
3 Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource.........................................................................4
3.1 Renewable Natural Gas - Environmental Attributes as Vehicle Fuel ....................4
4 Description of Project Alternatives...............................................................................9
4.1 Alternative 1: Natural Gas Pipeline Injection.........................................................9
4.2 Alternative 2: Electricity Generation......................................................................9
4.3 Alternative 3: WWTP Natural Gas Replacement...................................................9
4.4 Alternative 4: Composting...................................................................................10
4.5 Organics Diversion Scenarios.............................................................................10
4.6 Estimated Costs..................................................................................................12
4.7 Description of Impact Categories........................................................................13
5 Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ...........................24
5.1 Findings and Insights..........................................................................................27
6 References: ....................................................................................................................
30
Figures
Figure 1: SROI Triple Bottom Line Accounting.............................................................................3
Figure 2: EPA RFS Nested RIN Categories and Volumes...........................................................5
Figure 3: Historical RIN values From the EPA from 2015 Through August 2020 .........................6
Figure 4: California LCFS Market History.....................................................................................
7
Figure 5: PhysRNG Value Considerations....................................................................................8
Figure6: Organics Diversion......................................................................................................11
Figure 7: Lifecycle Cost Structure and Logic Diagram................................................................14
Figure 8: RIN Credit Value Structure and Logic Diagram...........................................................15
Figure 9: Renewable Electricity Production Value Structure and Logic Diagram .......................16
Figure 10: Renewable Natural Gas Value Structure and Logic Diagram....................................17
Figure 11: GHG Emissions Structure and Logic Diagram..........................................................23
Tables
Table ES-1: Summary and Ranking of Monetary and Non -Monetary Results ..............................3
Table ES-2: Indexed and Weighted Scores for each Alternative..................................................4
Table ES-3: Potential Biogas Utilization Alternatives Combinations.............................................5
Table 1: Summary of the Alternatives and Diversion Scenarios evaluated for Feasibility ..........11
Table 2: Biogas Utilization Alternatives Summary......................................................................13
Table 3: Value of RIN Credits.....................................................................................................15
Table 4: Value of Renewable Electricity Production...................................................................16
Table 5: Estimated Energy Inputs for Each Alternative..............................................................19
Table 6: Estimated GHG Emissions...........................................................................................22
Table 7: Social Costs of GHG Emissions...................................................................................23
Table 8: Summary of Monetary Benefits and Costs ($ Millions, 2019).......................................24
Table 9: Summary of Non -Monetary Impacts.............................................................................25
Table 10: Summary and Ranking of Monetary and Non -Monetary Results................................26
Table 11: Indexed and Weighted Scores for each Alternative....................................................27
Table 12: Potential Biogas Utilization Alternatives Combinations...............................................28
Appendices
Appendix A -Low Diversion Scenario Digester Costs
Appendix B — Financial Proforma — Breakeven Analysis
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In December 2019, the City of Iowa City (City) selected HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to perform
a Methane Recovery Feasibility Study to address two specific Action Items included in the Iowa
City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CARP):
Action Number 3.7: Take Action on a Study to Efficiently Capture and Use Methane
from Wastewater Operations
"After water is used by residents, it flows into the wastewater system and then goes to the
City's Wastewater Treatment Facility. While the City currently captures methane gas from
the digesters used in the wastewater treatment process, only a portion of the methane is
used to offset natural gas usage for the plant. To explore other options for further
management of wastewater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the City should conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of using all captured methane to create renewable fuel
or electricity that can be used to operate the facility, and take specific actions based on
the results of this study. "
Action Number 3.8: Take Action on a Feasibility Study on Energy Generation from
Landfill Methane
"The methane produced by decomposition of organic waste in the Iowa City Landfill is
currently being flared to transform it into carbon dioxide, which is a less potent GHG. The
City has been considering methods to use the methane as a renewable energy source,
and to further explore this opportunity, the City will conduct a Feasibility Study in FY2019
and take specific actions based on the results of this study."
This Feasibility Report incorporates a number of recently completed Technical Memorandums
(TMs) that evaluated current and future biogas generation potential and identified alternatives for
utilizing biogas at the Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and/or the Landfill and
Recycling Center (Landfill). HDR used its Sustainable Return on Investment (SR01) process to
measure the feasibility of the objectives.
The Study objectives are to evaluate current and future methane generation, collection,
processing, and reuses at the two facilities based on the following three categories for feasibility:
• Net GHG emissions, considering both incremental emission sources and direct and
indirect reductions;
• Net Energy impacting, applying an Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI)
methodology;
• Economics, using HDR's SROI framework to monetize the benefits associated with
beneficial reuse of methane sourced from the Landfill and WWTP.
HDR analyzed three alternatives to beneficially reuse biogas generated at the WWTP and Landfill,
as well as GHG emissions and financial impact of expanding composting operations to handle
ES-1
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Executive Summary
incremental food waste diverted from the Landfill. The following is a description of each
alternative:
• Alternative 1: Natural Gas Pipeline Injection. This alternative is divided into two sub -
alternatives:
o Alternative 1 a — WWTP NG Pipeline Injection.
o Alternative 1 b — Landfill NG Pipeline Injection.
• Alternative 2: Electricity Generation. This alternative is divided into two sub -
alternatives:
o Alternative 2a — WWTP Electricity Generation.
o Alternative 2b — Landfill Electricity Generation.
• Alternative 3: WWTP Natural Gas Replacement
• Alternative 4: Composting
Recognizing the synergy with another Action in the City's CRAP, Item 3.2 Increase Composting
of Organics, the alternatives consider impacts of diverting incremental volumes of food waste
from the Landfill to the existing WWTP, a new, dedicated anaerobic digester (AD) located at the
WWTP, and expanded composting operations. Each of the alternatives listed except Alternative
No. 4 consider three organics diversion scenarios:
1) No incremental organics diversion (No -Diversion)
2) Additional 1,500 tons organics diverted from Landfill, which represents the available
capacity at the existing WWTP AD (1,500 tons)
3) 20% of food waste diverted from landfill to a future "new" AD (Low -Diversion)
HDR developed an opinion of probable construction costs (OPCC) and opinion of operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs for the No -Diversion scenario for each alternative. The No -Diversion
scenario costs were then extrapolated to estimate costs for the two diversion scenarios for each
alternative.
The SROI analysis considers the triple bottom line (i.e., economic, environmental, and social)
benefits of methane reuse. This study focuses on the economic and environmental impacts.
The analysis took into account:
• Estimated reductions in GHG emissions and the associated social cost of carbon;
• Value of Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits under the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program;
• Value of electricity exported to the grid under net metering and buyback agreements with
MidAmerican Energy Company and the Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative;
• Value of avoided natural gas purchases;
• Capital investment and O&M costs of biogas reuse alternatives; and
• Energy Return on Investment (EROEI).
The results of this study are intended to help the City assess the viability of, and prioritize,
alternatives with the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions under CARP Action Items 3.7
ES-2
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Executive Summary
and 3.8. This Report details technical information on the feasibility analysis and summarizes the
previous Technical Memorandums (TMs) that were completed by HDR leading up to the SROI
analysis:
1. Evaluation of Existing Facilities TM
2. Wasteshed Analysis TM
3. Biogas Utilization Alternatives TM
The monetary and non -monetary results and rankings by metric are presented in Table ES-1. The
evaluation of economic and environmental impacts considered a time horizon or study period,
which includes project development (construction and implementation) and 30 years of operation
and benefit. This extends to 2050 and aligns with the planning horizon of the City's CRAP. All
monetary Costs and benefits have been converted to present value using a 3% discount factor
and are compared using a benefit to cost ratio (BCR), benefits divided by costs. BCR's exceeding
1.0 indicate that the benefits from the alternative exceed the costs of the investment over a 30
year period. The non -monetary metrics include EROEI and lifecycle change in CO2e emissions.
Table ES-1: Summary and Ranking of Monetary and Non -Monetary Results
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
40,500
ME
6.9
0.20
Alt. 1a
- 1500
77,800
12
7.9
6
0.22
9
Alt. 1a
- LD
436,200
6
7.9
4
0.39
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
820,500
3
7.5
8
1.62
3
Alt. 1b
- 1500
844,500
2
7.6
7
1.63
2
Alt. 1b
- LD
931,800
1
7.9
5
1.69
1
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
191000
16
2.0
13
0.05
16
Alt. 2a
- 1500
60,000
13
12.4
3
0.10
15
Alt. 2a
- LD
395.0600
7
13.3
1
0.18
12
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
459,200
5
1.5
15
0.76
6
Alt. 2b
- 1500
3861500
8
2.1
12
0.69
7
Alt. 2b
- LD
5851200
4
12.6
2
0.89
5
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
40,900
14
4.6
10
0.11
14
Alt. 3 -
1500
781300
11
3.4
11
0.13
13
Alt. 3 -
LD
252,200
10
1.8
14
0.20
10
Compost
Alt.4
365.0100
9
0.0
16
0.96
4
The results show that:
• Only Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) has benefits that exceed the costs;
• The highest BCR (1.69) is Alternative 1 b -Low-Diversion. This alternative ranks highest
on total lifecycle CO2e emission reductions, and when combined with the value of RIN
credits results in the greatest economic benefits;
• All of the alternatives result in a net reduction in CO2e over the next 30 years;
ES-3
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Executive Summary
• All alternatives except for composting result in an EROEI of 1.0 or greater (incremental
composting of food waste does not generate energy);
• Alternative 2a (WWTP Electricity Generation) -Low-Diversion ranks highest on EROEI;
• Alternative 1 b -Low-Diversion is ranked 5th on EROEI; and
• Changing the value of the SCC was found to have no effect in ranking as the value
influences all of the alternatives equally.
To aid in the comparison of the monetary and non -monetary metrics and provide insight from this
Feasibility Study towards actions under 3.7 and 3.8, the results have been combined into a
weighted score as shown below in Table ES-2. Each result was converted to an index (1 to 0)
and were then weighted equally into a total score with a maximum value of 1.
Table ES-2: Indexed and Weighted Scores for each Alternative
Alternative Location
Alternative
GHG
EROEI
BCR
Total
Rank
Description
Reductions
#
Score .&
Pipeline WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
0.01
0.17
0.04
0.23
13
Injection
Alt. 1a
- 1500
0.03
0.20
0.04
0.27
11
Alt. 1a
- LD
0.16
0.20
0.08
0.43
6
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
0.29
0.19
0.32
0.80
3
Alt. 1b
-1500
0.30
0.19
0.32
0.81
2
�
Alt. 1b
- LD
0.33
0.20
0.33
0.86
1
Electricity WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.07
16
Generation
Alt. 2a
- 1500
0.02
0.31
0.02
0.35
7
Alt. 2a
- LD
0.14
0.33
0.04
0.51
5
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
0.16
0.04
0.15
0.35
8
Alt. 2b
-1500
0.14
0.05
0.14
0.33
9
Alt. 2b
- LD
0.21
0.32
0.18
0.70
4
Natural Gas � WWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.15
14
Replacement
Alt. 3 -
1500
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.14
15
Alt. 3 -
LD
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.23
12
Expanded Compost
AIt.4
Composting
0.13
0.00
0.19
0.32
10
Based on the indexing and weighting exercise:
• Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) -Low-Diversion has
the highest
score (0.86).
• Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) - 1500 ton diversion is ranked
second.
• Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) - No -Diversion is ranked third.
E
If the City is instead focused on reductions that will be reflected in its municipal and community -
scale GHG emission inventory, then evaluation should be narrowed to focus on Alternative 2,
Electricity Generation, and Alternative 3, Natural Gas Replacement. While electricity generated
at the WWTP or Landfill (2a and 2b, respectively) could very well be pushed to the power grid,
contractual agreements with local utilities could allow the City to retain and retire RECs for GHG
accounting purposes. Specifically, RECs could be applied to the City's Scope 2 market -based
GHG inventory. Using RNG to displace natural gas use at the WWTP would result in lower
ES-4
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Executive Summary
Scope 1 GHG emissions. Focused on these two alternatives, Alternative 2b - Low -Diversion is
ranked highest (fourth overall), followed by Alternatives 2a - Low -Diversion and 2a -1500. These
alternatives are ranked 4, 5 and 7 overall.
Finally, biogas utilization alternatives can be combined together with others, and some can be
incorporated as standalone projects (as shown in Table ES-3).
Table ES-3: Potential Biogas Utilization Alternatives Combinations
Landfill Location
No Diversion
1500 ton/yr Diversion
Low Diversion
Weighted and Indexed Performance
Indicators
Total Score, inclusive of:
Do Nothing
NG Pipeline
Injection
Electricity
Generation
NG Pipeline
Injection
Electricity
Generation
NG Pipeline
Injection
Electricity
Generation
GHG Reduction, EROI, and BCR
Alt lb -ND
Alt 2b-ND
Alt 1b-1500
Alt 2b-1500
Alt lb-LD
Alt 2b-LD
Do Nothing
0
0.80
0.35
0.81
0.33
0.86
0.70
�'
�•
NG Pipeline
Injection
Alt la -ND
0.23
1.02
0.58
><><><><e.
Electricity
Generation
Alt 2a-ND
0.07
0.87
0.42
><><><><
NG
Replacement
Alt 3-ND
0.15
0.95
0.50
><><><><
EP
z
oe•
o
o
NG Pipeline
Injection
Alt 1a-1500
0.27
><><
1.08
0.60
><><
Electricity
Generation
Alt 2a-1500
0.35
[,><><
1.16
0.68><><
NG
Replacement
Alt 3-1500
0.14
><
0.95
0.47
><><
73
Q.
NG Pipeline
Injection
Alt la-LD
0.43
><
><
1.30
1.13
Electricity
Generation
Alt 2a-LD
0.51
><
><
1.37
1.21
r(u'
r
NG
Replacement
Alt 3-LD
0.23
><><><I
1.09
0.93
There are 18 unique possible combinations of alternatives, boxes in Table ES-3 with blue
numbering indicate the individual alternative scenarios at either the Landfill or at the WWTP. The
individual alternatives can be combined together, but must be done so following the same waste
diversion scenario from the Landfill. Specifically, an alternative from No -Diversion scenario cannot
be combined with an alternative from the Low -Diversion scenario. When combining the
alternatives the scores from the Landfill and WWTP alternatives can be added together to identify
the optimal combination of actions under each of the waste diversion scenarios. The highest
scored individual alternatives are consistently Alternative 1 b - NG Pipeline Injection (landfill
alternatives for each of the No -Diversion, 1500 ton diversion, and Low -Diversion scenarios).
Identifying the optimal combination of actions may be approached as follows: select the highest
scored alternative from the desired waste diversion scenario (shown to be from the Alternative 1 b
- NG Pipeline Injection landfill alternatives) then work down the column to the corresponding
green shaded boxes. Select the highest scored, or desired, combination. Corresponding capital
costs for each individual alternative are also additive when combined. For example, if choosing
ES-5
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Executive Summary
from Alternative lb — NG Pipeline Injection (at the Landfill, Total Score of 0.81), with 1500 ton
diversion to the WWTP, work down the column (or "diversion lane") to the desired combination
scenario. In this case, combining with Alternative 2a — Electricity Generation at the WWTP, results
in a combined score of 1.16. As capital costs are also additive, consideration should be given to
the seemingly minor weighted score differential. In the example of combined Alt 1 b-1500 with Alt
2a-1500, there is an estimated $6.21VI savings to select Alt 1 b-1500 with Alt 1 a-1500.
Path Forward
HDR recognizes that incremental food waste diversion is not an instantaneous process, but the
SROI analysis provides an assessment of the resulting impact when achieved. This Report
provides decision tools to support the City's further consideration and decision making.
Consequently, the City might consider the following path forward to further evaluate and
implement the preferred alternative(s):
i. City decision on desired diversion scenario and methane utilization at the WWTP to
narrow the field of alternatives. (0-6 months)
ii. Further technical analysis to develop organics management strategies to achieve a
targeted diversion scenario and further evaluate life cycle costs of co -digestion (if desired)
and biogas utilization to generate electricity or RNG. Consideration of impacts to planned
digester rehab project. (3-6 months)
iii. Conceptual Design Development of the selected alternative(s), providing basis of design
parameters and implementation planning. (3-6 months)
iv. Detailed Design Development. (TBD)
V. Bidding and Construction. (TBD)
It may be prudent for the City to complete items i) and ii) within the next 6-months for capital
planning purposes.
ES-6
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Introduction
1 Introduction
In December 2019, the City of Iowa City (City) selected HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) to perform
a Methane Recovery Feasibility Study to address Action Items 3.7 and 3.8 included in the Iowa
City Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CARP). The CARP contains objectives for conducting a
study that would determine the feasibility of methane generation, collection, processing, and
potential re -use at the Iowa City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and/or the Landfill and
Recycling Center (Landfill). HDR used its Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) process to
measure the feasibility of the objectives.
This Feasibility Report evaluates alternatives for methane gas recovery and beneficial reuse of
biogas at the City WWTP and/or Landfill as part of the City's CAAP objectives. This evaluation
focuses on monetizing the benefits associated with the reuse of methane sourced from either the
WWTP and/or the Landfill. The SROI analysis considers the triple bottom line (i.e., economic,
environmental, and social) benefits of methane reuse. This study focuses on the economic and
environmental impacts.
The analysis took into account:
• Estimated reductions in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and the associated social cost
of carbon;
• Value of Renewable Identification Number (RIN) credits under the Renewable Fuel
Standard Program (RFS);
• Value of electricity exported to the grid under net metering and buyback agreements with
MidAmerican Energy Company and the Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative;
• Value of avoided natural gas purchases;
• Capital investment and O&M costs of biogas reuse alternatives; and
• Energy Return on Investment (EROEI).
The results of this Study are intended to help the City assess the viability of alternatives with the
greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions under CARP Action Items 3.7 and 3.8. This Report
details technical information on the feasibility analysis and summarizes the previous Technical
Memorandums (TMs) that were completed by HDR leading up to the SROI analysis:
1. Evaluation of Existing Facilities TM
2. Wasteshed Analysis TM
3. Biogas Utilization Alternatives TM
2 Project Background
2.1 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
In September of 2018, the City Council approved its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. CAAP
included specific actions to achieve GHG emissions targets. The plan's targets are in accordance
with the Paris Agreement and include city-wide carbon emissions reductions of 25-28% over 2005
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Project Background
levels. On August 6th, 2019, the City passed Resolution 19-218 declaring a climate crisis and
requesting accelerated action toward carbon emissions reductions in an effort to meet the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) target of limiting global warming to 1.5
Celsius.
CRAP identified 35 actions related to buildings, transportation, waste, adaptation, and sustainable
lifestyle to help the City achieve its goals for reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, these 35
actions were broken into 3 phases with phase 1 actions to be initiated by the end of 2020. Under
waste actions 3.7 and 3.8 the City is looking to explore ways to recover and beneficially reuse
methane from landfill and WWTP. The importance of these actions were reiterated in the
Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Action Plan, published in April 2020. As noted in the CARP:
Action Number 3.7: Take action on a feasibility study to efficiently capture and use
methane from wastewater operations:
"After water is used by residents, it flows into the wastewater system and then goes to the
City's Wastewater Treatment Facility. while the City currently captures methane gas from
the digesters used in the wastewater treatment process, only a portion of the methane is
used to offset natural gas usage for the plant. To explore other options for further
management of wastewater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the City should conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of using all captured methane to create renewable fuel
or electricity that can be used to operate the facility, and take specific actions based on
the results of this study. "
Action Number 3.8: Take action on a feasibility study on energy generation from
landfill methane.
"The methane produced by decomposition of organic waste in the Iowa City Landfill is
currently being flared to transform it into carbon dioxide, which is a less potent GHG. The
City has been considering methods to use the methane as a renewable energy source,
and to further explore this opportunity, the City will conduct a feasibility study in FY2019
and take specific actions based on the results of this study."
2.2 Feasibility Study
The objective of this Feasibility Study is to evaluate alternatives developed to support actions 3.7
and 3.8. To conduct this study, HDR applied its SROI framework to evaluate alternatives. The
following sections of this report detail:
• The approach used.
• The alternatives considered.
• The economic analysis methods used to evaluate alternatives.
• A summary of the economic analysis results.
• Recommendations for waste actions 3.7 and 3.8.
2
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Project Background
2.2.1 SROI Background
SROI evaluates whether the public value of a project is sufficient to justify the money required to
develop the project and which alternative provides the greatest financial and societal return
relative to the project cost. SROI process is an enhanced form of benefit cost analysis (BCA) that
involves a systematic comparison of the benefits and costs of projects in ways that communicate
a project's triple -bottom line outcomes, (i.e. its full range of environmental, social and economic
impacts). SROI originated from a commitment by HDR to develop a new generation of public
decision support metrics for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) in 2007. SROI was developed with
input from Columbia University's Graduate School of International Public Affairs and launched at
the 2009 CGI annual meeting. Since then, the SROI process has been used by HDR to evaluate
the monetary value of numerous sustainability programs and projects for water and wastewater
infrastructure utilities around the country.
2.2.2 Methodology of SROI Process
The SROI process draws from standard economic BCA methods and the best available data to
systematically calculate and compare the benefits and costs of project alternatives. The process
addresses sustainability goals and outcomes from a triple bottom -line perspective, meaning the
range of potential environmental, social, and economic impacts (see Figure 1). In this Feasibility
Study, impacts are associated with the economic and environmental benefits related to the value
of RIN credits to the City as well as the social cost of carbon associated with changes in GHG
emissions. In addition, the EROEI and tons of GHG emissions are estimated as non -monetary
metrics.
Figure 1: SROI Triple Bottom Line Accounting
Community Development
Emissions
Energy
Health &Safety
Life -Cycle Costs
Mobility
Risks
Waste
Water
0 0
Environmental
Ivey
Performance
Indicators
Economic
Value
The SROI process builds on best practices in benefit -cost and financial analysis methodologies,
complemented by advanced risk analysis and stakeholder elicitation. Typically, the SROI process
is implemented in four steps, which include:
1. Develop the structure and logic diagrams (S&L's): Structure and logic diagrams are
useful to display the understanding of how key variables within an analysis interact to
influence the intermediate or final outputs being measured. These diagrams provide a
3
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
transparent view of the calculations being made in the analyses for key stakeholders and
subject matter experts to review and understand the process better.
2. Assign values to inputs: Values are assigned to inputs based on logic established in the
S&L's. In some instances, ranges for inputs are established to enable the analysis to
capture how an input will impact the project with the potential variability of its value
essentially simulating real world conditions.
3. Develop consensus among stakeholders to validate inputs: The S&L's and inputs are
then presented to stakeholders for validation. This is a key step in the SROI process.
Stakeholders and subject matter experts are consulted regarding the values used to
understand their view on these inputs. This step is critical for getting stakeholder buy -in
on the process and seeking out additional knowledge that may not have been captured
previously.
4. Evaluate impact on agency goals (e.g. cost, environmental impact, public
perception, etc.), including simulation if applicable: These inputs will then be added
into the model structure detailed with the structure and logic diagrams to evaluate the
agency goals, specifically the costs or environmental impact. The alternative that best
meets these criteria will be the one that is the most desirable alternative.
3 Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) is biogas or landfill gas that has been treated or refined to natural
gas (NG) quality. The resulting RNG can be used interchangeably with NG, but is considered
renewable as it doesn't rely on petroleum and can therefore provide additional environmental
attributes through federal and state programs.
3.1 Renewable Natural Gas - environmental Attributes as Vehicle
Fuel
3.1.1 EPA - Renewable Fuel Standard
The United States Congress created the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) through the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and revised the program with the Energy Independence and Security Act in
2007. The RFS is a renewable fuels program within the Clean Air Act which mandates that large
fuel producers and blenders (Obligated Parties) must include within their fuel mix a growing
portion of renewable fuels. The quotas required of the Obligated Parties are referred to as
Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) and are established and tracked by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the use of renewable credits, also known as,
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). The original program was designed to increase the
RVOs until 2022 and then level off beyond that point unless Congress issued another
amendment. The EPA can lower or raise the RVOs up to the maximum RVO quota set for 2022,
but Congressional action would be required to eliminate the RFS program. The RFS program has
pressure against it from the Oil and Gas Industry, but also has a strong support from the Corn
Ethanol Industry, who represent half of the RIN market.
4
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
As the EPA's RFS, RVOs are developed by categorized RIN types based on their environmental
benefit and the production pathway. These categories, D3 through D7, encompass lower value
biofuels like corn -based ethanol (D6) up to high value biofuels like cellulosic biodiesel or ethanol
(D3) (see Figure 2).
RNG produced from landfill gas is considered D3 cellulosic biofuel in the RFS. RNG produced
from wastewater biogas production from anaerobic digestion or co -digestion is considered D3
cellulosic or D5 advanced biofuel depending on the feedstocks used to production. The biogas
produced from the digestion of municipal biosolids will be considered D3 cellulosic and have the
highest value. However, any biogas produced by the co -digestion of municipal solids with hauled
in or high strength wastes will be considered D5 advanced, unless each individual feedstock has
a 75% or higher cellulosic content.
Figure 2: EPA RFS Nested RIN Categories and Volumes
Fi_. ure 3 presents the historical RIN values as reported by the EPA from 2015 through August
2020.
5
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
Figure 3: Historical RIN values From the EPA from 2015 Through August 2020
s: �0
u 1wV„ �U.�w�w,,-�
15 N 16 2017 2018 2019 Me
TranA rN`iN byWEz-. - -=-tr- .:.=
Source: https://www.epa.gov/fuels-registration-reporting-and-compliance-help/rin-trades-and-price-information
3.1.2 California Low Carbon Fuel Standard
In addition to RINs, carbon offset credits are also available through California's Low Carbon Fuel
Standard (LCFS) program. The LCFS market has become a healthy market with more
transactions and higher values throughout the last seven years (see Figure 4) and is not
anticipated to end until 2032. LCFS credits can be obtained in addition to RIN credits as long as
the renewable fuel is contracted for sale to an Obligated Party with end use in California.
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
Figure 4: California LCFS Market History
H
250
200
150
Q- 10G
a�
U
50
0
Monthly LCFS Credit Price and Transaction Volume
vo lu rn e of Cred its Transacted (MT-
— AR B Monthly Average Credit Price
Argu s Med is Mo nthly I ndex Credit Price
— OPIS Monthly Average Credit Price {— — —
_ _ N
a}
JFPVIA 1JJASONDJFMAMJ JA50NCJFMAMJ JASONDJFM15MJ J A 5 0 N D J FMAMJJAS0NDJFMAMJ JA50NDJFMAMJ JASONDJFMAMJ J
2013 2014 2015 2016 2D17 2019 2019 2020
el. 5CG. DCC
4.0CT. ()Cc
3.500.000
a
3,0cc,0 0
0
2.5CG,CC C-•L-
W
E
2,CCCFCCC &P
c�
1,5CC,CCC
E
3
t,ccG,ccc
5Cc, OCC
Iasi LI.odoted811212020
This chart tracks credit prices and transaction VOILImes over time. 'P'Jonthly average credit prices reported b�v Argris INIedia and CPI
[used o.flth permission] are shown along with CARB monthly average pric.e-
3.1.3 Requirements and Pathways
A requirement to be aware of for both of these programs (RFS and LCFS) is that they are
specifically renewable fuels for transportation programs. As such, the fuel must ultimately be used
as a transportation fuel in order for the renewable attribute to be recognized. A renewable fuel
producer is not required to explicitly find a transportation end user of the fuel it produces, however,
at some point along the fuel supply pathway, it must be used as transportation fuel so that an
Obligated Party can claim the RIN and/or the LCFS credit and meet its obligation with the EPA or
with California.
The production and sale of RNG and environmental attributes like RINs and/or LCFS occurs in
two pathways; the physical pathway and the contractual pathway for the attributes. The physical
pathway is the sale of the RNG by the producer to end user of the gas via the natural gas grid.
The contractual pathway for the attributes is separate and handled by third party which verifies
that the RNG is truly renewable and markets the attributes to Obligated Parties. Figure 5 illustrates
the two pathways of RNG and RIN/LCFS sales. It is important to note that the molecules of natural
gas don't actually have to be used as vehicle fuel, but the physical pathway needs to be verified
through the grid system.
7
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Renewable Natural Gas as a Resource
Figure 5: PhysRNG Value Considerations
- Landfill
1astewaterip
o'1ect Owner
wris one or
0
more RNG
Treatment Plant
upgrading
nd injection
facilities
APL
- Waste Digester
I
J
FAIf_ITIES MUST BE
REGISTEREDWITH
r
�
THE REGULATORS -
�
EPA. CARB, ETC
Facility
injects
purified
RNG into
utility
pipeline
Gas is co -min led with
pipeline gas. Project owner
sells the physical gas to gas
marketer. utility or local
end user. Pipeline is paid for
transport. Environmental
aspects are separated.
CNG Endilk
—
1
1
1
1
CNG End User �
i
j
Gas is CNG End User I
extracted
— anywhere on
the grid for
� I
use as CNG CNG End User I
Project owner holds multiple contractual pathways for CNG
end use for generation and trade of environmental aspects
The value of RNG should take into account following:
� I
l �
� I
I
CNG End User i 1
r
I �
CNG End User -
- - - - - _ _ - - - - - _ - J
1. The value of the RNG as natural gas based on the natural gas commodity market.
2. The value of environmental attributes obtained through the RFS (D3 or D5)
3. The value environmental attributes obtained through the LCFS.
4. The cost of compliance with the RFS and LCFS.
5. The cost of marketing the environmental attributes to Obligated Parties.
Items 1-3 should be considered as ranges (low, median, high) to account for the variability in
future market values. The biogas revenues at the WWTP need to be divided into D3 and D5
categories. The biogas produced in the anaerobic digesters handling municipal biosolids will
produce D3, but biogas produced at the co -digestion facility will be D5, but may be eligible for
LCFS depending on the carbon intensity score. Items 4 and 5 are included to reflect the cost of
bringing the gas to market within the environmental attribute programs. The RFS is highly
regulated, so market RIN values are typically reduced by 15% and the LCFS values by 15-30%
to account for the third part cost of compliance and marketing the environmental attributes to
Obligated Parties. The third parties are either gas marketing companies or the Obligated Parties
themselves, and are typically selected by a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The resulting
contractual arrangement specifies the City's share be based on either a fixed price or percentage
of total revenue and the term of the agreement. The third party will qualify the RINs with EPA,
qualify with California for LCFS credits, develop QA programs for certification, and administer the
program. The City is then paid by the third party for both the natural gas commodity value and the
associated renewable attributes based on a monthly or quarterly invoice.
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
4 Description of Project Alternatives
Three beneficial reuse alternatives were analyzed for current and future biogas generated at the
WWTP and Landfill. For a complete and detailed assessment, please refer to the Biogas
Utilization Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum previously provided by HDR, dated July
171 2020. Recognizing synergy with another action in the City's CRAP, Action Item 3.2 Increase
Composting of Organics, HDR also considered impacts of diverting incremental volumes of food
waste from the Landfill to the existing WWTP, a new, dedicated anaerobic digester, and expanded
composting operations. The following is a description of each alternative.
Alternative 0 • Natural Gas Pipeline Injection
Biogas Utilization Alternative 1 assumes that the City purchases and operates equipment to
condition the biogas to natural gas quality (RNG) for injection into the natural gas pipeline. To
provide an interconnection point, the natural gas utility (MidAmerican Energy Company) would
route a new pipeline from the existing natural gas distribution system to the City's property. The
City would be required to reimburse the utility for the cost of the connecting pipe, and also pay an
annual pipeline usage fee. This pipeline usage fee is dependent on the amount of RNG injected
into the natural gas pipeline by the City. Assuming natural gas quality meets the RFS Program,
the City would sell RIN credits and surrender any downstream GHG emissions reductions that
would be realized by the Obligated Party purchasing the credits. Alternative 1 is applicable to both
the WWTP and Landfill, presented as alternatives 1a and 1 b, respectively.
Alternative 2- Electricity Generation
Biogas Utilization Alternative 2 assumes that biogas is conditioned and utilized in engine
generators owned and operated by the City to produce renewable electricity. The electric power
utility (MidAmerican Energy or Eastern Iowa Light & Power) would establish a connection to the
grid, enabling the City to sell the renewable power. The City would be required to reimburse the
electric utility for all system upgrades required to accommodate the connection. Under this
alternative, HDR assumes that the City's contract with the electric power utility would allow the
City to retain Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to offset GHG emission associated with
electricity use in their buildings and facilities. Alternative 2 is applicable to both the WWTP and
Landfill, presented as alternatives 2a and 2b, respectively.
Alternative 3: WWTP Natural Gas Replacement
Biogas Utilization Alternative 3 involves conditioning biogas to natural gas quality with the intent
of using the RNG in place of the natural gas at the WWTP. Biogas would be conditioned to natural
gas quality by equipment owned and operated by the City to be installed at the WWTP. The
WWTP RNG produced will exceed the amount of natural gas used at the plant. As such, the City
would need to either: find a use for the excess RNG produced, flare the excess gas, or the City
would only condition the amount of biogas needed and the excess biogas would be flared. For
this analysis, it was assumed that RNG production would be capped at 62,848 standard cubic
feet per day. Alternative 3 is only applicable to the WWTP as natural gas is not consumed at the
landfill.
9
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
Alternative 4: Composting
Alternative 4 consists of diverting organic waste that would typically be placed in the landfill to a
new or expanded composting facility. Because the existing composting operation is at capacity,
this alternative assumes the City would utilize existing owned -land and purchase equipment to
expand composting capacity. This alternative is only relevant for the Low -Diversion scenario,
further described in the section below.
4.5 Organics Diversion Scenarios
Recognizing the synergy with the City's goal to increase composting of organics, HDR evaluated
the relative cost and GHG emissions impact for each of the four alternatives under three food
waste diversion scenarios. HDR's previous technical analysis determined the impact on future
biogas generation quantity when some of the City's organic matter is diverted from the Landfill for
co -digestion or composting.
The three organics diversion scenarios include:
1) No Organics Diversion. The No Organics Diversion scenario assumes that all organics
material is disposed of in the Landfill (i.e. current operation).
2) 1,500 tons. The 1,500 tons scenario assumes that an additional 1,500 tons of food waste
material will be diverted from the Landfill to the existing WWTP anaerobic digester each
year. This quantity represents the current available capacity in the WWTP anaerobic
digester; therefore, no additional digester capacity is required for this diversion scenario.
This scenario is not applicable to composting, as the existing facility is operating at
capacity.
3) Low -Diversion. The Low -Diversion scenario assumes that 20% of organic material (7,960
tons/year) currently disposed of at the Landfill is diverted to new anaerobic digesters or
an expanded composting facility. For GHG emissions modeling purposes, HDR assumed
that the additional diverted organic material is entirely comprised of food waste. The
required anaerobic digester volume required for the Low -Diversion scenario is 1.4 million
gallons (MG).
For purposes of this study, HDR assumed that the new waste receiving station and standalone
anaerobic digesters required to accept the additional diverted food waste would be located at the
WWTP. A standalone digester facility for the diverted organic waste was assumed because the
RIN credits for RNG produced in a municipal WWTP digester will have a higher value than those
for RNG produced by a diverted waste digester. Additionally, the WWTP digester gas contains
high levels of siloxanes. It is beneficial to keep the two sources of biogas separated until the
siloxanes are removed from the WWTP biogas. Over the course of the Study development,
discussion with City staff supported retaining digester capacity within the existing complex to
support municipal biosolids. Therefore, for a planning level, Feasibility Study, an independent
system to support new low -diversion digesters is proposed. Implementation would include
independent operation, and not an expansion of the existing digester facility. However, as the
plan is refined, a more detailed evaluation and conceptual design should be conducted to further
determine the best approach for the City.
10
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Description of Project Alternatives
Figure 6: Organics Diversion
lt.e,
ORGANICS DIVERSION
MEMO
Blia I I I III
CO -DIGESTION COMPOSTING LANDFILL
A summary of the alternatives and diversion scenarios selected for the SROI analysis are listed
in Table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the Alternatives and Diversion Scenarios evaluated for Feasibility
Alternative Description
Facility
Scenario Name
am &W
Location
Pipeline Injection
Sell RIN credits, & no additional organics
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
(Alt. 1)
diversion
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
Sell RIN credits, & 1,500 TPY organics
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- 1500 Div
diverted from landfill
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- 1500 Div
New AD facility, sell RIN credits, & 7,960
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- LD
TPY organics diverted from landfill
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- LD
Electricity
No additional organics diversion
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
Generation
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
(Alt. 2)
1,500 TPY organics diverted from landfill
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- 1500 Div
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- 1500 Div
7,960 TPY organics diverted from landfill
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- LD
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- LD
Natural Gas
No additional organics diversion
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
Replacement
1,500 TPY organics diverted from landfill
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
1500 Div
(Alt. 3)
New AD facility, & 7,960 TPY organics
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
LD
diverted from landfill
Expanded Composting
7,960 TPY organics diverted from landfill
Compost
Alt. 4
(Alt. 4)
Some of the alternatives listed in Table 1 can be constructed
as standalone
alternatives.
Additionally the alternatives can be constructed together in various
combinations provided the
same waste diversion scenario
is followed. For example, Alternative lb —
NG Pipeline Injection
at the Landfill may be
constructed at the Landfill with no
improvements at the
WWTP.
11
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
Alternatively, Alternative 1 b could be selected for utilization of the biogas at the Landfill, with
Alternative 2a (Electricity Generation) selected for biogas utilization at the WWTP.
A more detailed explanation and associated matrix table of possible combination scenarios is
included later under Section 5.1.
4.5.1 Impacts to Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant
Implementation of anaerobic digestion for organics diversion can result in impacts to the existing
WWTP. The diverted organics need to be incorporated into a mixture with a target feed total solids
(TS) content of 6 percent. This requires the use of makeup water to create the mixture in a
receiving station. Typically, the makeup water is a combination of digester recycle and WWTP
effluent. The total water feed rate into the digester is estimated near 90,000 gallons per day, and
the makeup water stream would be small.
A more important impact to the existing WWTP is the return stream from the diversion digester.
After dewatering of the digested solids, some of the excess water must be returned to the plant
as recycle. Digestion of organics results in the release of nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus in
the forms of ammonium and phosphate, respectively. After dewatering, the nutrients are divided
between the solids and liquids residuals. A fraction of the nutrients would remain with the solids
to their ultimate disposal (e.g. land application or landfilling). The remaining fraction is recycled
with the liquid residuals to the WWTP. Recycled nutrients then consume part of the nitrification
and nutrient removal capacities of the treatment facility. In addition, the carbon to nutrient ratio is
skewed and biological nutrient removal becomes less favorable. This means that carbon addition
may be needed to support biological nutrient removal. Further, liquid treatment capacity and cost
must be reevaluated with potential increases to nutrient loading.
Organic waste nutrient content varies considerably. The nitrogen content can vary between 5 and
50 percent of the TS, and the phosphorus content can vary between 1 and 10 percent of the TS.
This analysis used typical food waste values of roughly 10 percent for nitrogen content and 5
percent for phosphorus for the analysis. The result is an additional 150 to 200 lb-N/d nitrogen load
and an additional 30 to 50 lb-P/d phosphorus load estimated for the WWTP for every ton/d of
organics diversion. In all, every 1 ton/d of diverted wastes results in a recycle containing between
2 and 3 percent of the WWTP's nitrogen capacity. The Low -Diversion scenario is based on about
4 ton/d of organics diversion, which could use between 8 and 12 percent of the WWTP's TKN
capacity'.
Estimated Cos'
A detailed opinion of probable costs and opinion of O&M costs was developed for the No -
Diversion scenario for each alternative. The No -Diversion scenario costs (gas conditioning system
and electricity generation equipment) were then extrapolated to estimate costs for the two
diversion scenarios for each alternative. For the Low -Diversion scenario, costs were added for a
new anaerobic digester and waste receiving station. The estimated biogas quantities for each
1 Design TKN capacity of WWTP identified as 6,311 lb-N/d based on NPDES permit issued 05/01/2020
12
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
scenario as a basis for the extrapolation. Equipment proposals were also obtained for the
No -Diversion scenario for each alternative.
Table 2 contains a summary of the capital and O&M costs for each alternative selected for the
detailed SROI analysis.
Table 2: Biogas Utilization Alternatives Summary
Opinionl 11111111111110 "_.. F Opinion of �- Alternative
Probable
DesignationAlternative scenario I
AMW Wk AMIL M&Ost- O&M Costs
No Diversion 1A - ND $81600,000 $1,353,000
la: WWTP NG 1,500 Ton Year 1A - 1500 $10 800 000 $1 815 000
p J
Pipeline Injection / '
Low Diversion 1A - LD $41,400,000 $3,112,000
No Diversion 113- ND $29,200,000 $2,292,000
1b: Landfill NG 1,500 Ton Year 1B - 1500 $29,000,000 2 282 000
Pipeline Infection
Low Diversion 1B - LD $28,000,000 $2,200,000
2a-2: WWTP No Diversion 2A - ND $13,500,000 $1,067,000
Electricity 1,500 Ton/Year 2A - 1500 $17,000,000 $1,432,000
Generation Low Diversion 2A - LD $50,000,000 $2,538,000
2b-2: Landfill No Diversion 2B - ND $20,500,000 $1,288,000
Electricity 1,500 Ton/Year 2B - 1500 $20,300,000 $1,282,000
Generation Low Diversion 2B - LD $19,600,000 $1,236,000
No Diversion 3 - ND $71700,000 $867,000
3: WWTP NG 1 500 Ton Year 3-1500 $9 700 000 $1 163 000
p
Re lacement / '
Low Diversion 3 - LD $39,800,000 $2,136,000
4: Composting Low Diversion 4 $51700,000 $495,000
Description of Impact Categories
The effect of an alternative differs across the individual impact categories (individual economic
and environmental benefits and/or costs) and depends on the design of the project alternative,
site conditions where the project is implemented, and characteristics in the community. Estimation
of benefits and costs from a project depends on the degree to which linkages can be quantified
between alternatives and a benefit or cost, and then available economic literature to value this
change.
This section develops the general assumptions and inputs used in the SROI analysis framework
and describes the impacts.
4.7.1 General Assumptions and Inputs
The SROI analysis measures benefits and costs throughout a 30-year period of analysis from
2021 to through the year 2050 representing the GHG emissions reduction goal year in the City's
13
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
CARP. The methodology makes several important assumptions and seeks to avoid
overestimation of benefits and underestimation of costs. Specifically:
• Input prices are inflated to 2019 dollars;
• The analysis period begins in 2021 and ends in 2050. It includes twenty-nine years of
operations (2022-2050); and
• A constant 3 percent real discount rate is assumed throughout the period of analysis.
4.7.2 Impact Categories
Each of the evaluated impacts is discussed in detail in the following sections. The impacts are
organized by their respective triple bottom line categorization (economic and environmental).
2.1 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Economic benefits include impacts that are created by the project after deducting the cost of all
inputs, including the cost of the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and annual operations and
maintenance (O&M) costs (lifecycle costs of the project alternatives). Economic benefits include
value of RIN credits to the City. Additionally anon -monetary measure of economic efficiency
includes energy return on investment.
4.7.2.1.1 Lifecycle Costs
Lifecycle costs include CAPEX and annual OW for each alternative. The costs are estimated as
a 30 year life -cycle costs as shown below in the S&L diagram.
Figure 7: Lifecycle Cost Structure and Logic Diagram.
4.7.2.1.2 RIN Credit Benefits
RIN credits provide a potential unique revenue source to Alternative 1. RINs are the credits that
the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to track and enforce compliance with
the renewable fuels mandates set by the federal RFS Program. The City may be able to generate
and sell RIN credits to Obligated Parties by producing RNG from biogas and injecting it into the
pipeline for blending with conventional, non-renewable natural gas. Figure 8 illustrates the value
of RIN credits.
14
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Description of Project Alternatives
Figure 8: RIN Credit Value Structure and Logic Diagram.
The potential value of RIN credits beyond 2020 is shown below in Table 3. Based on this
information and discussions between the City and HDR, the median D3 value ($16.18) was used
in the SROI analysis for alternatives involving gas produced from the landfill. For alternatives
located at the WWTP and food waste diversion scenarios the D5 value ($7.70) was used
presuming the mix of a lesser quality gas.
Table 3: Value of RIN Credits
RIN and Carbon Market2
Units
Total for D3 +Commodity $/MMBTU
Total for D5 +Commodity $/MMBTU
Total for D5 +Commodity + LCFS ' $/MMBTU
Value
Most Low
likely
Median
High
$16.18 $8.20
$11.69
$25.15
$12.37 $5.71
$6.71
$9.70
$7.70 $5.71
$11.69
$19.70
4.7.2.1.3 Renewable Electricity Production
Revenue from electricity sales are assumed to be captured from both net metering and negotiated
buyback agreements with MidAmerican Energy Company and Eastern Iowa Light and Power
Cooperative.
MidAmerican Energy Company (which supplies the electricity to the Iowa City Landfill) allows for
net metering agreements for a facility nameplate generation capacity of up to 1 megawatt (MW)
or 110% of its annual load. Credits from net metering agreements are paid out at the average
locational marginal price (LIVIP) from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)
based on the generation profile of the resource. For energy produced beyond a nameplate
capacity of 1 MW or 110% of its annual load, energy can be sold to MidAmerican Energy at a
negotiated buyback rate. The Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative allows for buyback
agreements for facilities with a nameplate generation capacity exceeding 20 kilowatts (kW).
Figure 9 illustrates the value of renewable electricity production.
2 HDR is NOT providing a revenue projection or analysis of financial feasibility of alternatives. Such
projections are highly dependent on open market commodity pricing, political volatility, and local, state, and
federal programs and policies.
15
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
Figure 9: Renewable Electricity Production Value Structure and Logic Diagram
Electricity production was monetized under the assumptions shown in Table 4. The landfill is
assumed to export 110% of its 2019 electricity usage at the net metered rate offered by
MidAmerican Energy Company, and any excess generation is monetized at the negotiated
buyback rate. The wastewater treatment plant receives the Eastern Iowa Light and Power
Cooperative avoided cost rate for all of its electricity generation.
Table 4: Value of Renewable Electricity Production
Electricity Sales Assumptions
Units Value
MidAmerican Energy Net Metering Rate C/kWh 2.6C3
MidAmerican Energy Negotiated Buyback Rate C/kWh 2.6C4
Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative Avoided Cost RaW. C/kWh 4.2C5
2019 Iowa City Landfill Electricity Usage MW kWh 278,882
4.7.2.1.4 Value of Avoided Natural Gas Purchases
The WWTP RNG produced will exceed the amount of natural gas used at the plant. As such, the
City would need to either: find a use for the excess RNG produced, flare the excess gas, or the
City would only condition the amount of biogas needed and the excess biogas would be flared.
Production of RNG would prevent the facility from needing to purchase natural gas. For this
analysis, it was assumed that RNG production would be capped at 62,848 standard cubic feet
3 The net metered rate is assumed to be a weighted average LMP based on 2019 hourly real-time LMP
prices for the Illinois hub and the MISO load. Calculated based on data from Midcontinent Independent
System Operator's market reports.
***********. misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/market-reports/#nt=.
MISO historical load data was gathered from EnergyOnline from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
energyonIine.com/Data/GenericData.aspx?DataId=17.
4 Negotiated buyback rate is assumed to be equivalent to the average LMP price calculated for the net
metering rate.
5 Weighted average calculation based on Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative's posted avoided cost
of generation during peak and off-peak hours.
16
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
per day and valued at the delivered cost of natural gas at the facility assumed to be $3.166 per
MMBtu. The value stream is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Renewable Natural Gas Value Structure and Logic Diagram
4.7.2.1.5 Energy return on energy investment
Energy return on energy investment is the ratio of the amount of usable energy delivered from a
particular energy resource to the amount of energy used to obtain that energy resource as
illustrated below.
Eo
EROEI =
Ei
Where:
Eo = Energy output
Ei = Energy input
The resulting ratio demonstrates the relative energy inputs necessary to produce the energy
output for each alternative. The higher the EROEI, the greater the amount of energy that is yielded
for the amount of energy produced. EROEI was estimated for each alternative except for
Alternative 4, because composting does not generate energy.
Energy output was based on the quantity of RNG produced or electricity generated. In addition to
energy generated, HDR also factored in lifecycle energy use reduction using the USEPA Waste
Reduction Model (WARM), which compares GHG emissions reductions and lifecycle energy
savings from baseline and alternative waste management scenarios. HDR estimated change in
lifecycle embodied energy by utilizing WARM to compare the baseline conditions to both 1,500
tons and Low -Diversion scenarios. Specifically, the output of the WARM model estimated the
lifecycle energy use reduction by co -digesting or composting additional diverted food waste as
compared to the baseline of landfilling this material. Because WARM is a lifecycle assessment
tool, meaning impacts are estimated from cradle -to -grave, the estimated energy use reduction
6 Calculated based on natural gas delivered and delivery charges from the wastewater treatment plant's bill
for the month of October 2020.
17
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Description of Project Alternatives
occurs outside of the City's reporting boundary and would not be evident in annual GHG
emissions inventories.
Direct energy input is based on the parasitic load of new equipment installed for the purposes of
generating RNG or electricity, and does not include base load energy use required to operate the
WWTP and Landfill Facilities based on current conditions. Specifically, direct energy input
includes the parasitic load of the biogas conditioning equipment and electric generators. All
energy output and input measures were converted into million British thermal units (MMBtu) to
allow a relative comparison of alternatives. Table 5 provides details on each energy output and
input value. The resulting EROEI's are presented in the results section of this report.
18
d�
W —
Ln
M
Q0
m
m
M
Ln
O
r-I
qzl-
Q0
M�q;t
00
O
O
r--:
110
r-�
r-�
r-�
r-�
rl
N
N
N
rV
M
4
cM
r4
O
w
r-I
r-I
r-I
W
r4
1,0
Ln
Ln
�
�
r',
r',4
Q0
Q0
�
r14
0
O
^
_
V
�,
+•+ H
to
O
qt
O
r-I
Ln
I�
-4
�
O
O
-zT
00
r-I
M
-4
M
qt
al
lD
Ln
a)
I�
Ln
I �
00
r -I
O
V
4A
"WLn
C m
.
l0
.
I�
.
m
.
l0
.
Q0
.
�
.
�
.
�
.
M
.
r-I
.
O
.
l0
.
M
.
M
.
wuw
m
'::I-
al
O
M
O
N
M
00
00
Ln
M
IZ.
O !L-
=
=
O
q;l-
M
O
r-i
r-i
lqt
lD
N
M%
Ifi
I�
lD
I�
O
V
—A
W
O
r-i
r-i
N
o0
00
00
r-I
M
m
M
r-I
O
O
^
O
O
lD
qt
O
�D
R::I-
O
l0
qt
O
t0
I�t
lA
qt
O
O
I%�
O
I�
O
I�
O
I�
O
I�
O
O
w
V
H
al
.
�
.
a1
.
�
.
al
.
.
al
N..
�
al
.
Rt
.
O
iA
> aA
V
m
al
qt
al
qt
al
R;i-
al
I;t
al
q;t
W
V L-
G� G1
G
I*�
fV
q;l-
I�
N
I�
N
I�
N
I�
fsl
O >,
O
C
W
r
J W
O
CTN
4-0
O -
O
^
N
O
r-I
R;I-
O
O
l0
M
Itt
M
N
O
N
lD
l0
Q0
O
O •—
V
G1
lD
O
I�
O
r-i
r-I
I�
I�
O
O
O
r-I
00
r i
M
O
M
N
m
I�
I�
I�
rl�
A
r
l0
I�
r1
lD
w
O
I�
I�
m
r-I
O
N
M
M
+
V 0
Ln
O
r-I
qt
N
r-I
m
O
N
O
r-I
I�
O
�
�
m
r-I
00
M
m
O
m
w
M
Ln
w
w
Ln
w
O N
>'
W
r-I
r-I
N
00
m
I�
M
M
M
10
:>_ M
CL
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
N�MM
O
O
O>
CO>N
�
a1
�0
a1
L(i
l0
a1
N (6
s
r-I
r-I
N
m
m
00
cy) M
M
fV
r-I
W
Ln
O
O
O
O
O
O
r-I
Ln
N
O
>NU)
Z
Lo
(D
M
a)
N
I�
I�
I�
O
r-I
N
O
E
V H
00
W
O
M
w
N
m
I�
M
I�
M
I�
a)
M
M
w
o0
m
N
m
N
m
N
w
W
O
M
w
00
U
4-0
�
M
/f 1• W
mow/
\
r-I
I;t
1
I�
1
W
M
\
W
N
\
W
N
\
W
N
\
M
I�
\
W
\
N
o0
\
00
\
�
00
\
�
M
\
r-i
-;I-
\
I�
\
N
00
(n
L �LJ
a)
Q
c
r1
r-I
CV
M
O
O
O
(V
r-I
M
M
CV
CV
CV
r-i
r-i
CV
MLon
O
Q
~
�
m
i
00
M
Lfi
Lf�
Lf�
In
Lfi
M
O
I�
I�
I�
00
M
O
O
O
Lf i
I�
O
m
m
r-I
r-I
r-I
m
Ll')
LO
W
\
r-I
N
M
r-I
r-I
r-I
M
M
W
M
M
M
r-i
N
W
r-Itd
C/)
M c0
_
cn cn
N
>
>
>
>
L C
O
c6
H
>
p
Q
p
p
.>
Q
}'
cv
Q
O
Q
O
Q
O
Q
O
N It
>
i
d
.—
Z
r-I
Q
J
Z
r-I
Q
J
Z
r1
Q
J
Z
r-I
Q
J
Q
O
Ln
Q
L
0
a
�
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Z
i
r-I
i
J
i
--§ E
N
r
a
LM
fa
r-i
f0
r-I
C6
r-I
r-I
r-I
r-I
C6
N
Ca
N
f6
N
fV
N
N
M
M
M
�
1 U
>
W
�
a
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
a-+
Q
�-'
Q
�-'
Q
uj
•-
G L
I�LI
^ (D
IA
C
Q
U o
aO
_
—
—
�
0-
O
L O
L
4+
O
J
J
J
U
cn
C:
LU
E E
0.0
O O
O • L
}
+'
O
•�
�7
�+
" L-
t� o
>
0.�
�_
V
'i
�,
i
O
> >
W
}+
m
++
Q
Q
�
v
QJ
i
V
fa
Q
Q
s` s`
O O
a
=
uw
O
Z
LLJ
v
iii a) a)
a
o
O
H
Z N
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
4.7.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental benefits include impacts that are valued based on the project's change in natural
resource quality or quantity. The environmental included in this analysis include the social cost of
carbon measured by changes in the emissions of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).
4.7.2.2.1 Social Cost of Carbon
GHG Emissions Impact Assessment: HDR understands that a key driver for decision -making
is understanding the relative GHG emissions impact associated with each alternative and making
progress towards the City's climate action goals. GHG emissions were estimated for each
alternative included in the SROI analysis, and considered both direct and lifecycle impacts, as
well as avoided emissions resulting from the beneficial reuse of biogas. Calculation
methodologies align with best practices described in the Global Protocol for Community -Scale
Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) and Local Government Operations Protocol
(LGOP) for GHG assessment. These considerations are described below and cumulative GHG
emissions impacts for each alternative are presented in Table 6.
• Direct GHG emissions were based on the incremental emissions resulting from processes
required to beneficially reuse biogas. Specifically, direct GHG emissions are based on the
parasitic load of new equipment installed for the purposes of generating RNG or electricity,
such as energy consumed by the biogas conditioning equipment and electric generators.
It is important to note that direct emissions do not include base load energy use required
to operate the WWTP and Landfill Facilities based on current conditions, rather, the
Feasibility Study analyzes the incremental change from current operations. At the City's
direction, HDR assumed that there would not be a material change in transportation -
related GHG emissions associated with diverting food waste for the 1,500 tons and Low -
Diversion scenarios. Lastly, it should be noted that GHG emissions associated with
combustion of biogas/RNG is considered biogenic (CO2(b)), and per the GPC, is to be
reported separately outside of Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emission categories. Biogenic
emissions are those related to the natural carbon cycle, as well as those resulting from
the combustion, harvest, digestion, fermentation, decomposition or processing of
biologically based materials.
• Lifecycle GHG emissions were estimated using the EPA WARM, which compares GHG
emissions reductions and lifecycle energy savings from baseline and alternative waste
management scenarios. HDR estimated change in lifecycle embodied carbon by utilizing
WARM to compare the baseline conditions to both 1,500 tons and Low -Diversion
scenarios. Specifically, the output of the WARM model estimated the lifecycle energy use
reduction by co -digesting or composting additional diverted food waste as compared to
the baseline of landfilling this material. Because WARM is a lifecycle assessment tool,
meaning impacts are estimated from cradle -to -grave, the estimated GHG emissions
reduction occurs outside of the City's reporting boundary and would not be evident in
annual GHG emissions inventories.
• Avoided GHG emissions were estimated based on the beneficial reuse of biogas,
including pipeline injection, electricity generation, and natural gas displacement,
assuming:
o Biogas injected into the natural gas pipeline would be utilized to generate and sell
RIN credits, ultimately being used as a renewable fuel for mobile source
20
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Description of Project Alternatives
combustion. RNG is a market driver for commercial fleets to transition away from
conventional diesel trucks to compressed natural gas (CNG)/RNG alternate
fueled -vehicles. GHG emission reductions were estimated using a diesel fuel
emissions factor published by the EPA.
o Biogas used to generate electricity would ultimately offset electricity generated by
local electric power utilities (MidAmerican Energy or Eastern Iowa Light & Power).
Emission factors were provided by the City. While MidAmerican Energy does have
a public goal related to 100% of retail sales being served by renewable energy,
this is not equivalent to a net zero carbon production goal. Absent of either electric
utility having a publicly stated carbon emissions reduction goal, GHG emission
reductions were estimated using the emission factor provided by the City, held
constant for the study period.
o Biogas used as onsite fuel at the WWTP would displace natural gas on a 1:1 unit
basis. GHG emission reductions were estimated using a natural gas emissions
factor published by the EPA.
21
V
��
w
O
w
m
r
M �
Ln
�
�
M
M
rl
a)'i
Ln
m
rl
m
�
m
M O
tD
O
00
O
(D
l0
O
lD
—
•- +�
m
Ln
m
m�
O
0
QO
m
M
w
m
m
m
rI
-
M
H
�
rl
N
(V
N
I�
�
I�
�
00
�
rl
1 �
N
N
m
N
I. n
^
N
^
m
N
rl
N
M
.
m
N
N
O
r O
I
I
I
cv
N
m
'
'
rl
rl
rl
'
'
rl
rl
V O
V
O
lD
O
lD
O rI
l0
O
rI
(Z
O
rI
l0
O
a
Ict
0)
rn
R:t
rn
4::1-
rn
1::1-
rn
�
•—
G1 W
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
a)
l0
b
O
u
Z
a
W
V
m
V
t7 r-i o Ln m IZI- O N rl*l (.0 q* 00 Ln m r*-. r--. N
O H O rI O m m Ln W 110 N w O O O
N N -t N CV O rl N M l0 M M [NI
I I I I I I
m � �
i
i
O
N�
O
O
O
O
N�
O
O
O
O
N
w
O_
.
.V
O
rl
rl
I�
O
N
s
>
.O
�-0
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
l0
I�
O
V
l0
q::I-
R::I-
q::I-
00
R::I-
Ict
lD
N
qzlm
>
l0
00
00
00
N
M
M
m
lD
O
rl
Vf iArl
rl
i (1)
O
O
I*_
Ln
O
O
O
O
(N
00
O
O
O
O
O
rl
rl
i
N
00
a)
�
N
N
•� —
—
0
O
Ln
I�
N
fV
rl
rl
rl
N
I�
I�
m
V J
>
�
MENEM
70
U)
>
>
>
>
p
p
>
—
O
O
O
O
p
(n
=
p�
p
p�
p
p�
p
p�
p
p
C
O
Z
rl
J
Z
r�
J
Z
rl
J
Z
rl
J
z
Lf)
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
O
a
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
rl
CV
CV
fV
CV
N
fV
M
M
M
O
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
+-+
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
.
a-;
N
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
ry
N
C
N co
.�
�
L
0_
N
m
VO
ILL
,`�
0_.`�
LL
CL
Q
p
.N
j
>
j
i
j
E
_
U V
N
—
J
J
J
U
_
�
+�+
LU
v
CD
c� o
_
o
0
•> .0
=O
u
+�
>
w
w
W
V
H
N
N
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Description of Project Alternatives
Value of GHG Emissions: Scientific studies in the United States and internationally have widely
concluded that GHG emissions are closely linked with climate change, a condition that has been
determined to lead to future economic impacts from more extreme weather events and damaging
conditions on coasts. The impact is estimated from the change in energy production and net
embodied carbon in each of the waste diversion scenarios. In alternatives of I and 1 B (pipeline
injection), RIN credits are counted as an economic benefit and the environmental attributes would
therefore be sold to Obligated party who purchases the RIN credits. As such, the value of the
social cost of carbon (SCC) is not counted for the associated changes in GHG emissions to avoid
double counting.
GHG impacts were estimated using:
• EPA WARM model for the change in metric tons of COZe from embodied carbon in the
waste stream;
• an electricity conversion factor (converts megawatt hours to tons of pollution for each
emission type); and
• a cost of emission (monetizes the impact).
The logic for the estimating impacts of changes in GHG emissions is illustrated in Figure 11.
Figure 11: GHG Emissions Structure and Logic Diagram.
For CO2e; the value from the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCC)
was used in the analysis. This value is then escalated annually at 2% using rates derived from
the Federal Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. All values are in 2019 US
dollars per ton.
Table 7: Social Costs of GHG Emissions
GHG Emissions
CO2e
Unit Value Source
$/Ton $46 IWGSCC (2013)
23
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
5 Summary Economic, and Environmental
Impacts of Alternatives
The evaluation of economic and environmental impacts considered a time horizon or study period,
which includes project development (construction and implementation) and 29 years of operation
and benefit. This extends to 2050 and aligns with the planning horizon of the City's CARP. Costs
and benefits have been converted to present value using a 3% discount factor. Total benefits and
costs are compared using a benefit to cost ratio (13CR), benefits divided by costs. BCR's
exceeding 1.0 indicate that the benefits from the alternative exceed the costs of the investment
over a 30 year period. Results are shown below in Table 8.
Consideration should be given to the implementation schedule of alternatives and potential for a
phased approach. Revising the economic framework to account for a phasing of projects over
5-10 years would affect all of the alternatives equally and would not change the overall ranking or
comparison of the alternatives. Furthermore, there is limited impact to the capital and O&M cost
considerations as long as the period of study remains over 30-years. The more significant cost
impacts are observed with a minimum delay of 8-10 years out of the study period. A number of
implementation scenarios are possible, but the CIP planning impact is often similar from a
planning perspective.
Table 8: Summary of Monetary Benefits and Costs ($ Millions, 2019)
Alternative Location Alternative Total Total
Description Cost Social
Pipeline WWTP
Injection
Landfill
Electricity WWTP
Generation
Landfill
Natural Gas WWTP
Replacement
Expanded Compost
Composting
Alt. 1a - ND
Alt. 1a - 1500
Alt. 1a - LD
Alt. lb - ND
Alt. lb - 1500
Alt. lb - LD
Alt. 2a - ND
Alt. 2a - 1500
Alt. 2a - LD
Alt. 2 b - ND
Alt. 2 b - 1500
Alt. 2 b - LD
Alt. 3 - ND
Alt. 3 - 1500
Alt. 3 - LD
Alt. 4
$35.92
$47.44
$104.23
$75.47
$75.07
$72.42
$35.04
$45.91
$101.24
$46.50
$46.18
$44.55
$25.20
$33.18
$82.92
$15.69
Cost of
Carbon
$1.67
$3.21
$18.01
$33.87
$34.86
$38.46
$0.78
$2.48
$16.33
$18.96
$15.95
$24.16
$1.69
$3.23
$16.60
$15.07
Total Value
for RIN Credit
and Energy
Revenues
$5.48
$7.35
$23.09
$88.14
$87.37
$83.93
$1.58
$2.71
$2.77
$27.16
$26.91
$25.75
$1.09
$0.93
$0.15
Total
Benefit
$7.15
$10.56
$41.10
$122.01
$122.23
$122.39
$1.91
$4.41
$18.31
$35.23
$32.08
$39.58
$2.78
$4.16
$16.75
Benefit
-Cost
Ratio
0.20
0.22
0.39
1.62
1.63
1.69
0.05
0.10
0.18
0.76
0.69
0.89
0.11
0.13
0.20
$0.00 $15.07 0.96
24
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
The results show that only Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) has benefits that exceed the costs.
The highest BCR is Alternative 1 b — Low -Diversion. This alternative ranks highest on total lifecycle
CO2e emission reductions, and when combined with the value of RIN credits results in the
greatest economic benefits. However, the City should be aware that the CO2e emission reduction
when RINs are sold to an Obligated Party will occur outside of the City's municipal and
community -scale GHG inventories. This alternative has the sixth highest cost of the 15
alternatives presented. The net result, of Alternative 1 b, is a BCR of 1.69 dollars of benefit per
dollar of cost invested.
A sensitivity test was conducted to test the impact of key monetary values (RIN credits and SCC
values) on the ranking of the alternatives. Changing the value of the SCC was found to have no
effect in ranking as the value influences all of the alternatives equally. Conversely, the RIN credit
value only affects the BCR of pipeline injection alternative (Alternative 1) and would have an
impact on alternative ranking. The sensitivity analysis showed that the realized RIN credit value
would need to be below $6.00 per MMBTU, or 5% greater than the low value of D5 RIN credits
shown Table 3 for the BCR ranking of alternatives to change.
Perhaps as important for consideration in CARP are non -monetary considerations. The non-
monetarymetrics (EROEl and lifecycle change in CO2e emissions) are shown in Table 9. Perhaps
the most important measure related to CAAP action objectives is CO2e reductions. All of the
alternatives result in a net reduction in CO2e over the next 30 years. Alternative 1 b — Low -
Diversion results in the greatest net reduction.
Table 9: Summary of Non -Monetary Impacts
Alternative Location
Description ML
Pipeline Injection WWTP
Electricity
Generation
Landfill
WWTP
Landfill
Natural Gas WWTP
Replacement
Expanded Compost
Composting
Alternative
Alt. 1a - ND
Alt. 1a - 1500
Alt. 1a — LD
Alt. lb - ND
Alt. lb - 1500
Alt. lb - LD
Alt. 2a - ND
Alt. 2a - 1500
Alt. 2a - LD
Alt. 2 b - ND
Alt. 2 b - 1500
Alt. 2 b - LD
Alt. 3 - ND
Alt. 3 - 1500
Alt. 3 - LD
Alt. 4
Lifecycle Change in
CO2e Emissions J6
40,500
77,800
436,200
820,500
844,500
931,800
19,000
60,000
395,600
459,200
386,500
5851200
40,900
78,300
2521200
365,100
Lifecycle
EROEI
6.9
7.9
7.9
7.5
7.6
7.9
2.0
12.4
13.3
1.5
2.1
12.6
4.6
3.4
1.8
M
25
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
Finally, all alternatives, except for composting, result in an EROEI of 1.0 or greater. Incremental
composting of food waste does not generate energy. Opposite of the economic and GHG
measures, Alternative 2a (WWTP Electricity Generation) - Low -Diversion ranks highest on
EROEI. Meanwhile Alt 1 b - Low -Diversion is ranked 5th on EROEI.
The overall ranking of the alternatives for the monetary (BCR) and the two non -monetary results
are shown below in Table 10.
Table 10: Summary and Ranking of Monetary and Non -Monetary Results
Alternative
Location
Alternative
GHG
GHG
EROEI
EROEI
BCR
BCR
Description
Reduction
Rank
Rank
Rank
Pipeline
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
40500
15
6.9
9
0.20
11
Injection
Alt. 1a
- 1500
77800
12
7.9
6
0.22
9
Alt. 1a
- LD
436200
6
7.9
4
0.39
8
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
820500
3
7.5
8
1.62
3
Alt. 1b
- 1500
844500
2
7.6
7
1.63
2
Alt. 1b
- LD
931800
1
7.9
5
1.69
1
Electricity
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
19000
16
2.0
13
0.05
16
Generation
Alt. 2a
- 1500
60000
13
12.4
3
0.10
15
Alt. 2a
- LD
395600
8
13.3
1
0.18
12
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
459200
S
1.5
15
0.76
6
Alt. 2b
- 1500
386500
9
2.1
12
0.69
7
Alt. 2b
- LD
585200
4
12.6
2
0.89
5
Natural Gas
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
40900
14
4.6
10
0.11
14
Replacement
Alt. 3 -
1500
78300
11
3.4
11
0.13
13
Alt. 3 -
LD
402000
7
1.8
14
0.20
10
Expanded
Compost
AIt.4
365100
10
0.0
16
0.96
4
Composting
26
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
5.1 Findings and Insights
To make recommendations for actions under 3.7 and 3.8, the monetary and non -monetary results
are combined into a weighted score as shown below in Table 11. Each result was converted to
an index (1 to 0). The indexed results were then weighted equally into a total score with a
maximum value of 1.
Table 11: Indexed and Weighted Scores for each Alternative
Alternative
Location
Alternative
GHG
EROEI
BCR
Total
Rank
Description
Reducti
Score
on
Pipeline
WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
0.01
0.17
0.04
0.23
13
Injection
Alt. 1a
- 1500
0.03
0.20
0.04
0.27
11
Alt. 1a
- LD
0.16
0.20
0.08
0.43
6
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
0.29
0.19
0.32
0.80
3
Alt. 1b
- 1500
0.30
0.19
0.32
0.81
2
Alt. 1b
- LD
0.33
0.20
0.33
0.86
1
Electricity
WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.07
16
Generation
Alt. 2a
- 1500
0.02
0.31
0.02
0.35
7
Alt. 2a
- LD
0.14
0.33
0.04
0.51
5
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
0.16
0.04
0.15
0.35
8
Alt. 2 b
- 1500
0.14
0.05
0.14
0.33
9
Alt. 2 b
- LD
0.21
0.32
0.18
0.70
4
Natural Gas
WWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.15
14
Replacement
Alt. 3 -
1500
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.14
15
Alt. 3 -
LD
0.14
0.05
0.04
0.23
12
Expanded
Compost
Alt.4
0.13
0.00
0.19
0.32
10
Composting
As noted previously, the Alternative 1 b-LD (Landfill RNG Pipeline Injection) - Low -Diversion has
the highest BCR. It also has the highest GHG reduction over 30 years. This is driven by the
assumption that biogas injected into the natural gas pipeline would be utilized to generate and
sell RIN credits, ultimately being used as a renewable fuel for mobile source combustion. Further,
RNG is a market driver for commercial fleets to transition away from conventional diesel trucks to
compressed natural gas (CNG)/RNG alternate fueled -vehicles. However, the City should be
aware that when RINs are sold to an Obligated Party, the CO2e emission reduction will occur
outside of the City's municipal and community -scale GHG inventories. Opposite of the economic
and GHG impacts, Alternative 2a (WWTP Electricity Generation) - Low -Diversion ranks highest
on EROEI. Meanwhile Alternative 1 b - Low -Diversion is ranked 5th on EROEI.
Based on the indexing and weighting exercise, Alternative 1 b (Landfill Natural Gas) - Low -
Diversion has the highest score (0.86). Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) -1500 ton diversion is
ranked second. Alternative 1 b (landfill natural gas) - No -Diversion is ranked third. Again, CO2e
emission reduction associated with pipeline injection and used as a renewable fuel will occur
outside of the City's municipal and community -scale GHG inventories.
27
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
If the City is instead focused on reductions that will be reflected in its municipal and community -
scale GHG emission inventory, then evaluation should be narrowed to focus on Alternatives 2
(Electricity Generation) and 3 (Natural Gas Replacement). While electricity generated at the
WWTP or Landfill (2a and 2b, respectively) could very well be pushed to the power grid,
contractual agreements with local utilities could allow the City to retain and retire RECs for GHG
accounting purposes. Specifically, RECs could be applied to the City's Scope 2 market -based
GHG inventory. Using RNG to displace natural gas use at the WWTP would result in lower Scope
1 GHG emissions. Focused on these two alternatives, Alternative 2b -Low-Diversion is ranked
highest (fourth overall), followed by Alternatives 2a -Low-Diversion and 2a - 1500. These
alternatives are ranked 4, 5 and 7 overall.
If total GHG emissions reduction is the ultimately priority, Alternatives 1 b (Landfill Pipeline
Injection) offers the greatest potential, simply due to the volume of biogas generation and
associated potential for renewable electricity generation.
Finally, biogas utilization alternatives can be combined together with others, and some can be
incorporated as standalone projects (as shown in Table 12).
Table 12: Potential Biogas Utilization Alternatives Combinations
Landfill Location
No Diversion
1500 ton/yr Diversion
Low Diversion
Weighted and Indexed Performance
Indicators
Do Nothing
NG Pipeline
Electricity
NG Pipeline
Electricity
NG Pipeline
Electricity
Total Score, inclusive of:
Injection
Generation
Injection
Generation
Injection
Generation
GHG Reduction, EROI, and BCR
Alt lb -ND
Alt 2b-ND
Alt 1b-1500
Alt 2b-1500
Alt 1b-LD
Alt 2b-LD
Do Nothing
0
0.80
0.35
0.81
0.33
0.86
0.70
NG Pipeline
Alt la -ND
0.23
1.02
0.58
><><
o
Injection
Electricity
Alt 2a-ND
0.07
0.87
0.42
o
Generation
0
z
NG
Alt 3-ND
0.15
0.95
0.50
><><><><NG
0
0
Replacement
Pipeline
Alt 1a-1500
0.27><><
1.08
0.60
><><
0
Injection
0.
0
o "�
Electricity
Alt 2a-1500
0.35
0.68
><
�
o >
Generation
o o
NG
-:><:><1.16
Alt 3-1500
0.14
><><
0.95
0.47
><
Replacement
NG Pipeline
Alt la-LD
0.43><><><><
1.30
1.13
Injection
Electricity
Alt 2a-LD
0.51
><
><
><
><
1.37
1.21
o
Generation
o
NG
Alt 3 -LD
.2
0 3><1><><1><1
1.09
0.93
Replacement
1
1
There are 18 unique possible combinations of alternatives, Table 12 has been developed to more
appropriately showcase combinations and the "diversion lanes" in which decisions would need to
be maintained with a decision. Boxes with blue numbering indicate individual alternative scenarios
28
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7Z Summary Economic, and Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
at either the Landfill or at the WWTP. The boxes are also color coded in a "heat map" format, to
show the overall ranking of the individual scenarios.
The individual alternatives can be combined together, but must be done so following the same
waste diversion scenario from the Landfill. When combining the alternatives the scores from the
Landfill and WWTP alternatives can be added together to identify the best combination of actions
under each of the waste diversion scenarios. From Table 11 above, the higher the score the better
the alternative. The highest scored alternatives are: Alternative 1 b — NG Pipeline Injection landfill
alternatives for each of the No -Diversion, 1500 ton diversion, and Low -Diversion scenarios.
Identifying the best combination of actions works as follows: select the highest scored alternative
from the desired waste diversion scenario (shown to be from the Alternative 1 b — NG Pipeline
Injection landfill alternatives) then work down the column (or "diversion lane") to the desired
combination scenario. In the case of combining with Alternative 2a — Electricity Generation at the
WWTP, a resulting combined score of 1.16. As capital costs are also additive, consideration
should be given to the seemingly minor weighted score differential. In the example of combined
Alt 1 b-1500 with Alt 2a-1500, there is an estimated $6.21VI savings to select Alt 1 b-1500 with Alt
1 a-1500.
5.1.1 Path Forward
HDR recognizes that incremental food waste diversion is not an instantaneous process, but the
SROI analysis provides an assessment of the resulting impact when achieved. This Report
provides decision tools to support the City's further consideration and decision making.
Consequently, the City might consider the following path forward to further evaluate and
implement the preferred alternative(s):
i. City decision on desired diversion scenario and methane utilization at the WWTP to
narrow the field of alternatives. (0-6 months)
ii. Further technical analysis to develop organics management strategies to achieve a
targeted diversion scenario and further evaluate life cycle costs of co -digestion (if desired)
and biogas utilization to generate electricity or RNG. Consideration of impacts to planned
digester rehab project. (3-6 months)
iii. Conceptual Design Development of the selected alternative(s), providing basis of design
parameters and implementation planning. (3-6 months)
iv. Detailed Design Development. (TBD)
V. Bidding and Construction. (TBD)
It may be prudent for the City to complete items i) and ii) within the next 6-months for capital
planning purposes.
29
City of Iowa City I CRAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z References:
6 References:
City of Iowa City (2018), Climate Action and Adaptation Plan,
https://www.icgov.org/promect/climate-action.
City of Iowa City (2019), City Resolution 19-218, https://www.icgov.orq/proiect/climate-action.
City of Iowa City, (2020), Accelerating Iowa City's Climate Action Plan,
https://www.ic oq v.org/project/climate-action.
Clinton Global Initiative, (2007), https://www.clintonfoundation.orq/clinton-global-
initiative/commitments/creating-sustainable-return-investment-sroi-tool.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCC), United States Government.
(2010). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2019). Environmental Protection Agency Waste
Reduction Model (WARM) version 15. https://www.epa.gov/warm/versions-waste-
reduction-model-warm#15.
30
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Appendix A
Appendix A
Low -Diversion Scenario
Digester Costs
F—
U)
O
V
Z
O
F—
V
H
Z
O
V
LU
J
m
Q
m
O
w
a.
LL
O
Z
O
Z
a
O
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
O O O
o
Ln
m
l0 N Ol
O
Ol
01
�,
N
O
rn m rn
N m
-V} r-I -V}
M
w
N
m
cry
{h
ca
O
V)
ca
.a
ca
U
4-
0
0
Ln
r-I
O
coif
'—
O
m
V
x
m
Q
O
E
O
V
L
3
�
i
3
a
a,
m
o
m
o
�
.V
.V
w
.0 to
Q
W
Q
-W /i^� L
tko
H
z
a� t
cv
a
.-.
oc
,
.O
3
06
0
ONO
Mo
3 -0
3
O
_
N
._.
O
L
�
ti
O
or
N
V
—
�
O
V
�
co
O
L
�
.>
�
V
�
�
�
Q
O
J
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Appendix 6
Appendix B
Financial Proforma Breakeven Analysis
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
F)7z Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
Appendix B - Memo
Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2020
Project: CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study (HDR #10203725)
To: City of Iowa City (PM — Joseph Welter)
From: HDR (PM — Morgan Mays; Marcella Thompson; Serguei Kouznetsov; Jeremy Cook)
Subject: Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
Building on the Sustainable Return on Investment (SROI) and the Energy Return on Energy
Invested (EROEI) analysis performed by HDR, a high-level breakeven financial analysis was
performed for each of the options identified in the Final Feasibility Report. The financial analysis
examines the impact of cash flows to Iowa City (the City) to compare the revenues (inflows) and
costs (outflows). The purpose of the analysis was to identify the length of time for each
alternative to break-even. This memorandum outlines the cash flows evaluated, key
assumptions, and the results of the analysis.
Key Assumptions
The financial analysis examined revenue streams for the various alternatives. For the pipeline
injection alternatives, the revenue is derived from the Renewable Identification Number (RIN)
credits under the Renewable Fuel Standard Program. For the electricity generation alternatives,
the revenue is derived from electricity sales through an agreement with the utilities and
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). For natural gas replacement alternatives, revenue or rather
savings are derived from avoided natural gas purchases.
Revenue from electricity sales are assumed to be captured from both net metering and
negotiated buyback agreements with MidAmerican Energy Company and Eastern Iowa Light
and Power Cooperative.
MidAmerican Energy Company (which supplies the electricity to the Iowa City Landfill) allows for
net metering agreements for a facility nameplate generation capacity of up to 1 megawatt (MW).
Credits from net metering agreements are paid out at the average locational marginal price
(LIVIP) from the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) based on the generation
profile of the resource. For energy produced beyond a nameplate capacity of 1 MW, energy can
be sold to MidAmerican Energy at a negotiated buyback rate. The Eastern Iowa Light and
Power Cooperative allows for buyback agreements for facilities with a nameplate generation
capacity exceeding 20 kilowatts (kW). RECs are earned for each megawatt -hour (MWh) of
electricity generated. For the purposes of this analysis, an average LMP of 2.6¢' per kilowatt-
hour (kWh) was calculated based on the 2019 LMP prices for the Illinois hub and the 2019
1 Real time LMP prices gathered from Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)'s historical
LMPs for real-time markets from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
***********.misoenergy.org/markets-and-operations/real-time--market-data/market-reports/#nt=.
MISO historical load data was gathered from EnergyOnline from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019.
energyonIine.com/Data/GenericData. aspx?Data Id=17.
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
MISO load. This was assumed to be the price paid per kWh for MidAmerican Energy's net
metering agreements. It was also assumed that the negotiated buyback rate for electricity
generation in excess of 1 MW was equivalent to the average LMP price of 2.6¢ per kWh.
Eastern Iowa Light and Power Cooperative posts its avoided cost of generation during peak and
off-peak hours online from which a weighted average rate of 4.2¢ per kWh was calculated for
energy sales from the wastewater treatment plant.
Renewable energy credits were monetized at an average rate of $17 per MWh based on the
latest auction prices of $16.93 per MWh in and the approximate band of prices over the past
couple of years (see figure below). The analysis assumed that prices would remain at that price
for the full 30 years of the analysis.
Figure 1: Historical Auction Prices for Renewable Energy Credits2
Posted 1)ecember 4, 2020
Carbon Allowance Prices
16
Ls
1ff
0
U1
13
12 $1z. a�
S 12_10 512.21
11
10
B
9
A Current Auction Settlement Price Auction Reserve Price -Secondary- Market Price
N otes:
1. California and Qu6bec held their first joint auction in November 2014.
2, Current Auction Settlement Price is the rice at which current vintage allowances sold at auction_ CALIFORNIA
l} � SIR RESOURCES 9flARQ
3, Auction Reserve Price is th-e minimum price at which allowances can be sold at auction,
4. Secondary Market Prices are a c o m posite of commodity exchange futures contract prices for near month delivery and a survey of OTC brokered
transactions for California Carbon Allowances. Secondary market prices ar-e provided with permission ofA(gus Media Inc_
5, Secondary Mark -et Price data drawn o n December 4, 202-0,
As mentioned in the main report, the WWTP RNG produced will exceed the amount of natural
gas used at the plant. As such, the City would need to either: find a use for the excess RNG
produced, flare the excess gas, or the City would only condition the amount of biogas needed
2 California Air Resources Board. California and Quebec Carbon Allowance Prices, December 4, 2020.
********ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/carbonallowanceprices_O. pdf.
2
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
and the excess biogas would be flared. For this analysis, it was assumed that RNG production
would be capped at 62,848 standard cubic feet per day and valued at the delivered cost of
natural gas at the facility assumed to be $3.16 per MMBtu.
Results
High level results of the financial analysis are presented in the tables below. Projects were
assumed to be bonded at a 3% interest rate and the breakeven term represents the minimum
financing term that would be needed for the project to break even financially. Many alternatives
have a payback term that is longer than 30 years, making them infeasible without grant funding
support.
Table 1: Lifecycle Financial Breakeven Analysis Results, Millions of 2019$
Pipeline "W10TP
Alt. 1a
- ND
$35.92
$5.48
EW30.44
N/AW
InjectionAlt.
1a
- 1500 Div
$47.44
$7.35
-$40.10
N/A
Alt. 1a
- LD
$104.23
$23.09
-$81.14
N/A
Landfill
Alt. 1b
- ND
$75.47
$88.14
$12.67
17.9 years
Alt. 1b
- 1500 Div
$75.07
$87.37
$12.30
18.0 years
Alt. 1b
- LD
$72.42
$83.93
$11.52
18.2 years
Electricity WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
$35.04
$1.58
-$33.47
N/A
GenerationAlt.
2a
- 1500 Div
$45.91
$2.71
-$43.21
N/A
Alt. 2a
- LD
$101.24
$2.77
-$98.47
N/A
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
$46.50
$27.16
-$19.34
N/A
Alt. 2b
- 1500 Div
$46.18
$26.91
-$19.28
N/A
Alt. 2b
- LD
$44.55
$25.75
-$18.81
N/A
NaturalWWTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
$25.20
$1.09
-$24.11
N/A
Replacement
Alt. 3 -
1500 Div
$33.18
$0.93
-$32.25
N/A
Alt. 3 -
LD
$82.92
$0.15
-$82.77
N/A
Expanded Compost
Composting
Alt. 4
$15.69
$0.00
-$15.69
N/A
Table 2: Annual Financial Breakeven Analysis Results
WWTP Alt. 1a -
ND
$0.44
$1.35
'49 $0.27
M$1752
Alt. 1a -
1500 Div
$0.55
$1.82
$0.36
-$2.00
Alt. 1a -
LD
$2.11
$3.11
$1.14
-$4.08
Landfill Alt. 1b -
ND
$1.49
$2.29
$4.37
$0.58
Alt. 1b -
1500 Div
$1.48
$2.28
$4.33
$0.57
Alt. 1b -
LD
$1.43
$2.20
$4.16
$0.53
WWTP Alt. 2a -
ND
$0.69
$1.07
$0.08
-$1.68
3
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
Alt. 2a
- 1500 Div
$0.87
$1.43
$0.13
-$2.17
Alt. 2a
- LD
$2.55
$2.54
$0.14
$4.95
Landfill Alt. 2b
- ND
$1.05
$1.29
$1.35
-$0.99
Alt. 2b
- 1500 Div
$1.04
$1.04
$1.33
-$0.74
Alt. 2b
- LD
$1.00
$1.24
$1.28
-$0.96
WWTP Alt. 3 -
ND
$0.39
$0.87
$0.05
-$1.21
Alt. 3 -
1500 Div
$0.49
$1.16
$0.05
-$1.61
Alt. 3 -
LD
$2.03
$2.14
$0.01
-$4.16
Compost AIt.4
$0.29
$0.50
$0.00
-$0.79
Given that many of the alternatives do not generate enough financial benefits to break even in a
reasonable time frame, the HDR team considered whether grant funding support could make
the project feasible. The table below presents the minimum amount of grant funding required for
each project to break even within specific time frames. Since grant funding is used to support
up -front project capital costs, amounts above the initial capital costs are highlighted in red as not
feasible. Amounts in green are feasible with the specified amount of grant funding.
Table 3: Grant Funding Support Necessary for Projects to Break Even
Pipeline WWTP
Alt. 1a
- ND
$8.60
N/A
$30.44
InjectionAlt.
1a
- 1500 Div
$10.80
N/A JJW
$40.10
Alt. 1a
- LD
$41.40
N/A
$81.14
4 Landfill
Alt. lb
- ND
$29.20
17.9 years
$0
Alt. 1b
- 1500 Div
$29.00
18.0 years
$0
Alt. lb
- LD
$28.00
18.2 years
$0
Electricity WWTP
Alt. 2a
- ND
$13.50
N/A
$33.47
Generation
Alt. 2a
- 1500 Div
$17.00
N/A
$43.21
Alt. 2a
- LD
$50.00
N/A
$98.47
Landfill
Alt. 2b
- ND
$20.50
N/A
$19.34
Alt. 2b
- 1500 Div
$20.30
N/A
$19.28
Alt. 2b
- LD
$19.60
N/A
$18.81
NaturalTP
Alt. 3 -
ND
$7.70
N/A
$24.11
Replacement
Alt. 3 -
1500 Div
$9.70
N/A
$32.25
Alt. 3 -
LD
$39.80
N/A
$82.77
Expanded Compost
Compo•
Alt. 4
$5.70
N/A
$15.69
4
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
In general, pipeline injection and electricity generation at the landfill are the only options that
generate enough revenues to pay for the operating costs on an ongoing basis. Pipeline injection
is feasible with bonding terms of about 18 years, while electricity generation would require
around $19 million in grant funding support to be financially viable within 30 years. That said,
the electricity generation revenues are currently limited by the net metering and buyback
agreements in place. This analysis has assumed that MidAmerican Energy Company (which
provides electricity to the Iowa City Landfill) will negotiate a buyback agreement similar to the
LMP-based rates they offer under their net metering agreement. However, if the City were able
to negotiate a higher rate, it could make the alternatives financially viable. Specifically, an
electricity sales rate of 5.70 per kWh would make all three of the alternatives financially viable
within the 30-year time frame.
Grant Funding
A few federal and state grant programs could potentially be leveraged to reduce the City's
financial contribution and make the alternatives financially viable. The table below summarizes a
few options based on literature review of the biggest programs which have had funding cycles
within the past year.
Table 4: Grant Funding Opportunities
P70 9 ra rndingmi7igible Eligibility --. uirementim Funding
Adminil7stratojr ogram ApplicantMNL__� AIIM
Federal Programs
Varies based on year. FY2020
included area of Waste to Energy
Varies based on
Strategies for the Bioeconomy,
topic. Based on the
US Department
Individuals,
focusing on projects addressing
FY20 grant
of Energy
Bioenergy
entities, state
topics such as advanced
application
Office of Energy
Technologies
or local
preprocessing of feedstocks,
documentation,
Efficiency and
Multi -Topic
governments,
conversion of wet wastes to energy
minimum award was
Renewable
FOA
corporations,
and products, and synergistic
$1,000,000 and
Energy
etc.
integration of algal biomass
maximum award for
technologies with municipal
most topics was
wastewater treatment for greater
between $2,000,000
energy efficiencies and lower costs.
and $4,000,000.
20% cost share required.
Biorefinery,
Renewable
Individuals,
entities, state
Must be for development and
Maximum loan
Chemical,
or local
construction or retrofitting of a
guarantee of 80% of
US Department
and Biobased
governments,
commercial scale biorefinery using an
project costs or $250
of Agriculture
Product
corporations,
eligible technology for the production
million. Term length
Manufacturing
institutions,
of advanced biofuels and biobased
of the lesser of 20
Assistance
public power
products. Majority of production must
years or the useful life
Program
entities, etc.
be an advanced biofuel.
of the project.
State Programs
Iowa
Projects must provide benefit to Iowa
businesses,
ratepayers and aid in one of the key
colleges and
focus areas of the Iowa Energy Plan:
Iowa Energy
Iowa Energy
universities,
1) technology -based research and
Minimum award of
Center
Center Grant
and private
development, 2) energy workforce
$10,000, maximum
nonprofit
development, 3) support for rural and
award of $1,000,000.
agencies and
underserved areas, 4) biomass
foundations
conversion, 5) natural gas expansion
in underserved areas, 6) electric grid
5
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Appendix B - Memo I Financial Proforma - Breakeven Analysis
Program
Administrator
Funding
••
Eligible
Applicants
• • Requirement
sAEF
modernization, 7) alternative fuel
vehicles.
Funding
Eligible technologies and resources
Businesses,
include solar, wind, waste
Minimum loan of
individuals,
management, resource recovery,
$25,000, up to 50%
Alternate
water and
refuse -derived fuel, agricultural crops
of eligible project
Iowa Energy
Energy
wastewater
and residue, and wood burning,
costs. Maximum loan
Center
Revolving
utilities, rural
hydroelectric facility at a dam, energy
of $1,000,000 per
Loan Program
water districts
storage, anerobic digestion, biogas,
project. Loans offered
and sanitary
combined heat and power, wind
o
at 0 /o interest.
districts
repower. Facility must be in Iowa and
be wholly owned by the borrower.
Projects to reduce the amount of solid
First 0 is
Any unit of
waste generated and landfilled in
eligibllee aas a
s a
Iowa
Solid Waste
local
Iowa. Funds can be used for waste
forgivable loan, next
Department of
Alternatives
government,
reduction equipment and installation,
$50,000 is eligible as
Natural
Program
public or
recycling, collection, processing or
azero-interest loan,
Resources
private group,
hauling equipment, purchase and
and 3 /o loan on the
or individual
installation of recycled content
remainder.
products. 25% cash match required.
F)
Existing Facility
Evaluation TM
CARP —Methane Recovery Feasibility Study
Completed by HDR Engineering, Inc. on behalf
of the City of Iowa City, to support the Climate
Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the
associated Action Items 3.7 and 3.8.
Iowa City, Iowa
March 20, 2020
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Table of Contents
Facility Evaluation - Wastewater Treatment Plant........................................................................3
Existing or Baseline Facility Conditions.....................................................................................3
Flowsand Loads....................................................................................................................4
SolidsProduction Rates........................................................................................................7
Digestion Process Configuration and Design......................................................................10
Digestion Process Loading Rates........................................................................................12
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Chemical Usage......................................................................16
Future WWTP - Facility Conditions......................................................................................17
Facility Evaluation — Iowa City Landfill........................................................................................21
Existing Landfill Overview.......................................................................................................21
CompostingOverview.............................................................................................................21
Landfill Gas Collection and Control System............................................................................22
Landfill Gas System Operations and Maintenance..............................................................23
Existing Landfill Gas System Deficiencies...........................................................................23
Historical Landfill Gas System Recovery................................................................................24
Landfill Gas System Expansion Planning............................................................................24
Conclusion...........................................................................................................................25
Table of Figures
Figure1. Influent Flow Rate..........................................................................................................5
Figure 2. Influent cBODS and TSS Loads.....................................................................................5
Figure 3. Influent TKN and TP Loads...........................................................................................6
Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates...........................................................................................7
Figure 5. Secondary Solids (WAS and TWAS) Flow Rates..........................................................8
Figure 6. Combined Solids (Primary and Secondary -Raw solids) Flow to Digesters .................9
Figure 7. Solids Loads —Primary Solids, Secondary Solids, and Digester Feed..........................9
Figure 8. Digestion Process Flow Scheme —Spring 2020 Operation.........................................10
Figure 9. Digestion Process Flow Scheme —Normal Operation.................................................10
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Digesters Required per Sludge Flow (peak 15-day rolling
average) —from Iowa City WWTP O&M Manual........................................................................11
Figure 11. Digestion Process Hydraulic Retention Times (HRTs) .............................................. 12
Figure 12. Digestion Process Volatile Solids (VS) Loading Rates..............................................13
Figure 13. BioWinT"" Iowa City Anaerobic Digestion —Process Flow Scheme ...........................14
Figure 14. Digester Loading Rates (HRT and VSR)...................................................................15
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Figure 15. Volatile Suspended Solids Reduction Efficiencies (Red is VSR in individual tanks,
darkred is overall VSR)..............................................................................................................15
Figure 16. Iowa City WWTP —Electrical Power Usage (Total and Aeration)..............................16
Figure 17. Iowa City WWTP —Natural Gas Usage (Total and Boiler).........................................17
Table of Tables
Table 1. Iowa City NPDES Permit................................................................................................4
Table 2. Influent Flows and Loads................................................................................................6
Table 3. Influent Pollutant Concentrations....................................................................................7
Table 4. Digester Tank Sizes (Capacities)..................................................................................12
Table 5. Digestion Process Capacity Assessment.....................................................................13
Table 6. Design Flows compared to 2017-2019 Flows (Table reproduced from O&M Manual). 17
Table 7. Design Maximum Month Loads compared to 2017-2019 Loading...............................18
Table 8. Digester Design Solids Feed Flow Rates.....................................................................18
Table 9. Model Anaerobic Digestion Scenarios with External Organics (Hauled Waste) Additions
Attachments
Attachment A. Landfill Master Site Map
Report prepared by:
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Morgan Mays, PE
Project Manager
5815 Council St. NE, Suite B
Cedar Rapids, IA 52302
D 319.423.6318 M 319.400.2718
Morgan. Mays@hdrinc.com
hdrinc.com/follow-us
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Technical Memorandum
Date: Friday, March 20, 2020
Project: City of Iowa City — Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Methane Feasibility Study
To: Joe Welter, IA City; Tim Wilkey, IA City; Jennifer Jordan, IA City
From: Morgan Mays, HDR; Eric Evans, HDR; Eric Sonsthagen, HDR
Subject: Existing Facility Evaluation TM
This technical memorandum (TM) evaluates the existing facilities; specifically, the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) and landfill; as part of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CARP)
Methane Feasibility Study. The first part of the TM covers the assessment of the existing
WWTP, including evaluation of existing and future conditions at the facility. The second part of
this TM provides an evaluation of the existing and future conditions at the landfill facility.
Facility Evaluation - Wastewater Treatment Plant
Existing r Baseline Facility Conditions
The existing Iowa City WWTP treats wastewater to meet permitted discharge requirements
shown in Table 1. Treatment requires removal of five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5),
total suspended solids (TSS), ammonia and E. Coli. to low concentrations. In addition, the
WWTP removes nutrients; as measured by total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)
concentrations. Treatment processes at the WWTP include preliminary treatment (screening
and grit removal), primary treatment with sedimentation, secondary biological treatment using
an activated sludge based biological nutrient removal (BNR) process, and finally, anaerobic
digestion of solids residuals generated. Outputs from the WWTP include the treated effluent that
is discharged to the Ralston Creek -Iowa River, and Class A (digested) biosolids that are land
applied.
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Table 1. Iowa City NPDES Permit
�BOD5
TSS
Ammonia (Jan)
Ammonia (Feb)
Ammonia (Mar)
Ammonia (Apr)
mg/L
mg/L
mg-N/L
mg-N/L
mg-N/L
mg-N/L
25.0
40.0 Daily
45.0 Daily
41.2Daily
43.1 Daily
41.3 Daily
41.1 Daily
Technology Based Limit
Technology Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
30.0
12.8
15.1
8.3
5.2
Ammonia (May) mg-N/L
Ammonia (Jun) mg-N/L
[Ammonia (Jul) mg-N/L
Ammonia (Aug) mg-N/L
Ammonia (Sep) mg-N/L
Ammonia (Oct) � mg-N/L
Ammonia (Nov) 4_mg-N/L
Ammonia (Dec) mg-N/L
C E. Coli. _ #/100-mL
4.7
41.1 Daily
39.3 Daily
25.8 Daily
26.6 Daily
34.1 Daily
49.4Daily
42.9 Daily
44.6 Daily
11/3 Months
Water Quality Based Limit
,Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
'Water Quality Based Limit
,Water Quality Based Limit
Water Quality Based Limit
March -November
3.7
4.1
4.2
3.8
5.7
8.0
9.0
147
Flows and Loads
The current flows and loads are evaluated in this section based on flow data exported from
SCADA and routine monitoring data reported by the WWTP for BOD5, TSS, TN, TKN, and TP.
The monitored influent flow rate varies from about 1 million gallons per day (MGD) to nearly 40
MGD as shown in Figure 1 with higher seasonal flows in Spring and Summer. For the data
period from Jan. 1, 2017 through Dec. 31, 2019, the average flow rate is 8.9 MGD, the median
(501" percentile) flow rate is 8.0 MGD, the 91.7t" percentile (statistical maximum month) flow rate
is 11.9 MGD, and the 99.7t" percentile (statistical maximum day) flow rate is 27.3 MGD.
The cBOD5 and TSS loads on the WWTP are presented in Figure 2. These loads are about
20,000 Ib/d on average with a max day cBOD5 load of roughly 38,000 Ib/d and a max day TSS
load over 47,000 Ib/d. Figure 3 shows the TKN and TP loads, which average around 2,700 lb-
N/d and 400 lb-P/d, respectively.
4
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
45 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—L --------
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
35 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 j 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ♦ 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -----20
v 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 --- ---
5 1 1 1 1 1------1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1♦ 1 1 1 1♦ 1
1♦ 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 ♦ 1 1
10 '
r
1 1
5 ;---- --;--- ----;— -------T--------------r-----—r---------r-- ---
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
WWTP Influent - Flow, MGD 14 per. Mov. Avg. (WWTP Influent - Flow, MGD)
Figure 1. Influent Flow Rate
:1 111
1 111 ■
• 1 111 ■
■
■
• 1 111 ■ ■
• ■ ■
e =� ■ o o ■JW
1 111 'AT V
— t U
���__.-�ri !� ^' �- `-. ,�,�;�♦ ♦ - ♦y�l _ri i y I yr, ei,ol
. II
TP
1
Influent - cBOD5 Load (N/A), Ib/d
Influent - TSS Load (N/A), Ib/d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - cBOD5 Load (N/A), Ib/d) -14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TSS Load (N/A), Ib/d)
Figure 2. Influent cBOD5 and TSS Loads
61
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
61000
100
'
1)400
-------'
------'-------'-------'------'
-------'------'-------'
♦
1, 200
4 000
' -- ----' ,1
15000
35000
----
800
'
600
25000'
'
■6L
400
1 000
----�-
--------'
----
- ---
-- -
-- -----
200
0
0
Jan-15
Jul-15
Jan-16
Jul-16
Jan-17 Jul-17
Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19
Jul-19
Influent - TKN Load (N/A), lb-N/d Influent - TP Load (N/A), lb-P/d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TKN Load (N/A), lb-N/d) -14 per. Mov. Avg. (Influent - TP Load (N/A), lb-P/d)
Figure 3. Influent TKN and TP Loads
Overall influent flows and loads are summarized in Table 2 based on the statistical analysis of
the data. On a per capita basis, the average flow rate is about 105 gpd/capita and the average
cBOD5 load is 0.27 Ib/d/capita; a relatively typical per capita flow rate but a per capita cBOD5
load that is about 50% higher than typical. The peaking factors for flow based on the data are
about 1.5 for max month and 3.4 for max day conditions, and the peaking factors for cBOD5
based on the data are 1.3 for max month and 1.8 for max day conditions. The flows and loads
translate to concentrations as shown in Table 3, which further support a classification of
medium- to high -strength wastewater at the WWTP.
Table 2. Influent Flows and Loads
'Paramete'Mo P�
61&
Ave
Annual
M ax Max
Month Dalk—
Flow MGD
8.0
11.9 27.3
cBOD5 Ib/d
20,600
277300 38,000
TSS I b/d
20,200
307000 473300
_
TKN Ib-N/d
2730
3,290 4,180
Ammonia Ib-N/d
17500
11870 21270
_
TP Ib-P/d
394 1
510T 664
*Based on data from:
01 /01 /2017 - 12/31 /2019
6
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Table 3. Influent Pollutant Concentrations
Flow MGD
cBODs mg/L
TSS mg/L
TKN mg-N/L
Ammonia tmg-N/L
TP mg-P/L
8.0
11.91 27.3
309
274 167
302 208
33 18
303
41
22
19
10
5.9
5.1
2.9
Solids Production Rates
Solids are produced at the Iowa City WWTP by the primary sedimentation process and by the
second -stage BNR process. The solids are combined and treated in the anaerobic digestion
process.
PRIMARY SOLIDS
Primary solids are pumped to Sludge EQ Tank T8001 and measured through one of two flow
meters. Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates provides the raw output primary sludge flow rate
data for the last five years. For the data period from January 2017 through December 2019, the
average primary solids flow was 29,000 gpd with a median value of 28,800 gpd, a 91.7th
percentile value of 38,800 gpd and a 99.7t" percentile value of 64,200 gpd. This corresponds to
a primary solids load of about 12,000 Ib/d on average with a max day load near 33,000 Ib/d.
90 I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I 1
80 I I 1 I I I 1
----- I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1
I I I I I I I 1 i
70 I I I I I I I I 1
--------�--------;---------1--------- ;--------- ;-------- --------- ;--------- 1--------- ;---.
° °�a °� • •
'° ' °-------1 1• I I I 1
--------J---------J---- --- - L---------L--------J---------1---------1---------L- ----
60 I I - I 1 O 1 1 1 1
--�-- --- --��-- 50 --- , ---� ----; ------ ;--------- ;--------- ;--- a ---- I -- ----
CD
cD
r1 L
CD
AL A
---� -- ------ '� , ~ - -•t �''� ,_ �' .. � � � ram•
20 --- _
Pr1W
! -
10 wpm
-FFr � 1 1 1 _ �0 _ :��
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
<^,� PS to T8001 A - Flow [F7101 A], 1,000 GPD
❑ PS to T8001 A - Flow [F3001 A], 1,000 GPD
Primary Sludge - Total Flow, 1,000 GPD
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (Primary Sludge - Total Flow, 1,000 GPD)
Figure 4. Primary Sludge Flow Rates
7
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
SECONDARY SOLIDS
Secondary solids (Waste Activated Sludge [WAS]), produced by the BNR process, are first
pumped and thickened by rotary drum thickeners (RDTs) generating thickened WAS (TWAS).
Thickened secondary solids are combined with primary solids and secondary scum in the
sludge EQ tank T8001. Figure 5 presents the raw flow data from each process for the past five
years. Secondary solids flow to the RDTs varies from an average of 264,000 gpd (median of
2543000 gpd) to a 91.7t" percentile flow of 346,000 gpd. Thickened solids flow depends on
thickening efficiency but ranges from an average of 28,400 gpd to a 91.7th percentile of 43,300
gpd, and a 99.7th percentile of 69,900 gpd.
111
100 -
•11
•1
•
:11
:1
CD
CD
•
7001
■
o,..
P■.■
-1 TX-L --------
1
JL --- --- a ------
0 1
----L--- j ------
■ ■ - ■i600
10
ED
■ ■v -■
• ■IL
-
■�11
10
1
- ._,
-
1
• •
17 17
• •
• •
WAS Thickener - Flow, 1,000 GPD TWAS - Flow, 1,000 gpd
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (TWAS - Flow, 1,000 gpd)
Figure 5. Secondary Solids (WAS and TWAS) Flow Rates
TOTAL DIGESTER FEED SOLIDS
The total digester feed solids reflect the sum of primary and thickened secondary solids. This
total digester feed is transferred from the sludge EQ tank T8001 to the thermophilic digester
(T81 01, T8201, or T8101 and T8201). The total digester feed solids flow averages 57,300 gpd
with a 91.7th percentile flow of 70,800 gpd and a 99.7th percentile of 98,500 gpd. Figure 6 shows
the flow data from the last 5 years. A general decline from between 60,000 and 80,000 gpd to
between 40,000 and 60,000 gpd is evident on the graph.
Total solids loads are shown in Figure 7 including the primary solids and secondary solids to
Tank 8001 and the combined solids load from Tank 8001 to the digesters. Based on the data,
the average loads are about 12,000 Ib/d, 12,000 Ib/d, and 19,000 Ib/d for primary solids,
secondary solids, and digester feed, respectively. The max month loads are about 17,000 Ib/d,
177000 Ib/d, and 25,000 Ib/d for primary solids, secondary solids, and digester feed,
respectively. The data suggest that Tank 8001 provides some preliminary solids breakdown.
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
The key takeaway, however, is that the combined solids production results in an average solids
yield from wastewater treatment of about 0.9 lb-TSS/lb-cBOD5 treated, which is consistent with
high end yields in references (Tchobonagolous, Stensel, Tsuchihashi, & Burton, 2014).
Figure 6. Combined Solids (Primary and Secondary - Raw solids) Flow to Digesters
111
�1 111
111
■ ■ '
■■
��
■
■
M. ' ' -
-.
_qr ,
:I- �I •' _-
r
�7
_ - :-_ �.. -, - F.0
r { I
r
-ll. III _ t =. ■1�
i�gtELI
--�
I
fA
�l
1
IV
WAS - Load, Ib/d ❑ Raw Sludge - (Dig. Feed) Load (N/A), Ib/d
Primary Sludge - Load (N/A), Ib/d 114 per. Mov. Avg. (WAS - Load, Ib/d)
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (Raw Sludge - (Dig. Feed) Load (N/A), Ib/d) - 14 per. Mov. Avg. (Primary Sludge - Load (N/A), Ib/d)
Figure 7. Solids Loads — Primary Solids, Secondary Solids, and Digester Feed
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Digestion Process Configuration and Design
The digestion process at the WWTP is designed as atemperature-phased anaerobic digestion
(TPAD) process; with thermophilic followed by mesophilic treatment phases/stages. During the
study (Spring 2020), two digesters operate at thermophilic temperatures followed by mesophilic
digestion with the remaining digesters. Figure 8 provides a schematic overview of the process
flow scheme. The current operation uses two thermophilic digesters to support start-up of Tank
T8101.
Normal operation uses one thermophilic digester a shown in Figure 9 with T8101 acting as the
thermophilic digester phase, tanks T8201, T8301, and T8401 acting as the mesophilic
digesters, and tanks T8601 and T8701 acting as the second stage mesophilic digesters and
storage step.
PCL
Flare
SCE (2?C)
30iler (2X)
RDT (3x)
i
T8101 T8301 T8601
BFP (3X)
T8001 HX HX T8801
T8201 ^' T84D1 T8701
- Storage
.ram
Thermophilic 1 "1 Stage 2"d toe Disposal
Digestion �e �
Mesophilic Mesophilic
Digestion Digestion
Figure 8. Digestion Process Flow Scheme — Spring 2020 Operation
Flare
(2)
Boiler (2)
PCL BCL
i
.b*.... - -...�
RDT (3x) i T8241
i
i T8601
T8101 _ _ - -.- -.-., ; BFP (3)
T8001 Hx _,_ _..HNC T8301 i ' T88p1
J T8701
Storage
Thermophilic
Digestion T8401
21111 Stage Disposal
Mesophilic
111 stage Digestion
Mesophilic
Digestion
Figure 9. Digestion Process Flow Scheme — Normal Operation
10
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
The WWTP Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Manual identifies the required minimum
digester tanks online as presented in Figure 10. The system can operate with one or two
thermophilic digesters online and as many as four mesophilic digesters online. The six tanks
that make up the digestion system at the WWTP are identified in Table 4. The digestion process
is designed for a max month hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 20 days and an average annual
HRT of 15 days with one tank out of service (Themophilic HRT = 5 days, Mesophilic HRT = 10
days). The design volatile solids (VS) loading rate is between 350 and 450 lb-VS/(1,000 ft3•d) in
the thermophilic digester(s). This translates to a design average flow of 96,600 gpd and a
design max month flow of roughly 129,000 gpd.
i 4 -
L
TSZa1 not uried for
0 cries-ophilic op6ration
� I
z I
� I
.E 1
Example - 72,000 gpd sludge -
MoNtor 15-day rolling average sFudga 1 tfhermfl Rh; li r d ig-ester
f1Qw, U:�-_ max val ue from lay# 12 mon#fis I - Ni esop h iI is d iges tors
far minimum cligesrers r-Equi red I Option 1 - 2 with Ta2.01
-Option 2 - 3 without T8201
MEL-
20 40 60 8D 100 120 140
Sludge Flow (gpd x 1,000)
�Themopfiilic Digesters Wesop hilic Digesters (T8201 as McSQDh ilic) Mesophilic Digesters
Figure 10. Minimum Number of Digesters Required per Sludge Flow (peak 15-day rolling average) — from
Iowa City WWTP O&M Manual
11
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Table 4. Digester Tank Sizes (Capacities)
MMMM
T8101
Thermophil
T82O1
Thermophil
T83O1
Mesophilic
T84O1
Mesophilic
T86O1
Mesophilicp
T87O1
eso h i l i c
Diameter
is 55
ic/ Mesophilic 55
D-•
27
• •.
520,000
520,000
3403000
340, 000
340,000
340,000
27
45
27
27
45
45
27
45
27
Digestion Process Loading Rates
The data were used to evaluate baseline loading rates on the digestion process at the WWTP.
As shown in Figure 11, the Thermophilic HRT varied between 5 and 20 days (partly a function
of 1 versus 2 thermophilic digesters online) from January 2015 through December 2019. The
Mesophilic HRT varied from 10 to 40 days (also due to the number of digesters online) during
the same period. On average, the thermophilic HRT was between 8 and 10 days and the
mesophilic HRT was between 16 and 20 days. As shown in Figure 12, the volatile solids loading
rates average 230 and 50 for the thermophilic and mesophilic digesters, respectively.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
Thermophilic - HRT, d Mesophilic - HRT, d
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Thermophilic - HRT, d) -14 per. Mov. Avg. (Mesophilic - HRT, d)
Figure 11. Digestion Process Hydraulic Retention Times (HRTs)
12
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
11
' 1
.
11
♦'
♦ • . ,
•
11
.•-
50 wr �. r f �• l a � r o
O
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
a Thermophilic - VS Loading, Ib/(1,000 U d)
Mesophilic - VS Loading, Ib/(1,000 U d)
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (Thermophilic - VS Loading, Ib/(1,000 U d))
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (Mesophilic - VS Loading, Ib/(1,000 U d))
Figure 12. Digestion Process Volatile Solids (VS) Loading Rates
The basline digester process condition is compared to the design capacity in Table 5 showing
available capacity that may be available for use in elevating biogas generation Based on the
evaluation/comparison, the digesters operate below their design loading conditions. Available
capacity within the digestion process is estimated between 30-60% depending on the loading
condition and digester stage evaluated.
Table 5. Digestion Process Capacity Assessment
Digester ar- -
AMW Digester Condition* Design Capacity
Ave. Annual Thermophilic HRT 8.4 5
Ave. Annual Mesophilic HRT 16 10
Max. Month Thermophilic HRT 5-10 7.5
Max. Month Mesophilic HRT 10-30 12.5
Ave. Annual Thermophilic VS Load 230 350-450
Ave. Annual Mesophilic VS Load 52 100-120
Max. Month Thermophilic VS Load 300-500 350-450
Max. Month Mesophilic VS Load 50-100 100-120
*Note: Average Annual Condition Assumes one digester offline
13
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
In order to support an assessment of nutrients and sulfur loading effects on the digestion
process with outside organics (Future WWTP Section), the existing digestion process was also
setup and evaluated using the wastewater simulator — BioWinT"^ as shown in Figure 13. The
model validation is shown in this section to demonstrate alignment with the observed process.
First, the configuration is setup based on the preferred operating strategy for the digestion
process. Then, the model is setup to calculate the hydraulic retention time (HIRT) and volatile
suspended solids loading rate (VS Load) as shown in Figure 14. Finally, treatment performance
by the digesters is shown in Figure 15 with both individual and overall volatile suspended solids
removal rates' (VSRs).
Secondary Solids RDT Recycle
Primary Solids Tank 8001 AD-T8101 AD-T8201 AD-T8601 Tank 8801 BFP Recycle
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Hauled bastes AD-T8301
AD-T8701
L >— J I Biasalids
J
Hauled Waste Sulfur
AD-T8401
Figure 13. BioWinTM Iowa City Anaerobic Digestion — Process Flow Scheme
1 Note, data typically presents total volatile solids and total volatile solids removal efficiencies; whereas,
the model presents based on volatile suspended solids. This is typically a small difference in solids
treatment (digesters).
14
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
u
4
22
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ---------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------- -------
- -------- --------- ---------- --------- --------- ---------- --------
------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- --------- -------
40
0
00
180
160
r
10 W
CL
10
L0
100
r
80 CL
60
40
0
0
AD-T8101
AD-T8201 AD-T8301
AD-T8401
AD-T8601 AD-T8701
Eleme
❑ HRT, d -
Load, g1(L*d)
Load,1h1(1,000ft3*d)
Figure 14. Digester Loading Rates (HRT and VSR)
60
55
50
45
40
36
30
26
20
16
10
6
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.1 --
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
-- -----------------------------7.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
---------------------------------------------- 24.7 ------------ 24.6 ------------ 24.8 ------------------------------------------- ----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
-- 4 .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
----------------------------------------------------- 1 1�----------------- ----
dank 8041 AD-T8141 Ad-T8201 AD-T8301 AD-T8441 Tank 8801
VS5 destruction Overall VSR
Figure 15. Volatile Suspended Solids Reduction Efficiencies (Red is VSR in individual tanks, dark red is
overall VSR)
15
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Electrical, Natural Gas, and Chemical Usage
Electricity, natural gas (NG), and chemical usage at the WWTP are evaluated in this section
based on reported data from the last five years. Figure 16 shows total electricity usage at the
WWTP, as well as showing specific usage for the aeration basins (the largest electricity
consumer at the WWTP). On average, the WWTP uses 23,327 kWh per year (January 1, 2017
through December 31, 2019). Aeration demand reflects approximately 50% of the total
electricity usage and the digestion process utilizes about 12% of the total electricity usage.
� 111
�1 111
111
1 111
1 111'
' - r •'
;-
A nr w
-
-
Ii
111
I
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
o Plant - Total Elec. Power, kWh
114 per. Mov. Avg. (Plant - Total Elec. Power, kWh)
Aeration - Total Elec. Power, kWh
-14 per. Mov. Avg. (Aeration - Total Elec. Power, kWh)
Figure 16. Iowa City WWTP — Electrical Power Usage (Total and Aeration)
Figure 17 shows the NG usage at the WWTP including both the total plant NG usage and the
boiler NG usage. As is typical for the Midwest, NG usage reflects a seasonal pattern with winter
peak NG usage and summer low NG usage. The average NG usage from 2017 to 2019 was
99,140 cubic feet per day.
16
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
200,000
180,000
1601000
0 140' 000
U
1207000
co
1007000
z 80 000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Jan-15 Jul-15 Jan-16 Jul-16 Jan-17 Jul-17 Jan-18 Jul-18 Jan-19 Jul-19
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1
-----L------- L------- L
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
------- 1------- 1------- 1----J------- J-� -----1--------
1 I I I 1I
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
-------------------}-------*
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
------- 4------- 4-4------- 4-------�-------
----
-----r------- r----- r-------
-----7------- -- ------------------
-
1 1
1 O
-----r-----------T---
N 1 1 1 1 Q
_ 0
--$--T--------1--------I----r---
Plant NG - Flow, CFD Total Boiler - NG Usage, CFD
20,000
18,000
16,000
0
14,000 U_
12,000Cn
ca
10,000 ZD
C�
81000 z
L
N
6,000 -o
m
41000
2,000
E
14 per. Mov. Avg. (Plant NG - Flow, CFD) -14 per. Mov. Avg. (Total Boiler - NG Usage, CFD)
Figure 17. Iowa City WWTP — Natural Gas Usage (Total and Boiler)
Future WWTP - Facility Conditions
DESIGN FLOWS AND LOADS
The current WWTP liquid treatment processes are designed with capacity to support growth
through 2025 (Phase 1). The design flows and loads are compared to the 2017-2019 flows and
loads in Table 6 and Table 7. Table 6 shows that flow rates (average, maximum, and peak) are
significantly below design capacities. Design loads are compared to observed statistical
maximum month loads, which also shows additional cBOD5 capacity (10-20%), TSS capacity
(10-20%), and TKN capacity (50%) remains within the WWTP. A Phase II expansion is reflected
in planning documents and provides capacity through 2040.
Table 6. Design Flows compared to 2017-2019 Flows (Table reproduced from O&M Manual)
Ave Annual --- 8.0
AVW1/ 24.20 11.9
Max Month)
M1NW 43.30 27.3
Max Dam
Note:'EQ flow is 30 MGD, Hourly flow data not evaluated
17
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Table 7. Design Maximum Month Loads compared to 2017-2019 Loading
BOD5
TSS
TKN-N
325658
27, 300
345386
301000
6, 311
3, 290
DESIGN SOLIDS PRODUCTION RATES
The anaerobic digestion system was originally designed for the projected solids values (through
2040) for average annual and maximum month conditions shown in Table 8. The average
annual capacity of nearly 97,000 gpd is approximately 40% higher than the current average
feed flow, and the maximum month capacity of almost 129,000 gpd is roughly 80% higher than
the current 91.7t" percentile (statistical maximum month) flow. Additionally, the current solids
mass fed to the digester (19,000-253000 Ib/d) is below the design capacity for the digestion
process. Based on the current solids load and the recent growth trend, the 2040 projected solids
production rate will average 23,000 Ib/d with a maximum month mass of 28,000 Ib/d indicating
that residual capacity may be available for the entire design period.
The comparison between digester feed flows and digestion capacity shows available capacity
for hauled wastes can be used to increase biogas production potential. Overall, the available
capacity varies from between 40 to 50% currently to 30 to 40% in the future. Typically, municipal
digesters fed with outside wastes limit the external carbon feed to between 25% and 50% of the
total feed. The available capacity is consistent with these operational goals. Therefore, the
available capacity2 for outside wastes is between 4,000 (minimum) and 12,000 (peak) lb-
solids/d currently (2020) and between 6,000 (minimum) and 14,000 (peak) lb-solids/d in 2040.
This equates to a potential average external carbon feed of roughly 7,000-8,000 lb-solids/d in
2020 and 8,000-9,000 lb-solids/d in 2040.
Table 8. Digester Design Solids Feed Flow Rates
rpowDesign Capacity1 1 • Condition
Ave Annual Flow, gpd 961577 571300
Ave Annual Mass, Ib/d 321218 191000
Max Month Flow, gpd 1291148 705800
Max Month Mass, Ib/d 431084 251000 1
*Mass loadings assume 4% total solids content of digester feed.
2 In order to realize estimated capacities, operation of the digesters may require a shift to two thermophilic
digesters, or feed of outside wastes directly to mesophilic digesters with lower loading rates.
18
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
ANAEROBIC DIGPSTER — MODEL HAULED WASTE IMPACTS
The anaerobic digestion model of the existing process, developed during this evaluation of
existing conditions, can be used to test the impacts of hauled waste on the treatment process.
This analysis is used to evaluate the increased biogas potential, changes to volatile solids
reduction efficiency, impacts on biogas hydrogen sulfide (1-12S) content, and the potential
struvite generation due to the addition of external organics.
The focus of the preliminary modeling exercise is evaluating general relationships and/or trends
using the average annual operating condition. A base solids flow of roughly 61,000 gpd and a
base TSS load of about 22,000 Ib/d (corresponding to 25,000 Ib/d COD load) is applied
conservatively. This allows for a hauled waste addition between 0 and 10,000 Ib/d of TSS
corresponding to about 17,000 Ib/d COD in about 20,000 gpd of feed flow (three to five hauled
waste tanker trucks). The results of all the model scenarios tested (Base and hauled waste
[HW] scenarios 1 through 10) are shown in Table 9.
The goal of adding external organics or hauled waste is to increase the biogas production
potential from the digesters. The baseline model shows a biogas production rate between 80
and 100 scfm. With the addition of hauled wastes, the biogas production rate increases to
between 100 and 150 scfm. The biogas increase corresponds to a biogas yield between 8 and
15 ft3 per pound TSS added. In general, higher sulfur and phosphate content of the waste
reduced the biogas yield due to competition for organics and reaction volume.
The sulfur load for the model conditions varied from 0 to 134 lb-S/d compared to the base sulfur
load of 2 lb-S/d (base sulfur load derived from current 1-12S concentration near 100 ppmv in
digester). A high TSS to sulfur ratio in the hauled waste can dilute the hydrogen sulfide content
of the biogas from the baseline of about 100 ppmv to 26 ppmv. A lower ratio between TSS and
sulfur increased the sulfur concentration to 316 ppmv for the conditions modeled, but
experience at other facilities shows higher ratios can result in over 2,000 ppmv of hydrogen
sulfide in the biogas.
Impacts to struvite generation on digestion are also tested. Hauled wastes can contain both
phosphorus and magnesium, both of which are key to struvite formation in the digesters. When
testing a range of phosphorus load increases to the digester from 0 to 667 lb-P/d, the struvite
generation potential increased by less than 5%. However, when magnesium loading increased,
which is generally the limiting factor, the struvite production can increase over 100%. A
significant magnesium content would be required, however, to create the strong impact to
struvite production.
19
U)
(a
LL
to
c
tl O
Q Co
U
>%LU
oLL
4- 0)
o�
.U)
C� W
I`
00
�
M�
N
M
Cfl
M
1`
M
N
N
M
C9
00
m
O
N
M
•
•
N
M
O
O
O
LO
0
0
M
C4
O
' • O
N
qq
f`
00
00
N
Ln
ti
CD
-
CM
A
N
Cfl
M
M
M
�
N
00
M
O�
U Cfl
• 00
O
O
O
(D
M
L')
CO
O)
O)
O)
O)
G)
I`
O)
O)
O)
.'
Ln
LO
Lid
L)
Ln
L)
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
Cfl
O
I`
LO
I`
1`
1`
qql-
O
I`
I`
I`
,T-
Ce)
Cfl
Cfl
CO
M
O
Cfl
CD
Cfl
• •
•
•
•
00
M
LO
Cfl
CD
Cfl
O
O
O
O
I�
M
I�
C0
O't
00
0
0
0
0
M
Cfl
O
M
6
M
LO
O
•
•
N
•
U �
A
0
1`
00
00
Cfl
3
00
C�
Cfl
C�
M
66
6
M
U
r
M
LO
Cfl
CD
M
3
O
00
00
00
00
00
Cfl
M
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
�
N
M
M
M
co
CO
CO
O
Cfl
N
00
T
't
Iq
•
N
N
N
N
N
Ln
t-
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
N
N
Ln
Cfl
O
O
O
� •
I`
f`
f`
I`
I`
�
�
O�
O�
O
•
M
LO
Cfl
(D
CO
.4
'Zi
4
c:i
00
N
�
(6
�
C6
�
CO
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
••
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
O
Ln
O
O
O
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
• LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
0 O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
- LO
LO
Lid
LO
LO
LO
m
LO
LO
LO
LO
a • ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
= o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(C)
(D
Cfl
c4
c4
c0
(D
(C)
(D
cD
Cfl
L
O_
.L
r
N
M
le
0
W
1%-
00 cp
O
r
OM
m
m
2
m
2
m
2
m
m m
m
0
N
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Facility Evaluation — Iowa City Landfill
The following sections provide a brief summary of the Iowa City Landfill facility and provides an
overview of the existing landfill, an overview of the composting operations that take place on -
site, a description of the landfill gas (LFG) collection and control system, known deficiencies of
the existing LFG system, historical landfill gas recovery, and expansion and operational
considerations.
=xisting Landfill Overview
The Iowa City Landfill and Recycling Center is located at 3900 Hebl Ave. SW in Johnson
County, Iowa. The landfill is owned and operated by the City of Iowa City, and began receiving
waste in 1971. The facility serves Johnson County, Kalona and Riverside and accepts both
residential and commercial waste haulers. In total, the landfill is approximately 400 acres in size
and about half of the total footprint contains buried waste. The remaining land is primarily used
for wetlands and as a buffer for surrounding properties. The facility is considered an
Environmental Management System by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
offers community composting and educational opportunities.
The current total permitted waste disposal capacity is approximately 7.71 million tons of
municipal solid waste (MSW) for all cells. Based on historical waste disposal quantities, it is
estimated that approximately 4.46 million tons of MSW are currently disposed of within the
landfill as of June 30, 2019. Recent records show that approximately 135,000 tons of waste
is disposed of annually.
The waste cell layout and other features of the landfill can be found in Attachment A, which was
provided by the City. The overall development of the landfill has been constructed in phases
that have generally progressed in a clockwise direction, with the first cell (FY72) being
constructed in the northern portion of the site in 1971 and the FY06 cell constructed south of the
FY74 cell. Cells FY09 and FY18 have deviated from the clockwise orientation and were
constructed west of the FY95 through FY02 cells. Cells FY72 through FY91 were constructed
prior to promulgation of Subtitle D and are currently closed while cells FY95 through FY18 were
constructed after issuance of Subtitle D and are currently open for future waste disposal.
Currently waste filling operations are in Cells FY09 and FY18, with construction of future North
Cells, the first of which is scheduled for development within the next seven (7) years. Future
expansion into the areas denoted "Future North" and "Future Northwest" in Appendix A, will be
comprised of approximately 16 to 17 years of site life that should achieve the full 7.71 million ton
capacity of the site. Current life of site estimates show the landfill continuing to accept
waste through approximately January 2043.
Composting Overview
The City owns and operates a wind -row type composting operation at the landfill where yard
waste and food waste are composted into a soil amendment. The composting operation
manages approximately 9,000 tons of incoming waste material annually. The incoming
material is composted at the landfill within an approximate 4-acre area located on the north side
of the landfill on top of the FY73 and FY74 cells, with a portion of the operations located just
west of these cells. The site produces approximately 1,900 tons of compost product and
21
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
2,200 tons of wood chips on an annual basis. The compost and wood chips are available at
the landfill to businesses and the general public. There is a minimal cost for the compost and
the wood chips are made available at no cost.
Discussions with the City indicates that the composting operation is operating at capacity based
on the current available footprint area designated for composting at the landfill. If additional
organic material was either collected or diverted from the landfill towards composting, a new
larger area for composting would need to be identified. Ideally, the composting operation would
stay at the landfill to maintain synergies with staffing, equipment operations, and material drop-
off. These planning considerations serve to limit the design composting capacity into the
future to the currently through -put rate of approximately 9,000 tons of incoming waste
material annually.
Landfill Gas Collection and Control System
The City utilizes an active LFG collection and control system at the landfill, which consists of a
series of vertical gas extraction wells and horizontal collectors installed within the landfill
footprint. Once LFG is collected within the extraction points, it is conveyed to a blower/flare
station by a network of lateral and header pipes.
The initial LFG collection system components were installed in 2000, and went online the
following year. Components of the initial LFG collection system installation consisted of 37 gas
extraction points (vertical wells and horizontal collectors) which were installed primarily within
the pre -Subtitle D area of the site. In 2009, the system was expanded, with 9 horizontal trench
collectors installed and connected to the LFG system. LFG connections to the leachate system
risers were also constructed at this time. The LFG is routed to the blower/flare station located on
the north side of the landfill on top of the FY73 cell (see Appendix A). The original LFG flare
and blowers were replaced in 2016 and the existing system consists of a 46.5 million British
Thermal Units per hour (MMBTU/h) enclosed ground flare manufactured by Perennial Energy,
LLC. (PEI). The new blowers are rated for 85 inches of water column pressure differential and
total flow rates between 155 and 1,550 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and are
manufactured by National Turbine. Components of the LFG system are also presented in
Appendix A.
Although not shown in the Appendix A, there are several operations layer horizontal collectors
that were installed at the bottom of the FY09 cell that extend west to east across the cell. The
wells are connected to the LFG system near wells GW-09G and GW-09F on the west perimeter
of cell FY09.
The landfill is currently subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated
under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60, Subpart XXX as it has commenced
construction, reconstruction, or modification after July 17, 2014. It is also subject to the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart AAAA, promulgated under
40 CFR 63. The landfill gas system has been installed to comply with the 40 CFR Part 60,
Subpart XXX requirements. The facility is also subject to the Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR)
for greenhouse gases (GHG) promulgated under 40 CFR 98.
22
City of Iowa City I CARP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Landfill Gas System Operations and Maintenance
The existing LFG system at the landfill is operated and maintained by City personnel. Monitoring
of the LFG system wells and piping is necessary to collect operational data and is typically
performed on a monthly basis to tune the wellfield and maintain compliance with regulatory
requirements. Maintenance is performed on an as -needed basis to correct deficiencies within
the LFG system and supporting infrastructure. Typical operation and maintenance activities
include the following:
• Monthly monitoring and tuning of each LFG wellhead for temperature, pressure and gas
concentrations.
• Re -checking LFG wellheads that have exhibited regulatory exceedances.
• Inspection and routine repair of wellheads, flexible hosing, and exposed piping.
• Inspection and routine repair of condensate management infrastructure such as sumps
and pumps.
• Monitoring of flow rates and LFG concentrations at the blower flare station.
• Inspection and routine repair of leachate extraction and pumping equipment installed
within LFG wells.
Non -routine actions may include replacing or raising wellheads, troubleshooting of pipe blockages,
excavation and replacement of piping sections, repair of sumps or pumps, and other minor
construction related items.
Existing Landfill Gas System Deficiencies
From discussion with City staff there are a number of known deficiencies within the existing LFG
collection and control system. A summary of these reported deficiencies are described in detail
below:
• There is a remote sump located near the intersection of the FY83 and FY98 cells near
the eastern central portion of the landfill that connects to the north/south traversing
center main header. This sump has historically had issues with drainage that has
impacted flow to several LFG extraction wells in the area. Although this problem is
located near the middle of the center main header, it has not caused significant blockage
issues for the LFG system.
• Just south of the remote sump near the overlapping area of FY86 and FY98 cells is an
area that has historically experienced elevated concentrations of fugitive emissions
during routine surface emission monitoring scans. This area is located between wells
GW-126, GW-131, GW-315, GW-316, and GW-318. This area is approximately 0.75
acres in size.
• Based on historical readings, there is limited vacuum available at the southern end of the
east main header within the FY91 cell. This has inhibited gas recovery in the FY91 cell
but is expected to be addressed in the near future.
• Existing gas wells GW-209 through GW-216 are off-line and not actively collecting LFG.
These wells are located on the southwestern portion of the landfill within the FY95,
FY96, and FY98 cells. These 8 wells were required to be abandoned as waste filling
operations in the area progressed above the well heights such that they could not be
23
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
extended and utilized in the future. It is anticipated that new wells within this area would
need to be installed in the future after waste filling has moved from the area.
Existing gas wells GW-201 through GW-208 are currently actively collecting LFG.
However, these wells will need to be abandoned in the future similar to wells GW-209
through GW-216 as filling progresses northward from FY09 to FY18 and into the future
north cells that have not yet been constructed. Similarly, it is anticipated that new wells
within this area would need to be installed in the future after waste filling has moved from
the area.
Historical Landfill Gas System Recovery
Historical LFG recovery from initial system operation in 2001 through 2014 not provided for this
evaluation and were estimated based on an assumed LFG recovery efficiency of 60 percent
based on the approximate coverage area of the gas system. The average LFG recovery flow
rate during 2001 through 2014 was estimated to be approximately 480 scfm.
Actual LFG recovery flow data was provided by the City from December 2015 through
December 2019. During 2015 and 2016 the system was operating at an average of
approximately 630 scfm. From 2017 to 2019, the average flow rate increased to approximately
850 scfm during the past three years. The 2017 through 2019 enhanced gas recovered rates
are believed to be attributed to the new flare and blowers that were installed in 2016.
Additional information regarding historical and future LFG system recovery data will be
presented in the forthcoming LFG Recovery Technical Memorandum.
Landfill Gas System Expansion Planning
The following section provides a brief description of known LFG system expansion based on
discussion with City staff and future planned activities. Each of the planned activities as
described by the City are provided in detail below:
In an attempt to address low vacuum being observed in the header line adjacent to well
GW-136 at the southern end of the landfill in cell FY91, a new header line is planned for
installation to connect the center main header and the east main header lines near GW-
135 to the west header line near GW-09B. Installation of this piping will create a looped
header system that will allow more routes for the LFG collected on the southern end of
the landfill to reach the blower/flare station and should increase the available vacuum to
wells in the area, thereby increasing the LFG recovery from this area.
After construction of the future north cell(s), a new west header line will be installed from
the blower/flare station to the west around the future north cell(s) and traverse the
perimeter of the FY18, and FY09 cells. The west header line will connect to the existing
gas infrastructure in place at the FY09 cell and promote gas capture in the FY18 and
future north cell(s). Although this expansion is not anticipated for some time, it will
continue to enhance gas recovery at that time and into the future.
New vertical LFG wells are typically installed periodically as cell expansion and waste
filling progresses across the landfill. In general, LFG wells are installed approximately
every 5 years to maintain adequate system coverage and regulatory compliance.
24
City of Iowa City I CAAP Methane Feasibility Study
Existing Facility Evaluation TM
Conclusion
Based on the planning efforts outlined above the collection efficiency of the existing and future
LFG collection system should generally improve and that future landfill expansions will
incorporate LFG collection efforts in a timely manner and in accordance with regulatory
requirements. The existing LFG system has capacity to collect more LFG as the landfill grows
and additional waste is disposed of. The existing capacity of the blower and flare is anticipated
to be sufficient for the fully permitted future buildout of the landfill, but this will be fully evaluated
in the forthcoming LFG Recovery Technical Memorandum. Additional details regarding the LFG
generation and recovery estimate will be included in the upcoming memorandum, which will
provide quantitative values for determining the feasibility and evaluation of beneficial use
projects.
Conclusion paragraph here — can you take the above planning and make the case that
collection efficiency will generally improve and that future landfill expansions will be installed
with LFG collection in a timely manner? And will they still generally be within the capacity of the
existing blower/flare? You may need to stop short of saying these things, but need to end
similar to the WWTP section, with a statement that there is room to collect more LFG
commensurate with the growth of the landfill, and that details of generation/collection will be
provided and estimated into the future in the following TM to provide quantitative values for
fueling a beneficial use project.
25
Outreach Working Group, Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2020, noon — 1 p.m.
Zoom Meeting Link:
https://zoom.us/i/97398387268?pwd=Mmo2alAOT1 E2MytgUOZia2Uxa3FHZz09
Members:
Sarah Gardner, Matt Krieger, John Fraser, Marcia Bollinger, Cheryl Miller (JCED)
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Updates
• Ambassador program: The final training session for the first cohort will take place
this week. Plans are being made to host virtual Ambassador meetups one
evening a month to help keep them engaged with the program until regular
volunteer opportunities are available again. Plans are underway to begin second
cohort training in January.
• Marketing RFP: Interviews were conducted with the two top -scoring firms and a
preferred firm was selected. The next step is to begin negotiated a reduced
scope of services to fit their proposal to the budget allotted for this program. If
unable to come to an agreement, the next step would be to go to the second firm
and negotiate a revised proposal to better fit the City's objectives.
• Climate Action webpage: The Climate Action and Outreach Division is beginning
work to revise the existing Climate Action and Sustainability Services webpages
to better reflect the focus of the division and to create a more user-friendly
experience for those visiting the webpages in search of information. The Climate
Action page will become the main page, with subpages dedicated to each of the
five sections of the plan. Information from the Sustainability Services page will be
slotted into the sustainable lifestyle subpage. Each subpage will have sections
for residents and businesses. The plan is to start building the buildings/energy
subpage in January. Matt requested a webpage tree showing the subpages and
proposed conten0inks to be shared with the committee and Climate Action
Commission.
3. Review outreach items from Accelerated Actions list pertaining to the Ambassador
Program
• Promote energy efficiency and performance tips to the public (phase 1)
• Significant transportation education and outreach campaigns (phase 1)
• Engage the public to compost waste (phase 1)
• Education campaigns for neighborhoods to reduce waste/consumption at the
source (phase 2)
• Concentrated education campaign for private properties about native plantings,
permeable pavement, rain gardens, soil health, rain barrels, and cisterns (phase
3)
• Host sustainability forum and events (phase 1)
• Local procurement campaign —buy-in from local commercial groups (phase 2)
• Develop a climate action strategic communications plan (includes utilization of
ambassadors as part that that plan) (phase 1)
Sarah requested that outreach working group members brainstorm example projects for
these items that Climate Ambassadors and Climate Leaders could work on in the future,
such as developing an EV component for local drivers education courses (related to the
second bullet). The group discussed plans underway for adoor-to-door campaign for
neighborhood energy blitzes as a potential first volunteer activity for the Ambassadors to
participate in, along with high school environmental clubs and the Green Iowa
AmeriCorps team. Kits containing LED light bulbs, furnace whistles, and sand timers for
showers, as well as energy efficiency information were discussed. The blitz teams would
also collect old light bulbs and batteries for proper disposal. Matt suggested included an
e-waste collection box in the kit. Marcia emphasized the importance of outreach in
advance of the event to increase the number of people answering their doors and
offered to help make connections with the neighborhood group.
4. Discuss future meeting times: The January meeting was moved to 1127 to accommodate
scheduling conflicts. Sarah will send out a calendar reminder.
5. Other Items: Happy holidays!
Next Meeting Wed, 1/27