HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-2021 Climate Action CommissionIowa City Climate Action Commission Agenda
Monday, March 1, 2021, 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
/tJctdumvrDOsEtFYkP5tonUrC2-Rl4oEEvYD. 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: 930 1072 66850
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 Feb. 1, 2021 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. Continued discussion of the Methane Feasibility Study
7. New Business:
a. Request for two commissioners to participate in Climate Action Grant review
b. Updates on working groups (see reports in agenda packet)
i. Buildings (Krieger, Karr, Soglin, Grimm)
ii. Outreach (Krieger, Fraser, Holbrook, Bradley)
iii. Equity/Adaptation (Tate, Hutchinson)
iv. Adaptation (Bradley, Leckband, 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-pardner@iowa-
cityorq. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
IOWA CITY CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION
F E B RUARY 1, 2021 — 3:30 PM —FORMAL MEETING
El octroni c M ooti ng
(Pu rsu a n t to to wo Co de se ctio n 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 C0 1 D-19.
ELECTRONIC MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madeleine Bradley, Ben Grimm, Megan Hill, Kasey Hutchinson,
John Fraser, Matt Krieger, Jesse Leckband, Becky Soglin
MEMBERS ABSENT: Stratis Giannakouros, Grace Holbrook, Eric Tate
STAFF PRESENT: Sarah Gardner, Jennifer Jordan, Ashley Monroe, Joe Welter
OTHERS PRESENT: Morgan Mays, Marcella Thompson, Jeremy Cook
CALL TO ORDER:
Fraser called the meeting to order.
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 4, 2021 MINUTES:
Krieger moved to approve the minutes from January 4, 2021.
Grimm seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0 (Leckband not
present for the vote).
PUBLIC COMMENT OF ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Action Items from last meeting: Gardner noted there were two action items from the last
meeting. One was to include both the working group restructuring discussion and the follow up
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 2 of 13
questions for the methane study in the agenda. The other item was a call for all working groups
to submit updates to staff by the last Monday of the month so that they could be included in the
packet. Gardner received updates from the building working group and the outreach working
group and those were included in the agenda packet. For the next agenda packet, the last
Monday of the month is February 22. Gardner requested to have updates to her by then.
Climate Action and Outreach Office Updates: Gardner noted the bi-monthly list of recent
activities was included in the agenda packet. Staff activities for the months of January and
February included the TIF Funded Climate Action Incentive Program. She said the program is
underway, the application has been finalized, and they have received the first application, which
they are excited to be reviewing and hopefully moving forward on. They also continued the
discussion with MidAmerican Energy to ensure that the projects were not in conflict and
received very good news this month that any project participating in the City's energy efficiency
program would also be able to participate in the MidAmerican program. Normally, the projects
that just participate in MidAmerican are eligible for reimbursement up to 50% of the cost of the
project. By combining their program and the City's, MidAmerican is allowing participants to be
reimbursed up to 75% of the cost of the project, which is a big savings for companies that hope
to move forward and take advantage of both programs. In addition, Wendy Ford and Gardner
have been working with the Iowa City Area Business Partnership to prepare four virtual
presentations. The February presentation will be given in collaboration with MidAmerican and is
focused on getting the word out about energy efficiency rebate options in the City for small
commercial properties and large ones.
The Green Iowa AmeriCorps team continues to deliver home energy kits. So far, they've done a
total of 207 audits or home kit deliveries and 69 education and outreach events. Gardner noted
AmeriCorps provides kits to the city of Davenport and some of those kits are included in this
number but the majority are for Iowa City.
For the energy efficiency and building projects, they have a builder and project identified to
showcase in the upcoming Parade of Homes. They also are working with Neighborhood
Services on an energy efficiency demonstration rehab project, and have a property identified
and are in discussions as to the different energy efficiency elements that will go into that project.
They also continue to do work on the Earth Day Neighborhood Energy Blitz plans. It will be a
door to door campaign that will utilize the AmeriCorps members as well as high school
environmental clubs and the Climate Ambassadors. The pilot program will launch in the South
District neighborhood. Staff have been in communication with them as the pilot site and they
have agreed to help get the word out to residents to expect the kits. Staff also have formed a
staff committee to assist with logistical planning since obviously it is a big undertaking with a lot
of moving parts. Staff representing Neighborhood Development Services and Resource
Management are serving on that as well as Communication staff.
For the marketing RFP, staff are currently in negotiations with the consultant over the finalized
scope of the contract. It will be going before Council for approval in February, which means
hopefully they'll be able to get underway in March. In order to prepare for that they are in the
process of compiling all the climate related communications and marketing collateral. Gardner
added the project will include a vulnerability analysis for populations in Iowa City and identify
related communication strategy, which is a nice addition to the project. It's not something they
necessarily asked for in the RFP, but it does meet another objective they have for the climate
action initiatives.
2
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 3 of 13
The second Climate Ambassadors cohort is scheduled to begin its training starting this
Wednesday and that will carry on through March 24. This cohort of applicants was drawn from
the waitlist of applicants who applied for the first training session back in October. All the
applicants who had been waiting for an opportunity and were still interested were able to be
enrolled into this session with the exception of just one person. When staff reopen the portal in
March to begin looking for the third cohort of trainees, they'll be able to once again to solicit
applications from the public as a whole. They will also notify the one person who wasn't able to
participate this time.
With regards to the two ongoing grant projects, Gardner reported the EV Readiness Planning
Project has had two virtual stakeholder events held in January. They were both very well
attended. The first program had 65 attendees and the second program had 55. The first
program was presented as a level -setting webinar and allowed interested parties who were
unfamiliar with the project or unfamiliar with EVs to learn more. The second event was a virtual
whiteboarding event that allowed the project coordinators to gather input from stakeholders.
Gardner noted it was a very lively discussion. They were able to get some great points from the
participants on what the perceived barriers to EV adoption are in the state, what kinds of
strategies they could employ, and what criteria they should be using to prioritize those
strategies. The steering committee will now reconvene and go over the information gathered in
that exercise to start figuring out where those priorities lie. In the meantime, the consultant has
begun outreach to the multifamily housing landlords and property managers to begin that
portion of the study, which is focused on a barrier analysis to figure out how to get more
charging stations at rental properties so that renters have equal access to this technology.
Gardner noted if anybody would like more detail on this project, to understand where it is, what
progress has been made so far, and what information that was presented to stakeholders, a
recording was made of that first meeting and is available on the YouTube link included in the
staff report.
For the Heartland Carbon Sequestration grant, Gardner reported a GIS-based carbon
management tool that has been under development is nearing completion. There is also an
Excel tool that can be used to make decisions about carbon sequestration strategies that is
about to be unveiled and staff will be able to report more on that at the next meeting.
Finally, Gardner introduced the new staff member in the climate action and outreach division,
his name is Mohsen Vahidzadeh.
Mohsen introduced himself and noted today is his first day and he is happy to be here. He
noted he is originally from Iran and came to Iowa City to pursue a PhD at the University of Iowa.
He graduated in December. He is very excited to work with everyone here at the City of Iowa
City and work on different initiatives to reduce emissions and reduce energy consumption.
On behalf of the Commission Fraser welcomed Mohsen to the City and Commission.
Regarding ongoing projects Gardner noted they have been collaborating with the Equity and
Human Rights Division on a Black History Month event. The Climate Action Division is bringing
in Richard Mobian, who is a nationally recognized speaker through Project Drawdown, and is
going to be speaking about fostering multiracial partnerships for climate action and addressing
historically disparate access to sustainability resources. He will be joined by a member of the
3
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 4 of 13
Climate Ambassador cohort from the first training series, Ayman Sharif, who is going to
complement the national overview with some perspectives from the local area here in Iowa City.
That event is going to take place February 25.
Soglin asked for Gardner to send the Commission the link for the Smart Series so some of them
can sign up for that. She also asked how staff is presenting to the businesses and if there are
limited seats for that. Gardner believes that series may be for chamber members only but will
look into it, and if it is open to the public she will send the Commission information on how to
sign up.
Soglin also noted the marketing folks will be doing a vulnerability analysis and that Johnson
County Public Health has done some of that type of analysis already, so there may be a way to
help each other without taking away from the specific goal. Gardner agreed and stated she
would love to connect them and add that analysis to collateral to share what work has been
done.
Fraser noted the agenda packet is well done and he urges everyone to make sure they spend a
fair amount of time on that before these meetings.
OLD BUSINESS:
Discussion of ideas to restructure working groups: Krieger began the discussion noting
there were essentially two ideas outlined in the restructuring proposal. The first takes on a
broader based approach and the working groups are really focused on the broad cross cutting
ideas. There's the Outreach Working Group, there's the Equity Working Group separate from
Adaptation. He likes that approach because when they were more siloed, it was harder to
capture all of that. He feels any topic that has enough substance or content to work with should
continue and that's why he also thinks the Buildings Working Group should continue. When they
first started the working groups one of the things that they wanted to do was not just be a
sounding board for what staff are working on, but also generating content and be the
communication loop for members of the community as well and bring in other people outside of
the Commission, other experts and other stakeholders to be part of those discussions. Krieger
believes there's enough content in the ones that are proposed in the document to be effective.
Bradley agreed with Krieger that the first one made more sense for the structure. She did not
believe that means they could not also add another working group if a project came about and
they felt that it was necessary.
Fraser discussed a book on leadership he follows. The authors break down leadership into five
practices. The first is "Model the way" and the second one is "Inspire a shared vision." To him,
making the City plan successful, attaining their goals, is all about being able to paint a picture of
the vision they have in mind when they have accomplished all of those goals. The third is
"Challenge the process," not just maintaining the status quo, and have leaders that lead the
change. Leadership is all about understanding when it is not business as usual any longer. The
fourth one is what they're talking about right now, "Enable others to act," and it's not just
delegating, it's sticking to the belief that within an organization everyone has the capability of
being an exemplary leader. Fraser noted with working groups, they're going beyond the original
committee, now a commission, and finding talent and enabling them to really get involved. What
they need to do is be able to really take advantage and leverage the working groups. The theory
4
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 5 of 13
is they haven't been doing that as successfully as they would like to and didn't hit the goals with
working groups. They need to be willing to be flexible and allow these groups to evolve into
something more than they are right now.
Soglin asked if Fraser is asking about getting at the public involved. Fraser said with the working
groups, that is what they are doing — they are bringing in nonmembers of the Commission.
Soglin asked if Fraser is wanting the groups to operate the other way, the other option. Fraser
said he is not stating his preference at this point. He continued on with the last practice for
leadership, which is "Encourage the heart," which is nothing more than celebrating wins, patting
people on the back when they do a good job, and encouraging them to keep up the good work.
Fraser brought this up because it made him think about enabling others to act and that's really
what they're doing with working groups. Going beyond just commission members and garnering
more talent within Johnson County and Iowa City, and then figuring out how to best capitalize
on their skill sets.
Fraser also noted if they chose one option and figure that out in three or four months or six
months it isn't working then they can modify so they can't really go wrong with either one of
these options.
Grimm noted he doesn't have a strong opinion either way, he thinks both would be an
improvement over what they're currently doing. He thinks the key thing is not spreading the
group too thin and getting unfocused on the central goals. He is flexible either way with the
understanding that they're trying to narrow down the focus of what they're looking at and having
more defined clear objectives.
Fraser wondered which option would be the easiest and the quickest to pull the trigger on or are
they about the same.
Soglin said she felt the option Krieger and Bradley talked about would be a little bit easier to
begin with, because they build more on what some of them have been doing, and while she
appreciates that some haven't functioned as well as they could have, the Building Working
Group has done a pretty good job. They would like to be allowed to continue as it has only been
one year. She noted now the climate ambassadors will be engaged and perhaps some of them
could be involved with the groups. Soglin also noted how much time it takes to arrange
meetings the Commission members is not insignificant for those who are managing those
groups, and to set up agendas and to take notes. All those things have to happen. So while it is
their duty to give time, she feels they also need to be mindful of everyone's time realistically,
Fraser noted the density greenhouse gas memo created by the Buildings Working Group and all
the work that went into that as an example and said it was well done.
Fraser asked if anyone has a contrary thought or wants to discuss the downside to the first
option. Krieger noted the downside is if it doesn't have a specific goal or set of goals in place,
then it can waffle or not go a specific direction. One of the things in the Buildings Working Group
that they've challenged themselves with is to be looking at the accelerated actions that were
buildings related, and looking at where they can make a contribution without being tasked with
something. He believes they can task themselves in the working groups, which maybe wasn't
something they were quite doing over the past year entirely. Even in the Buildings Working
5
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 6 of 13
Group, they had a lot of effort put into a few topics, and those were specific and prioritized. With
any of the working groups progress can be made and they can be reaching out and getting
additional stakeholders. He does believe it could be a shortcoming if there's not a lot of rigor
around that.
Fraser noted they could have the same deficiency or lack of rigor with the second model as well,
something based on projects has to be pretty specific in order to be professionally executed.
[Leckbandjoined the meeting}
Krieger offered a motion to stand down the Transportation and Waste Working Groups and
continue forward with the Outreach and Buildings Working Groups and subdivide the Equity
Working Group to create the new Adaptation Working Group.
Fraser noted the people that have now been displaced from those groups can now become
members of a new group. Krieger said in the past they have self-selected which groups to be
members of. Leckband noted he would be interested in adaptation. Hill said she would also be
interested in joining the adaptation group as well. Bradley would be displaced from the Waste
group but is also on the Outreach Group. However, if it worked with her class schedule, she
would be interested in participating in the Adaptation group as well. Grimm noted he was only
somewhat displaced because he was originally on the Transportation and building group, and
he is still in the Building Group and is unsure if it is necessarily to join another working group.
Gardner noted the only other person who would be displaced is Giannakouros who's not at this
meeting today. She said she could reach out to him via email and see if he would be interested
in joining the Adaptation Group or some other group. She will then update the list of working
groups on the agenda for the next meeting based on what the outcome of the vote is.
Krieger moved that as of today's date, February 1, 2021, the active working groups will be
Outreach, Buildings, Equity and Adaptation.
Grimm seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion was passed 8-0.
Building Working Group Density GHG Memo:
Fraser reiterated the memo was well done, very professional, and overall outstanding. Soglin
noted this item was information only. Monroe was going to share this with Council this week and
if they hear back from them with questions, they'll bring those to the group. Monroe noted she
will need to double check and make sure that it went into the into the Council information
packet. She stated typically when they're discussing items during a work session or require
feedback about a certain subject they will request that at their meeting and the Commission or
staff can present at an upcoming meeting. Fraser stated he would be curious to get feedback
from Council on the memo.
NEW BUSINESS:
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 7 of 13
Follow up Discussion with HDR on the Methane Feasibility Study: Fraser first thanked
HDR for their very professional presentation and materials that the Commission had to review
and now have had some time to think about.
Morgan Maw (Project Manger, HDR) thanked the Commission and noted they did their best in
the executive summary of that report to summarize the project and would like to know if anyone
has specific questions on things. He reiterated this is an initial, high-level study that was done to
really assess different options. Ultimately, they were trying to determine what kind of organics
diversion is as a viable consideration and what kind of technologies and beneficial uses can be
used to go off of that. He said he believes their report does a really good job of summarizing
that. There are some paths forward that are considerations or options that are included in there
for the city to look at and further study. Ultimately there would be refinements for the best
solution to be determined.
Fraser noted sometimes after a formal presentation to a large group we tend to think of two or
three things we wish we said 30 minutes after the meeting is over. He asked if there were any
basic thoughts that they would like to refresh the Commission on or items that maybe came to
mind after they were done with the meeting last month.
Mays acknowledged there was a lot of information shared and it takes a lot to digest all that
information. Overall, they all want to have an action -level plan moving forward. He thinks
organics diversion, and some level of diversion, is probably the biggest question that this
Commission and the City needs to determine if they want to make the investment on it. All of it
was proven to show a greenhouse gas emission reduction that furthers the Climate Action goal.
Soglin asked how does actual reduction of organics fit into this. Would there be any issues if at
some point 10-15 years down the road the waste that gets produced in the first place is reduced
due to a concurrent effort to do so?
Marcella Thompson (Director of Sustainability and Resiliency, HDR) noted certainly there would
be some impact to landfill gas production. It would take a significant incremental source
reduction of organics, though. She noted there is already plenty of organics in the landfill today
that will continue to generate landfill gas well into the future. Thompson stated they did a little
scenario analysis of diverting organics out of the landfill to see what that impact would be,
whether it was the 1500 tons or the low diversion scenario, whether that's diverted to another
source or whether that was just a simply a source reduction, i.e. preventing the food waste,
organic waste. That gave them an indicator of how that would impact landfill gas generation in
the future.
Jen Jordan (City of Iowa City Resource Management Superintendent) confirmed that as the
perfect answer and added she will never look at this as a reason to stop trying to divert and
reduce source food waste.
Soglin had another question regarding air quality onsite, particularly at the wastewater treatment
plant which is close to housing. They would be cleaning the natural gas there to make it either
usable onsite or to pipe it out. Are there things they need to consider for that neighborhood so
they aren't disproportionately affected by what gets off -gassed there?
Joe Welter (Senior Civil Engineer for the City of Iowa City) wanted to first address Soglin's first
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 8 of 13
question. He noted the organics in a landfill setting is not an efficient way to deal with organics.
He explained what the study is trying to do is to divert those organics to a facility, either an
existing digester at the wastewater treatment plant in the 1500 ton diversion scenario, or a new
facility at the wastewater treatment plant, That would deal with those through an aerobic
digestion process, which is much more efficient with dealing with organics than a landfill cell is.
As a result they are not doing anything with the landfill and in a sense not really impacting
landfill adversely. He explained what they are doing is actually making the landfill better.
Organics in a landfill is never a great scenario and not something that they want to do. This
study is showing how to make the landfill better and deal with those organics in a more
responsible way.
Soglin stated she understood that part of it. What she was not clear on is the additional amount
that they brought in versus what they would be using that is already there onsite. Welter
reiterated they are not bringing in additional amounts, they're just taking it from one facility and
moving into the other. Soglin questioned over time what happens if the waste that gets picked
up from the street each week declines. Welter said if the waste is in a multicompartment bin
then it is going into the composting operation currently. Jordan added right now the amount that
they're talking about is pretty small in the overall scheme of things. On average in a given year
the landfill takes in about 130,000 tons of garbage, about a quarter of which is food waste. So
they are looking at somewhere around 30,000 tons of organics and are talking about diverting
1500 tons, which is a pretty small amount overall. He said there's always going to be a need for
composting and always going to be a need for overall source reduction.
That is the piece Soglin doesn't want to miss, the source reduction, because people think they
are just going to drag it off their lawn and take it here, whereas anything they can do upstream
is better. Jordan and Welter agreed.
Welter then addressed Soglin's air quality issues. He noted they have permits at both facilities
they have to maintain. He said the good thing about natural gas, the biogas generated at the
landfill currently or at wastewater when they're flaring, is that those gases burn very, very clean.
The goal of this was to look at three things: greenhouse gas emissions and reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, responsible use of energy, and then the economics of doing so.
With these scenarios, especially those scenarios that have a better feasibility, the options are
improving air quality in terms of greenhouse gas emissions at both facilities as they are looking
at this from a community wide standpoint.
Mays confirmed all of these waste handling or different beneficial use solutions they're looking
at having to clean that gas to be able to use it for the beneficial use. They are not showing any
adverse effects and in fact are improving it at both locations.
Soglin trusts that when and if this moves ahead those neighborhoods in particular will be
engaged in the changes as this is right in their backyards, particularly when it's residential. She
is also concerned about increases in truck traffic or things like that. Thompson acknowledge
they did talk about truck traffic specifically and determined that in collaboration with the City that
there would be no significant difference
Welter also explained anytime they change a permit, and these changes would require them to
change multiple permits at the two facilities, there is a public comment period, and they invite
people to the public comments. The City is especially concerned about the neighborhoods that
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 9 of 13
are adjacent to the facilities. Certainly and those citizens and any residents are invited to the
public comments.
Soglin's last comment is she would prefer an option where the City is not selling the RECs, but
where the City gets to retain the GHG credits, so to speak.
Fraser said Giannakouros had emailed two key questions that he had about the project. First is
whether dried fermentation at the landfill been looked at as an option. Giannakouros noted by
the time cells are capped, 50% of the methane generating potential has been lost, so separating
organics and keeping them out of the cells will avoid a large part of the climate forcings they
would like to avoid. He wanted to know if that is feasible. Mays responded at a high level, yes,
it's a feasible consideration. He would look at it more as an alternative to the more traditional
wet co -digestion. He said it would not be something that is less expensive than co -digestion,
just something that could be considered as an alternative and looked at further down the road.
Typically, dry fermentation is more common on the West Coast where there are different end
use products that can be used there, but it is something that is feasible and a consideration that
could be an alternative to the traditional wet co -digestion. He reiterated costs are going to be
pretty similar, though.
Frasier said Giannakouros second question was about the low diversion scenario, which
requires much higher capital costs at the water treatment plant. It seems that this scenario is
optimal for holistic sustainability outcomes but might be non -viable regarding the kind of
financial ROI the City will need to see to select this option.
Thompson stated the reason they looked at the 1500 scenario was because that's how much
the current capacity there is at the existing facility, so they knew that that would be an
opportunity to have a little bit more incremental organic diversion and send it to that beneficial
reuse of the wastewater plant. At the same time, they recognize that the City also has some
ambitious goals around organics management ,so they wanted to also look at alternatives that
went above and weren't constrained by infrastructure. They landed on the low diversion
scenario as something that was reasonably attainable, but given that it exceeds the current
capacity, it entails that higher capital cost. It would require the City to make an investment in a
new dedicated digester or co -digestion facility to handle that much more incremental organics
diversion. He said while there certainly is an investment that's required to do that, it's simply
because of the current infrastructure capacity constraints.
Fraser believes that Giannakouros' concern isn't SROI but rather the initial ROI, and that's
because they're increasing capacity greater than it is right now. Thompson confirmed that was
correct. Fraser asked if they were to calculate a payback period in years, what would that be for
this initial investment. When would they break even with the increased initial ROI with the low
diversion scenario? Mays said they looked at it in terms of whether it would break even with a
30-year payback period. In appendix B that was provided in the final report, a financial
performance and a breakeven analysis was included. The only option that actually had a
positive ROI in that 30 year period was alternative one, the pipe pipeline injection at the landfill
facility. That had a positive turnaround within about 18 years. For everything else they would
need grant support funding to have that break even within a 30-year period. For option three,
electricity generation of that low diversion scenario, the City would need almost $19 million
worth of additional grant funding to have a turnaround or breakeven on that 30-year period.
9
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 10 of 13
Jeremy Cook (Senior Economist, HDR) confirmed what Mays stated. Basically they only had
one alternative that was really breakeven without any additional grant funding, and that was just
simply because of the capital investment costs up front really do make it tough to achieve the
payback period on all the other alternatives, aside from the one alternative mentioned.
Thompson acknowledged that question is one that many are up against with ambitious climate
goals and how to achieve those goals and balance that with the realities of the financing and
economics. She added that is why this study was really focused on SROI and what's the best
answer for a greenhouse gas reduction and energy return on investment.
Fraser thanked the consultants for their initial report. He noted they would take some time as a
Commission and review and get ready to propose a final discussion and perhaps a
recommendation at the March meeting.
Krieger asked for clarification on what the intent is from this Commission. Is it a
recommendation from the options listed in the report or just some discussion notes. Fraser said
his understanding is City Council is asking for a recommendation relative to the options. It
doesn't mean that they will take the recommendation, but that is what they are looking for.
Welter added the recommendation from the Commission could be in phases. For instance,
there could be some things that happen at one facility and discussion on what happens at which
facilities, or what they would want to do inside of those diversion scenarios, because they can't
do one diversion scenario at one facility and another diversion scenario at the other facility.
They have to be the same diversion scenario. But inside of those guardrails, there are a lot of
different options there and they could happen at the same time, or they could happen at a
staggered timeframe. They could go towards the capacity that the current digester at the
wastewater treatment plant has and move towards that with the goal of a later idea of building
into something bigger.
Monroe noted in terms of this project the Commission is the first line of consideration and
technical expertise that can help guide the City in planning for, waiting on, or proposing
alternatives and options to methane initiatives. To move anywhere further on this item Council
would request Commission's feedback and recommendation on how/whether to proceed.
Confirm meeting dates for 2021:
Fraser noted Eric Tate has a class conflict this semester (until May) and Fraser is uncomfortable
not having Tate at four meetings in a row. Staff had asked Tate if he was available at an
alternate time, and he said would be available at the same time on Tuesdays for March, April
and May. However other Commission members might not be able to meet those days.
Grimm noted it would not work for him because when all their projects go in front of the Board
and Operations Committee.
Krieger noted they had this exact same discussion when they first started the Commission
about trying to set the standard day and time. During that discussion they talked about evening
versus day meetings, they talked about day of the week, they talked about this issue where
student representatives, any professors that might be included, or others who have a typical
10
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 11 of 13
eight to five working day may not work. However, at that time they decided they would continue
to move forward with the current time, realizing that from time to time they may not be able to
get everyone. He also noted they need to keep the meeting date/time consistent for public input
and participation.
Fraser wondered if they couldn't go to an evening time just for three months -- March, April, May
— so that everyone could attend.
Krieger noted they need to keep in mind Council meetings are on Monday evenings, so if the
public wanted to attend both that would be challenging and certainly some staff are very
involved in those meetings.
Gardner added that when Tate came to them notifying of this conflict as a result of his teaching
schedule staff checked the bylaws, both to see if it would be allowable to move the meeting and
also to see if it would disqualify him from further participation on the Commission. She
confirmed he is able to remain on the Commission and have these four absences marked as
excused absences. They would not have to fill his position.
Fraser said he could keep Tate up to speed on what he misses, so one option would be to
continue on as currently, not confused the issue and work doubly hard to keep Tate involved. It
is just three months, but every month is critical, every meeting is critical, particularly with a new
administration and new opportunities.
Krieger agreed it is important to keep Tate involved. He personally is in favor of going with the
standard set meeting time. Everybody knows what time the meeting is, can count on that time,
and he would hate to sacrifice that reliability for kind of a temporary solution.
Fraser noted equity is very important and that's a major benefit of Tate's wisdom and his
position and academic work.
The Commission agreed to leave it the meetings at the current day and time but will keep Tate
involved in the Commission happenings.
Update on Working Groups: Tabled to next meeting due to time constraints.
RECAP OF ACTIONABLE ITEMS FOR COMMISSION, WORKING GROUPS, AND STAFF:
Gardner noted the action items she has from this meeting as follows: to add Jen Jordan to the
previous minutes as an attendee, to reach out to Giannakouros about the reorganization of
working groups and have the working group list updated in the agenda for the next meeting, to
send the link to the presentation taking place on February 25, to ask the Chamber if it would be
possible for any Commission members to attend the chamber presentation that's going to
happen, and finally to add the methane feasibility discussion to as an agenda item to the next
meeting.
11
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 12 of 13
As a final reminder for the working groups that are meeting in the next month, if they would like
their minutes included in the packet, please get them to staff by February 22.
Fraser suggested an action item for each one of them doing some deep review of the HDR
materials before they discuss them at the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Krieger made a motion to adjourn.
Grimm seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
CLIMATE ACTION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2021
\
\
\
\
Qq
\
\
\
00
\
W
\
I"
\
N
\
N
\
NAME
TERM EXP.
N
0
NJ
0
NJ
0
NJ
0
NJ
0
N
0
N
0
NJN
0
0
N
NJ
0
0
0
Madeleine Bradley
12/31/2022
x
x
John Fraser
12/31/2020
x
x
Stratis
Giannakouros
UI Rep
x
O/E
Megan Hill
12/31/2022
x
x
Grace Holbrook
12/31/2021
O/E
O/E
Kasey Hutchinson
12/31/2022
x
x
Matt Krieger
12/31/2020
x
x
MidAmerican
Jesse Leckband
Rep
O/E
x
Katie Sarsfield
12/31/2020
x
x
Becky Soglin
12/31/2022
x
x
Eric Tate
12/31/2021
x
O/E
Ben Grimm
10/31/2022
x
x
KEY: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM No
12
Climate Action Commission
February 1, 2021
Page 13 of 13
Meeting
-- -- = Not a Member
13
N
O
U a••'
Ln
aJ � aJ fa
N tvo o E
N In O E
O O
U U
N 'N
a
aJ
E
> E
O
E; U
07 N
o
O +,
aJ `�
a, L
aJ aJ
°Ln
E
°C E
aj N O
> U
w Q
E o O
N a--+4-0
N ° Q
w o
ul
s N
a N o v N O v
Q O }' w w C
N � •— °Ul
s= v s=
avi = N Sri N
N aJ +, s Q Ln aA
ca aJ a.., s= +� N ° a E
N E O ° � v N
aJ c c Q ca
o o
m E s= N cn m y
vi Q u
+, 4-1
U ° ca - U U > _O O
L
N
o o E o
� U aJu a) m — >, E �
N a)> U N a) E_
-
a L �, = M s=
o U N W O
-1 N Q E s= Q o }'
�
+= oma) o O
m cn U to O Q
N
O
U un
Ln
aJ
aJ � aJ cB
o v E
N taA o E
aJ
N Ln w O E
=3 aJ O
U U
N _0 'N _0
aJ
c�
3
L
v
N O
O -0 N N f6 -0
aJ a
� fa a aJ .0 ai
_0 >; cC:a LA -0
E
aJ -0 = E E
+�+ � E O Q � U +0
LA O O � U > i
v aJ 0
O >, ca E
v L E +, > E
O v 0 _ E-o O
+' ca O O +, �, U
i N O U fB CCf W
O Q > N as+ Q
Q N
v O ca v o
4-1
Ln
aJ vi ca bA
a.., L U N
cr
U aJ f6 N aJ
v +— V) _0 o � aJ p aJ
N E L aJ > aJ
aJ a +' O
O v
E N i N Q
>L � }' c
L aJ - az O
ai
aJ aJ c to tjW Q
0 (UaJ .0 `� L aJ O O
E O v aJ
o� O W E E
U = O N v
N N O
O E aJ 'E -0E
U aJ
aJ 4-J s cn E
N UO L Q = L
O O � � 4-O f6
O fa E O N= � O
4-1 0-Q }' -00 O a)
aJ O O N aJ
aJ �' a) E
Q -0> N aJ N
° t�A a 4-1 L
}' ° r aJ Ln � 0
a) U U aJ ° E a, w
L N-C O N Q }'
N m = = o E
0
N
s=
r-I
O
a + L O Q
ftf m O �O_
o o
aJ UO v
U
N C: -0 U
°'
aJ
ca N
QJ L O
E U a vNi n
O
O _ U
} `} }' —J s OJ v v E
aJ > •j U O
t=
aJ U U Q
m .� fa N L a) U L
N
aJ
L
L- aJ 0 -C N aJ
N U N � N E
cv _O O aC ��, 1 txA s += C
+' N N N
Q Q a .'^ EFu
ca
U U `n U Q
U OJ cv - 4-� aJ N U 'ca
N � � U ci' UQ
(a O N tao In Q
}, " E v — = U
O o o s
v O> ca O� E Q +_+
L L Q Q Ln
-0 4J Q N U � �; t1A
Ln
U c c aJ a-•+ 4- 0 .- N N
N I N E- O Q > O_ ai
}+ O c� r-I U j O L
s= X N E
LJ Q t o aJ p O - � +_+ aj c�
E _�EaJ — aJ °
ca > ca �°n
Ln
N Q aJ ° fB N =
O O aJ Q to o ai `—Un
cn = U-0 O m U ._ Q N
0
N
i
ca
14
co
r-I
ri
r-I
U a-�+ a
O p
4-E Wu
t�/1 J
a O v C: J —
uo U _0 m aJ N
L E
° U L U aJ
o }' a.
U - L L O
W � a cn a
3
m
Q
LL
3
Cr
W
L
aJ
O
V Q
O o
L N +•i
�; 0 > a)
Ln Mfa a-+
U
>. � U
(�
Q C:
Q }, i O O
0 >, > w a)
L a) >
) p Z3
c O N
O O N n
a) O v
o o N L a)
Ln Z U —
U
o
v -0
N fa
N v aA � a) •-
N
L > E
O a--+
� � C7
W aJ a)
U a; _0 E Ln
•O O N •5 Q a
E U O cr vNi
N O N E
Q
O 0 �O
Li L O — O a)
O M Q
E — > O O
Q a=+ a) ca
ca In E Q >,
Q E dA
M =3 C1A N
a O V) O }'
>,
L N vi O
vi
a) a)
� N `� L
N Q
O o c N
Q m a) O �
4-N N a) � O
� >, a_+ bz
a) L 1 a) t= M
+� > • E N aj O 0 a)
+ + a.:,
Ln
N N � Wm
Q 0 L a)
O v s
=3 m a N a)
s
w +-o — U � O
rl
1-4
L
ca
L
O
N o
N
Q
O C
W M
aA �
4-1 L N
a..i 4- U
U a
L O
O L
L
v
D
O U
O O N !E
E O Q
N ca
O N L
° 0 � L M a) aA
+, 4 0
O C:
N
cn > Q (� a) N
N i
o
w v >. m o 0- N
Q U a) a E
Ln
>ca a Q
}' E c U N }; t1A O
O N L L
a,
L E E
a)
L
U •- L O Q) N"
v M 0-
C raA 0 fa
O `n >� t�A L +-+ tm
W U N v O Q •u
aJ O -0 �
a) 2 sZ
O C U v a Q
_ O U :E � L a>, t�D LA
v . � a)
a) v >, v �_ 4- u E E
LA�A U aj W a) OU
41
Q L a W N a Q O O
> O fa O
�--� 4-J
U N a) U bo
O -r- Q t=
v � >' = s= -0 o s= a)
+� ca O _0
U 0 U O O O p v 4-J
O txA O O +s, `� O U Q
cn C: +� s E ,
o L ai E a) -
fu
z _o _ ° a o "' o E 0
E Q U v c:E `~ a) NOJ " O
x L c a 4- > >, C: , L 4-
L +•+
EQ Ln — +O-+
ai
a)O O•Oa
QO N aJ E "M _0 ai
0 CD-OO
L
_0 U
+, N a) d O ca O
N O Q� O � vi vNi U C >_N
a) v - a) > E —_ E
U � O O O O O 4-J 0
ac ca L a) Q U 4- U N
N
S=
rl
T4
_0 0-
0 Q
O
s E
0 o m
U O
� � d
bn
O Z �
�_ o0
i�
> O L
O U a) N
L Q C: O
d M W N
L
v
N
U m bn
o C: E
,} V 4-J N L
O o a)
N M
a
U 0 � a)
Q) +' W vi O
fa O U
L 0 ca
4- W L
N Q
E L a)
E" 0-O O
w � N 4-
+� Ln
r- o o m m N
_0 �, o +J to N v
s s o C L
L
o �° Q o 0
0
CL
aj
Ln
O a)
+�+ N 0O U N •Q
0 Z03
v s= U aA � �'
_ Q
C:
cN U `O �
•N L Ln
N0 O O O
Q Z = s Q (D a)
O N
i O j
-a
Q � uo L
L uO a
U O
� � N N fa i •— � L
4-j
0 O X •O Q i
a a) •- N N a)
O +' � +., L +a)
p a U � E s=
O N L L
L 0 4- O
o E v aA
bn
-0E v o_-0 O cD c: N
4-j
0 0+� ca
�_ Q
z E E a) o s v
O >' Q
+•' ca U >:
L i
O >• OU O
L
N O 0 U U E tw v 4-0
p O O E w O
a)
Lu o Q E _ s
a-#
ccO ul U 0-0 V -he �40
N r N
0 O 4-J
,}
LaA
U oC to -0 cn N fa
O
N
O
N
W
rl
r4
rl
N
r-I
c!► fa
1
v a) O
E
ate+
U
O
O N O
L S=
O O
O w
M:N O Q
W
Vr L
Q s 0
N fa
v +�
ate'
L
Co
C
LL 4A
U
�O
ra o
O a)
0 w Q
w ci � a
U Z w
.E
0
U
3
m
4-1
Ln
u
LL
O
ca
v
D
�O
+,
O a..' u
N U C:
Ln
CA
• Ln 4 -h cn
cn cn
� X �
O —
N
Ln
•— ca
ca u ca
u a--+
O
Ln
v 0
0 0 v
E = >
� � v
w O
L Q
L s
O N
+-+ ca
M to to m
Ln
+., WOO � 4- M O
N m C: c p aJ
Wo 4-1 a)L a-+ V)
aJ U � E aJ O
Q tw .N aJ o L s- O +�
Zn
> � L 0 ate+Qj
> o N v E ul�
o N o v p auJ o
oc � aA aJ aJ +� o Q_ E
ca V)L � Wo Q N L N O
ra o v aJ O = _ LL m
N X N N O 0— a N 4- U E
> LnC)4 aJ aJ O L
> a cn mW4- Co O ca O
.� Ln N o N c- aJ m � L N
Q _ aJ +-1 fa Ln U N O aJ +-1 O
o o a)a v ' Ln s° L
N m +� aJ Q Ln ,} ca �a
O m o f m p c
V o v L— s aJ cn O
Ln
+' E
NcCwa �O 4-1 iJ }, U Q Ln
Q 4-1ao U Ln }; U o aJ
aJ p c c cn m Q a u aJ
Ln aJ Ln Ln
L
O
E U "' m o
v to
v O N
to �
E o v ° Ma) cr
aJ
> >' Q Q)
v s
70 aJ N m
aJ p C: aJ aJ x
c
aJ
c �
•
O U
Ln
E a
E aJ
O
U
. fa
ra Ln
U C:
+� O
U4-1
fa
> aJ aJ
L
Ln
v E o
N O
C U >
O �, >
Q O
O i
Q �
o bn
� � o
M o
O
� � N
Q � �
s N
N Ln a-+
+�+ i cn p O ,} O
_ L
-1-j
cn s O � C� 0 > O �_
+-+ a••+ X fa N s -0 c/)
O s v U +-+ +., v Ln L v
to ca � +� 0
N Q � s L +�
LLin tw s s E v L p
O c C L t1A O +O U
0 -0 0 -0 N
U
o0 m aJ Ln
L aJ aJ
>, O — " L M >, O a,o L aJ >
0 X u 0
0Ul Ln
E E a)
'-'-' 0_ +� aJ s aJ E }'
+ + aJ
0 o U N >' U > > +' 4-
O
u 4— . 0-E a Wo Q •— p M W7
N
L cm
LaJ EO E-0 > O +, p
cn _Ln 4-
ca
a
aJ aJ s 0 Z3 Wo cn N -0 cn
t]A s Ln C LO Lo - a) � -0
Ln - ao .� N _ Q N +-� a) —
Ln c aJ +� � +, M> 0 O
Ul
U O • � � � Q 'n � >L � v, s
o v O L aJ aJ ca L N
Ln L L C: Q M � aJ O 0 0
O
N
i
vi
vi
aJ 0 Ln
V) N C:V)
a) 0 Ln
N C:
Ln N N O
Ln N N O
L E a--+
L E a--+
o Ec:-0
o E c-0
L p
aJ
L p
aJ
U
u E
U
u E
o �' E
o E
-0 O
3 -0 O
aJ U
Ln cr aJ U
Q
Q
c
C:
E
0-
0
aJ
v
0
E
0-
0
aJ
v
0
Ln
Ln C: O
_O
U •L Q N
t1A 'L
�
LA
O L fa
> s O >
aJ L QJ
=5 o � (J
}' 0) U WO
cn
+-+ O
p
s L O Q p
O U_0 V)
U
U aJ
+, .4J aJ
aJ O
0O cn >O
E N N o
v v +' L Ln
v-0 Q
N o
L aJ U
4-;
aJ
aJ E E fa
aJ aJ
42 O tup U
r_ a) U
v
o
U c aJ , D v
O
O -0 tZA
tW
a E N m o
a>J
o f
s Q O � N L
_0
U p N
Wp4-1
E N
>L
0 '� Ln
a••' 41
O
N p O s
L O +-+ a t w
Q
O
>. a
+' +-+ O ca
aJ 0-O N =
aJ
c U E� `—
M U in- U_0 aJ -0
U 0-fa
L
_
fa
L
O cn
L
aJ
Ln
v aJ o
cn -0
� o
—
v a o +.J
c O
E w
O
0 �4-1cn v
fa
Ln
cn w 'N O
N Ln T, E
� —
�a
° o O a)a)
0
v aJ O
E
+-1
_U N U N
U ra
a ca
� L - L
Ln
V
- O L p _O
N O
M
z };�ra+;
O
o
,}
a= Q 4- w
aJ
-0 .0
aJ a M (13
o C N
Ln
a +, aio N N
C:O aJ >.
� E-0
N N E
-0
> 3 N
O
0 Ou U
2 Ln cn � O
r-I Ir-I
N N
v �
LL Q
E
Qr-I
N
N
m
t
c
N
r-I
r-I
rl
M
r-I
M
r-I
d
r-I
N
rl
L
N
E
ca
>
N
O O
L
cu
L
F— u Q� aJ
Q >
L a a�J +-
ra };
w
N
z
—
- Q�
N
N
ca U
> •c
u 4; +_� N 0
0- u O
_O Q) 0- cLa
v �
�_ N
_0
}; aJ
Wo
aJ cn
� �_ U
a ca
> a--+ fa s o
cn
L aJ
ca
L
ca N
+ N
VO
aJ O aJ L
M c� U U ac a
O a a
U a LL
+.+
w Ln
O aJ
2
vi
a) ,0 N
4-0 N N �
O `^ LnO
z v E +�
O E
.N
L O ca
Q U aJ
Nu E
,E O E
E -0 O
a) U
u Q
c�
in 3
� v
u
LL
C
Q
O
i
fa
N
fa
N
U },
Q NZ3 +-�
a + 4-1 i
U N
a••' � fa i
O .— _O Q
Fa N CL
aJ U aJ O
> O ta M
v tao
(3)
Q) � U
'D ca O1
07 0 N
U C
aJ 0 .0
� ca ca
?�. O N • O
Es-- a--'
O v
= U E :3
fa
W Q a)
N 0
fa
U Ln U L
a) a) }' aJ 4 A a)
�
�-> o E
a.O
O ca - .N 0 Ln
U a_' L in E aA �
L — 0 Q -a a�
�. N O C: fa O
L to 0- 0
O O ca
vate+ , a + N E
Q o a o= v o 0
L a) 0 p d U
Q N N Zi
L O +' aJ O a) N
O U O +�+ C)
N
aJ 4 U O O �
N L C:M L
O N E O a)
N ca +J Q
LLLL O %*+—.- > O O 0
vate., a1 ate., +-j U
aJ - N Q 4-1
s > s � N
CO a� o w 0 a) a, 0 0
a) �
}' N
m
C
4-0
c
E
qzzj-
r-I
co
r-I
14
vi C:
a)
O
N v,
N
N N O
O E
L O ca
U aJ
O E
-0 O
Lna U
Q
N 5
O a
Q
O
L U
Q �
fa �
� L
E O
s
L
O -2
4- m
N N
O
Q O
O
_O
L
O
x
w
s
U
0 O Ln
+�
C OJ
O 0
Q) +-+
o v o w
a"' -0 4-+Ln
L
p QJ a)
+_� a) 0
� U O N
-0 a
0 > aJ
4- a-1
� C: 4--
O
aJ 0 C1A ,
O
fa U L
� O 4-J N
Ln o
u bD E
� fa ca
� L L
O
0-
ri
N
i
ca
r-I
co
N
r-I
c�l
c-I
tuD
�
:3 O
0 E
4-f 4-J 0
U ':
07 Q
O N
O O
a) U
NLn
a
Q
o E .c
3
v
O
=
=3
i O
a-J i
` N
5 a-J
N
N
Ca �
ca
O 4-1
L
N
c
Lnr � N
O aA
N O
ca Q
L O
O }' Ln
O
O
`n O
O
E
E >' L
O a)
U +J
N
a � E
bn
+�-+ O
Lno
—
N -0 Q U
c N w
a) E m c 0-O
O A-,0 or O � +�
U +.+ —
N U >
N aJ O L
> O 0- m
LPL 0 +-+ N N L
: _ N
= C:U 4-
0 +-+ 0 N M
L CAA U >`
a)
= a) +-1 +J
•N M 4- Z L
E Q0 0
+�-1 L N
N
aJ
L � � � � � 0
O 0 �'
U Q a"' fa
a1 C:
UJ
73
. C: Lnv '
Q 4- OJ
4-j - L
Ln U 0
ca
Ln C N (� L
O vi = v
can
a_' 00 U (a .� OJ
+1 aJ uul
0
N
N
r-I
c-I
c-I
L
aJ
0 U
aJ 0
� � o
U
+-+
Ln> O
C: O
4-J L a..,
O
U E
L
CL LJ 0U
aJ
E
0-
0
v
a,
0
c
_U
i
Q �
L
W -0
O U aJ
L
W O
Ca (N
O
4-JO U
a-J
> U
a) E
wN
U �
vi O
a) }' O +�
_O
c O Q
N N
O
� Q
v
L
Q a)
ate- +
O +.+ +, L
a
O C2A
-' fa
v O O
o L a,
?'
a, tx - E
,} 00
w
v O O
U O
O `} 0
aJ O =_
C ca >, Q U
N aA L +-
N_
a) O
�
w L w 0 4-1
N N ai
ai
0 0
N Q)
v o 0 wN
O N
� W
O +� a)
N W U a
w `� vi O
Ln N a) LA
O 07
J +N-+ N Q
ate+ UO
a)
Q L L
CL•- O x L
0--00- +-1 is
bo aA -0 Q
2 +N., O +N.+
U
N a) a)
a) � aJ ai
E E
o aJ m Q
Q aj Z3 o v c
0 O
o
O � E > O
v >
> v E s
N _0
-5 E o .- 0U N
0
N
i
tlA
Q
c-I
M
14
a)
O
N v,
N
N N O
O E
L O ca
U aJ
O E
-D O
Ln07 a U
Q
v
4
V)
4J
0
z
b-0 N N
.O O +r
aJ }' v U a U m
O 4-JN O O L a)
C 0cu
CL 07 ate+ CNa U O U -C-0
o = C a) o },
4- .— a)U E
0 U Q
"J o � � -0 ca
O U 0 LnL -0 N
a C .N
4A +•+ E U C >� vi O N
i U Q L = N > U
Q Q O
0 p �a N 0 o LL o aJ
U-) a0 a U� �' ~ U aJ 4-
N to N —
U-)z .O C) C: N N LJ +-+
X
ai U > C N o a)
0) *4—J 4-1
E N �a
+-+ O O O 0� +�-+ 0 O
LajN U
L U
v a, > L w o> o +
N
N
O
N
N
N
r-I
c-I
N
LO U
a)
N o
E
a
0 ra
L
4J N N
s
aA
+, v
+.i , L
fa
U L
U aJ a)
U
U = N
z 0
0
O 0
C1A
L
Ln -0 a
L O
cn 0
+.+
fa },
L (a
�
L
}, CL
O m
) aC:U CL
fa
) —
N O
m
N },
M _u aJ
w O
" �
-
aJ C) -0
Q O
`� },
U c
a) N U
}, O
Q >, ca U
L CAA H C
Q >� fa a>i
L bn -
U a
v- Q
O O 0 �a
N
O N C:a)
U
U
J W
LnU
U oC
a+
� W .� L.L
U ca
- W Ln m
c
O
•N _0
w
O
a) 0 N
aJ ,0 N
_ U N
O
Z
N _N O
GA E -o
N _N O
qA E -o
p O O-0 p
U _0
+� � a) m
_N
'N
U aJ
U a
Ln
C p O ca a
�n
,E
-leN u E
•� 0
N u E
o
L O
Q Q s O E
o
-0
� a) U
3 -0
is a) U
o >, 15
u
a �' a)a
�' �'
a)
�
+�
ci
o
c
o
v v
a�
can
o
cn
z
z
> >
o >' o >'
>
t
z
N
O
v 0 U v a)
4
4-
•N
-C
aJ +� aJ o aJ +� (u o
•� E L
�
� L L � Ca fa
E E
i` � � �-•�
-0U
O E
Q
L L
O +C6 a+ O + Ca a
�,
N +�
`� Q (j � `� Q (j ate..,
a-J
Ln
v
vi Z -0 " 0-vi
a) a--+ v a) O a--+ v
C: a) a aJ a
>, a) U
+' N O
— a-j
a+++ E
E
bn N w� N
-0 -0 (/) -0 v (J7
a)
L N -
- >
N O
L LtaA
}' aJ E � >, +-+ OJ E � >,
M
v� L
� fa
O
> O N
U > O N U
aJ p 0- E aJ >p � E
� a) O
a) E L
Q
,,, T ,,, T
a•d N L +•� N L
L L
Ln
L E a) L
V•-
L 0- O L 0-O C: �
E tan , O O E tin .ON O
Q
O 4 -+ �
Q a)
N
o Q
— N — \
a � N N bz_0 N taA
a) a) a)
N N
0 +-+
Q) N O
N ul Ec: uv
aJ N N Q) Ln Ln
uw w m
U cU
—1
+-+ L
Q
S O — S O = —
fa
O O
O
4- p fa 4- O fa
N >, +'-
QN
� a+
U U
Q U 0 > � Q U 0 >
a--+
a+
O N
0
tan
i
Z3 O O L 07 O a) L is
N > N Ca N > N Ca
a- J a)
&
>�
Q
}, Q1 a..i
0 (UQ1
fa � - fa v �
Q) N
aJ
Cr
ate+
aJ E
aJ
-
-0 C a+ a+ -0 C a+ a+ aJ
O c a) O O c aJ O
E p U
� 0 ca
uw
p
O L U
U m-0 O c U m-0 O C
+s—J >
_O aIJ
w L aJ Q
N +' vi �C
a) >
� — L a)
�_ O o
U a)
m
O O
N
a a-•+
v
+,
OU U
+, N
—_
v ca
Ln
aO
O
cL
�
U w>
_ J
L_ca
NO
+c-a+
LJ
Un ai
U
> N
N
> Q_0
O
QO v
_
U 4-1
fB
�
L
+-+ aJ O
a a)
>-
N ++
U
ULr) _
}'aJ
ai
a) _0O
�
a
•O Q
S � +1 4-J
++ O-
Q�
Q
L
4— v
Ln
++ }O
to -0
0-> a
}, . aJ O O O +-N
U ++ M
NU
0-N
sO=,
Q
p
0a)
L
O>E )Ln
0-O
O
ca
U
a) U N
)
N
a U Q
Ln
a
O
>
O te
N Q aai
Nv mN
O
) N
a)- N
LIJ
Ln
te
teO
aN- +
) U O
O p
-
�
)
O
Ln a)
O�.EO O
c
r4 U U
a) Q p
a
O U
OU
+-
4-p aC
c
OC:
O
O
p
an m � M
ai a
O cn aj Q
ai U
+po
O L — n
fun >O
O }
+N
a
4U
a) J
EL
a
n
cn O
v Q aJ
to 0' 0>.
a� a.
m a.
0
E E
aJaJ
-0i"
�
CC Q m
Q�
ana.
O Q v O
u m N w N a) m
Lu
O uOO,
CO N v MQ U
=O
O
O
O O
O
N
O
N
ON
4-
r4N
N
>`
N
E
O
N
a=
c�
2
c�
co
2
Q
Qru
s=
E
r4
ri
ri
r4
C
obi
I
I
co
m •�o
Q0
ri
ri
ri
L f)
ri
d Q
r4
r4
r4
r4
11-4
aJ
c�
s
d
N
N
N
L
a, o a'
+
ULa)
U
>`
to
faLn
LL +'
L
NL
aE
O w
O
O O0
E
a
i Qw
fa E
E fa
O
> CL
a
O-
ca U
aJ O D++ +��
U u N
O ca aJ
U N
O aJ Q
d
L
C:
N N
},
> +cr LA
> O >
>
-Emaj
0 Q oc w�
Q Q Q U
Q Q U
_
�+
a) O
z 2
>
v
aJ
i
fJ
V)
+.+
O
D
N
c >�
O a) c
Z
(a vi m O
U L
4-J
p O
O
} ,
M � U
N aJ
Q E
N
0-� E
- O
O a) O U
4 A � 4-1
tp •c o Q
+-+ C bn p O
fa m U L
N
a) O wD
p O E 4-
O W- E >O -0
�
a� O o v
o >
aN+ U
-1
m N ON
a) W N
N
-
a) U 0 E
> 4O E Ov E -o
t U U
O o o
U
N E
+ + 4--j
CZA O aJ cLa L w0
4A
C:
N L a+ N Q
cB
W i
m
O OO
c
O v C: NOQ Q
o� E
fa .0
fa O i U
4- � >, N
fLa N i
to ° Q ° o Q
� O
CL M
Ln
Ln 0 a)
•�
o +wj O
i U O i '}
�� U L7
0-m U Q-0
N
i L� p i
o N
aO+ C1A MO O
C — p L
C: O
ca Q U O
L a) O O N
�-� O O O U
Q w0 tw
N
UUl
v N U U
iA Q 4-1O
O V) _0 }'
H m �-0 M LQX E
fa ca E Q
CJ U U E a)
L
O vi O
O
N Zi w CUD +>-
+
O -0 O O U
U a)
>, E a�
fa Q O
E o N N E a)
U LE m
X N
a) n
E o o
E > L w0E w
coy :3 o
a)
+-+
L
fo
a
V)
a-J
O
Z
s
U
ca
a)
O �
4A Q
O
� v
0)
_0 _0
a) �
w0
CUD
a) L
(J)
ca N
E O
U
fa U
E
U
O
E a)
wD
O M
U c�i�
N
a)
U
a-•+
i N
cn U � ca
vi +� +-J
O a) N
o v
m E
O cLa aJ
Ln
Q Q
+.+ N
N U
S -0
N N aN+
p a) aJ
vE
� � •L L
o O L >
+-� a--+ 0 . L 0
U N Q
�
_0ca a) v E
N }' -
v U CL
Q O
v N
O Ca Q O p
N
C: O O - -
O p U O
U L fa >.
N
N
>L�
N "
C1A
_N C:
a) ' N
O O
E -c-
b.A O
N
Lo
Q U
U
v ca
N �
CL
O V) N
� > O
N i O
C: O a)
U++
ca E
a)
a�
a)
v
a)
a..'
ca
Ul
a)
N � O
N a) N
aJ a-J tO
E 4- C:
O �OLn
i
ca
a) N
a) E
') o
a
L a) Q
o a) o
Z U
� aj ca
to
ca L
+., =3 O
Ln -
N
O
N
W
Q0
N
O C: ca c:
Ca)
V)� N
U L U
N
L
v v L
+J - (N
ate-1 a)
i C: (a
N a) >
Q N O
++ U
u 4)
(U 4-)
fa
4-J ca v �
v U O
v N -0
� ca
U O v a)
(U
> U 0a; >
v w0 N
> C:a)
(U 4--j
N +'' U
CZA E
:3 4- a)
p +-+ > E
-9-- m a= >-
Q w cO U O
a
-0 a) _0
=3 C _D
U _r_ U
C: U N >
LU
X aJ N
L �
a, N L u
Z � O v
+-+ o aJ
Q L
V) N a) O m L
a) U — L
- �_ in m > O
L C
N U O O (a
v a� " Q
o= o=
Q ++ fa O
N `abp
o w O
}, U
U L o Q Q
U o� O C)U
� U 4-O
L
°U' : >' c- O
C: o- a) i
a) fa >
4 U O O
.7 s i Q Z
Q > 0-
N
N
N
r-I
O
(3) N
aA a)
L wD
+.j 4
m _0
U V)_
m
`1 N
`p
UU `
W U
U
d
W >
fa W
i
fa O
M 4- M
Z5
a) U
> N N
LL L) >,
Of of m->
Q H
W ca > a
N
_0
\
N
O
i
CUB
M
o
N
a+
� a O
N `� +1.5;
N
-0 Q>
C:V)M
O
o
Z
Q
c-> U
°° o E
a
vf6
o-
>� C:-
��
N 4
U
Un ai°
E
+.+
N
N
U
OO
O
L
O
u E
+-0
O pU
LJ
U a
-0 cn
U
_0 O
�'
O
O
O
a L U
V) _0 Q
_
ca h0 U
U
a
j
U
_
Q
COO fa cn
rM
cn
L 7
3
v
_0
v
_0
v
_0
v
_0
av
_0
-0
D
D
D
D
D
+J N
0
a o
o0C: }'
O
},
�
>�
Ln
N
Ln— o >, a
a
a
v
E
+•+ (Da O
_0U
4-1CU Q �
fa U U ate-+ OU
_0,
•L
+M
—
N O O
°
a N
V)
E
cn
•�
fB cn p C Q
O �
a
4A fa
+J
a �, P O
p
C:_a
o
N
O 0
U cv
a
Q
+O ca
.—u
v ai }, v � aA
E
E
a _
Q
O i
o
O
a c�
ate+ +a+
N 0 O
O
a)
O Q
V) o
a U
C
U
Uca
0-
CL LU U
n
QC °
f_a
O� '
O
+'
�O
+ a C
C:E
n �
c�
o
E O
Ln U E n
O ui
�O C: U
" � O C:
>
a -0 —0 a
E
ca "
cn + E
0- a O_ > E a
°
=
L cn
O E
u-0
ai
M can O-0 U C
w 0-v+
_0 O
o
U
Q
CLO
O � N = O >•
4-1 O
_0
O 14
+� N
_0 O O
N
C:' � cn
a s ca - +,
a-J a-J L p
�O
N�
� w
O �_ a
-
>'
UJ�
i O4AO
o 1
N o
Na
°
CL >
,
�
_
N>� >-N
O a +�
�Ln
J-0N
U
OJ
0
U U
ON
45
O
0
a QJ
U O>
O
co C:4
oa
}'-0 V O
C +
Qa
a v°
�>U,, +Qcc�nn
—aca
to
�O
Op
N O
C) O
O
a
a
a�
-0 �
U
O On n
U a j
a N Za3
C) --I a
o uca
n
N a
0C
N _
a O
a
n
�am
a
}f0cBLA
Q a ,
+
Z a +, c> +a�
=N d
s
p p
�oO�U
-0 v- ~
O
)
N
n
aO
U sa � U
a-U° ' a
++L
D a OQ
n =
>
O
E ° v
M
t1A
o
NO
-0r-i
p
aN
o cn
-0 c�
O N
c�
LC LA
ai
a — cn c M
L
U �
3c O
-0
Ln
E m o
}o
N} OaQ
°
-0 O LL
a >
LI)
U
�0 0 -0 C N
(,D
fu N
O
L-
N O U
a +J
C aj
a a-0-0 Lp
vE
CLO
U
_0}+,
>,
� a a
+,>p
a a
a cn a s
O a a U (3) `� x
E
U +� N > Q Q
m
In
a p a c�
E
Q U ca
U-5 O a
a cn
U a cB ca
v a H a Q
4-0
M
*rlN
ON
>'
to
_
O
blo
O
N
4A
Q
O
N
C
GJ
E
C
lap
Q
N
N
N
r-I
N
N
N
M
N
N
(Yi
M
t
d
r-I
O
c-I
+� }' O
Ln a)N
N
N
N
�-
r-I
o
(U
Ca E c i
L-°
U
c
a
.V U
s
E _0
4-J—
a
w C:
C:
co
o a
�
a
-C
a a s
a i6
+J
C a
ca
0 'C
a p
Q _0
v EN
a a vw
E
� `� _0
a O
0- >
�`
o
j0CL
o>-
E o
a
H U
U to gy m—
U>. (a
—cr-
Q m U cn H cn
w U
c�
a
L
E
O
+�+ V)
L � a
U a O
U
fa �
i O
Ln O
= (7
a
W
O fa
v 4-J M °+-'
E V) L
07 a N
O w •U cn
Q ao L
= c a _O
ca O � U
a 3: O E
L 4- �
Vi m E
u O q E
O 0) +L U
L
L O O
a .p QJ
L �' a-•+
a- + b.0 U �
U O c
0 4--0Qvi --+ n ca O
V) V) V a Q
(u
c)O E tuo V)
+., O O U
+., 7
N E U
N a E o °
E CU V)
U o
E v
f6 O L Lna O a N
°o c: E o
a U _� L � a,o E
U cn d O Q
O O =3 O +'
N O O N U
a Ln - L C E
DC L O L
vi O U
-0 O (Uv O
s 41 v
a ca v ca D
g:::! E z °
L
O N O
}' };
O
N CaA
O O O U
U a
>, E a
E m Q o
E o o E a
U s CO
x Ln
o a +,
E �` Lbn E
U L0 bn
O
o
a
E
O
a
0
L � �
>
N O
v QJ +' -0
a N a fa
ca > a cn to
E
_O ++ U
N fa bn U
U •N a
Ln p
0 E O Ln
a (� +'
> x O
a
E
U O
E n O CL �
d
x 0
a
LnL
- p 1
_ ca tw
� N — V)
o aLakn
+ U a 4—j U
a
+� ca V) N a O
Q cA 15 m E Q
N
i
a
M
a
O
Q
° v E E
Q bZ O
4A
E OU N 4--j
,1 U E Ca L
a--+ U m C: cz Ln
OJ }, o E
E o N� Ln o
V) O ra
Ln Ln - a .p U
L a U N
O U
a
}' � E
C - Ln
LO
n
ca ca — E
V) O
Q)
Ln = U >
LU c�a Q c�a
Ln
Ln Ln
is L +j a
�a >- - O
L Ln i O
OUn
OU O
a �_
- U
E a
E O O 3 L N
> a e Ln
Q=
a a - N cn a
OU
a >. C L O Q= ca
a E N3: O E Ln
- - CxA Ln +'+
Ln
a Ln
= N 0 E
a--+ N (a
q c L- E i N -
O O a
O Ln > Q
rl
m
L
O
N
L
O
U N
N
f6
+a >
a
++ N a L
U v
a
E
v
O
o
o C:
U U m Ln
E
+,
�
O
to CL M
0)
.N
4A
3 _0
OJ Ln
O
O
U
ce-Q Q � .�
U
S--
O_ "
ca
a••,
U
� L
O
a..,
E
.-
a C:
N
a
ca E
O O
E c�
a)
U a
CX
Q
W
L
a O Ln
U O
O
L -0
E a
L +� (u
Q)
CJ O
s Ln
a a
s o
_ ca Q)
N E
3: o _0
+�
(� � L
N cn
N C
O a
4- >O
can O a
Ln ++ E
O N
a E L Lnm
Q a
E
E L w
N Q o
c O }
Q L-
U Lu u
o
+�
E
N
O
E —
4-j
ai +� o
� u) E
N V) 4-1
O Q cr
Q +-+ -0
a a
x
�' a a N
+-1
aJ Ln
L a ++
�
ca qA >� o a
N U
v N O +' E
v E
a o N
Q caM - Z5
Q
V)ra N +
O
N IOLO
L � N � �_
Ln v1 O
� N U +, O
CL)
Ln a_+Ln
O i
-0 � f a �
ate+
-0 Co U 4-1Lai
a O
Ln
a) Lna a a
a•
a -' Ln
MC L 0
}, L E L-0
O E a Q +, =
Ln
+0 U
'
Ln L
a �a 0
U�--+
OU a vi ,}
(a
o
a
C C +O-' VNi -0
aa-+ aN+
E
E N � E LL
� � — E
— E
O
m U Ln
cf M 4- " aaiD OU
v
d d N OU U Q
r-I
O
N
N
N
r-I
wo v) O
O Q
O
a
m
a a)
U
a
CL
U�
_
a
L
O
O
O Ln L- � t3LO
buo
�O
4-1vaJ
Qv =(
a
�a
O U
a
O _0�
p
}' U
n
a
m
� 12 N1
a
> E o
Q
a }.�
LU 4-fa
0- U O
a O a a L a 4-1 L
M in- � M O oC Ln in-G
c
�
a i6 a >
cr- d or- m Lu
a
L L_
0
a
.E
E
U
N
3
m
4-1
Ln
0
s
N 4-
ca > a
N : a
a O N O
O s tan
+•+ +-' p
Ln a+ E
� � a
a O
o Q
a a
s W
4-, U C:
0
'cn COn
Ln
v a
4-J i
a �
M 4)
E +
0 0
z
rLn
`� •O 4 -
O O _ ca
Q a 4--+ a-- a C: a >-
4- a � - +' s +'
O E
+-+ c� o _p Ln
U Q N _0 a > - Q N
0 _ fa c�
. U " U O i� `n M�
N M � O O +-, -C a aCL
Q 0- O � cu
O 0 Lnate-J U � O
Uto
M +- N c>z a tan a
>, a _0 � +_� aj tan
- tan — � E U fa s a
O m o- N a
O v to
> }, a - 4- a + + a) i
O U fa Ln U fa .- +- U
a tx m o U x C N N
o +, c:-0 .- a
+j 0-a •> O a" O Q ++
E >' > O-0 Z3 -Cs OU N
s
o a) N a a >. -o +, O
L-
a) L a) a �_ C: � ca s= _=
> � U s '(a C u a) ?� U p ca
0 s= O+ UO fa O v Q
a
N
LA � a },
4- U C
�a fa
a a (A
O - }' N N N O
N � s > E v
U a) a
a)
+, a 4-;v a Q s U E s=
v
+� a)
M Q p o — U E
E O CL
� tan
OU �
OU O O a
EO
S= _� -0 L U
`~ a O a Z3v
N Q tan � c� s=
a) a m o a ca
U U i f6 +-+ U
U u
5 LA Ln 0
L v +
}, O U >, tan
0 tan C:ate- + N = O
O U N a) Q tan
U E a }?
Ul)�o N 'an E(31 s
i L -a rf V Q 0o pU t%
fD
3
L
v
N s E
>O
U
� • vNi as.., �
ca
4-1 CT _ _Q
a >, N U
UOJ i >
Lni
ca Ln a
U fl3 L
a �n o a
L
O U � vai
i
a v (n
QQJ Ln
+� E
- o
U O o s
ca },
u
Ln
a C: Ln
0 . >- E
o v E
f6 = U O
w OU LA � 4O U
U >- N
a-J
� s= a ate-J
OU =3 - a
}' � U -0 a
a O O a c bn>
ON +-+ o
U Q) " v a
N s i
>QJ 4- -0 o 2 o
c U 0 4- 4-W
+, N M L
U Q N tan
w D tan m
W O0 o
}, L- tan +' — a
a +" N pai
_0
a"
o E E O
a-�+ -C
CD
Z3 U a i
M U M s a fa
Li.> aa+ i N
m +� =
E c E cnS =
v - •u � +,
a
O o � C m °;
Ln
s O U p ++
m
m fa c -0+�.p
+., fa a a p Z3 a)
Ln Q -0 s U a >, ._
v ° W ca
U
N E
(A " N N
fB Lncu
Q
U O - N N
fa .-j CO ra a�i a + i
-0 :3 o a)
a cuW C
a a U
a a••' N 0
= W o
EO C:= C
O U X p O a O f6 �
d a Ln Q E a
C
a
E
_0
a fB
0
0
z
(n
Ln
fa
fl3
fB
N U
> s
Q vi
+-+
o •5
- a
a (D U
i
c� �
L a-J Q
o
O
Q
o L-
> O
O
i O
a-=+ iJ
u -
U �
=3 =3 cr
w aa)
a
O
f6 N a
p +�+ > a)
taA O O N +- +_+
O U }' a quo
p O a O > ++ }' +-j
u a i
> Q cUa cB >: O 0-
a -0 Q - N Q
-D o o
4-1 0) O ca O v aj
-0
C a
O
bn O o N Ln> �
+a-+ 0- Q a 0
++ a ca a
-C)N > "
> E
- O EU a--c--ULQOQO � U
U NE wo
n M +J O Lntan aN.+
a N fa a-+
E � C: � >-
ca fa C ca ca
can ° E- v a az) —0- 0
O
a
N
a)
a)
a +� -0
a)
Ln
o N
s -0a N Q
LU
a Ln
Lnp •� a
+j E
a N a
taA �o
4
O +,
E w
�, E E
U
.7 E
N O a
U
N
0 -0 O a.
r-I
N
N
N
r-I
N
ca
L
Q
ca
Q L
i
ca
Q
Q
N
N
Ln
r�
4
::J
14
a E
E a
U O
Q �
O LA
N
r
° o a
4-1
c Q
0
4-0
c�
a a a
N
N
N
a a s
N
>' a
U
a
+,
N C: >-
+' 4J
°)
s 0
}+ N
+3 a)
E 2
a
° tan — - U
� Q) D i
N
N
a U
•� 'U
.S
L
u E-o N
_0 m
DC
-
�
a E
O N
N a-' Ln a
w C
aa+
N
N
a tan —
a Q
O an °; tzNo v vi N
Q CD ; E a m
u
o ,U ,U U
fa
4-1
p u ca
U
=3 E >
w u °
aww D
U U Z a a (7� U
u a a u
w w
Q Q
w
Q
Ln
w
Q
c% i
L
+•+ N
U -
4- O O �
C6 � � p
+� L
M N N i
N
a) - - V,L Ln4-J
�
(Dv
N � U O
v <7 a
U O
c6 a-•+
o
_ bz
a) U
N O U
N N
a,
N
. Ln —
a)
E
c�
O
v
D
v
a)
p
L
a
U
CxA O
>. U
V)
m u s Q
p v
o
o E 0
w
E U
ai
O O C1A CIA U ==
>
4-' O buO 0) +,
v - -0v v C
ai
E N (B N O N a- + O
O O a }'
O
(n N
4-1N O W
ca
a..
�
O O Ln O fa
L L C O }' +=
v
p
Q — cLu Ln>� L w
ca
_O O N O �_ +-+ +�
cn
Ln �C Q)
N U i Ur
fa `1 a
O U N L L O
L
O
E a--' Q
O O +� a) N U O 4-
(DU
EL 4O O O Q .�
Z
4-
CA
tUD
N o _) 0 a ° E
L L U E
C: L cOn N bZ
— s 4-1 z o
a--+
p
> O >, 0 ca s _O
N_
Q10 > :LJ w
O O v +'
N ca U tW Ouo
cv ca
-•� �--� a� L L
E N a
N -0
O
f/1 4-j LnL
> v O i
p O O U O ca L
L +, E E a) U O L Q a..,
i
O
Q N p L= O �O c6 —
a) � � fa
V)N
+, N N N v f6 O O
a
N
c�a L cLa s `� N L N
v N i tUD C� U
4 Ln
a)
a) v
bo-0 a) •N N p � O
v (DL m a `� N p
� Q — Ln N
L N
O 4-0
N
v +-+ a) CUD °' u >,
L O E c= O a- + N a-'
a,
bZ
i a) 4- O M- tU0 L
0 0
+,
Ln U O fB
v D a Q a) L L
—
a)
,C
p p }, ca L
O +-+ U � L E a) c 0- Q
a) tUD
CC O Q) %O N O cn O
Z
rl
U a-J
ro
,0 N >
O L L
L
i p
L O bn >
a) 4- a
i a) a)
d (D d H
aJ
40
40
V)
4J
O
z
O N
N O
N
biA —
Q LL
l0 lD
4 4
N
O N
� L
a O
>
E �' v
E bD
O 0 }'
U U
v O N -0
a) j w
() O
>
-0Q
O L CD
d o 4-, —
0
V) v O
Q U (V
N
07 -0 —
(u a,
a� ro ra
co
c U E
C: ca a) a)
>- ca >
Q cu -0 L)
r aaj
c6 1 N VO
a,
i E N
a) o a) a
Lnn 0 E ED
ca V) O ca
N
Q Ln
N
N
(a
r-I
N
N
Ln
a; v
O
Ln
O
a--+
m _Q
�
•
�
a
a O
a) � C1A
H N N
NLnO
� p �
L
Ln
U:3
a..' a--+
Ln
Q
L L
�
�o
_��Jun
N
a
°V)=
a) 4
o
MLnuu a✓aa
r-I
a
rl
a
C: O
O
a--+
_0 -
L
a N 4-J
OJ
_0 +' E n
� o
— 4 a)
0 N Ln
4-1
� _ C:
L U
a) V C=
Q) a) a)
>
E o a; ra
Lno
0 > i +,
U
O o O
N N O
L
0 X ate+ a) Q fa
> 4 Z3 0 N
O }' E
CaA a) cu
O
•� a) a) U w
p 1 a-+ C:
c E cr- E -
v
�O
4-
a) U
Q) N
ca � (U Q
O a)
U
U Na)
E N
U
a) Q to
L ) to aA
O LnLO ca V;
Ln
� a)
E O to: E a)
U
LO _N O
X Q
Ln O O � L
> a) p a)
O
EL
v i O v
v 0-O >O
O
N
9L
Z3
Ln
4
r-I
� N
c6 a..,
U
L 4-J �O
W v
+� a + E Ln
C j LnG ' � a--+
E D
p L tvD O
p p O >
n a m
d
a
M
4-1
Ln
O
f6
v
L
fl3
fa
L
(N S
a) U
2 aJ
L tan Q
> bn -r-
C: C: L'
O W
4-1
ca Ln
U
U Ln
a) Q
c •E U
O
� Q 4-J
0 ate••'
N wo D_
_0 0 O
U a. bn
Q a) v O
-0 M a-J
O Q >O
� f6 aJ
L N �
aJ O m O
O a '> � � L
N N OJ
aJ }, m +_
O m i
N +-+ U N O O
m L V Ca E c- U
Ln w ° v v !E= ° v
o O Q a) +., +.,
Q 0 a- MN m
Q N
� �dA N0 U -0 Q a� v O
0 O O Q N O
�aJ s E 1p S= Q N
—' aj
0 Eai L °
X Q tan M - Q +' C: m
23
a) O v; .- i . = a) � M- -0 1a
0 O U U M O "J ma=
+, C:Lnv an M +� L
v O M L Q C M O
t1n m 0-C O m U "W.—o i
fa U aJ +.+ — M Q
tw +� m U LnO
WU p �J m Q
O ++ > O N ?� Q
in -Do E -Lou cm c�a 3: 0 -2 U'l
+,
N
L (a N
M aJ Q O
+j 00
'� ° V) LLn
a O tan O r-
N N +' N O
N �O a) N,
fa +� LAQ
.N S M a) U
L
w Q L
Ln
a�
+-JJ �' •� ++
>
bn
U —
O c}/1
L O Q _O O
v O E c:
0-v O U vNi U
o Q N V)�'
U �_ a) -0O
0 ai
> O }' O
U . E
Q aJ i N O u
i Q > 0
O Q O
� o -6 O L -6 E
an
O
a.=,
E Q -0 o
L- p >, N
O C:
M N
v
o v o v
N O iJ W —
N +., U
S✓ c
Ol cUi� a� V)0
O
— E +,
O N a
E ca >taN,p
E
L
Q a>J 0 a) ca
p
m U a) }, N
U c c U O
aJ Z N M cV
O
U
O N E L
v OaJ
U O
Ca
o U E 0- ca
O
N
i
Q
v
Ln
Q0
c�
L
v
Q
C7 >
o b.o
? U
fl3 f6
W
+-+ U
O tan
aO+ }, N
v Z 1
N
Ltan E in Ln
° +-+ +-+ =3
Q
N O
vi O a) L
a. > U
•N �
�
ate--+
fl3 fa
a) >- +
~
aJ Oo
i
a �
° m
"
tan L +'
U N
aJ
_
U p U E
Lns
m U a+ tan
-0 - s m
UQ V)
ate+
o
E 12
42
O O
E E°
O U
s N
++ a,
0O
O
U �O L
O
- E
a) L OU
•� a
N v
s v _W °o "
L U O
Q
E U
o L °
a _0 O
4-, N
W O E M
+ca+
U M "J
an �
p Ln>. •� i LA
Ln U
O 0 c�
o ) o
LLn.4-1
07 tan
v v a) ca
L O L N ate-+ U
ate+ cB O as,
07 +U-+ U
a, 0 0
U },_ O a)
aJ v U }' a
o > °p -0L L a
O tan
a✓ Q ° E Q
° ° ° ° a�J
E Q O M > a)
ii E tan v -o +
ai E tan -0
C: v;
.—Ln O _E >O 0 E >, O
V) -0Q > °
E p L Q Ct3
E >• > + + aJ Q
_ �
U U-0 w- H c/) O 0-
O
N
i
c�
N
i
rl
N
s
+�
a� c aJ v
a� cLn
O fl3 E O aN+
O N fl3 N
L U N
L LA
ca
: � v
ca
5. -1
N +-, N s -0
Ln a.., N
c c N O C:rq "m
C-0 N O
rq M
m
o m Ln C: W�
o m Ln C:
•(N U O
N U 4-j — °
E > >
'
> O
E
E ry u
aJ L
O L O
O a
U 0 L� a)U
qi
p
0
a)
+.J
a)
om
E
0
U A
V) a-J
O U C V)m
N U 4- s Lp
Q N }' +LA
O
O i fa
fa
r„° aJ an .°
O 0 v O
a O
v E p O 0
Ln E Q Q
aJ O
Ln °
N U > f6
ate-•+ � � aJ +., � a--'
cB Q p i
U U p O
ca ca p L 4 —
aO+ O (n Q W
U N
+-+
N 4"J };
O N O aO+
U ° Ur Q > m
M tan O a
O Q }'
•v+�-+ fl3
C: L O >
a) N L >p E 4Ul
.� � 0
O
N
i
Q
v
Ln
Ln
Ln
rl
a)
+.l
a)
CL
E
O
� � U fa
L
O Ubn
N
_Qj
Q ° o c:
u E
N i O o L:3
n
L Ln0 Ln c Mp
Q Ln Ln
W U =
m L U to 0 aLO-+
a� ° m
W LA o W W O
0 L a) 0- � CZ >
a)
L N Z
>- tan N }; V) t3 O
> C: fa W U
ca v N N o L
aJ N N UQJ N aJ
U m Z can ate..,
LnE
Ln UO v ° O v
ra aJ _o Q
O —> p N a� > o
d > (D Q
N
N
i i N
Ln O
a)
Q o
> N Qj
v LnL
L
v 4 L ° Q
L -0 OQj 4- �
_0 N s 0 L U
tj N N
° = = U u o 0
Q =
O i v
O NO 0 O 4-ON
�
L Q a) tan
o •� -0 a �aJ
ca
laA � +_+ N . U � _0
O N fB —
Q c:
cn Ln tan _0
-0 a= v; O N
N `n " aJ
vN V)O O L
+•+ — Qj
4-1 0->
O Q v, m in -a —
Q -0 a=
O
N
S=
Z5
Ln
Ln
rl
N
O N
U
Ca O �
ate+ V)
a) a
O L a- +
H
O +, m a)
_0 � a) ca N to
—
>
N tiA
.O
r
= O
LO
°
+'
Q
v v
an
v EU
O
V) m
�+v)
+
a) ca
++ Z
,
a=
(� A
-0 m 0 0 4-
+ , 4-�' m
W N
U) E
+' �
a)
U
S= E L
a) (cB
U c
W d
M •tan .�
W Z d 2 U
O L
= O
•
J m U
Q
N
d
rn
d
d
a a
a
a
a
m
4-1
Ln
v
LL
>
- o a
�, .N > a)
N as--+
E °
N E O
O O ci
U +-
N
a
E
_o
a) U a
O O
c�
v
D ml
a,
U N
0
V O -0 ca
L a-J
Ln= Q
�4-1 N
U C Q C:a)
O O
Q E N � U
a aJ l]A � • �
4-; E
O c�La E
bA O 0-
a)
fa ate) U U
O 4bo O S� O L
a) >-
v Q
O (a a)
>. ca
te0 }' > E
a-+ cr a)
Q ° E E
v O
+� a) _O vi
z3 La+
N Q �
a i
w U Oa) U
14 O };
N }'
O O
-0 0 C)4) a) L U
w 4-J O
+O+ O u N
> a)
O ca
L Q
0-4-J E cB
L ca >-
vi O O
v U +� E N O
m j fa fa m m
E O N Ln
L a-j
}' N U
vOi O E
a)
N 4-j '> +
U cn ca u
bz
O E O O �
E fB
a) — a) O •—
4-1 U
v E ca -0 U a)
L v O
m .b s 0 U
_ c�
-
L
O
L
O Ln ° 0
4-1a-+
O
cn
O
U
cB
L
a) Ln
— a) vi
Ln
L i
O 0 0 U
v },
O +-
E
a Q Q
a) fa
°
O
E -0>,
U
E°
Q
aJ
O +-+ O
N O
E m
O E
O
N 0 Q
N
E E a)
O Lnw
c: X
E
a)
C:
a)
� O 0-4-1
_O 'in O -
L }' a �
N a) a
O
L U
°
a E v E°
C1A N E
a°
�> L 4A
v
�a
4-J
to
= O Z3 O
N U +J 4- U
O 0 O O
U Q N
c
a)
E
I
c
v
E
O � O
a) a) a)
o E o
0
U
v
OL
N O v
L
aJ
C:4-JC)dA
O Q U
O
L
bA O
-0
E
°
M E C
OW co:
E
ui
CL W O O
4-1a)
E
fB
O O U
�
Q N
Q in
L
N bn
a-j L N
M O L
E
.- f�
E
O
4-1 a)
O L
>Q
t]A O
O
U
� `—_°
s
a
E_
U N U
a_' fB
bn
C:O
CaA
f6
j LnU
U
N v
'N
t�0
.�
O
O
O
Q° O
Ln
N
1
N O
L" C:
O
N L
O
0 p
L
0
O
S
0-U
qA
+'
M
u
�
ra U M W
m
E
ra Ln•Q
L L E
E
O
0)
Q Ln can) •U
Q
OU d fa
N
O
L
v
E:
N O
L w+,
-C a) O
O
O O 4-j O
m �
o
N
Q0
f6 E O N
—
0 O
U
+O-1 ca
O
tw
� Q)
U U
Ln +,
E U
Ln
)
o =
U L
�_ a-J L
N bD
r-I
a + O
O a) >.
-0
O f6 L
_O Q
.n E O
+� O U2
c-I
Z3 N — O
O i1� aJ
N N
Q 'n O Q
OU E —
C:O O
(B
N
O O Lr) N
-tn C:,}
O
U
p O
U —
O tL0 4-
>
L
>, +�
— L
(B L
+-+ +.+ � O
Ln z3 0-Q
a)
N
� E O U
v O v
ate+ Q
Q aJ a--+ Q
Q
U m U N
m
(n -0 U Q
O
N N
>
Z3 O
Z
4
>. N ++ N
ca -0
Q N
U O 4-1>O
N O U —
Z a)r1A �O qn
Ln ca O v
> Z
L U Q O a) O Ln>-
}, U E Q i 4-1O 0 LnO O
a--+ N 0
L '>j Ln
O
Ln o
0 4-
O dA Q m
4J L
O i s L O >
t�A N 0 Q
U
Ln 0
0 4-
aA a) N
a) � O O
U
cn a) U , C:Q Q
E N Q
a)
a) -0
i N
>- •Ln
N a-+ O N L
o- ai
U Q O n c tL0
U }' U
(a - U L
>- L
}' O O Ln
Ln+,,
� 0 � O
>� s _ ca
E i }0 ? O
O fa L Z) a-J >,
U 3 O E M 4-J —
C�A N C L L fB
4-1�, Q o O N L
++ E Q U U Q O O
N v O a) L 4-
X U O N O O
(3) aJ 4-
L L a--+ -0 fa
-0 > O O O Q
U
XQ p OU Q O O
00 Ln ro a) 4-J4-J � a) i E � E
N
N
ca v UO
+-' ~ n +' bZ
L
� � O
° Ln C:
Q Q
C:+' L > a) L a)
> Q � Q
O O �, E
c v E Q x
a)
L i > ate+ Q E Eo N N
a) D X O
U aA L 4- (3) U -0 O
N
O O
a) v
N a=+
O ro _0
s : a) �
E oE x E
O 0
O 0 Ln LnN ° E
E � u
E > bf
N
O 0 L 0 O
U 0-O Q —
aJ
4
V)
4J
O
Z
v
E N
L
Z3 O
U 4-
0 N
Q •�
a L
U O
C L
0
O O
u
Q � Q
ca 14-
U
O L
Q
ro U-)S_., =3
U O E
N
U
L U
U 0)
bo
U i N
0 O O aO+ O a)
0-.� E Q
U
s
v O U +j
CLO N = In
v o aO
o
0 E }' 0 in
as--+
+-+ N ° O cr
+' Q Qto
ca
v — O
_N
i N >
o a) L
.0
> a) a) 4--j
t]A i 4 N
c� o v °
.N C: Q
c� O Q }, fu
+j cB
L M N U
^-' O v o
a +- E ca
CaW 4-J
a) N
v o m + °
N
N
i
N
O O
a)
N a=+ a)
O
U a Q
E x E
E OU O O
O LJ Ln LnN ° E
m U
E > bD
N
O 0 L 0 O
U 0-O Q —
aJ
ro
4
O
Z
_O N
a)
>
-0 o
ate) N S
ca N v +' O
E c0.> >, c U
O L
o
fa Q O o
Ln N L (n
N
O
v
LnO -0 E
U 4-,
}' 0 w O a)
U E
a) ca +�.+ _0
>Ln
+L 0
O �O
oQ ai bD a)
U s
O
a O ax)
Ln
r-I
M
Ln
I�d:
Ln
Lq
Ln
M
Lfi
I*
Ln
N
r-I
rl
N
N
4-J
I
a)
�
CL
N
a=
4-J
fa U
O
E O
N
(BQj
_0
U coca
•�
E
Q
C'7
U +' N O O
Q cn
O
0 .� 0 i
d fa N
U
C: _0
Ln
Q OJ
Q O _v
i +.+ N
- Q E Q
E
>�
fu m f6
> �O E
O
v E >� E O
Q E
E Q
> O 'U
O
> (}n N f6 t1A
O Q L
U O
M Q U
O m O L
J U m U �'7
X
w U
O X
U w
L O
M a a
Z3 a= >
ML'o O m Q O
c�
Q
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.
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.
Outreach Working Group, Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2020, noon — 1 p.m.
Zoom Meeting Link:
https://zoom.us/i/97398387268?pwd=Mmo2alAOT1 E2MytgUOZia2Uxa3FHZz09
Members:
Sarah Gardner, Matt Krieger, John Fraser, Madeleine Bradley, Grace Holbrook, Marcia
Bollinger, Deb Schoelerman, Blake Rupe, Cheryl Miller (JCED)
1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Updates
• Ambassador program: Training sessions are underway for the second cohort of
Ambassadors, who had a virtual meeting with NOAA climatologist Ray Wolf last
week and will be meeting with recycling coordinator Jane Wilch this week. The
group seems very engaged with the discussions so far.
• Neighborhood Energy Blitz: The budget for the project has been approved and
both the neighborhood association and environmental club school coordinator
have agreed to the plan. Logistics planning is underway to map out the routes
volunteers will follow to deliver the kits and to figure out how best to coordinate
re -supplying teams throughout the route. Outreach to landlords at multi -unit
rental properties will begin next month.
3. Follow up on active transportation discussion from previous meeting
• Sustainability Newsletter: Space has been reserved to help get the word out
about the Bike Library's Raise It Up series of bike rides in the April -July issues of
the newsletter
• Bike to Work Month: A workaround has been identified to help solicit ideas for
Bike to Work Month events in the March issue
• Bike Friendly Business: While looking into this program, staff learned that
applying for the designation involves a 20 page application and a minimum $50
filing fee, which has been identified as potential barriers to area business
involvement. Staff is following up with a conversation with ICAD to learn more
about other barriers and benefits businesses have identified when approached
about participating, in hopes of applying the lessons learned to an alternative
transportation initiative the City has begun designing. The hope is create
something with a lower bar for entry and higher rewards on the local level.
4. Climate Action Grants: The application period for the Climate Action Grants will open
March 1 and close April 1. Grants of up to $10, 000 will be awarded this year, with $500
mini -grants available for student -led projects. Staff would like to ask Climate Action
Commission members to participate in the grant review and selection process alongside
staff. An item will be placed on the March agenda to ask for 2 commissioners to do so.
5. Other Items
• Talking points against alternative energy that have emerged following recent
extreme weather events in Texas serve as reminders of the importance of
ongoing education and outreach efforts.
Next Meeting Wed, 3/17
Active Transportation Community Outreach Ideas (from Bob Opplinger)
1. Create an active transportation advisory committee and/or hire an active transportation
coordinator. This is long overdue. The advisory committee or coordinator would work with IC
transit services, neighboring communities, and Johnson county as well as the MPO.
2. Promote more widely the Bike to Work Month activities. There will be a dozen or more
events. The calendar is just being put together.
3. Work with the schools to promote Safe Routes to Schools. This is a nationally funded
project to promote active transportation to schools. The Iowa Bike Coalition has a staff person
dedicated to promoting this and will host their annual, virtual workshop for it on Thursday,
January 28. (It's FREE.) The IC South District and the Bike Library were ramping up a biking
version last spring. Garner school in NL has promoted this idea too and maybe Longfellow.
4. Help promote IC South Districts ambitious schedule of biking actives. Because of all the
trails, ICSD want to become the biking mecca of IC.
5. Assuming live farmer's markets resumes, more actively promote Move Naturally to the
Market. This promotion goes back to the Blue Zones Project and was hosted by BIC in May.
People who biked or walked to the Saturday market received a $2 coupon for the market.
(Vendors were reimbursed at the end of each market.) It was well received by vendors as well
as patrons and attracted up to 250 people on a sunny Saturday.
6. Promote more widely, the League of American Bicyclists Bike Friendly Business initiative.
This is a companion program with the Bike Friendly Community & Bike Friendly University
programs. Our metro area has about a dozen BFBs. Tom Banta and I were able to persuade
about 6-8 area business/worksites to apply. (It does not require everyone in the workplace to
ride a bike to work.) IC Civic Center, Robert Lee Rec Center & Public Library collectively hold a
silver -level designation, Johnson County offices a gold -level and we have one platinum -level
business.
7. Develop a promotion that rewards bikers or walkers patronizing local businesses. There is a
national program Bike Benefits (bb2.bicyclebenefit ), that offers specified discounts, e.g.
10% off purchases, for patrons who bike to their business sporting the program's decal.
8. Learn to Bike classes. Work with BIC and IC rec services to set-up classes. We can teach
an adult to ride a bike in 2-3 hours. NYC hosts clinics around town and annually teaches about
30K new bikers. Young kids take a little longer. We should have available soon a short
pamphlet "Teaching your Child to Ride a Bike; A Guide for Parents and Caregivers."
9. Street Biking Classes. Street biking would take proficient riders further in offering them help
to gain confidence using bike lanes and "safe streets" to commute.
10. Create a promotion that runs through the summer. For example, Iowa City Active
Transportation Challenge. Beginning in May and running thru September create a challenge like
the National Bike Challenge (https://www.lovetoride.net/usa). In its simplest form, a person who
walks or bikes to work or on an errand instead by car would receive a credit. Accumulate 20
credits and receive a $10 gift card for area businesses. This is an ambitious idea. Some things
to workout.
a. The threshold for the number of points to receive a gift card. Twenty equals about
one/week and the size of the reward
b. How to record points. Is honesty an issue; considering the reward amount, I'd say
no.
c. How to underwrite expenses. Maybe offer only 500 cards and the number of gift
cards an individual can receive, e.g. two. The biking community would offer financial
support.
d. Soliciting cooperation with area businesses. These days I don't think that'd be hard.
e. Could you offer weekly super "raffle prizes" to people enrolled, e.g. a gift certificate
to Film Scene.
f. Promotion