COUNCIL
COMMUNICATION
TO: Mayor and Council FROM: John Kuosman DEPARTMENT: WWTP DATE: October 16, 2017 L/E WWTP Biogas to Renewalable Natural Gas (RNG) SUBJECT: Project
DESCRIPTION: L/E WWTP Biogas to Renewalable Natural Gas (RNG) Project
RECOMMENDATION: The Littleton / Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (L/E WWTP) Supervisory Committee and staff recommend that City Council approve, by motion, a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc. to conduct the design engineering and contractor procurement services for the L/E WWTP Biogas to Renewalable Natural Gas (RNG) Project in the amount of $380,400.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On January 3, 2017, Englewood City Council approved an award of contract to Carollo Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $61,500, to conduct a Biogas Application Feasibility Study.
SUMMARY: In 2017, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (L/E WWTP) initiated a Biogas Application Feasibility Study. The goal of the study was to evaluate collaborating with neighboring industries in order to identify a Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project that would develop a renewable energy product, create a potential revenue source, and highlight the L/E WWTP as a community resource. Carollo Engineers was awarded a contract to conduct the feasibility study and included an economic analysis of various alternatives. The project alternatives investigated included: • Conversion of digester gas for onsite electrical power generation • Conversion of digester gas to compressed natural gas (CNG) for vehicle fuel • Conversion of digester gas to pipeline quality natural gas (PNG) to be injected into utility service grid Based on an analysis, a pipeline injection natural gas project is the most economical and feasible for project implementation. The project will consist of the purchase and construction of a clean-up skid to purify the digester gas to renewable natural gas quality, construction of a new gas pipeline, and construction of the interconnection equipment to the Xcel Energy pipeline grid. Recommendations for project financing including third party financing options, broker services for renewable fuel credits, and the Xcel Energy interconnection agreement are tentatively planned for January 2018.
ANALYSIS: Carollo’s scope for design and procurement services will consist of: • Design of pipeline to connect existing biogas system (digester complex) to new biogas conditioning system • Sizing and specification of biogas conditioning system located adjacent to existing digester complex on slab on grade foundation • Sizing and specification of thermal oxidizing flare • Coordination of Xcel Energy interconnection requirements • Cost estimating • Procurement support for construction contractor, broker services, and Xcel Energy agreement • Third Party Financing Carollo is a nationally recognized environmental engineering firm specializing in the planning, design, and construction management of water and wastewater facilities. The firm is currently ranked within Engineering News Record’s top 15 firms for water and sewer/wastewater companies. Carollo has provided biogas engineering services for other municipalities and has the resources and knowledge to provide the services proposed.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project – Design Engineering and Contractor Procurement Professional Services in the amount of $380,400 will be partially allocated from existing 2017 budget availability. The approved 2017 budget for the WWTP included $1,496,000 for professional services. Through September, $406,175 of professional services have been expended to date and there is adequate funding available to fund the portion of work that will be completed in 2017. Funding for remaining work to be completed in 2018 has also been identified within the 2018 budget request.
ALTERNATIVES: None identified.
CONCLUSION: The Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project will allow the wastewater plant to beneficially and fiscally responsibly reuse the digester gas product that is now creating significant greenhouse gas emissions. In the end, the project will allow the conversion of a wastewater product into a natural gas commodity that be leveraged to reduce the plants operating costs into the future.
ATTACHMENTS: Carollo Contract Carollo Biogas Use Applications Report Biogas Presentation September 28, 2017 Supervisory Committee Meeting Minutes Cl: Engiewooci C. PROCUREMENT DIVISION
PROFESSIONALSERVICES AGREEMENT Contract Nurnhnr FSAI17-26 Pipeline Injection Dulgn Services 5 380.400(not to exceed]
This Professional services Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of this 17th day of August. 2017, (the “Effective Date") by and between Carollo Engineers, inc.. a Delaware corporation ("Consultant"). and The City of Engiewood. Colorado, a municipal corporation organized under the laws ofthe State of Colorado ("City").
City desires that Consultant.from time to time. provide certain consulting services, systems integration services.data conversion services.training services.andlor related services as described herein, and Consultant desires to perfonn such services on behalf of City on the terms and conditions set forth herein. in consideration of the foregoing and the tens hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration.the receipt and suf?ciency of which are hereby acknowledged. the parties hereto. intending to be legally bound.agree as follows:
1. De?nitions. The terms set forth below (b) “Work Product‘ shall mean all shall be defined as follows: patents, patent applications. inventions. designs. mask works. processes. (a) ‘intellectual Property Rights" methodologies. copyrights and copyrightable shall mean any and all (by whatever name or works. trade secrets inciuding con?dential term known or designated) tangible and Information.data. designs. manuals, training intangible and now known or hereafter existing materials and documentation. formulas. (1) rights associate with works of authorship knowledge of manufacturing processes. throughout the universe. including but not methods.prices. ?nancial and accounting data. limitedto copyrights. moral rights. and mask- products and product speci?cations and all works.(2) trademark and trade name rights other intellectual Property Rights created. and similar rights. (3) trade secret rights. (4) developed or prepared. documented and/or patents. designs, algorithms and other delivered by Consultant. pursuant to the Industrial property rights, (5) all other provision of the Services. intellectual and industrial property rights (of every kind and nature throughout the universe 2. Statements of Work. During the tenn and however designated) (including logos, hereof and subject to the tems and conditions "rental" rights and rights to remuneration). contained herein. Consultant agrees to whether arising by operation of law. contract. provide. on an as requested basis. the license.or otherwise.and (6) all registrations. consulting services. systems integration initial applications. renewals. extensions. services. data conversion services. training contlnuatlons.divisions or reissues hereof now services.and related services (the "Servlces') or hereafter in force (Including any rights in any as further described in Schedule A (the ofthe foregoing). “Statement of Work‘) for City. and in such additional Statements of Work as may be
1000 EriglemondParkway. Englewood. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.engtewoodgov.org rvs.un.:a itlixiiruwan...Brim us wim- executed by each of the parties hereto from director before proceeding with the time to time pursuant to this Agreement. Each parton-nance of the Services affected by such Statement of Work shall specify the scope of omissions or discrepancies. work, speci?cations, basis of compensation and payment schedule, estimated length of 4. invoices and Payment. Unless time required to complete each Statement of otherwise provided in a Statement of Work. Work, including the estimated startl?nish City shall pay the amounts agreed to in a dates, and other relevant infomation and shall Statement of Work within thirty (30) days incorporate all terms and conditions contained following the acceptance by City of the work in this Agreement called for In a Statement of Work by City. Acceptance procedures shall be outlined in the 3. Perfonnance of Services. Statement of Work. if City disputes all or any portion of an invoice for charges, then City (a) Psrfomtance. Consuitantshall shall pay the undisputed portion of the invoice perform the Services necessary to complete all by the due date and shall providethe following projects outlined in a Statement of Work in a notificationwith respect to the disputed portion timely and professional mariner consistent with of the invoice. City shall notify Consultant as the speci?cations, if any, set forth in the soon as possible of the speci?c amount Statement ofwork, and in accordance with the disputed and shall provide reasonable detail as prevailing engineering standard of care by to the basis for the dispute. The parties shall exercising the skill and ability ordinarily then attempt to resolve the disputed portion of required of engineers performing the same or such Invoice as soon as possible. Upon similar services in the State of Colorado. resolution of the disputed portion, City shall consultant agrees to exercise professionalism, pay to Consultant the resolved amount. and to utilize its e>¢ter1ise and creative talents in completing the projects outlined in a 5. Taxes. City is not subject to Statement ofWork. taxation. No federal or other taxes (excise. luxury, transportation, sales, etc.) shall be (I1) Delays. Consultant agrees to included in quoted prices. City shall not be notify City promptly of any factor, occurrence, obligated to pay or reimburse Consultant for or event coming to its attention that may affect any taxes attributable to the sale of any Consultant's ability to meet the requirements of Services which are imposed on or measured the Agreement. or that is likelyto occasion any by net or gross income, capital, net worth, material delay in completion of the projects franchise, privilege, any other taxes, or contemplated by this Agreement or any assessments. nor any of the foregoing Statement of Work. Such notice shall be given imposed on or payable by Consultant. Upon in the event of any loss or reassignment of key written noti?cation by City and subsequent employees, threat of strike, or major equipment veri?cation by Consultant, Consultant shall failure.Time is expressly made of the essence reimburse or credit, as applicable, City in a with respect to each and every term and timely ‘manner. for any and all taxes provision of this Agreement. erroneously paid by City. city shall provide Consultant with, and Consultant shall accept in (cl Discrepancies. If anything good faith, resale, direct pay. or other necessary for the clear understanding of the exemption certi?cates, as applicable. Services has been omittedfrom the Agreement speci?cations or it appears that venous 6. out of Pocket Expenses. Consultant instructions are in con?lct, Consultant shall shall be reimbursed only for expenses which secure written instructions from City's project are expressly provided for in a Statement of
1000 Engiewood Parkway, Englewood. Colorado 50110-2373 (303)782-2300www.englewoodgav.org mm '.-nwsu IranianDn-IIIur wirrr Work or which have been approved in advance with respect to a specltlc Statement of Work in writing by City, provided Consultant has (other than by nonpayment) and does not furnished such documentation for authorized substantially cure such defaultwithinthirty (30) expenses as City may reasonably request. days after recah/ing written notice of sum default. then the non-defaulting party may 7. Audits. Consultant shall provide such terminate this Agreement or any or all employees and independent auditors and outstanding Statements of Work by providing inspectors as City may designate with ten (10) days prior writtennotice of termination reasonable access to all sites from which to the defaulting party. Services are performed for the purposes of performing audits or inspections of (d) Bankruptcy or insolvency. Either Consultant's operations and compliance with party may terminate this Agreement effective this Agreement. Consultant shall provide such upon written notice stating its intention to auditors and inspectors any reasonable terminate in the event the other party: (1) assistance that they may require. Such audits makes a general assignment of all or shall be conductedin such a way so that the substantially all of its assets for the benefit of Services or services to any other customer of its creditors; (2) applies for, consents to, or Consultant are not Impactedadversely. acquiesoes in the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or liquidator for its business 8. Tom: and Tennlnatlon. The term of or all or substantially all of its assets; (3) ?les, this Agreement shall commence on the or consents to or acquiesoes in, a petition Effective Date and shall continue unless this seeking relief or reorganization under any Agreement is terminated as provided in this bankruptcy or insolvency laws; or (4) ?les a Section 8. petition seeking relief or reorganization under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws is tiled (a) Convenience. City may, without against that other party and is not dismissed cause and without penalty, terminate the withinsixty (60) days after it was ?ied. provision of Services under any or all Statements of Work upon thirty (30) days prior (e) TABOR. The parties understand written notice. Upon such termination, City and acknowledge that each party is subject to shall. upon receipt of an invoice from Article X. § 20 of the Colorado Constitution Consultant. pay Consultant for Services ("TABOR"). The parties do not intend to actually rendered prior to the effective date of violate the terms and requirements of TABOR such termination. Charges will be based on by the execution of this Agreement. It Is time expended for all incomplete tasks as understood and agreed that this Agreement listed in the applicable Statement ofWork.and does not create a multi-?scal year direct or all completed tasks will be charged as indirect debt or obligation withinthe meaning of indicated in the applicable Statement ofWork. TABOR and, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary. all payment (hi No Outstanding Statements of obligations of City are expressly dependent Work. Either party may terminate this and conditioned upon the continuing Agreement by providing the other party with at availability of funds beyond the tom of City's least thirty (30) days prior written notice of current ?scal period ending upon the next termination if there are no outstanding succeeding December 31. Financial Statements of Work. obligations of City payable after the current ?scal year are contingent upon funds for that (c) Material Breach. If either party purpose being appropriated, budgeted. and materially defaults in the performance of any otherwise made available in accordance with term of a Statement of Work or this Agreement
1000 Englewood Parkway. Englewood. Colorado80110-2373 (303) 762-2300www.engIewoodgov.org r-s.\Ir1qo V??iitci.,.m-.. carp. iJE\il‘Vi'W lhe rules, regulations, and resolutions of City Consultant or Consultant's staff, and City shall and applicable law. Upon the failure to not be required to hire, supervise or pay any appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall assistants to help Consultant perfonn the be deemed temilnated. Services under this Agreement. Except to the extent that Consultant's work must be (ft Return of Property. Upon performed on or with City’s computers or city's termination of this Agreement. both parties existing software. all materials used In agree to return to the other all property providing the Services shall be provided by (including any Con?dential information, as Consultant. defined in Section 11) of the other party that it may have in its possession or control. 11. Confldentiallnformatlon. However, Consultant shall be entitled to keep one (1) copy of any such property, including (a) Obligations. Each party hereto Con?dential information, that Consultantused may receive from the other party information and relied upon in undertaking the services which relates to the other party's business, required hereunder. research, development, trade secrets or business affairs (‘Con?dential Information"). 9. City Obligations. City will provide Subject to the provisions and exceptions set timely access to city personnel, systems and forth in the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS informationrequired for Consultant to perform Section 24-72-101 et. seq., each party shall its obligations hereunder, which Consultant protect all Con?dential Infonnation of the other shall be entitledto use and rely upon. Cityshall party with the same degree of care as it uses provide to Consultants employees perfom-ling to avoid unauthorized use, disclosure, its obligations hereunder at City’s premises, publication or dissemination of its own without charge. a reasonable work con?dential information of a similar nature, but environment in compliance with all applicable in no event less than a reasonable degree of laws and regulations, Including office space, care. Without limiting the generality of the fumlture, telephone service, and reprodudion, foregoing, each party hereto agrees not to computer, famimile, secretarial and other disclose or permit any other person or entity necessary equipment, supplies, and services. access to the other party's Confidential With respect to all third party hardware or lnfonnation except such disclosure or access software operated by or on behalf of City, City shall be permitted to an employee, agent, shall, at no expense to Consultant, obtain all representative or independent consultant of consents, licenses and subliccnses necessary such party requiring access to the same in for consultant to perfonn under the Statements order to perfom-I his or her employment or of Work and shall pay any fees orother costs services. Each party shall insure that their associated with obtaining such consents, employees, agents, representatives, and licenses and sublicenses. independent consultants are advised of the con?dential nature of the Con?dential 10. Staff. Consultant is an independent informationand are precluded fromtaking any consultant and neither Consultant nor action prohibited under this Section 11. Consultant's staff is. or shall be deemed to be Further, each party agrees not to alter or employed by City. City is hereby contracting remove any identi?cation.copyright or other with Consultantfor the Services described in a proprietary rights notice which Indicates the Statement of Work and Consultant reserves ownership of any part of such Con?dential the right to detennirie the method, manner and Information by the other prty. A party hereto means by which the Services will be shall undertake to immediately notify the other periormed. The Services shall be performed by party in writing of ii circumstances
1000 Englewood Fentway, Englewood, Colorado 30110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.nrg
PSA/I7-is Pipcilnolnprlkinnaigiius mm- surrounding any possession, use or knowledge inadequate remedy at law. Accordingly. the of Con?dentialinformation at any location or by parties agree that the non-breaching party any person or entity other than those shall be entitled to temporary and permanent authorized by this Agreement. injunctive relief against the breaching party. its Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this officers or employees and such other rights Agreement shall restrict either party with and remedies to which the non-breaching party respect to information or data identical or may be entitled to at law, in equity or under this similar to that contained in the Con?dential Agreement for any violation of this Section 11. informationof the other party but which (1) that The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive party rightfully possessed before It received the expirationor terminationof this Agreement such informationfrom the other as evidenced for any reason. by written documentation; (2) subsequently becomes publicly available through no fault of 12. Project Managers. Each party shall that party; (3) is subsequently fumiahed designate one of its employees to be its rightfully to that party by a third party without Project Manager under each Statement of restrictions on use or disclosure; or (4) is Work, who shall act for that party on all matters required to be disclosed by law, provided that under the Statement of Work. Each party shall the disclosing party will exercise reasonable notify the other Inwriting of any replacement of efforts to notify the other party prior to a Project Manager. The Project Managers for disclosure. each Statement of Work shall meet as often as either one requests to review the status of the (b) Know-How. For the avoidance of Statement ofWork. doubt neither City nor Consultant shall be prevented from making use of know-how and 13. Warranties. principles ieamed or experience gained of a non-proprietary and non-con?dentialnature. (a) Authority. Consultant represents and warrants that: (1) Consultant has the full (c) Remedies. Each of the parties corporate right, power and authority to enter hereto agree that if any of them, their of?cers, into this Agreement and to perform the acts employees or anyone obtaining access to the required of it hereunder; (2) the execution of Con?dential lnforrnationof the other party by, this Agreement by Consultant. and the through or under them.breaches any provision pertcrmanoe by Consultant of its obligations of this Section 11. the non-breaching party and duties hereunder, do not and will not shall be entitled to an accounting and violate any agreement to which Consultant is a repayment of all pro?ts, compensation. party or by which it is otherwise bound under commissions, remunerations and benefits any applicable law, mie or regulation; (3) when which the breaching party. its of?cers or executed and delivered by Consultant. this employees directly or indirectly realize or may Agreement will constitute the legal. valid and realize as a result of or growing out of, or in binding obligation of such party, enforceable connection with any such breach. In addition against such party in accordance with its to, and not in limitation of the foregoing, in the terms; and (4) Consultant acknowledges that event of any breach of this Section 11, the City makes no representations, warranties or parties agree that the non-breaching party will agreements related to the subject matter suffer irreparable harm and that the total hereof that are not expressly provided for in amount of monetary damages for any such this Agreement injuryto the non—breachingparty arising from a violationof this Set-Alon11 would be impossible (b) service Warranty. Consultant to calculate and would therefore be an warrants that its employees and consultants
1000 Englewood Parkway. Englewood. Colorado 50110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.engIewoodgov.crg
i’§Itfl7-Elrhpsline Illl?iltlll raw‘...LIE\V\\'n' shall have suf?clent skill, knowledge. and executors.successors, and permitted assigns training to perform Services and that the of any of the foregoing (the “City indemnltaes") Services shall be performed in accordance from and against all losses.claims, obligations. withthe standard of care delineated in Section demands. assessments, ?nes and penalties 3(a). (whether civilor criminal). liabilities,expenses and costs (including reasonable fees and (c) Personnel. Unless a speci?c disbursements of legal counsel and number of employees is set forth In the accountants). bodily and other personal Statement of Work. Consultant will provide Injuries, damage to tangible property, and suf?cient employees to complete the Services other damages. of any kind or nature.suffered ordered within the applicable time frames or Incurred by a City lndemnltee to the extent established pursuant to this Agreement or as caused by 2 (1) any negligent act or omission set forth in the Statement of Work. During the by Consultant or its representatives in the course of performance of Services.City may. performance of Consultant's obligations under for any or no reason.request replacement of this Agreement. or (2) any material breach in a an employee or a proposed employee. Insuch representation. warranty. covenant or event‘.Consultant shall.within?ve (5) working obligation of Consultant contained in this days of receipt of such request from City, Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing. in provide a substitute employee of sufficient skill. the event the subject action alleges negligence knowledge. and training to perfonn the on the part of Consultant and/or'Clty. or any applicable Services. Consultant shall require third party not under contract with consultant. employees providing Services at a City consultant's obligations regarding City's locationto comply withapplicable City security defense under this paragraph include only the and safety regulations and policies. reimbursement of the City's reasonable defense costs incurred to the extend od (d) Compensation and Bene?ts. consultant’: negligence as expressly Consultant shall provide for and pay the determined by a ?nal judgment. arbitration. compensation of employees and shall pay all award. order, settlement, or other ?nal taxes. contributions.and bene?ts (such as. but resolution. Consultant shall not be responsible not limitedto, workers’ compensation bene?ts) for breach of ?duciary duty, loss of anticipated which an employer is required to pay relating pro?ts or for economic, incidental or to the employment of employees. City shall not consequential damages to City or any third be liable to consultant or to any employee for party arising out of breach of contract. Consultant's failure to perfonn its termination. or for any other reason compensation. benefit. or tax obligations. whatsoever. Additionally. Consultant shall not Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold be responsible for acts and decisions of third City harmless from and against all such taxes. parties. including governmental agencies. contributions and bene?ts and willcomply with other than Consultant's sub consultants.that all associated governmental regulations. Impact project completion andlor success includingthe ?ling of all necessary reports and returns. (In) infringement Consultant will indemnify. defend.and hold City harmless from 14. indemni?cation. all Indemni?able Losses rising from any third party claims that any Work Product or (a) Consultant Indemni?cation. methodology supplied by consultant infringes consultant shall indemnify. defend and hold or misappropriates any Intellectual Property harmless City. its directors. of?oers. rights of any third party: provided. however. employees. and agents and the heirs. that the foregoing indemni?cation obligation
1000 EnglewoodParkway. Englewood. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300www.engIewoodgov.org
PXA/I7~E?Ii4?llE|lI)'!?ilI on"...u: wtvrr shall not apply to any alleged Infringement or (a) Requirements. Consultant agrees misappropriation based on: (1) use of the to keep in fullforce and effect and maintain at Work Product in combination with products or its sole cost and expense the following policies services not provided by Consultant to the of insurance during the term of this Agreement: extent that such Infringement or misappropriation would have been avoided if (1) The Consultant shall comply such other products or services had not been with the Workers‘ Compensation Act of used; (2) any modi?cation or enhancement to Colorado and shall provide compensation the Work Product made by City or anyone insurance to protect the City from and against other than Consultant or its sub-consultants:or any and all Workers’ Compensation claims (3) use of the Work Product other than as arising from performance of the work under pennitied under this Agreement. this contract. Workers’ Compensation insurance must cover obligations imposed by (c) Indemni?cation Procedures. applicable laws for any employee engaged in Notwith-standing anything else contained in the performance of workunder this contract.as this Agreement. no obligation to indemnify well as the Employers‘ Liability within the which is set forth In this Section 14 shall apply minimumstatutory limits. unless the party claiming indemni?cation notifies the other party as soon as practicable (2) Commercial General Liability to avoid any prejudice in the claim, suit or insurance and auto liability insurance proceeding of any matters in respect of which (including contractual liability insurance) the indemnity may apply and of which the providing coverage for bodily Injury and notifying party has knowledge and gives the property damage with a combined single limit other party the opportunity to control the of not less than three million dollars response thereto and the defense thereof; ($3,000,000) per occurrence. provided, however, that the party claiming indemni?cation shall have the right to (:1) Professional Liability/Errors and participate in any legal proceedings to contest Omissions Insurance covering acts, errors and and defend a claim for indemni?cation omissions arising out of Consultant's involving a third party and to be represented by operations or Services in an amount not less its own attorneys. all at such party's cost and than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per expense; provided further. however, that no occurrence. settlement or compromise of an asserted third- party claim other than the paymentlmonay may (4) Employee Dishonesty and be made without the prior written consent of Computer Fraud insurance oovertng losses the party claiming indemni?cation. arising out of or in connection with any fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by (d) Immunity. City. its of?cers, and its Consultant personnel, acting alone or with employees, are relying on, and do not waive or others, In an amount not less than one million intend to waive by any provision of this dollars ($1,000,000) per oocurrenoe. Agreement, the monetary limitations or any other rights, Immunities, and protections (b) Approved Companies. All such provided by the Colorado Govemmentai insurance shall be procured with such immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101 et seq.. as insurance companies of good standing. from time to time amended, or otherwise pennltted to do business in the country, state available to City. its ofticers, or its employees. or territory where the Services are being performed. 15. insurance.
1000 Englewood Parkway. Englewood, Colorado 50110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.engiewoodgov.org r>sAIi'I 2t:Pipdil: r..5=ar..Duiyr uz wim- (c) Certi?cates. Consultant shall 17. Relationship of Parties. Consultant is provide City with certi?cates of insurance acting only as an independent consultant and evidencing compliance with this Section 15 does not undertake.by this Agreement, any (including evidence of renewal of insurance) Statement of Work or otherwise, to perfonn signed by authorized representatives of the any obligation of City, whether regulatory or respective carriers for each year that this contractual, or to assume any responsibility for Agreement is in effect. Certi?cates of City’s business or operations. Neither party insurance willlist the City of Englewood as an shall act or represent itself, directly or by additional insured, except as to Worker's implication,as an agent of the other, except as Compensation and Professional Liabi|ityIEnors expressly authorized in a Statement ofWorlc and Omissions insurance. Each certi?cate of insurance shall provide that the issuing 18. Complete Agreement. This company shall not cancel or reduce, the Agreement contains the entire agreement insurance afforded under the above policies between the parties hereto with respect to the unless thirty (30) days‘ notice of such matters covered herein. cancellationor reduction has been provided to City. 19. Applicable Law. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws in perfon-ning 16. Rights in Work Product. Services but shall be held hannless for violation of any gcvemmental procurement (a) Generally. Except as speci?cally regulation to which it may be subject but to agreed to the contrary In any Statement of which reference is not made in the applicable Work, all intellectualProperty Rights in and to Statement of Work. This Agreement shall be the Work Product produced or provided by construed in accordance with the laws of the Consultant under any Statement of Work shall State of Colorado. Any action or proceeding remain the property of Consultant With brought to interpret or enforce the provisions of respect to the Work Product, Consultant this Agreement shall be brought before the unconditionally and irrevocably grants to City state or federal court situated In Arapahoe during the term of such intellectual Property county. Colorado and each party hereto Rights, a non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual. consents to jurisdiction and venue before such worldwide, fully paid and royalty-free license, courts. to reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publiclyperfonn and publiclydisplay 20. Scope of Agreement. Ifthe scope of by all means now known or later developed, any provisions of this Agreement is too broad such intellectualProperty Rights. in any respect whatsoever to pennlt enforcement to its fullest extent, than such (b) Know-How. Notwithstanding provision shall be enforced to the maximum anything to the contrary herein.each party and extent pen-nitted by law, and the parties hereto its respective personnel and consultants shall consent to and agree that such scope may be be free to use and employ its and their general judicially modi?ed accordingly and that the skills, know-how, and expertise. and to use, whole of such provision of this Agreement shall disclose, and employ any generalized ideas. not thereby fail, but that the scope of such concepts, know-how.methods, techniques, or provision shall be curtailed only to the extent skills gained or learned during the course of necessary to confonn to law, any assignment. so long as It or they acquire and apply such informationwithout disclosure 21. Additional Work. After receipt of a of any Con?dential lnfomtation of the other Statement of Work, City. with Consultant's party. consent, may request Consultant to undertake
1000 Engiewood Parkway, Englewood. Colorado ao11t>2373 (303) 762-2300www.englewoodgcv.org ml II7-:6 fluxlineluinutrmDulwlue wwrr additional work with respect to such Statement services hereunder, and no right to assert a of Work. In such event. City and Consultant claim against Consultant by assignment of shall execute an addendum to the Statement indemnity rights or othenwise shall accrue to a of Work specifying such additional work and third party as a result oi this Agreement or the the compensation to be paid to Consultant for performance of Consultant's services such additional work. hereunder.
22. Sub-consultants. Consultant may not 26. Headings. The section headings in subcontract any of the Services to be provided this Areementare solely for convenienceand hereunder without the prior written consent of shall not be considered in its Interpretation. City. In the event of any permitted The recitals set forth on the ?rst page of this subcontracting, the agreement with such third Agreement are incorporated into the body of party shall provide that. with respect to the this Agreement. The exhibits referred to subcontracted work, such suh~consultant shall throughout this Agreement and any Statement be subject to all of the obligations of of Work prepared In conformance with this Consultant speci?ed in this Agreement. Agreement are Incorporated into this Agreement. 2:. Notices. Any notice provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be In writing to the 27. Waiver. The failure of either party at parties at the addresses set forth below and any time to require perfonnence by the other shall be deemed given (1) if by hand delivery, party of any provision of this Agreement shall upon receipt thereof, (2) three (3) days after not effect in any way the full right to require deposit in the United States mails, postage such perionnance at any subsequent time:nor prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested shall the waiver by either party of a breach of or (3) one (1) day after deposit with a any provision of this Agreement be taken or nationally-recognized ~cvemight courier, held to be a waiver ofthe provisionitself. specifying ovemlght priority delivery. Either party may change its address for purposes of 2!). Force Majeure. if performance by this Agreement at any time by giving written consultant of any service or obligation under notice of such change to the other party this Agreement is prevented, restricted, hereto. delayed or interfered with by reason of labor disputes, strikes, acts of God, ?oods, lightning, 24. Assignment. This Agreement may not severe weather, shortages of materials, be assigned by Consultant without the prior rationing. utility or communications failures, written consent of City. Except for the earthquakes. war, revolution, civil commotion, prohibition of an assignment contained in the acts of public enemies, blockade, embargo or preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be any law. order. proclamation, regulation. binding upon and inure to the bene?t of the ordinance, demand or requirement having heirs, successors and assigns of the parties legal efiect of any governmental or Judicial hereto. authority or representative of any such government. or any other act whether similar 25. Third Party Bene?ciaries. This or dissimilar to those referred to in this clause, Agreement is entered into solely for the bene?t which are beyond the reasonable control of of the parties hereto and shall not confer any Consultant, then Consultant shall be excused rights upon any person or entity not a party to from such performance to the extent of such this Agreement. No person or entity not a prevention, restriction,delay or interference. If signatory to this Agreement shall be entitled to the period of such delay exceeds thirty (30) rely on Consultant's performance of its days. City may. without liability. tenninate the
1000 Engiewood Parkway, Englewcod. Colorado50110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.eng|ewoodguv.crg
M/n.~.i. Prelim:i..,=mn.. only in; mm- affected Statement of Work(s) upon written any or all of the Services and shall not prevent notice to Consultant. City from acquiring front other supplier's services similar to the Services. Consultant 29. Time of Performance. Time is agrees that acquisitions by city pursuant to expressly made of the essence with respect to this Agreement shall neither restrictthe right of each and every term and provision of this City to cease acquiring nor require City to Agreement. continue any level of such acquisitions. Estimates or forecasts furnished by City to 30. Permits. Consultant shall at its own Consultant prior to or during the term of this expense secure any and all licenses.permits Agreement shall not constitute commitments. or certificates that may be required by any federal.state or local statute. ordinance or 33. Survival. The provisions of Sections 5, regulation for the performance of the Services B(g).10.11.13.14.1B.17.19.23.25 and 31 under the Agreement. Consultant shall also shall sunilve any expiration or tennination for comply with the provisions of all Applicable any reason of this Agreement. Laws in perfonning the Services under the Agreement. At its own expense and at no cost 34. Verification of Compliance with C.R.S. to City. Consultant shall make any change. B-17.5-101 ET.SEQ. Regarding Hiring of alteration or modi?cation that may be Illegal Aliens: necessary to comply with any ApplicableLaws that Consultant failed to comply with at the (a) Employees. Consultants and time of perforrnanoe of the Services. Sub-consultants: Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal 31. Media Releases. Except for any alien to perform work under this Contract. announcement intended solely for intemai Consultant shall not contract with a sub- distribution by Consultant or any disclosure consultant that fails to certify to the Consultant required by legal. accounting. or regulatory that the sub—consultant will not knowingly requirements beyond the reasonable control of employ or contmct with an illegal alien to Consultant, all media releases. public perfonn work under this Contract. [CR8 8- announcements. or public disclosures 17.5-102(2)(a)(|) & (lI).] (including. but not limited to, promotional or marketing material) by Consultant or its (b) Veri?cation: Consultant will employees or agents relating to this participate in either the E-Verity program or the Agreement or its subject matter, or including Department program, as de?ned in C.R.S. B- the name, trade mark.or symbol of City. shall 17.5-101 (3.3) and 8-17.5-101 (3.7), be coordinated with and approved in writing by respectively, in order to continn the City prior to the release thereof. Consultant employment eligibilityof all employees who are shall not represent directly or Indirectlythat any newly hired for employment to perform work Services provided by Consultant to City has under this public contract for services. been approved or endorsed by City or include Consultant is prohibited fromusing the E-Verify the name.trade mark.or symbol of City on a program or the Department program list of Consultant's customers without city's procedures to urlcieriake pre-employment express writtenconsent. screening of job applicants while this contract is being performed. 32. Nonexciuslve Market and Purchase Rights. It is expressly understood and agreed (c) Duty to Terminate a that this Agreement does not grant to Subcontract: it Consultant obtains actual Consultantan exclusive right to provide to City knowledge that a sub-consultant performing
I000 Engiewood Parkway. Engiewood. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org
DEA/If-:5 want: llils?ill only. us wwrv work under this Contract knowingly employs or over cost or price of labor and material; contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant unknown or latent conditions of existing shall; equipment or structures that my affect operation and maintenance costs; competitive (1) notify the sub-consultant and bidding procedures and market conditions; the City within three days that the time or quality of perion-nance of third parties; consultant has actual knowledge that quality. type. management, or direction of the sub-consultant is employing or operating management, or direction of contracting withan illegal alien; and operating personnel; and other economic and operational factors that may materially affect the ultimate project or schedule. Therefore, (2) terminate the subcontract with the sub- Consultant makes no warranty that the City's consultant if, within three days of actual project costs. ?nancial aspects, receiving notice required pursuant to economic feasibility, or schedules willnot vary this paragraph the sub-consultant does from Consultants‘ opinions, analyses, not stop employing or contracting with projections, or estimates. the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not tenninate the contract with the sub-oonsultant If during such three days the sub- consultant provides information to establish that the sub-consultant has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien.
(d) Duty to comply with State Investigation: Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an Investigation by that the Department is undertaking pursuant to C,R.S. 8-17.5-102 (5)
(e) Damages for Breach of Contract: The City may terminate this contract for a breach of oontract, in whole or In part, due to Consultant's breach of any section of this paragraph or provisions required pursuant to CR5 6-17.5-102. Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this contract under this Paragraph 34. it) Estimates and Projections: In providing options of cost, ?nancial analyses, economic feasibility projections, and -schedules for potential protects. Consultant has no control
1DODEnglewood Parkway. Englewood. Colorado 50110-2373 (303) 732-2300 www.englewoodgov.org
i‘\A /I7-1» Pipeline ih}r¢1mnDe¢I3i|llE ivu-rr IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the parties to this Agreement have caused it to be executed by their authorized of?cers as of the day and year ?rst above written, This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. each of which shall be deemed an original‘ but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
By: Date: (Doplrtmunt Dlractor)
By: Date: (clty mlnager)
By: Date: (Mayor)
A'|'|'EST: City Clerk
En - (Consultant Name) SE50 Lfgtoc? Crul-._a£i SEKOD A?drns
cl. CO 8 7, Olly, Shto, Zlp do
(slunlluru)
{FIIIIINllvll)
Tltle: rut RE 1
1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewuud. Colorado 801104373 (303) 762-2300 www.eng|ewoodgov.org
1-s/.m.2s pl;-1r.m.r;...:e.l Dawnus mm SCHEDULE A
OUTLINE OF STATEMENT OF WORK
1. GENERAL
This Schedule is attached to and made a part at the Professional Services Agreement dated v51’ I , 2017, between the City of Englewood (CITY) and Carollo Engineers, Inc (CONSULTANT)for professional services for the Pipeline Injection Design Project.
2. NAMES OF PROJECT COORDINATORS
The City's Project Manager willbe Gunter Ritler, P.E.
The Consultant‘: Project Manager willbe Becky Luna.P.E.
3. SUMMARY OF PURPOSE FOR STATEMENT OF WORK
The Consultant will provide preliminary and ?nal design engineering services for a biogas pipeline injection facilityat the LittietonEngiewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (LEWWTP).
4. EQUIPMENT ANDPROGRAMMINGTO BEPROVIDEDBY CITY(IF ANY)
The CITYwillprovide data and information requested by the CONSULTANT,it available.
5, OTHER CONSULTANTRESOURCES
The CONSULTANTwill provide the management and technical expertise to complete the scope of work described below. These individuals consist of the following but are not limited to; project management, technical experts in blo—gasproduction and bene?cial re-use.
6. DESCRIPTIONOF WORKPRODUCT ANDDELIVERABLES
The CONSULTANT’sscope ofworkincludes the followingtasks and deliverables.
Task 1 - Project Management
Task 1.1 - Project Management and Administration
CONSULTANTshall provide project management services.whichincludethe followingtasks: - Prepare monthly progress reports. - Maintainand monitorproject scope, budget. and schedule. - Provide administrative guidance and supervision of staff, including project planning.
1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood. Colorado80110-2373 (SE3)762-zaon www.angIewoodgov.org rssmm heath:lnminnml." uswwnv Task 1.2 — Project Initiation and Kickoff Meeting
CONSULTANT shall prepare a document for intemal communication summarizing project scope. project responsibilities and contacts, project resources and communication plan, project staffing plan, and project budget. CONSULTANT shall coordinate internal project kickoff meeting
The CONSULTANTwillcoordinate and attend a project kickoiimeeting to review the scope of work and develop and de?ne the ClTY's goals and objectives for the project. The kickoffmeeting willbrie?y review a preliminary layout for the gas conditioning skid and pipeline to connect to the existing Xcel pipeline.
Task 2 — Preliminary Design
Subtask 2.1 — Preliminary Analysis and Layout
CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) locationsfor the biogas conditioning system and themial oxidizing ?are. CONSULTANT shall develop up to two (2) routings for the biogas pipelinebetween the biogas conditioningsystem and the Xcelmetering and monitoringequipment. Preliminary layouts will be reviewed withthe CITYduring the kickoffmeeting.
Subtask 2.2 - Electrical Load Study
CONSULTANTshall review existing electrical drawings to con?rm there is sufticient infrastructure available for the additional electrical loads required by the biogas conditioning system, thermal oxidizing ?are, nd Xcel Energy metering and monitoring equipment.
Subtask 2.3 — Pennming Assistance and Support
CONSULTANT willprovide the building department and ?re marshal with contract documents as required tor agency review. CONSULTANT willrespond to questions as needed to coordinate review and approval of the project.
Subtask 2.4 — Technical Support for Xcel Energy and Broker Contracts
The CITYwilltake the lead on development of contracts between the L/E VVlNTPand XcelEnergy and the carbon broker, respectively. CONSULTANT shall providetechnical support for contract development,includingcontract review and discussions withXcel Energy and the carbon brokers.
Subtask 2.5 — Coordination with Xcel Energy for Metering and Monitoring Equipment
CONSULTANT shall coordinate with Xcel Energy to determine the limitsof design of the system. Xcel Energy shall design and construct the bioges metering and monitoring equipment and connectionto the Xcel Energy pipelinethat runs along the northernboundary of the LIEV\MiTP. CONSULTANT will provide power as needed to the biogas metering and monitoring equipment provided by Xcel. CONSULTANT shall attend up to one (1) meeting withXcel to discuss coordination items.
Subtask 2.6 — Conditioning System Procurement
1000 Englewood Parkway. Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www,englewoodgov.arg i‘L\m-an fivtliuclrlisnimioer,-nLIEwvzrr CONSULTANT shali prepare drawings and speci?cations for early procurement of the biogas conditioningequipment. including the thennsl oxid'zing?are. Procurement ofthe biogas conditioning equipment willuse a best value selection process. CONSULTANT shall assist CITYin developing evaluation criteria for the Request for Proposals (RFP) issued to equipment manufacturers. CONSULTANTshall review proposals submitted by manufacturers and assist CITY in performing best-value evaluation. Selection criteria such as service record, equipment warranties and performance, maintenance requirements. and reference installations willbe reviewed Indetail.
Subtask 2.7- Preliminary Design Drawings
CONSULTANTshall prepare preliminary design drawings on 22" x 34' sheet size (11' x 17' halt-size) in Microstation v8 XM. Preliminary design drawings willconvey basic project elements to a 30 percent design completion, including biogas conditioning system. thermal oxidizing ?are. and connection of biogas conditioning system to existing biogas system and Xcel metering and monitoring equipment.
Subtask 2.8 - Preliminary Design Cost Estimate
CONSULTANT shall prepare an estimate ofthe cost of the work based on the preliminarydesign drawings. Cost estimates willbe developed to the Class 4 level per the standards of the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). Cost estimate willbe furnishedto CITY approximately two weeks followingthe preliminarydesign drawing submittal.
Subtask 2.9 — Preliminary Design Workshop
CONSULTANTshall prepare for and attend a preliminary design workshop to review the preliminary design drawings and concepts. CONSULTANTwillcompilemeeting notes and submit to CITYwithin seven (7) days after meeting.
Task 3 — Final Design
subtask 3.1 — Drawings
CONSULTANT shall prepare drawings on 22' x 34" sheet size (11"x 17' half-size) in MicrostationV8 XM.A list of anticipated drawings required for adequate representation of the project elements is included InAttachment A. CONSULTANT willsubmit progress submittai drawings and speci?cations at 60 percent and 90 percent for CITYreview.
Design elements included in the project are as follows: - Pipeline to connect existing blogas system inside digestion complex to blogas conditioning system. - Biogas conditioning system located adjacent to existing digestion complex on slab on grade foundation. - Thermal oxidizing ?are. - Pipeline to connect blogas conditioning system to metering nd monitoringequipment (designed and constructed by Xcel Energy).
1000 Ertglcwood Parkway. Englawood. Colorado 30110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.engiewoodgcv.org
i'.$i\li7-1rJi|:eilIIc InjectionDuigu us mm- Subtask 3.2 — Specl?catlons
Project specifications shall be prepared using ClTY's Division00 documents and CONSULTANT's Division 01 documents and technical speolllcations using the current MasterForn1at (Div48).
Subtask 3.3 - Progress Submittals
CONSULTANTwillsubmit progress subrnittal drawings and speci?cations at 60 percent and 90 percent for CITYreview. The CITYwillreview progress submittals, compile all review comments into one set of coordinated documents, and submit comments to the CONSULTANTwithinfourteen (14) days after receipt of document package submittal.
Subtask 3.4 - Cost Estimate
CONSULTANTshall prepare an estimate of the cost ofthe work based on the 60 percent and 90 percent Drawings and Specifications. Cost estimates willbe developed to the Class 3 and 2 level, respectively. per the standards of the AACE. Cost estimates willbe furnished to ClTY approximately two weeks following each progress submlttal.
Task 3.5 - Dsslgn Workshops
CONSULTANT shall prepare for and attend 60 percent and 90 percent design workshops to review progress submittals.CONSULTANT willcompile meeting notes and submit to CITYwithinseven (7) days after meeting.
Task 3.6 — Construction Sequencing
CONSULTANTshall develop a baseline constmction sequencing plan in MicrosoftProject that indicates requirements for sequencing startup of new processes and taking existing process elements out of service during construction.The construction sequencing plan willtake into account early procurement of the biogas conditioningsystem and.ifdesired.early contractor selection. This plan willbe included in the front—endspeci?cations.
Subtask 3.7 - Final Quality Check
CONSULTANTshall provide a ?nal in-house quality check at the drawings and speclilcatlons using an independent team at 90 percent design. Appropriate check comments willbe incorporated into the ?nal drawings and speci?cations.
Task 4 — Contractor Procurement Services
Subtask 4.1 -Submlttal for Procurement. CONSULTANT shall prepare and provide copies of the 100% Drawings and Speci?cations for procurement of CONTRACTOR. CITYwilldetermine selection method for procurement of CONTRACTOR. subtask 4.2 — Respond to Questions. CONSULTANT shall respond to prospective CONTRACTORS’ inquiries regarding various aspects of the Project. Consultant shall prepare and Issue up to two (2) addenda, In conformance with CITY's current standards, as appropriate to Interpret, clarify. or expand the Procurement Documents.
1000 EnolewoodParkway. Englewood. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englawoodgov.org
I5 !SAlI1.5S!ipdiiu Injmin um...us mm Subtask 4.3 — Assist in Contractor Selection. CONSULTANTshall assist the CITYin selecting a CONTRACTOR for the project.
Dellverables for this project include the following:
- Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices; PDF ?les provided by emailto the CITY'SProject Manager. - Meeting agendas, meeting summaries; PDF ?les by e-mail. - Preliminary Deslgn Drawings; ?ve (5) half-sizecopies willbe provided along with PDF?les. - FinalDeslgn Drawings and Speci?cations (60% and 90%); ?ve (5) half-slzeoopies willbe provided along with PDF ?les. - Cost Estimates (60% and 90%); PDF ?les by e—mall. - 100% Drawings and Speci?cations; ?ve (5) oopies willbe provided along with PDF ?les and AutoCAD 2015 format.
7. SPECIAL TERMS, IF ANY
None Identi?ed.
8. MODE OF PAYMENT
The CITY and CONSULTANT have established a not-to-exceed budget of $380,400 for the scope at services described inthis letter.
CONSULTANTshall submit the 100 percent Drawings and Speci?cations wlthlnseven (7) months from written Notice to Proceed.
9. PAYMENTSCHEDULE
CITY willpay CONSULTANT for the work on a monthly basis based on the project percent complete. as calculated by the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANTshall provide monthly progress reports detailing work completed Inthat month for approval by CITV.
1000 Englawood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 wvw4.eng|mnudgw.org
vs.un.:a Plprlillr 1.1;...“-. Dnlgu ur. wurrlr 10. SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE MILESTONES
This schedule sets for the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the Dellverables by CONSULTANT‘
Performance Milestone Responsible Target Date Pa ?y (Calendar clays)
Notice to Proceed CITY TBD (Day 0)
Kick-OffMeeting CONSULTANT 21 days
Preliminary Design Deliverable CONSULTANT 42 days
Preliminary Design Workshop CONSULTANT 49 days
Comments Received on Preliminary Design CITY 56 days Deliverable
60% Design Deliverable CONSULTANT 84 days
60% Workshop CONSULTANT 91 days
Comments Received on 60% Design CITY 98 days Deliverable
90% Design Deliverable CONSULTANT 140 days 90% Workshop CONSULTANT 147 days
Comments Received on 90% Deliverable CITY 154 days
100% Design Deliverable CONSULTANT 182 days
11. ACCEPTANCEANDTESTING PROCEDURES
Not applicable.
12. LOCATIONOF WORKFACILITIES
Substantially all of the work will be conducied by CONSULTANTat its regular of?oe located in Eroom?eld, Colorado.
1000 Englawuod Parkway. Englawuud. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 vMw.eng|ewoodgov.org r-5»./was rrwlminimimnuim./2 wwvr IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant and in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement between the parties hereto dated , 2017. the parties have executed this Statement of Work as ofthis day of .2017.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
By: (S Ignature)
(Fnm Name)
Tme:
Date:
CAROLLO ENGINEERS INC CONSULTANT Name
Title: mg Ere<.'g£+
Date: ‘ ’
By: Slgnalure) HM (ég?/[ml (PrlntNImu) Title: Vlcé Erna:-oé-4:’ Date: 9-54‘)
1000 Englewnnd Parkway. Englewuod. Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.eng|ewocdgov.org
IISAIIY-in r-.,..m..n-gm». Dennaus wwnv
Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
REVISED DRAFT | September 2017
Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant
BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
Becky J. Luna, September 8, 2017, Colorado License No. 39920
BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Contents Biogas Use Applications Report 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Project Background 1 1.2.1 L/EWWTP Process 1 1.2.2 Existing Digestion System 2 1.3 Biogas Utilization Alternatives Analysis 5 1.3.1 Project Baseline 5 1.3.2 Compressed Natural Gas for Vehicle Fuel 5 1.3.3 Pipeline Injection 9 1.4 Incentives/Grants for Biogas to Transportation Fuel 11 1.4.1 Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard Program 11 1.4.2 ALT Fuels Colorado Program 12 1.5 Gas Conditioning 13 1.5.1 Hydrogen Sulfide 13 1.5.2 Moisture 15 1.5.3 Siloxanes 15 1.5.4 Carbon Dioxide 15 1.5.5 Summary of Manufacturers 15 1.6 Biogas Storage 16 1.7 Economic and Non-Economic Comparison 17 1.7.1 Capital Cost Evaluation 17 1.7.2 Life Cycle Cost Evaluation 18 1.7.3 Non-economic Considerations 19 1.8 Financing and Procurement Options 21 1.9 Summary and Recommendations 23 1.9.1 Sensitivity Analyses 24 1.9.2 Exit Strategies 26 1.10 Implementation Plan 26
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| i pw:\\Carollo/Documents\Client/CO/LE WWTP/10459A00/Deliverables\LE BiogasUseRpt.docx LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS APPLICATIONS REPORT
Appendices Appendix A Xcel RNG Quality Requirements Appendix B Capital Cost Estimates
Tables Table 1 Biogas Quality 4 Table 2 CNG Vehicle Fuel Project Status 6 Table 3 Biogas Production Equivalents 8 Table 4 Pipeline Injection Project Status 10 Table 5 Xcel RNG Biogas Quality Requirements 10 Table 6 Summary of Conditioning Equipment Manufacturers 15 Table 7 Design Criteria and Financial Assumptions 17 Table 8 Estimated Project Costs 17 Table 9 Design Criteria and Financial Assumptions 18 Table 10 Net Present Value Summary 18 Table 11 Non-Economic Comparison of Alternatives 19 Table 12 Factors Used to Calculate GHG Emissions from Biogas Production and Reuse 20 Table 13 Net Present Value at Varying RIN Values 24 Table 14 Net Present Value with Varying Financing Options 25
Figures Figure 1 Digestion Complex Site Plan 2 Figure 2 Historical Biogas Production 3 Figure 3 Influent and Biogas Flow Projections 4 Figure 4 Proposed Gas Conditioning Skid Site Plan 7 Figure 5 Potential Routes for CNG Pipeline to WM Fueling Station 9 Figure 6 Renewable Fuel Volume Mandates 11 Figure 7 Historical D3 RIN Values 12 Figure 8 Typical Treatment Skid for CNG 13 Figure 9 Digester Gas Conditioning System in Grand Junction 16 Figure 10 High Pressure Storage Tubes for CNG 16 Figure 11 Summary of Capital Costs and Life Cycle Revenue 19 Figure 12 GHG Offsets Based on Type of Biogas Reuse 21
ii | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 13 Future Site Plan 23 Figure 14 RIN Pricing Sensitivity 24 Figure 15 Financing Sensitivity 25 Figure 16 Implementation Schedule 26
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| iii LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS APPLICATIONS REPORT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
iv | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Abbreviations AACE American Association of Cost Engineering BTU British thermal unit Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc. CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation CEO Colorado Energy Office cf cubic feet cfd cubic feet per day cfm cubic feet per minute cfs cubic feet per second
CH4 methane CMAR Construction Management at Risk CNG compressed natural gas
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalence DAFT dissolved air flotation thickener DGE diesel gallon equivalents EPA Environmental Protection Agency’ F Fahrenheit GGE gasoline gallon equivalents GHG greenhouse gas GWP Global Warming Potential
H2S hydrogen sulfide HFC hydrofluorocarbons HHV higher heating value L/EWWTP Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant MG million gallons mgd million gallons per day
N2O nitrous oxide NaOH sodium hydroxide O&M operation and maintenance PFC perfluorocarbons
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| v LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
ppd pounds per day ppm parts per million psi pounds per square inch RAQC Regional Air Quality Council RFS Renewable Fuel Standard RIN Renewable Identification Number RNG renewable natural gas RTD Regional Transportation District RTU remote terminal unit scf standard cubic feet
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SO2 sulfur dioxide UPS United Parcel Service VOC volatile organic compound WM Waste Management
vi | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.1 Introduction The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (L/EWWTP) serves the south metro Denver area and receives sanitary sewer from the Cities of Littleton and Englewood, as well as from 19 other connector districts. The facility was commissioned in 1977 and is currently rated for 50 million gallons per day (mgd), with an approximate average daily flow of 24 mgd. Biogas produced during the anaerobic digestion process is currently used for digester heating, with the remainder (approximately 40 percent of the gas produced, depending on the season) flared in a waste gas burner. The L/EWWTP initiated the Biogas Use Applications Project as part of the plant’s Energy Improvement Program to explore opportunities to handle biogas in an environmentally responsible manner by limiting biogas combustion byproducts being released to the atmosphere, and to create a revenue stream for the L/EWWTP. This report provides the L/EWWTP with a comprehensive evaluation of various scenarios as a means to beneficially use the L/EWWTP’s biogas, including:
• Base Case: Untreated biogas is burned in the existing boiler to maintain anaerobic digester operating temperature (98 degrees Fahrenheit [F]) and the excess gas flared. • Conversion of biogas to compressed natural gas (CNG) for vehicle fueling. • Conversion of biogas to CNG for pipeline injection and subsequent distribution for transportation applications by a 3rd party. 1.2 Project Background This project is part of the City of Englewood's Energy Action Plan, the goal of which is "to reduce total energy use 1 percent annually through 2030, which would compound to reducing total energy use by 12 percent over the 2015 baseline by that time." The L/EWWTP is listed in one of the three areas that Englewood will focus on, "Municipal/Institutional." The entire focus area accounts for 8 percent of the electricity and 1 percent of the natural gas, or 3 to 4 percent of the total community energy use. The L/EWWTP accounts for 76 percent of the area's energy use, and can therefore have a significant impact on Englewood's Energy Action Plan. The project goals include:
• Develop renewable energy. • Convert biogas into a revenue source. • Highlight the L/EWWTP as a community resource. • Evaluate partnering with neighboring industries. • Determine technical feasibility and economic viability of beneficially reusing biogas. 1.2.1 L/EWWTP Process The L/EWWTP consists of a headworks, primary treatment, secondary treatment consisting of trickling filters/solids contact system, followed by nitrification trickling filters, denitrification basins, and chlorine disinfection prior to discharge to the South Platte River. Solids treatment includes co-thickening of primary and secondary solids in dissolved air flotation thickeners (DAFT), anaerobic digestion, and centrifuge dewatering.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 1 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.2.2 Existing Digestion System The L/EWWTP currently produces roughly 40,000 pounds per day (ppd) of primary and secondary volatile solids, with a buildout production of almost 80,000 ppd (L/EWWTP Master Plan, October 2013). Primary sludge, scum, and secondary sludge are thickened together in the DAFT process and the thickened sludge is pumped to the digesters. The digestion process consists of five anaerobic digesters that are 80 feet in diameter and designed for 29 feet of sidewall depth, for a volume of just over one million gallons (MG) per digester. Digesters 1, 3, 4, and 5 are considered primary digesters and are mixed and heated. Digester 2 is equipped with two mixing pumps and a transfer pump. Under normal operation, only two digesters are in service at a time, and Digester 2 serves as an active storage digester, which receives and stores the digested sludge prior to dewatering. An aerial view of the digestion system is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Digestion Complex Site Plan
After dewatering, the biosolids are land applied in Adams and Arapahoe counties. The L/EWWTP produces approximately 3,400 dry tons per year of biosolids. Almost three-quarters of the biosolids are applied to land owned by Littleton and Englewood, and the remainder is applied to private lands. 1.2.2.1 Existing Biogas System Gas produced in the digesters is currently collected in the headspace of the operating digesters and connected to a biogas header. Gas pressure is maintained at a set point by the backpressure
2 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT control valve at the waste gas flare. Pressure and vacuum relief assemblies are located on each digester roof to protect the digesters in case of a blockage in the piping. A portion of the biogas is burned to heat the primary digesters in the dual-fired boilers. The L/EWWTP has two Jenbacher cogeneration engines and ancillary equipment, though they have not been used since 2005. Gas treatment was not installed with the cogeneration equipment, and burning the raw biogas created operational issues for the engines due to siloxane buildup. Based on the evaluation performed in the 2013 Master Plan, L/E has elected to abandon the cogeneration engines due to the high cost of maintenance (estimated to be approximately $900,000 per year for a contract services agreement). 1.2.2.2 Biogas Production and Quality Gas production at the facility during 2016 is presented in Figure 2. This figure shows the total biogas production and biogas consumed in the boilers to heat the process and building. The remainder is flared. Based on the operating data, gas production fluctuates between approximately 400,000 and 1,000,000 cubic feet per day (cfd) with an average of 469,000 cfd. While only 1 year of data is shown, this is typical of historical plant operation.
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Gas cfd Gas Produciton, 400,000
200,000
0
Total Digester Gas Produced Digester Gas Flow to Boilers
Figure 2 Historical Biogas Production
To determine the future gas flows, Carollo Engineers (Carollo) initially used a ratio of current and future average day annual influent flow projections developed for the 2013 Master Plan based on service area population projections. The Master Plan over-predicted the flow in 2015, so Carollo lowered the projection to match the growth from 2010 to 2015. Based on the revised projections, gas production is anticipated to increase from 469,000 cfd in 2015 to 556,700 cfd in 2038. Figure 3 presents both influent flow and biogas flow projections between 2015 and 2038. This increase in flow and biogas production equates to approximately a 1 percent growth of L/EWWTP’s service area. Carollo estimates this growth is due to urban infill and not increasing the service area.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 3 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
30 600,000
25 500,000
20 400,000
15 300,000
10 200,000 Gas cfd Gas Production, Influent Flow, mgd Flow, Influent
5 100,000
0 - 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Year Influent Flow Digester Gas Flow
Figure 3 Influent and Biogas Flow Projections
The quality of the gas will determine the level of treatment required for the various alternatives evaluated herein. The L/EWWTP provided historical biogas quality data, including heating value, methane (CH4) concentration, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentration, as shown in Table 1. The L/EWWTP tests the gas roughly every 2 weeks. Table 1 Biogas Quality Siloxane Heating value CH (%) CO (%) H S (ppm) 4 2 2 (ppm) (BTU/scf)(1) Average 58 40 157 <1 443 Maximum 59 42 231 1.3 457 Minimum 55 38 25 <1 427 Notes: (1) Based on Carollo's experience, the heating values are lower than expected. A different calculation method used by a third party lab resulted in a heating value of 600 BTU/scf. The value used in this analysis is 550 BTU/scf, adopted from the 2013 Master Plan. BTU = British thermal unit ppm = parts per million scf = standard cubic feet With the exception of the heating value (explained in the table footnote), these values are all within normal ranges for a municipal L/EWWTP. 1.2.2.3 Digester Heating Requirement The heating system comprises of three boilers, a primary heat reservoir loop and multiple secondary heat reservoir loops. As shown in Figure 2, an average of 103,900 cfd of biogas is sent to the boilers for heating, with a demand as high as 231,900 cfd in the winter months. For this evaluation, biogas consumption in the boiler of 103,900 cfd was used as the starting point in 2018. The amount of gas required was assumed to increase at the same rate the influent flow
4 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT increased, to 119,700 cfd in 2038. These gas flows correspond to heat demands of 57.1 million BTUs/day and 65.8 million BTUs/day, respectively. 1.3 Biogas Utilization Alternatives Analysis Prior to initiating this project, the L/EWWTP team evaluated a number of options to beneficially re-use the biogas produced on-site. These alternatives were compared to current operation (use biogas to heat digesters and flare excess gas) and included:
• Reinvesting in cogeneration facilities, • Conversion of biogas to CNG for vehicle fueling, • Conversion of biogas to CNG for pipeline injection, • Biogas supply to local industries, • Bioplastic generation from biogas, and • Biosolids drying. Based on previous experience with their cogeneration system, plant staff elected to not pursue reinvestment in cogeneration facilities. Biogas supply to local industries was deemed to be less economically favorable as compared to the conversion of biogas to CNG. Bioplastic generation from biogas was not evaluated further due to its lack of implementation at full scale. Biosolids drying was found to have a significantly higher capital cost than the other alternatives based on evaluations at other facilities, and was dropped from consideration. As a result of the L/EWWTP evaluations, the team determined that the two options to be evaluated as part of this project are as follows:
• Conversion of biogas to CNG for vehicle fueling, and • Conversion of biogas to CNG for pipeline injection. The sections below present the findings related to evaluating the feasibility, costs, advantages, and disadvantages of these two alternatives as compared to the project baseline. 1.3.1 Project Baseline The project baseline represents the current operation of the L/EWWTP, for comparison to the alternatives presented herein. Under this scenario, the L/EWWTP would continue to burn the untreated biogas in the boiler to heat the primary digesters under typical operation, while flaring the excess gas in the existing waste gas burner, as described in Section 1.2. This alternative is presented as a "do nothing" alternative and would not incur additional capital or operating costs, but would not accomplish the L/EWWTP’s goals of finding a beneficial use for the biogas and creating a revenue stream. 1.3.2 Compressed Natural Gas for Vehicle Fuel Use of biogas for the production of CNG for vehicle fuel has gained increasing interest over the past decade due to the economic benefit of offsetting vehicle fuel rather than electricity. With municipal fleet and private sector vehicles across the country converting to CNG, there is a great opportunity for collaboration by locating vehicle fueling stations near existing wastewater treatment plants and making use of an already available fuel source. While implementation of these types of projects at wastewater treatment plants is relatively new, the technology for conditioning and compressing the gas into CNG is well-established, and is currently in use at landfills across the country. Newly developed regulations and goals geared
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 5 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
toward greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions are providing newfound incentives for implementing these types of projects. Table 2 summarizes projects that have been completed or are underway to convert biogas to CNG for vehicle fuel at wastewater treatment plants in the United States. Table 2 CNG Vehicle Fuel Project Status Average Dry Project Location Production Since Biogas Utilization Weather Flow City of Janesville, WI 13 mgd 2012 CNG for vehicle fuel City of Grand Junction, CO 8 mgd 2015 CNG for vehicle fuel St. Petersburg, FL 35 mgd 2015 CNG for vehicle fuel Napa Sanitation District, CA 9 mgd In Progress CNG for vehicle fuel Columbia Boulevard Water City Council approved; 100 mgd CNG for vehicle fuel Treatment Plant, OR design not yet begun City of San Mateo, CA 12 mgd 2016 CNG for vehicle fuel Evaluation complete; City of Porterville, CA 5 mgd CNG for vehicle fuel design not yet begun In Design; Construction Petaluma, CA 5 mgd CNG for vehicle fuel to begin in 2017
The required equipment for this alternative consists of treatment, compression, storage, and a
fueling station. In order to produce CNG, the biogas is cleaned to remove H2S, siloxanes, moisture, and the majority of CO2, resulting in greater than 95 percent CH4 content. After treatment, the gas is compressed and stored for use. This system converts a majority of the gas to CNG, and the remaining gas, known as the tail gas (approximately 30 percent of the initial CH4 content, along with the stripped CO2 depending on treatment method) can either be flared or potentially burned in the existing boiler, either with natural gas blending or by itself. This tail gas has a heating value lower than normal biogas. Another option is to provide an extra treatment step (an additional set of membranes) for additional CO2 removal. This increases the efficiency of the gas conditioning system from 70 percent to 95 percent, but requires a thermal oxidizing flare or similar technology for disposal of the very low BTU waste gas, since it contains mostly CO2. For the purposes of this analysis, a dual pass conditioning system was assumed, which has a higher capital cost, but a lower overall payback period, due to the increased utilization of the digester gas. A proposed layout of the gas conditioning skid on the L/EWWTP plant site is presented in Figure 4. The skid can be located outdoors on a concrete pad. An alternate location for the equipment could be in the existing cogeneration room, if the existing units are removed.
6 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 4 Proposed Gas Conditioning Skid Site Plan
A typical CNG fueling station receives natural gas from a pipeline and uses compressors to pressurize the gas to supply either fast-fill or slow-fill fueling stations. Fast-fill fueling stations compress CNG to roughly 3,000 pounds per square inch. At this pressure, it takes roughly the same amount of time to fill a CNG vehicle as a traditional gasoline or diesel powered vehicle. Slow-fill fueling stations are often used for fleet vehicles that are not in operation for a significant portion of the day. For these stations, the gas is pressurized to 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) and is fed to the vehicles overnight so that they are ready for use the next day. This evaluation considered several possible users that had a large fleet of vehicles that could use the CNG produced at the L/EWWTP, including the United Parcel Service (UPS), Safeway, Western Disposal, Regional Transportation District (RTD), Waste Management (WM), and Englewood Schools, among others. Englewood Fleet Services was considered, but would not have sufficient fuel usage use to make the project economically viable. Many of the potential users considered already have fueling on-site, and are not located within a reasonable distance for a pipeline to be installed between the L/EWWTP and the existing fueling station. The most feasible alternative was WM. The WM refueling and parking site is less than 3 miles from the L/EWWTP and currently has 40 CNG trucks, with plans to purchase 60 more in the future. WM operates more than 5,000 CNG powered trucks in North America, and would bring significant experience to the project. A fast-fill fueling station closer to the L/EWWTP was briefly considered, but the production from the L/EWWTP is relatively constant throughout the day and night, and a large portion of biogas
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 7 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
would be wasted without including significant and costly storage volume. Additionally, WM already has slow-fill fueling stations constructed at their site. Based on conversations with WM, this analysis assumes the WM trucks drive an average of 75 miles per day and have an efficiency of 2 miles per gallon. Based on these assumptions, the fleet would require 1,500 diesel gallon equivalents (DGE) of CNG fuel per day. The equivalent BTU value, DGEs, and equivalent vehicle miles per day based on the L/EWWTP's current and future biogas production are presented in Table 3. This analysis shows that the L/EWWTP produces in excess of what is required by Waste Management's fleet. The limiting factor for WM use is their operational schedule of 5.5 days per week. Table 3 Biogas Production Equivalents Biogas BTUs Equivalent Year DGEs/Day Production, cfd Generated/Day Vehicle Miles/Day 2015 468,600 257,730,000 1,800 3,600 2038 556,700 306,185,000 2,200 4,400 Notes: (1) Assumes 550 BTU/cf, 129,500 BTU/DGE, and 95% efficiency of dual pass biogas conditioning system and 96% availability. (2) Assumes CNG sanitation vehicles achieve a fuel efficiency of 2 miles per DGE. The fueling station would be designed to use either CNG from the L/EWWTP or natural gas (as it is currently operated). The fuel system would utilize a pressure regulating valve so that CNG is used before the currently supplied natural gas. During times when production exceeds demand, the excess can either be stored, or flared if storage is full. Gas production in excess of use and storage can be used in the boilers. The WM fleet is currently based at 2400 W. Union Avenue, Englewood, CO 80110. The team evaluated the construction of a pipeline between the L/EWWTP and WM, likely routed down Santa Fe Drive, as shown in Figure 5. The cost of the pipeline itself is anticipated to be roughly $1 million dollars for material and installation costs (trenching and tunneling under the South Platte River). The routing of this pipeline, although small in diameter, poses concerns with respect to coordination with landowners and permitting, given that it would be routed through a congested area and below the South Platte River. This could add project complexity and result in schedule delays. Another concern with this alternative (beyond routing the pipeline) is that once a pipeline is constructed, the L/EWWTP is tied to WM without other customers to sell to. In the future, L/E could install a CNG fueling station for the public along Santa Fe Drive, but the demand of this fueling station is unknown, and would likely be significantly lower than the demand from WM. One advantage of this alternative is that it would meet the L/EWWTP’s strategic plan objective of creating regional partnerships to benefit members of the community.
8 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Figure 5 Potential Routes for CNG Pipeline to WM Fueling Station
1.3.3 Pipeline Injection Another use of CNG is direct injection into a pipeline for a third party vehicle fuel use. This alternative requires additional cleaning of the biogas beyond CNG vehicle fuel standards, but eliminates the need for storage and the concerns over finding sufficient consistent demand for the produced gas. Table 4 summarizes projects that have been completed or are underway to convert biogas to CNG for pipeline injection at wastewater treatment plants in the United States.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 9 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
Table 4 Pipeline Injection Project Status Average Dry Project Location Production Since Biogas Utilization Weather Flow Point Loma, CA 240 mgd 2012 Pipeline injection Clean Water Services, OR 65 mgd 2017 Pipeline injection Construction to begin Raleigh, NC 44 mgd Pipeline injection in 2018 Construction to begin Des Moines, IA Pipeline injection in 2017 Completion expected South Bend, IN 48 mgd Pipeline injection September 2017
For this alternative, the biogas is treated to remove siloxanes, H2S, CO2, and moisture, undergoes compression, and is then injected into a natural gas supply pipeline. Pipeline injection requires a similar treatment of the gas as CNG for vehicles, but would require an extra treatment step (an additional set of membranes) for additional CO2 removal. This would also require a thermal oxidizing flare or similar technology for disposal of the very low BTU waste gas, since it contains mostly CO2. The proposed location of this gas conditioning system is the same as that of the CNG fueling option, as shown in Figure 4. The current and future production of CNG would be the same as that of the alternative above, shown in Table 3. Carollo identified the Xcel Energy, the local natural gas utility, as the owner of the local natural gas pipelines. Xcel indicated that they are amenable to receiving the treated gas, providing it meets their Colorado Gas Tariff renewable natural gas (RNG) specifications, shown in Table 5. On behalf of L/EWWTP, Carollo filled out Xcel's "RNG Evaluation Form" and in response, Xcel has shown support for the project and will work with L/EWWTP to form an agreement. Xcel has indicated that the L/EWWTP also must meet several additional “tariff silent” requirements, included in Appendix A. Based on conversations with Unison Solutions, a manufacturer of biogas conditioning systems, these quality requirements can be met. Xcel Energy also confirmed the best location to connect to the system is on the northern boundary of the plant site to an existing natural gas pipe that operates at 150 psi. Table 5 Xcel RNG Biogas Quality Requirements Constituents/Properties Limit Units Higher Heating Value (HHV) 965-1,100 BTU/scf Wobbe (based on HHV) 1,185-1,285 Carbon Dioxide (mol %) 3.0 mol % Oxygen 2.0 mol % Total Inerts 14.3 mol %
H2S) 0.25 (4) gr/Cscf (ppmv) Total Sulfur 5.0 (85) gr/Cscf (ppmv) Hydrocarbon Dew Point Cricondentherm 15 degrees F Water Vapor Content 3 lb/MMscf Dust, Dirt, Scum, and Other Solids Free of Water and Hydrocarbons in Liquid Form Free of Temperature 32-110 degrees F
10 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Xcel Energy requires equipment for injection into their system, including a gas chromatograph, flowmeter, regulator, remote terminal unit (RTU), gas odorizer, emergency shut-off valve, and other ancillary equipment. The installed cost of the equipment was estimated to be $1,050,000. This equipment will be designed and installed by Xcel Energy. The principal benefit of pipeline injection is that 100 percent of the generated biogas can be sold to offset vehicle fuel, instead of being limited by Waste Management's lack of nighttime and weekend operation. 1.4 Incentives/Grants for Biogas to Transportation Fuel With increasing public pressure to reduce the country’s reliance on non-renewable vehicle fuels, several programs, and incentives have been designed to offset fossil fuel use and decrease GHG emissions. 1.4.1 Environmental Protection Agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard Program The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, (https://www.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard- program), and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. The program requires oil and gas producers to purchase specified amounts of fuel credits each year to increase the amount of renewable fuel used. Each 77,000 BTUs of gas used for vehicle fuel generates a renewable credit with a specific identification number, named the Renewable Identification Number (RIN). The RFS program defines four types of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel. As of 2014, the RFS program allows digester biogas from municipal wastewater treatment facility digesters as a transportation fuel feedstock. The biogas is designated as a “cellulosic” (D3) feedstock, which carries the greatest RIN value of the four categories. The mandated quantities of renewable fuel volumes have been set through 2022, as shown in Figure 6. Beyond 2022, fuel volume mandates will be set by the EPA administrator.
Figure 6 Renewable Fuel Volume Mandates
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 11 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
RINs are traded on the open market, and their value is dependent upon the price of oil and the renewable volume obligation, which is the amount of RINs obligated parties have to purchase. When D3 RINs were first introduced into the market 3 years ago, they had a value of approximately $1.00 per RIN. D3 RINs are currently trading for $2.50, with a 3-year historical average of $1.78. As demand for RIN credits associated with cellulosic biofuels grows, the expectation is that RINs will have an increasing market value over time. For the purposes of this evaluation, the currently traded value of $2.50 was used. Figure 7 presents the historical average RIN value for D3 RINs from 2015 through present day.
Figure 7 Historical D3 RIN Values
In order to become a RIN producer, the L/EWWTP must be certified with the EPA. This is typically done by a third-party carbon offset broker. Carbon offset brokers can provide RIN registration and ongoing reporting and management. The carbon offset brokers also handle the sale of RINs to producers. In exchange, they receive a management fee based on an agreed upon percentage of the RIN value, anticipated to be 20 percent for this size of project. For pipeline injection projects, the carbon offset brokers also manage the sale of the injected CNG. Another option is for an obligated party (i.e., oil and gas producer) to purchase the RINs directly from the L/EWWTP. L/EWWTP and Carollo have discussed this with British Petroleum, and they have expressed interest in the project. Both options result in the sale of the CNG and RIN credits, and would include similar amounts of work for L/EWWTP. Differences could include the length of contract, contractual obligations, and pricing structure. A priority for bidding the project would be determining an effective way to compare the two options and the risk/value propositions associated with their contract structures. 1.4.2 ALT Fuels Colorado Program The Colorado Energy Office (CEO), the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) provide grants through the ALT Fuels Colorado program for a variety of alternative fueling infrastructure, including new, publicly accessible CNG fueling equipment; co-located electric vehicle charging and propane station equipment at funded CNG stations; and CNG, propane, and electric vehicles. The ALT Fuels Colorado grant program is a partnership between the CEO and the RAQC, created to award grants for partial funding of CNG fueling station equipment, and co-located electric vehicle charging and propane auto gas station equipment. ALT Fuels Colorado will distribute approximately $30 million over 4 years (between 2014 and 2017) to incentivize adoption of alternative fuel vehicles. Since Waste Management already has fueling stations and pipeline injection does not include fueling infrastructure,
12 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
ALT Fuels grants for a fueling station will likely not apply. In addition, it would be difficult to get funding through this program since it is anticipated to conclude at the end of this calendar year. 1.5 Gas Conditioning Both of the alternatives above require gas conditioning treatment to remove impurities such as
H2S and siloxane compounds, followed by removal of the majority of the CO2, resulting in greater than 95 percent CH4 in the gas. Conversion of biogas for pipeline injection requires a second step to remove additional CO2, resulting in greater than 99 percent CH4 in the gas. The gas conditioning systems use well-proven technologies to remove the undesired constituents. A typical gas treatment schematic for CNG and pipeline injection is presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Typical Treatment Skid for CNG
Treatment processes for biogas typically fall into two groups: physical or chemical/biological removal. Water vapor, CO2, and particulates are removed by physical processes, while volatile organic compounds (VOC), halogenated organics, H2S, and siloxane compounds are removed by either chemical or biological treatment. The various compounds and their treatment systems are explained below. 1.5.1 Hydrogen Sulfide
H2S is a highly reduced compound that readily binds with most metals and is abundant in biogas. During combustion, H2S reacts with oxygen creating sulfur, sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfite (SO3), and sulfate (SO4). All of these compounds are known as SOx, and they are regulated as air pollutants. Additionally, oxidized sulfur compounds will react with water to form sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid corrodes downstream equipment, resulting in increased maintenance and reduced service life. H2S can be removed from biogas by the use of iron salt addition to the sludge, iron adsorption, caustic scrubbing, or biological treatment. 1.5.1.1 Iron Salt Addition
The use of iron salts for mitigation of H2S is widespread among wastewater utilities and is currently used at the L/EWWTP. Both ferric chloride and ferrous chloride can be added directly to the anaerobic digesters. Typical dosage rates for ferric chloride and ferrous chloride are 3.2 and 3.7 grams per gram of H2S. Other benefits from iron salt addition to anaerobic digesters include precipitation of phosphorus and increased degradability of grease. Disadvantages of iron salt addition include increased sludge volumes and the potential for formation of vivianite scale in piping, heat exchangers, and digesters.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 13 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.5.1.2 Iron Adsorption
The oldest commercial process for removing H2S from gas is “iron sponge” which has been in use for more than 100 years. Iron sponge normally has the lowest initial cost of all commercial processes. The iron sponge concept is quite simple: hydrated iron oxide is impregnated onto
redwood chips, creating a reactive media for the H2S. The spent wood chip media is non- hazardous, must be replaced, and can be used as a soil fertilizer. Servicing typically requires that spent wood chip media be removed with 6,000 psi water jet, shovel and/or be vacuumed out.
An alternative form of solid media H2S removal system is termed “sulfa treat” and uses iron- based chemistry but uses a different media base. Sulfa treat is a dry, free-flowing iron oxide- based media that selectively removes H2S and some light mercaptans. The solid, clay-like media is an inorganic ceramic coated material coated with an iron oxide. The iron oxide reacts with the
H2S to form iron pyrite.
Adsorption media firms have developed proprietary media that more effectively remove H2S while increasing the capacity of the media. These newer media generally have higher capital cost but require less frequent replacement. 1.5.1.3 Water Scrubbing (Caustic Scrubbers)
Caustic scrubbers are recirculating liquid packed towers, which use elevated pH to transfer H2S from the gas stream to a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution. This type of system utilizes a large quantity of water in a single pass arrangement. If a secondary effluent water source can be readily obtained and if the water can be returned downstream of the secondary process, this method can be cost effective. Removal of approximately 80 percent of the sulfur compounds can be expected from such systems. This method is typically economically feasible only for large gas flow rates (larger than 1,000 cfm). 1.5.1.4 Biological Treatment Biological treatment systems are now coming onto the market for removal of sulfur compounds from biogas. These systems are nearly identical to water scrubbing systems except that the system utilizes a much lower amount of water in a recycle system. Biological systems consist of a packed tower in which biogas travels upwards through packing while recirculated water is sprayed down onto the packing. Biological growth occurs on the packing, which reduces the sulfur compounds in an identical manner to biological odor scrubbers. This type of system utilizes a very small quantity of secondary effluent water. Removal of approximately 95 percent of the sulfur compounds can be expected from such systems. As sulfur compounds are reduced by biological treatment, no significant sulfur loading would occur in the plant.
1.5.1.5 Recommended H2S Treatment
Due to the current iron salt addition and resulting relatively low H2S concentrations in the L/EWWTP's biogas, the recommended treatment method is media based adsorption. The hydrogen sulfide concentrations after the iron salt addition are not high enough to warrant a biological system and the flows are not high enough to make a caustic scrubber feasible. The exact type of media will be determined along with the system's manufacturer and will consider effectiveness, capacity, price, and maintenance concerns, such as ease of removal and replacement.
14 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
1.5.2 Moisture The common and recommended moisture removal treatment is a refrigeration process that chills the gas, condensing the moisture. Upstream of the cooling portion of treatment, a coalescing filter removes any particles in order to maintain the effectiveness of the heat exchangers. Glycol is air-cooled using a refrigeration unit and is circulated through a heat exchanger to cool the gas. Once the gas is below the dew point, the moisture condenses and drops out, to either be automatically removed by a drip trap or condensate accumulator. The gas leaves the process and is compressed to reheat and pressurize the gas. This is a very commonly used and well-proven system that operates automatically with minimal maintenance. 1.5.3 Siloxanes Siloxanes are cyclic organic silicon monomers used in the manufacture of personal hygiene, health care, and industrial silicon products, and are typically found in biogas at varying levels. Combustion of biogas containing siloxanes can result in deposits of silica residue on equipment surfaces, impairing performance, and significantly increasing system maintenance. There are several generally accepted siloxane removal methods: single-stage refrigeration, two- stage refrigeration, and adsorption. Adsorption is the recommended method for this project, because of its ability to reliably remove the siloxanes down to the required values for either cogeneration or CNG. Adsorption typically includes an upstream single-stage refrigeration/chiller dryer to remove water and some contaminants. The siloxanes are removed from the biogas by adsorption onto the surface of the desiccant media such as silica gel. Siloxane adsorption can be designed to remove siloxanes down to the minimum detection limit. 1.5.4 Carbon Dioxide
The most commonly used and recommended CO2 removal treatment is a membrane separation system. The gas is pressurized and the CH4 is retained on the membrane while the CO2 passes through as tail gas. Some CH4 also passes through into the tail gas, which means the gas needs to be flared. A second membrane step can be added to retain more of the CH4 and create a more pure product (required for pipeline injection). This process requires a thermal flare since the waste gas does not have a high enough BTU value to be burned in a traditional flare. 1.5.5 Summary of Manufacturers Table 6 summarizes the constituents in the raw biogas and the manufacturers that provide the recommended equipment required to remove them. Many of the manufacturers can provide a packaged skid that includes each of the systems below. Table 6 Summary of Conditioning Equipment Manufacturers Recommended Constituent Removal Equipment Manufacturers Treatment Method Varec, Clean Methane Systems, ESC, Marcab, MV H S Adsorption 2 Technologies, Unison, Biorem, Venture Clean Methane Systems, ESC, Parker, Perennial Energy, Moisture Refrigeration Unison, Venture Clean Methane Systems, ESC, Marcab, Theia Air, Siloxane Adsorption Unison, Venture CO2 Membrane Separation Air Liquide, Unison
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 15 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
Figure 9 shows an example gas conditioning system, located at the Persigo WWTP in Grand Junction, Colorado.
Figure 9 Digester Gas Conditioning System in Grand Junction
1.6 Biogas Storage Storage for CNG systems is often required due to the constant production of biogas and intermittent fueling periods. For a fast-fill station, high-pressure storage is required in order to have CNG on-demand. A larger amount of storage results in higher utilization, since overnight production can be stored for daytime dispensation (or vice-versa for slow-fill stations), since gas must be flared when the storage is full. Figure 10 shows an example bank of high pressure storage tubes that would be included for the CNG fueling alternative.
Figure 10 High Pressure Storage Tubes for CNG
While storage is not required for slow-fill stations, it is recommended for the WM alternative to increase utilization. A portion of the gas produced during the day will be used in the boilers, and the remainder will be stored. If the storage is full and production exceeds demand, the remainder will be flared using the existing flare. At night, the sanitation trucks will be filled from both the production of biogas and from storage. A storage vessel or bank of storage vessels containing roughly half of the L/EWWTP's production, 800 DGE, is recommended for the CNG option. This will maximize the utilization of biogas use by storing gas produced during the day and dispense the gas required to fuel the trucks at night.
16 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Storage is not required for the pipeline injection alterative, since CNG would be injected into the pipeline at the same rate it is produced. 1.7 Economic and Non-Economic Comparison The following alternatives were identified as feasible for this facility based on the preliminary assessment and were further evaluated to determine capital and life cycle costs. All of the alternatives were compared to the existing operation, which burns a portion of the biogas to heat the digesters and the remainder is flared.
• Alternative 1: Conversion of biogas to CNG for vehicle fueling. A vehicle fueling installation would include a new gas conditioning system to convert the plant’s biogas into vehicle fuel quality natural gas (CNG). An approximately 3-mile pipeline running from the L/EWWTP to the Waste Management fueling site to the south would be built to convey the gas. • Alternative 2: Conversion of biogas to CNG for pipeline injection. Pipeline injection will include installation of a new gas conditioning system to convert the plant’s biogas into pipeline quality CNG. The CNG would be sold to the market and used to generate and sell renewable credits. 1.7.1 Capital Cost Evaluation Carollo's cost estimating software was utilized to develop capital cost estimates for the alternatives listed above and represents a Class 4 Estimate based on the American Association of Cost Engineering (AACE) classification. Equipment quotes were provided by Unison, a manufacturer of gas conditioning and fueling systems. Capital costs presented herein are escalated to the mid-point of construction (assumed to be middle of 2018). Assumptions and allowances for the capital costs are presented in Table 7. Table 7 Design Criteria and Financial Assumptions Criteria Assumption Used Escalation rate 3% Electrical, Instrumentation & Controls Allowance 15% Contingency 20% General Contractor Overhead, Profit, Bonds, and 15% Mobilization Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees 15%
A summary of the project costs is shown in Table 8. Detailed project cost estimates are provided in Appendix B. Table 8 Estimated Project Costs Alternative Total Project Cost 1. Vehicle Fuel $8,423,000 2. Pipeline Injection $7,500,400
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 17 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.7.2 Life Cycle Cost Evaluation A life cycle cost for both options was developed, which evaluated the costs and revenues for each option over the estimated life of the equipment (assumed to be 20 years). Assumptions used for the life cycle cost analysis are presented in Table 9. Table 9 Design Criteria and Financial Assumptions Criteria Assumption Used Inflation Rate for capital and Operation and Maintenance 3% (O&M) Costs (fuel, electricity) Gross Discount Rate 4% Biogas HHV, BTU/scf 550 Gas Conditioning System Availability Percentage 96% O&M Cost for Dual Pass Gas Conditioning System , $/GGE $0.54 Natural gas cost, $/therm $0.53 RIN Credit, $/RIN $2.50 CNG Sale Price $/therm $0.20 Notes: GGE = gasoline gallon equivalents To evaluate the benefits and costs of each alternative, the projected capital cost, O&M costs, and anticipated revenues were calculated. The total net present value was then calculated for each alternative. A summary table presenting the life cycle cost for each alternative is shown in Table 10. Table 10 Net Present Value Summary Alternative Vehicle Fuel Pipeline Injection Estimated Capital Cost ($8,423,000) ($7,500,400) Averaged Annual (Costs)/Revenues Revenue for CNG Sale $604,200 $285,800 Revenue for RIN Credit $1,686,400 $2,474,500 Natural Gas Costs ($23,800) ($188,600) O&M Costs ($457,900) ($623,500) 20-Year Present Value of (Costs)/Revenues Revenue for CNG Sale $7,526,400 $3,560,600 Revenue for RIN Credit $21,828,200 $32,028,700 Natural Gas Costs ($296,200) ($2,348,900) O&M Costs ($5,703,400) ($7,766,600) Total 20-Year Net Present Value $14,932,000 $17,973,400 Payback Period (years) 5 4
Figure 11 presents a graphical representation of the capital cost and life cycle revenue of each alternative.
18 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
$30,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $15,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $- $(5,000,000.00) $(10,000,000.00) $(15,000,000.00) CNG Pipeline Capital Life Cycle Revenue Overall Revenue Figure 11 Summary of Capital Costs and Life Cycle Revenue
The pipeline injection alternative, which includes a dual-pass gas conditioning skid and connection to the Xcel pipeline along the northern border of the plant, has the highest net present value. Based on the revenue generated and the capital cost estimates, this alternative has a 4-year payback based on the assumptions listed above. This alternative would be able to utilize all of the produced biogas. This option would cost the L/EWWTP $7.5 million for the gas conditioning and compression equipment, pipeline through the plant to the Xcel pipeline, and required Xcel energy monitoring equipment, and would generate approximately $18 million in revenues over a 20-year period. 1.7.3 Non-economic Considerations Each of the alternatives was evaluated against the project goals and selected non-economic criteria to determine the best fit for the L/EWWTP. Table 11 presents non-economic advantages and disadvantages for each alternative. Table 11 Non-Economic Comparison of Alternatives Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Conversion of • Development of renewable • Project risks associated with Biogas to CNG for energy product pipeline routing Vehicle Fueling • Creation of a regional • Project risks associated with partnership to benefit members contracting with a single entity of the community for biogas use • Ability to heat the digester with • Longer time to market as excess biogas compared to pipeline injection Conversion of • Development of renewable • More stringent gas quality Biogas to CNG for energy product requirements as compared to Pipeline Injection • Higher utilization of biogas as vehicle fueling compared to vehicle fueling • Higher reduction in GHG emissions • Shorter time to market as compared to pipeline injection • Cleaner gas provides off-ramp for future technologies
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 19 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.7.3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The L/EWWTP has a Strategic Plan Purpose Statement that reads, "Protection of Public Health and the Environment." Both of the evaluated projects will reduce the amount of vehicle miles powered by non-renewable sources, curbing GHG emissions. To quantify the reduction in GHG emissions, a GHG inventory tool was developed for this project. GHG emission reduction can come from directly reducing GHG emissions by consuming less, or from increasing GHG offsets, which provide a positive contribution to net GHG emissions. Quantifying GHG emissions allows utilities the opportunity to plan the most cost- effective means of managing and reducing GHG emissions (or increasing offsets) while minimizing fossil fuel-based energy use and maximizing resource recovery. Six GHGs have been prioritized for GHG inventory purposes, based on each gas’ capacity to
absorb and reradiate heat, and thus contribute to climate change. These GHGs include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Of these, CO2, CH4, and N2O are considered relevant for wastewater treatment emissions and are the focus of the inventory. To account for the variation in the ability for each gas to
absorb and reradiate heat, Global Warming Potentials (GWP) are used to relate gases to CO2 on a mass basis (e.g., carbon dioxide equivalence or CO2e). An assumption of the time horizon must be made to generate meaningful emissions estimates when selecting GWPs. The typical time horizon selected is 100 years. Based on this time horizon, CH4 and N2O are estimated to have 25 and 298 times the capacity to absorb and reradiate heat relative to CO2, respectively. In addition to the GWPs, a combination of widely accepted, peer-reviewed protocols and emission factors were used to estimate the GHG emissions, as summarized in Table 12. Table 12 Factors Used to Calculate GHG Emissions from Biogas Production and Reuse
Description Units Value Source Biogas HHV BTU/scf 550 L/EWWTP Colorado Average Natural U.S. Energy Information BTU/scf 1,060 Gas HHV Administration, 2015
kg CO2/MMBtu 52.07
Biogas Combustion kg CH4/MMBtu 0.0032 40 CFR 98.33 and Subpart C
kg N2O /MMBtu 0.00063
kg CO2/MMBtu 53.06
Natural Gas Combustion kg CH4/MMBtu 0.001 40 CFR 98.33 and Subpart C
kg N2O /MMBtu 0.0001 DGEs NAFA Fleet Management BTU/DGE 129,500 Association, 2010
GHG emissions and offsets were evaluated for the two scenarios described above and compared against the project baseline. The project baseline of reusing biogas for heat provides an offset of
1,539 metric tons of CO2e annually. Repurposing biogas to fuel vehicles increases GHG offsets to 5,386 metric tons of CO2e annually. If the biogas is sent to pipeline injection, GHG emission offsets increase even further to 6,855 metric tons of CO2e per year. A comparison of these offsets is shown in Figure 12.
20 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Annual Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Offsets
7,000
6,000
CO2e/year 5,000 - 4,000
3,000
2,000 GHG Offsets, MT Offsets, GHG 1,000
0
Biogas for Heat Biogas for Vehicle Fuel Biogas for Pipeline Injection
Figure 12 GHG Offsets Based on Type of Biogas Reuse
1.8 Financing and Procurement Options The L/EWWTP has multiple options to procure and finance the gas cleaning equipment and complete the design and construction of the facilities to begin generating revenue. These options need to be consistent with the L/EWWTP’s budgeting and procurement procedures. During the next phase of design development, the project team will further evaluate the financing options and develop recommendations. The various financing options include: 1. Self-Financed: The Cities of Littleton and Englewood would provide the capital improvements funds for the design and construction using wastewater rates and existing financial reserves. This type of financing provides the best financial returns and maintains maximum control; however, it is only feasible if the funds are available. 2. Financial Institutions: A bank or private equity loan could be obtained by the Cities of Littleton and Englewood to cover the capital costs and payment would be spread out over multiple years. This would reduce the immediate financial impacts and would defer payments out for a period of time which would be off-set by revenue produced. a. A subset of a private equity loan would be a tax-exempt loan, which is used by many Colorado cities and regulated by the State of Colorado. This type of loan approach has been part of the State statutes for over 40 years. Using a tax-exempt loan allows the City to leverage capital at a low cost of borrowing and each year, the loan is re- approved. If the market changes were significant, L/EWWTP could have the borrower possess the digester cleaning equipment and sell it on the open market. This is a very low cost option, which still provides high return on the investment and presents a balanced approach to economic viability risks associated with the RINs credits.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 21 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
3. Municipal Tax-Exempt Bonds: L/EWWTP and the Cities of Littleton and Englewood could elect to issue municipal bonds to fund the capital investment. This option would raise money and spread out the re-payment over a period of time. This type of funding approach was not recommend for further analysis as it takes significant time and cost to develop a bond issuance, including potential voter approval. With other existing loans and the possibility of future bond issues to cover capital expenditures, Carollo believes other options are more viable. 4. Third-Party Contracted Financing: L/EWWTP could partner with a third-party entity and establish a power purchase agreement. This agreement would cover the financing and L/EWWTP would be provided a royalty or lease payment for the duration of the contract. The third-party entity could be a private equity firm, an equipment provider, or other energy company. Typically, these types of agreements require a long-term commitment (greater than 10 years) from L/EWWTP and include performance guarantees. There is still a beneficial financial return on the investments; however, this approach will typically provide 30 to 50 percent less return than the first two options. Using a power purchase agreement also can be challenging since digester gas quantities and qualities may change as L/EWWTP explores other improvements to maximize renewable resource values. Carollo recommends that this option be further evaluated during the next phase of the project. Based on discussions with L/EWWTP staff, the most viable option for financing the project appears to be borrowing the capital cost money from a financial institution. However, this approach needs to be confirmed with management from L/EWWTP, and the Cities of Littleton and Englewood. A sensitivity analysis on the interest rates and terms has been provided below. In addition to financing options, different procurement options are also viable for this project. The procurement options which were considered for this project include: 1. Design-Bid-Build (DBB): L/EWWTP would contract with a consulting engineer who would develop the technical design documents and serve as the Owner’s representative during construction. The biogas conditioning equipment package would likely be pre- selected based on qualifications and pricing. The construction contractor would be selected based on a competitive bidding process. 2. Construction Management at Risk (CMAR): L/EWWTP would contract with a consulting engineer to complete the technical design documents and serve as the Owner’s Representative during construction. The equipment package would likely be pre-selected based on a qualifications and price based proposal. The construction manager at risk would be selected at the 60-percent design level to provide value engineering and constructability support during the design and then complete the construction. The CMAR selection could be based on qualifications and price based proposal. 3. Design-Build (DB): L/EWWTP would hold one contract with a design and construction team. This team would execute the technical design documents, equipment procurement and construction services. In addition to the DB team, L/E may choose to hire an Owner’s Advisor to assist with procurement, contract management, and technical input. Based on the project scope and intent of L/E staff for this project, an approach similar to the CMAR option above would be the best suited for this project. The CMAR approach will shorten the procurement schedule and provides time for constructability reviews and value engineering
22 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT input. These are elements are important for L/E as time to market and maintaining budget and control are critical objectives to achieving profitability quickly. 1.9 Summary and Recommendations After evaluating both economic and non-economic considerations, including capital and life cycle impacts, Carollo recommends proceeding with pipeline injection alternative. The L/EWWTP's digestion process will not change, and the existing dual fuel boilers will remain in use, fully fueled by natural gas. The gas conditioning skid is recommended to be installed to the south of the current digesters and cogeneration engine room. The pipeline routing to convey the treated gas to the northern boundary will be finalized during design. Xcel's monitoring equipment will be installed in an enclosure at the northern boundary of the plant with an internal fence and Xcel access gate from the outside. An example of the site plan is shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13 Future Site Plan
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 23 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
1.9.1 Sensitivity Analyses Carollo performed two sensitivity analyses to evaluate the possible outcomes of this project. The first was to look at the changes in RIN values and the second was an analysis of different financing options. 1.9.1.1 RIN Value Since the RIN value has the largest impact on the 20-year net present value of the alternatives, a sensitivity analysis was performed on the pipeline injection alternative to determine a reasonable bandwidth of costs over a 20-year period. The analysis assumes the current RIN value of $2.50 for the baseline case and all RIN values increase with inflation at 3 percent per year. Carollo performed a sensitivity analysis looking at RIN value scenarios shown in Table 13. Table 13 and Figure 14 present the results of this analysis. The analysis illustrates that for all likely scenarios, the pipeline injection alternative will have generated significant revenue and positive net present value for L/E. Table 13 Net Present Value at Varying RIN Values RIN Value Timeline 20-Year Net Present Value $1.78/RIN, 2019-2022 ($8,270,600) $0/RIN 2023-2038 $1.78/RIN 2019-2038 $8,749,000 $2.50/RIN (baseline case) 2019-2038 $17,973,300 $3.00/RIN 2019-2038 $24,379,000 Figure 14 shows that there is no payback if RIN credits drop to $0 in 2023 due to change at EPA. If this occurs, L/EWWTP should use the exit strategy approaches listed below.
Cash Flow Forecast Based on RIN Value Sensitivity Assumes No Financing, Capital Investment = $7.5M in 2018 (Year 0) $45 $40 $3.00/RIN $2.50/RIN $35 $1.78/RIN $30 $1.78/RIN thru 2022; $0/RIN after $25 $20 4-year payback $15 3-year payback 6-year payback $10 $5 No Payback Use exit strategy $- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Cummulative Revenues($ inMillions) $(5) $(10)
Pipeline Injection Years in Operation Figure 14 RIN Pricing Sensitivity
24 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
1.9.1.2 Financing Options In order to evaluate how to finance the project, Carollo examined three different financing rates and terms (durations) to evaluate the potential ranges of financing options. Table 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the three scenarios and the results for the 20-year net present value. Based on these rates and terms, the variance in the 20-year net present value results is negligible based on all the assumptions used. Assuming L/E can manage the monthly payments, the financing terms should be less than 7 years duration and preferably the shorter the more advantageous. Table 14 Net Present Value with Varying Financing Options Interest Rate Loan Terms (duration) 20-Year Net Present Value Baseline (L/EWWTP-financed) 0 $17,973,300 3% 3-year $18,179,400 5.5% 7-year $17,621,300 8% 10-year $16,486,600 Notes: (1) RIN value = $2.50 (baseline condition). Figure 15 shows the annual cumulative cash flow projections based on the financing scenarios listed in Table 14. This figure illustrates using a financing option to procure the design and construction services for the pipeline injection alternative appear to be most prudent and generate positive cash flow for L/EWWTP before the RINs credits expire.
Cash Flow Forecast Based on Financing Sensitivity Assumes RIN = $2.50; Capital Investment = $7.5M in 2018 (Year 0) $45 $40 No Financing Loan (3yr, 3%) $35 Loan (7yr, 5.5%) $30 Loan (10yr, 8%) $25 $20
$15 4-year payback $10 $5
Cummulative Revenues ($ in Millions) in ($ Revenues Cummulative $- 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 $(5) $(10) Pipeline Injection Years in Operation Figure 15 Financing Sensitivity
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 25 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
For 7- and 10-year loans, the L/EWWTP would have a positive cash flow starting in year one and continuing throughout the project. The 3-year loan payments would result in a negative cash flow through the third year of operation and by year five, the project would reach a net positive payback. 1.9.2 Exit Strategies As part of this evaluation, the team identified several revenue generating exit strategies that may be used in the event that the RFS Program is significantly modified beyond 2022, such that RINs no longer hold sufficient value to continue with pipeline injection. While this is not anticipated to be the case based on conversations with both RIN brokers and obligated parties (e.g., oil producers), it is prudent to identify these alternatives at the project outset. One possible off-ramp from pipeline injection may be to install a CNG fueling station either on- site or adjacent to the L/EWWTP in the future. If CNG vehicles become more common and CNG fuel prices increase, the L/EWWTP may be able to realize a revenue stream from conditioning the gas and selling it directly as vehicle fuel. The L/EWWTP location adjacent to Santa Fe Road makes this a viable future option. The capital cost for this exit strategy is anticipated to be in the range of $1 to $2 million, with a potential revenue stream of $100,000 per year. This revenue stream is highly dependent on CNG demand from the fueling station. Another possible off-ramp is to return to cogeneration to produce electricity. With the gas conditioning system already installed, the L/EWWTP has the option to re-start the existing engines or purchase new engines. With the proper gas conditioning, it is anticipated that the engines would have significantly lower maintenance as compared to plant staff’s previous experience. The capital cost for installation of two new engines is anticipated to be in the range of $2 to $3 million, with a potential revenue stream (or electricity cost offset) of $500,000 per year. 1.10 Implementation Plan In order to take advantage of the legally mandated RIN quotas through 2022, it is in the L/EWWTP’s interest to get the project on track as quickly as possible (i.e., reduce the time to market). As part of this effort, L/EWWTP staff and Carollo developed an implementation plan to forecast required activities and lead times. Figure 15 shows a general schedule, with the major required activities and coordination items spelled out.
Figure 16 Implementation Schedule
One critical activity that has been identified is coordination with Xcel Energy. The development and acceptance by all parties of an Interconnect Agreement between L/EWWTP and Xcel will be a critical project milestone. As such, members of the L/EWWTP staff, Carollo, and Xcel Energy met to discuss the required gas quality, Xcel required monitoring equipment, and other
26 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT preconditions for an agreement. The L/EWWTP and Xcel will work together to agree on a Memorandum of Understanding so the L/EWWTP has a commitment from Xcel while working on the other coordination items identified in the implementation schedule. Additional steps shown in the schedule include:
• Securing financing, • Developing a request for proposals to obtain a RIN broker, • Developing a contract with the design engineer, • Performing the engineering design, • Procuring the biogas conditioning equipment, • Construction, and • RIN certification. It is the goal of the L/EWWTP to have all of the above steps completed by the end of 2018 such that RIN credits may begin to be realized in 2019.
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017| 27 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT | BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT
-This Page Intentionally Left Blank-
28 | SEPTEMBER 2017| REVISED DRAFT BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Appendix A XCEL RNG QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017
Xcel Energy Renewable Natural Gas Quality Specifications Colorado
Public Service Company of Colorado Gas Tariff Hazardous Substances/ DRAFT INERT BLENDED SYSTEM Objectionable Matter* (Based on California Rule 30) Proposed Constituents/Properties Limit Units Constituents/Properties Units Limit Higher Heating Value 965 - 1100 Btu/scf Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Wobbe (based on HHV) 1185 - 1285 Siloxanes (Total Si) 0.1 mg/m3 Carbon Dioxide (mol %) 3.0 mol % Vinyl Chloride 1170 ppbv Oxygen 2.0 mol % Chorinated/Halogenated mol % Total Inerts 14.3 Hydrocarbons: Chlorobenzene, Hydrogen Sulfide H2S 0.25 (4) gr/Cscf trichlorofluoromethane, etc. 100 ppbv Total Sulfur 5.0 (85) (ppmv) Organic Sulfur: Carbonyl sulfide, Hydrocarbon Dew Point, Carbon Disulfide, Dimethyl Sulfide, etc. 1 ppmv Cricondentherm 15 °F BTEX and other aromatics 50 ppmv Water Vapor Content 3 lb/ MMscf Hexanes+ Alkanes 100 ppmv Dust, dirt, gum and other Formaldehyde/Aldehydes and solids Free of Ketones 100 ppbv Water & hydrocarbons in Other VOCs 100 ppbv liquid form Free of Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds 100 ppbv Temperature 32 110 °F Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 100 ppbv Volatile Fatty Acids 10 ppbv Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.1 ppbv Pesticides 1 ppbv Products 1 ppbv Inorganic Compounds/Metals Mercury 0.01 g/m3 Hydrogen 0.1 mol % Arsenic, Zinc, Antimony 0.01 g/m3 Ammonia 10 ppmv Biologicals 0.2 micron
*Constituents may vary with type of biogas
Appendix A-1 August, 2016 Gas Engineering - Gas Quality Page 1 of 1
BIOGAS USE APPLICATIONS REPORT | LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Appendix B CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES
REVISED DRAFT | SEPTEMBER 2017
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
Project: Biogas Use Applications Client: Littleton-Englewood WWTP Date : April 1, 2017 Location: Englewood, CO By : TMD Element: 03 WM with Dual Pass Reviewed: BJL
SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
Division 02 - Site Construction Topsoil Strip & Stockpile On Site, To 500 Cy 02300 550 CY $9.40 $5,167 Total $5,167 Division 03 - Concrete 03300 8" Flat Non-Formed S.O.G. 95 CY $339 $32,214 Total $32,214 Division 11 - Equipment 11000 CNG Storage 1 EA $750,000 $750,000 11000 BioCNG Thermal Oxidizing Flare 1 EA $341,900 $341,900 11000 BioCNG 400 DP Winterization 1 EA $266,000 $266,000 11000 BioCNG 400 DP 1 EA $2,041,491 $2,041,491 11000 BioCNG Control Panel 1 EA $45,000 $45,000 Total $3,444,391 Division 15 - Mechanical 15000 Pipe Tunnelling under River 120 LF $800 $96,000 15267 4" Sdr 11 Hdpe Pipe In Open Trench 17,500 LF $54 $940,625 6" Sch 40S Buttwelded 316L Sst Pipe In A 15286 Bldg To 12' Ht. 200 LF $116 $23,273 Total $1,059,898 Division 16 - Electrical 16000 EI&C Allowance 15% of Div 11 $3,444,391 $516,659 Total $516,659 Division 17 - Instrumentation and Controls 17000 Contingency 20% EA $5,058,328 $1,011,666 General Contractor Overhead, Profit, and 17000 Risk 15% EA $6,069,994 $910,499 17000 Escalation to Mid-Point (2018) 5% EA $6,980,493 $349,025
Total Construction Cost $7,324,351
Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees 17000 15% EA $7,324,351 $1,098,653 Total $8,423,003
Grand Total $8,423,003
Appendix B-1 f/n: LE Capital Cost Estimate-03 WM with Dual Pass Page 2 of 2 Form Rev: 2008June DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
Project: Biogas Use Applications Client: Littleton-Englewood WWTP Date : April 2017 Location: Englewood, CO By : TMD Element: 02 Pipeline Injection Reviewed: BJL
SPEC. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL TOTAL
Division 02 - Site Construction Topsoil Strip & Stockpile On Site, To 500 Cy 02300 550 CY $9.40 $5,167 Total $5,167 Division 03 - Concrete 03300 8" Flat Non-Formed S.O.G. 95 CY $339 $32,214 Total $32,214 Division 11 - Equipment 11000 BioCNG 400 DP 1 EA $2,041,491 $2,041,491 11000 BioCNG Control Panel 1 EA $45,000 $45,000 11000 BioCNG 400 DP Winterization 1 EA $266,000 $266,000 11000 BioCNG Thermal Oxidizing Flare 1 EA $341,900 $341,900 11000 Xcel Monitoring Equipment 1 EA $1,050,000 $1,050,000 Total $3,744,391 Division 15 - Mechanical 15267 4" Sdr 11 Hdpe Pipe In Open Trench 2,500 LF $54 $134,375 6" Sch 40S Buttwelded 316L Sst Pipe In A 15286 Bldg To 12' Ht. 200 LF $116 $23,273 Total $157,648 Division 16 - Electrical 16000 EI&C Allowance 15% % Div 11 $3,744,391 $561,658.64 Total $561,659 Division 17 - Instrumentation and Controls 17000 Contingency 20% EA $4,501,078 $900,216 General Contractor Overhead, Profit, and 17000 Risk 15% EA $5,401,294 $810,194 17000 Escalation to Mid-Point (2018) 5% EA $6,211,488 $310,574
Total Estimated Construction Cost $6,522,063
Engineering, Legal, and Administrative Fees 17000 15% EA $6,522,063 $978,309
Total Project Cost $7,500,372
Appendix B-2 f/n: LE Capital Cost Estimate-02 Pipeline Injection Page 1 of 2 Form Rev: 2008June
Study identifies uses for L/E WWTP to recover and reuse digester gas
Existing CNG Fueling Pipeline Injection Preliminary analysis: • Achieve alignment with L/E WWTP strategic vision • Identify the best use of gas resource • Analyze the potential to create revenue stream • Recommend best value solution with viable off-ramps • Review procurement options Pipeline injection approach achieves best value focused on sustainability
Financial Environmental Balanced Risk Findings: • Capital investment = $7.5M (lowest of options) • Equipment payback (4 years) (lowest) • Solar projects payback typically > 10-12 years • GHG offsets = 5,500 metric tons of CO2 per year (highest offset) • Equivalent to emissions from 1,162 automobiles • Viable off-ramps with cleaner gas provides balanced risk (most flexibility) • Local and national support for Clean Energy programs Simplicity of pipeline injection approach maximizes near-term opportunities
• Simplified and lower construction risk • No major offsite pipeline construction • Lower risk with 3rd party Yale Avenue agreements Xcel pipeline
Gas conditioning equipment
Gas conditioning equipment Design Services Recommendation
• Design Engineering Services: o Carollo Engineers, Inc. o $380,400
• 2017 Budget – L/E WWTP Professional Services o Budget: $1,496,000
Budget Expensed (8-31-17)
$1,496,000 $406,175 Project commissioning by end of 2018 uses streamlined approach
Project Schedule - Council 1. Introduction to concept and project (Oct-16) 2. Approval to issue RFP for project (Dec-16) 3. Draft report issued by Carollo (July-17) 4. Briefing to individual Study Sessions (July-17) 5. Review at Joint Study Sessions (Aug-17) 6. Review at individual Study Sessions (Sept –17)
Next Steps - Council 7. October 16, 2017 – Approval of design contract 8. January 2018 – Xcel memorandum of understanding 9. January 2018 – RIN broker services 10. Q1 2018 – City Council project update (additional financing discussions) 11. Q2 2018 – City Council approval of construction contract 12. Q4 2018 – Commissioning Questions? LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ‘*3’0/ CW°f Lnttleton Englewood (308) 7612630 FAX762»2S2?
MINUTES SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 28, 2017 8:30 am
ATTENDING: Supervisog Committee: Erie Keck Englewood City Manager Mark Relph Littleton City Manager Dave Henderson Englewood Public Works Director Keith Reester Acting Littleton Public Works Director
L/E WWTP and City Staff: Alison McKenney Brown Englewood City Attorney Matt Montgomery Hill & Robbins,L/E WWTPAttorney Tom Brennan Englewood Utilities Director John Kuosman L/E WWTP Director Blair Corning L/E WWTP Deputy Director of Strategic Programs Jenifer Doane L/E WWTPDeputy Director of Business Administration & Communications Kurt Carson L/E WWTP Deputy Director of Operations & Maintenance Solutions Brenda Vamer L/E WWTP Government Relations Specialist Chong Woo L/E WWTPCapital Project & Asset LeadershipManager Derik Caudill L/E WWTPBeyond Compliance Programs Manager Jim Tallent L/E WWTP Strategic Workforce Advisor Kacie Allard L/E WWTP Communications & Data Supervisor
GUESTS: Cynthia Lane Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District,Assistant Manager
I. Introduction
John Kuosman, Littleton / Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (L/E WWTP) Director, initiated the September Supervisory Committee (Committee) meeting. August Committee meeting minutes were approved via emailon August 30, 2017.
II. Branding, Name and Logo
John Kuosman updatedthe Committee on the L/E WWTP rebranding efforts. The L/E WWTP staff noted that changes were made to the name and logo based on feedback from Joint Study Session and MINUTES SUPERVISORY COMIVHTTEE NEIETING September 28, 2017 Page 2 0|‘ 5
L/E WWTPstaff. Jenifer Doane reviewed the presentation outlining these proposed changes. The L/E WWTP staff brought the received feedback to the LIE WWTP Rebranding Ambassadors,completed additional surveys, and reached out to more stakeholders. The results showed a need for an identi?er at the end of the name, an historicalcomponent, and a compromisewith the past and future.
L/E WWTP staff asked the Committee for its feedback on the new recommendations for tl1ename and logo. Mark Relph and Eric Keck discussed the suggestions they heard from both cities’ Councils with the L/E WWTP staff. The Committee discussed the timeline for the rebranding rollout. The Committee recommended the LIE WWTP staff compose a memo to the City Managers for their distribution to Councils, which will explain how staff arrivedat these new ideas and the implementationtimeline.
III. Strategic Ogerating Plan (SOP[
John Kuosman summarized past discussions regarding the Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) with both Councilsat the Joint Council Study Session in August and two individual Study Sessions earlier this week. John asked the Committee for its approval to takethe engineering contract forward to the City of Englewood Council for approval on October 16, 2017. Mark Relph gave kudos to Chang Woo and John Kuosman for presenting to the Littleton City Council on Tuesday, September 26, 2017. Eric Keck reiterated Mark’s comments and noted how easy it was to follow the presentation to the Englewood City Council on Monday, September 25, 2017.
ACTION TAKEN — The Supervisory Committee approved I/E WWTP’s recommendation to move forwardwith a contract with Carollo Engineers, Inc., for the Strategic Operating Plan (SOP), in the amount of $500,000.00. Mark Relph moved, Eric Keck seconded, all ayes, no nays. The L/E WWTP stajf will present the SOP to the Englewood City Council for consideration on October 16, 2017.
IV. Bio as to Renewable Natural Gas G Pro'ect
John Kuosman summarized past discussions regarding the Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project with bothCouncils including two individual Study Sessionsin July, the Joint Council Study Session in August, and two individual Study Sessions earlier this week. John asked the Committee for its approval to take the engineering contract forward to the City of Englewood Council for approval on October 16, 2017.
ACTION TAKEN - The Supervisory Committee approved IJE WWTP’: recommendation to move forwardwith a professional services agreement with Carollo Engineers, Inc., for the Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project, in the amount of $380,400.00. Mark Relph moved, Eric Keck seconded, all ayes, no hays. The UE WWTPstaffwillpresent the Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project to the Englewood City Councilforconsideration on October 16, 2017. MWUTES SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE IVEEETING September 28, 2017 Page 3 ot'5
V. Kiowa / Bennett Properg Disposition
John Kuosman summarized the key discussion points of the Kiowa / Bennett Property Disposition Presentation from the August Joint Council Study Session.Johnaskedeach Committee memberif he or she had received any further feedback from the Councils. Both Eric Keck and Mark Relphbelieved that the Councils would like to hold onto tl1eproperty and to sell at a later date.
The Committee recommended that L/E WWTP staff continue the current leasing structure, hold onto the property, and not actively seek solar or wind leasing. The Committee also requested that L/E WWTP staff compose a summary document for the City Managers to distribute to the Councils.
VI.2018 L/E WWTP Fiscal Year Budget
John Kuosman submitted a budget explanation memo to each City Manager in July 2017, on the proposed 2018 L/E WWTP Budget. John clarified that the City of Englewood elected to leave its portion of the Biogas to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Project in the 2018 L/E WWTPBudget; and the City of Littleton elected to remove the budget cost for its portion of the project. Mark Relph and Eric Keck confirmed.
ACTION TAKEN -— The Supervisory Committee recommended the 2018 UE WWTP Budget be brought forward to the Englcwood City Council for approval. Eric Keck moved, Mark Relph seconded, all ayes, no nays. The 2018 L/E WWTPBudget will be presented to the Englewood City Council for consideration on first reading on October 2, 2017, and for consideration for second reading on October 16, 2017.
VII. Valmet Analyzer Purchase
John Kuosman updatedthe Committeeabout the LIE WWTPstaffs work to improve the dewatering process. The purchase of a new instrument, the Valmet Analyzer, will allow for optimal polymer dosing in L/E WWTP’s dewatering process. This new instrument should save the L/E WWTP approximately $57,750 in polymer costs annually.
BlairCorning discussed how this project is a great deal and very important to L/E WWTP staff. The savings that can be realized and the pay-back period of one year are bene?cial to die organization. Most importantly, this project speaks towards L/E WWTP’s commitment to innovation.
VIII. 2018 Colorado State Universi CS Biosolids Research Pro osal
JohnKuosman reviewedhis decisionto renew the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between L/E WWTP and CSU to study Biosolids application.Pursuant to ordinance,the LIE WWTP Director can renew the IGA. MINUTES SUPERVISORY COMNHTTEE MEETDVG September 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5
Blair Corning described CSU’s proposed studies for 2018. CSU will continue ongoing studies of the measurement of Phosphorus (P) in soil. This year, CSU will begin using a modeling tool to quantify P in the soil and its long-term impact to the soil. These studies will be used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many resource institutions for reliable research data. This year’s total cost is $122,000; last year’s total cost was $117,000.
D(. Discussion oflnformationnl Items:
Updateon Digester Roof Project: Eric Keck asked for an update on the Digester Roof Project. Chong Woo discussed the status of this project with the Committee. A summary of the status of this project will be added into the summary updatefor both City Councils for the October meeting.
Reguired Reporting: John Kuosman discussed the in?uent ?ow and load summary for the month of August 2017. The measured ?ow to the L/E WWTP averaged 21.1 mgd in August 2017, which was an increase of 0.2 from July 2017. The measured ?ow split between the Cities of Littleton and Englewood respectively was 42.2 / 57.8 percent.
Future Joint Council Study SessionRecommendation: John Kuosman discussed an alternative approachto the Joint Council Study Sessions. According to the Joint Use Agreement, L/E WWTP is required to hold one joint meeting per year with both Councils. John outlined the possibility of utilizing individual City Council Study Sessions with each Council in addition to the annual meeting. The Committee discussed this alternate approach and the timing of the aruiual meeting. Mark Relph suggested using the month of July for the annual meeting to assistwith the budgeting process. The L/E WWTP staff will compile a proposed schedule for the Committee’s review before submitting to the Councils.
Energy Initiatives: Eric Keck requested a summary of wastewater treatment plant energy-saving initiatives that are underway at the L/E WWTP. John Kuosman con?nned that one of the initiatives of the L/E WWTP is to get to energy neutrality. The L/E WWTPhas an energy management committeethatwill be able to compilea summary for Eric for 2018.
Update on Regplatog Compliance: Matt Montgomery provided the Committee with an update on the work he and Dan DeLaughter have been doing with the Water Quality Control Division (Division) and other wastewater entities to develop a regulatory framework that could potentially defray costs for complying with nutrient criteria for Regulation 31. This proposal is an incentive program that would allow entities who meet the MINUTES SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING September 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5
nutrient treatment goals ofRegulation 85 before mandatory deadlines to accrue additional time to meet the Regulation 31 nutrient goals. The group working on this proposal plans to meet on October 2, 2017, before the October 9, 2017 hearing. If this proposal or another incentive program is approved, this may allow L/E WWTP to accrue additional time to meet certain Regulation 31 nutrient requirements. The L/E WWTP Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) includes this analysis as part of individual project business cases.
X. Adjournment
The next Supervisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 19, 2017. This meeting
will be held from 8:30 am ~ 10:00 am, at the Littleton / Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Adjourned at 10:13 am Recording Secretary Signature B a J .Varner
The L/E WWTP Supervimry Committee approved (Ire September 28, 2017 meeting minutes‘ via email on Monday, October 2, 2017. Eric Keck, Mark Relplt, Dave Henderson, and Keith Reester all ayes, no nays, minutes approved.