PREPARED FOR: CITY OF EL PASO ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Landfill Gas to Energy Feasibility Report
August 2008 | FINAL DRAFT

FINAL DRAFT

LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY FEASIBILITY REPORT
City of El Paso Environmental Services Department
Table of Contents
Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Appendices List of Tables List of Figures

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview .........................................................................................................ES-1 Section 1: Site Descriptions.............................................................................ES-2 Section 2: Landfill Gas Generation .................................................................ES-3 Section 2 provides R. W. Beck’s analysis of landfill gas generation..............ES-3 RWB Model Results Summary..............................................................ES-4 Section 3: Landfill Gas to Energy Possibilities...............................................ES-5 LFGTE Possibilities Summary ..............................................................ES-6 Direct Use (Medium-Btu) ..........................................................ES-7 High-Btu Processing ..................................................................ES-7 Section 4: Landfill Gas Collection ..................................................................ES-7 LFG Collection Capital Cost .................................................................ES-8 LFG Collection Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs ................ES-9 Section 5: LFGTE Ownership Options ...........................................................ES-9 Ownership Decision Matrix.................................................................ES-10 Section 6: Assessment of Grants and Funds..................................................ES-10 Section 7: Financial Pro Forma Analysis ......................................................ES-11 Methodology ........................................................................................ES-11 Basis of Comparison ............................................................................ES-11 Options Summary ................................................................................ES-12 Alternate Analysis of Scenario 1A ......................................................ES-13 Section 8: Conclusions and Recommendations.............................................ES-14 Summary of LFGTE Possibilities........................................................ES-14 General Conclusions ............................................................................ES-16 Key Findings and Recommendations ..................................................ES-16 Section 1 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1.1 Overview.................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 McCombs..................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Clint 1482 South .......................................................................... 1-2

....................................................3 Site Characteristics and Waste Receipts..............................2.3.... 2-2 2.. 2-3 2.......2 Moisture Content .......................4............1 End Users.........4........4.......................... 3-11 EPNG Pipeline..1 Electricity Generation.....................................................2................................................2 Clint 1482 South .... 2-7 2.....................1................................................................................................1 McCombs Landfill......................1 End Users................. 3-12 3.....................................1.......................2 Capital Costs......................................................... 2-18 Section 3 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES 3................ 3-7 3..... 1-3 Clint 2284 ................................................................ 2-6 2. 3-4 3..............3............. 3-8 International Paper El Paso Containment Plant................. 3-9 Valley Feed Mills .... 3-12 3.... 2-9 2.....................................4......4 Clint 2284 .................................................................... 2-15 2...............................................2. 2-13 2.................................................................................. 2-4 2.......2..............2 Capital Costs................................ 3-1 3.....................4 LFG Generation Model Results............... 3-10 3..............2.................... 2-11 2.............................................................................4.................3.........................................................3 O&M Costs......................................3 Clint 1482 North .. 3-10 3................................................................................................4 FINAL DRAFT Clint 1482 North ............... 3-9 3................................................3......5 Landfill Construction Materials and Techniques ........................................................................................... 3-6 3..........2 Clint 1482 South ............................... 2-6 2............................................3 O&M Costs.................................................................................................. W.. 3-3 3.....1 LFG Generation Modeling ...1............ 2-1 2.............. 3-12 3.... 3-11 LNG/CNG Production ........4 Clint 2284 ...........................................................3....................................................................................3 Temperature................................................... 3-12 3........................................................................................................................... 3-13 3.....3 High-Btu Processing......................... 2-5 2......................................2.... 3-13 ii R........3............. 2-11 2...................... 2-5 2.....3 Clint 1482 North ........2 Direct Use (Medium-Btu).3 High-Btu Processing..................5 RWB Model Results Summary .....................1 Electricity Generation.... Beck ...........4.........................1.............................................................2..........................................................2 LFG Generation Variables........................................... 3-11 3........1 Waste Characterization.........TABLE OF CONTENTS 1......2 Capital Costs.......................................... 3-9 3............4 Landfill Size and Geometry..............3..................1.............................................1 End Users......................4................4 LFGTE Possibilities Summary .........2 Direct Use (Medium-Btu).............................................................................................................................4............................ 1-4 Section 2 LANDFILL GAS GENERATION 2...2.... 2-14 2...1 McCombs.3 O&M Costs...... 2-8 2. 2-2 2.....................................3 1........................................................... 3-9 Roberto Bustamante WWTP (Lower Valley Water District)......................................................................

.............1....1.... 4-2 4... 4-5 Section 5 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY OWNERSHIP OPTIONS 5.... Beck iii ............... and 1C): ..4 Flare Station ........................... 6-1 6..................................................................................................................... 6-4 6......................... 4-3 4..................................3 Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) ..1 Summary of LFGTE Possibilities.... 4-3 4..........3 Condensate Management ..............4 Scenario 1 – Electricity Generation ............2 Vertical and Horizontal Extraction Wells...............................1................................................................. 4-3 4................. 1B.........1 Ownership Decision Matrix..............2 LFG Collection Capital Cost ............................. 7-5 7............. 7-2 7.....................1 LFG Collection Conceptual Design Variables ............... 8-2 8............................. 7-4 7..................1 Introduction...5 Scenario 2 – Direct Use (Medium Btu) ......2 Summary of Funding Options.....7 Options Summary ...... 6-2 6........1..............................1 Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit ..........................4.. 7-9 Section 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8...................1 Refuse Depths ........................................1........5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Credits................ 6-3 6......................................... 4-2 4.................................6.....................1...................1.. 5-1 Section 6 ASSESSMENT OF GRANTS AND FUNDS 6..2 General Conclusions ......... 8-2 8.....................................1.1..............3 Key Findings and Recommendations ...7 Federal Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credit ...............1............3 Basis of Comparison .4.................................................. W.. 8-1 8....................... 6-4 6...............2 Methodology for Financial Analysis ...................1.................. 6-2 6....2 Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) .........1 Scenario 1A – Clint 2284 Only.............6 Federal Alternative Fuels Tax Credit...................................................................................2 Medium-Btu Direct Use (Financial Scenario 2): .....1 Survey of Funding Options....2 Scenario 1B – Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North....1................................................. 7-3 7........................................................ 6-1 6......... 6-4 6................................4 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)............................................................................................................................ 6-2 6....................... 8-3 R............................................. 4-2 4................................................ 7-3 7...................... 8-1 8.........1 Electricity Generation (Financial Scenarios 1A....................................... 7-8 7........... 7-6 7....3 LFG Collection O&M Costs. 7-1 7.........................................1 Other High-Btu Processing Considerations .....................3 High-Btu Processing (Financial Scenario 3): .......8 Alternate Analysis of Scenario 1A .....................1............... 8-1 8..........................1...........................6 Scenario 3 – High Btu Processing ........................ 7-7 7........1.....FINAL DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 4 LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION 4................................ 7-1 7............................... 6-4 Section 7 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS 7......................................8 Alternative Fuel Grant (Texas) ................................

The conclusions. Beck. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. Inc. Beck. W. information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report. Copyright 2008. iv R. Beck . and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. (R. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. All rights reserved. Inc. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate. W. To the extent that statements. R. W. W.TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D FINAL DRAFT LFG Generation Model Output LFG End Users Engineering opinion of Probable Cost Cash Flow Model This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. Beck. R. W. R. W. observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R.

...................5 Table ES-4 LFG Collection System – Yearly Capital Cost Estimates ..... 7-5 Table 7-6 NPV of Scenario 2 ................... 6-1 Table 7-1 Sample NPV Calculation...................................................... Bonds...FINAL DRAFT List of Tables TABLE OF CONTENTS Table ES-1 Report Content and Organization ....... 7-9 R..........McCombs Landfill (tons)................................ 2-10 Table 2-8 LFG General Assumptions ....... 2-11 Table 2-9 Gas Modeling Summary Table.......................................................2 Table ES-2 Landfill Area Descriptions..................................................McCombs Landfill .................................... 1-1 Table 2-1 Historical Waste Receipt Data ..Clint 2284..........................................Clint 2284 (tons) .........................Clint 1482 North (tons)........ 5-1 Table 6-1 Summary of LFG Credits...................................................242 (e)(2)(A) c/KWh ............................................ 3-4 Table 3-2 Engineering Estimate of Probable Cost CAT 3516 Engine Installation (2009 Dollars)................................................ 2-8 Table 2-5 Historical Waste Receipt Data ...............................14 Table 1-1 Landfill Area Descriptions ................................................................Clint 1482 North ........... Grants and Incentives ........................................................ 7-5 Table 7-7 NPV of Scenario 2 – Including Revenue from Credits ..................................................................................................... 7-4 Table 7-5 NPV of Scenario 1B – Including Revenue from Credits......................................................... 2-9 Table 2-7 Historical and Projected Waste Receipt Data ......... 7-7 Table 7-9 NPV of Scenario 3 – Including Revenue from Credits ................................................................. 2-8 Table 2-4 LFG General Assumptions ..............................Clint 1482 South .......... 7-2 Table 7-2 NPV of Scenario 1A .......13 Table ES-6 NPV of Scenario 1C – Wait Five Years before Implementation................................................ 2-9 Table 2-6 LFG General Assumptions ..2 Table ES-3 Gas Modeling Summary Table ............................................................... W. 3-6 Table 4-1 Gas Modeling Summary Table. 7-4 Table 7-4 NPV of Scenario 1B .................. 7-6 Table 7-8 NPV of Scenario 3 .................. 7-8 Table 7-11 NPV of Scenario 1C – Wait Five Years before Implementation............................ 2-7 Table 2-3 Historical Waste Receipt Data ......... 4-1 Table 5-1 City of El Paso LFGTE Feasibility Ownership Decision Matrix .................................................................. Beck v ............................ 7-7 Table 7-10 NPV Summary – Including Revenue from Credits .......................... 7-3 Table 7-3 NPV of Scenario 1A – Including Revenue from Credits ................................................................................................................. 2-18 Table 3-1 EPE Estimated Avoided Energy Cost1 PUCT Substantive Rule §25..............Clint 1482 South (tons)............................................ 2-6 Table 2-2 LFG General Assumptions .......9 Table ES-5 NPV Summary – Including Revenue from Credits ..........................................................................................

.................. Beck model and LandGEM model... LFG Generation vs.......... 3-7 Figure 3-4......................... 1-5 Figure 2-1................... Clint 1482 North ......................................... 3-8 Figure 3-5............ W......... 1-2 Figure 1-2.................... 4-2 vi R...................................) ....................................... 2-17 Figure 3-1..................................... Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency)....... Electricity Generation Technology Trends ...... Beck ........................ Inc................................................. 2-12 Figure 2-3.................. 2-14 Figure 2-5..... Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) ....... LFG Generation/Collection vs......................................... Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) ....... Electricity Generation Technology Trends .. 2-13 Figure 2-4.... 2-15 Figure 2-6.......... Clint 1482 South ................... LFG Generated/Collected vs...TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures FINAL DRAFT Figure ES-1.................... 1-4 Figure 1-4.......... 3-10 Figure 4-1..................................................... LFG Generation vs........... 3-2 Figure 3-2.. Schematic Diagram of Typical Direct-Use Arrangement ....... 2-4 Figure 2-2. LFG Generation vs..................................................................................................................... Clint 2284.. Conceptual LFG Collection (Source: US EPA LMOP) . 1-3 Figure 1-3........... Time using R... Natural Gas Price Forecasts (West Texas Area) ........... LFG Generation/Collection vs............................... Time using R...............ES-8 Figure 1-1........ Time Example ..................................... Schematic drawing of CO2 Wash Process (Courtesy of FirmGreen................. 3-2 Figure 3-3................. Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency).............................. Beck model and LandGEM model.............. LFG Generated/Collected vs............................... 2-16 Figure 2-7................................................... W.................................................................................... Conceptual LFG Collection (Source: US EPA LMOP)..................................... W.. McCombs ...........................

and risk allocation for potential LFGTE projects. MSW Permit #2284 (referred to as Clint 2284) is the currently active disposal facility that began accepting waste in 2005 and is scheduled to be developed and receive waste until 2032. The Clint landfill (Clint) is comprised of two separately permitted facilities. A general overview of the report content and organization follows: . and analysis of landfill gas estimation. none of the City landfills actively collect landfill gas for destruction or beneficial use. collection and beneficial use. MSW Permit #1482 (referred to as Clint 1482) received waste from 1983 to 2007. only the Clint landfill facility is in operation. Landfill gas generated at this time is naturally venting out of the landfill and into the atmosphere. On-site generation of electricity for use on site or to sell to an electric utility. This Landfill Gas to Energy (LFGTE) Feasibility Report (report) reviews the existing and future LFG generation potential of the landfill sites and evaluates recovery and energy utilization alternatives. The evaluations in this report are based on the technical and economic potential of the three alternative projects. Processing of LFG on-site to produce natural gas quality for pipeline sale or other alternative fuel use. Currently. the City was operating both facilities to accept municipal solid waste generated in the City and surrounding areas. Also discussed are ownership options (City-owned versus third party-owned). or 3. At present. An assessment of the grants and funds potentially available for these projects is also included. 2005 – except for limited City cleanup waste in 2006) and not projected to receive waste until 2032. and the Clint landfill at 2300 Darrington Road. 2. Report Content and Organization This LFGTE feasibility report has been organized to follow the process of discovery. Beck to evaluate the landfill gas (LFG) generation potential of the City landfill facilities and to explore the feasibility of utilizing the LFG as an energy source. investigation. Direct thermal utilization of the LFG by piping the gas to a nearby end-user. W.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The City of El Paso (City) owns two municipal solid waste landfill facilities: the McCombs landfill at 13600 McCombs Street. Until 2005. This report focuses on LFG generation potential and three general utilization alternatives: 1. The McCombs landfill (McCombs) began receiving waste in 1977 and is currently inactive (as of February 3. The City retained R.

Discussion of ownership options and the sharing of project risk with other parties. Regulated by MSW Permit #1482. Waste placement from 1999-2007. Conceptual identification of LFG collection strategies and associated capital costs for collection of viable LFG for beneficial end use. Conclusions and recommendations for future actions to be taken by the City to ensure successful implementation of the LFGTE project that provides the most overall benefit to the City. Beck . Area of the Clint landfill including all existing and future cells regulated under MSW Permit #2284. The “areas” (listed from oldest to newest waste placement activity) include the following: Table ES-2 Landfill Area Descriptions Area Name McCombs Clint 1482 South Clint 1482 North Clint 2284 Description All cells of the McCombs landfill regulated by MSW Permit #729A.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT Table ES-1 Report Content and Organization Section 1 2 3 Site descriptions. Discussion and evaluation of general LFGTE alternatives: i. Regulated by MSW Permit #1482. Waste Placement Waste placement from 1977 to 2006. General assessment of grants and funds that could be available for LFGTE projects.e. Waste placement from 2005 to 2032 (predicted). Financial pro formas that model conceptual LFGTE projects based on estimated capital costs. Determination of estimated LFG generation potential based on waste tonnages and gas generation variables and modeling. and processing of the LFG to natural gas quality. and operations costs over time. ES-2 R. Area of the Clint landfill north of the utility easement that bisects the site. electricity generation. Area of the Clint landfill south of the utility easement that bisects the site. W. Waste placement from 1983 to 1999. revenue over time. Content 4 5 6 7 8 Section 1: Site Descriptions Section 1 provides a description of the landfill “areas” evaluated during this study. direct thermal utilization.

W. or from a particular waste mass. In addition. a comparison is made between the lifetime LFG generation output and the biochemical methane potential (BCMP) for the assumed organic quantity of MSW on site. LFG Generation Modeling LFGTE projects are based on the anaerobic decay of solid waste that naturally occurs in landfills. Similarly. These variables are commonly based on nationwide averages (Clean Air Act or AP-42 published values). It has been used and continually refined for over 20 years. two kinetic variables. To check the assumptions and estimates used in the RWB Model. The City is familiar with the U. and the site-specific non-methane organic compound (NMOC) content of the LFG. Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) LandGEM model. Beck has developed the RWB LFG Generation Model (RWB Model) based on a polynomial solution of the first-order time dependent relationship between LFG generation and the decomposition of organic waste material. The BCMP is the laboratory theoretical maximum LFG production from a unit of MSW. based on experience. empirical data and assumed variables are used (as discussed below) based on observations and experience from the project landfill and multiple similar landfills to estimate LFG generation over approximately 20 years.S. This is known as LFG generation modeling. Beck ES-3 . This is not confirmation of the modeled output but provides confidence that the assumptions and estimates used for the characteristics of the modeled landfill or area are reasonable. In order to appropriately design LFG collection systems and/or beneficial end uses for the gas. In the RWB Model. This program allows for input of general tonnages. There are several wellknown and distinct stages of LFG generation for municipal solid waste (MSW) depending on numerous characteristics of the site and waste composition. W. which generates LFG at various rates and quality based on certain variables. it has been used successfully in modeling LFG generation and recovery at over 100 landfills. W. The variety of conditions encountered in a MSW landfill can then be modeled by adjusting the coefficients in the polynomial solution to approximate the characteristics of the particular site. A generation percentage of the BCMP can be calculated which.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 2: Landfill Gas Generation Section 2 provides R. R. Beck’s analysis of landfill gas generation. This can be compared with the area under the modeled lifetime generation curve. is evaluated in the context of the known site characteristics and the period of time considered. expressed in cubic feet per pound of dry organic MSW. The RWB Model uses a series expansion to “curve fit” these stages to known or assumed values of each characteristic. engineering estimates must be made regarding the current and future generation of LFG at a particular site. R. Multiplying the BCMP by the estimated MSW dry organic tonnage gives a value of lifetime LFG generation. The LandGEM model output tabulates total LFG production over time.

it is R. Beck is currently involved in modeling LFG generation and recovery at five enhanced leachate recirculation and bioreactor landfills from Texas to South Dakota. In general. are not promising LFGTE projects. Beck has consistently tracked expectations without serious shortfall or over-estimation. Each project currently has. Edison Township. Orange County. W. W. Houston. W. The financing for several of the largest energy recovery projects in the United States and Canada have relied on the RWB Model for LFG generation and recovery forecasting. ES-4 R. At several of these projects R.3 and 2. Beck . In areas of declining gas generation it becomes difficult to justify the capital expenses for LFGTE projects based on the declining amount of fuel to provide revenue in future years. This is especially valid in the case of the City sites. WA Edgeboro. TX McCommas Bluff Landfill. Beck has performed LFG modeling worldwide since 1989. three of the four areas are in a declining phase of their gas generation curve. Dallas. R. Beck has tracked the recovered gas quantities versus the RWB Model for over ten years. King County. W. In each case. and would require additional outlay of initial capital. the RWB Model provides consistent recovery forecasts. Beck is not aware of any deviations greater than 30% of modeled outcome without serious attendant shortfalls in waste receipts. Beck.W. NJ While every recovery project stages the installation of gas collectors with wide variability. Generally. including: „ „ „ „ „ „ McCarty Road Landfill. the RWB Model information provided by R. when the waste receipts follow the estimated projections by the landfill owners. Montreal. Due to lack of incoming waste in current and future years. The following Table ES-3 details the feasibility of each area based on the RWB Model results. or problems with flooded collectors. W. W. RWB Model Results Summary Sections 2. the RWB Model has consistently provided accurate and reasonable forecasts. and Industrial Land Reclaiming Landfills. Canada Cedar Hills Landfill. In general.4 summarize the RWB Model results. R. energy recovery facilities with the engineering and assistance of R. Middlesex County. Of the over 150 projects modeled. Beck’s experience that landfill areas with less than 500 SCFM initially. gas generation is on the decline in these areas. and in a declining gas generation phase. or is in the process of developing. CA Gazmont Landfill. in which LFG collection systems are not in place. TX Coyote Canyon Landfill. installation of collectors. W.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT R.

Gas collection and landfill gas to energy recommended for this site. It is important to note that the greatest variable for LFG production modeling is the waste acceptance rate of a particular landfill. the LFG generation predictions for these sites can be greatly affected. Gas collection for the landfill gas to energy project difficult to justify for this area Clint 1482 North Declining LFG Generation Gas collection for landfill gas to energy project difficult. Clint 1482 South Declining LFG Generation Located across the utility easement from current operations. The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. Beck ES-5 . Specifically.e. The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. W. The balance of this report focuses on exploration of the LFGTE possibilities and feasibility modeling of gas generated from this site. Additional analysis is done with supplemental gas collection from Clint 1482 North as well. Based on these findings and R. Clint 2284 Increasing LFG Generation through 2032. additional waste is accepted at the Clint and/or McCombs landfills). This is based on the proximity of Clint 1482 North to Clint 2284 and the possibility of collecting additional gas for a minimum incremental cost.FINAL DRAFT Table ES-3 Gas Modeling Summary Table Area McCombs LFG Generation Declining LFG Generation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Feasibility Notes Difficult to justify a landfill gas to energy project for this area. Landfill gas (LFG) is a historically underutilized R. Section 3: Landfill Gas to Energy Possibilities Section 3 describes the landfill gas to energy possibilities and evaluates their applicability to the El Paso facilities. W. Beck’s experience in the LFGTE industry. the primary focus of LFGTE feasibility is recommended to be concentrated on the Clint landfill area. If future waste receipts are not as predicted and modeled in the RWB Model (i. Gas collection system feasible and expandable for all phases at this site. Clint 2284 is anticipated to be the future of LFGTE for the City. but worth exploring in conjunction with Clint 2284.

and several other constituents lumped together as balance gases. all of the end use options discussed could be utilized by the City. they have not been discussed in this report.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT naturally occurring byproduct of the anaerobic stabilization within the waste mass of a municipal solid waste landfill. In general.e. On-site generation of electricity for sale to an electric utility. LNG or carbon dioxide production). By reusing the LFG. and the use of engine generators is the most common method of generating electricity from ES-6 R. and Section 8 provides opinions and recommendations based on these analyses. These three end use categories have individual benefits and drawbacks. The following subsections summarize the attributes of each type of project. 2. significant influence in both government and private sectors has been placed on finding viable options for the beneficial use of this resource. LFG is commonly either vented to the atmosphere or combusted in a flare in order to destroy environmentally harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases. and all have a variety of particular technologies and usages which will be discussed in this section. Other specialized LFG recovery options exist (i. Based on the predicted LFG generation at Clint 2284. explore local end users/buyers. W. but these require somewhat experimental technologies or specific conditions. The potential end use options discussed in this report represent the most common. there is also a potential economic benefit for the landfill. This energy content allows the LFG to be utilized in the variety of ways which will be discussed in the following subsections. practical uses for landfill gas based on current technologies. In the past twenty years. and therefore. Electricity Generation Electricity generation is the most common LFGTE project in the United States. Direct thermal utilization of the LFG by piping the gas to a nearby thermal energy-user. LFG is comprised mainly of methane (CH4). and end users. Section 7 analyzes these options financially. LFGTE Possibilities Summary The options discussed in this section are generally considered the most practical options for LFG end use. locations. Beck . Processing of LFG on-site to produce natural gas quality for pipeline sale or other alternative fuel use. The following subsections focus on the potential end uses for the LFG that can be generated and collected at the City sites. Methane is the most prominent constituent with an average percentage by volume of approximately 50%. or 3. not only is there an environmental benefit with the destruction of this waste stream. and discuss capital and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs. there are three primary end use categories: 1. carbon dioxide (CO2). This corresponds to an average heating content of 500 Btu/ft3 (on a Higher Heating Value basis). Each subsection will introduce basic technologies.

Operation at this level may be difficult to impossible at the City sites. Electricity can be sold to the local electric utility or to non-local utilities by means of “wheeling” power over the shared grid. as various companies are still working to make this an economically feasible solution. Compression and dehydration of the LFG is relatively straightforward and costs are well established. Direct Use (Medium-Btu) Direct thermal utilization of the medium-Btu LFG by a nearby end user is also a very common LFGTE project in the United States and often the most economically viable. based on the lack of final closure capping and the sandy soil available for interim cover material. R. LFG collection system operations have additional considerations for high-Btu LFGTE projects. W. Because of the advanced technology required to construct the facility as well as refine the gas. R. the operations are not continuous. 7 days/week) and adequate (quantity needs match the LFG output) requirements for the fuel. End uses for high-Btu gas can range from direct injection to a near-by pipeline. Beck did not find a “perfect fit” user for the LFG produced at Clint 2284 that would be an optimum customer for the gas. These projects also do not have very stringent LFG quality requirements.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LFG. In turn. the oxygen content of the input LFG must be strictly controlled. Direct use of the medium-Btu LFG can be very attractive if an end user can be located that has consistent (24 hours/day. the capital and O&M costs are relatively high. such as the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline that bisects the property. High-Btu Processing Most high-Btu processes are proprietary. this means that the LFG collection system and wellfield must be operated with virtually “zero” air intrusion. Operationally. W. Beck is not aware of any commerciallyviable high-Btu projects with LFG flow rates similar to the predictions for Clint 2284. Unfortunately. to conversion to liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) for alternative vehicle fuel. In all of the cases explored. This illustrates the basic concept of LFG collection. R. Section 4: Landfill Gas Collection Based on the results of the LFG generation modeling in Section 2 and the potential end uses for the LFG discussed in Section 3. Pipeline costs vary depending on distance to the end user and right-of-way requirements. Additionally. W. In order to arrive at pipeline-quality natural gas. engine generators are relatively straightforward to maintain and do not have stringent LFG quality or high-pressure requirements. Section 4 focuses on conceptual strategies for collecting the LFG. Capital and O&M costs are well established and predictable for projects of this type. Beck ES-7 . the costs per SCFM for smaller facilities increase (relatively) due to the loss of economy of scale and minimum equipment sizing for specialized plant equipment. Figure ES-1 shows a conceptual rendition of LFG collection wells (vertical wells) collecting gas and collected by means of a header pipe within a landfill.

summarizes the yearly information found in Appendix C. Appendix C contains an engineering opinion of probable cost for each year in which expansion would take place until 2032 (approximately every 1-2 years). This information is used to develop the pro forma analyses in Section 7. The cost estimates assume initial construction and expansion to match gas production and operations expansion into new waste disposal cells. Table ES-4. W. Conceptual LFG Collection (Source: US EPA LMOP) This section identifies general variables associated with LFG collection system design and defines a conceptual collection system for the Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North areas that informs the cost estimates in the pro-forma analyses. The gas collection system expansion is modeled based on the cell expansion predictions (based on future predicted tonnages) presented by the City in the recent permitting effort (fugitive dust calculation section of the permit application).EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT Figure ES-1. Beck . ES-8 R. LFG Collection Capital Cost Appendix C presents the LFG collection system installation and expansion cost estimates for the Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North areas.

In general terms. Section 5: LFGTE Ownership Options If the City ultimately decides to pursue a LFGTE project. O&M costs were assumed for the LFG collection system as it expands.687 LFG Collection Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs For the purposes of the analyses in this report. Each piece will have capital costs and O&M costs as described in Sections 3 and 4.687 $515.687 $270. O&M costs have been allocated to additional acreage starting the year after expansion into that acreage.687 $607. replacements. capital cost outlay. Commonly. This accounts for miscellaneous parts.687 $270. In the pro-forma analyses.548 $604. The basis of the cost is an assumed factor of $25/acre/month.595 $279. W.856 $200. and risk. and labor for O&M of the gas collection system. the LFGTE project can be viewed as two pieces: the LFG collection system and the LFGTE processing plant. Section 5 delineates the spectrum of ownership options that the City could pursue in the development of a LFGTE project. a private party (Developer) will agree to participate in a project of this type with the City. R. monitoring.361 $232.300 Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Estimated Capital Cost $200.300 $200.856 $200.403 $474.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-4 LFG Collection System – Yearly Capital Cost Estimates Year 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Estimated Capital Cost $2. or high Btu gas).972 $778. medium Btu gas. this cost increases accordingly as the gas collection system covers greater and greater acreages.899 $955.312 $200.856 $623.856 $270.082. Beck ES-9 .857 $232. a number of decisions will need to be made regarding the City’s appetite for ownership.354 $298.252 $270. This arrangement will allow the Developer to bring technical expertise and possibly capital to the project in exchange for revenues associated with the end-product sales (be that electricity. respectively. The Developer and the City may agree to trade responsibility for various actions and costs associated with these pieces of the project.

Renewable Energy Production Incentives. This scenario is described in the middle column of the Ownership Decision Matrix. and moving to the left in the figure describes projects owned and operated more by the City. Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Credits. This table can also be used during negotiation with a possible Developer. The allocation of risk and costs in return for revenue is the purview of the contract negotiations after the City has received responses from a future request for proposal. incentives. Clean Renewable Energy bonds. Beck reviewed state and federal energy credits. W. bonds and tax credit programs. it is likely that the City will choose to have a Developer take on most of the risk for a future LFGTE project. The City can use this matrix to get an idea of the level of responsibility. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). landfill entities choose to install and operate their own LFG collection system. This matrix introduces the spectrum of ownership options along the top rows. Commonly. and agreed upon prior to signing any contracts. Section 6: Assessment of Grants and Funds Section 6 includes research of economic incentives that may be available for the City and/or Developer (depending on ownership options as discussed in Section 5) for a LFGTE project. W. in Section 5 of the report. ES-10 R. to ensure that issues are brought up. and discusses the implications of each to various project attributes in the columns. cost and risk that might be associated with a project under various ownership scenarios. The City Risk Overview at the bottom of the figure characterizes the amount of relative risk the City would take on (depending on ownership option) for each situation in the first column. the City will need to decide whether to install and/or operate the LFG collection system or let the Developer perform this service as well.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT This flexibility in development structure makes the analysis of various projects difficult. presents the Ownership Decision Matrix. Moving to the right in the figure describes projects owned and operated more by the Developer. R. loans. Based on discussions with City staff and the specialized nature of LFGTE expertise. discussed. but the matrix gives an idea of the issues associated with these projects. The following programs were discovered: „ „ „ „ „ Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits. due to the different rates. production credits. Section 7 explores the financial merits of each type of project and makes the case that profitable projects (according to net present value) will be a profitable solution regardless of the ownership entity. Beck . Ownership Decision Matrix Figure 5-1. and incentive programs available to public versus private owners (see Section 6 for a discussion of grants and funds associated with these types of projects). Since the LFG collection system is not yet in place at the City landfills.

the City is not required to meet the Federal New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) requirements during the 20-year planning period.4 percent. After R. Treasuries have ranged from 4 to 5 percent. based on current assumptions. and this section does not address the multiple other valid reasons that a City might install and maintain a LFG collection and 1 2 Where appropriate. W. Beck estimated the revenue and required capital and O&M costs for a 20-year period. R. Beck used a discount rate of five percent for the electricity generation (Scenario 1) and direct use medium Btu (Scenario 2). W. the NPV of the status quo is zero. If the NPV is negative for a project. provides a concise summary of the fiscal opportunities that may be available to LFGTE projects. R. R. 20-year U. Therefore. W. For the initial evaluation of these scenarios. W. If the NPV is positive. this means investing in the Treasuries would be a better investment than the LFGTE project. Federal Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credits. Beck developed a 20-year projection of cash flows for each end-use scenario. W. which a private company would likely do in an analysis of these projects. it is important to note that the comparisons in this section are solely financial. Beck applied an inflation rate of 2. These annual amounts were then summed to calculate a net present value (NPV).1. Any LFGTE project considered should have an NPV greater than zero if it is to be considered financially better than the status quo of “doing nothing. 1 the future cash flows were discounted so that amounts are represented in 2008 dollars. The capital costs and O&M cost factors previously introduced are utilized and manipulated in the financial models as prudent. and 10 percent for high-Btu processing (Scenario 3). then the LFGTE project would be the better investment.7 shows the effect of using higher discount rates.S. in Section 6. Beck applied a higher discount rate for the high-Btu processing due to the greater risk. R. Table 6-1.5. Section 7: Financial Pro Forma Analysis This section outlines the methodology utilized in the financial pro forma analyses of the three general LFGTE project alternatives. W.” Nevertheless. Section 7. Over the last several years. Methodology For each end-use scenario. Therefore. Basis of Comparison As discussed in Section 6. and Alternative Fuel Grant. Beck ES-11 . R. the City is not required to install a LFG collection system and there is no cost associated with management of LFG.FINAL DRAFT „ „ „ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal Alternative Fuels Tax Credits. The amount for the first two scenarios represents what the City could earn if it invested in 20-year United States Treasuries2 rather than one of these LFGTE projects.

) gas FINAL DRAFT migration control. All of these end-use projects assume the City would initiate the process of collecting and utilizing the LFG (either itself or via a private contractor) as soon as possible. Section 7.6. In order to further analyze the most common LFGTE option of using engine generators to produce electricity. subsurface environmental stewardship. W.e. Beck believes that the risk associated with Scenario 3 is greater than Scenario 1 and 2 and therefore a higher discount rate was used for Scenario 3. ES-12 R. As discussed in Section 7. Beck . capital. Beck has also shown an alternative NPV with a higher discount rate applied to the revenue. W. W. sustainability. and O&M costs of the LFGTE projects and provided those totals at the bottom of the table. The result of increasing the discount rate is shown under “Private Operator Perspective” since private companies will typically use a higher discount rate for future cash flows than a public sector entity. R.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY control system (i. etc.8 provides an alternate scenario where the City would wait a period of years before implementing a LFGTE system of this type. R. Options Summary Table ES-5 summarizes the three end-use scenarios discussed in the section. odor control.

668.725.579) $2. Beck also analyzed the scenario in which no activity would be conducted at the landfill.491 ($8.801.129 Scenario 1B1 $19.679.650 Scenario 2 $6. W.477) ($12.760.778) 20% ($1.725.172) ($2. Table ES-6 summarizes the information for this Scenario 1C. For the purposes of discussion.633. and operating costs.635.777. W. revenue. Beck ES-13 .728) $2. These discount rates apply only to the LFGTE infrastructure.298. W. As shown in Table ES-6.148.266 ($5.341 $0 ($6. Scenario 1A1 $16. R. The Clint 2284 landfill is a relatively new landfill.713) ($14. Beck refers to this alternate as Scenario 1C.194.007 $1. R. Alternate Analysis of Scenario 1A As discussed in Section 7.244.066) 15% ($3.475) 15% ($610.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-5 NPV Summary – Including Revenue from Credits Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total NPV Private Operator Perspective Discount Rate 2 Adjusted NPV 2 1. Therefore.541) ($11.607.607. waiting a period of five years has a significant impact on the financial feasibility of using engine generators to produce electricity on site.216 ($7.281) ($2. R.202) $3.691 ($7. Beck analyzed an alternate version of Scenario 1A. the LFG flow rate is still at a relatively low level compared where to it is anticipated to be in future years. W.341 $328.162.541) ($8.388) 15% ($768. with regard to collecting and utilizing LFG.476. for a period of five years. 2. Scenario 1B includes LFG collection from Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North.254.729) ($8.216) ($1.226.341 $0 ($153. The discount rate for the GHG credits and REC were kept constant at 15 percent.239) Scenario 3 $16.7.284 $773.151.496) $2. R.151) Scenario 1A includes LFG collection from Clint 2284 only.781.845 $410.350.607.254.

165. Beck .129) $1.136. collection and beneficial use. and 1C): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and electricity generation with only electricity sales revenue is negative if the project is started immediately (Scenarios 1A and 1B).583) ($13. and operating costs.772 15% $732. This section summarizes the conclusions of this report. Section 8: Conclusions and Recommendations This LFGTE feasibility report has been organized to follow the process of discovery.592. investigation.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT Table ES-6 NPV of Scenario 1C – Wait Five Years before Implementation Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total Private Operator Perspective Discount Rate 1 Adjusted NPV 1 1. revenue. Additionally.047 $3.260.739 $2.502.558.451 ($6. and analysis of landfill gas estimation. ES-14 R.888 These discount rates apply only to the LFGTE infrastructure. and provides recommendations for future actions that provide the most overall benefit to the City. The following summarizes the financial and operational conclusions for each general end use.987 $256. re-iterates the information gathered from this project. Summary of LFGTE Possibilities As noted in the report. 1B. during the course of the next approximately 20 years. Electricity Generation (Financial Scenarios 1A. the City may be able to take advantage of voluntary trading of landfill methane emission offset credits (GHG credits) if a collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. The discount rate for the GHG credits and REC were kept constant at 15 percent. the City may have the opportunity to serve multiple end users and utilize a variety of technologies that may not be feasible at this time. W. Scenario 1C NPV $21.

The technology is simple and proven. Operationally. electricity generation by engine generators is the most commonly utilized LFGTE electricity generation technology. Currently. fewer of these types of projects exist due to the uncertain commercial viability at smaller LFG flow rates. This Scenario would be the most financially advantageous LFGTE option if an end user could be located that could take the full LFG flow from Clint 2284 for a larger percentage of the time. and the operational practices of the Developer. this necessitates operation of the LFG collection system with “zero” air intrusion – could prove difficult for Clint 2284. and is quite reliable and proven. Beck ES-15 . the conceptual collection.e.6. Operationally. a full-time process). as discussed in Section 7.FINAL DRAFT „ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NPV becomes positive for these Scenarios (project that provides greater financial benefit than the “do nothing” alternative) when revenue from GHG credits and renewable energy credits are included in the pro forma. Data is not available on the true effect of the loss of economy of scale. This report generally supports the development of a LFGTE project in the future that could achieve revenue from sales R. Operationally.1. medium-Btu direct use by local pipeline is a very common LFGTE project that is simple to operate and has a reasonable up-front capital cost. NPV remains negative even when revenue from GHG credits is modeled. the scale of the project. „ „ „ High-Btu Processing (Financial Scenario 3): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and high-Btu processing with only LFG sales revenue is negative. „ „ „ „ General Conclusions This report has modeled the LFG generation. high-Btu processing plants require “zero” oxygen in the raw LFG. This Scenario models a high-Btu processing plant at a smaller scale than is currently commercially operational. This Scenario is highly dependent on the ability of the end user to take all the LFG produced (i. „ „ Medium-Btu Direct Use (Financial Scenario 2): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and direct use at one of the local industries surveyed in this report (based on LMOP database) with only LFG sales revenue is negative. NPV is greater if the City decides to wait (5 years modeled in Scenario 1C) for gas production to increase at Clint 2284 before pursuing this LFGTE project. and the financial operation of LFGTE projects. W. NPV is affected positively (but remains negative) when revenue from GHG credits are modeled. Capital and O&M costs are highly dependent on the proprietary design of the processing plant.

This RFP process is generally advantageous to the City. Beck . Key considerations for an RFP and the knowledge to critically analyze and compare financial pro formas advertised by Developers are added features of this report. since it is likely that Developers may approach the City with unsolicited offers that are based on currently undiscovered end-users. legal. Blue Source. green marketing. Based on the current Tier II report (report required by federal New Source Performance Standards using LandGEM gas modeling) performed by the City. Beck would not recommend the development of an RFP for a LFGTE project at this time. Given that Clint 2284 is a relatively young landfill in the early stages of LFG production. These recommendations should be considered in conjunction with the City’s other business. and financial considerations. or when the City chooses to advertise with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a LFGTE project. R. Even though R. Based on the City’s expertise and appetite for risk. GHG credits. R. 1. W. Beck does not anticipate significant Developer interest in the LFG at this time. as it allows for flexible and inventive solutions to be proposed. W. and the City can utilize the information in this report to compare assumptions and solutions. including the Chicago Climate Exchange. etc. but any collection and destruction of gas (by any means – flare or end use) can be potentially traded as emissions credits on various trading platforms. and/or financial pro formas that make different assumptions based on the Developer’s perspective or proprietary process. The analyses in this report support the possibility that more financially advantageous results could be achieved if the City waits approximately 5 years. it is likely that a third party Developer will be contracted with for any LFGTE project at the City sites.). This may change with future Tier II results. the City may have the opportunity to serve multiple end users and utilize a variety of technologies that may not be feasible at this time. a LFG collection and control system is not required at Clint 2284 through the active life of the facility. the City may be able to take advantage of voluntary trading of landfill methane emission offset credits if a collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. sustainability. During the course of the next approximately 20 years. 2. This body of knowledge will be invaluable if the City receives unsolicited offers for LFGTE projects.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT of energy (electricity or gas). Beck recommends that the City consider the following actions to follow-up this report and gain the most value from this effort. Additionally. or other available services offering GHG crediting options. This will be important. the City may desire to collect and control LFG or to develop an LFGTE project for many other valid reasons (carbon footprint. W. W. policy. Although not financially advantageous. This report provides the City with a solid foundation of knowledge regarding the potential of the LFG generated at the City’s sites. the City would ES-16 R. It is important to note that the financial feasibility of the LFGTE projects is greatly affected by the absence of an existing LFG collection system at the City sites. Key Findings and Recommendations Based on the specific and general conclusions noted above. and possibly RECs.

This initial system would conform to the LFG masterplan to allow for future expansion.e. As the City nears the end of the 5-year “waiting” period to allow for increased LFG production. 7. 7 days/week) basis. a direct-use mediumBtu project would be the most financially advantageous to the City if an end user could be located near the Clint 2284 site that could use all of the LFG generated on a full time (eg. The City should monitor this technology and be open to exploring new proprietary methods if proposed by Developers. additional waste is accepted at the Clint and/or McCombs landfills). the City should market the LFG potential at the Clint 2284 site to businesses looking at possible locations for manufacturing or industrial facilities. piping. the City should commission a LFG collection and control system masterplan design for Clint 2284. to accommodate known future growth at the site. etc. This masterplan would design a LFG collection system that effectively captures the gas generated at the site and allows for a diverse array of LFG end use options from a centralized collection point. the LFG generation model and the feasibility of LFGTE projects at these sites can be greatly affected. For example. high-Btu processing is an emerging technology that is constantly changing. 6. As stated in Section 7. Additionally. Although high-Btu projects have not been viable at the relative scale of Clint 2284 LFG production. blower/flare station. 4. Additional impetus for research in this area is a result of rising natural gas prices. The RFP will contain information from this report and updated flow and design information from the installed and operational LFG collection and control system. The creation of an RFP would require a small effort and could yield interesting Developer ideas. It is important to note that the greatest variable for LFG production modeling is the waste acceptance rate of a particular landfill. After the first phase of the LFG collection and control system is in place. Within the proposed 5-year “waiting” period. R. This masterplan could be used by the City or used to govern a Developer in how to expand gas collection at the site responsibly. 3. If future waste receipts are not as predicted and modeled in the RWB Model (i. 24 hours/day. a significant increase in the quantity of waste disposed could accelerate the feasibility of a LFGTE project. the City should commission detailed design and construction of a “Phase 1” LFG collection and control system at Clint 2284. W. sumps. a masterplan would ensure responsible design of wells. the City will be optimally positioned to advertise an RFP for LFGTE at Clint 2284. Beck ES-17 . Within the proposed 5-year “waiting” period.FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY incur little risk if an RFP was advertised. 5.

Beck . W.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) ES-18 R.

This report generally analyzes and models the facilities according to the following “areas” (listed from oldest to newest waste placement activity): Table 1-1 Landfill Area Descriptions Area Name McCombs Clint 1482 South Clint 1482 North Clint 2284 Description All cells of the McCombs landfill regulated by MSW Permit #729A. only the Clint landfill facility is in operation. The Clint landfill (Clint) is comprised of two separately permitted facilities. Regulated by MSW Permit #1482. Waste placement from 1983 to 1999.FINAL DRAFT Section 1 SITE DESCRIPTIONS 1. . MSW Permit #1482 (referred to as Clint 1482) received waste from 1983 to 2007.1 Overview The City of El Paso (City) owns two municipal solid waste landfill facilities: the McCombs landfill at 13600 McCombs Street. 1984. and the Clint landfill at 2300 Darrington Road. Area of the Clint landfill south of the utility easement that bisects the site. The development of the McCombs landfill generally followed the development of a sand and gravel quarry in that location. the City was operating both facilities to accept municipal solid waste generated in the City and surrounding areas. Currently. Area of the Clint landfill including all existing and future cells regulated under MSW Permit #2284. 2005 – except for limited City cleanup waste in 2006) and not projected to receive waste until 2032. Waste placement from 1999-2007 Waste placement from 2005 to 2032 (predicted). The McCombs landfill (McCombs) began receiving waste in 1977 and is currently inactive (as of February 3. 1.1. The McCombs landfill was originally permitted on August 13. Regulated by MSW Permit #1482. 1976. Until 2005. MSW Permit #2284 (referred to as Clint 2284) is the currently active disposal facility that began accepting waste in 2005 and is scheduled to be developed and receive waste until 2032. Area of the Clint landfill north of the utility easement that bisects the site. with subsequent permitting to the current acreage on May 30. Waste Placement Waste placement from 1977 to 2006. The following subsections describe the Clint and McCombs landfill facilities in more detail.1 McCombs McCombs is located on approximately 327 acres at the intersection of McCombs Road and Stan Roberts Road.

Based on filling activities in those years. This area received waste from approximately 1983 to 1999.327. The “unlined area” shown on the drawing represents the oldest waste. W.083.806 tons of waste (approximately 4. 1-2 R. The Clint 1482 South area includes the portion of the Clint landfill regulated by Permit #1482 that lies south of the utility easement that bisects the site. D E F G Future Sectors B-G C B Unlined Area Lined Sector A Lined Area Figure 1-1. the Clint landfill facility is comprised of two separately permitted facilities. Beck .1.768. The older permitted area is referred to by Permit #1482. 1.2 Clint 1482 South As stated previously. it is important to note that the McCombs facility has been reading elevated gas readings in the perimeter monitoring probes located on the western boundary of the facility (near McCombs Road). In an effort to address the situation and to prevent any potential subsurface migration of LFG past the property boundary. McCombs has received approximately 2. The last cell to be built at the landfill was Sector A.742 tons (at full build out). The “lined area” shows cells that were lined in compliance with Subtitle D requirements.Section 1 FINAL DRAFT Based on filling activities from 1977 to 2006. These elevated readings have been a problem at the site for approximately 10 years. McCombs Figure 1-1 shows the general plan of the McCombs landfill. the City will be installing a blower/flare station to actively collect gas from existing passive vents on the western portion of the “unlined area” shown on Figure 1-1.364 cubic yards according to City calculations). the approximate capacity of McCombs is estimated to be 12. Based upon information provided in the most recent Site Development Plan. Relevant to this report. Future Sectors B – G are expected to be developed when this landfill becomes operational again (currently estimated for 2032).

R.FINAL DRAFT SITE DESCRIPTIONS Clint 1482 South has received approximately 3. Beck 1-3 .271.073. CLINT 2284 Lined 15 Acre Area CLINT 1482 NORTH Unlined 102 Acre Area Figure 1-2. Clint 1482 South Figure 1-2 shows the general plan of the Clint 1482 South area. Clint 1482 North has received approximately 1.3 Clint 1482 North The Clint 1482 North area includes the portion of the Clint landfill regulated by Permit #1482 that lies north of the utility easement that bisects the site. Based on recorded filling activities in the years noted. This area received waste from approximately 1999 to 2007. This area will not be used for future waste disposal and the City has plans for final closure and capping of this area. This area will not be used for future waste disposal and the City has plans for final closure and capping of this area. The “lined 15 acre area” shows cells that were lined in compliance with Subtitle D requirements and received waste from approximately 1995 to 1999.1. The “unlined 102 acre area” shown on the drawing represents the oldest waste (filling from approximately 1983 to 1995). 1. with older waste located in various locations that were used as landfills prior to permitting requirements. W.567 tons of waste.839 tons of waste.

578 tons (at full build out – assuming a compaction rate of 1. Clint 2284 was originally permitted as a municipal solid waste landfill on April 14. The shaded area denotes an area of various older. Phase 1 is located north of the easement.Section 1 FINAL DRAFT CLINT 2284 Lined Cell B Lined Cell A Figure 1-3. the approximate capacity of the Clint 2284 landfill is estimated to be 12. unlined waste disposal locations. Clint 2284 has received 910.200 lb/cy). and Phase 2 is located south of the easement. and is currently filling in cells 5 and 6 of Phase 1. 2003.4 Clint 2284 The Clint landfill regulated by Permit #2284 is located on approximately 311 acres on Darrington Road.1. This landfill expected to receive all future waste for the City and current disposers until 2032. Clint 1482 North Figure 1-3 shows the general plan of the Clint 1482 North area. 1. Based on filling activities from 2005 to 2007. Similar to the Clint 1482 site. Based upon information provided in the permitting effort. Full build out is anticipated to include 20 waste cells in two phases. Beck CLINT 1482 SOUTH Unlined Waste Disposal Area .495 tons of waste. 1-4 R. Clint 2284 is bisected by the same utility easement that runs roughly east to west. The landfill first began receiving waste in 2005. W. The “Cell A” and “Cell B” areas show the lined cells.812.

R. Clint 2284 CLINT 1482 SOUTH Figure 1-4 shows the general plan of the Clint 2284 landfill. and the shaded cells 1-6 denote the existing developed area.FINAL DRAFT SITE DESCRIPTIONS Future Cells 7-10 (PHASE 2) (PHASE 1) Future Cells 11-20 Existing Cells 1-6 CLINT 1482 NORTH Figure 1-4. W. The existing and future cells are shown. All existing and future cells at Clint 2284 have and will be lined in compliance with Subtitle D requirements. Beck 1-5 .

Section 1 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 1-6 R. Beck . W.

In the RWB Model. is evaluated in the context of the known site characteristics and the period of time considered. To check the assumptions and estimates used in the RWB Model.FINAL DRAFT Section 2 LANDFILL GAS GENERATION 2. empirical data and assumed variables are used (as discussed below) based on observations and experience from the project landfill and multiple similar landfills to estimate LFG generation over approximately 20 years. based on experience. Beck has developed the RWB LFG Generation Model (RWB Model) based on a polynomial solution of the first-order time dependent relationship between LFG generation and the decomposition of organic waste material. The LandGEM model output tabulates total LFG production over time. engineering estimates must be made regarding the current and future generation of LFG at a particular site. Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) LandGEM model. This can be compared with the area under the modeled lifetime generation curve. A generation percentage of the BCMP can be calculated which. a comparison is made between the lifetime LFG generation output and the biochemical methane potential (BCMP) for the assumed organic quantity of MSW on site. These variables are commonly based on nationwide averages (Clean Air Act or AP-42 published values). There are several wellknown and distinct stages of LFG generation for municipal solid waste (MSW) depending on numerous characteristics of the site and waste composition. expressed in cubic feet per pound of dry organic MSW. It has been used and continually refined for over 20 years. This is known as LFG generation modeling. R. In order to appropriately design LFG collection systems and/or beneficial end uses for the gas. .1 LFG Generation Modeling LFGTE projects are based on the anaerobic decay of solid waste that naturally occurs in landfills. and the site-specific non-methane organic compound (NMOC) content of the LFG. W. Similarly. Multiplying the BCMP by the estimated MSW dry organic tonnage gives a value of lifetime LFG generation. This is not confirmation of the modeled output but provides confidence that the assumptions and estimates used for the characteristics of the modeled landfill or area are reasonable.S. The variety of conditions encountered in a MSW landfill can then be modeled by adjusting the coefficients in the polynomial solution to approximate the characteristics of the particular site. The RWB Model uses a series expansion to “curve fit” these stages to known or assumed values of each characteristic. In addition. The City is familiar with the U. or from a particular waste mass. This program allows for input of general tonnages. two kinetic variables. The BCMP is the laboratory theoretical maximum LFG production from a unit of MSW. it has been used successfully in modeling LFG generation and recovery at over 100 landfills. which generates LFG at various rates and quality based on certain variables.

Edison Township. in general terms. Each project currently has. W. Beck. In each case. The RWB Model allows for various methods to handle waste characteristics and their effect on gas generation.2. the RWB Model information provided by R. Canada Cedar Hills Landfill. or is in the process of developing. R. Of the over 150 projects modeled. TX McCommas Bluff Landfill. Beck has tracked the recovered gas quantities versus the RWB Model for over ten years. the effects of these variables. Orange County. many site climatological. To evaluate and forecast the availability of LFG at any of the project areas.W.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT R. CA Gazmont Landfill. The financing for several of the largest energy recovery projects in the United States and Canada have relied on the RWB Model for LFG generation and recovery forecasting.2 LFG Generation Variables As discussed in the previous subsection. W. Houston. the RWB Model has consistently provided accurate and reasonable forecasts. R.1 Waste Characterization LFG is generated by the decomposition of organic material by microorganisms. when the waste receipts follow the estimated projections by the landfill owners. Beck has performed LFG modeling worldwide since 1989. At several of these projects R. King County. installation of collectors. energy recovery facilities with the engineering and assistance of R. W. including: „ „ „ „ „ „ McCarty Road Landfill. Beck is currently involved in modeling LFG generation and recovery at five enhanced leachate recirculation and bioreactor landfills from Texas to South Dakota. Consequently. waste composition. it is necessary to consider the following variables and evaluate their impact on the production and collection of LFG at each independent area of the project. Generally. The following subsections discuss. Middlesex County. WA Edgeboro. 2. and Industrial Land Reclaiming Landfills. Montreal. TX Coyote Canyon Landfill. not all waste that is disposed of at a landfill will contribute to the generation of gas. W. Both the tonnage rates and the kinetic variables can be adjusted to reflect the characterization of the waste in place (if 2-2 R. Beck has consistently tracked expectations without serious shortfall or over-estimation. Beck is not aware of any deviations greater than 30% of modeled outcome without serious attendant shortfalls in waste receipts. the RWB Model provides consistent recovery forecasts. NJ While every recovery project stages the installation of gas collectors with wide variability. W. and geotechnical characteristics have significant impacts on LFG generation and collection. 2. W. Dallas. or problems with flooded collectors. Beck .

the following general waste characterization information was known: „ A waste characterization study was completed for both McCombs and Clint 1482 in 1998-1999. 2.W. Curb-side recycling efforts commenced in 2007 – will serve to lower future tonnages to Clint 2284 as recyclable waste is diverted. „ „ „ Specific narration of how this information was modeled is included in the areaspecific discussion. The LFG industry widely accepts that landfills with high moisture levels (but not saturated) generate LFG at a high rate for a relatively short duration. R. W. Tonnage rates adjusted to reflect this information. Tonnage rates adjusted to reflect this information. The effect of moisture on duration of LFG generation is equally significant but there is considerable debate over the long-term kinetics of this relationship. Tonnage rates adjusted to reflect this information. As shown in Figure 2-1. Known city cleanup/inert wastes were collected at specific times (Cheryl Ladd waste and 2006 storm waste). Beck has significant experience and success in developing such forecasts in support of LFG recovery projects. Beck 2-3 . the rate of LFG generation for a fixed waste volume can vary by more than 100% depending on moisture content. landfills with low moisture levels generate LFG at a lower rate for a significantly greater duration. While the industry has not published a sufficient body of empirical data to provide a proven long-term or post-closure LFG generation estimate. Kinetic variables adjusted to reflect this information. R. A certain percentage of the MSW will not contribute to LFG production.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION known). sometimes well beyond 60 years.2 Moisture Content The moisture content of the waste volume is among the principal characteristics to be considered in determining the rate and duration of LFG generated by a given landfill. Conversely. For the City sites.2.

Future construction of landfill closure caps (as required) will further prohibit precipitation from reaching the waste mass.3 0. Rainfall can contribute to aggregate moisture during landfill filling. These factors lead to assumptions of a relatively dry waste mass that produces a gas generation model with a longer decay curve and the possibility that conditions may not allow for every unit of organic waste to decompose.05 0 -5 0 LANDFILL CLOSURE 5 10 Years 15 20 25 Figure 2-1.3 Temperature The effect of temperature ranges on LFG generation has been demonstrated in controlled laboratory conditions. and more recently the practice of leachate recirculation or bioreactor technology. 2. the City reports no sludges taken on a regular basis.25 WET 0.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT 0. Time Example The relative moisture content within a landfill depends primarily on the moisture content of the MSW when it is placed. W. the acceptance of sludges.2 Landfill Gas Generation (ft3 / lb / yr) 0. and leachate recirculation is not generally practiced due to stipulations in the permitting for these sites.2.15 AVERAGE 0. Wastes containing high levels of water include yard and food wastes and industrial and sewage sludges. Beck . Additionally. The 2-4 R. cover infiltration (rainfall). Also a site’s moisture characteristics can vary depending on the intermediate soil permeability and on the ability of the site to drain or retain leachate entering and passing through the fill volume. Most MSW landfills exhibit temperature variations both with weather and with different bacterial populations in the fill volume. LFG Generation vs. The City of El Paso has a dry climate (less than 25 inches of precipitation per year) and therefore the annual amount of water added to the landfills due to precipitation is less than average.1 DRY 0.

Large. the timing of development was such that some of the landfill areas were Subtitle D lined and some were not. The City currently (at Clint 2284) uses a daily cover of six inches of sandy topsoil. Another landfill operational technique that affects gas production involves daily cover material.5 Landfill Construction Materials and Techniques Generally. Estimating the effect of these temperature ranges in a LFG generation model is difficult and probably of limited value in comparison with other characteristics which affect the rate of LFG generation. northern Minnesota and Alaska indicate the effect is probably less than a 5% variation in LFG generation rates. 2. W. However. the conditions for LFG generation theoretically remain relatively constant and recovery of LFG can be a significant fraction of the total LFG generation. moisture and the particular anaerobes present. This means that the City is assumed to be able to collect at least 75% of the total LFG generated at each site. depending on a site’s depth and average year-round temperature. most of the lined areas are not able to re-circulate leachate due to specific permit stipulations.4 Landfill Size and Geometry Increasing waste depth significantly enhances the collection or recovery of LFG from within a landfill. Generally. the use of modern geosynthetic liners and leachate collection systems (required for all MSW landfills. placement. In such sites. Additionally. In the absence of existing collection systems at the project sites for review. all of the gas models in this report estimate collection efficiency at 75% (based on US EPA guidance and standards).FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION causes of these variations are complex microbial interactions depending on waste composition. 2. Temperature ranges were not explicitly taken into account in the RWB Model. This daily cover is not removed at the R. According to City staff. Beck 2-5 . Florida. the landfills have not undergone final closure. Also.2. Although collection efficiencies are impossible to measure. and removal. under RCRA Subtitle D Federal Regulations) and advanced low permeability cover systems essentially isolate the MSW fill volume in a landfill from the environment. Capping allows for the LFG wells to sustain increased vacuum with less potential for air intrusion through the cap.2. estimates range from 75% to over 90% for very tightly controlled landfills with extensive gas extraction systems. most experts agree that landfills located in warm-winter climates exhibit slightly higher overall LFG generation rates than those in cold-winter climates. new or modified since 1994. a landfill will be able to increase collection efficiency with the installation of closure capping. but temperature ranges will affect gas collection system design in the future. deep MSW landfills exhibit better overall LFG collection and generation characteristics than other sites. closure isolates the waste mass from incoming precipitation. As discussed previously. However. Studies and data collected at sites in southern California. at the McCombs and Clint landfills. but it does allow for increased efficiency of the collection system. the Clint 1482 site is currently planning an evapotranspiration cover system that could allow for slightly more liquid percolation. The remainder of the gas will escape into the atmosphere or subsurface.

749 76. W.9% glass.046 152.161 38.002 26. site visit knowledge gained. Beck experience. Each modeled “area” is attributed specific waste tonnages and characteristics based on City-provided information. 2.066 92.963 109.721 28.407 65.233 165.983 24. Table 2-1 Historical Waste Receipt Data .3% metals.411 48.3 Site Characteristics and Waste Receipts This subsection compiles the historical and estimated future waste tonnage information and site characteristics that affect the RWB Model.802 121.6% plastics.858 89.574 98.108 71. Beck .Section 2 FINAL DRAFT commencement of the next day’s waste placement.533 54.232 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 17. W.218 33.039 35. The percent inert tons is derived from the City’s 1998-1999 waste characterization study at the site and is comprised of approximately 12. The historical tonnages have been provided by the City. 2.1 McCombs Landfill The McCombs landfill is currently not receiving waste.639 31.317 36.3.903 32.000 282.588 35.401 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 22.506 Historical MSW 23.790 20.050 123.988 27.915 51.896 34.573 23.930 41.014 36. 27.638 26.742 25. These variables feed the gas model and are customized for each area.998 Year 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2-6 R. and 4.273 96.473 24.482 26. This allows for inert soil (material that will not generate LFG) in the waste mass and these layers of soil could hinder vertical travel of liquids and gas.464 119.187 25.265 31.647 133.805 35.554 33. For the purposes of the RWB Model.280 37.275 30.8% of the historical tonnage was assumed to be inert tons that do not contribute to LFG production.294 36.504 23.108 10.034 23.055 127.081 168.050 46.130 204. and R.121 22.701 15.973 25. 10.567 35. Table 2-1 summarizes the historical waste receipt data for this site.McCombs Landfill (tons) Historical MSW 30.

FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION In addition to the tonnage input. LFG energy content.144 12.Biochemical Methane Potential 25% 60% None 0. For the purposes of the RWB Model. Inert waste does not contribute. Table 2-2 summarizes the LFG generation modeling input for: (i) the amount and age of MSW deposited at McCombs landfill.3.2 Clint 1482 South The Clint 1482 landfill is currently not receiving waste. R. 2006. dry organic) LFG Fuel Value (Btu/cubic ft HHV) LFG Collection Efficiency (% of total generation) Notes: 1 Percent Moisture as received 2 Sludge generally not known to be accepted at this site 3 MSW only. 34. collection system efficiency and the anticipated duration of LFG generation. and (ii) the RWB Model assumptions regarding landfill composition. W. The historical tonnages have been provided by the City.4 460 75% 2. (cubic ft LFG/lb. Beck 2-7 . LFG/lb. The percent inert tons is consistent with the Waste Characterization Study performed at the site by Frontera Environmental (June 1999) and referenced in the Tier II analysis performed at the site in March. 4 BCMP .McCombs Landfill Composition Characteristic MSW Moisture (by weight)1 MSW Organics (by weight) Sewage BCMP4 Sludge2 MSW/year)3 LFG Gen. Table 2-3 summarizes the historical waste receipt data for this site.2% of the historical tonnage was assumed to be inert tons that do not contribute to LFG production. Table 2-2 LFG General Assumptions . Rate Coefficient (cubic ft.

128 82.Clint 1482 South Composition Characteristic MSW Moisture (by weight)1 MSW Organics (by weight) Sewage Sludge2 LFG Gen.353 124. dry organic) LFG Fuel Value (Btu/cubic ft HHV) LFG Collection Efficiency (% of total generation) Notes: 1 Percent Moisture as received 2 Sludge generally not known to be accepted at this site 3 MSW only.070 Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Historical MSW 206.425 194.461 133.8080 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 135.144 12.250 59.234 198.903 130.797 Notes: 1 1999 tonnage reflects half of total tonnage to the site.731 138. The historical tonnages have been provided 2-8 R.395 127. 4 BCMP . Table 2-5 summarizes the historical waste receipt data for this site. Rate Coeff.991 141. In addition to the tonnage input.579 251.Clint 1482 South (tons) Year 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Historical MSW 114.081 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 75.446 148.245 225. and (ii) the RWB Model assumptions regarding landfill composition.610 90.3 Clint 1482 North The Clint 1482 landfill is currently not receiving waste. Table 2-4 LFG General Assumptions . 3 Tonnage was split.4 460 75% 2. .808 209. Inert waste does not contribute.612 117.Max (cubic ft.3.569 179.533 115.122 210.544 165.194 125.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT Table 2-3 Historical Waste Receipt Data .400 116. LFG/lb.972 120. 2 Cell A (Clint 1482 North) began receiving waste that year. W.862 190.705 175. collection system efficiency and the anticipated duration of LFG generation. Table 2-4 summarizes the LFG generation modeling input for: (i) the amount and age of MSW deposited at Clint 1482 South.307 93.Biochemical Methane Potential 25% 60% None 0.152 182. MSW/year)3 BCMP4 (cubic ft LFG/lb. LFG energy content. Beck .379 138.118 202.177 176.

310 108.8090 225.962 165.495 tons of R. Beck 2-9 .Clint 1482 North (tons) Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Historical MSW 90.3. Table 2-6 summarizes the LFG generation modeling input for: (i) the amount and age of MSW deposited at Clint 1482 North.000 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 59. according to 2007 records of debris cleanup from 2006 storm.010 75.4871 Notes: 1 1999 tonnage reflects half of total tonnage to the site.144 12. LFG energy content.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION by the City.851 35.2% of the historical tonnage was assumed to be inert tons that do not contribute to LFG production. collection system efficiency and the anticipated duration of LFG generation. Tonnage was split with Clint 1482 South. Inert waste does not contribute.4 Clint 2284 The Clint 2284 landfill is currently the only City landfill receiving waste. In addition to the tonnage input. 2006. Clint 2284 has received 910. BCMP4 (cubic ft LFG/lb. The percent inert tons is consistent with the Waste Characterization Study performed at the site by Frontera Environmental (June 1999) and referenced in the Tier II analysis performed at the site in March. and is currently filling in cells 5 and 6 of Phase 1.Clint 1482 North Composition Characteristic MSW Moisture (by weight)1 MSW Organics (by weight) Sewage Sludge2 LFG Gen. 4 BCMP . 34. Rate Coefficient (cubic ft.786 93.798 148. Table 2-5 Historical Waste Receipt Data .662 162.345 141. LFG/lb.873 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 30.702 96.Biochemical Methane Potential 25% 60% None MSW/year)3 0.819 146. 2 2007 modeled tonnage reduced by an additional 81. Based on filling activities from 2005 to 2007. Table 2-6 LFG General Assumptions .246 237.577 107. Cell A began receiving waste that year. dry organic) LFG Fuel Value (Btu/cubic ft HHV) LFG Collection Efficiency (% of total generation) Notes: 1 Percent Moisture as received 2 Sludge generally not known to be accepted at this site 3 MSW only.851 54.653 Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 Historical MSW 46. For the purposes of the RWB Model. W.152 tons of inert waste. The landfill first began receiving waste in 2005. and (ii) the RWB Model assumptions regarding landfill composition.4 460 75% 2.

Section 2

FINAL DRAFT

waste. This landfill is expected to receive all future waste for the City and current disposers until 2032. Table 2-7 summarizes the historical and future waste receipt data for this site. The historical tonnages have been provided by the City. For the future waste tonnages, a 2% growth rate in total tonnage was assumed, consistent with City permitting estimates. For the purposes of the RWB Model, 34.2% of the historical (years 2005 and 2006) tonnage was assumed to be inert tons that do not contribute to LFG production. The percent inert tons is consistent with the Waste Characterization Study performed at the site by Frontera Environmental (June 1999) and referenced in the Tier II analysis performed at the site in March, 2006. This percentage was adjusted for year 2007 and future years to account for the City’s recycling initiative that started in 2007. The City reported an initial recycling diversion of approximately 10% of total tonnage in 2007 (assumption used in January, 2007 permitting effort). The RWB Model assumes an increase in recycling diversion at 2% per year for 2008 through 2010 to account for citizen learning curve and to match City recycling goals. The future inert fraction is then assumed to stabilize at 17.6% (consistent with a waste characterization study performed for Clint 1482 in 1998-1999) to account for future disposal of inorganic waste and City storm debris, since this is the City’s only operational landfill. Table 2-7 Historical and Projected Waste Receipt Data - Clint 2284 (tons)
Historical/ Projected MSW 333,841 256,164 320,490 386,233 393,958 401,837 409,873 418,071 426,432 434,961 443,660 452,533 461,584 470,816 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 219,834 132,2241 206,6321 300,682 314,575 328,904 337,735 344,491 351,380 358,408 365,576 372,887 380,345 387,952 Historical/ Projected MSW 480,232 489,837 499,633 509,626 519,819 530,215 540,819 551,636 562,668 573,922 585,400 597,108 609,050 154,178 Modeled MSW (inert removed) 395,711 403,626 411,698 419,932 428,331 436,897 445,635 454,548 463,638 472,912 482,370 492,017 501,857 127,043

Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032

Notes: 1 2006 and 2007 modeled tonnage reduced by an additional 36,460 tons of inert waste, according to records of debris cleanup from 2006 storm.

2-10 R. W. Beck

FINAL DRAFT

LANDFILL GAS GENERATION

In addition to the tonnage input, Table 2-8 summarizes the LFG generation modeling input for: (i) the amount and age of MSW deposited (and estimated future waste) at Clint 2284, and (ii) the RWB Model assumptions regarding landfill composition, LFG energy content, collection system efficiency and the anticipated duration of LFG generation. Table 2-8 LFG General Assumptions - Clint 2284
Composition Characteristic MSW Moisture (by weight)1 MSW Organics (by weight) Sewage Sludge2 LFG Gen. Rate Coefficient (cubic ft. LFG/lb. MSW/year)3 BCMP4 (cubic ft LFG/lb. dry organic) LFG Fuel Value (Btu/cubic ft HHV) LFG Collection Efficiency (% of total generation)
Notes: 1 Percent Moisture as received 2 Sludge generally not known to be accepted at this site 3 MSW only. Inert waste does not contribute. 4 BCMP - Biochemical Methane Potential

25% 60% None 0.135 12.4 460 75%

2.4 LFG Generation Model Results
Using the waste receipt and variable inputs described in the previous subsections, the RWB Model has been utilized to estimate gas generation at the various sites. The following subsections present the model output for each area. When available, the RWB Model results are compared to the LandGEM model results obtained by the City.

2.4.1 McCombs
Figure 2-2 shows the McCombs landfill RWB Model LFG generation estimates. Also provided for comparison on Figure 2-2 is the output of the LandGEM model. The figure uses identical tonnage values in both models to allow for direct comparison. This is done to match the LandGEM model performed by the City in 2007.

R. W. Beck 2-11

Section 2

FINAL DRAFT

LFG Generation/Collection Estimate - McCombs Landfill All Existing Cells
700 650 600 550 Landfill Gas (Std. Cubic Ft./Min) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1980 1983 1986 1992 1995 2001 2004 2010 2013 2019 2022 2025 2031 1977 1989 1998 2007 2016 2028
LFG Generated, City LandGEM Model LFG Generated, R. W. Beck Model

Year
LFG Generated City LandGEM LFG Generated

Figure 2-2. LFG Generation vs. Time using R. W. Beck model and LandGEM model Figure 2-2 illustrates the relationship between the RWB Model and the LandGEM model. Both models show peak gas production in 2006 (final year of waste placement). The peak gas flow in the RWB Model is approximately 39% higher than the LandGEM model, however, at about 10 years past the peak year, the RWB Model predicts less gas production than LandGEM. This shape of the curve and relationship with the LandGEM model is consistent with the differing theories of the total gas production in an arid climate. The LandGEM model assumes that gas production will continue until the production potential has been realized for each unit of waste. The RWB Model assumes that gas production will occur where the micro-environment allows for it, but all waste will not necessarily reach maximum LFG generation potential. This is evidenced anecdotally by findings of old newspapers that have not decomposed in older, arid landfills. The RWB Model curve is shaped to reflect the reality that waste in a micro-environment that can promote decomposition will do so and generate gas, whereas, waste that is not in the necessary micro-environment will not decompose as fully. Ultimately, the decomposition of the total waste mass and resulting LFG generation will be some fraction of the maximum potential that could have been achieved under perfect conditions. Figure 2-3 presents the results of the RWB Model using the newly adjusted City provided tonnage data. These tonnages reflect the current best estimate by the City of historical waste receipt. Additionally, this figure shows an estimated gas collection curve. This curve is based on an assumed 75% collection efficiency. This assumption is standard in the LFG industry and based on US EPA research. This is a conservative

2-12 R. W. Beck

2 Clint 1482 South Figure 2-4 presents the results of the RWB Model using the City provided tonnage data for Clint 1482 South. LFG Generated./Min) 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1983 1986 1989 1998 2001 2004 2013 2016 2019 2028 2031 1977 1980 1992 1995 2007 2010 2022 2025 LFG Collected. Additionally. 75% Collect. This curve is based on an assumed 75% collection efficiency as discussed in a previous subsection. LFG Generation/Collection Estimate . Cubic Ft.McCombs Landfill All Existing Cells 650 600 550 500 Landfill Gas (Std. LFG Generation/Collection vs. These tonnages reflect the current best estimate of historical waste receipt. R. Beck 2-13 .FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION collection efficiency assumption that is appropriate for feasibility studies until an actual gas collection system is installed. Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) The tabulated model output showing estimated gas generation for each year can be found in Appendix A. W. Eff. R. this figure shows an estimated gas collection curve. The following information is a summary of the important points to take from this figure: „ „ The year of peak LFG production was 2006 The peak gas collection in that year (assuming 75% collection efficiency) was 462 standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) The potential gas collection in the initial project year (assumed to be 2009) would be 419 SCFM „ 2.4. Beck Model Year LFG Generated LFG Collected Figure 2-3. W.

W. 75% Collect. Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) The tabulated model output showing estimated gas generation for each year can be found in Appendix A.Clint 1482 Landfill Cells South of Easement . Cubic Ft. Beck Model Year LFG Generated LFG Collected Figure 2-4. LFG Generated. W.3 Clint 1482 North Figure 2-5 presents the results of the RWB Model using the City provided tonnage data for Clint 1482 North. Additionally. The potential gas collection in the initial project year (assumed to be 2009) would be 391 SCFM „ 2. This curve is based on an assumed 75% collection efficiency as discussed in a previous subsection. LFG Generated/Collected vs. The following information is a summary of the important points to take from this figure: „ „ The year of peak LFG production was 1999 The peak gas collection in that year (assuming 75% collection efficiency) was 653 SCFM./Min) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1989 1992 2001 2004 2013 2016 2022 2025 2028 2034 2037 1986 1995 1998 2007 2010 2019 2031 1983 LFG Collected.1983 to 1999 1000 900 800 Landfill Gas (Std. R.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT LFG Generation/Collection Estimate .4. this figure shows an estimated gas collection curve. 2-14 R. These tonnages reflect the current best estimate of historical waste receipt. Eff. Beck .

Beck 2-15 . Cubic Ft.4. The following information is a summary of the important points to take from this figure: „ „ The year of peak LFG production is 2008 The peak gas collection in that year (assuming 75% collection efficiency) is 280 SCFM The potential gas collection in the initial project year (assumed to be 2009) would be 277 SCFM „ 2. 75% Collect.Clint 1482 Landfill Cells North of Easement .1999 to 2007 400 350 300 Landfill Gas (Std. R. W. R. W. This is done to match the LandGEM model performed by the City in 2007. LFG Generated/Collected vs.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION LFG Generation/Collection Estimate . 100 50 0 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050 2053 Year LFG Generated LFG Collected Figure 2-5. Also provided for comparison on Figure 2-5 is the output of the LandGEM model using identical tonnages to allow for direct comparison. Beck Model 250 200 150 LFG Collected. Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) The tabulated model output showing estimated gas generation for each year can be found in Appendix A.4 Clint 2284 Figure 2-6 shows the Clint 2284 RWB Model LFG generation estimates. Eff./Min) LFG Generated.

this figure shows an estimated gas collection curve.Clint 2284 Landfill All Existing and Future Cells 3750 3500 3250 3000 Landfill Gas (Std.2. Beck . W. however. above. Figure 2-7 presents the results of the RWB Model using the City provided tonnage data. This theory is explained in detail in subsection 2. This shape of the curve and relationship with the LandGEM model is consistent with the differing theories of the total gas production in an arid climate. at about 11 years past the peak year. W. Beck model is approximately 43% higher then the LandGEM model. Cubic Ft. Beck model and LandGEM model Figure 2-6 illustrates the relationship between the RWB Model and the LandGEM model. These tonnages reflect the current best estimate of historical waste receipt. The peak gas flow in the R. City LandGEM Model LFG Generated. This curve is based on an assumed 75% collection efficiency as discussed in a previous subsection. LFG Generation vs.WB Model predicts less gas production than LandGEM. Both models show peak gas production in 2032 (final year of waste placement). W. Beck Model Year LFG Generated City LandGEM LFG Generated Figure 2-6./Min) 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050 2053 2056 2059 2005 LFG Generated. R.2. Time using R. the R.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT LFG Generation/Collection Estimate . 2-16 R. Additionally. W.

Clint 2284 Landfill All Existing and Future Cells 3750 3500 3250 3000 Landfill Gas (Std. W. 75% Collect.638 SCFM The potential gas collection in the initial project year (assumed to be 2009) would be 363 SCFM „ R. Beck Model Year LFG Generated LFG Collected Figure 2-7. Time (City provided tonnages and assumed 75% collection efficiency) The tabulated model output showing estimated gas generation for each year can be found in Appendix A.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION LFG Generation/Collection Estimate . LFG Generation/Collection vs. Eff. Beck 2-17 ./Min) 2750 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 2044 2047 2050 2053 2056 2059 2005 LFG Collected. Cubic Ft. W. The following information is a summary of the important points to take from this figure: „ „ The year of peak LFG production will be 2032 The peak gas collection in that year (assuming 75% collection efficiency) will be 2. LFG Generated. R.

The following Table 2-9 details the feasibility of each area based on the RWB Model results. W. W. Specifically. W. Clint 1482 South Declining LFG Generation Located across the utility easement from current operations. Gas collection and landfill gas to energy recommended for this site. The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. in which LFG collection systems are not in place. and would require additional outlay of initial capital.Section 2 FINAL DRAFT 2.4. Clint 2284 Increasing LFG Generation through 2032. Gas collection system feasible and expandable for all phases at this site. In general. are not promising LFGTE projects. The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. three of the four areas are in a declining phase of their gas generation curve. Beck’s experience in the LFGTE industry. Beck . Based on these findings and R. Clint 2284 is anticipated to be the future of LFGTE for the City. it is R. In general. The balance of this report focuses on exploration of the LFGTE possibilities and 2-18 R. but worth exploring in conjunction with Clint 2284. Due to lack of incoming waste in current and future years. In areas of declining gas generation it becomes difficult to justify the capital expenses for LFGTE projects based on the declining amount of fuel to provide revenue in future years. Gas collection for the landfill gas to energy project difficult to justify for this area Clint 1482 North Declining LFG Generation Gas collection for landfill gas to energy project difficult. Table 2-9 Gas Modeling Summary Table Area McCombs LFG Generation Declining LFG Generation Feasibility Notes Difficult to justify a landfill gas to energy project for this area. and in a declining gas generation phase.5 RWB Model Results Summary This section summarizes the RWB Model results. This is especially valid in the case of the City sites. Beck’s experience that landfill areas with less than 500 SCFM initially. the primary focus of LFGTE feasibility is recommended to be concentrated on the Clint landfill area. gas generation is on the decline in these areas.

This is based on the proximity of Clint 1482 North to Clint 2284 and the possibility of collecting additional gas for a minimum incremental cost. Additional analysis is done with supplemental gas collection from Clint 1482 North as well. These analyses will be discussed in the following sections.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS GENERATION feasibility modeling of gas generated from this site. W. R. Beck 2-19 .

Section 2 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 2-20 R. Beck . W.

2. The potential end use options discussed in this report represent the most common. not only is there an environmental benefit with the destruction of this waste stream. 1. Direct thermal utilization of the LFG by piping the gas to a nearby thermal energy-user. Methane is the most prominent constituent with an average percentage by volume of approximately 50%. and several other constituents lumped together as balance gases. they have not been discussed in this report. or 3. but these require somewhat experimental technologies or specific conditions. explore local end users/buyers. In general. Processing of LFG on-site to produce natural gas quality for pipeline sale or other alternative fuel use. and all have a variety of particular technologies and usages which will be discussed in this section.FINAL DRAFT Section 3 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES Landfill gas (LFG) is a historically underutilized naturally occurring byproduct of the anaerobic stabilization within the waste mass of a municipal solid waste landfill. there is also a potential economic benefit for the landfill. locations. 3. On-site generation of electricity for sale to an electric utility. This energy content allows the LFG to be utilized in the variety of ways which will be discussed in the following subsections. This corresponds to an average heating content of 500 Btu/ft3 (On a Higher Heating Value basis). and therefore. The following subsections will focus on the potential end uses for the LFG that can be generated and collected at the City sites.1 Electricity Generation Electricity generation is the most prevalent type of LFGTE project in the United States. Other specialized LFG recovery options exist (i. and discuss capital and operations & maintenance (O&M) costs. These three end use categories have individual benefits and drawbacks. LFG is commonly either vented to the atmosphere or combusted in a flare in order to destroy environmentally harmful air pollutants and greenhouse gases. By reusing the LFG. In the past twenty years. LFG is comprised mainly of methane (CH4). significant influence in both government and private sectors has been placed on finding viable options for the beneficial use of this resource. practical uses for landfill gas based on current technologies. and end users. there are three primary end use categories. Each subsection will introduce basic technologies. Various technologies exist for the combustion of LFG for the generation of . carbon dioxide (CO2). LNG or carbon dioxide production).e.

Figure 3-2 shows a photo of a basic engine generator designed to run on LFG. Electricity Generation Technology Trends 1 As shown in Figure 3-1. the most common electricity generation technology for LFG involves the installation of engine generators. W. Figure 3-1 shows the current technology trends as tracked by the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) at the US EPA. Electricity Generation Technology Trends 1 Source: US EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program 3-2 R. Figure 3-1. Figure 3-2. Beck .Section 3 FINAL DRAFT electricity.

Depending on the growth of a landfill. Beck 3-3 . R. R. sale of electricity to El Paso Electric (EPE) was modeled.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES These can require some minor pretreatment processes (depending on gas quality) and specific O&M procedures to address the contaminants commonly found in LFG Control systems. 3. Beck contacted EPE and received the following Table 3-1 that can be used for feasibility price estimation.1 End Users Electricity can be sold to utility companies both locally and to non-local companies by means of “wheeling” power over the shared grid. switchgear and a step-up transformer are also required to increase generated voltage and maintain synchronization to the local electric transmissions lines.1. located in Sunland Park. LFG fueled engine generators should be installed in increments. as additional units are installed to take advantage of higher quantities of LFG available (as gas production increases with the amount of waste in place). There can be situations in which more LFG is being collected than can be utilized by the generators installed (in which case the excess LFG would be flared) or there may be times when there is not enough LFG to fully load all of the engine generators installed. W. Commonly. The Camino Real Landfill. electric utility companies will pay for electricity based on their “avoided cost. W. In exploring the feasibility of LFG to electricity generation for the Clint landfill. Consequently. NM is presently connected to the EPE grid and produces electricity using two Caterpillar engines in an on-site facility.” This price is published according to Public Utilities Commission of Texas (PUCT) rules. EPE is familiar with interconnection of this type of distributed generation and has experience in setting up interconnection protocols. EPE currently has a program in which it purchases renewable electricity produced from LFG generated at a landfill in New Mexico.

61 3.10 4. W.79 6.71 7.10 1.67 Peak (Winter) 1.68 5.10 2008 2009 6.43 Daily Off.pff file.44 7.17 7.84 6. it is anticipated that electric generation would occur continuously at 100% output except when engines are off line for periodic maintenance.11 2017 6.19 5.04 5.05 5.03 6.44 5.17 2013 6. 2008.51 5. and should not be construed.75 6.23 7.2 Capital Costs It is expected that generating facilities could be installed at the City site by 2009.82 6.32 7. Based on typical engine installations.29 6.16 6.17 5. the output from the QF in excess of that which would be economically dispatched would be priced on the bases of EPE’s avoided energy cost (based on a price equal to the first year energy cost). Includes fuel.26 6.Section 3 FINAL DRAFT Table 3-1 EPE Estimated Avoided Energy Cost12 PUCT Substantive Rule §25.56 6.50 5. 3.00 6. at which time there would be enough LFG extraction facilities installed to support a generation capacity of at least 800 kW.71 7.40 5. 4. and other variable O&M costs in current year dollars.3.63 7.58 8.3.90 5.87 5.86 5.80 2012 6.89 8.31 4.97 9.64 2010 2011 6.38 100 5.54 6.12 7.56 5.14 2015 6.242 (e)(2)(A) c/KWh Level of Purchase Period: (MW) 1. 2 Source: El Paso Electric Company 3-4 R.55 4.03 5.18 5.04 5.45 6.59 8. In any case.63 5.58 6. purchased power. Beck . 2.56 2014 6. an dare necessarily subject to uncertainty and the possibility of change.16 7. Based on PROMOD AVC08B.90 100 100 100 7.87 5.58 5.67 Peak Seasonal 4.50 Daily Off.50 Peak (Summer) Seasonal 4. as an offer to purchase capacity at a particular price.80 Peak (Summer) Seasonal 4.20 6.91 4.1.64 6.41 5.32 Daily Peak 6. A Qualifying Facility (“QF”) would not receive an energy payment based on the estimated first year energy cost for the QF’s total output but rather. The data included in this table represents the estimated avoided capacity costs as of the filing date hereof.11 6. 3.10 1.34 1.06 6. 5.77 4.46 6. This information is not intended. This information is being provided for the sole purpose of fulfilling requirements established by the Public Utility Commission of Texas.47 Peak (Winter) Daily Peak 6. February 15.17 Peak Seasonal 5.88 6.76 8.19 6.81 2016 6.16 6.75 8. it is expected the engine generators could achieve an average 92% annual capacity factor (operation time).

FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES The analyses in this report are based on installing generating capacity over a 20-year study period from 800 kW to up to 4.8 MW at full build out. Caterpillar 3516 engines were chosen as appropriate increments and technologies for this project due to their ubiquitous use and proven fleet performance. These capacities are based on estimated LFG collection rates. The following Table 3-2 provides initial and incremental cost estimates for the engines and necessary appurtenances. Beck 3-5 . Because of the varying production of gas in a landfill. For the analyses herein. This is accomplished by the addition or deduction of generators as gas production permits. it is important to design an energy project that takes a modular approach or has the capability to expand over time. R. W.

Section 3 FINAL DRAFT Table 3-2 Engineering Estimate of Probable Cost CAT 3516 Engine Installation (2009 Dollars) ITEM DESCRIPTION Site Development 40' x 60' Building @ $80/ft2 HVAC Compressor/chiller package CH4 Detectors/analyzer and Alarms Utility Interconnect.000 $735.000 $35.000 $60.000 $30.000 $75. 3. Expandable.500 $120.500 $12.3516 CAT Engine @ $735K Switchgear/MCC Mechanical Electrical Start Up Insulation Spare Parts Incremental Cost per Each Additional Engine Generator Subtotal TOTAL Contingency (15%) INITIAL CAPITAL COST Assumptions: Concrete block building and foundation initially sized for 3 engines.1.500 $1.000 $11.992.500 $259. Beck . storage space.000 $6.000 $40.500 $1. Transformers.875 $1. filter replacements and general tuning are important to continue to maximize electricity output and 3-6 R.000 $64.375 These costs are used in the financial pro-forma analysis discussed in Section 7.000 $22. Building includes MCC/control room.3 O&M Costs Routine maintenance on the engine generators such as oil changes. W.000 $12.no transmission line extension necessary.000 $192. Nearby electrical interconnection .000 $664.000 $7. and ventilation safety features. ESTIMATED COST $25.068.732.000 $40. Meters Revenue Meter and Gas Analyzer Equipment Installation Freight and transportation Engineering Permitting Construction Management and Oversight Subtotal Engine Specific Costs 1 .000 $235.000 $10.

7 days/week) and adequate (quantity needs match or exceed the LFG output) requirements for the fuel. the approximate O&M costs for a Caterpillar 3516 are estimated at $0. LFG COLLECTION WELLS GAS PRE-TREATMENT LANDFILL FILTER LFG COLLECTION HEADER CONDENSER COALESCING FILTER LFG COMPRESSORS LFG BLOWERS/FLARE STATION CONDENSATE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL LFG TRANSMISSION PIPELINE END USER PROCESSING PLANT EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINE Figure 3-3. The reduction of some contaminates and moisture is accomplished by simple filtering and passage through a dehydration system. and be located within an approximate 10-mile radius to the landfill site.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES revenue to the City.000 per engine per 5-year period was assumed for major scheduled engine overhauls. Accordingly. for optimum efficiency of the collection and transmission systems. For the feasibility modeling of this alternative.0135 per kWh output. Beck 3-7 . 3. an end user would preferably have consistent (24 hours/day. it is typically not economically feasible to store LFG and thus it must be used continuously to gain the economic benefits associated with the product. kilns. W. Because of the high compression costs and capital required for pressure vessels. Once upgraded using these processes. In directuse projects. medium Btu gas has approximately one half the energy potential of natural gas and is thus ideal for use in industrial boilers. the gas is piped to the end user and used as a replacement or a supplement in retrofitted equipment. Schematic Diagram of Typical Direct-Use Arrangement Figure 3-3 illustrates the direct connection between the landfill (fuel source) and the end user. An additional $138. furnaces and dryers.2 Direct Use (Medium-Btu) Another option for the use of LFG is the utilization of the raw gas as a medium-Btu fuel. This maximum radius corresponds to a R.

00 7.S. A preliminary list of potential end users was generated using the LMOP database. R. Beck . This percentage of the natural gas cost has been demonstrated at several recent direct use projects in the U. W.Section 3 FINAL DRAFT general rule of thumb economic break-even point in which it is no longer a viable operation to sell fuel. Although difficult to predict. and other sources. Beck researched and contacted prospective end users that were located within approximately 15 miles of the Clint landfill location. Beck did not find a “perfect fit” user that would be an optimum customer for the gas. Beck tracks the natural gas pricing forecasts for various geographic regions.2. three standouts in the group were identified that had any chance of utilizing the LFG as a fuel source. Beck’s research and experience in the energy markets. W. W. R. W.00 5. Commonly.West TX 11. Unfortunately. the operations 3-8 R. Figure 3-4 presents a graphical representation to show the general natural gas prices estimated based on R.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Figure 3-4. Natural Gas Price Forecasts (West Texas Area) The pro-forma analysis of this LFGTE alternative in Section 7 utilizes these prices and assumes that an end user would pay at least 80% of the cost per Btu of natural gas for purchase of LFG fuel. W. Beck .1 End Users R.00 Nominal $/MMBtu 9.00 R. as capital costs for the pipeline become too high.00 8. Natural Gas Price Forecast (West Texas area) 12.00 10. end users will pay for medium Btu gas at some fraction of the cost per Btu of natural gas that they are currently purchasing to operate their process. Appendix B provides the list of end users generated by LMOP. Based on this research and the informal survey.00 6. In all cases. W. 3.

This plant sporadically utilizes natural gas in the production of on-site electricity generation.584. within the production forecast at Clint 2284 within the next 5 years. but only through eight-hour operations on weekdays.168. across I-10. Further capital costs for this type of system can be attributed to retrofitting boilers at R. across I-10. Roberto Bustamante WWTP (Lower Valley Water District) The Roberto Bustamante Wastewater Treatment Plant is located approximately nine miles from the Clint 2284 landfill. well within the production forecast at this site at the present time. Beck has identified the following possible end users of the LFG for analysis: „ „ „ International Paper El Paso Containment Plant Roberto Bustamante WWTP Valley Feed Mills The distance from the landfill to these potential end users varies from 3-14 miles. This does not conform to the constant use that is necessary for a feasible end user. across I-10. within the production forecast at Clint 2284 within the next 5 years.400 for Valley Feed Mills. This plant utilizes natural gas in their daily production. and $1. However. derived from the LMOP database summary that was generated. 3. but only for an estimated 25% of the time. Valley Feed Mills Valley Feed Mills is located approximately three miles from the Clint 2284 landfill. the furthest end user.000 for International Paper El Paso Containment Plant. the closest end user.000$3. This translates to a range of costs of $475. but only during 8-hour operations on weekdays. but can vary due to terrain difficulties. However. Beck 3-9 .2. the current natural gas usage of 320 SCFM translates to a LFG usage of approximately 710 SCFM while in operation. W. This does not conform to the constant use that is necessary for a feasible end user. right-ofway costs or other factors specific to the site.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES are not continuous. International Paper El Paso Containment Plant The International Paper El Paso Containment Plant is located approximately 14 miles from the Clint 2284 landfill. However. W.2 Capital Costs Most of the monetary losses from this type of process reside in the construction and fabrication of the pipeline to the end user. R. This plant utilizes natural gas in their daily production. The effects of this operating scenario are modeled in Section 7. This does not conform to the constant use that is necessary for a feasible end user. the current natural gas usage of 113 SCFM translates to a LFG use of 253 SCFM while in operation. the current natural gas usage of 432 SCFM translates to a LFG usage of approximately 957 SCFM while in operation.200-$950. Approximate capital costs for the pipeline range from $30-$60 per linear foot.

Section 3 FINAL DRAFT the end locations. 3-10 R. burner retrofits are custom and can range from $120. Schematic drawing of CO2 Wash Process (Courtesy of FirmGreen.000. Figure 3-5. such as the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline that bisects the property. ongoing research in molecular sieve technology may develop commercially-viable processes for smaller LFG flow rates in the future.500 per mile of pipeline per year.000 to $300. Beck . the direct use pro-forma assumes a capital cost of $50 per linear foot for the transmission pipeline. These costs are usually similar if not equivalent to O&M costs associated with conventional fuels in boilers. For the purposes of this report. this would be done by a third party. W. electricity usage was estimated at 224 kW per 1000 SCFM of gas flow. Additionally.3 High-Btu Processing Most high-Btu processes are proprietary. 3. One such process is seen in Figure 3-5. as various companies are still working to make this an economically feasible solution. Inc. R. the pro-forma for this alternative assumes average O&M costs of $7.000 per 1000 SCFM landfill gas throughput. For the purposes of this report. 3.3 O&M Costs Advantages of the direct use of landfill gas as a medium-Btu fuel are the low O&M costs associated with this technology. to conversion to liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) for alternative vehicle fuel. in order to dehydrate and push the gas through the pipeline. End uses for high-Btu gas can range from direct injection to a near-by pipeline. with electricity cost estimated at $0. High-Btu projects are generally feasible for higher LFG flow rates than are predicted for Clint 2284. Beck is not aware of any commercially-viable high-Btu projects with LFG flow rates that are comparable to the projections for Clint 2284 over the next several years.2.06/kWh. W. Mostly. but the expenditures should still be noted.) These projects are not as common as the other LFGTE options discussed. Generally. However. Additional capital cost for the dehydration/compressor station was assumed at $750.

EPNG Pipeline After the refining process. the oxygen content of the input LFG must be strictly controlled. Beck contacted EPNG and learned that they have previously accepted outside pipeline injections from other natural gas companies. Beck’s research into the topic only produced the following projects: „ Puente Hills (CA): 250 SCFM of LFG yields 100 SCFM of CNG. In order to arrive at pipeline-quality natural gas. Although difficult to predict. W. or further processing to product alternative fuels such as LNG or CNG. Operation at this level may be difficult to impossible at the City sites. It is also important to note that there are very few commercially viable LFG to CNG facilities in operation in the U. W. the high-Btu process can result in gas with an equivalent heating value to natural gas. It is important to note that the City currently operates 148 CNG-fueled passenger buses and is currently exploring the feasibility of conversion of a portion of the solid waste service vehicles to CNG. R. and have established protocol and quality standards. W. This product is commonly utilized (sold) by either direct injection into a nearby natural gas pipeline. it could then be liquefied (LNG) or compressed (CNG) into on-site storage tanks for use in specially equipped vehicles.000 gallons of gasoline equivalent per day.1 End Users As stated previously. In turn. LNG/CNG Production Once the LFG has undergone refining to a high-Btu product. R. Similar to the medium-Btu direct use model. Sonoma County (CA): 100 SCFM of LFG yields 40 SCFM of CNG. The pro forma analysis of this LFGTE alternative in Section 7 utilizes these prices and assumes that an end user would pay between 80% and 100% of the cost per Btu of natural gas for purchase of LFG fuel. Beck conducts independent studies of the natural gas pricing forecasts for various geographic regions. the pipeline-quality gas can be directly delivered to a gas pipeline. W. „ R. this means that the LFG collection system and wellfield must be operated with virtually “zero” air intrusion. R. A natural gas pipeline owned by EPNG bisects the Clint landfill. Beck 3-11 . Figure 3-5 (shown in the previous subsection) presents a graphical representation to show the general natural gas prices estimated. based on the lack of final closure capping and the sandy soil available for interim cover material. which equals approximately 1.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES LFG collection system operations have additional considerations for high-Btu projects.S. which equals approximately 400 gallons of gasoline equivalent per day.3. 3. end uses will commonly pay for high-Btu gas at some fraction of the cost per Btu of natural gas that they are currently purchasing to operate their process.

Additionally.000 CFM to 12. W. Use of high pressures. R. all of the end use options discussed could be utilized by the City.000 SCFM facility scale increase. Section 7 analyzes these options financially.500 per SCFM per 1. 3. Beck would expect the O&M costs for a smaller system to be higher as well. W.500 per SCFM for a facility accommodating the first 1. which equals approximately 1. there are three primary end use categories. the capital costs are particularly high. The options discussed in this section are generally considered the most practical options for LFG end use. The LFG flow rate for 2009 is modeled at 363 CFM.4 LFGTE Possibilities Summary As discussed in this section. 1. the costs for constructing and operating a high-Btu processing plant for the relatively “small” scale LFG flows that are predicted at Clint 2284 are not well documented.3 O&M Costs O&M costs are high as well.2 Capital Costs Unlike electricity generation and direct use projects. The following subsections summarize the attributes of each type of project. Processing of LFG on-site to produce natural gas quality for pipeline sale or other alternative fuel use. the high-Btu pro forma assumes a capital cost of approximately $3. and Section 8 provides opinions and recommendations based on these analyses. for the purposes of this report. the high-Btu pro-forma assumes an O&M cost of $4. 3-12 R. Beck is not aware of any commercially-viable high-Btu projects with similarly low LFG flow rates. Subsequent landfill gas flow can be processed for a capital cost increment of $2. with a maximum flow rate in 2032 of 2.3.25 per MMBtu sold. Based on the predicted LFG generation at Clint 2284.Section 3 „ FINAL DRAFT Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio (SWACO) – Franklin County Landfill: 300 SCFM of LFG yields 100 SCFM of CNG. 2. carbon media.000 SCFM of landfill gas flow. Direct thermal utilization of the LFG by piping the gas to a nearby end-user. and highly specialized filtration vessels. 3.638 CFM. Because of the advanced technology required to construct the facility as well as refine the gas. For the purposes of this report. R. the capital cost per SCFM for smaller facilities increases (relatively) due to the loss of economy of scale and minimum equipment sizing for specialized plant equipment.3. Other high-Btu projects that have been implemented have been in the 3. Therefore. W.000 gallons of gasoline equivalent per day. Similar to the loss of economies of scale with the capital costs. organic solvents (in some cases). On-site generation of electricity for use on site or to sell to an electric utility. or 3. keep the ongoing cost relatively high. due to the complicated processes involved in refining LFG to useful high-Btu fuel. Beck . 3.000 CFM range.

R. In turn. W. Unfortunately.4. 3. In all of the cases explored. the oxygen content of the input LFG must be strictly controlled. based on the lack of final closure capping and the sandy soil available for interim cover material. this means that the LFG collection system and wellfield must be operated with virtually “zero” air intrusion. Operationally. such as the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) pipeline that bisects the property. Pipeline costs vary depending on distance to the end user and right-of-way requirements. Additionally.4. Electricity can be sold to the local electric utility or to non-local utilities by means of “wheeling” power over the shared grid. Beck did not find a “perfect fit” user for the LFG produced at Clint 2284 that would be an optimum customer for the gas. Because of the advanced technology required to construct the facility as well as refine the gas. W. the costs per SCFM for smaller facilities increases (relatively) due to the loss of economy of scale and minimum equipment sizing for specialized plant equipment. End uses for high-Btu gas can range from direct injection to a near-by pipeline. and the use of engine generators is the most common method of generating electricity from LFG. Operation at this level may be difficult to impossible at the City sites. 7 days/week) and adequate (quantity needs match the LFG output) requirements for the fuel. These projects also do not have very stringent LFG quality requirements.3 High-Btu Processing Most high-Btu processes are proprietary. Capital and O&M costs are well established and predictable for projects of this type. the operations are not continuous. to conversion to liquefied natural gas (LNG) or compressed natural gas (CNG) for alternative vehicle fuel. Beck is not aware of any commerciallyviable high-Btu projects with LFG flow rates similar to the predictions for Clint 2284. R. Beck 3-13 . In order to arrive at pipeline-quality natural gas. 3. R. LFG collection system operations have additional considerations for high-Btu LFGTE projects.4. engine generators are relatively straightforward to maintain and do not have stringent LFG quality or high-pressure requirements. W.1 Electricity Generation Electricity generation is the most common LFGTE project in the United States. Compression and dehydration of the LFG is relatively straightforward and costs are well established.2 Direct Use (Medium-Btu) Direct thermal utilization of the medium-Btu LFG by a nearby end user is also a very common LFGTE project in the United States and often the most economically viable.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY POSSIBILITIES 3. the capital and O&M costs are relatively high. Direct use of the medium-Btu LFG can be very attractive if an end user can be located that has consistent (24 hours/day. as various companies are still working to make this an economically feasible solution.

Beck . W.Section 3 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 3-14 R.

The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. but worth exploring in conjunction with Clint 2284. the primary focus of LFGTE feasibility is recommended to be concentrated on the Clint landfill area. this section will focus on conceptual strategies for collecting the LFG. Clint 1482 South Declining LFG Generation Located across the utility easement from current operations. Clint 2284 is anticipated to be the future of LFGTE for the City. Gas collection and landfill gas to energy recommended for this site. Table 4-1 presents the gas generation potential of each area based on the results of the RWB Model: Table 4-1 Gas Modeling Summary Table Area McCombs LFG Generation Declining LFG Generation Feasibility Notes Difficult to justify a landfill gas to energy project for this area. Clint 2284 Increasing LFG Generation through 2032. Gas collection system feasible and expandable for all phases at this site. The balance of this report focuses on exploration of the LFGTE possibilities and feasibility modeling of gas generated from this site. As included in Section 2 (Table 2-9).FINAL DRAFT Section 4 LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION Based on the results of the LFG generation modeling in Section 2 and the potential end uses for the LFG discussed in Section 3. Specifically. The collection of gas from this area is modeled financially in Section 7. Based on these findings. Gas collection for the landfill gas to energy project difficult to justify for this area Clint 1482 North Declining LFG Generation Gas collection for landfill gas to energy project difficult. . This information is necessary on a conceptual basis in order to generate reasonable cost estimates for the installation and expansion of the gas collection system for the life of any LFGTE project.

4.2 Vertical and Horizontal Extraction Wells A LFG collection and control system conceptual design can utilize both horizontal and vertical wells to collect the gas produced at Clint 2284. 4. 4. Figure 4-1 shows a conceptual rendition of LFG collection wells (vertical wells) collecting gas and collected by means of a header pipe within a landfill. W. Vertical wells are 4-2 R. Beck .Section 4 FINAL DRAFT Additional analysis is done with supplemental gas collection from Clint 1482 North as well. to enable collection of the gas without potential damage to the landfill liner.1 LFG Collection Conceptual Design Variables The following subsections discuss the assumptions and variables regarding operation of landfills that generally affect the design of gas collection and control systems. Vertical extraction wells will typically be installed to approximately 75% of the depth of refuse.1 Refuse Depths Although basegrades may vary from cell to cell based on subsurface conditions and cell design.1. Conceptual LFG Collection (Source: US EPA LMOP) This section identifies general variables associated with LFG collection system design and defines a conceptual collection system for the Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North areas that informs the cost estimates in the pro-forma analyses. the perimeter of the landfill cells will have decreasing depths of refuse as the top and bottom grades come together at the perimeter of the landfill. This illustrates the basic concept of LFG collection. These assumptions are used in developing cost estimates for the continuing expansion of the LFG collection system at Clint 2284.1. In all cases. Figure 4-1. an average depth of refuse was assumed at approximately 90 feet.

1.1.3 Condensate Management As LFG is extracted from a landfill. Other criteria include noise. It is also recommended to recover LFG from the leachate collection system. the factors involved in siting a flare station at a facility have largely to do with collection and transport of LFG.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION recommended where slopes are at final grade. knockoutsumps. 4. it cools and condenses thereby forming condensate. Condensate management is integral for optimal gas production and a properly functioning LFG collection system. For the purposes of this report. Additionally. Candlestick flare assemblies are sometimes found on skids along with other components including blowers. ease of access. control panels and other equipment. and instead collects in the piping system. This allows for collection of gas from deep within the waste mass. as well as practicality. 4. and also provides a connection to the leachate management system for possible condensate management. by tapping into the leachate collection cleanout risers as they become available. A candlestick-type flare (also called an open or utility flare) is commonly used for systems similar to Clint 2284. Condensate is normally drained via gravity to low points in the header piping of a collection system and then transported to the site-specific disposal option. or operations have ceased for an extended period of time. and operational considerations. LFG condensate is a potentially hazardous substance and should be treated similar to leachate. the liquid can block LFG flow and decrease the amount and quality of the LFG being extracted. The cost estimates assume R. for any potential future end use projects with LFG. These wells enable gas collection without the hazard of LFG collection devices interrupting waste placement and compaction activities. 4. it is advantageous to route the gas to a single location in order to maximize the benefits of collecting the LFG.4 Flare Station The flare station for combustion of LFG can act as either the back-up control device in conjunction with an end use project or as the single control device for the LFG collection system. and visual impact. odor. The installation of horizontal wells is recommended to increase the LFG capture efficiency of the site.2 LFG Collection Capital Cost Appendix C presents the LFG collection system installation and expansion cost estimates for the Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North areas. Beck 4-3 . In regard to a conceptual location of the flare station. as discussed below. W. Horizontal wells are recommended to enable gas collection in areas where operations are currently taking place. the flare station is assumed to be located in the general area to the north of the Clint 2284 attendant station and offices. These wells can be installed by City staff as waste reaches appropriate elevations in each new cell. If the condensate is not withdrawn from the collection system.

W. The gas collection system expansion is modeled based on the cell expansion predictions (based on future predicted tonnages) presented by the City in the recent permitting effort (fugitive dust calculation section of the permit application). Lateral piping will be required to connect the wells to the header piping at an assumed 100’/vertical well and 50’/horizontal well. vertical wells shall be installed at a frequency of 0. Compressed air and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header piping trenches to service condensate sumps. Installation would include header piping to get to the area and vertical well frequency would be set at 1 well/acre to provide full coverage. Header and subheader piping will be installed below grade.Section 4 FINAL DRAFT initial construction and expansion to match gas production and operations expansion into new waste disposal cells.200’ of header piping (to achieve minimum 5% grade for the piping). Rows should be staggered. along with a blower/flare station. Table 4-2. The following important assumptions are noted on the cost estimates.5 wells/acre. Lateral piping will be below grade. at an average depth of 68’ (75% of the assumed refuse depth of 90’). with pneumatic pumps. Wellhead assemblies will be required at 2/horizontal well and 1/vertical well. Horizontal wells are assumed to be placed at 30’ vertical spacing (two “rows” for an average 90’ waste depth) and 150’ horizontal spacing. summarizes the yearly information found in Appendix C: 4-4 R. Header will loop the perimeter of the landfill and subheader piping will provide for interim looping of the system during expansion. Conceptual header sizing is based on estimated gas flows and assumed lengths of pipe. „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ Appendix C provides the engineering opinion of probable cost for each year in which installation or construction would take place. The initial system assumes horizontal wells installed at current 2009 elevation. Condensate sumps will be required on average every 1. and the pro-forma models the inflation and/or value of these dollars in the future. single containment. below. Appendix C contains an engineering opinion of probable cost for each year in which expansion would take place until 2032 (approximately every 1-2 years). These costs are estimated in 2009 dollars. and reproduced here for discussion: „ The initial system construction will install header piping and horizontal wells on Cells 1-6 of Clint 2284. Each sump will be 36” diameter. This information is used to develop the pro-forma analyses in Section 7. Beck . The (optional) initial system construction for Clint 1482 North would additionally install header piping and vertical wells on Cells A and B. As cells reach final grade.

Beck 4-5 .856 $623.FINAL DRAFT LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION Table 4-2 LFG Collection System – Yearly Capital Cost Estimates Year 2009 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Estimated Capital Cost $2. R.403 $474.857 $232.899 $955.687 $270. replacements.856 $270.3 LFG Collection O&M Costs For the purposes of the analyses in this report.595 $279.252 $270.972 $778. O&M costs were assumed for the LFG collection system as it expands.354 $298. and labor for O&M of the gas collection system. this cost increases accordingly as the gas collection system covers greater and greater acreages. The basis of the cost is an assumed factor of $25/acre/month.687 $607.856 $200.548 $604. W.300 Year 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 Estimated Capital Cost $200. In the pro-forma analyses.300 $200. monitoring. O&M costs have been allocated to additional acreage starting the year after expansion into that acreage.687 4.312 $200.361 $232.687 $270.082.856 $200.687 $515. This accounts for miscellaneous parts.

Section 4 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 4-6 R. Beck . W.

due to the different rates. This section delineates the spectrum of ownership options that the City could pursue in the development of a LFGTE project. it is likely that the City will choose to have a Developer take on most of the risk for a future LFGTE project. The City Risk Overview at the bottom of the figure characterizes the amount of relative risk the City would take on (depending on ownership option) for each situation in the first column. This arrangement will allow the Developer to bring technical expertise and possibly capital to the project in exchange for revenues associated with the end-product sales (be that electricity. a private party (Developer) will agree to participate in a project of this type with the City. of this report. the City will need to decide whether to install and/or operate the LFG collection system or let the Developer perform this service as well. This scenario is described in the middle column of the Ownership Decision Matrix. capital cost outlay. and discusses the implications of each to various project attributes in the columns. In general terms. This table can also be used during negotiation with a possible Developer. This flexibility in development structure makes the analysis of various projects difficult. Each piece will have capital costs and O&M costs as described in Sections 3 and 4. discussed.FINAL DRAFT Section 5 LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY OWNERSHIP OPTIONS If the City ultimately decides to pursue a LFGTE project at the Clint landfill. cost and risk that might be associated with a project under various ownership scenarios. a number of decisions will need to be made regarding the City’s appetite for ownership. or high Btu gas).1 Ownership Decision Matrix The following pages consists of Figure 5-1. 5. and risk. landfill entities choose to install and operate their own LFG collection system. to ensure that issues are brought up. Commonly. Moving to the right in the figure describes projects owned and operated more by the . Based on discussions with City staff and the specialized nature of LFGTE expertise. This matrix introduces the spectrum of ownership options along the top rows. Since the LFG collection system is not yet in place at the City landfills. the Ownership Decision Matrix. respectively. and agreed upon prior to signing any contracts. Section 7 explores the financial merits of each type of project and makes the case that profitable projects (according to net present value) will be a profitable solution regardless of the ownership entity. loans. The Developer and the City may agree to trade responsibility for various actions and costs associated with these pieces of the project. the LFGTE project can be viewed as two pieces: the LFG collection system and the LFGTE processing plant. and incentive programs available to public versus private owners (see Section 6 for a discussion of grants and funds associated with these types of projects). The City can use this matrix to get an idea of the level of responsibility. Commonly. medium Btu gas.

and moving to the left in the figure describes projects owned and operated more by the City. W. but the matrix on the following page gives an idea of the issues associated with these projects. Beck .Section 5 FINAL DRAFT Developer. 5-2 R. The allocation of risk and costs in return for revenue is the purview of the contract negotiations after the City has received responses from a future request for proposal.

maintenance. bids and constructs the LFG collection system. training and all future expansions. salaries and training for personnel to operate both LFG collection system and LFGTE. and interconnection agreement). City also needs to address LFG quality for LFGTE requirements. training of operators and operator salary. W.FINAL DRAFT Table 5-1 City of El Paso LFGTE Feasibility Ownership Decision Matrix Wellfield Owner Wellfield Operator End-Use Technology Owner End-Use Technology Operator Cost City City City City City bears all costs. Permitting All permitting would be the responsibility of the City. Gas sale agreement with Developer for price of raw LFG as the LFG is generated (sale of gas rights in return for revenue from the project). City pays for all future expansions. All permitting would be the responsibility of the developer. Beck . Developer pays all capital for the LFGTE and operations of both the LFGTE and LFG collection system. Developer goals will be to maximize LFG production while maintaining maximum LFG quality for LFGTE. Additionally. City's Key Contractual Issues City has control over all aspects of the project. Developer will negotiate end use agreement. and/or interconnection agreement) and all permits along with bidding/procuring major equipment. City pays capital cost of LFG collection system installation and future expansion. The City could simultaneously negotiate LFGTE agreements (power purchase agreement. City City Developer Developer City pays for installation and operations of the LFG collection system including operator salary. Design and Construction Time City needs to include time to negotiate an LFGTE agreement (gas lease) with Developer. City would be responsible for the permitting of the LFG collection system. City would be responsible for permitting all aspects of the LFG collection system. Additional operations agreement with the Developer. End use agreement for product of the LFGTE (may include direct use agreement. Developer pays for daily operations cost. City designs. Gas sale agreement with Developer for price of raw LFG at a specified delivery point. Developer would be responsible for LFGTE permitting. and interconnection agreement). City Contracts All permitting would be the responsibility of the City. Developer will negotiate end use agreements. permits. City needs to address incentive to Developer to maintain high levels of LFG production to maximize energy production and also to minimize odor/methane migration issues. power purchase agreement. City designs. bids and constructs the LFG collection system. City Developer Developer Developer LANDFILL GAS TO ENERGY OWNERSHIP OPTIONS Developer Developer Developer Developer Developer bears all costs (including initial LFG collection system installation). City goals with LFG collection system will be to maximize LFG collection and minimize odor/methane migration. City pays all capital. City will need to include time period to negotiate LFGTE agreement with Developer. Developer will want LFG with maximum methane concentration level. City designs. End use agreement for the product of the LFGTE (may include direct use agreement. City designs. permits. Developer would be responsible for meeting compliance on City permit and all aspects of permitting for the LFGTE. 5-3 R. there will be a time period needed to negotiate the O&M Agreement with Developer. City goals with LFG collection system will be to minimize odor/methane migration. bids and constructs the LFG collection system. Developer pays all LFGTE costs. Gas sale agreement with Developer for price of raw LFG at either a delivery point or as the LFG is generated (gas rights). permits. City Developer City Developer City pays all capital and maintenance costs for both LFG collection system and LFGTE including future expansions. City can simultaneously negotiate LFGTE agreement with Developer. power purchase agreement. City needs to address incentive for Developer to maintain high levels of LFG production to maximize energy production and also to minimize odor/methane migration. bids and constructs the LFG collection system. permits.

W. Beck .Section 5 Table 5-1 Continued City Risk Overview: LFGTE Plant Operating Level/Forced/Planned Outages LFG Quality Risks LFG Quantity Risks LFGTE Plant Air Permit Risks LFG Collection System Upgrade/O&M Risks O&M Costs Risk (LFGTE Plant) Methane Migration Odor Control Groundwater Contamination Capital Expansion on LFGTE Plant Interconnection/Power Purchase Agreement Risks Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Primary Shared Shared Shared Shared Primary Shared Primary Primary Primary Primary None Shared Shared None Primary None Primary Primary Primary None None Very Little Very Little None Primary None Primary Primary Primary None FINAL DRAFT None None None None None None Shared Shared Shared None Primary Primary None None None 5-4 R.

provides a concise summary of the fiscal opportunities that may be available to LFGTE projects. therefore. Beck reviewed state and federal energy credits. a wholly City-owned project would not receive any benefit from this program. . W. Renewable Energy Credits. incentives. Table 6-1.1. It would be difficult for the City to place an electricity generation project in service by this deadline.1 Survey of Funding Options The following subsections present more detailed information regarding the various funding options that could be used for LFGTE projects: 6. 2008 to receive any benefits.1 Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Section 45 tax credits were made available in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under current legislation. Federal Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credits. It is important to note that these credits are only available to entities that pay federal taxes. Clean Renewable Energy bonds. and Alternative Fuel Grant. adjusted annually for inflation. Greenhouse Gas Emission Credits.01 per kWh. bonds and tax credit programs. the general assumption in the industry is that these tax credits will be renewed. It may be useful for the City to have the condensed version of this information for further reference. facilities have to be in-service by December 31. Renewable Energy Production Incentives. Federal Alternative Fuels Tax Credits. production credits. at the end of this section. The following programs were discovered: „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credits. to facilities producing electricity from LFG.FINAL DRAFT Section 6 ASSESSMENT OF GRANTS AND FUNDS The following economic incentives have been researched and may be available for the City and/or Developer (depending on ownership options as discussed in Section 5) for a LFGTE project. R. however. This tax credit provides $0. 6.

geothermal. Within Senate Bill 20.000 megawatts (MW) was stated as a goal for renewable energy production by the year 2009. but is capped at $1. a supplementary requirement of 500 MW to be generated by a non-wind resource. wind. Beck . with $750 million allotted for government entities. electricity retailers such as EPE are required to supply a portion of their energy from renewable energy sources. 2016. W. as a LFGTE project. 2008 for eligible projects.2 billion in total. either used on-site or for sale. One (1) REC is approximately equal to one (1) MWh and the current (2008) market value per REC is approximately $3. Under the legislation currently in place. ocean.Section 6 FINAL DRAFT 6. the deadline for issuing CREBs is December 31. and it is unclear if these will be extended. geothermal.1.3 Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) Also included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is the Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI). the original legislation (Senate Bill 7) was introduced to create the RPS for Texas.00 in Texas. territory. It would be difficult for the City to place an electricity generation project in service by this deadline. Under this legislation. like LFG. public utility or non-profit organization and can receive a maximum of $0. including those involving LFG. Originally. Under current legislation. co-op utility.015 per kWh (in 1993 dollars. while the remaining 40% is assigned to other projects. For the purposes of this report. well within the scope of this project.1. as in many other states in the country. a benchmark of 2. such as LFG. Senate Bill 20 was introduced and increased this benchmark to 5.2 Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) is another financial incentive that was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. a federally implemented and funded program that provides financial support to renewable energy projects that produce electricity for sale to another entity. hydroelectric and biomass (LFG).4 Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) Renewable energy requirements are established by the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) in Texas. In 1999. and indexed for inflation) for the first 10 years of their operation. In practice. The value of this financing varies year-to-year. was also introduced. 6-2 R. in 2005. commonwealth.880 MW by 2025. Renewable energy resources.880 MW by 2015 and 10. 6. RECs can supplement the monetary gain generated by the sale of electricity. as defined by these regulations. More recently. 6.00/REC. include solar. and funds are distributed using 60% of the available funds for facilities that utilize solar.1. the financial pro-forma analyses take into account the sale of RECs for the electricity generation modeling at $3. wind. An eligible facility for this type of incentive must also be in operation by October 1. the program is never fully funded.00-$5. or closed loop biomass technologies. a qualifying renewable energy supplier must be a local/state government. This bond is a type of tax credit which provides financing for renewable energy projects such as LFGTE facilities. Credits may be produced if the City chooses to employ electricity generation.

5 Greenhouse Gas Emission Credits Renewable energy producers or landfills that collect and destroy LFG can also market and sell credits for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.FINAL DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF GRANTS AND FUNDS 6. Based on the current Tier II report (report required by federal New Source Performance Standards using LandGEM gas modeling) performed by the City. In the United States. which composes approximately 50% of LFG.00 per ton CO2. It is important to note that GHG credits are based on the concept of additionality. R. when considering GHG emission credit gain. including the Chicago Climate Exchange. Most entities that buy and trade these CFI contracts are brokers that develop. federal New Source Performance Standards). are currently sought after by businesses that are eager to market being “carbon neutral” or “green”. a LFG collection and control system is not required at Clint 2284 through the active life of the facility. and onsite electricity generation for sale or for internal use.” GHG credits cannot be claimed for LFG that must be controlled due to federal or state regulations (namely. At this time. depending on which market protocol is chosen. which has not been ratified by the United States. there is no mandatory CO2 emission reduction standard. GHG emission credits are currently traded on the open market most commonly as Carbon Finance Instruments (CFIs).1. it is important to realize that ownership decisions are a large factor. medium-Btu direct use. or Voluntary Carbon Units (VCUs) contracts. Also. the largest international market is based on the Kyoto Protocol. These contracts. Verified Emission Reductions (VERs). For the purposes of this report. Methane. but any collection and destruction of gas (by any means – flare or end use) can be potentially traded as emissions credits on various trading platforms. The City may be able to take advantage of GHG credits if a LFG collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. meaning that the landfill owner must be pursuing options to destroy the LFG that are above and beyond “business as usual. is a potent GHG which contributes to global warming (approximately 21 times the GFG efficacy of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). though not mandatory in the United States. W. high-Btu processing and direct use. The ownership of the GHG credits and/or RECS and other credits should be negotiated carefully to allow for clear ownership to claim or monetize these credits. causing all GHG trading or sales contracts to be formed voluntarily. acquire and market GHG emissions reductions. the financial proforma analyses take into account the sale of GHG credits according to the calculation protocol published by the CCX.00 to $7. Projects that meet eligibility requirements for GHG credits include combusting LFG in an on-site flare. The current market value for CFIs is $2. or other available services offering carbon crediting options. Blue Source. This may change with future Tier II results. Beck 6-3 . A popular and well-known trading platform is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).

such as LNG or CNG.1. Tax exempt entities that fuel vehicles via an on-site fueling facility are eligible to receive tax credit in the form of a direct payment from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). administered by the Texas Environmental Research Consortium. the full amount would be contingent on the receipt of sufficient revenue to cover the grant. meaning that all payment would be made after the initial cost is incurred by the grant recipient. such as LNG or CNG. This credit is applicable for equipment that is installed after December 31.2 Summary of Funding Options Table 6-1 on the following page presents a summary of the various funding options that could be used for LFGTE projects: 6-4 R. so a Developer would have to claim this credit. This credit would only be applicable if the City pursues a high-Btu option to generate and use alternative fuels. with a maximum of $30. W.6 Federal Alternative Fuels Tax Credit An Alternative Fuels Tax Credit provided by the federal government is offered to fueling station owners who install equipment for renewable fuels including natural gas. Credit is awarded to the eligible entity that has taken responsibility and assumed liability for reporting and paying the federal excise tax on the fuel.1. the tax credit is available until September 30.50 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) of CNG and $0. Beck . 6.7 Federal Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credit A Federal Excise Tax Credit is obtainable for renewable fuel that is sold for general use or used as fuel to operate a motor vehicle. Grant allotment is done on a reimbursement schedule. likely due to the absence of LFG conversion to LNG or CNG alternative fuel projects in the state (these projects are extremely rare. Because the funding for this grant is received throughout the year from state fees.3. Under current legislation. through the development and execution of a grant contract. Recipients of the tax credit receive $0. E85 or diesel blends containing a minimum of 20% biodiesel. liquefied petroleum gas. this is a tax credit that is applicable to entities that pay federal taxes. Additionally. 6. Projects selected for funding can be awarded a grant. such as LNG or CNG. LFG projects have never before been selected in the state of Texas. This credit is obtainable for up to 30% of the fees encountered with the installation of alternative fueling equipment. 2005 and prior to December 31.Section 6 FINAL DRAFT 6. 2009.000 awarded. 6.50 per liquid gallon of liquefied petroleum gas. as discussed in Section 3. hydrogen. This credit would only be applicable if the City pursues a high-Btu option to generate and use alternative fuels.1. 2009. This credit would only be applicable if the City pursues a high-Btu option to generate and use alternative fuels. LNG and liquefied hydrogen.8 Alternative Fuel Grant (Texas) The Texas Emission Reduction Plan (TERP) provides grants for advanced fuel technology and infrastructure projects under the New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) program.1).

00 per ton CO2 reductions. Qualifying facility must be placed in service by 12/31/08.00 per REC (1 REC = 1 MWh). $3. W. up to a maximum of $30.00-$5.015 per kWh for a 10-year period. which is not feasible for this project. Financial assistance in the form of monetary reimbursement Other Concerns Qualifying facility must be placed in service by 12/31/08. High-Btu Electricity Generation Electricity Generation. $0. $0. 30% of the fees associated with installation of alternative fueling equipment.50 per gallon gasoline equivalent (GGE) of CNG. Medium-Btu. RECs commonly sold “bundled” with the electricity sales. 2009. LFG control cannot be mandated by NSPS or other regulations. Tax exemption as a form of interest-free loan. which is not feasible for this project. Federal Alternative Fuels Tax Credits Federal Alternative Fuels Excise Tax Credit Alternative Fuel Grant (Texas) High-Btu High-Btu 6-5 R. Funding varies from year to year.01 per kWh for a 10-year period. Beck . Funds contingent on sufficient revenue to cover grant expenditures. Tax credit is available until September 30. Bonds. High-Btu.000. full value may vary. Medium-Btu. 2009.00-$7.FINAL DRAFT ASSESSMENT OF GRANTS AND FUNDS Table 6-1 Summary of LFG Credits. $2. Landfill projects have never previously been selected. 2005 and no later than December 31. Flaring Landfill Gas High-Btu Potential Economic Value (Estimate) $0. Grants and Incentives Description Section 45 Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) Renewable Energy Credits (REC) GHG Emission Credits Applicable LFGTE Alternatives Electricity Generation Electricity Generation Electricity Generation. Tax credit is applicable to equipment installed after December 31.

W. Beck .Section 6 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 6-6 R.

the City may have the opportunity to serve multiple end users and utilize a variety of technologies that may not be feasible at this time. 1 the future cash flows were discounted so that amounts are represented in 2008 dollars. . all of the end use options discussed could be utilized by the City. or 3. W. 2. W. Direct thermal utilization of the LFG by piping the gas to a nearby end-user. The basis for the capital and O&M costs were discussed in previous sections as follows: „ „ „ „ Section 3 – Costs associated with on-site generation infrastructure and O&M costs Section 3 – Costs associated with medium-Btu pipeline and O&M costs Section 3 – Costs associated with high-Btu processing and O&M costs Section 4 – LFG collection system capital and O&M costs After R. Beck developed a 20-year projection of cash flows for each end-use scenario.2 Methodology for Financial Analysis For each end-use scenario. there are three primary end use categories for LFG collected at the City’s landfill(s): 1. Based on the predicted LFG generation at Clint 2284. the City may be able to take advantage of voluntary trading of landfill methane emission offset credits if a collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. This section of the report outlines the methodology utilized in the financial pro forma analyses of the three general LFGTE project alternatives.4 percent. Beck applied an inflation rate of 2. During the course of the next approximately 20 years.1 Introduction As discussed in the previous sections of this report. The options discussed in this report are generally considered the most practical options for LFG end use. W. 7. These annual amounts were then summed to calculate a net present 1 Where appropriate. R. Processing of LFG on-site to produce natural gas quality for pipeline sale or other alternative fuel use. Additionally. On-site generation of electricity for use on site or to sell to an electric utility. R. Beck estimated the revenue and required capital and O&M costs for a 20-year period. The capital costs and O&M cost factors previously introduced are utilized and manipulated in the financial models as prudent.FINAL DRAFT Section 7 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS 7.

1.” Nevertheless. W.000) $300.3 Basis of Comparison As discussed in Section 6. Beck . 7. it would be more financially advantageous to pursue this project than to invest the money in 20-year U.000) $250. Appendix D provides the detailed 20-year projection for each scenario. Section 7.323.000 $219.000 $190. Year 2 ($55. the City is not required to install a LFG collection system and there is no cost associated with management of LFG. In this example. Beck used a discount rate of five percent for the electricity generation and direct use (medium Btu).000 $145. the NPV of the status quo is zero.000) ($619. Therefore. Treasuries have ranged from 4 to 5 percent. the City is not required to meet the NSPS requirements during the 20-year planning period. Table 7-1 provides a simple example of how R. the NPV is a positive $89. and 10 percent for high-Btu processing. Beck applied a higher discount rate for the highBtu processing due to the greater risk.000 $280.Section 7 FINAL DRAFT value (NPV).S. Therefore.6 provide summary level tables of the NPV for the LFG end-use scenarios.335 Year 5 ($70. 7-2 R. this means investing in the Treasuries would be a better investment than the LFGTE project.387 ($750.000) ($50.000 $235. The amount for the first two scenarios represents what the City could earn if it invested in 20-year United States Treasuries 2 rather than one of these LFGTE projects.000) $350. Therefore. it is important to note that the comparisons in this section are solely financial. Table 7-1 Sample NPV Calculation Year 1 Initial Investment Operating and Maintenance Revenue Total Present Value 1 NPV 1. based on current assumptions. If the NPV is negative for a project. For the initial evaluation of these scenarios. R. then the LFGTE project would be the better investment.7 shows the affect of using higher discount rates.048) $89. W. W.129 Year 4 ($65.000 ($650. W. The values shown in Table 7-1 are for illustration purposes only and do not represent any of the LFGTE scenarios.323 Calculated using a 5 percent discount rate. R. Beck calculated the NPV for each scenario.5.000 $131.519 Year 3 ($60. and this section does not address the multiple other valid reasons that a City might install and maintain a 2 Over the last several years. Any LFGTE project considered should have an NPV greater than zero if it is to be considered financially better than the status quo of “doing nothing. Subsections 7. Treasuries at a five percent interest rate.S.000 $164. 20-year U.000) $150. which a private company would likely do in an analysis of these projects.4 through 7. If the NPV is positive.000 $193.000) $200.

FINAL DRAFT FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS LFG collection and control system (i.633. R.e. capital and O&M of the LFG collection system.172) ($2. R. W. environmental stewardship. the LFG not used would be combusted in a flare. W. odor control. this end-use scenario is less financially attractive than installing no system at all. Beck assumes a sale price of $4 per metric ton of CO2 for GHG credits and $3 per MWh for RECs. W. there is more risk associated with revenue from these credits since the sell price per unit and the longevity of these credits is not well known at this time.725. R. R.541) ($11. W. Table 7-2 NPV of Scenario 1A Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Total Net Present Value $16. Additional considerations concern the real ability of the City or a third party to monetize these credits. W. 7.4. this LFGTE project may be able to benefit from both the sale of GHG credits and renewable energy credits. Table 7-2 summarizes the major components of the total project NPV: revenue from the sale of electricity. As discussed in Section 6.1. Beck with projected avoided energy pricing through 2017.162.4 percent inflation rate. R.216 ($7. Beck projected energy prices beyond 2017 using a 2.) 7.496) Based on the information in Table 7-2.4 Scenario 1 – Electricity Generation This subsection summarizes the financial analysis of on-site generation of electricity using engine generators. However. Specifically regarding: „ „ Future legislation that might make these credits obsolete. and capital and O&M associated with the on-site electricity generation system.254.1 Scenario 1A – Clint 2284 Only Scenario 1A describes the on-site generation scenario where only LFG from Clint 2284 is collected and utilized. That the credits can be allocated to the proper party during contract negotiations for ease of monetization. Beck assumed the project would sell the electricity generated to El Paso Electric Company. Until the new engine is added.5 percent over the 20-year project period. R. who provided R. Beck assumed that a new engine would be added to the system once enough LFG was available to fully utilize the engine. subsurface gas migration control. sustainability. Beck 7-3 . W. Unlike the costs associated with the LFG collection system and on-site electricity generation system. W. Beck inflates these values at 1. etc.

Table 7-3 provides the Scenario 1A summary. R. W.477) ($12. with the additional benefit from these credits. Beck assumed the collection system would be extended into the Clint 1482 North landfill.129 Based on the assumptions discussed. W. 7.496) $2. For this analysis. W.350.4. Beck also developed a project NPV including revenues from the GHG credit and RECs. 7-4 R.284 $773.725. R.777. W.2 Scenario 1B – Clint 2284 and Clint 1482 North For Scenario 1B. See Section 7.Section 7 „ FINAL DRAFT That the credits can be verified according to the published protocol of a particular market for sales on that market.4. Table 7-4 NPV of Scenario 1B Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Total Net Present Value $19.162.216) ($1. R.1 for assumptions for this analysis.341 $328. these credits transform this end-use scenario from a negative NPV project to a positive NPV project. it is still a negative NPV project. R. collecting LFG from Cells A and B in addition to the Clint 2284 landfill.607. W.298. Based on these uncertainties.491 ($8. Table 7-4 provides the NPV of this project.202) While this project appears more financially attractive than Scenario 1A. Table 7-3 NPV of Scenario 1A – Including Revenue from Credits Description Scenario 1A Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total Net Present Value ($2. Beck used a discount rate of 15 percent. Beck . Beck applied a higher discount rate to revenues from these credits.

these credits transform this end-use scenario from a negative NPV project to a positive NPV project.148.729) ($8. Therefore. Based on the distance of the user from the landfill and the amount of LFG the user would use. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7-6.801. the LFG is available 24 hours a day. W. if the right enduser is available. In Section 3.FINAL DRAFT FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS Table 7-5 NPV of Scenario 1B – Including Revenue from Credits Description Scenario 1B Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total Net Present Value ($1. W.650 Based on the assumptions discussed.845 $410. the NPV of the project is significantly below zero. if this end-user operated on multiple shifts and weekends so that it could use the LFG 90 percent of the time it is available.5 Scenario 2 – Direct Use (Medium Btu) Under Scenario 2. W. Beck assumed that only LFG from the Clint 2284 landfill would be recovered.579) Pipeline direct use projects are often considered the preferred project.007 $1.781. In this case. R. when the end-user is closed for business. the LFG produced during those hours will be destroyed using the flare. Beck analyzed which user would produce the best financial results. Table 7-6 NPV of Scenario 2 Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Total Net Present Value $6.579) to a positive $2. For example. W. However. primarily because the end-user is limited by its operating hours.2. For this scenario. R.801. Beck 7-5 . 7. R.202) $3. the NPV would increase from negative ($8.691 ($7.7 million. The end-user chosen for the analysis is the International Paper El Paso Containment Plant located 14 miles from the landfill and able to utilize approximately 957 CFM of LFG while in operation. Beck identified several potential users of LFG. which is approximately 33% of the time. seven days a week and this end-user can only use it during its operating hours.679.777. R.226. Beck analyzed the financial feasibility of transporting LFG via a pipeline to a nearby industrial user for direct use. R.541) ($8. W.254.

25 per MMBtu. The results are shown in Table 7-7. Therefore. R. However. W. Beck . the costs for constructing and operating a highBtu processing plant for the relatively “small” scale LFG flows that are predicted at Clint 2284 are not well documented. The LFG flow rate at Clint 2284 for 2009 is modeled at 363 CFM. Further. Beck estimated the NPV of this project with the credits. Additionally.638 CFM.579) $2.239) While the credits improve the feasibility of this project. with a maximum flow rate in 2032 of 2. W. However.1. or if a potential end-user decided to locate near the site in order to take advantage of the LFG in a medium-Btu process. W. no commercially-viable small-scale high-Btu projects currently exist.50 to $3. Beck assumed that only LFG from the Clint 2284 landfill would be recovered for the project. Therefore. the operational challenges discussed in Section 7. R.Section 7 FINAL DRAFT As with the on-site electric generation projects. R. Table 7-7 NPV of Scenario 2 – Including Revenue from Credits Description Scenario 2 Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue Total Net Present Value ($8. it is still a less attractive project than on-site generation based on the known potential end-users of the LFG. Beck has shown the NPV for the high-Btu end-use scenario based on O&M costs of $4. Beck used a higher 7-6 R. Beck is not aware of any commerciallyviable high-Btu projects with similarly low LFG flow rates.607. Beck used a different discount rate for the high-Btu project than for Scenario 1 or 2. W. Other successful high-Btu projects that have been implemented have been in the 3.194. the medium-Btu pipeline project has the potential to generate revenue from the sale of GHG credits. W. W. W. successful systems have typically been approximately $2. R.00 per MMBtu. R. Beck analyzed the financial feasibility of constructing and operating a processing plant at the landfill that could convert LFG to pipeline quality natural gas. even on smaller scale projects. For this scenario. W. While the technologies in Scenario 1 and 2 are well-proven. R. for this analysis R. R. but these projects have failed for various reasons (primary financial). W. the feasibility of the project could change if a new end-user were identified. Beck would expect the O&M costs for a smaller system to be higher because there are less economies of scale in operating the system. R.1 introduce further risk to a high-Btu project.801.6. Beck is aware of high-Btu projects that have been attempted for LFG flows ranging from 800 SCFM to 1. Unlike Scenarios 1 and 2.000 CFM to 12. Using the assumptions discussed in Section 7.4.000 CFM range.341 ($6. 7. W. O&M costs for these larger.000 SCFM.6 Scenario 3 – High Btu Processing For Scenario 3.

Table 7-9 NPV of Scenario 3 – Including Revenue from Credits Description Scenario 3 Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue Total Net Present Value ($2. In turn.1.760. Operation at this level may be difficult to impossible at the City sites. In order to arrive at pipelinequality natural gas. In addition to the lack of available information regarding capital cost and O&M costs for smaller-scale high-Btu processing plants.6.760. based on the lack of final closure capping and the sandy soil available for interim cover material.281) ($2. the oxygen content of the input LFG must be strictly controlled.728) As with the other projects discussed in this section. the high-Btu LFGTE project has the potential to generate revenue from the sale of GHG credits.1 Other High-Btu Processing Considerations As mentioned previously.728) $2. Table 7-8 summarizes the NPV for Scenario 3 based on these assumptions.244. which would compromise the due diligence process required to obtain the necessary funding.266 ($5. this means that the LFG collection system and wellfield must be operated with virtually “zero” air intrusion. R. W.713) ($14. since no benchmarking data is available.FINAL DRAFT FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS discount rate of 10 percent for this Scenario. The results are shown in Table 7-9. Beck estimated the NPV of this project with the credits. Beck 7-7 . This could potentially create problems in financing a high-Btu LFGTE project. W.635.4. the costs for constructing and operating a high-Btu processing plant for the relatively “small” scale LFG flows that are predicted at Clint 2284 are not well documented.151. W. R. R. LFG collection system operations have additional considerations for a project of this type.607.341 ($153. Using the assumptions discussed in Section 7. Table 7-8 NPV of Scenario 3 Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Total Net Present Value $16.388) 7. Beck is not aware of any commercially-viable high-Btu projects with similarly low LFG flow rates.

254.477) ($12.713) ($14. 7-8 R.541) ($11.Section 7 FINAL DRAFT The uncertainty of the O&M costs and the strict operational requirements of the highBtu technologies make this scenario less attractive for the City from a project risk perspective. W.341 $0 ($6.725. Beck . These result of increasing the discount rate is shown under “Private Operator Perspective” since private companies will typically use a higher discount rate for future cash flows than a public sector entity. All of these end-use projects assume the City would initiate the process of collecting and utilizing the LFG (either itself or via a private contractor) as soon as possible.239) Scenario 3 $16.579) $2.226.633. W.691 ($7.254.162.148. R.007 $1.777. W.066) 15% ($3.388) 15% ($768. Beck believes that the risk associated with Scenario 3 is greater than Scenario 1 and 2 and therefore a higher discount rate was used for Scenario 3.266 ($5.496) $2.760.729) ($8.244. 7. The City would be free to contract with a Developer and allocate the risk of the capital and O&M costs in exchange for a certain amount of revenue.607.129 Scenario 1B $19.725. as discussed in Section 5.541) ($8. The discount rate for the GHG credits and REC were kept constant at 15 percent. and operating costs.341 $328.172) ($2.491 ($8.6. As discussed in Section 7.781.350.216 ($7.8 provides an alternate scenario where the City would wait a period of years before implementing a LFGTE system of this type.668.728) $2.635.284 $773.801.7 Options Summary Table 7-10 summarizes the three end-use scenarios discussed in the section.679.341 $0 ($153.778) 20% ($1. it would be incumbent upon the Developer to have a familiarity with the proprietary process and to develop a pro forma that accurately describes the project. Section 7. capital.607.475) 15% ($610.151.650 Scenario 2 $6. However.194.281) ($2.298. revenue. Beck has also shown an alternative NPV with a higher discount rate applied to the revenue.845 $410.202) $3.216) ($1. 1 Scenario 1A $16. and O&M costs of the LFGTE projects and provided those totals at the bottom of the table. In order to further analyze the most common LFGTE option of using engine generators to produce electricity. R.476.607. In that case.151) These discount rates apply only to the LFGTE infrastructure. it is likely that any high-Btu processing plant would be installed by a Developer utilizing a proprietary processing system. Table 7-10 NPV Summary – Including Revenue from Credits Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total NPV Private Operator Perspective Discount Rate 1 Adjusted NPV 1.

and operating costs. R.987 $256. Beck refers to this alternate as Scenario 1C.8 Alternate Analysis of Scenario 1A As discussed in Section 7. R. Beck 7-9 . W.7. W. R.772 15% $732. R.888 These discount rates apply only to the LFGTE infrastructure.583) ($13. revenue. Beck also analyzed the scenario in which no activity would be conducted at the landfill. 1 Scenario 1C NPV $21. Beck analyzed an alternate version of Scenario 1A.047 $3.592. The Clint 2284 landfill is a relatively new landfill.502. As shown in Table 7-11.FINAL DRAFT FINANCIAL PRO FORMA ANALYSIS 7. For the purposes of discussion.558. for a period of five years. waiting a period of five years has a significant impact on the financial feasibility of using engine generators to produce electricity on site.451 ($6. W.136. Table 7-11 NPV of Scenario 1C – Wait Five Years before Implementation Description Revenue LFG Collection System Gas System Subtotal GHG Credit Revenue REC Revenue Total Private Operator Perspective Discount Rate 1 Adjusted NPV 1.260. W. The discount rate for the GHG credits and REC were kept constant at 15 percent.129) $1. with regard to collecting and utilizing LFG.739 $2. Table 7-11 summarizes the information for this Scenario 1C. Therefore.165. the LFG flow rate is still at a relatively low level compared where to it is anticipated to be in future years.

Section 7 FINAL DRAFT (This page intentionally left blank) 7-10 R. W. Beck .

1 Electricity Generation (Financial Scenarios 1A.2 Medium-Btu Direct Use (Financial Scenario 2): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and direct use at one of the local industries surveyed in this report (based on LMOP database) with only LFG sales revenue is negative.1. during the course of the next approximately 20 years. NPV remains negative even when revenue from GHG credits is modeled. The following summarizes the financial and operational conclusions for each general end use. the City may have the opportunity to serve multiple end users and utilize a variety of technologies that may not be feasible at this time. and 1C): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and electricity generation with only electricity sales revenue is negative if the project is started immediately (Scenarios 1A and 1B). NPV becomes positive for these Scenarios (project that provides greater financial benefit than the “do nothing” alternative) when revenue from GHG credits and renewable energy credits are included in the pro forma. and provides recommendations for future actions that provide the most overall benefit to the City. 8. electricity generation by engine generators is the most commonly utilized LFGTE electricity generation technology. investigation. Additionally. Operationally.1. collection and beneficial use. re-iterates the information gathered from this project. „ „ „ 8. This section summarizes the conclusions of this report.FINAL DRAFT Section 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This LFGTE feasibility report has been organized to follow the process of discovery. 8. 1B. the City may be able to take advantage of voluntary trading of landfill methane emission offset credits (GHG credits) if a collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. NPV is greater if the City decides to wait (5 years modeled in Scenario 1C) for gas production to increase at Clint 2284 before pursuing this LFGTE project. and analysis of landfill gas estimation.1 Summary of LFGTE Possibilities As noted in the report. „ . and is quite reliable and proven.

and/or financial pro formas that make different assumptions based on the Developer’s perspective or proprietary process. Key considerations for an RFP and the knowledge to critically analyze and compare financial pro formas advertised by Developers are added features of this report. This body of knowledge will be invaluable if the City receives unsolicited offers for LFGTE projects. This report provides the City with a solid foundation of knowledge regarding the potential of the LFG generated at the City’s sites. This Scenario would be the most financially advantageous LFGTE option if an end user could be located that could take the full LFG flow from Clint 2284 for a larger percentage of the time. „ „ „ „ 8. this necessitates operation of the LFG collection system with “zero” air intrusion – could prove difficult for Clint 2284. Operationally. Data is not available on the true effect of the loss of economy of scale. This will be important. the conceptual collection. and the operational practices of the Developer. The technology is simple and proven. This Scenario models a high-Btu processing plant at a smaller scale than is currently commercially operational. fewer of these types of projects exist due to the uncertain commercial viability at smaller LFG flow rates. „ 8. and the financial operation of LFGTE projects. This RFP process is generally advantageous to the City. a full-time process). or when the City chooses to advertise with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a LFGTE project.1. the scale of the project. This report generally supports the development of a LFGTE project in the future that could achieve revenue from sales of energy (electricity or gas). it is likely that a third party Developer will be contracted with for any LFGTE project at the City sites.Section 8 „ FINAL DRAFT This Scenario is highly dependent on the ability of the end user to take all the LFG produced (i.3 High-Btu Processing (Financial Scenario 3): „ NPV for a LFG collection system and high-Btu processing with only LFG sales revenue is negative. Operationally. and possibly RECs. medium-Btu direct use by local pipeline is a very common LFGTE project that is simple to operate and has a reasonable up-front capital cost. as it allows for flexible and inventive 8-2 R. Beck . NPV is affected positively (but remains negative) when revenue from GHG credits are modeled. Based on the City’s expertise and appetite for risk. Currently. as discussed in Section 7.1.2 General Conclusions This report has modeled the LFG generation. high-Btu processing plants require “zero” oxygen in the raw LFG. Capital and O&M costs are highly dependent on the proprietary design of the processing plant. GHG credits. since it is likely that Developers may approach the City with unsolicited offers that are based on currently undiscovered end-users. W.e.6.

but any collection and destruction of gas (by any means – flare or end use) can be potentially traded as emissions credits on various trading platforms. sustainability. 2. and the City can utilize the information in this report to compare assumptions and solutions. During the course of the next approximately 20 years. Beck would not recommend the development of an RFP for a LFGTE project at this time.). Even though R. Beck does not anticipate significant Developer interest in the LFG at this time. etc. Additionally. green marketing. Within the proposed 5-year “waiting” period. The creation of an RFP would require a small effort and could yield interesting Developer ideas. a masterplan would ensure responsible design of wells. or other available services offering GHG crediting options. the City may have the opportunity to serve multiple end users and utilize a variety of technologies that may not be feasible at this time. 8. legal.FINAL DRAFT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS solutions to be proposed. the City should market the LFG potential at the Clint 2284 site to businesses looking at possible locations for R. The analyses in this report support the possibility that more financially advantageous results could be achieved if the City waits approximately 5 years. Blue Source. Beck recommends that the City consider the following actions to follow-up this report and gain the most value from this effort. R. W. 1. including the Chicago Climate Exchange. the City should commission a LFG collection and control system masterplan design for Clint 2284. piping. the City may be able to take advantage of voluntary trading of landfill methane emission offset credits if a collection and control system can be installed and operating before the regulatory requirement to do so. This masterplan would design a LFG collection system that effectively captures the gas generated at the site and allows for a diverse array of LFG end use options from a centralized collection point. the City may desire to collect and control LFG or to develop an LFGTE project for many other valid reasons (carbon footprint. sumps. This masterplan could be used by the City or used to govern a Developer in how to expand gas collection at the site responsibly. 4. Although not financially advantageous. Beck 8-3 . to accommodate known future growth at the site. Given that Clint 2284 is a relatively young landfill in the early stages of LFG production. Additionally. Within the proposed 5-year “waiting” period. etc. 3. policy. W.3 Key Findings and Recommendations Based on the specific and general conclusions noted above. It is important to note that the financial feasibility of the LFGTE projects is greatly affected by the absence of an existing LFG collection system at the City sites. and financial considerations. This may change with future Tier II results. Based on the current Tier II report (report required by federal New Source Performance Standards using LandGEM gas modeling) performed by the City. blower/flare station. R. W. These recommendations should be considered in conjunction with the City’s other business. the City would incur little risk if an RFP was advertised. W. a LFG collection and control system is not required at Clint 2284 through the active life of the facility.

Beck . For example. The RFP will contain information from this report and updated flow and design information from the installed and operational LFG collection and control system. the LFG generation model and the feasibility of LFGTE projects at these sites can be greatly affected. If future waste receipts are not as predicted and modeled in the RWB Model (i. The City should monitor this technology and be open to exploring new proprietary methods if proposed by Developers. the City will be optimally positioned to advertise an RFP for LFGTE at Clint 2284. It is important to note that the greatest variable for LFG production modeling is the waste acceptance rate of a particular landfill. the City should commission detailed design and construction of a “Phase 1” LFG collection and control system at Clint 2284. Additional impetus for research in this area is a result of rising natural gas prices.e. W. Although high-Btu projects have not been viable at the relative scale of Clint 2284 LFG production. 6. 7. additional waste is accepted at the Clint and/or McCombs landfills). a direct-use mediumBtu project would be the most financially advantageous to the City if an end user could be located near the Clint 2284 site that could use all of the LFG generated on a full time (eg. As stated in Section 7. After the first phase of the LFG collection and control system is in place. As the City nears the end of the 5-year “waiting” period to allow for increased LFG production. high-Btu processing is an emerging technology that is constantly changing. 5.Section 8 FINAL DRAFT manufacturing or industrial facilities. 24 hours/day. 7 days/week) basis. 8-4 R. This initial system would conform to the LFG masterplan to allow for future expansion. a significant increase in the quantity of waste disposed could accelerate the feasibility of a LFGTE project.

4  269  202  7.9  4.4  1.8  79  59  2.2  134  101  3.4  309  232  8.3  10.8  180  135  5.4  28  21  0.4  207  155  5.6  6.2  91  68  2.5  368  276  10.)  0.1  163  122  4.0  184  138  5.        Eff.1  7.7  570  427  15.1  53  40  1.6  8.7  608  456  16.8  3.8     YEAR     1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  MMBtu/Hour  Collected  (Assumes Coll.4  497  373  13.3  11.1  0.7  3.1  1.2  197  148  5.8  1.4  3.7  233  175  6.4  2.8  5.1  4.6  1.5  344  258  9.APPENDIX A LFG Generation Model Output LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT  McCombs Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  All Existing Cells  Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  Generated  Collected  Generated  (Assumes Coll.5  173  129  4.3  4.6  .1  2.1  3.8  3.9  2.8  12.2  16  12  0.5  66  49  1.8  115  86  3. Eff.6  3.3  0.2  403  302  11.8  40  30  1.5  103  77  2.)  6  5  0.1  189  142  5.1  449  336  12.3  9.7  150  113  4.6  0.4  7.

)  Eff.2  4.2  417  313  11.4  291  218  8.9  4.1  368  276  10.5  584  438  16.4  3.6  4.4  11.2  238  178  6.6  392  294  10. Eff.)  615  462  17.9  5.8  8.        (Assumes Coll.7  12.3  .7  262  197  7.5  7.7  3.9  226  169  6.3  9.4  472  354  13.0  276  207  7.0  3.6  5.8  10.7  214  160  5.5  161  121  4.2  325  244  9.0  12.5  6.APPENDIX A    YEAR     2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT (Continued)  McCombs Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  All Existing Cells  Std Cubic  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  MMBtu/Hour  Ft/Min  Generated  Collected  Generated  Collected  (Assumes Coll.0  180  135  5.2  192  144  5.7  307  230  8.2  7.3  4.0  501  375  13.8  444  333  12.6  346  259  9.7  605  454  16.4  202  152  5.1  12.4  250  188  6.6  11.5  8.2  5.6  531  398  14.0  9.7  171  128  4.1  558  419  15.6  4.0  6.0  6.

3  521  391  14.0  324  243  8.1  813  609  22.1  418  313  11.5  15.7  12.5  3.7  17.1  255  191  7.4  7.8  456  342  12.6  519  389  14.4  358  268  9.4  10.7  8.4  17.8  7.8  440  330  12.4  14.4  10.9  12.9  391  293  10.2  15.0  17.2  9.9  18.2  863  647  23.4  842  632  23.4  663  497  18.8  17.9  340  255  9.6  743  557  20.8  16.3  624  468  17.0  853  640  23.8  5.        Eff.0  .2  14.6  9.4  2.8  123  92  3.7  783  587  21.4  1.4  186  139  5.6  65  49  1.5  13.)  0.1  8.)  21  15  0.5  703  527  19.4  492  369  13.3  763  572  21.0  377  283  10.7  700  525  19.8  10.0  640  480  17.6  465  348  12.2  553  415  15.4  MMBtu/Hour  Collected  (Assumes Coll.8  871  653  24.2  7.6  8.2  588  441  16.APPENDIX A    YEAR     1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT  Clint 1482 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  Cells South of Easement ‐ 1983 to 1999  Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  Generated  Collected  Generated  (Assumes Coll.2  11.7  12.5  821  616  22.1  9.5  397  298  11.3  580  435  16.  Eff.0  16.3  6.0  13.

2  2.0  2024  229  171  6.7  2.4  2036  110  83  3.7  5.3  2023  242  182  6.9  5.4  6.5  2026  203  152  5.9  2033  132  99  3.7  2019  304  228  8.9  2.7  2034  125  93  3.9  2021  272  204  7.3  3.3  4.0  2.9  6.7  2029  168  126  4.3  2031  149  112  4.1  2032  141  105  3.4  2.          Eff.6  4.4  3.9  2028  179  134  4.5  2030  158  119  4.1  5.2  2027  190  143  5.1  .3  2037  103  77  2.7  2025  216  162  6.)  Eff.6  2035  117  88  3.7  3.  (Assumes Coll.3  2020  287  215  7.6  2022  257  192  7.5  5.0  4.)  2018  322  241  8.APPENDIX A LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT (Continued)  Clint 1482 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  Cells South of Easement ‐ 1983 to 1999     Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  MMBtu/Hour  YEAR  Generated  Collected  Generated  Collected  (Assumes Coll.9  3.1  3.8  2.

8  2.7  93  69  2.5  7.4  2.1  177  132  4.6  3.9  305  229  8.9  99  74  2.APPENDIX A LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT  Clint 1482 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  Cells North of Easement ‐ 1999 to 2007  Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  Generated  Collected  Generated  (Assumes Coll.4  186  139  5.2  145  108  4.8  7.7  6.4  2.  Eff.7  7.9  124  93  3.9  5.3  111  84  3.1  105  79  2.      Eff.1  3.0  240  180  6.4  7.7  2.0  137  103  3.6    YEAR    1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  2025  2026  2027  2028  2029  2030  2031  2032  2033  2034  MMBtu/Hour  Collected  (Assumes Coll.0  373  280  10.8  341  256  9.6  2.6  4.3  2.3  3.7  6.2  356  267  9.3  4.7  3.7  196  147  5.1  208  156  5.2  6.2  331  248  9.5  220  165  6.4  250  188  6.9  267  201  7.)  0.6  7.5  3.4  324  243  8.8  3.3  1.6  299  224  8.4  118  88  3.3  5.6  159  119  4.8  5.9  167  125  4.6  276  207  7.2  2.5  5.0  2.8  4.)  16  12  0.4  286  214  7.1  6.9  234  176  6.0  5.8  131  98  3.2  4.5  67  50  1.4  151  114  4.9  .6  125  93  3.4  181  136  5.1  363  272  10.1  3.3  369  277  10.1  1.

6  2053  28  21  0.3  1.9  1.8  1.6  2038  72  54  2.3  0.8  0.1  0.8  2050  35  26  1.9  2048  40  30  1.  (Assumes           Eff.0  2046  45  34  1.4  2040  64  48  1.6  .8  2036  82  61  2.3  2042  57  43  1.)  2035  87  65  2.8  2049  37  28  1.1  2045  48  36  1.7  2037  77  57  2. Eff.4  1.3  1.4  1.0  0.1  2044  51  38  1.9  2047  43  32  1.6  1.7  2052  30  23  0.)  Coll.1  1.2  2043  54  40  1.APPENDIX A LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT (Continued)  Clint 1482 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  Cells North of Easement ‐ 1999 to 2007     Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  MMBtu/Hour YEAR  Generated  Collected  Generated  Collected  (Assumes Coll.9  0.7  2051  32  24  0.0  0.5  2039  68  51  1.2  0.7  1.3  2041  60  45  1.0  1.5  1.8  0.

APPENDIX A

LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT  Clint 2284 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  All Existing and Future Cells     Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min  MMBtu/Hour  YEAR  Generated  Collected  Generated  (Assumes Coll.           Eff.)  2005  56  42  1.6  2006  126  94  3.5  2007  215  161  5.9  2008  338  254  9.3  2009  484  363  13.4  2010  641  481  17.7  2011  804  603  22.2  2012  966  725  26.7  2013  1128  846  31.1  2014  1287  965  35.5  2015  1441  1081  39.8  2016  1593  1194  44.0  2017  1739  1304  48.0  2018  1880  1410  51.9  2019  2017  1513  55.7  2020  2151  1613  59.4  2021  2280  1710  62.9  2022  2406  1805  66.4  2023  2531  1898  69.9  2024  2655  1991  73.3  2025  2776  2082  76.6  2026  2898  2173  80.0  2027  3019  2264  83.3  2028  3139  2354  86.6  2029  3259  2444  89.9  2030  3377  2533  93.2  2031  3497  2623  96.5  2032  3517  2638  97.1  2033  3439  2579  94.9  2034  3313  2485  91.4  2035  3164  2373  87.3  2036  3007  2255  83.0  2037  2849  2136  78.6  2038  2690  2017  74.2  2039  2537  1902  70.0 

MMBtu/Hour  Collected  (Assumes Coll.  Eff.)  1.2  2.6  4.4  7.0  10.0  13.3  16.7  20.0  23.3  26.6  29.8  33.0  36.0  38.9  41.8  44.5  47.2  49.8  52.4  55.0  57.5  60.0  62.5  65.0  67.5  69.9  72.4  72.8  71.2  68.6  65.5  62.2  59.0  55.7  52.5 

APPENDIX A
LFG GENERATION MODEL OUTPUT  Clint 2284 Landfill ‐ City of El Paso  All Existing and Future Cells     Std Cubic Ft/Min  Std Cubic Ft/Min MMBtu/Hour  YEAR  Generated  Collected  Generated  (Assumes Coll.         Eff.)  2040  2389  1792  65.9  2041  2250  1687  62.1  2042  2118  1589  58.5  2043  1994  1496  55.0  2044  1880  1410  51.9  2045  1774  1331  49.0  2046  1680  1260  46.4  2047  1592  1194  43.9  2048  1509  1132  41.7  2049  1433  1074  39.5  2050  1359  1020  37.5  2051  1288  966  35.5  2052  1218  914  33.6  2053  1152  864  31.8  2054  1088  816  30.0  2055  1028  771  28.4  2056  969  727  26.7  2057  915  686  25.2  2058  861  646  23.8  2059  808  606  22.3 

MMBtu/Hour  Collected  (Assumes Coll.  Eff.)  49.5  46.6  43.8  41.3  38.9  36.7  34.8  33.0  31.2  29.7  28.1  26.7  25.2  23.8  22.5  21.3  20.1  18.9  17.8  16.7 

APPENDIX B

LFG End Users
U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Potential End Users: Clint Landfill
Distance (miles) Landfill Name Clint Clint Clint Potential End User Facility Name Valley Feed Mills Clint Feed Yards Inc Valley Feed Mills EL PASO NATURAL GAS: EL PASO COMPR STA Unico Foods Inc AIR SYSTEM COMPONENTS Durable Metal Products Inc CEMCO PRODUCTS INCORPORATED Wells Industries Truck Enterprises Inc CONTINENTALCABIN ET MANUFACTURING IN El Paso County Water Authority Eco Research Fluid Process Systems Inc Facility Physical Address 400 Langford St. Clint, TX 79836 200 S. San Elizario Rd. Clint, TX 79836 200 Herring Rd. Clint, TX 78936 Facility Contact Name Mr. B Surratt Mr. J Armstrong Mr. R Surratt Facility Contact Phone 915-851-1952 915-851-2998 915-851-2238

3.02 3.06 3.56

Clint Clint Clint

3.64 3.74 4.71

Clint Clint Clint Clint

4.77 4.87 5.10 5.19

13006 Darrington Rd. El Paso, TX 79928 12405 Weaver Rd. El Paso, TX 79927 11650 Gateway Blvd E. El Paso, TX 79927

Mr. R Martinez

915-852-1902

Mr. R Wells

915-858-6486

1284 Horizon Blvd. El Paso, TX 79927 13675 Gateway Blvd. El Paso TX 79928

Mr. J Wells Mr. L Golucke

915-858-6400 915-858-4464

Clint Clint Clint Clint

5.26 5.30 5.39 5.65

1539 Pawling Dr. El Paso, TX 79928 14451 Horizon Blvd. El Paso, TX 79928 998 Peyton Rd A. El Paso, TX 79928

Mr. R Diaz De Leon

915-852-3917 915-852-6378

Mr. S Renteria

915-852-1007

46 Clint 9.85 Mr. El Paso. TX 79927 10601 N Loop Dr. El Paso. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Potential End Users: Clint Landfill Distance (miles) Potential End User Facility Name Lower Valley Water District Facility Physical Address 802 Peyton Rd. El Paso. H Sanchez 915-790-1113 Clint Clint 8.00 Jonathan Rogers WTP 9301 Billy the Kid St. TX 79927 12400 Rojas Dr Trlr.20 Mullen-Telles Inc SEAMLESS HOSPITAL PRODUCTS CO Claude's Sauces Inc PHELPS DODGE MAGNET WIRE Nichirin Coupler Tec USA Inc ISOMEDIX INCORPORATED International Paper Co Mr.11 Clint 9.APPENDIX B U. TX 79927 9600 Plaza Circle. TX 79936 Landfill Name Facility Contact Name Facility Contact Phone Clint 5. G Sanchez 915-859-5969 Clint 8.33 915-872-8791 Clint 8. TX 79928 9709 Alameda Ave. Parker 915-594-5752 . J Castaneda 915-858-4299 Mr. El Paso. TX 79927 12290 Rojas Dr. TX 79936 9541 Plaza Circle. El Paso. M. J Canales 915-851-3731 Clint 6.50 Clint Clint 9.54 9.S. TX 79927 212 S Nevarez Rd. El Paso. TX 79928 490 Passmore Rd.65 8. T Parsons 915-860-8484 Clint 9.63 935 Loma Verde Dr.81 Mr.16 Desert Rock Co Zinc Technologies Inc Alameda Truck Salvage EL PASO PVC Mr. El Paso. TX 79927 Mr. TX 79907 10000 Southside Rd.99 Canales Bakery Texas A & M University Mr. M Nagi 915-859-1199 Clint 10. A Duran 915-852-0046 Clint 5. R Carrera 915-858-8877 Mr.63 Mr. El Paso. El Paso. TX 79927 Mr. El Paso. El Paso.00 Clint 10. T Mullen 915-859-5767 Clint 9. El Paso.

15 5. TX 79924 435 Joy Rd.57 4.13 6. R Doyle Ms.55 7. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Potential End Users: McCombs Landfill Distance (miles) Landfill Name McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs 1. El Paso. Anthony.49 2. TX 79924 9650 Railroad Dr #C.96 5. TX 79904 Facility Contact Name Mr. D Covington Facility Contact Phone 915-821-2500 Javier Hernandez Mr. El Paso.46 5. El Paso. TX 79934 12001 Railroad Dr. El Paso. Anthony. Anthony. W Provenche r Ms. N Holguin Mr. NM 88021 9900 Railroad Dr. TX 79924 3800 Hondo Pass Dr. J Mc Vaugh 915. TX 79924 9652 Railroad Dr #C. El Paso.S. K Trujillo Mr.15 5. El Paso.594-5721 915-821-0099 505-882-3474 505-882-2212 McCombs McCombs 5. NM 88021 420 N.96 6. TX 79924 5529 Threadgill Ave. El Paso. El Paso. TX 79924 9651 Railroad Dr #C.43 3. NM 88021 1700 Ohara Rd.APPENDIX B U. K Trujillo Mr. El Paso. TX 79934 11700 Railroad Dr. R Kemp 505-882-6800 McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs McCombs 5. J Lomeli Mr. P Malchow Mr.99 3. El Paso.16 7.96 5. TX 79904 8817 Dyer St. J Carrica Mr. El Paso. M Hicks Mr.15 Potential End User Facility Name Newman Ashley's Dal-Tile Corporation Fred Hervey Water Reclamation Plant Best Friend District Anthony Sand & Gravel El Paso Electric Co Federal Correctional Institute Gadsen Educational Ctr Comm Joan Automotive Industries Delphi Automotive Systems Delphi Packard Electric Systs Packard Electric Flying Colors Learning Ctrs J & J Landscaping Inc Trinity Christian Lutheran Church Kaster-Maxon & Futrell Funeral Facility Physical Address 8000 Ashley Rd.15 5.71 915-755-8282 915-759-2500 915-759-2500 915-759-2500 915-751-8131 915-755-5022 915-755-7259 915-751-1287 . Main Anthony Dr. NM 88021 PO Box 1000. TX 79924 10410 Dyer St. A Toren Mr. El Paso. Anthony.15 915-886-3422 Mr. TX 79924 5211 Threadgill Ave.

area of collection system expansion = 60 acres (1400 x 1800) Horizontal orientation = N-S.200 $10.100.00 68.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2009 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.600. length = 1600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'). along with blower/flare station Initial system assumes horizontal wells installed at current elevation in 2009 Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset). flow meter) 5 Condensate Knockout 6 Blowers 7 Construction (assembly.017.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 62.400 20% of WORK 1.692 PROJECT TOTAL ASSUMPTIONS: Initial system will install header and horizontal wells on Cells 1-6.50 2.509.00 42.800 $12.700 $210.700 $1.00 108.500.800 $0 $14.880 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (15%) $1.220. waste depth = 90' $2.00 50.5 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 1.000 $101.500.280 $271.300 $43. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.700 $604. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 10% 14400 0 18 900 4200 1600 4200 4200 3.811.500 $25.500 $10.500 $62.00 1.000 $68.00 43.00 25.000.000. 1/vertical well Approx. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.00 42. electrical) 10% 1 1 1 1 2 1 of WORK EA EA EA EA EA LS 262.00 800.750.972 . 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.400 $29.900 Blower/Flare Station Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management 1 Services $1.00 $101. piping.50 20.000 $67.00 25.400.017.00 33.509.750.00 12.000 $50.00 $26. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Flare Unit (including piping and valving) 3 Flame Arrestor 4 Flare Skid (including control panel. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Re-conditioned flare unit Approx.00 2.800 $288.082. PLC.500 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal Blower/Flare Station 1 Bonds.00 $301.100.000.500 $70.

00 108.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2011 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.00 2. length = 1600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').00 $13.800.900.800 $0 $14.50 20. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.50 2.800 $14.000 $604.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 42.536 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $741. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.00 648.403 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion into second row of horizontal wells as Cells 1-6 achieve grade of 30' over previous wells Initial system assumes horizontal wells installed at current elevation in 2009 Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).900. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 14400 0 18 900 0 0 0 0 0.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 648.00 42.00 $726.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.00 800. 1/vertical well Approx.900 $726.067 PROJECT TOTAL $778.00 50.00 33.000. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter. waste depth = 90' .700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $64.400 $29.336 $37. area of collection system expansion = 60 acres (1400 x 1800) Horizontal orientation = N-S.800 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 726.

000 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 393. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.000 $99.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2013 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.100 $0 $218.50 2.000 $58. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter. waste depth = 90' .00 33.00 42.00 42.00 800.00 2.50 20. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 2025 30 3000 0 0 0 0 0.548 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 1-6 after final grade has been achieved Initial system assumes horizontal wells installed at current elevation in 2009 Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).700.200 $393. 1/vertical well Approx.950 $22.000. length = 1600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.598 PROJECT TOTAL $474.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 341.00 108.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 341.000.00 $393.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $34. area of collection system expansion = 60 acres (1400 x 1800) Horizontal orientation = N-S.00 50.700 $24.700.950 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $451.00 $17.

Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2014 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.00 $500.500. waste depth = 90' . length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').50 2.00 33.800 $226.00 42.900 $130.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.200.000.779 PROJECT TOTAL $604.2 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 435.00 108.500 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 500.500 $500.500 $43.00 435. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 5400 0 9 450 2600 0 2600 2600 2.075 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $575.00 2.354 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of loop header and installation of horizontal wells in cells 7-10 Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 42.00 50.200 $14.200. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 800. 1/vertical well Approx.800 $0 $7.500 $75. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.000 $0 $6.300 $43.500 $6.575 $28. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.50 20.00 $21. area of collection system expansion = 35 acres (900 x 1600) Horizontal orientation = E-W.

00 2.800 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 278.00 $5.900.200 $14.00 42.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2015 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.376 $14. waste depth = 90' .00 $278.00 33. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.900 $278. area of collection system expansion = 35 acres (900 x 1600) Horizontal orientation = E-W.00 248.800 $5. 1/vertical well Approx. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 248.00 800.50 2.800. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 5400 0 9 450 0 0 0 0 0.219 PROJECT TOTAL $298.576 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $284.00 108.900.50 20.595 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in cells 7-10 (second row) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 42.800 $0 $7. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.000.00 50.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24.000 $226.

waste depth = 90' .100 $0 $127.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.700 $14.00 800.00 $231.00 2.500. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.500.400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0. 1/vertical well Approx.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2017 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.00 108.400 $59.50 20.770 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $266.000. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.800 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 231.00 42.200 $231.329 PROJECT TOTAL $279.00 42.50 2.00 $10.570 $13. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (10") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (8") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 1182 18 1800 0 0 0 0 0.00 50.800.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.800 $34. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'). area of collection system expansion = 35 acres (900 x 1600) Horizontal orientation = E-W.899 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 7-10 after final grade has been achieved Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 201.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 201.00 33.

600 $11.00 50.000 $12.517 PROJECT TOTAL $955.000 $791. 1/vertical well Approx. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.857 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion into Phase II.000 $80.600.00 $66.000.00 659. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').50 20.00 800.00 33.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.000 $12.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 659. waste depth = 90' .600 $312.00 108.600 $118.340 $45.000 $50.000 $176.00 42.740 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $910.400 $0 $5.000 $66. Header piping to Cells 11-12 (includes piping across easement) and installation of horizontals Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset). 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.600.600 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 791.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2018 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.600. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (14") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 10% 4200 0 7 350 4800 1000 4800 4800 4.00 $791. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S.50 2.00 2. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 65.

5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2019 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.00 108.338 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $221.400 $216.238 $11.062 PROJECT TOTAL $232.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 193.00 42. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').300 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in Cells 11-12 (second row) (same year as next cell construction) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 50.600.600 $11.900 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 216. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.00 58. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 4200 0 7 350 0 0 0 0 0.600. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 2.900 $4.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.00 800.50 20. waste depth = 90' . 1/vertical well Approx. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.900 $176.00 193.00 $216.900. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.000.00 33.50 2.00 $3.400 $0 $5.

200 $24.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 800.00 50.50 2. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.130 $9.00 2.200.557 PROJECT TOTAL $200.200 $10.00 42.00 $166.000.00 108.50 20.00 58.200 $0 $91.00 144.687 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 11-12 after final grades have been achieved Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2020 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').00 33.00 $7.930 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $191.200 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 166.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 144. waste depth = 90' .900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 844 13 1300 0 0 0 0 0. 1/vertical well Approx.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.500 $166. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.500.400 $42.500.

Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 33.00 $18.100.600 $176.100.000.00 2.600 $92. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.50 2. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S. 1/vertical well Approx.3 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 371.361 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of header piping and horizontals into Cells 13-14.800 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 426. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.020 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $490.600 $11.00 108.50 20.820 $24.000 $26. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 4200 0 7 350 1600 1000 1600 1600 1.100 $426.00 58. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').00 371.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 $426.000 $4.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.800 $64.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2021 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. waste depth = 90' .00 800.800.000 $4.400 $0 $5.00 42.00 50.800 $50. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.700 $37. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.541 PROJECT TOTAL $515.

900.00 33.00 193.338 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $221.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.000.600 $11.00 108.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 193. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S.900 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 216.600.400 $216. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 4200 0 7 350 0 0 0 0 0.238 $11. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.300 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in Cells 13-14 (second row) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 2.900 $176.50 20. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 50.00 $3. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.50 2.600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19.00 58.00 800. waste depth = 90' .600.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2022 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.062 PROJECT TOTAL $232.900 $4.400 $0 $5. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers. 1/vertical well Approx.00 $216.00 42.

00 108.900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (800x1200) Horizontal orientation = N-S.00 800.00 2. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 144. length = 600' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').500.200 $0 $91. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 $166.00 50.00 $7.500 $166.000.200 $24.00 144.200 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 166. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 844 13 1300 0 0 0 0 0. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.930 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $191. waste depth = 90' .50 20.200.200 $10.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2023 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.00 42. 1/vertical well Approx.00 33.130 $9.500. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.50 2.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 58.400 $42.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.557 PROJECT TOTAL $200.687 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 13-14 after final grades have been achieved (same year as cell construction) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).

00 108.00 $252.800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.00 2.00 800.00 $4.000 $24.00 50.900 $5.000.856 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontals into Cells 15-16 (no need to expand header piping at this time) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset). length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 225.800.900.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.000 $0 $12. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2024 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.00 225.50 2.00 58.600 $252.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.800.898 PROJECT TOTAL $270. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S.058 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $257.958 $12.00 33. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.50 20.900 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 252. waste depth = 90' .500 $189.00 42. 1/vertical well Approx. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 4500 0 15 750 0 0 0 0 0. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.

0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 225.058 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $257.900 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 252.500 $189.50 20.900.900 $5.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.898 PROJECT TOTAL $270.00 $252.00 33. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.000.856 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in Cells 15-16 (second row) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).958 $12. length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').00 $4. waste depth = 90' .50 2.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2025 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.600 $252.800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22.000 $24. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 2% 4500 0 15 750 0 0 0 0 0. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.00 58. 1/vertical well Approx.00 2.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 50.000 $0 $12.800. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 225.00 42. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.800.00 800.00 108.

waste depth = 90' .687 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 15-16 after final grades have been achieved Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 800.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 144.200 $24.00 108.000.50 2.200 $10.200 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 166.500. 1/vertical well Approx. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.500 $166.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2026 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14.00 58.00 42.200.00 50.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 844 13 1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 $166.00 2.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.00 33.130 $9.00 $7. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S.00 144.50 20.200 $0 $91.500. length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').400 $42.930 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $191.557 PROJECT TOTAL $200. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.

900 $189.00 42. length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'). 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.00 33.000 $24.300 $43.335 $28. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.50 20.00 $502.800 $81.900 $75.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 2.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.50 2.900.900 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 502.00 50. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2027 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.000 $3.00 800. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1. waste depth = 90' . Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 4500 0 15 750 1400 2000 1400 1400 1.300.200 $100.2 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 437.700 $502.000 $0 $12. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.000.00 58. 1/vertical well Approx.917 PROJECT TOTAL $607.435 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $578.500 $3.00 $21.00 108.500 $23.300.252 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontals into Cells 17-18 and expansion of the header system Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 437.

Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost
El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion
Year 2028 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds, Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

2% 4500 0 15 750 0 0 0 0 0.0 10%

of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK

225,800.00 42.00 108.00 800.00 33.00 58.00 50.00 2.50 2.50 20,000.00 225,800.00

$4,500 $189,000 $0 $12,000 $24,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,600 $252,900

Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 252,900.00

$252,900

$5,058

PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%)

$257,958 $12,898

PROJECT TOTAL

$270,856

ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in Cells 17-18 (second row) (same year as cell construction) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset), 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth, 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter, single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1,200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers, low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S, length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'), 1/vertical well Approx. waste depth = 90'

Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost
El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion
Year 2029 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds, Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

5% 0 844 13 1300 0 0 0 0 0.0 10%

of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK

144,500.00 42.00 108.00 800.00 33.00 58.00 50.00 2.50 2.50 20,000.00 144,500.00

$7,200 $0 $91,200 $10,400 $42,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14,500 $166,200

Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 166,200.00

$166,200

$24,930

PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%)

$191,130 $9,557

PROJECT TOTAL

$200,687

ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 17-18 after final grades have been achieved Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset), 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth, 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter, single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1,200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers, low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S, length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'), 1/vertical well Approx. waste depth = 90'

Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost
El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion
Year 2030 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds, Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

2% 4500 0 15 750 0 0 0 0 0.0 10%

of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK

225,800.00 42.00 108.00 800.00 33.00 58.00 50.00 2.50 2.50 20,000.00 225,800.00

$4,500 $189,000 $0 $12,000 $24,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,600 $252,900

Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal

CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 2% of WORK 252,900.00

$252,900

$5,058

PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%)

$257,958 $12,898

PROJECT TOTAL

$270,856

ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontals into Cells 19-20 (no need to expand header piping at this time) Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset), 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth, 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter, single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1,200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers, low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S, length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'), 1/vertical well Approx. waste depth = 90'

00 50.200. waste depth = 90' .800 $162.200 $77.3 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 448.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2031 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.00 33.000 $24.000 $0 $12.50 20. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 4500 0 15 750 2800 0 2800 2800 2.00 2. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 $516.630 $29. length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000'). area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S.430 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $593.00 58.00 800.900.900.682 PROJECT TOTAL $623. 1/vertical well Approx. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.900 $516.00 108.50 2. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.000 $7.00 42.00 448.200 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 516. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.000 $46.000.400 $189.312 ASSUMPTIONS: Expansion of horizontal wells in Cells 19-20 (second row) and expansion of the header system Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 $22.700 $44.400 $0 $7.

687 ASSUMPTIONS: Vertical wells into Cells 19-20 after final grades have been achieved Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 33.00 $166.500.00 58. 1/vertical well Approx.500.00 2.500 $166.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 2284 Landfill Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation and Expansion Year 2032 ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.200 $10.00 800. waste depth = 90' . Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (12") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping (10") 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 844 13 1300 0 0 0 0 0.00 108.50 20.200.557 PROJECT TOTAL $200. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.000.00 $7.200 $0 $91. area of collection system expansion = 25 acres (400x2400) Horizontal orientation = N-S.5/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth.930 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $191. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.00 42. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 0.50 2.130 $9.900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $14.0 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 144. length = 300' Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').200 $24.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.00 50.200 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 166. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.00 144.400 $42.

2 10% of WORK LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LS of WORK 708. loop header.500 $103.400 $0 $15.00 800.175 PROJECT SUBTOTAL Contingency (5%) $936.500. wells. 6" diameter HDPE Lateral piping required at 100'/vertical wellhead and 50'/horizontal wellhead and will be below grade Header and/or subheader piping will loop the perimeter of the landfill and will be installed below grade Conceptual header sizing based on required gas flow and piping lengths Condensate sumps will be 36" diameter.00 108.500 $260.000 $115.50 20.509 ASSUMPTIONS: Optional collection of LFG from Clint 1482 North (Cells A & B). Horizontal wells at 150' lateral spacing and 30' vertical spacing (offset).00 $814.00 42.00 33. Mobilization and Insurance 2 Horizontal Gas Extraction Well Installation 3 Vertical Gas Extraction Well Installation 4 Wellhead Installation 5 HDPE Lateral Piping (6") 6 HDPE Header Piping (8") 7 HDPE Subheader Piping 8 HDPE Airline Piping (2") 9 HDPE Forcemain Piping (2") 10 Condensate Sumps (including pumps) 11 Miscellaneous Fittings QUANTITY UNIT ESTIMATED COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 5% 0 1575 35 3500 6200 0 6200 6200 5.300.300.50 2.000.500 $122. 1/vertical well Approx. waste depth = 60' .300 $70. area of collection system expansion = 35 acres Horizontal orientation = NA Wellheads = 2/horizontal well (if over 1000').00 2.Engineering Opinion of Probable Cost El Paso Clint 1482 North (Cells A & B) Capital Costs for Gas Collection System Installation Year 2009 (Optional Area) ITEM DESCRIPTION Construction Cost Estimate Landfill Gas Collection System 1 Bonds.500 $15. Includes header to get there.00 708.834 PROJECT TOTAL $983.500 Landfill Gas Collection System Subtotal CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL Engineering Fee Estimate 1 Engineering/Permitting/Construction Management Services 15% of WORK 814.400 $0 $170.675 $46. 8" diameter HDPE Vertical wells at 1/acre and average depth of 75% waste depth. and vert.00 $35.200' of header (average for in-waste perimeter headers.00 50. single containment with pneumatic pumps Condensate sumps required every 1.00 42.800 $814. low on slope) Airline and condensate forcemain piping will be buried in header trenches to service the condensate sumps Approx.100 $28.

629.Cash Flow Pro Forma El Paso LFG to Energy Project CAT 3516 Engine Scenario .744) $765.291 322 N 24.275) $0 ($725.184 ($2.093 $2.225 170.375 $3.750 $3.92 $144.500 $3.183.942 7.870.177.115.617 $1.433) ($1.701.625 $3.801 1.268 917.179) ($1.115) $0 ($33.837 4.249 $2.004 $11.124.093 $2.805 0 5 100% 1.770.Appendix D .764) ($1.900) $758.896 $119.100.923 $4.836 $383.001 36.564.737.879 175.385) ($873.317 79.888 826.05 $18.615) ($332.000.00 $5.729.749.475) ($45.214) ($18.393 9.312 $169.254.755 11.331.44 $499.853 30.055.972 12.374.278 $1.312 5.048 $1.297 $78.101. W.756.585) ($634.500 $16.968 2021 1.304 731.831) $0 ($21.539.409 7.0% 323 $0.209) ($375.303 $4.617 $1.293) ($86.636) $0 ($1.379 $168.495 $15.613 285 N 30.898 350.250 $3.526 $1.787.700 196.932) ($978.616) $0 ($760.601.714 $154.875 68.184 $2.560 3.140 $1.412) $1.00 $18.918 $343.93 $5.195) ($285.627 6.058) ($364.059 2.436 $71.039 $20.005 $445.853 2.000 5 (minimum 4) 2 Prepared by R.613 191 N 30.134) $0 ($25.432) ($18.034) $0 ($18.082.365.526 $1.000) ($2.976 2016 1.592 $1.535 $392.241 7.426.796 34.931 9.725. 1 of 5 8/13/2008 .152) ($123.672) ($27.375 $15.750 $338.026) ($121.010 ($265.613 97 N 30.892 $163.799.205 11.504 10.759) ($434.676) ($1.877 $881.939 4.429 $21.926 132.074 $1.985 3.044.453 $150.291.002 14.28 $60.119) ($1.271.375 $3.535) ($3.048) ($91.852) ($166.374) $0 ($22.037.374.101 5.092) $0 ($196.194 0 3 100% 968 226 N 18.708.857 $1.71 $4.089) $0 ($19.253 3.831) ($1.00 $136.18 $4.939 146.518) ($23.646) ($359.782) ($941.223) ($965.897) ($186.770.936 237 N 36.647) ($33.348 9.495 872.348.263 5.947 187.716) ($60.730 $726.375) ($82.992 2012 725 1 2 100% 645 79 N 12.85 $4.668) ($930.599) $0 ($409.048 $1.018 $716.062 161.665 2.291 222 N 24.791) ($745.53 $86.279.054) ($558.304 1 4 100% 1.500 $3. Inc.492.905.367 $410.918.70 $113.916 $125.625 $3.486 7.136 178.417) $0 ($562.238 681.066) ($2.448) $0 ($24.496 1.827 10.677 8.050.906 $4.124.399) ($279.249 $2.232 11.797 4.308) $0 ($30.Full Load (kW) Engine Capacity Factor Parasitic Loading Net Engine Power at Full Load (kW) CFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Loading Adjustment Factor AdjustedCFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Admin and O&M Cost ($/kW) .186 4.968 2018 1.276 $22.687) ($29.499.318 $116.475 36.014) ($576.708) ($344.326.500 $3.984 2013 846 0 2 100% 645 200 N 12.197 8.337) ($549.357 6.08 $5.005 $19.473 13.952 $4.454) ($35.859) ($248.410 0 4 100% 1.624.182 30.115.353 $100.857 $1.552) ($179.612 $726.898 0 5 100% 1.642.116.268 $2.744 2.803) ($516.207) $0 ($419.521.768) ($425.173 0 6 100% 1.082 0 6 100% 1.500 $318.902 $608.649 9.612) ($944.564.525.982 8.275) ($174.088) ($1.266) ($700.750 $3.300 $18.165 10.750 $3.464 221.655 $2.361 $1.887 213.737) ($399.123) ($2.040 $2.733 14.331 1.663 $2.047 7.253.876) ($28.602.925.853.660 18.036.180 $20.0135 $138.291 13 N 24.393) ($300.599 $2.527.993 $686.976 2017 1.157.346.125 $3.134 $10.546 6.396.590 $17.890) ($2.81 $139.537) ($470.930.996) ($155.405 $367.331.619 962.169 779.791) ($541.540.730 $731.125 $3.968 2019 1.663 $2.941) ($1.871 $2.871 $2.275 8.960 2024 1.749.771) ($531.664) ($395.129 6.353) ($619.249.51 $4.281) ($372.971 101.18 $39.651 $14.190) ($59.677.578.343) ($76.689. Beck.230) ($956.578) ($62.922 $142.489) ($206.599 $85.987.264 $1.921.568 7.905 $13.37 $234.000 24.475) ($107.172.301) ($1.674) $0 ($1.503 5.249.378 45.492.672 $996.447 12.652.23 $39.853 10.216 $343.247) ($708.973 2.952 $318.248.586 4.062) ($679.918 $327.375 522.952 2028 2.164.138.449) ($620.726 8.757 30.852 $353.945.797.622.362.952 2026 2.936 55 N 36.607.984 2014 965 0 2 100% 645 320 N 12.111) ($260.250 $3.98 $146.992 2011 603 0 1 100% 323 281 N 6.822) $0 ($1.315 204.978 $328.513 0 4 100% 1.280) ($429.332 4.287.31 $662.241.150.726) $0 ($778.838 $14.242 $517.288 2.983 $587.483 $1.256) ($32.647) ($338.354 0 6 100% 1.610 152.741) ($375.33 $61.972) ($18.606 16.074 $2.992 2010 481 0 1 100% 323 158 N 6.797 $23.458.842.882.106 $163.2009 Engine Maintenance Cost .837.850 ($614.611) ($78.972) ($7.757 10.266 $558.952 2027 2.675 $938.852.635) ($340.334 $199.630 1.414.655 $2.488 466.556) $0 ($31.064.745 6.106.386) ($809.937 $731.936 328 Y 36.099.527.687) $0 ($20.085) ($448.157 2.341 232.483.650) ($790.946 ($763.237) ($685.938.633.004) ($1.665) $0 ($181.416 630.050.960 2022 1.612 $686.095.06 $183.972) ($21.938 9.087) ($201.167 $13.992.613 0 4 100% 1.907.284 $773.338) ($942.930 10.750 $3.296 $8.693) $604.506) ($46.955 $1.032) ($47.716 1.331 6.799 $580.030 12.575) ($294.579 $16.392 $594.274 409.528) ($29.796) ($1.86 $142.463 8.054 $825.376 $285.327) ($19.659) ($18.350.741 90.991 1 6 100% 1.311 $92.936 146 N 36.500 $3.930 $139.567.624.564) ($959.Clint 2284 (Scenario 1A) Cash Flow Model Electricity Production LFG Flow Rate (cfm) Add Engines (Insert Number in Year) Total Number of Engines Average Utilization LFG Processed by Engines (cfm) LFG not Processed (cfm) Add Engine? kWh Generation Revenue Revenue from Sale of Electricity Total Revenue NPV of Revenue Expenses Collection System Capital O&M Total Collection System Costs NPV of Collection System Gas System Capital Admin and O&M Engine Maintenance Miscellaneous Total Gas System Costs NPV of Gas System Total Expenses Net Income (Expense) Net Income (Expense) Present Value Net Present Value Carbon Credits Total Annual Volume (cubic feet) Methane Volume (cubic meter) Mass (kg) Mass (metric tons) Mass (tons(US)) CO2 Equivalent (21 CH4/CO2)(metric tons) Price per Metric ton ($) Revenue Potential Present Value Net Present Value of Carbon Credits Renewable Energy Credits Total MWh Generated REC Sell Price (per MWh) REC Revenue Present Value Net Present Value of RECs Total NPV with Carbon Credits and RECs Inputs Mininum to operate at Full Load (Btu/min) Rated Engine Power .327 9.341.327) ($521.442) ($20.475 $167.377) ($1.23 $5.57 $553.908 36.38 $82.294) ($34.0% 760 293 10.432) ($816.990) ($203.653) ($14.346) ($386.499.127.249.469) ($2.672) $0 ($20.905.710 1 5 100% 1.420.951) $0 ($292.858) ($377.430) ($1.649 142.877.09 $18.383 8.125 $3.190 3.335 24.708 3.465.480) ($105.496) $220.521 $1.961) ($26.936 418 Y 36.856) ($74.692.883.704) ($177.850) $0 ($84.946.791 7.667 CAT 3516 800 CAT 3516 92% 5.948) ($1.960 2023 1.12 $4.365.602.602.837.625 $3.847 $17.103 6.930 $12.044.560 577.642.15 $5.832) ($24.279 12.984 2015 1.971 6.325) ($376.205.196.000) ($2.649.255.874) ($835.952 2025 2.361 $1.75 $137.397) $0 ($742.2009 Maintenance Interval (Yrs) Do Not Perform Maintenance in Last (X) Years 2009 363 1 1 100% 323 40 N 6.993 $327.115 15.958) ($1.499.050.124.887 1.392 12.472) ($350.770) ($19.150.937 $1.078 291.719.062) ($11.521 8.492.891.162.630) ($340.78 $4.172) ($4.335 3.749.218.775 5.562.852) ($732.644 $660.305 10.624.078 9.884) ($316.296 $133.670) ($2.749.541) ($1.094.925) ($76.48 $85.939 1.704 4.248 11.116 18.268 $2.349 56.157) ($1.968 2020 1.599 $2.720 $108.008.790.31 $4.545) ($604.59 $109.731) ($307.348.102 8.604 $4.750 $3.854 6.231.355.499.083) ($124.081 1 3 100% 968 113 N 18.147.730 36.536 24.996.505.485 $771.058 5.25 $4.958.749.362 5.250 $3.099.291 120 N 24.065 $157.705.911 112.570) $0 $0 ($20.936) ($25.069 8.407.171 4.773 24.383) ($1.960) ($27.64 $4.382) ($492.738 ($678.860) $0 ($23.264 0 6 100% 1.224 $4.64 $111.652.612) ($316.43 $84.035) ($3.128 36.584) $0 ($1.453 6.979 122.006.705.14 $38.562) ($680.

612) ($309.642.321 $2.18 $4.837.294) ($47.668 1 5 100% 1.597) $0 ($399.087) $0 ($29.440 $1.153 $544.655 $2.342 $246.646 $89.735 3.095 $1.138) $456.657 $2.123.090) ($809.021.275 619.184 16.178 8.002.282 0 6 100% 1.749.990) ($199.577) ($730.580.408) $0 ($20.716) $0 ($708.972 18.555) ($1.492) ($332.941 ($308.642.749.815 12.700 70.344) $0 ($20.110 0 6 100% 1.884) ($846.837.798 $1.627.00 $241.715 12.624.060.0% 760 293 10.661 $167.15 $5.075 1 3 100% 968 107 N 18.385 $25.894 12.133 157.339.845 361.103.845.152 9.545) ($1.007 8.214) ($29.Cash Flow Pro Forma El Paso LFG to Energy Project CAT 3516 Engine Scenario .202) $468.344) ($27.876 $851.047 15.819 $4.560) $0 ($1.353) ($2.936 87 N 36.485) ($524.016 570.566) $1.242.416.566) $0 ($279.749.249.766 198.739) ($300.667 CAT 3516 800 CAT 3516 92% 5.797 139.933 207.25 $4.068 9.602) ($521.866 11.224) $0 ($536.561.023 0 6 100% 1.770) ($31.291 189 N 24.909 36.496) ($192.936 431 Y 36.709 $3.506.838 $14.095 $1.097.308) $0 ($30.905 $1.788 5.168) $0 ($725.620.328 6.593 $2.316 10.250 $3.23 $59.968 2017 1.946) ($353.750 $3.151 $4.696 9.097.936 346 Y 36.007.483 148.586 10.871.518) ($1.298 3.382) ($930.845 $2.084.617 190.360) ($320.506) ($60.024.861.937 1 6 100% 1.915 $588.096 936.705.98 $146.529) $346.228 30.53 $108.244.981) ($386.75 $137.839 130.008 $74.140 $3.554) ($698.148 $1.791.877.088) ($712.817 6.697) ($5.167 120.518) ($612.612.606.857.497 $4.624.090.841) ($316.64 $133.710 761.419 $31.768.487.008) $0 ($173.875) ($163.640 4.620 5.250 $3.464.322 7.267.519.055) $0 ($742.674 18.2009 Engine Maintenance Cost .750 $3.315 $97.196 $781.625 $3.106 $135.761) ($12.220) $0 ($46.001 36.413 467.185) ($169.246.829 $425.294 16.013 10.293) ($310.289) ($183.900 8.480) $0 $0 ($23.675.248) ($1.642 7.760 0 5 100% 1.59 $109.183.849 0 5 100% 1.013 1.356.266.468 850.256) ($44.552) ($675.066.478) $0 ($1.477) ($5.489) ($206.375 $3.375 $3.964) ($389.113 223.499.179 0 3 100% 968 211 N 18.856) ($89.243.374.753.294 5.952 $631.093 $2.249.922 806.806 $886.154 $1.048) ($108.304 1.721.795.749.625 $22.291 91 N 24.205 12.374.148.367) ($549.469.957) $623.421) ($260.093 ($380.952 2023 2.068.570) ($1.936 1 N 36.058) ($23.681.302.048 $1.071) ($463.749.480 0 4 100% 1.301 $28.612 $1.500) ($1.951 $146.836.593 $2.33 $81.244 $288.166 $209.660 24.852 $1.032) ($61.750 $3.296 $8.475) ($21.672) $0 ($25.253.343.204.022.582 13.350.18 $58.81 $139.216 101.280) ($533.837 $655.481) ($28.05 $37.748.616) ($883.853 36.436.289 $4.602) ($30.857 $1.858 10.884 5.646) ($2.958) ($1.31 $4.134 $10.455.753 4.429 $21.905 $1.608 $639.442) ($32.371.876) ($911.477) ($3.357 3.196 0 6 100% 1.952 2028 2.276 $22.500 $3.759) ($605.657 $1.216) ($6.020.905 $13.23 $5.696.224 $20. Inc.852) $0 ($24.93 $5.010 3.578) ($77.37 $333.283 $115.684) $682.905.905.310 7.386) ($809.872) ($25.599 $2.965 $375.866) ($685.184) ($29.787 2.00 $5.667 24.498) $631.650 12.050.976 2015 1.459 10.500 $3.908 $994.108.611) ($94.302 8.330) $0 ($760.14 $38.276 14.64 $4.007 $1.984 2011 859 0 2 100% 645 214 N 12.297 165.342.499.613 236 N 30.857 $1.325 7.156.282 0 3 100% 968 314 N 18.642.78 $4.257 8.492.628 11.38 $82.750 $3.357.240.527.507 $679.589.Clint 2284 and 1482 North (Scenario 1B) Cash Flow Model Electricity Production LFG Flow Rate (cfm) Add Engines (Insert Number in Year) Total Number of Engines Average Utilization LFG Processed by Engines (cfm) LFG not Processed (cfm) Add Engine? kWh Generation Revenue Revenue from Sale of Electricity Total Revenue NPV of Revenue Expenses Collection System Capital O&M Total Collection System Costs NPV of Collection System Gas System Capital Admin and O&M Engine Maintenance Miscellaneous Total Gas System Costs NPV of Gas System Total Expenses Net Income (Expense) Net Income (Expense) Present Value Net Present Value Carbon Credits Total Annual Volume (cubic feet) Methane Volume (cubic meter) Mass (kg) Mass (metric tons) Mass (tons(US)) CO2 Equivalent (21 CH4/CO2)(metric tons) Price per Metric ton ($) Revenue Potential Present Value Net Present Value of Carbon Credits Renewable Energy Credits Total MWh Generated REC Sell Price (per MWh) REC Revenue Present Value Net Present Value of RECs Total NPV with Carbon Credits and RECs Inputs Mininum to operate at Full Load (Btu/min) Rated Engine Power .093 $2.043) ($46.084 9.019 2.797 $23.204 6.952 2027 2.536 $4.251 4.517 $125.815.Full Load (kW) Engine Capacity Factor Parasitic Loading Net Engine Power at Full Load (kW) CFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Loading Adjustment Factor AdjustedCFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Admin and O&M Cost ($/kW) .689 36.963 978.436 $219.725.353.040.817) $0 ($778.099) $0 ($30.198.039 $20.500 $3.750 $3.00 $36.987 $686.473 9.158 8.092) ($590.961) ($562.955.428.156 12.612 $686.828) ($177.473.968 2018 1.184 ($3.242 ($384.050.624.698.438.12 $4.081 $389.045) ($1.688 1.859) ($425.321 $2.002.475 36.585) ($27.725) $1.449) ($158.617 $1.374.480) ($189.040.801 $16.976 2016 1.377) ($1.773 30.119.250 $3.984 2012 968 0 2 100% 645 322 N 12.527.015 215.000) ($3.319 111.936 260 N 36.249 $2.776.116.501) ($389.399.633) $0 ($1.570) ($272.411) ($2.912 4.645) ($1.663 $2.881) ($28.463 $939.859 $207.264 $19.960 2020 1.242 7.317) ($1.528) ($29.960 2022 1.044.625 $3.879) $0 ($691.094.328) $0 ($169.650) ($790.573) ($294.487.433) $0 ($26.613 55 N 30.089 18.117 $1.342 80.952 2024 2.346 182.705.940.061.742) $0 ($29.580.08 $5.519.497 3.759) ($189.532 $430.2009 Maintenance Interval (Yrs) Do Not Perform Maintenance in Last (X) Years 2009 640 2 2 99% 640 0 N 12.492.490 7.860.551) ($651.059 7.624 ($13.024.030) $0 ($409.249 $2.655 $2.226.960 2021 1.032 $528.739 $381.659 668.452 0 6 100% 1.219 $216.28 $60.223) ($759.652 5.837 $687.770.957 894.996) ($390.836) ($24.729 1.614 15.148) ($48.291 285 N 24.004 $11.835 6.050.280) ($385.099 $198.870 11.625 $3.094) ($349.380) ($1.691) ($279.486 8.857 4.269) ($229.663 $2.871 3.987 91.000 5 (minimum 4) 2 Prepared by R.770.184 $2.809) ($746.882) ($485.44 $578.448) ($170.525) ($1.475) ($58.576 0 4 100% 1.903 174.92 $144.147 $479.510 $106.732 5.139 ($234.952 2026 2.669 $410.197 7.886) $0 ($20.599 $2.167.189.107) ($680.984 2013 1.039 11.708 9.204 8.749.653.51 $4.968 2019 1.253.936 516 Y 36.634 519.777.746 9.293.018 9.142 $213.873 10.0% 323 $0.669.040) ($392.86 $142.080 715.825 5.803) ($2.184) ($816.70 $135.327.976 2014 1.336) ($553.462) ($285.703 $833.570) ($2.490.179) ($424.650) ($395.900.747) $0 $0 ($21.354.291 $4.375.325.090.500) ($3.730 36.276 $404.185 231.092 9.048 $1.073 7.948) ($1.043) ($338.748) ($22.148 $1.57 $628.672) ($1.144.344 4.499.298. 2 of 5 8/13/2008 .147 1.905 $156.85 $4.530) ($344.367 0 6 100% 1.508 $29.555 $82.701 2010 748 0 2 100% 645 102 N 12.750 $3.043) ($1.243 10.573 $26.972) ($194. W.073.31 $730.626 10.936 174 N 36.454.955.546.185.491 $687.669 309.174.055) ($1.382 1 4 100% 1.343. Beck.71 $4.422 415.708.48 $106.313.231.264 $631.536 24.624 ($26.09 $37.269 $581.128 36.465.952 2025 2.06 $286.425 $1.493 $439.400 $189.278 $1.139.780.249.964 12.698) ($227.442 10.946 ($932.856.981) ($8.044.750 $3.134 6.890 $1.230) ($754.941) ($1.43 $84.215 6.523 4.261.0135 $138.810.265) ($354.607.375 $3.781.190) ($73.613 146 N 30.824) ($219.847 $17.987 $655.989 6.318 5.617 $1.343) ($92.880 13.794 $18.393.439 $218.824.716) ($75.932) ($978.918 30.337 $178.749.165 60.939 146.845 $2.556) $0 ($31.861 $24.275) ($1.Appendix D .291 11.

875 $3.33 $61.506) ($46.562.115.942 7.458) ($184.700) ($1.272) ($113.689.780) $0 ($952.475) ($45.968 2021 1.331.2009 Engine Maintenance Cost .842.625 $3.973 11.521 8.726 $3.242 $517.464 221.205 11.627 6.947) ($301.412) $0 ($22.875 $4.772 0 $3.327 9.098 6.960 2024 1.622.005 $445.197 0 6.874.115.742 $765.164.946 $432.049.362 5.129) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($2.996) $0 ($23.612) ($116.170 42.224.749.593 18.047 7.152 $6.416 $157.500 $3.528) ($29.044.018 $716.006) ($416.944 2033 2.059 8.282 6.93 $5.499.870 $5.623 0 7 100% 2.502.403.888 826.649 9.483 $780.354 0 7 100% 2.212) ($1.259 6 N 42.876) ($28.773 24.547) ($4.838 $8.750 $3.268 917.838 $14.366 $1.301) ($1.554.050.480.495 $15.04 $173.619 962.383 8.291 322 N 24.546 16.853 5.922 $1.606 1.875 $4.601.098 18.372.43 $84.169 779.827 1.939 1.905 $13.526 $1.31 $5.353 $100.106.770.858) ($377.625 $3.138.223) ($777.877 $881.649.739 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($6.12 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4.374.307 $402.094.157) ($1.731) ($307.262 248.134 $1.115) $0 ($33.875 $4.879) ($460.194 0 3 100% 968 226 N 18.315) $0 ($31.874.797 $23.069 630.822 1.92 $168.637.078 9.179) ($316.602.655 $2.241.489) ($206.741) ($187.719 $692.655 $2.632) ($3.493.009) ($1.296 $133.491) ($94.38 $82.701) ($1.987 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4.190) ($59.906 112.218.283) ($2.371 11. Beck.153.757 30.960 2022 1.268 $2.10 $175.982 8.023 $3.230) ($754.006.00 $0 $0 $2.331 0 4.014) ($576.830 $728.931 9.550) ($384.094.624.710.39 $5.291.463 8.311 $92.961) ($26.238 681.475 42.836) ($27.552) $0 $0 ($25.870.389.944 2030 2.979 0 90.044.980 $149.291 222 N 24.871 $2.224.875 $3.665 5.613 97 N 30.521.436 $71.942 $3.834 $1.271.874.475 $2.348 9.241 7.279 12.874.361 $1.602.875 $4.353) ($969.816 42.768) ($425.355.884) ($316.938.275.660 18.169) $0 ($1.259 364 Y 42.972.386) ($939.172.750 $3.700 196.944 2029 2.613 285 N 30.196) $0 ($725.047 $3.554.599 $3.475 $167.527.554.545) ($604.050.81 $139.957) ($1.002 14.400.082 $839.677.726.583) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($13.055.883.256) ($32.898 17.585) ($455.705.505.652.755 11.891.535 12.525.037 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4.638 0 7 100% 2.513 0 4 100% 1.304 731.705.317 $3.592 $1.807) ($25.033.31 $4.004 $11.820 $1.881) ($27.500 $3.030) ($32.375 522.429 42.349 5.259 379 Y 42.248.088.710 1 5 100% 1.375 $3.441 $1.679 $10.00 $0 $0 $256.942 $3.936 237 N 36.00 $5.971 101.259 274 N 42.910) ($985.635) ($340.996 2015 1.026.85 $4.64 $111.950.400) $0 ($908.448) $0 ($24.116.599 $85.871) $1.527.987.278 $1.15 $5.756.318 $116.0% 323 $0.297 $78.010 ($658.852) ($732.675 $938.737) ($292.625 $3.48 $85.672 $478.472) ($1.852.641.857 $1.944 2032 2.536 24.259 95 N 42.611) ($78.393) ($300.723.874.945.770.337) ($1.672) $0 ($35.389.874.900.330 $55.499.276 $22.102 8.054 142.074 $2.156 $11.316.410 0 4 100% 1.715.304 1 4 100% 1.70 $113.032) ($47.542) ($124.968 2020 1.233.165 10.Appendix D .526 $1.414.948) ($1.968 2018 1.930 10.579 $16.527.451 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1.610 152.617 $1.853.740.871 $2.193) ($7.642.050.617 $1.296) ($232.652.448 $254.305 10.036.000 $142.72 $662.000 24.946 ($596.774 11.055) ($686.092) $0 ($590.730 36.64 $4.399) ($279.174.16 $178.75 $137.849.331 1.335 24.606 16.801 1.198 $25.417) $0 ($562.241.533 0 7 100% 2.945.348.087) $0 ($29.294) ($34.Clint 2284 with 5-Year Delay (Scenario 1C) Cash Flow Model Electricity Production LFG Flow Rate (cfm) Add Engines (Insert Number in Year) Total Number of Engines Average Utilization LFG Processed by Engines (cfm) LFG not Processed (cfm) Add Engine? kWh Generation Revenue Revenue from Sale of Electricity Total Revenue NPV of Revenue Expenses Collection System Capital O&M Total Collection System Costs NPV of Collection System Gas System Capital Admin and O&M Engine Maintenance Miscellaneous Total Gas System Costs NPV of Gas System Total Expenses Net Income (Expense) Net Income (Expense) Present Value Net Present Value Carbon Credits Total Annual Volume (cubic feet) Methane Volume (cubic meter) Mass (kg) Mass (metric tons) Mass (tons(US)) CO2 Equivalent (21 CH4/CO2)(metric tons) Price per Metric ton ($) Revenue Potential Present Value Net Present Value of Carbon Credits Renewable Energy Credits Total MWh Generated REC Sell Price (per MWh) REC Revenue Present Value Net Present Value of RECs Total NPV with Carbon Credits and RECs Inputs Mininum to operate at Full Load (Btu/min) Rated Engine Power .874.420.795) ($344.371.63 $5.475 $7.55 $5.210) ($1.260.346) ($386.44 $4.968 2019 1.085) ($448.482 11.259 186 N 42.988) $0 ($285.268 $2.816.766.842 7.503 8.328 42.317) ($1.944 $0 $0 $21.750 $3.703) $0 ($34.023 $3.275.649.782) ($762.78 $4.204.470.18 $0 $0 0 466.831) ($1.803) ($516.856) ($74.745 10.568 10.058 0 4.930.281) ($372.560 $163.624.232 11.278) ($111.952 2025 2.720 $108.726 $3.726 8.136 178.049.642.504 10.853 30.506 $2.853 10.850) ($322.124 42.952 $4.050.453 $150.624.249 $2.536) ($2.409 7.733 14.592.695) ($96.065 $0 $169.134 $48.429 238.325) ($376.801 247.199) $0 $0 $1.612) ($24.800) $0 ($1.048 $1. W.506 $2.205.567.150.612) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($4.139) ($1.946.875 $4.347) ($1.483 $1.361 $1.816.495 872.529) ($20.564.952 2027 2.799 $580.944 1.25 $4.852.435) ($1.058.650) ($2.331.497) ($445.902 $608.688 $4.979 13.05 $0 $0 0 $3.417 $1.649 12.362.485 $771.499.236.672 $996.667 CAT 3516 800 CAT 3516 92% 5.320 $3.843.663 $2.180 $20.546) $0 ($1.925) ($76.737.639.377) ($1.23 $181.265.492.604 122.621) ($350.375 $3.315 204.518) ($4.0% 760 293 10.150.551) $0 ($930.240.937.381 $3.955 ($465.749.123) ($2.898 0 5 100% 1.001 36.374 11.362) $0 ($1.539 $467.854 6. Inc.857 $1.225 170.664 $3.710) $0 ($742.444 0 7 100% 2.976 2017 1.971 $65.304) $0 ($975.664 $3.525) ($2.305.599 $2.860) ($399.663 $2.054 $825.135 $1.151) $0 ($116.957 $60.887 213.586 146.299) ($1.23 $5.350.111) ($260.578) ($62.976 2016 1.473 13.14 $0 $0 0 $3.938 9.09 $0 $0 0 $3.852) $0 $0 ($23.638 0 7 100% 2.532) ($944.558.026) ($211.115 15.492.161.309.613 191 N 30.484) ($30.716) ($60.2009 Maintenance Interval (Yrs) Do Not Perform Maintenance in Last (X) Years 2009 0 2010 0 2011 0 2012 0 2013 0 2014 965 3 3 100% 965 0 N 18.726.Cash Flow Pro Forma El Paso LFG to Energy Project CAT 3516 Engine Scenario .57 $0 $392.465.847 $17.197) $1.488) ($346.492.540 17.463 $1.264 1 7 100% 2.182 30.291 13 N 24.983 $587.647) ($338.280) ($429.008.47 $5.332 4.058) ($309.071 1.104 $3.259 379 Y 42.282 11.646) ($359.598) ($1.606 10.165.263) ($278.759) ($434.616.53 $86.774.239 $9.921.471) ($887.714 $499.101.996.805 0 5 100% 1.247) ($708.602.916 $125.000 5 (minimum 4) 2 Prepared by R.209) ($375.500 $3.300 $18.268.564.177.29 $183.947 187.936 146 N 36.381 $3.441 $1.616) ($1.197 0 $3.986 $1.074 $1.237) ($685.729.099.396.309.936 55 N 36.760.470.262) ($541.241.791 7.688 248.301 $692.099.892 $553.486 7.537) ($470.59 $109.048 $1.048) ($91.701.266) ($2.062 161.575) ($294. 3 of 5 8/13/2008 .207) $0 ($419.554.944 2031 2.453 6.320 $3.911 6.343) ($76.900) $946.613 0 4 100% 1.301.639.119) ($2.437) $0 ($32.101 5.51 $4.469) ($3.248 11.790.509) ($1.664) ($395.204 42.095 12.799 11.082 0 6 100% 1.393 9.757 10.37 $4.775 5.925.749.173 0 6 100% 1.942 $43.312 0 4.677 8.767) $0 ($409.693) $254.Full Load (kW) Engine Capacity Factor Parasitic Loading Net Engine Power at Full Load (kW) CFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Loading Adjustment Factor AdjustedCFM Capacity of Engine (Full Load) Admin and O&M Cost ($/kW) .454) ($35.960 2023 1.181.496 1.030 12.487 ($678.944 2028 2.081 0 3 100% 968 113 N 18.183.597 18.136.309.991 1 6 100% 1.022.331.499.954 $646.422.06 $0 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $4.23 $59.054 13.249 $2.28 $60.094.275 8.908 36.932.842.348.039 $20.923 230.013) $0 ($998.842 11.500 $3.71 $4.952 2026 2.842.530) ($33.86 $142.926 132.167 $13.18 $0 $0 18.374.291 120 N 24.08 $5.456.630) ($340.775.104 $0 $0 $0 ($6.337) ($549.275) ($524.369) $358.647) ($33.115) ($887.668) ($930.939 4.98 $170.704 577.0135 $138.932) ($978.

461) ($349.362 5.811 $646.668) ($930.938 9.770) ($19.982 132.691 $708.93 $5.393 9.353 $100. Beck.44 $4.582) ($85.995 2024 1.218.191) $0 ($18.000.541) ($3.892 $553.383) ($333.000 cfm Cost of Power ($/kWh) 2009 Pipeline O&M Cost per Mile of Pipeline 2009 Cost of Dehydration/Blower per 1.741 90.275) ($733.646) ($303.919) ($147.737.23 $5.103) ($137.088) $0 $0 ($157.930 10.332 4.78 $4.252 $613.082.708) ($344.315 204.988) ($54.000) ($750. 4 of 5 8/13/2008 .835) ($69.317 79.136 178.094.050.346 $646.872) ($286.357 6.535 $634.877 $881.475 $167.920 92% 33% 957 223.942 7.111.995 2018 1.607.226.303 $4.601.831) ($1.25 $4.367 $616.733 14.656) ($196.775 5.630 2.647) ($33.852.521.708 3.268 917.219) ($8.238 4.979 7.958) ($74.322 $6.709.716 2.85 $4.562 $410.791 7.291.000) ($4.520) ($110.047 6.000) ($105.803) ($516.649 161.569) ($143.106 $163.06 $136.194 957 1 0 1 82.266) ($700.164.453 56.054 $825.691 $250.747) ($75.377) ($34.412.891.446) ($318.500 $750.853.350.914) $0 $0 ($139.212) ($691.343) ($76.811 $634.157 1.627 2.816) ($51.652.428) ($383.307) ($59.629 $506.604 122.801.101 5.429) ($276.253 3.424) $0 $0 ($133.000 4 Prepared by R.976) ($289.774) ($169.458) ($158.845 2013 846 846 1 0 1 73.579) ($36.874) ($707.939 4.248.464) ($413.869) ($6.649 2.898 350.875 68.704 577.194 $613.150) $0 $0 ($164.274 409.585) $0 $0 ($123.376 $285.660) 175.560 $163.874) ($835.897) ($325.254.906 112.627) ($180.241 6.030) ($310.085) ($448.184) ($63.348.925.331 1.006.082.858) ($377.720 $108.968) $0 $0 ($110.032) ($47.536) ($287.757 10.546 7.296 $133.331.928) ($770.294) ($35.837 4.912) ($165.362) ($375.850) $0 $0 ($107.629 $410.725 $623.888 $649.059 8.635) ($340.304) ($8.318 $116.436 $71.432) ($18.952 142.674) $0 $0 ($146.995 2021 1.476) ($52.116.297 $78.801 1.670) ($673.725 $606.312 $169.312 10.539.209) ($375.562) ($117.166 $729.849) ($1.144) ($36.562) ($680.995 2028 2.971 $50 14 73.101.796 2.100) ($113.432) ($816.610 152.190 3.298) ($140.596) $0 $0 ($160.613 957 1 0 1 82.639) ($36.171 4.990 $250.115 15.701.237) ($685.969) ($61.485 $150.495 872.483 2010 481 481 1 0 1 41.575) ($294.544.578) ($62.327 9.264 957 1 0 1 82.8 $0.063) ($929.883.852) ($732.427) ($82.058 6.078 9.861) ($154.455) ($71.64 $4.172.365.100.845) ($76.630) ($340.239) 291.043) $0 $0 ($129.995 2020 1.714 $499.562 $322.647) ($338.842.854 2.005 $445.401) $0 $0 ($126.488 466.613) ($551.973 1.625) ($403.810.00 $4.848) ($66.984) ($133.797. W.520 $616.995 2026 2.248 6.252 $506.048) ($91.674 2011 603 603 1 0 1 52.947 187.691 $729.560 2.327) ($521.506) ($46.535 $623.754) ($344.367 $631.15 $5.729) ($6.241.602.349) ($150.000) ($108.995 2027 2.106.503 8.463 8.744 232.888 $650.700 196.396.795 $649.708.716) ($60.476) ($64.018 $716.157) ($1.000) ($703.060 $7.483 $1.382) ($1.790.263 5.675 $938.066) $0 $0 ($121.780) $0 $0 ($136.995 2015 1.026) ($476.331.348 9.030 12.349 5.974) $0 $0 ($118.451) ($41.629.870.957 $683.562.756.189) ($14.065 $662.278 $1.162) ($73.442) ($20.300) ($68.537) ($470.611) ($78.649.696.205 11.930.358) ($997.253.629) ($301.173 957 1 0 1 82.731) ($307.672 $996.233) ($897.797 4.245) ($22.972) ($7.904) ($341.825) ($78.304 957 1 0 1 82.305 10.745 7.190) ($59.102 8.076 $631.513 957 1 0 1 82.000) ($2.939 1.383 8.985 3.342) $0 $0 ($153.141) ($161.407.379 $168.331 6.062 $4.677 8.504 10.111) ($260.995 2019 1.506 $683.492.856) ($74.225 170.827 11.699) $305.957) $0 $0 ($115.199) ($53.887 213.412) ($830.005) ($1.938.945.535 $392.138.082 957 1 0 1 82.931 9.454) ($372.354 957 1 0 1 82.922 $125.405 ($324.232 11.750 $338.911 6.787.081 957 1 0 1 82.288 1.31 $771.755 11.697) ($26.487 $206.311 $92.719.762) ($59.995 2025 2.000 cfm Do Not Install Dehydration/Blower in Last (X) Years 2009 363 363 1 1 1 31.916 826.599 $85.995 2016 1.506 $658.972) ($18.325) ($376.790) ($29.346 $650.416 $157.002 14.971 101.127.322 $204.475) ($45.040 $139.37 $4.483.169 779.075) ($384.31 $4.768) ($425.382) ($200.762) $0 $0 ($142.378 34.295) ($296.194.327) ($19.930 $119.995 2023 1.990 $322.768) ($57.710 957 1 0 1 82.078 $2.335 3.410 957 1 0 1 82.197 731.678) ($648.592 $1.166 ($2.766 ($40.916 $643.995 2017 1.946.279 12.183.056) ($358.304 $142.Appendix D .888 9.937) ($130.076 $643.346) ($386.690) ($366.586 4.902 $154.220) $0 $0 ($149.224 45.12 $4.348.219) ($50.464 221.287.094) $0 $0 ($112.00 $5.962) ($127.884) ($316.471) ($680.520 $606.926 $4.958.689.319 2012 725 725 1 0 1 62.695) ($855.568 8.791) ($541.829) ($393.957 $708.532) ($681.496 1.275 8.057) ($124.341 ($6.115) $0 ($33.Cash Flow Pro Forma El Paso LFG to Energy Project Medium Btu Pipeline Scenario (Scenario 2) Cash Flow Model Electricity Production LFG Flow Rate (cfm) LFG Sold to User (cfm) Maximum Number of Dehydration/Blower Units (1 per 1.923 $4.795 $638.281) ($1.622.57 $4.878) ($1.465.177.743) ($116.673 $89.18 $4.679) ($824.567.000 cfm) Dehydration/Blower Unit Added Total Dehydration/Blower Units Installed MMBtu of LFG Sold per Year Revenue Revenue from Sale of Gas Total Revenue NPV of Revenue Expenses Collection System Capital O&M Total Collection System Costs NPV of Collection System Gas Pipeline Pipeline Capital Dehydration/Blower Capital Pipeline O&M Dehydration/Blower Energy Costs Dehydration/Blower O&M Total Gas System Costs NPV of Gas System Total Expenses Net Income (Expense) Net Income (Expense) Present Value Net Present Value Carbon Credits Total Annual Volume (cubic feet) Methane Volume (cubic meter) Mass (kg) Mass (metric tons) Mass (tons(US)) CO2 Equivalent (21 CH4/CO2)(metric tons) Price per Metric ton ($) Revenue Potential Present Value Net Present Value of Carbon Credits Total NPV with Carbon Credits Inputs Cost per linear foot of pipeline Length of Pipeline (mi) Linear feet of Pipeline Gas System Up Time Pipeline availability adjustment Maximum Flow Rate of User (cfm) Power Requirement of Pipeline System (kW) per 1.219) ($121.722) ($254.768) ($86.896 $183.449) ($118.844) ($56.987.679.71 $608.853 10.194 $638.248) ($76.375 522.055.458) ($278.521 8.271.995 2022 1.853 5.453 681.409 7.165 10.069 630.256) ($32.089) $0 ($19.916 $658.913) ($6.664) ($395.393) ($300.605.991 957 1 0 1 82.473 13.243) ($252.665 5.921.08 $5.687) ($282.946) ($25.186 4.829) ($60. Inc.887 3.995 $204.200) ($269.51 $234.805 957 1 0 1 82.008.057) ($39.677.898 957 1 0 1 82.214) ($18.353 2014 965 957 1 0 1 82.164) $108.978) ($33.362.606 16.399) ($279.486 7.036.726 8.505.157.619 962.540) ($788.

500.592 $1.227.528) ($1.271 $2.386) ($1.973 2021 1.363) ($1.151.232 11.873.505.494.979 $1.950.183 2011 603 302 1 0 1 145.385 $249.263 5.050.006.930 $139.733 2020 1.379 $168.096) ($2.824) ($1.442) ($20.987.677) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($1.610 152.931 $4.611) ($78.082.177 3 0 2 483.000.520 $2.144) ($2.700 196.268 917.852.248.704 4.218 $269.665 2.504 10.362 5.407.500.834 $531.259) ($1.101 5.734.305 10.733 14.560 577.836.030 12.106 $163. W.710 855 2 0 2 413.777) ($512.281) ($372.486 7.803) ($516.144.407 $3.785 $1.945.755 11.946) ($763.261.624 $16.209) $0 ($619.087 3 0 2 483.194 597 2 0 2 288.167 $279.858) ($377.000) ($373.096) ($2.984.454) ($35.129.657.278 $1.708 3.256) ($32.289 $2.883.186 4.404.602.688) ($1.240.311 $92.913.946.489) $0 ($2.489.842.787.341 ($153.332 4.757.78 $4.301 2015 1.699 $3.652.850) $0 ($493.554.898 350.Medium O&M) Cash Flow Model Electricity Production LFG Flow Rate (cfm) High Btu Gas Sold to User (cfm) Maximum Number of Plant Stages (1 per 1.629.432) ($816.248.712.952 $4.314 $2.464 221.304 731.488 466.750 $338.238 681.102 8.331.350.853 10.102) ($1.930 10.375 522.824) ($1.649.279 12.055.714 $154.931 9.902 $608.157.040 $2.730 $899.237) ($685.775 5.552 2027 2.18 $4.266) ($700.853 2.236) ($4.571.521 8.311.115 $307.346) ($386.777) ($493.817) ($1.930.00 $136.224 $4.348. Beck.630) ($340.060 $3.096) ($3.481 $153.164.00 $5.647) ($33.041 3 0 2 483.916 $125.019) ($1.183.011.021.327 9.891.388) 232.947 187.827 10.831) ($1.229.575) ($294.050 $966.972) ($18.522 $154.002 14.984.619 962.994) $0 ($744.552 2028 2.621 $266.386) ($1.649 9.157 2.358.705 $2.304) $0 ($991.078 9.134) ($1.797.312 $169.852) ($732.544 $3.363) ($1.000 cfm) Plant Stage Added Total Plant Stages Installed MMBtu Sold per Year Revenue Revenue from Sale of Gas Total Revenue NPV of Revenue Expenses Collection System Capital O&M Total Collection System Costs NPV of Collection System Processing Plant Capital O&M Total Gas System Costs NPV of Gas System Total Expenses Net Income (Expense) Net Income (Expense) Present Value Net Present Value Carbon Credits Total Annual Volume (cubic feet) Methane Volume (cubic meter) Mass (kg) Mass (metric tons) Mass (tons(US)) CO2 Equivalent (21 CH4/CO2)(metric tons) Price per Metric ton ($) Revenue Potential Present Value Net Present Value of Carbon Credits Total NPV with Carbon Credits Inputs Gas System Up Time Plant availability adjustment Cost of Power ($/kWh) 2009 Cost of Processing Plant per 1.210.647) ($338. 5 of 5 8/13/2008 .713) ($3.411.942 7.604 $4.000.319) $0 $0 ($1.500 2014 965 482 1 0 1 233.562) ($680.791 7.614) ($1.040 $4.263 $899.805 902 2 0 2 436.248.898 949 2 0 2 458.864) $0 ($2.539.739 $3.908 $1.926 132.85 $4.744 2.157) ($1.624 $569.409 7.407 $3.860 2012 725 362 1 0 1 175.537) ($470.259) ($1.331.757 10.781 2017 1.055.965 2019 1.416) ($2.535 $392.165 $1.319) ($991.377) ($1.290.399) ($279.796 34.054 $825.993.923 $4.930.552 2026 2.101.410.115 15.726 8.64 $4.248 11.055.132 3 0 2 483.271 $2.303 $4.973.045.888 826.094.315 204.120 $681 $423 $31.331 ($2.884) ($316.31 $4.728) $187.172.000 4 $4.138.503 5.000 cfm LFG .976 ($555.568 7.040 $4.757.734.111) ($260.716) ($60.627 6.483 $1.165 10.022) ($14.677 8.676.036.951 $1.973 2.646 $3.481) $0 ($2.266 $699.546 6.244.410 705 2 0 2 340.331 1.483.770 2010 481 240 1 0 1 116. Inc.096) ($2.25 $4.063.136 178.931 $3.553.985 3.870.489.599 $85.089) $0 ($19.449.887 213.741 90.327) ($521.939 1.331 $4.126) ($869.655) ($2.351 $1.387) ($1.716) ($1.768) ($425.51 $4.513 756 2 0 2 365.261.745 6.345 2016 1.253.44 $499.323 $466.453 $150.528) $380.922 $142.921 2024 1.416 630.436 $71.055.218.Additional Do Not Install Dehydration/Blower in Last (X) Years O&M per MMBtu Sold 2009 363 182 1 1 1 87.93 $5.241.762) ($2.730 $699.100.287.184 175.102) ($1.Initial 2009 Cost of Processing Plant per 1.950.370) ($4.708.763 ($2.000 $2.059 2.475) ($45.322 ($10.905) ($1.31 $662.096) ($2.294) ($34.716 1.842 $260.939 4.875 68.157 $259.005 $445.432) ($18.607.201 $2.225 170.601.096) ($2.470.296 $133.756.370.882.785) ($2.675 $938.701.357 6.241 7.288 2.085) ($448.204 2013 846 423 1 0 1 204.06 $183.613 806 2 0 2 389.058 5.353 $100.837 4.854 6.304 652 2 0 2 315.15 $5.274 409.205 11.836.240.387) ($1.496 1.646 $3.966) ($5.047 7.635) ($340.708) ($344.081 540 2 1 2 261.349 56.525.343) ($76.369 $1.782 $286.796.055.106.011.657.045.979 122.971 101.567.378 45.971 92% 92% $0.474) ($1.887 1.664) ($395.335 3.554.25 Prepared by R.126) $0 ($2.672 $996.062 161.894.958.730) ($417.063) ($2.723.796.737.624) ($2.972) ($5.383 8.369 $1.921.022) ($3.658 $757.127.144.396.177 $174.263 $1.938.197 8.463 8.892 $163.201 $2.129.622.169 779.552 $569.271.065.312 5.635.405 $1.764) $0 ($2.393 9.209) ($375.521.449.264 1.660 $321.Cash Flow Pro Forma El Paso LFG to Energy Project High Btu Scenario (Scenario 3 .925.71 $4.348.854.297 $78.699 $3.000) ($2.065 $157.411.12 $4.115) $0 ($33.790.116.930.317 79.562.528) ($3.911 112.055.096) ($2.877 $881.082 1.723.578) ($62.240.785 $1.490.719.032) ($47.Appendix D .667.797 4.416) ($2.227.856) ($74.938 9.055.668) ($930.586 4.177.677.473 2022 1.453 6.720 $108.325) ($376.625 $3.854.520 $2.606 16.500.760.630 1.253 2018 1.57 $553.010.615) ($744.362.473 13.314 $2.991 995 2 0 2 481.465.08 $5.506) ($46.470.801 1.705 $1.731) ($307.37 $234.817) ($1.405) ($4.012) $901.23 $5.376 $285.469 $17.327) ($19.021.495 872.069 8.454.275 8.048) ($91.649 142.853.055.096) ($2.173 1.905) ($619.727 $316.318 $116.354 1.791) ($541.128 $1.431.110.615) $0 ($869.906 $4.689.281) ($5.365.289 $2.994) $0 ($18.198.657.018 $716.544 $3.369 2025 2.214) ($18.190) ($59.253 3.770) ($19.190 3.055.342) $1.943) ($1.982 8.260.008.348 9.326 2023 1.964.331 6.475 $167.739 $2.560 3.874) ($835.657.485 $771.625 $3.896 $119.078 291.492.393) ($300.000 cfm LFG .692.339.171 4.339.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times