HomeMy WebLinkAboutAEEC-CPL Landfill Gas CHP Project Feasibility Study - Jun 2016 - REF Grant 7014012
Utilization Feasibility
Prepared for
2 , 2016
CH2M HILL Engineers, Inc.
949 E 36 Avenue, Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99508
Contents
Section
Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. v
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1-1
2. Background ........................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 LFG Supply ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2 Collection Efficiency of LFG Collection System ................................................................ 2-3
2.3 LFG Quality ....................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.4 Off-site Utilization Location ............................................................................................. 2-3
2.5 Energy Use ....................................................................................................................... 2-3
2.6 Bale Fills ........................................................................................................................... 2-4
3. Landfill Gas Utilization Options ........................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Boiler ................................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Engine Generator ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.3 Combined Heat and Power .............................................................................................. 3-3
3.4 ENSTAR Pipeline ............................................................................................................... 3-3
3.5 Off-site Utilization ............................................................................................................ 3-4
3.6 Pipelines ........................................................................................................................... 3-5
4. Regulatory Review .............................................................................................................. 4-1
5. Landfill Gas-to-Energy Costs and Revenues .......................................................................... 5-1
6. Procurement Approaches .................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Internal Self-development Approach .............................................................................. 6-2
6.2 LFGTE Facility Ownership Considerations ........................................................................ 6-2
6.3 Outside Third-party Developer Approach ....................................................................... 6-3
6.4 Other Project Delivery Considerations ............................................................................ 6-3
7. Project Construction Approaches ........................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 Design-Bid-Build Approach .............................................................................................. 7-2
7.2 Design-Bid Approach ....................................................................................................... 7-2
7.3 Construction Management Approach ............................................................................. 7-2
7.4 Landfill Gas-to-Energy Facilities Operations and Maintenance ....................................... 7-2
7.5 Partnering Approaches for Agreement with Owner and Gas Supplier............................ 7-4
7.6 Example Business Model ................................................................................................. 7-5
8. Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................... 8-1
8.1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 8-1
9. References .......................................................................................................................... 9-1
III
Appendixes
A LFGTE Calculation Sheet
B CG13216 – Part A – Cut Sheet
G3306 – Part B – Specifications
C KPB Pipe Size and Compressor Calculations
D Pro Forma and Cost Estimates
Tables
4-1 Permits and Requirements ........................................................................................................... 4-2
5-1 Costs, Savings, and Net Present Value for the Options ................................................................ 5-1
7-1 Operations and Maintenance Highlights, Single Entity, Employees of Landfill Owner, CPL, or
Third-party Developer ................................................................................................................... 7-3
7-2 Operations and Maintenance Highlights, Single Entity, Employees of Outsourced
Subcontractor ............................................................................................................................... 7-3
7-3 Operations and Maintenance Highlights, Two Entities, Employees of Landfill, CPL, or
Subcontractor ............................................................................................................................... 7-4
Figures
2-1 Site Layout of Central Peninsula Landfill ...................................................................................... 2-1
2-2 Estimated LFG Production at CPL.................................................................................................. 2-2
3-1 Pipeline or Electrical Transmission Line Alignment to Skyview Middle School ............................ 3-1
3-2 Pipeline from CPL LFG scrubbing skid to ENSTAR pipeline ........................................................... 3-4
3-3 Proposed Gen Set location at Skyview Middle School.................................................................. 3-5
6-1 Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project Delivery Approaches .................................................................... 6-1
IV
ADEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
BTU British Thermal Unit
CCF Centum Cubic Feet (100 cubic feet)
CF Cubic Feet
CFM Cubic foot per minute
CH2M CH2M HILL
CH4 Methane
CHP Combined Heat and Power
CM Construction Management
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
COI Conflict of Interest
CPL Central Peninsula Landfill
DB Design-Build
DBB Design-Bid-Build
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Gen set engine-generator set
GCCS Gas Collection and Control System
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant
HEA Homer Electric Authority
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
KPB Kenai Peninsula Borough
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
LFG Landfill Gas
LFGTE Landfill Gas to Energy
LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
MW Megawatt
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NDPES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPV Net present value
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
V
O&M Operations and Maintenance
Psi pound per square inch
RECs Renewable Energy Credits
RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
SDR Standard Dimension Ratio
tpy ton per year
VI
1
This report summarizes CH2M HILL’s (CH2M) landfill gas utilization feasibility study for the Central
Peninsula Landfill (CPL) which is owned and operated by the Kenai Peninsula Borough (KPB). CH2M
evaluated the following landfill gas (LFG) utilization options:
Option 1 – Direct use on-site – This option utilizes LFG with minimal processing in a boiler to provide
heat for area heating and or to provide direct fuel heat for evaporating the leachate evaporator.
Option 2a – Direct use on-site and off-site with transport via a pipeline. This option utilizes LFG in the
boilers and evaporator at CPL as well as a boiler at an offsite location to provide heat. Under this option,
the LFG is transported to the onsite and offsite locations via a pipeline, which would require a
compressor station at the landfill.
Option 2b – Direct use off-site with transport via truck – This option utilizes LFG in a boiler at an off-site
location to provide heat. The trucking option would include the need for a compressor station, storage
tanks at landfill and the off-site location, truck fill station at landfill, and tank fill station at off-site
location.
Option 3 – Convert LFG to electricity on-site for use on-site and offsite. This option utilizes LFG as a fuel
for an engine generator set to produce electricity that can be used at CPL and Skyview Middle School
with the remainder sold to HEA.
Option 4- Convert LFG to electricity on-site for use on-site at CPL and offsite at Skyview Middle School
and utilize waste heat via CHP from the engine generator set to evaporate leachate at the CPL.
Option 5 – Clean the LFG to meet pipeline quality requirements and compress it to approximately 60 psi
which is what is required for injection and sale into the ENSTAR pipeline that is adjacent to CPL.
Option 6a – Transport the LFG via trucking to Skyview Middle School where it is used as fuel for an
engine generator set to produce electricity. This option would require similar trucking infrastructure as
Option 2b.
Option 6b – Transport the LFG via a pipeline to CPL for use in boilers and evaporator and to Skyview
Middle School where it is used as a fuel for an engine generator set to produce electricity, with excess
electricity sold to HEA. This option would require similar pipeline infrastructure as Option 2a.
This LFGTE evaluation assumed a 20-year project life that starts in 2019 (assuming 3 years for design and
construction of a GCCS and utilization system) and therefore ends in 2039.
1-1
2
The basis for CH2M’s landfill gas evaluation for the CPL is HDR’s Landfill Gas Management Plan
(November 2010). In that report, HDR prepared LFG generation estimates using the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) LandGem model. We reviewed the input data (i.e. annual disposal tonnage,
LFG generation constant, k; and landfill generation potential, Lo) and concluded the data, as well as the
default values, were appropriate for conditions at CPL. We therefore used this data for estimating the
energy that could be produced and utilized.
HDR completed two LandGem models for the CPL, one for the unlined portion of the landfill and one for
the lined portion of the landfill (Figure 2-1). We used this modeling data in our evaluation and assumed
utilizing LFG from both the unlined and lined cells.
2-1.
HDR stated that the economics of constructing a landfill gas collection and control system (GCCS) for the
unlined portion of the landfill need to be carefully considered as part of LFGTE utilization evaluation
before it is designed and constructed. We concur with this conclusion.
2-1
2 -
2.1
The scope of work for this project was to consider utilizing LFG from the lined and unlined portions of
the landfill. We did not consider the cost for designing and constructing a GCCS system for the unlined
portion or for the lined portion; rather our evaluation considered utilizing LFG from the lined and
unlined cells on the assumption that the LFG would be already captured and readily available for use.
KPB should carefully consider the financial implications of constructing a GCCS system in the unlined
cells given the unlined cells are closed and the quantity of LFG being produced is declining. If a GCCS
system is constructed in the unlined cells, it could provide supplemental LFG until the mass of waste in
the lined cells starts to produce larger quantities of LFG (Figure 2-2) that offset the LFG being produced
from the unlined cells.
As part of each of our evaluation scenarios, we used HDR’s LandGem outputs as the input to our LFGTE
utilization evaluation (Appendix A). As noted in HDR’s report, the LandGem outputs are estimates of LFG
production and there is no guarantee that the models are accurate for the amount of LFG that is
produced.
2-2.
(Source: EPA LandGEM modeling, CPL Landfill Gas Management Plan,
November, 2010, HDR Alaska Inc.)
During our project kickoff meeting with the KPB, the impact of the current practice of recirculating
landfill leachate on LFG production was discussed. As part of that discussion, CH2M agreed to perform a
background search on how recirculating leachate affects the performance of the landfill and the
performance of LFG production as a part of the scope of this project.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its predecessor agencies have been
sponsoring various research and demonstration studies for bioreactor landfills since 1959. Most of the
studies were completed in the 1970s and early 1980s. These studies showed that a landfill using
leachate recirculation can be designed and operated to increase the rate of waste stabilization. In a
bioreactor landfill, controlled quantities of liquid amendments are added and circulated through the
landfill to achieve a desired waste moisture content. This process significantly increases the rate of
biodegradation of the waste (similar to anaerobic composting), thereby reducing the waste stabilization
period from 5 to 10 years instead of 30 or more years for a conventional “dry tomb” designed facility.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Year
Central Peninsula Landfill LFG Collection Potential
Unlined Lined Cells 1-5 Combined LFG
2-2
2 -
The enhanced biodegradation also increases the short term production (but not total volume) of landfill
gas. Therefore, the active lined cells at CPL where leachate recirculation has been occurring may
generate higher volumes of gas more quickly than standard dry landfills. However, at least some of the
effects of recirculating leachate has already been captured in the gas generation constant (k) used in the
EPA LandGEM model. Until more definitive testing of the LFG quantities and quality is completed, the
current EPA LandGEM model estimates (Figure 2-1) continue to be the best available gas supply
estimates for the purposes of evaluating the initial project feasibility.
2.2
For our evaluation, we assumed a collection efficiency of the available LFG at 60% for the unlined cells
and 75% for the lined cells. The unlined portions of the landfill will likely have a lower collection
efficiency than the lined cells because there is no bottom liner in place. This will likely allow some
portion of the LFG generated to ‘leak’ out through the bottom and sides of the landfill. Also the unlined
areas may allow the intrusion of air when the GCCS is ‘pulling’ a vacuum to draw the LFG from the
waste, which dilutes the quality of the LFG. We assumed a higher collection efficiency for the lined cells
because the presence of a bottom liner will eliminate ‘leaking’ through the bottom, and may reduce the
intrusion of air into the captured LFG stream.
The highest peak quantity of LFG generation produced by both the unlined and lined landfill cells is
estimated to occur in the year 2035 at 435 CFM. For just the lined cells only, the amount of LFG
generated is estimated to peak in the year 2025 at 362 CFM.
L
LFG produced from either the lined or unlined areas of the landfill has not been sampled for testing by
laboratory analysis, but LFG quality data taken using hand held instruments was reviewed and is
consistent with the default values used in the LandGem model. For a typical landfill, the LFG is
comprised mainly of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide (CO2) and trace amounts of other gases. The CH4
and CO2 are typically close to 50% with the trace gases comprising less than 1%. If the GCCS system is
optimally operated at CPL, the gas composition should be about 50% CH4. It is noted that some wells
may produce CH4 greater than 60% and other wells will produce CH4 closer to 35 or 40%. The proper
operation of the well field is critical to delivering a constant stable (i.e. 50%) supply of CH4 to utilization
infrastructure. For purposes of our evaluation, we assumed the CH4 content in the LFG that is captured
and utilized would be 50%.
-site Utilization Location
Options 2a, 2b, 6a, and 6b evaluate utilization of LFG at an offsite location. CH2M, with assistance from
KPB, evaluated potential off-site locations that could potentially use the LFG either directly or use the
electricity that is produced at CPL and transported to their location. Based on our evaluation, the closest
off-site facility that could utilize the LFG in the most optimal manner possible is Skyview Middle School,
which is about 1.4 miles north of the landfill. The DOT Maintenance Facility was initially also considered
due to its proximity to the landfill, however its energy usage was much lower than Skyview and
therefore it was not evaluated further.
Energy Use
KPB provided energy use or demand (electrical and natural gas) at CPL in 2015. CPL used 948,915 kWh/
year of electricity. Energy use or demand was also provided for Skyview Middle School. The school used
an average of 1,597,000 kwh/year in 2014 and 2015. For our analysis, the amounts of electricity for
these facilities was held constant at the 2015 level over the 20-year project life. It is possible that the
2-
2 -
amount of electricity needed by CPL or the school could increase or it could decrease over the life of
the project.
KPB provided CH2M with the amount of natural gas utilized over a two-year period (2014 and 2015) to
evaporate leachate. We used the higher of the two years (219,592 CCF), which was 2015, for our
evaluation of whether gen set engine waste heat is a viable option for replacing, or at least reducing, the
amount of natural gas that is used to evaporate leachate.
2.6
The unlined landfill cells at CPL were filled with compacted, baled waste from 1992 through 2005. Prior
to that, from 1969 to July 1992, the waste was placed as loose fill. There is not much research available
on the impact of baled waste either positively or negatively on LFG generation or capture. However, we
consulted with other senior technical consultants at CH2M (Tom Kraemer and Peter Woodfill, who have
over 60 years of concentrated LFG related experience between them) to determine their opinions on
the subject. Their comments are summarized below:
The waste located in the bales is potentially drier than non-baled waste due to the pre-compaction
process. This reduction in moisture could potentially reduce the landfill gas generation constant (k).
This in turn would reduce the rate at which LFG is generated (i.e. flatten out the LFG production
curve). It would not decrease the total amount of LFG produced, but may indicate that LFG would be
generated in smaller amounts over a longer time frame.
The space between the landfilled bales could potentially create chimneys for the LFG to move
through and to collect. This physical configuration may have a potentially serious negative effect on
LFG collection efforts. LFG extraction wells that were not located or installed near the ‘chimney’,
may not be able to capture the LFG in these interstitial areas. Also, a poorly placed extraction well
may not be able to induce a sufficient vacuum needed to draw the LFG from the center of the baled
waste without also drawing in air from the surface of the site through these chimney features. The
air entrained in the collected LFG would, in the short term, significantly impact the quality of the LFG
captured. Additionally if this over drawn condition of air intrusion continued for a longer period, it
may seriously reduce the amount of LFG that would be produced from the waste, since LFG has to
be produced from waste under anaerobic not aerobic conditions.
Together, these potential areas of concern indicate more risk for the development of LFG collection
systems the unlined landfill cells than in the lined areas.
2-
Options 1 (LFG use on-site), 2 (LFG use off-site) and 6 (LFG use on-site and off-site) evaluated the direct
use of LFG in a boiler for heat either in a building; or to supplement or replace the currently used fuel
source required to evaporate leachate at CPL. Direct use of LFG as a substitute for natural gas is
common and often the most cost-effective use of LFG (LMOP, 2015).
Under Option 2, the LFG is assumed to be used in an off-site boiler and CH2M evaluated two ways to
transport the LFG to this off-site boiler, either via pipeline (Option 2a) or by truck (Option 2b). The
alignment of a pipeline to convey LFG or a transmission line to convey electricity to the school from CPL
is shown in Figure 3-1.
-1.
-1
-
As part of evaluation for Option 2, we looked at the relative costs of transporting the LFG via a pipeline
or by truck. The USEPA has a program called the Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) that is
intended to promote the use of LFG as a renewable energy. On the LMOP website, there is a tool for
estimating costs for LFGTE utilization systems. Using the LMOP tools, we did a comparison between
transporting LFG via a pipeline and by trucking. We found that trucking LFG to another location for use
in an engine generator set would be cost prohibitive because of the extensive infrastructure that would
be required for such a utilization system including: storage tanks located at KPB and the off-site location
using the LFG; dedicated truck and trailer combinations; gas scrubbing systems to remove carbon
dioxide and other gases; as well as the complex compression equipment needed to compress the pure
methane to approximately 3,000 psi, which is what would be needed to transport and store the LFG at
the off-site location. For this reason, trucking the LFG to an off-site location (Options 2b and 6a) was not
further considered.
For both direct use options (i.e., CPL and Skyview), the boiler would need to be retrofitted to process
and burn LFG rather than natural gas. Since the heating value of LFG is half that of natural gas, the boiler
will process twice the gas volume thus requiring capacity-related modifications. The fuel train and
burners need to be retrofitted for the higher flow rates and, since LFG is typically a wet gas containing
trace corrosive compounds, internal components should be replaced with corrosion-resistant materials
such as stainless steel. The boiler controls would most likely also be modified to cope with variable heat
content of LFG and to allow LFG/natural gas co-firing and fuel switching in the event of a loss in LFG
pressure to the unit. Regular (annual) cleaning of the boiler is recommended to remove the
accumulation of silicon dioxide resulting from siloxanes in the LFG.
Alternatively, LFG can be further conditioned (siloxane removal, CO2 scrubbing) prior to injection and
use such that boiler retrofits would not be required and the increased boiler maintenance is avoided.
The specifics of the direct use boiler options will need to be further investigated to determine which
approach would be ultimately more efficient, but for purpose of this evaluation, boiler retrofit and
conversion to seamless controls was assumed to be representative for the option cost comparison.
(LMOP, 2009)
Options 3 (on-site gen set and no waste heat capture), 4 (on-site gen set and waste heat capture) and 6
(off-site gen set) include the use of engine generator sets (gen sets). We evaluated engine gen sets
manufactured by Caterpillar, Inc. It should be noted that there are other similar manufacturers and they
have similar engine efficiencies to the ones we selected from Caterpillar.
For Options 3, 4, and 6, we selected a Caterpillar gen set (CG132-16) that utilizes all of the LFG that CPL
produces including the lined and unlined cells (See Appendix B for cut sheet). This gen set was selected
because it could use all of the LFG that would be produced when the gen set came on line in 2019.
For all of these options, the gen set would combust the LFG and convert it to electricity. Based on our
evaluation, the quantity of LFG from the landfill would produce excess electricity (i.e. LFG is capable of
producing more electricity than CPL currently uses). The excess electricity would then be sold to Homer
Electric Authority (HEA), the local utility, for use elsewhere. The contractual relationship that would be
required between KPB and HEA was not included as part of our evaluation.
Based on our evaluation, the CG132-16 could use all of the LFG produced by CPL until about 2030 at
which time CPL produces enough LFG to power a second gen set. The CG132-16 produces 800 kW of
electrical power.
KPB may consider a smaller gen set, like the G3306 which produces 160 kW of electrical power. We
based our evaluation on LFG from the lined and unlined cells. If KPB decides against installing a GCCS in
-2
-
the unlined the cells, then the CG132-16 would likely be too big, at least initially and a smaller gen set
would be better suited to the amount of LFG produced from the lined cells.
Option 4 also included an evaluation of utilizing a gen set on-site and utilizing the waste heat from the
gen set exhaust to evaporate leachate, offsetting natural gas usage.
KPB’s leachate evaporator (Heartland Technology Partners LLC, model LM-HT®) can operate on the
existing natural gas flare or on waste exhaust heat from a gen set. To utilize the waste exhaust heat for
leachate evaporation, the gen set would need to be located next to the evaporator. This option includes
costs for a 900 linear foot gas pipeline from the vicinity of south Cell 1 (gas collection area) to the
evaporator.
Heartland estimates that the waste exhaust heat produced by an 800 kW power gen set like the Cat
CG132-16, could evaporate approximately 4,000 gallons of leachate per day (Heartland presentation to
SWANA, July 18, 2014). KPB’s requirement for leachate management at CPL is an average of 12,000
gallons of leachate per day (average for active use in October and November 2015). Although the waste
exhaust heat from this gen set would not be sufficient to evaporate all CPL leachate during the early
years of the project, it could be used to offset natural gas use. With the addition of other gen sets, the
waste exhaust heat available to evaporate leachate would increase.
Option 5 was an evaluation of cleaning and compressing LFG to compressed natural gas (CNG) that can
be injected into ENSTAR natural gas pipeline. There is an ENSTAR natural gas pipeline adjacent to CPL
that runs parallel to the Sterling Highway. The pipeline provides natural gas to residents and businesses
on the Kenai Peninsula. Before the methane can be injected into the pipeline, it must be cleaned to
pipeline quality and compressed to 60 psi. Pipeline quality normally means removal of carbon dioxide,
trace gases, and moisture from the LFG before it is injected into the pipeline.
A relatively short 0.2-mile-long pipeline would be needed to get the clean and compressed LFG to the
ENSTAR pipeline. The alignment for the pipeline is shown in Figure 3-2.
-
-
-2 L
-siteUtilization
Option 6 includes transporting LFG to the CPL boilers and evaporator and an offsite location (Skyview
Middle School) where it is used a fuel in a Cat CG132-16 gen set). Two scenarios were evaluated as part
of Option 6: a) transport the LFG via trucks to Skyview Middle School and b) transport the LFG through a
pipeline to Skyview. As discussed earlier, the cost for the infrastructure to transport LFG using trucks
would be cost prohibitive. Therefore, Option 6a was not carried forward in our evaluation.
The proposed location of the gen set at Skyview is shown in Figure 3-3.
-
-
-
Options 2a and 6b transport the LFG to Skyview through a pipeline where it is used in a boiler
(Option 2a) or in a gen set (Option 6b). The pipeline to Skyview is 1.4 miles long and preliminary sizing is
6 inches in diameter (Appendix C). This diameter was determined as a compromise of minimizing head
loss which could be accomplished by using a large diameter pipe and minimizing construction costs,
which could be accomplished by using smaller diameter pipe.
Option 5 utilizes a pipeline between the LFG cleaning and scrubbing skid at the landfill and the ENSTAR
pipeline. Preliminary sizing is 4 inches in diameter (Appendix C). As with the pipeline to the school, the
diameter was selected as a compromise between minimizing head loss and costs.
For each of the pipelines, we assumed the pipeline would be HDPE SDR 11 and buried below frost depth.
-
CH2M researched regulatory requirements applicable to each alternative option including:
Solid waste permit modifications
Air emission permits
Energy facility approvals
Power or gas transmission approvals
Net metering agreement and interconnection agreement with local power utility
See Table 4-1 for a brief description of necessary requirements and the options they pertain to.
Internal construction permitting and approvals within the Kenai Peninsula Borough were not
included in the review.
It is recommended that KPB consult with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)
to discuss and confirm the requirements for the selected option and also whether the landfill will meet
the Clean Air Act’s Title V Permit applicability at the time of implementation. A Title V Air Quality
Operating Permit is required for landfills with a design capacity equal to or greater than 2.5 million Mg
and 2.5 million cubic meters of MSW. According to the KPB Central Peninsula Landfill (CPL) Landfill Gas
Management Plan, the CPL’s design capacity is not forecasted to exceed the regulatory threshold until
the Cell 5 expansion is permitted (HDR Alaska, 2010). Currently, the landfill has no air quality permits.
-1
--1.Item Requirement Description Agency Applicable Options1Solid Waste Permit Modification Modify existing landfill permit to include additional onsite LFG infrastructure. Revise and update all applicable operations, monitoring, and closure plans. Estimated time for issuance of revised permit: 2 months ADEC - Solid Waste Program All 2 Title I Air Quality-Minor Source Permit A minor source permit is required for construction of a system that emits regulated air pollutants within the minor source thresholds (for details on thresholds, see the ADEC Division of Air Quality website). A minor source air permit would be required for any option that involves the construction of stationary LFG combustion equipment. The emissions of the selected control/utilization technology would need to be calculated to confirm that the permit is required and that the system does not exceed the thresholds for a minor source permit. Estimated time for issuance: 6-8 months ADEC Division of Air Quality 1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 6a, 6b 3 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Per NSPS Subpart WWW, if the landfill has a design capacity equal or greater than 2.5 million MG and 2.5 million cubic meters of MSW, it will require a Construction Permit under ADEC’s Title 1 program and also a Title V Operating Permit (under the EPA). Currently, the landfill does not meet the above design capacity thresholds so these permits do not apply. Once proceeding with a selected LFGTE technology, the project and landfill should be reassessed against NSPS for applicability. Estimated time for issuance: For Title V Operating Permit - 6 months, due 1 year after operation of a source commences. ADEC Division of Air Quality EPA Not required at this time. 4 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Subpart AAAA If the landfill is a major source, collocated with a major source, or has a design capacity equal or greater than 2.5 million MG and 2.5 million cubic meters of MSW and estimated uncontrolled emissions of NMOCs of at least 50 Mg per year, the landfill is required to collect and treat and control emissions of LFG. It is also a requirement to submit a compliance report every 6 months beginning 180 days after startup of an LFG combustion system. In addition, CPL will need to develop a written SSM Plan to minimize release of HAP’s when the control device is not operating. Currently the CPL does not meet the thresholds for NESHAP subpart AAAA. Once proceeding with a selected LFGTE technology, the project and landfill should be reassessed against NESHAP guidelines. EPA Not required at this time. 5NESHAP for Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) Establishes national emission limitations and operating limitations for hazardous air pollutants emitted from stationary reciprocating engines located at major and area sources of HAP emissions. Also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations and operating limitations. EPA 3, 4 6Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management Reporting –Landfill currently reports methane emissions as required under the Greenhouse Gas Management Rule (40 CFR 98 Subpart HH). The installation of boilers and/or engines will ADEC Division of Air All -2 CH2M HILL
--1.Item Requirement Description Agency Applicable OptionsGHG Rule require reporting of additional GHGs. Quality7National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Condensate is generated during LFG collection and conditioning. The discharge of this wastewater to surface waters requires a permit or should be included under the existing landfill’s discharge permit if applicable. ADEC Division of Water If applicable 8 Lane Closure Permit Required for construction crossing the Sterling highway in the right-of-way of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 2a, 5, 6b 9 Utility Permit All utilities installed within the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities right-of-way require a permit. Permit cost is $600 plus 1$/lineal foot to a maximum of $10,000. This would include net metering agreements, and easements. Estimated time for issuance: 1-2 months Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities ENSTAR 2a, 5, 6b10 Net Metering Agreement Agreement with utility is required for any net metering application. ENSTAR HEA If applicable11Asbestos Disturbance Notification CPL will need to notify the Air Quality Division of ADEC 45 days prior to disturbance event. This is applicable if the LFGTE project construction would result in Asbestos Disturbance. ADEC Division of Air Quality If applicable -
-to-
Cost and revenue results for each LFGTE option that was evaluated are summarized in Table 5-1. For
each option, a construction cost estimate was prepared at a Class V (feasibility study) level in
accordance with the AACE International (AACE) classification system. The precision range for this level of
cost estimate is -50 to +100 percent of the actual value. O&M costs were estimated based on previous
project experience, literature values, and vendor information.
The annual grid power cost reduction for each option is the gross amount saved, before accounting for
project costs, by replacing the electrical loads with electrical power from the project gen sets and from
replacing the heating and leachate evaporation which use natural gas with waste heat from the CHP
system. The grid electrical power cost used in this calculation was $0.22 per kWh, as provided by HEA.
The NPV was computed using all project costs and savings over an assumed 20-year project life starting
in 2019. Savings were counted as positive values and costs as negative values in the NPV calculations. A
real discount rate (interest plus inflation) of 5 percent was assumed.
-1
Capital Cost
Average
Annual
O&M
Annual
Revenue/
Savings NPV, 20-year life
Option 1 - Direct Use On Site in a LFG
Fired Boiler
($1,022,120) ($176,910) $190,606 ($851,443)
Option 2a - LFG Piping to CPL Evaporator
and Boilers and from CPL to Boiler at
Skyview MS
($3,057,481) ($268,939) $252,136 ($3,266,886)
Option 3 – Engine Gen Set at CPL
Without Exhaust Heat
($3,486,593) ($362,353) $1,206,381 $7,031,857
Option 4 – Engine Gen Set at CPL, Utilize
Exhaust Heat
($3,503,636) ($381,191) $1,260,381 $7,453,011
Option 5 – Remove CO2 and Trace Gases
and Inject to ENSTAR Pipeline
($823,141) ($284,625) $376,178 $317,807
Option 6 – Transport LFG Off Site in
Pipeline to Gen Set at Skyview MS
($4,724,551) ($496,420) $1,206,381 $4,123,128
Note: these costs do not include installation and operation of a landfill gas collection system at lined or
unlined landfills
Disclaimer: Cost estimates provided in this report have been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and
implementation from the information available at the time of the estimate. They are intended only for
comparison of alternatives and should not be used for project budgeting. The final costs of the project will
depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and
other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein.
Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific
financial decisions to help support a proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
-1
6
s
As shown on Figure 6-1, and as described in this section, once the LFG resources (predicted quantity and
quality) and utilization alternatives (including direct use or electrical power generation) have been
preliminarily defined for any given potential project, there are typically two basic development approaches
that must be first reviewed and agreed to before proceeding into full-scale project development:
1. Internal Self-Development: This approach essentially means that the ultimate end-user of the LFG
resource (in this case, CPL) will provide, from internal or in-house resources, all of the required
planning, direction, project oversight, and financial means and funding needed to design, build, and
operate the new LFG utilization facility.
2. Outside Third-party Developer: In this approach, the ultimate end-user (CPL) identifies and then
selects an independent outside firm or entity that, in turn, uses their own resources and funding to
provide all of the required planning, direction, oversight, and, most importantly, the financial means
and funding needed to design, build, and operate the new LFG utilization facility.
It is possible to have some variation or combination of these basic approaches. For instance, the landfill
owner may decide to proceed to install portions or all of the LFG collection and flaring systems in a
self-development mode, prior to then issuing a request for participation in the project by an outside
third-party. This level of participation by the outside third-party, in turn, may also vary, and can range
from a simple non-equity or general contractor role to a full assignment of LFG rights, or a joint
ownership scenario in the project.
6-1 -to-
6-1
6 -
This is the decision point at which CPL, as the ultimate end-user of the LFG resource, currently finds
itself in this potential project. They may have the opportunity to act in a completely Outside Third-party
Developer role, or they may undertake a smaller, less complicated position and leave the initial project
development almost entirely with EC Waste, or a contracted independent entity.
The underlying consideration that CPL must evaluate when deciding which path to pursue revolves
around the overall level of participation demanded in each of the various project development
scenarios. There are several benefits and drawbacks associated with each approach, as discussed in the
following subsections.
6.1 -
The more direct project participation, the greater the ability of the ultimate end-user to achieve desired
outcomes. This means that CPL can place value or emphasis on certain elements of the project that may
be of significant self-interest or commitment, such as long-term system reliability; as opposed to an
outside third-party that may not value these interests to the same degree as, perhaps, generating
short-term financial returns. However, this approach will also require a very significant commitment of
dedicated resources to successfully undertake and accomplish an LFG utilization project. Usually, this
effort and commitment to providing a highly specialized set of skills is generally outside the normal
business practices of an ultimate end-user like CPL. At best, this can cause disruptions in the normal
functions of the assigned personnel, and at worst, can lead to project failure to some extent or another.
Another major consideration with self-development is that this entity is typically completely responsible
for the entire project’s capital financing required to design, build, and operate the new LFG utilization
facility. This means that the entire project risk exposure also rests entirely with CPL.
6.2
CPL owning and directly managing the new LFGTE facility assets, versus having them owned by a
third-party developer, would simplify the overall project development and operations. It would also
allow CPL to capture more of the financial benefits available from the LFGTE project, such as the
revenue stream that otherwise would accrue to the third-party developer from the sale of the energy
produced, and any marketable environmental attributes that may generate additional income. CPL
could also then control the pricing and transactional details of the energy provided to itself for use in the
facility. This gives CPL flexibility in setting cost structures for internal profit center allocations.
Owning the new LFGTE assets also means that CPL can set the approach and framework for the O&M of
the new facility that best suits its own purposes and needs. As opposed to being a passive buyer of
energy, for example, CPL could proactively structure the LFGTE facilities O&M to be in close
coordination with the CPL’s facility and take full advantage of downtime or off-peak hours in that facility
to perform required activities at the LFGTE facility simultaneously.
Direct ownership also means, literally, that CPL can dictate who actually manages and runs the LFGTE
facility. So CPL, not an outside third-party, can capture any value or benefits associated with having their
own in-house staff in charge of the LFGTE facility or from competitively procuring an independent
operator that simply provides the required operations under contract to CPL.
CPL, acting as a self-developer and owner of the new LFGTE facility, also has significant risks and issues
associated with this course of action. One of the first issues is that of dedicated and committed staff
resources. The development and oversight required to implement a facility such as the one proposed
require the full-time assignment of several CPL staff resources almost immediately from the initiation of
the project. These staff resources can be contracted staff as opposed to in-house staff, but that usually
increases the cost of development. This commitment issue does not end with project startup but
continues on through the life of the project with dedicated staff to operate and maintain the facility.
6-2
6 - ES
LFGTE facilities typically include gas compression, gas treatment, and possibly electrical generation
equipment. The O&M these and other specialized gas measurement instrumentation require significant
operator training and continuous effort to obtain the levels of facility on-stream time that would be
needed to fully realize the value of the large capital investment required in a completely CPL-owned
facility.
To mitigate these issues of concern and share the risk, the new LFGTE project can be structured to
include the landfill owner who supplies the LFG to the facility. Section 9 provides a discussion of this
potential approach.
-
By definition, this requires a much lower level of project participation and less commitment of dedicated
resources by CPL. In fact, the minimal levels of oversight can be outsourced to an appropriate program
management entity or company, which virtually eliminates dedicated commitments. But in the inverse
of the self-development option, this path can significantly decrease CPL’s ability to achieve desired
outcomes for the project. For instance, typically, the developer selects the LFG utilization process, such
as production of liquefied natural gas as opposed to electrical generation, and this may not be what CPL
would desire. A significant consideration with this option is that the third-party will normally require a
long-term commitment (for example, 20 years) in order to amortize their capital investments, and this
may lock CPL into a deal that may become less favorable over time.
Another major decision that basically defines the roles and responsibilities of the developer and the
ultimate end-user, like CPL, is the type of agreement executed. Is the basic agreement a Gas
Purchase/Sale or a Gas Rights agreement? In either case, CPL should insist upon including specific, clear
terms and conditions relating to critical issues, such as:
LFG measurement and metering, including where the meters are located and how the calibration
and auditing is performed.
LFG quality and quantity, for which the landfill owner will want to explicitly provide “No Warranties”
and will try to only agree to deliver LFG in a completely “as-is” condition without responsibilities for
levels of constituents or contaminants. CPL should resist this language and at least insist upon
minimum levels of LFG quality and quantity that would be delivered for sale.
Renewable energy credits (RECs), tax credits, and other green attributes can represent a significant
stream of benefits over the life of a project. Accordingly, who owns these valuable benefits is an
important issue to define and agree upon at the start of the project.
Other considerations include:
Internal development affords the ultimate end-user of the LFG resource maximum flexibility, which
will be important as technology and energy values change.
Outside development is the simplest way forward if the contract basis of the project agreement is
favorable to all parties’ interests and the developer has a proven record of successful projects.
If CPL selects internal self-development, it should immediately begin to discuss and explore project
construction approaches as outlined herein, and not wait until final design and engineering is
completed.
In any case, CPL should maintain flexibility in commitments made to outside developers so that it
can continue to look at future viability of alternatives as markets and technologies change.
6-
7
The proposed new LFGTE facilities are currently in the preliminary feasibility phase of the project and
will eventually be constructed in accordance with a finalized design and layout. Accordingly, this section
discusses potential methods and approaches to the procurement of design and construction services
needed to finalize the development of proposed site improvements, assuming that CPL is
self-developing the project and is responsible for the construction of the LFGTE facilities.
The following are qualitative comments, observations, and recommendations associated with potential
methods and approaches to construction of the LFGTE facilities and related site improvements.
The basic definitions of the methodologies reviewed include the following:
Design-Bid-Build (DBB) – This is the traditional approach where a complete (100 percent) set of
design plans and specifications are prepared by an engineer, and then the project is bid through a
normal procurement process. Typically, in a successful bid process, this results in the engagement of
an appropriately qualified general contractor to construct the facilities in accordance with the final
plans and specifications. Additionally, the project owner may engage a separate third-party firm to
provide outsourced quality assurance (QA) oversight services and duties during the construction
phase of the project.
Design-Build (DB) – This approach involves the initial preparation of a conceptual or preliminary
(30 percent) set of design plans and specifications by an engineer to provide the general scope and
basic requirements for the project. Using these preliminary project documents, the project is then
put out to bid through a procurement process, which requires the successful bidder to complete the
project documents to at least the level required to obtain all necessary permits for the project, and
also accomplish all required construction activities needed to complete the project. Typically, a
successful bid process results in the engagement of one appropriately qualified firm or team
responsible for finalizing the required engineering design, obtaining permits, and constructing the
facilities.
Construction Management (CM) – Typically, the project owner engages a firm with expertise in CM
to assist or actually handle all aspects of the project on behalf of the owner. The CM has essentially
the same project goals as the project owner under this method, and if implemented correctly, this
approach can reduce or hopefully eliminate the inherent conflict or adversarial nature of a
traditional general contractor and owner relationship.
This approach can be further sub classified in to CM-Agency or CM-at-Risk. The CM-Agency
approach essentially designates the CM as the agent of the owner, and all project activities are
performed in this role. The CM agent does not directly subcontract any engineering or construction
activities; rather, schedules, coordinates, and assists in procurement of these required resources as
needed. As such, the CM agent typically does not have any direct responsibility for adherence to
project cost or schedule commitments made by the various contractors working on the project.
Under the CM-Agency approach, the project owner retains the responsibility and risk of successful
project completion. Under the CM-at-Risk approach, the CM is responsible for all project activities.
This approach specifically mandates that the required project resources be placed in a direct
contractual role with the CM. This arrangement intentionally places the risk and responsibility of
project schedule, scope, and budget directly with the CM.
7-1
7 -
7.1 --
This method of contracting is well-established and, historically, the typical approach. Under this method,
CPL could separate out various design components, and solicit and obtain separate construction pricing
bids based on individual project components (for example, the required schedule for implementation).
However, the implementation of this particular project combines several widely diverse project
components that will require entirely different types of construction expertise due to the varied nature
of the individual site improvements and new facilities currently being designed. These construction
activities include site civil and earthmoving (surface regrading, drainage, and new access roads).
7.2 -
This method can provide the project owner with a single point of responsibility for the entire project
implementation and may result in streamlined communications and enhanced dispute resolution
between the engineering and construction aspects of the project team. It may, but not always, result in
a potential project cost savings due to a possible reduced level of engineering required prior to starting
construction activity. This approach is well-suited also to a fast-track or compressed implementation
project schedule, due to the ability, in some cases, to proceed to the construction phase without the
need to prepare detailed plans and specifications that would otherwise be required for a normal public
bid process.
The CM-at-Risk variation of this approach is well-suited to project owners who want to avoid or reduce
their involvement or risk in undertaking a complex project. The CM-at-Risk approach can be further
refined in a collaborative scoping effort between the project owner and the CM to define and essentially
share some of the project risks. This joint or collaborative approach can be used, for instance, in
developing a mutual selection and approval process for key project subcontractors and vendors. This has
the effect of further strengthening the sense of partnership and attainment of common goals between
the CM and project owner. If CPL ultimately decides to undertake such a CM approach, then it is
advisable to begin the selection process and engagement of the CM-Agency or CM–at-Risk contractor as
soon as the final decision to proceed with the entire project is completed. The purpose of this
accelerated engagement of the CM contractor is to be able to allow the CM sufficient time to be
involved and positively contribute to the development of the preliminary plans and permitting process.
This early involvement allows CPL to take full advantage of the CM’s ability to factor in creative schedule
and phasing concepts that may significantly benefit overall project implementation.
-to-
Maintenance
Regardless of which methodology is used in developing and constructing the LFGTE facility, a second
important decision about how the ongoing O&M of the completed facilities is undertaken also needs to
be made. Assuming that the new LFGTE project will be an electrical power generating scheme, the basic
elements of the overall facility typically include an LFG collection and delivery system, an LFG processing
and compression station, a gen set station, and an electrical power interconnection directly into the
end-user’s facility. All four elements are highly interconnected and are subject to changes in operating
parameters of any one of the individual elements. For example, any changes in the operating conditions
at the LFG processing and compression station have a direct effect on the quantity and quality of the
LFG that is being collected and delivered. This, in turn, directly affects electrical power output
capabilities of the gen set station.
7-2
7 -
Therefore, it is usually the best approach if a single entity provides O&M services for all four of these
facility elements. However, as long as a high level of cooperation and communication is maintained
between the parties, successful O&M of the overall project can be performed by two separate entities.
Implementing to the maximum degree automatic data signal exchange and control agreements between
systems under different parties will facilitate smooth operations. The division of O&M responsibility
typically occurs between the first (LFG collection and delivery) and second (LFG processing and
compression) elements. This scenario allows for the landfill owner and operator to be able to maintain
control over the LFG collection and delivery system, which is usually critical to the landfill operations and
regulatory requirements. In this split scenario, the CPL simply collects and delivers LFG to the input side
of the LFG processing and compression station, which would be operated by CPL or their contracted
representatives. The interaction and trust between the two parties has to remain at a high level so that
issues with LFG quality and quantities delivered match requirements of the downstream compression
and generating equipment.
The methodology and approach to O&M is also greatly affected by the basic business model under
which the new LFGTE project is formed. For instance, if the project is structured such that the landfill
owner simply sells raw, unprocessed LFG via a designated measurement and monitoring point to CPL,
the split responsibility described herein would be the best approach. However, in the case where the
landfill owner or an outside third-party developed the complete LFGTE facilities with their own capital
and resources, and then sold electrical power directly to CPL, a single O&M entity would be the best
choice.
In any of these cases, it is possible to not directly engage employees of any of the project’s key
participants in the normal ongoing O&M activities; rather, completely subcontract out these required
responsibilities to firms that have specialized experience in providing O&M of LFGTE facilities.
Tables 7-1 through 7-3 provide highlights of the basic operating scenarios, along with some of the pros
and cons of each approach.
7-1 -
Pros Cons
Provides the best coordination between the LFG collection
system and LFGTE facility operations
None
Maybe less costly than other options, since tasks are
usually performed by existing project staff
The operating staff may be already assigned to other duties that
can cause conflict and improper prioritization of O&M activities
Provides the best LFG system data collection and
regulatory reporting scenario
None
7-2
Pros Cons
Can provide good coordination between the LFG
collection system and LFGTE facility operations
Contracted staff maybe limited by scope, cost, or time constraints
that negatively impact the operations of ether the LFG collection
system or the LFGTE facility operations
Can provide a simple, focused scope, direction, and
structure for subcontracted staff
May still need to provide oversight and management of the
outside staff resources
There are specialized firms that provide these services on
a regular basis in many locations
The services tend to be costlier than using in-house staff
resources
7-
7 -
7-2
Pros Cons
Provides good LFG system data collection and regulatory
reporting scenario
None
7-
Pros Cons
Two sets of staff may provide a backup or additional
coverage of required tasks if needed
Can result in poor coordination between the LFG collection
system and LFGTE facility operations
Spilt of duties among multiple parties may be less costly
than single, dedicated staff
Typically results in costly disputes about which staff was supposed
to undertake specific assignments and arguments about poor
work quality
Specialized and differently trained staff may increase
efficiency of operations in LFG collection field and plant
environments
Because the staff have different skill sets, it becomes difficult to
interchange them in assignments: a plant operator does not
usually perform well as a field technician, and vice versa
There is an inherent conflict of interest (COI) in the routine operation of LFGTE projects between the
landfill owner and operator and the LFGTE developer. This inherent COI issue needs to be understood
and dealt with upfront in the project development schedule while the project roles and relationships are
being defined. Essentially, the landfill owner always desires to and is usually required by regulation to
operate the LFG collection and delivery system in a manner that captures the maximum amount of LFG,
to prevent issues like offsite migration of LFG or excess emissions of LFG to the atmosphere. This
typically means that the quality of the recovered LFG (in terms of the amount of methane versus the
amounts of oxygen and nitrogen per cubic foot of LFG) can be significantly lower than desired for the
successful operation of an LFGTE facility. The conflict arises when the landfill owner attempts to
maximize the amount of LFG captured, which usually lowers the percentage of methane recovered, and
the LFGTE facility operator wants to maintain higher methane levels for maximum energy production.
To minimize this inherent conflict, there are two basic methods of attempting to encourage the landfill
owner to cooperate fully with the LFGTE developer in carrying out their particular obligations under the
project agreements. The first approach is to structure the LFGTE project agreements in such a manner
that there is direct and explicit content that acknowledges and discusses this issue, and then specifically
defines the obligations of each party. This method can usually minimize future conflicts but will not
eliminate them. The second approach is to have the landfill owner and collection system operator
become an active participating partner in the new LFGTE project to the extent necessary to assure they
will act in the overall best interests of the entire project team, as opposed to just their own
self-interests. This means that the project business model is structured such that the landfill owner,
along with CPL, would share in the profits, savings, or benefits that the LFGTE facility generates. This
approach usually does minimize issues of cooperation and can provide a workable solution to COIs.
7-
7 -
7.6
The following example outlines the basic structure of a sample business model, as described in the
second approach in the previous section:
1. The first task would be to set up a new joint venture entity (most probably, a corporation) where
CPL and HEA were the owners of the new firm. For this example, let’s assume that the ownership
was split on a 49 percent share for CPL and 51 percent share for HEA. Only for purposes of this
example, we will designate this new firm as GENCO.
2. The assumption would also be that CPL and HEA would split the initial capital requirements of the
new equipment and facilities needed to compress and process the raw LFG delivered from the
landfill, as well as the gen sets needed to generate the electrical power along the same 49 and
51 percent ownership basis for GENCO.
3. In this example, CPL would sell raw, unprocessed LFG to the new GENCO entity as the fuel required
for the gen sets. This transaction would be measured and recorded at a suitable Point of Sale
between KPB’s CPL Landfill and the boundary of the new GENCO facility. The raw, unprocessed LFG
would typically be sold to GENCO at cost per million BTU delivered. This price per million BTU is
usually developed based upon a significant discount to other alternate fuels available. For purposes
of this example only, let’s assume that the price is $1.00 per million BTUs sold. This means that KPB
obtains a significant revenue stream; therefore, has an incentive to capture and deliver LFG suitable
for sale to GENCO. This new revenue stream can be used to significantly offset the operating costs
the landfill incurs routinely for capture and destruction of LFG mandated by regulations. Similar
arrangements have been set up for many LFGTE projects; therefore, we understand they do not
violate the requirements of the federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act.
4. The new GENCO entity uses the compressed and processed LFG to fuel the gen sets, which, in turn,
produces electrical power. This electrical power is put on the grid by HEA and sold to their
customers. This transaction may generate revenue for GENCO, which is then used to maintain
operations at the new plant, repay the owners (CPL and HEA) for their initial capital requirements,
as well as produce an ongoing and unencumbered revenue stream for both owners.
5. In summary, a business arrangement similar to this example, with an underlying support structure of
suitable project agreements (LFG sales agreement, facility lease agreement, and power purchase
agreement) can serve to provide several powerful incentives for the landfill owner (KPB) and the
ultimate end-user (HEA’s customers) to fully cooperate in not only the initial project development
but also in the ongoing operations of a GENCO facility for a normally assumed project life of 20 years
or more.
7-
8
8.1
CH2M provides the following conclusions:
1. Three options for utilizing CPL gas had positive net returns: onsite power generation (Option 3),
onsite power generation with capture of waste exhaust heat (Option 4), and offsite power
generation (Option 6b). The options with highest NPV are Option 3 and Option 4. These options
should be given further evaluation. The amount of LFG produced by CPL can provide more than
enough energy to supply its electrical needs via a gen set. To make the project economic, the surplus
electricity would need to be sold to HEA.
2. There is enough energy in the LFG to replace the natural gas that is used at CPL in their offices and
shops, and the leachate evaporator (Option 1), but it would be less expensive and more economic to
simply clean the gas to pipeline quality and inject into the ENSTAR pipeline. Flaring would be needed
to destroy excess LFG when heating demand/evaporation demand is low.
3. Waste exhaust heat from an 800 kW gen set sized for the early CPL gas supply could offset natural
gas usage at the evaporator (Option 4). For this scenario, the gen set needs to be located at the
evaporator. Locating the gen set here requires an approximate 900-foot-long pipeline from the
proposed gas collection and treatment area south of Cell 1 to the vicinity of the evaporator.
4. Offsite options add cost but do not increase the revenue potential for CPL gas (Option 2, Option 6b).
5. The cost estimates developed for this study assume the internal self-development approach. Other
project approaches such as a partnership with a local gas utility (ENSTAR) or electrical utility (HEA)
may be feasible and balance KPB risk and reward.
6. The cost and NPV totals in Table 5-1 do not include costs for gas collection systems at either the
lined or unlined landfills. Grant funding for the gas collection system(s), similar to the Anchorage
Regional Landfill gas to energy project may be required for an economic project.
7. KPB needs to consider the costs vs. benefits for installing a GCCS in the unlined cells.
8. Actual gas production testing will be required to confirm the modeling.
8.2 ions
CH2M recommends the following:
1. Evaluate the feasibility of obtaining grant funding for installation of LFG collection systems at both
the lined and unlined cells. If options for grant funding are increased because of a partnership
between a local utility and KPB, then such a partnership should be given greater consideration.
2. Install landfill gas wells and conduct LFG testing and revise LFG generation curves to better
understand how much LFG is being produced.
3. Similar to the Municipality of Anchorage, prepare an RFP for sale of CPL gas with projected gas
generation curves. Offer locations on CPL property for development. Select LFG developer based on
best value to KPB based on NPV for 20-year project. Based on this study, the LFG development
option with highest NPV is likely to be on-site power generation.
8-1
8 -
4. Consider a phased development scenario for on-site power generation:
a. Phase 1: Developer generates power on CPL property at location near the leachate evaporator.
Waste heat from engines is used to evaporate leachate. KPB reduces costs by offset natural gas
usage at evaporator. KPB provides BTU credits to developer for future landfill gas.
b. Phase 2: After LFG collection system is installed, developer uses a mix of natural gas and landfill
gas to generate power. KPB sells LFG to developer. Waste heat is used to evaporate leachate,
offsetting natural gas usage.
c. Phase 3: Developer generates power using LFG. KPB sells LFG to developer. Waste heat is used
to evaporate leachate, offsetting natural gas usage.
8-2
9
Adapting Boilers to Utilize Landfill Gas: An Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Opportunity,
Landfill Methane Outreach Program, USEPA, December 2009.
Landfill Gas Management Plan, Central Peninsula Landfill, Soldotna, Alaska, HDR Alaska,
November 2010.
Complete LFG Energy Project Development Handbook, Landfill Methane Outreach Program, USEPA,
Updated February 2015.
9-1
Appendix ALFGTE CalculationsYearUnlinedCells60% CELinedCells 1575% CECombinedLFG% contributionfrom unlinedcellscfm is totalso Btu is 500Btu/min at50% CH4Convert Btuto kwh(1kwh =3412.14148Btu)Convertkwh/min tokwh/dayConvertkwh/day tokwMax energyavailable basedon engineefficiency(CG3216)Gen setpower @75%Potentialnumber ofGen sets thatcould be used2015 KPBEnergyuse(kwh/yr)converted tokwAvg (20142015) SkyviewHigh schooluse (kwh/yrconverted tokwThermaloutput of CHP1.1 ofelectrical (1gen set) (kw)CHP availablebased onnumber of gensets (kw)KPL NG use(ENSTAR2015, 219592CCF) convertto kWDoes the LFGprovidesufficient heatto offset gasuseCFM 60% CFM 75% CFM%Btu 3412.1415 kwh/daykw 43%800 ea 948915 1597000 1.1 2195922016 178.1 106.86 189 142 248.61 43% 124,305 36.4 52,459 2,186 940 800 1 108 1822017174.6104.76209 157261.51 40%130,75538.3 55,182 2,299 989 800 1 108 182 1088 1088 735 Yes2018 171.2 102.72 229 172 274.4737%137,23540.2 57,9162,413 1,038 800 1 108 182 1141 1141 735 Yes2019 167.8 100.68248 186286.6835%143,34042.060,493 2,521 1,084 800 1 108 182 1192 1192 735 Yes2020164.4 98.64 267200 298.89 33%149,44543.8 63,069 2,628 1,130800 1 108 182 1243 1243 735 Yes2021 161.2 96.72 285 214 310.4731%155,23545.5 65,513 2,7301,174 800 1 108 182 1291 1291 735 Yes2022 158 94.8 302 227321.3 30%160,65047.1 67,798 2,825 1,215 800 2 108 182 13362672 735 Yes2023 154.9 92.94 319 239 332.19 28%166,09548.770,0962,921 1,256800 2 108 182 1381 2763 735 Yes2024 151.8 91.08 336252 343.0827%171,54050.3 72,394 3,0161,297800 2 108 182 14272854 735 Yes2025 148.8 89.28 352 264 353.2825%176,64051.8 74,5463,1061,336800 2 108 182 1469 2938 735 Yes2026145.8 87.48 367275 362.73 24%181,36553.2 76,5403,189 1,371 800 2 108 182 1508 3017735 Yes2027143 85.8 382 287372.3 23%186,15054.678,559 3,273 1,408 800 2 108 182 1548 3097735 Yes2028 140 84 397298 381.75 22%190,87555.9 80,554 3,3561,443 800 2 108 182 1588 3175 735 Yes2029 137.4 82.44 411 308 390.69 21%195,34557.2 82,4403,435 1,477800 2 108 182 1625 3250735 Yes2030134.680.76424 318 398.7620%199,38058.4 84,143 3,5061,508 800 2 108 182 1658 3317735 Yes2031 132 79.2 437328 406.95 19%203,47559.685,871 3,578 1,539 800 2 108 182 1692 3385 735 Yes2032 129.4 77.64 450 338 415.14 19%207,57060.8 87,599 3,6501,569 800 2 108 182 17263453 735 Yes2033 126.8 76.08 462 347422.5818%211,29061.9 89,169 3,715 1,598 800 2 108 182 17573515 735 Yes2034 124.3 74.58 474 356430.0817%215,04063.090,752 3,781 1,626800 2 108 182 1789 3577735 Yes2035 121.8 73.08 483 362 435.33 17%217,66563.8 91,859 3,8271,646800 2 108 182 18103621 735 Yes2036119.4 71.64 464 348 419.64 17%209,82061.5 88,549 3,6901,586800 2 108 182 1745 3490735 Yes203711770.2 446335 404.717%202,35059.3 85,3963,558 1,530800 2 108 182 1683 3366735 Yes2038 114.7 68.82 428 321 389.82 18% 194,910 57.1 82,256 3,4271,474 800 2 108 182 1621 3242 735 Yes2039 112 67.2 412 309 376.2 18% 188,100 55.1 79,382 3,3081,422 800 2 108 182 1564 3129 735 Yes
––
– –
NEW ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
G3306
< Back
REQUEST A QUOTE
BIOGAS PROJECT FINANCING
See our Offers
FIND YOUR DEALER
COMPARE MODELS
VIEW PRODUCT DOWNLOADS
Thanks! Your product information is ready for download.
Download Gas Generator Set Ratings Guide
Download Gas Solutions Brochure
Page 1 of 3Cat | G3306 Gas Generator Set | Caterpillar
5/20/2016http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation/gas-ge...
G3306
GAS GENERATOR SETS SPECIFICATION UNITS:US METRIC
OVERVIEW
From natural gas-fueled combined heat and power (CHP) systems and emergency power for facilities,
to renewable biogas energy to support the local grid, or electricity generated from coal mine gases,
Caterpillar has a wide range of reliable gas power solutions.
Maximum Continuous Rating 143 ekW
Fuel Type Natural Gas, Biogas, Field Gas, Propane
SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 3Cat | G3306 Gas Generator Set | Caterpillar
5/20/2016http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation/gas-ge...
ENGINE SPECIFICATION
GENERATOR SET DIMENSION
Maximum Electrical Efficiency 31.9%
Maximum Standby Rating 160
Frequency 50 or 60 Hz
rpm 1500 or 1800 rpm
Engine Model G3306
Bore 4.8 in
Stroke 6.0 in
Displacement 638.0 in3
Aspiration NA, TA, LE
Length 126.0 in
Width 52.0 in
Height 68.0 in
Dry weight genset 4400.0 lb
Page 3 of 3Cat | G3306 Gas Generator Set | Caterpillar
5/20/2016http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation/gas-ge...
C
Appendix C KPB Pipe Size and Compressor Calculations
ENSTAR
Piping head loss and size
Pipe size = 4
Flow = 435 scfm Design for max LFG
= 0.2053824 m3/s
Pipe length = 1,056 ft
DeltaP X 1.5 = 10.7025 PSI
Pressure required at burner = 5 PSI
Total pressure required = 15.7025 PSI
= 1.0826493 bar
Power requirements for LFG compressor
SCFM = 435 scfm
Delta P = 54 in.WC
Efficiency = 0.65 (typical)
Power required = 5.69 HP shaft HP
electric motor efficiency = 0.9
Power required = 3.82 KW electric power
Annual Power Requied = 33,427 kwH
Price per khW = 0.09$
Annual cost = 2,918.17$
http://www.freecalc.com/gasdia.htm
Chiller Power
Spec Enthalpy at 95 F = 130.1 kj/kg
Spec Enthalpy at 32 F = 9.5 kj/kg
Difference = 120.6 kj/kg
Specific volume at 32 F 0.778 m3/kg
Flow = 1600 scfm
= 2719.5467 m3/hr
Energy req't = 421564.7 kj/hr
= 399559.02 BTU/hr
= 33.296585 tons
Typical COP = 0.6 kw/ton
Power = 19.977951 kw
Annual Power = 175006.85 kwH
206,762 kwH
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moist air properties d_1256.html
Total annual power
(compressor + chiller) =
EN0307161114SEA 1 of 2
Appendix C KPB Pipe Size and Compressor Calculations
Skyview Middle School
Piping head loss and size
Pipe size = 6
Flow = 435 scfm Design for max LFG
= 0.20538244 m3/s five Cat 3520 CHPs
Pipe length = 7,392 ft
DeltaP X 1.5= 10.7025 PSI
Pressure required at burner = 5 PSI
Total pressure required = 15.7025 PSI
= 1.08264926 bar
Power requirements for LFG compressor
SCFM = 435 scfm
Delta P = 54 in.WC
Efficiency= 0.65 (typical)
Power required = 5.69 HP shaft HP
electric motor efficiency = 0.9
Power required = 3.82 KW electric power
Annual Power Requied = 33,427 kwH
Price per khW = 0.09$
Annual cost = 2,914.83$
http://www.freecalc.com/gasdia.htm
Chiller Power
Spec Enthalpy at 95 F = 130.1 kj/kg
Spec Enthalpy at 32 F = 9.5 kj/kg
Difference = 120.6 kj/kg
Specific volume at 32 F = 0.778 m3/kg
Flow = 1600 scfm
= 2719.54674 m3/hr
Energy required = 421564.701 kj/hr
= 399559.023 BTU/hr
= 33.2965853 tons
Typical COP =0.6 kw/ton
Power = 19.9779512 kw
Annual Powe 175006.852 kwH
206,762 kwH
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/moist air properties d_1256.html
Total annual power (compressor
+ chiller) =
EN0307161114SEA 2 of 2
CURRENT ENERGY USECapital Cost($)Average Annual O&M($)Annual Grid Power or Gas CostReduction($)NPV, 20year life($)Option 1Direct Use On Site in a NG Fired Boiler($1,022,120) ($176,910)$190,606($851,443)Option 2aNatural Gas Piping to CPL Evaporator and Boilers and from CPL to Boiler atSkyview MS($3,057,481) ($268,939)$252,136($3,266,886)Option 3– Engine Gen Set at CPL Without Exhaust Heat($3,486,593) ($362,353)$1,206,381 $7,031,857Option 4– Engine Gen Set at CPL, Utilize Exhaust Heat, OH Power Line to Skyview MS($3,503,636) ($381,191)$1,260,381 $7,453,011Option 5– Remove CO2 and Trace Gases and Inject to ENSTAR Pipeline($823,141) ($284,625)$376,178 $317,807Option 6b– Transport NG Off Site in Pipeline to Gen Set at Skyview MS($4,724,551) ($496,420)$1,206,381 $4,123,128Table 6. Costs, Savings and Net Present Value for the OptionsFor each option, a construction cost estimate was prepared at a Class V (feasibility study) level in accordance with the AACE International (AACE) classification system. The precision range for this level of cost estimate is50 to +100percent of the actual value. O&M costs were estimated based on previous project experience, literature values, and vendor information.Cost estimates provided in this report have been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of the estimate. They are intended only for comparison of alternatives andshould not be used for project budgeting. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final projectcosts will vary from the estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help support a proper project evaluation and adequatefunding.
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 1Development StageAnnual CCF output 961,8792019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039KW output 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation$12,600Site Work and Pipe Line $147,953Prefabricated Buildings, Slab on Grade $8,000Equipment $465,960Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee$63,451Allowance for Permitting$47,588Mob/Demob$15,863Construction Management fee$31,726Project Management $31,726Quality Control $9,518Contingency, Bonds & Insurance$187,736Subtotal($1,022,120)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegen maintenance, $/kw$0.015$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0O&M Labor Costs($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500)Other O&M Costs (Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335) ($44,335)Contingency 15%($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075) ($23,075)Subtotal$0($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric Power Savedkwh/year$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Gas Usage Saved219,592$190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606Cost per kwh saved0.179$Cost per CCF saved0.868$Total Cost($1,022,120) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910) ($176,910)Total Revenues $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606Annual Net($1,022,120)$13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,696 $13,69620 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($1,022,120)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget developmentTotal Equipment Replacement$0 $0 Cost and revenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full business case is developed.Total Operating and Maintenance($3,538,205) ($176,910)Real Discount Rate 5%Net Present Value($851,443)Net Present Value of Costs($3,226,813)EUAC $258,928Levelized Cost of Power, per kWh$Levelized Cost of Gas per CCF 0.00003$Operational Stage
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 2aDevelopment StageAnnual CCF output 961,8792019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039KW output 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation $39,100Site Work and Gas Pipeline$1,346,865Prefabricated Buildings, Slab on Grade $8,000Equipment$504,060Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee$189,803Allowance for Permitting $142,352Mob/Demob$47,451Construction Management fee $94,901Project Management$94,901Quality Control$28,470Contingency, Bonds & Insurance $561,578Subtotal($3,057,481)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegen maintenance, $/kw$0.015$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0O&M Labor Costs($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500)Other O&M Costs (Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360) ($124,360)Contingency 15%($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079) ($35,079)Subtotal$0($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric Power Savedkwh/year$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Gas Usage Saved (CPL + Skyview)290,479$252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136 $252,136Cost per kwh saved0.179$Cost per CCF saved0.868$Total Cost($3,057,481) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939) ($268,939)Total Revenues $252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136$252,136Annual Net($3,057,481) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803) ($16,803)20 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($3,057,481)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget development.Total Equipment Replacement $0 $0 Cost and revenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full businesscase is developed.Total Operating and Maintenance($5,378,780) ($268,939)Real Discount Rate 5%Net Present Value($3,266,886)Net Present Value of Costs($6,409,055)EUAC $514,279Levelized Cost of Power, per kWh$Levelized Cost of Gas per CCF 0.00006$Operational Stage
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 3Development StageAnnual CCF output02019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039KW output 1,4141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation$49,200Site work$610,180Prefabricated Buildings, Slab on Grade$98,940Equipment$1,406,089Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee $216,441Allowance for Permitting$162,331Mobilization/Demobilization$54,110Construction Management Fee$108,220Project Management$108,220Quality Control$32,466Contingency, Bonds & Insurance$640,395Subtotal($3,486,593)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegen maintenance, $/kw$0.015($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510)O&M Labor Costs($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500)Other O&M Costs (Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080) ($29,080)Contingency 15%($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263) ($47,263)Subtotal$0($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric Power Savedkwh/year2,489,866$480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544Excess Electrical Generation sold to HEA (kwh/yr)9,836,517$725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837Cost per kwh saved0.193$Cost per CCF saved0.907$HEA Payment for Excess Electrical0.0738$Total Cost($3,486,593) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353) ($362,353)Total Revenues $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381 $1,206,381Annual Net($3,486,593)$844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,028 $844,02820 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($3,486,593)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget developmentTotal Equipment Replacement$0 $0 Cost and revenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full business case is developedTotal Operating and Maintenance($7,247,061) ($362,353)Real Discount Rate5%Net Present Value$7,031,857Net Present Value of Costs($8,002,313)EUAC $642,126Levelized Cost of Power, per kWh0.054569$Levelized Cost of Gas per CCF$Operational Stage
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 4Development StageAnnual CCF output 02019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039KW output 1,4141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation $51,700Site Work and Overhead Power Line$598,880Prefabricated Buildings, Slab onGrade$97,340Equipment$1,427,069Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee$217,499Allowance for Permitting $163,124Mobilization/Demobilization$54,375Construction Management Fee$108,749Project Management $108,749Quality Control $32,625Contingency, Bonds &Insurance$643,525Subtotal($3,503,636)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegen maintenance, $/kw$0.015($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510)O&M Labor Costs($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500)Other O&M Costs (Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280) ($52,280)Contingency 15%($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901) ($42,901)Subtotal$0($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric PowerSavedkwh/year2,489,866$480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544Excess Electrical Generation sold to HEA9,836,517$725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837Gas Usage Saved (CPLEvaporator) CCF/year62,212$54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000 $54,000Cost per kwh saved0.193$HEA Payment for Excess Electrical0.0738$Cost per CCF saved0.868$Total Cost($3,503,636) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191) ($381,191)Total Revenues $1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381$1,260,381Annual Net($3,503,636)$879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,190 $879,19020 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($3,503,636)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget development.Total Equipment Replacement $0 $0 Cost and revenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full business case is developed.Total Operating and Maintenance($7,623,821)($381,191)Real Discount Rate 5%Net PresentValue $7,453,011Net PresentValue of Costs($8,254,119)EUAC $662,332Levelized Cost of Power, per kWh 0.056286$Levelized Cost of Gas per CCF$Operational Stage
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 5Development StageAnnual CCF output 961,8792019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039KW output 01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation $11,300Site Work$140,385Prefabricated Buildings, Slab on Grade $26,000Equipment$333,305Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee$51,099Allowance for Permitting $38,324Mob/Demob$12,775Construction Management fee $25,550Project Management$25,550Quality Control$7,665Contingency, Bonds & Insurance $151,189Subtotal($823,141)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegenmaintenance, $/kwh$0.015$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0O&M Labor Costs($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000) ($219,000)Other O&M Costs(Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500) ($28,500)Contingency 15%($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125) ($37,125)Subtotal$0($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric Power Savedkwh/year$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Excess Gas Sold to ENSTAR (CCF)742,287$185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572 $185,572Gas Usage Saved (CPL)219,592$190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606 $190,606Costper kwh saved0.193$Costper CCF saved0.868$ENSTAR Wholesale Price: $2.50 per Thousand CF2.50$Total Cost($823,141) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625) ($284,625)Total Revenues $376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178$376,178Annual Net($823,141)$91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,553 $91,55320 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($823,141)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget development.Total Equipment Replacement $0 $0 Cost and revenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full business case is developed.Total Operating and Maintenance($5,692,500) ($284,625)Real Discount Rate 5%Net Present Value $317,807Net Present Value of Costs($4,370,198)EUAC $350,676LevelizedCost of Power, per kWh$LevelizedCost of Gas per CCF 0.00004$Operational Stage
CURRENT ENERGY USEOPTION 6bDevelopment StageAnnual CCF output 02016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036KW output 1,4141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Capital CostsConstructionPreconstruction, Site Preparation $47,900Site Work$1,346,865Prefabricated Buildings, Slab onGrade$98,940Equipment$1,439,205Fees and PermitsEngineering Design Fee$293,291Allowance for Permitting $219,968Mob/Demob$73,323Construction Management fee$146,646Project Management $146,646Quality Control $43,994Contingency, Bonds & Insurance$867,775Subtotal($4,724,551)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Equipment Replacement$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Subtotal$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Operations & Maintenance CostsEnginegen maintenance, $/kwh$0.015($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510) ($176,510)O&M Labor Costs($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500) ($109,500)Other O&M Costs (Boiler, Pipeline, Compressor, Blower)($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660) ($145,660)Contingency 15%($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750) ($64,750)Subtotal$0($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420)Revenues or Cost SavingsElectric Power Savedkwh/year (CPL + Skyview)2,489,866$480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544 $480,544Excess Electrical Generation Sold to HEA9,836,517$725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837 $725,837Cost per kwh saved0.193$Cost per CCF saved0.868$HEA Payment for Excess Electrical0.0738$Total Cost($4,724,551) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420) ($496,420)Total Revenues $1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381$1,206,381Annual Net($4,724,551)$709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,961 $709,96120 Year Project LifeAnnual AvgTotal Capital Spending($4,724,551)Costs and revenues presented herein are order of magnitude for comparison of alternatives only and not appropriate for budget development.Total Equipment Replacement $0 $0 Cost andrevenue estimates prepared in this task should be expected to change significantly when the full business case is developed.Total Operating and Maintenance($9,928,401)($496,420)Real Discount Rate 5%NetPresent Value $4,123,128NetPresent Value of Costs($10,911,043)EUAC $875,530Levelized Cost of Power, per kWh 0.074404$Levelized Cost of Gas per CCF$Operational Stage
KenaiPeninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 1 Natural Gas Piping at CPL to onsite boilers and evaporator 217%
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, Site Preparation 12,600$
Survey Building Sites (CPL) 0 Days 3,800$$ Initial survey and support during construction
Survey Natural Gas Piping Path 2 Days 3,800$ 7,600$
Contractor Plans & Submittals 1 LS 5,000$ 5,000$ Estimated Quantity
1020 Site Work 147,953$
Clear & Grub with Chipping (250 LF x 10 FT width) 0 Acres 7,000$$ MII
6" Dia. HDPE SDR 11 Natural Gas Piping, below ground 1,865 LF 57$ 106,305$ MII, From gas outlet to CPL evaporator and boilers
Pipe Saddles(from blower to compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NGPiping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 1,865 LF 3.50$ 6,528$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 12" 104 CY 35$ 3,640$ MII, standard practice is backfill around HDPE pipe with gravel.
Horizontal Boring Under Roads 0 LF 1,900$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Jacking Pits for Horizontal Boring 0 EA 105,000$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Piping from knockout to leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII, 3" HDPE SDR 13.5 Leachate Collection Piping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NGPiping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 8,000$
6" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 60$$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 0.0 CY 105$$ CalTrans, assume that excavated material can be used for daily cover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldg, Prefabricated 0 SF 60$$ MII: Prefab 20 x 25
Compressor Bldg, Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: Prefab 10 x 10
Utility Fitout (electric, lighting, HVAC) 100 SF 20$ 2,000$ Timberline
1040 Equipment 465,960$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansion tank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor Equipco Services
Natural Gas Metering Station 1 EA 79,000$ 79,000$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Retrofit Natural Gas Fired Boiler (Seamless Controls) 1 EA 150,115$ 150,115$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Generator Set (Cat C3306) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added 40% factor for new gen set, includes sales tax
Generator Set (Cat CG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 524,700$$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Gen Set Transport Anchorage to Soldotna 0 EA 750$$ Vendor Quote (Knight Flight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 0 EA 30,900$$ MII
Transformer at Client Facility (13.8 kV primary) 0 EA 64,400$$ MII
Switch Gear 1200 A, 13.8 kV, 750 MVA at Client Facility 0 EA 25,200$$ MII
Vent chimney for Engine Generator 0 LF 140$$ MII
Air compressor, electric, 5 HP (at CPL) 1 EA 9,380$ 9,380$ MII
Compressor Air Dryer, 10 SCFM 1 EA 1,680$ 1,680$ MII
Blower System, 163 SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII, one blower for each landfill cell
10.5 million BTU/hr Flare System (flare, piping, trenching, backfill) 1 EA 147,000$ 147,000$ MII, 026610106223
Startup & Testing 3 Days 8,000$ 24,000$ Estimated Quantity
Subtotal 634,513$ 634,513$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 199,871$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 63,451$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 47,588$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 15,863$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 31,726$ US EPA
Project Management 1 PER 5.0% 31,726$ US EPA
Quality Control 1 PER 1.5% 9,518$ US EPA
Subtotal 834,384$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 187,736$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 166,877$
Bonds & Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 20,860$
Total Construction Costs 1,022,120$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 153,835$
O&M Labor 730 HRS 150$ 109,500$ 2 hours/day, 365 Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 0 kWH 0.015$$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012. 600 kW Output
Boiler O&M 1 LS 7,300$ 7,300$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 3,600$ 3,600$ MII
Transformer Inspection & Maintenance 0 EA 550$$ MII, Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 1,865 LF 15$ 27,975$ MII, Assumes annual inspection
Blower O&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% Discount Rate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
2019 0 Capital Cost $1,022,120 1.00 $1,022,120
2020 1 O&M Year $153,835 0.95 $146,510
2021 2 O&M Year $153,835 0.91 $139,533
2022 3 O&M Year $153,835 0.86 $132,888
2023 4 O&M Year $153,835 0.82 $126,560
2024 5 O&M Year $153,835 0.78 $120,534
2025 6 O&M Year $153,835 0.75 $114,794
2026 7 O&M Year $153,835 0.71 $109,328
2027 8 O&M Year $153,835 0.68 $104,122
2028 9 O&M Year $153,835 0.64 $99,163
2029 10 O&M Year $153,835 0.61 $94,441
2030 11 O&M Year $153,835 0.58 $89,944
2031 12 O&M Year $153,835 0.56 $85,661
2032 13 O&M Year $153,835 0.53 $81,582
2033 14 O&M Year $153,835 0.51 $77,697
2034 15 O&M Year $153,835 0.48 $73,997
2035 16 O&M Year $153,835 0.46 $70,474
2036 17 O&M Year $153,835 0.44 $67,118
2037 18 O&M Year $153,835 0.42 $63,922
2038 19 O&M Year $153,835 0.40 $60,878
2039 20 O&M Year $153,835 0.38 $57,979
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $2,939,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptual stage, the tie ins to existing equipment and facilities havenot being identified.
Escalation is not included
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 rates for Soldotna, Alaska.
These AACE Classification Class 5 cost estimates areassumed to represent the actual total installed cost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (% based on AACE) of the cost indicated. It would appear prudent that internal budget
allowances account for the highest cost indicated by this range as well as other site specific allowances. The cost estimate has been prepared for guidancein project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time of
the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the estimates
presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
KPB (3%) and Soldotna (3%) sales tax included in unit rates.
Municipal fees & Licenses havebeen estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specifications have been identified.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 2a Direct Use On and Off Site, Transport via Pipeline to SkyviewMS 217%
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, SitePreparation 39,100$
Survey Building Sites (CPL) 0 Days 3,800$$ Initial survey andsupport during construction
Survey Natural Gas Piping Path 7 Days 3,800$ 26,600$
Contractor Plans & Submittals 1 LS 12,500$ 12,500$ EstimatedQuantity
1020 Site Work 1,346,865$
Clear & Grub with Chipping (3,170 LF x10 FT width) 0.73 Acres 7,000$ 5,110$ MII, Not allof the proposed path needs to be cleared.
6" Dia. HDPE SDR 11 NaturalGas Piping, belowground 6,960 LF 57$ 396,720$ MII, From gasoutlet to CPL evaporator, CPL boilers andto Skyview MS
Pipe Saddles (from blower to compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe SupportConcrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18"Width, up to 6' Depth 6,960 LF 3.50$ 24,360$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 12" 387 CY 35$ 13,545$ MII,standard practice is backfill around HDPEpipe with gravel.
Saw Cut Asphalt 45 LF 2.00$ 90$ Timberline
Cold Patch Asphalt 16 SY 35.00$ 560$ Timberline
Horizontal BoringUnder Roads 350 LF 1,900$ 665,000$ Historicalcosts for similar projects
Jacking Pits for HorizontalBoring 2 EA 105,000$ 210,000$ Historicalcosts for similar projects
Piping from knockout to leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII,3" HDPE SDR13.5 Leachate Collection Piping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18"Width, up to 6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 8,000$
6" Slab on Grade for GenSet 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12" Slab on Grade for GenSet 0 SF 60$$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 0.0 CY 105$$ CalTrans, assume that excavated material can be used for daily cover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldg, Prefabricated 0 SF 60$$ MII: Prefab 20 x25
Compressor Bldg,Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: 30 FT x 15 FT x 16 FT building to enclose natural gas compressor.
Utility Fitout (electric, lighting, HVAC) 100 SF 20$ 2,000$ Timberline
1040 Equipment 504,060$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansiontank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor Equipco Services
Natural Gas Metering Station 1 EA 79,000$ 79,000$ US EPALFGcost Web
Retrofit Natural Gas FiredBoiler (Seamless Controls) 1 EA 150,115$ 150,115$ US EPALFGcost Web
Generator Set (CatC3306) atCPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added40% factor for new gen set, includes sales tax
Generator Set (CatCG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 524,700$$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Gen Set TransportAnchorage to Soldotna 0 EA 750$$ Vendor Quote (Knight Flight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 0 EA 30,900$$ MII
Transformer at Client Facility(13.8 kVprimary) 0 EA 64,400$$ MII
Switch Gear 1200 A,13.8 kV,750 MVA at Client Facility 0 EA 25,200$$ MII
Vent chimney for Engine Generator 0 LF 140$$ MII
Air compressor,electric, 5 HP (at CPL) 0 EA 9,380$$ MII
Air compressor,105 SCFM at 125psi, 25 H.P. (at CPL) 1 EA 35,700$ 35,700$ MII 221519105690
Compressor Air Dryer, 100SCFM 1 EA 5,460$ 5,460$ MII
Blower System, 163SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII,one blower for each landfill cell
10.5 million BTU/hr Flare System (flare, piping, trenching, backfill) 1 EA 147,000$ 147,000$ MII, 026610106223
Startup & Testing 4 Days 8,000$ 32,000$ EstimatedQuantity
Subtotal 1,898,025$ 1,898,025$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 597,878$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 189,803$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 142,352$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 47,451$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 94,901$ US EPA
ProjectManagement 1 PER 5.0% 94,901$ US EPA
Quality Control 1 PER 1.5% 28,470$ US EPA
Subtotal 2,495,903$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 561,578$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 499,181$
Bonds & Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 62,398$
Total ConstructionCosts 3,057,481$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 233,860$
O&M Labor 730 HRS 150$ 109,500$ 2 hours/day, 365Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 0 kWH 0.015$$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012. 600 kW Output
Boiler O&M 1 LS 7,300$ 7,300$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 7,200$ 7,200$ MII, for compressor at CPL to gas into pipeline
Transformer Inspection & Maintenance 0 EA 550$$ MII,Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 6,960 LF 15$ 104,400$ MII, Assumes annual inspection
Blower O&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% DiscountRate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
2019 0 Capital Cost $3,057,481 1.00 $3,057,481
2020 1 O&M Year $233,860 0.95 $222,724
2021 2 O&M Year $233,860 0.91 $212,118
2022 3 O&M Year $233,860 0.86 $202,017
2023 4 O&M Year $233,860 0.82 $192,397
2024 5 O&M Year $233,860 0.78 $183,235
2025 6 O&M Year $233,860 0.75 $174,510
2026 7 O&M Year $233,860 0.71 $166,200
2027 8 O&M Year $233,860 0.68 $158,286
2028 9 O&M Year $233,860 0.64 $150,748
2029 10 O&M Year $233,860 0.61 $143,570
2030 11 O&M Year $233,860 0.58 $136,733
2031 12 O&M Year $233,860 0.56 $130,222
2032 13 O&M Year $233,860 0.53 $124,021
2033 14 O&M Year $233,860 0.51 $118,115
2034 15 O&M Year $233,860 0.48 $112,491
2035 16 O&M Year $233,860 0.46 $107,134
2036 17 O&M Year $233,860 0.44 $102,032
2037 18 O&M Year $233,860 0.42 $97,174
2038 19 O&M Year $233,860 0.40 $92,546
2039 20 O&M Year $233,860 0.38 $88,139
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $5,972,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptualstage, the tie ins to existing equipment and facilities have not being identified.
Escalation is not included
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 rates for Soldotna, Alaska.These AACE Classification Class 5 cost estimates are assumed to represent the actual total installed cost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (%based on AACE)of the cost indicated.It would appear prudent that
internal budget allowances account for the highest cost indicated by this range as well as other site specific allowances. The cost estimate hasbeen prepared for guidance in project evaluation andimplementation from the
information available at the time of theestimate. Thefinal costs of theproject will dependon actual labor andmaterial costs, competitive market conditions, implementationschedule, andother variable factors. As a result,
the finalproject costs will vary fromthe estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility andfunding needs mustbe carefully reviewed prior to making specific financialdecisions to helpensure proper project
evaluation and adequatefunding.
KPB (3%) andSoldotna (3%) sales tax includedin unit rates.
Municipal fees & Licenses have been estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specifications have been identified.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 3 Landfill Gas to Energy Power Plant at CPL OH power line from CPL, No 217%
Utilization of Gen Set Exhaust Heat
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, Site Preparation 49,200$
Survey Building Sites(CPL) 2 Days 3,800$ 7,600$ Initial surveyand support during construction
Survey OH Power Line 7 Days 3,800$ 26,600$
Contractor Plans & Submittals 1 LS 15,000$ 15,000$ Estimated Quantity
1020 Site Work 610,180$
Clear & Grub with Chipping (3,170 LF x 15 FT width) 1.1 Acres 7,000$ 7,700$ MII, Not all of the proposed path needs to be cleared.
6" Dia. HDPE SDR 11 Natural Gas Piping, below ground 0 LF 57$$ MII, From gas outlet to boiler
Pipe Saddles(from blower to compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 0 LF 3.50$$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 12" 0 CY 35$$ MII, standard practice is backfill around HDPE pipe with gravel.
Saw Cut Asphalt 0 LF 2.00$$ Timberline
Cold Patch Asphalt 0 SY 35.00$$ Timberline
Horizontal Boring Under Roads 0 LF 1,900$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Jacking Pits for Horizontal Boring 0 EA 105,000$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Overhead Power Line (poles, conductors, conduit) 6,960 LF 75$ 522,000$ MII, From gas outlet to CPL buildings and to Skyview MS
Concrete Pole Bases with Anchor Bolts 14 EA 3,500$ 49,000$ CIP Concrete columns with 1 1/2" x 14" screw anchor bolts
Piping from knockout to leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII, 3" HDPE SDR 13.5 Leachate Collection Piping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 98,940$
6" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12"Slab on Grade for Gen Set 500 SF 60$ 30,000$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 28 CY 105$ 2,940$ CalTrans, assume that excavated material can be used for dailycover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldgs, Prefabricated 500 SF 60$ 30,000$ MII: Two prefab buildings 20 x 25
Compressor Bldg, Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: Prefab 10 x 10
Utility Fitout (electric, lighting, HVAC) 600 SF 20$ 12,000$ Timberline
6' Chain Link Fence with personnel and vehicle gates 240 LF 75$ 18,000$ MII
1040 Equipment 1,406,089$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansion tank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor Equipco Services
Natural Gas Metering Station 0 EA 79,000$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Retrofit Natural GasFired Boiler (Seamless Controls) 0 EA 150,115$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Generator Set (Cat CG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 2 EA 524,700$ 1,049,400$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Generator Set (Cat C3306) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added 40% factor for new gen set, includes sales tax
Gen Set Transport Anchorage to Soldotna 2 EA 750$ 1,500$ Vendor Quote (Knight Flight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 2 EA 30,900$ 61,800$ MII
Transformerat Client Facility (13.8kV primary) 1 EA 64,400$ 64,400$ MII
Switch Gear 1200 A, 13.8 kV, 750 MVA at Client Facility 1 EA 25,200$ 25,200$ MII
Vent chimney for Engine Generator 50 LF 140$ 7,000$ MII
Air compressor, electric, 5 HP (at CPL) 0 EA 9,380$$ MII
Compressor Air Dryer, 10 SCFM 0 EA 1,680$$ MII
Compressor Air Dryer, 100 SCFM 2 EA 5,460$ 10,920$ MII
BlowerSystem, 163 SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII, one blower for each landfill cell
SCADA System Host Computer 1 EA 18,375$ 18,375$ MII, 230923103282
SCADA System Software 1 EA 17,782$ 17,782$ Trihedral VT Scada US Pricing Sheet
SCADA System Remote Terminal Units 4 EA 2,367$ 9,468$ Moxa ioPAC 8500 9 RJ45 C T
Startup & Testing 10 Days 8,000$ 80,000$ Estimated Quantity
BlowerO&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
Subtotal 2,164,409$ 2,164,409$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 681,789$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 216,441$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 162,331$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 54,110$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 108,220$ US EPA
Project Management 1 PER 5.0% 108,220$ US EPA
QualityControl 1 PER 1.5% 32,466$ US EPA
Subtotal 2,846,198$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 640,395$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 569,240$
Bonds& Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 71,155$
Total Construction Costs 3,486,593$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 324,380$
O&M Labor 730 HRS 150$ 109,500$ 2 hours/day, 365 Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 12,386,640 kWH 0.015$ 185,800$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012.
Boiler O&M 0 LS 7,300$$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 3,600$ 3,600$ MII
TransformerInspection & Maintenance 26 EA 770$ 20,020$ MII, Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 0 LF 15$$ MII, Assumes annual inspection
BlowerO&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ Estimator Judgement
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% Discount Rate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
2019 0 Capital Cost $3,486,593 1.00 $3,486,593
2020 1 O&M Year $324,380 0.95 $308,933
2021 2 O&M Year $324,380 0.91 $294,222
2022 3 O&M Year $324,380 0.86 $280,211
2023 4 O&M Year $324,380 0.82 $266,868
2024 5 O&M Year $324,380 0.78 $254,160
2025 6 O&M Year $324,380 0.75 $242,057
2026 7 O&M Year $324,380 0.71 $230,531
2027 8 O&M Year $324,380 0.68 $219,553
2028 9 O&M Year $324,380 0.64 $209,098
2029 10 O&M Year $324,380 0.61 $199,141
2030 11 O&M Year $324,380 0.58 $189,658
2031 12 O&M Year $324,380 0.56 $180,627
2032 13 O&M Year $324,380 0.53 $172,025
2033 14 O&M Year $324,380 0.51 $163,834
2034 15 O&M Year $324,380 0.48 $156,032
2035 16 O&M Year $324,380 0.46 $148,602
2036 17 O&M Year $324,380 0.44 $141,526
2037 18 O&M Year $324,380 0.42 $134,786
2038 19 O&M Year $324,380 0.40 $128,368
2039 20 O&M Year $324,380 0.38 $122,255
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $7,529,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptual stage, the tie insto existing equipment and facilitieshave not being identified.
Escalation is not included
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 ratesfor Soldotna, Alaska.These AACE Classification Class 5 cost estimates are assumed to represent the actual total installed cost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (%based on AACE)of the cost indicated.It would appear prudent that
internal budget allowancesaccount for the highest cost indicated by thisrange as well as other site specific allowances. The cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the
information available at the time of the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result,
the final project costs will vary from the estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility and funding needsmust be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions to help ensure proper project
evaluation and adequate funding.
KPB (3%) and Soldotna (3%) sales tax included in unit rates.
Municipal fees & Licenses have been estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specificationshave been identified.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 4 Landfill Gas to Energy Power Plant at CPL OH power line from CPL with 217%
engine exhaust piped to evaporator
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, Site Preparation 51,700$
Survey Building Sites (CPL) 2 Days 3,800$ 7,600$ Initial survey and support during construction
Survey OHPower Line 7 Days 3,800$ 26,600$
Contractor Plans & Submittals 1 LS 17,500$ 17,500$ Estimated Quantity
1020 Site Work 598,880$
Clear & Grub with Chipping (3,170 LF x 15 FT width) 1.1 Acres 7,000$ 7,700$ MII, Not all of the proposed path needs to be cleared.
6" Dia. HDPE SDR 11 Natural Gas Piping, below ground 900 LF 57$ 51,300$ MII, From gas outlet to Gen Set
Pipe Saddles (from blower to compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 12" 50 CY 35$ 1,750$ MII, standard practice is backfill around HDPE pipe with gravel.
Saw Cut Asphalt 0 LF 2.00$$ Timberline
Cold Patch Asphalt 0 SY 35.00$$ Timberline
Horizontal Boring Under Roads 0 LF 1,900$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Jacking Pits for Horizontal Boring 0 EA 105,000$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Overhead Power Line (poles, conductors, conduit) 6,060 LF 75$ 454,500$ MII, From gas outlet to CPL buildings and to Skyview MS
Concrete Pole Bases with Anchor Bolts 14 EA 3,500$ 49,000$ CIPConcrete columns with 1 1/2" x 14" screw anchor bolts
Piping from knockout to leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII, 3" HDPE SDR 13.5 Leachate Collection Piping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to 6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 97,340$
6" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 500 SF 60$ 30,000$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 28 CY 105$ 2,940$ CalTrans, assume that excavated material can be used for daily cover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldg, Prefabricated 480 SF 60$ 28,800$ MII: Two prefab buildings 20 x 25
Compressor Bldg, Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: Prefab 10 x 10
CHP Equipment Bldg, Pre Engineered Metal 0 SF 130$$ Not needed since engine exhaust heat will be piped directly to evaporator
Utility Fitout (electric, lighting, HVAC) 580 SF 20$ 11,600$ Timberline
6' Chain Link Fence with personnel and vehicle gates 240 LF 75$ 18,000$ MII
1040 Equipment 1,427,069$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansion tank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor Equipco Services
Natural Gas Metering Station 0 EA 79,000$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Retrofit Natural Gas Fired Boiler (Seamless Controls) 0 EA 150,115$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Generator Set (Cat CG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 2 EA 524,700$ 1,049,400$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Generator Set (Cat C3306) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added 40% factor for new gen set, includes sales tax
Gen Set Transport Anchorage to Soldotna 2 EA 750$ 1,500$ Vendor Quote (Knight Flight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 2 EA 30,900$ 61,800$ MII
Transformer at Client Facility (13.8 kV primary) 1 EA 64,400$ 64,400$ MII
Switch Gear 1200 A, 13.8 kV, 750 MVA at Client Facility 1 EA 25,200$ 25,200$ MII
Vent chimney for Engine Generator to evaporator 100 LF 140$ 14,000$ MII: Two each 50 ft runs from each generator to evaporator
Pipe Saddles (from Gen Set exhaust to evaporator) 9 EA 480$ 4,320$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 18 EA 840$ 15,120$ MII
Air compressor, electric, 5 HP (at CPL) 0 EA 9,380$$ MII
Compressor Air Dryer, 10 SCFM 0 EA 1,680$$ MII
Air compressor, 105 SCFM at 125 psi, 25 H.P. (at CPL) 0 EA 35,700$$ MII221519105690
Compressor Air Dryer, 100 SCFM 2 EA 5,460$ 10,920$ MII
Absorption water chiller, 440 ton 0 EA 588,825$$ For CHP, Ingersoll Rand Quote +20% for AK shipment. Installation costs from MII
CHP Equipment Transport Anchorage to Soldotna 0 EA 5,000$$ Adjusted from Knight Flight Cargo Services quote.
440 Ton CHP Equipment Installation 0 EA 48,900$$ MII, 500 ton chiller
40 Ton crane crew for loading/unloading CHP equipment 0 Days 5,540$$ MII015419500300
Blower System, 163 SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII, one blower for each landfill cell
SCADA System Host Computer 1 EA 18,375$ 18,375$ MII, 230923103282
SCADA System Software 1 EA 17,782$ 17,782$ Trihedral VT Scada US PricingSheet
SCADA System Remote Terminal Units 4 EA 2,367$ 9,468$ Moxa ioPAC 8500 9 RJ45 C T
Startup & Testing 10 Days 8,000$ 80,000$ Estimated Quantity
Subtotal 2,174,989$ 2,174,989$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 685,122$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 217,499$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 163,124$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 54,375$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 108,749$ US EPA
Project Management 1 PER 5.0% 108,749$ US EPA
Quality Control 1 PER 1.5% 32,625$ US EPA
Subtotal 2,860,111$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 643,525$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 572,022$
Bonds & Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 71,503$
Total ConstructionCosts 3,503,636$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 347,580$
O&M Labor 730 HRS 150$ 109,500$ 2 hours/day, 365 Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 12,386,640 kWH 0.015$ 185,800$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012.
Boiler O&M 0 LS 7,300$$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 10,800$ 10,800$ MII
Transformer Inspection & Maintenance 26 EA 770$ 20,020$ MII, Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 0 LF 15$$ MII, Assumes annual inspection
Chiller O&M 2 LS 8,000$ 16,000$ Estimator Judgement
Blower O&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% Discount Rate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
2019 0 Capital Cost $3,503,636 1.00 $3,503,636
2020 1 O&M Year $347,580 0.95 $331,028
2021 2 O&M Year $347,580 0.91 $315,265
2022 3 O&M Year $347,580 0.86 $300,252
2023 4 O&M Year $347,580 0.82 $285,955
2024 5 O&M Year $347,580 0.78 $272,338
2025 6 O&M Year $347,580 0.75 $259,369
2026 7 O&M Year $347,580 0.71 $247,018
2027 8 O&M Year $347,580 0.68 $235,256
2028 9 O&M Year $347,580 0.64 $224,053
2029 10 O&M Year $347,580 0.61 $213,384
2030 11 O&M Year $347,580 0.58 $203,223
2031 12 O&M Year $347,580 0.56 $193,545
2032 13 O&M Year $347,580 0.53 $184,329
2033 14 O&M Year $347,580 0.51 $175,551
2034 15 O&M Year $347,580 0.48 $167,192
2035 16 O&M Year $347,580 0.46 $159,230
2036 17 O&M Year $347,580 0.44 $151,648
2037 18 O&M Year $347,580 0.42 $144,427
2038 19 O&M Year $347,580 0.40 $137,549
2039 20 O&M Year $347,580 0.38 $130,999
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $7,835,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptual stage, the tie ins to existing equipment and facilities have not being identified.
Escalation is not included
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 rates for Soldotna, Alaska.
These AACE Classification Class 5 cost estimates are assumed to represent the actual total installed cost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (% based on AACE) of the cost indicated. It would appear prudent that internal budget
allowances account for the highest cost indicated by this range as well as other site specific allowances. The cost estimate has been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementation from the information available at the time
of the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions,implementation schedule, and other variable factors. As a result, the final project costs will vary from the
estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility and funding needs must be carefully reviewed prior to making specificfinancial decisions to help ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
KPB (3%) and Soldotna (3%) sales tax included in unit rates.
Municipal fees & Licenses have been estimated as apercentage of the total direct costs
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specifications have been identified.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 5 Remove CO2 and Trace Gases and Inject to ENSTAR Pipeline 217%
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, Site Preparation 11,300$
Survey Building Sites (CPL) 0 Days 3,800$$ Initial survey and support during construction
Survey Pipeline 1 Days 3,800$ 3,800$
Contractor Plans & Submittals 1 LS 7,500$ 7,500$ Estimated Quantity
1020 Site Work 140,385$
Clear & Grub withChipping (1056 LF x10 FT width) 0.25 Acres 7,000$ 1,750$ MII
4" Dia. HDPE SDR11 Natural Gas Piping, below ground 1,056 LF 49$ 51,744$ MII, From gas outlet to Enstar Pipeline
Pipe Saddles (from blowerto compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to6' Depth 1,056 LF 4$ 3,696$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 10" 49 CY 35$ 1,715$ MII, standard practice is backfill around HDPE pipe with gravel.
Saw Cut Asphalt 0 LF 2$$ Timberline
ColdPatch Asphalt 0 SY 35$$ Timberline
Horizontal Boring Under Roads 0 LF 1,900$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Jacking Pitsfor Horizontal Boring 0 EA 105,000$$ Historical costs for similar projects
Overhead Power Line (poles, conductors, conduit) 0 LF 75$$ 1.4 Miles
Concrete Pole Bases withAnchor Bolts 0 EA 3,500$$ CIP Concrete columns with 1 1/2" x 14" screw anchor bolts
Piping from knockout to leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII, 3" HDPE SDR13.5 Leachate Collection Piping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18" Width, up to6' Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
Pipeline Connection Fee 1 LS 50,000$ 50,000$ Estimator Judgement
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 26,000$
6" Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12" Slabon Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 60$$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 0.0 CY 105$$ CalTrans, assume that excavated material can be used for daily cover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldg, Prefabricated 0 SF 60$$ MII: Prefab 20 x 25
Compressor Bldg, Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: Prefab 10 x 10
Utility Fitout (electric,lighting, HVAC) 100 SF 20$ 2,000$ Timberline
6' Chain Link Fence withpersonnel and vehicle gates 240 LF 75$ 18,000$ MII
1040 Equipment 333,305$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansion tank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor EquipcoServices
Natural Gas MeteringStation 1 EA 79,000$ 79,000$ US EPALFGcost Web
Retrofit Natural Gas FiredBoiler (Seamless Controls) 0 EA 150,115$$ US EPALFGcost Web
Generator Set (Cat CG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 524,700$$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Generator Set (Cat C3306) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added 40% factor for new genset, includes sales tax
Gen Set Transport Anchorage toSoldotna 0 EA 750$$ Vendor Quote (Knight Flight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 0 EA 30,900$$ MII
Transformer at Client Facility (13.8 kV primary) 0 EA 64,400$$ MII
SwitchGear 1200 A, 13.8 kV, 750 MVAat Client Facility 0 EA 25,200$$ MII
Vent chimney for Engine Generator 0 LF 140$$ MII
Air compressor, 105 SCFM at 125 psi, 25 H.P. (at CPL) 1 EA 35,700$ 35,700$ MII 221519105690
Compressor Air Dryer, 100 SCFM 1 EA 5,460$ 5,460$ MII
Absorption water chiller, 10 ton 1 EA 46,400$ 46,400$ MII 236413133270
Absorption water chiller, 440 ton 0 EA 714,000$$ MII
Landfillgas andleachate control systems, gas scrubber, 750 CFM 1 EA 71,960$ 71,960$ MII, Adjusted based on costs for 1500 to 7700 CFM scrubbers
Landfillgas andleachate control systems, gas scrubber, 7700 CFM 0 EA 196,000$$ MII
Blower System, 163 SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII, one blowerfor each landfill cell
Startup& Testing 5 Days 8,000$ 40,000$ Estimated Quantity
Subtotal 510,990$ 510,990$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 160,962$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 51,099$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 38,324$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 12,775$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 25,550$ US EPA
Project Management 1 PER 5.0% 25,550$ US EPA
Quality Control 1 PER 1.5% 7,665$ US EPA
Subtotal 671,952$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 151,189$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 134,390$
Bonds & Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 16,799$
Total Construction Costs 823,141$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 247,500$
O&M Labor 1,460 HRS 150$ 219,000$ 4 hours/day, 365 Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 0 kWH 0.015$$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012
Boiler O&M 0 LS 7,300$$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 7,200$ 7,200$ MII
Transformer Inspection& Maintenance 0 EA 770$$ MII, Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 1,056 LF 15$ 15,840$ MII, Assumes annual inspection
Blower O&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% Discount Rate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
0 Capital Cost $823,141 1.00 $823,141
1 O&M Year $247,500 0.95 $235,714
2 O&M Year $247,500 0.91 $224,490
3 O&M Year $247,500 0.86 $213,800
4 O&M Year $247,500 0.82 $203,619
5 O&M Year $247,500 0.78 $193,923
6 O&M Year $247,500 0.75 $184,688
7 O&M Year $247,500 0.71 $175,894
8 O&M Year $247,500 0.68 $167,518
9 O&M Year $247,500 0.64 $159,541
10 O&M Year $247,500 0.61 $151,944
11 O&M Year $247,500 0.58 $144,708
12 O&M Year $247,500 0.56 $137,817
13 O&M Year $247,500 0.53 $131,255
14 O&M Year $247,500 0.51 $125,004
15 O&M Year $247,500 0.48 $119,052
16 O&M Year $247,500 0.46 $113,383
17 O&M Year $247,500 0.44 $107,983
18 O&M Year $247,500 0.42 $102,841
19 O&M Year $247,500 0.40 $97,944
20 O&M Year $247,500 0.38 $93,280
TOTALPRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $3,908,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptual stage, the tie ins to existing equipment and facilities have not being identified.
Escalation is not included
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 rates for Soldotna, Alaska.These AACE Classification Class 5 cost estimates are assumed torepresent the actual total installed cost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (%based on AACE)of the cost indicated.It would appear prudent that internal
budget allowances account for the highest cost indicatedby this range as well as other site specific allowances. The cost estimate has been prepared for guidance inproject evaluation and implementation from the information
available at the time of the estimate. The final costs of the project will depend on actual labor and materialcosts, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, andother variable factors. As a result, the final project costs
will varyfrom the estimates presented herein. Becauseof this, project feasibility and fundingneeds must be carefully reviewed prior to making specific financial decisions tohelp ensure proper project evaluation and adequate funding.
KPB(3%) and Soldotna (3%) sales tax included in unit rates.
Municipal fees & Licenses have been estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specifications have been identified.
Kenai Peninsula Borough Landfill Gas Utilization 06/20/16 Alaska ACF
Option 6b Transport to CPL Buildings andOffsite in Pipeline to Generator Set at 217%
Skyview MS
Concept Screening Level Costs (AACE Level 5, Accuracy 50%+100%)
Description Qty Unit Unit Total Subtotals Notes
Cost Cost
1010 Preconstruction, Site Preparation 47,900$
Survey Building Sites (Skyview MS) 1 Days 3,800$ 3,800$ Initial surveyand support duringconstruction
Survey NaturalGas Piping Path 7 Days 3,800$ 26,600$
Contractor DesignPlans & Submittals 1 LS 17,500$ 17,500$ Estimated Quantity
1020 Site Work 1,346,865$
Clear & Grub with Chipping (3,170 LFx 10 FT width) 0.73 Acres 7,000$ 5,110$ MII, Not allof theproposed pathneeds to be cleared.
6"Dia. HDPE SDR11 Natural Gas Piping, below ground 6,960 LF 57$ 396,720$ MII,From gas outlet to CPL buildings and to Skyview MS
Pipe Saddles (from blower to compressor) 5 EA 480$ 2,400$ MII
Pipe Support Concrete Bases 10 EA 840$ 8,400$ MII
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18"Width, up to 6'Depth 6,960 LF 3.50$ 24,360$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 12" 387 CY 35$ 13,545$ MII, standard practice is backfill aroundHDPE pipe with gravel.
Saw Cut Asphalt 45 LF 2.00$ 90$ Timberline
Cold Patch Asphalt 16 SY 35.00$ 560$ Timberline
HorizontalBoring Under Roads 350 LF 1,900$ 665,000$ Historical costs for similar projects
Jacking Pits for Horizontal Boring 2 EA 105,000$ 210,000$ Historical costs for similar projects
Piping from knockoutto leachate collection 900 LF 18$ 16,200$ MII, 3"HDPE SDR 13.5 Leachate CollectionPiping
Chain Trencher Excavation for NG Piping, 18"Width, up to 6'Depth 900 LF 3.50$ 3,150$ MII
Pipe Bedding Material, 9" 38 CY 35$ 1,330$ MII
1030 Prefabricated Buildings 98,940$
6"Slab on Grade for Gen Set 0 SF 20$$ Timberline
12"Slab on Grade for Gen Set 500 SF 60$ 30,000$ Timberline
Excavation for slab on grade 28 CY 105$ 2,940$ CalTrans, assume thatexcavated material can be used for daily cover at CPL
Engine Generator Bldg, Prefabricated 500 SF 60$ 30,000$ MII: Two prefab buildings 20 x 25
Compressor Bldg, Prefabricated 100 SF 60$ 6,000$ MII: Prefab10 x 10
UtilityFitout(electric,lighting, HVAC) 600 SF 20$ 12,000$ Timberline
6' ChainLink Fence with personnel andvehicle gates 240 LF 75$ 18,000$ MII
1040 Equipment 1,439,205$
Moisture Knockout Tank (100 Gal Expansiontank) 1 EA 5,040$ 5,040$ MII
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Monitoring Equipment 1 EA 11,105$ 11,105$ Vendor Equipco Services
Natural Gas Metering Station 0 EA 79,000$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Retrofit NaturalGas FiredBoiler (Seamless Controls) 0 EA 150,115$$ US EPA LFGcost Web
Generator Set (CatCG132 16) at CPL or Skyview MS 2 EA 524,700$ 1,049,400$ Vendor Quote, includes sales tax
Generator Set (CatC3306) at CPL or Skyview MS 0 EA 151,400$$ Vendor Quote for used. Added 40%factor for new gen set, includes sales tax
Gen Set TransportAnchorage to Soldotna 2 EA 750$ 1,500$ Vendor Quote (KnightFlight Cargo Services)
Generator Set Installation 2 EA 30,900$ 61,800$ MII
Transformer at Client Facility (13.8 kV primary) 1 EA 64,400$ 64,400$ MII
Switch Gear 1200 A, 13.8 kV, 750 MVA at ClientFacility 1 EA 25,200$ 25,200$ MII
Ventchimney for Engine Generator 25 LF 140$ 3,500$ MII
Air compressor, electric, 5 HP (atCPL) 1 EA 9,380$ 9,380$ MII
Compressor Air Dryer,10 SCFM 1 EA 1,680$ 1,680$ MII
Air compressor, 105 SCFM at125 psi, 25 H.P. (atCPL) 1 EA 35,700$ 35,700$ MII 221519105690
Compressor Air Dryer,100 SCFM 1 EA 5,460$ 5,460$ MII
Absorption water chiller,10 ton 1 EA 46,400$ 46,400$ MII 236413133270
Blower System,163 SCFM, 15 HP, 15 psi 2 EA 19,320$ 38,640$ MII, one blower for each landfillcell
Startup& Testing 10 Days 8,000$ 80,000$ Estimated Quantity
Subtotal 2,932,910$ 2,932,910$
1050 Consultant and Subcontractor Fees 923,867$
Engineering Design Fee 1 PER 10.0% 293,291$ US EPA
Allowance for Permitting 1 PER 7.5% 219,968$ US EPA
Mobilization/Demobilization 1 PER 2.5% 73,323$ US EPA
Construction Management 1 PER 5.0% 146,646$ US EPA
ProjectManagement 1 PER 5.0% 146,646$ US EPA
Quality Control 1 PER 1.5% 43,994$ US EPA
Subtotal 3,856,777$
1060 Contingency, Bonds & Insurance 867,775$
Contingency 1 PER 20.0% 771,355$
Bonds & Insurance 1 PER 2.5% 96,419$
Total ConstructionCosts 4,724,551$
1070 Operations & Maintenance Costs 440,960$
O&M Labor 730 HRS 150$ 109,500$ 2 hours/day, 365 Days/Year
Engine Generator Repair & Maintenance 12,386,640 kWH 0.015$ 185,800$ M. Lopez Caterpillar Electric Power Presentation January 2012.
Boiler O&M 0 LS 7,300$$ Estimator Judgement
Compressor O&M 1 LS 7,200$ 7,200$ MII
Transformer Inspection & Maintenance 52 EA 550$ 28,600$ MII, Assumes weekly inspections
Pipeline inspection, 4"12" diameter 6,960 LF 15$ 104,400$ MII,Assumes annual inspection
Blower O&M 2 LS 2,730$ 5,460$ MII
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS 5.0% Discount Rate
Year Cost Type Cost Rate (5%) Present Value
2019 0 CapitalCost $4,724,551 1.00 $4,724,551
2020 1 O&M Year $440,960 0.95 $419,962
2021 2 O&M Year $440,960 0.91 $399,963
2022 3 O&M Year $440,960 0.86 $380,917
2023 4 O&M Year $440,960 0.82 $362,779
2024 5 O&M Year $440,960 0.78 $345,503
2025 6 O&M Year $440,960 0.75 $329,051
2026 7 O&M Year $440,960 0.71 $313,382
2027 8 O&M Year $440,960 0.68 $298,459
2028 9 O&M Year $440,960 0.64 $284,246
2029 10 O&M Year $440,960 0.61 $270,711
2030 11 O&M Year $440,960 0.58 $257,820
2031 12 O&M Year $440,960 0.56 $245,543
2032 13 O&M Year $440,960 0.53 $233,850
2033 14 O&M Year $440,960 0.51 $222,715
2034 15 O&M Year $440,960 0.48 $212,109
2035 16 O&M Year $440,960 0.46 $202,009
2036 17 O&M Year $440,960 0.44 $192,389
2037 18 O&M Year $440,960 0.42 $183,228
2038 19 O&M Year $440,960 0.40 $174,503
2039 20 O&M Year $440,960 0.38 $166,193
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS $10,220,000
Notes:
As the design is at conceptualstage, the tie ins to existing equipment and facilities have not being identified.
Escalation is not included
Exclusions:
Only limited equipment specifications have been identified.
Municipal fees & Licenses have been estimated as a percentage of the total direct costs
The budget is based on 2nd quarter 2016 rates for Soldotna, Alaska.
These AACEClassification Class 5 cost estimates are assumed to representthe actual total installedcost within the range of 50 percent to +100 percent (% based on AACE) of the cost indicated. Itwould appear prudent thatinternal budget
allowances account for thehighest costindicated by this range as wellas other sitespecific allowances. The cost estimatehas been prepared for guidance in project evaluation and implementationfrom the information available at the time
of the estimate. The final costs of the project will dependon actual labor and material costs, competitive market conditions, implementation schedule, andother variable factors. As a result, the finalproject costs will vary from the
estimates presented herein. Because of this, project feasibility andfunding needs mustbe carefullyreviewed prior to making specific financialdecisions to helpensure proper project evaluation andadequate funding.
KPB (3%) andSoldotna (3%) sales tax includedin unit rates.