LFG Strategic Plan v9 - Final

WESTERN P
LAN
PLACER
NDFIL
R WAST
L GAS
OCTOB
Pre
William
2436 Profess
Rosev
(91
www.
TE MAN
S STRA
BER 5, 20
epared by:
m J. Dickins
sional Drive, Su
ville, CA 95661
16) 641-2734
.capitolpfg.com
NAGEME
ATEGIC
015
son
uite 300
1
m
ENT AU
C PLA
October 5,
UTHORI
AN
2015
ITY

October 5, 2015
Table of Contents
ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
1.0 BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1
2.0 MISSION STATEMENT AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES ......................................................... 2
3.0 GOALS AND PRIORITIES ......................................................................................... 3
4.0 PLANNING HORIZON.............................................................................................. 4
5.0 STAKEHOLDERS..................................................................................................... 5
6.0 ASSET IDENTIFICATION.......................................................................................... 6
7.0 UTILIZATION METHODS AND TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS.................................................... 8
7.1 Electricity Generation ....................................................................................... 8
7.2 Renewable Natural Gas for Vehicle Fuel ............................................................ 10
7.3 Uses Not Feasible At This Time ........................................................................ 11
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, PERMITTING AND REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS.............................. 13
9.0 GRANTS AND INCENTIVES ..................................................................................... 13
10.0 PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................ 16
11.0 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................. 21
11.1 Ownership and Contracting ........................................................................... 21
11.2 Preferred LFG Uses ...................................................................................... 22
11.3 Selected Alternatives.................................................................................... 22
12.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS......................................................................................... 24
12.1 Financial Projections..................................................................................... 24
12.2 Assumptions ............................................................................................... 24
12.3 Energy 2001 Value....................................................................................... 24
12.4 Conclusions Drawn From Financial Comparison ................................................ 25
12.5 Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................... 25
13.0 PROJECT FINANCING.......................................................................................... 28
14.0 RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 29
14.1 Top-ranked Alternative ................................................................................. 29
14.2 Agreements with Energy 2001 ....................................................................... 30
14.3 EMF RFP Structure ....................................................................................... 31
15.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN...................................................................................... 32
APPENDIX A: GOLDER ASSOCIATES – LFG UTILIZATION
APPENDIX B: TSS – GRANTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES
APPENDIX C: FLEET CONVERSION & USE PROJECTIONS
APPENDIX D: FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS

ES - 1 October 5, 2015
Western Placer Waste Management Authority
Landfill Gas Strategic Plan
Executive Summary
The Western Placer Waste Management Authority (WPWMA) has engaged a consulting team
led by Capitol Public Finance Group (“Capitol PFG”) to produce this Landfill Gas Strategic
Plan. Its purpose is to guide the WPWMA towards maximizing the value of the Landfill Gas
(LFG) asset while continuing to meet all applicable regulatory and legal operating
requirements. The consulting team includes Golder Associates and TSS Consultants.
The Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL) is a Class II/Class III municipal solid waste
landfill with a total capacity of approximately 36.5 million cubic yards. The WPWMA
estimates that the WRSL will reach capacity in 2058. The WPWMA has installed and has
periodically expanded its LFG collection system at the WRSL. The collection system
generally consists of 73 vertical extraction wells, 14 horizontal extraction wells, above
ground conveyance piping and a blower/flare station. The WPWMA leases approximately
15,000 square feet of land to an independent private party (Energy 2001) and provides
them with LFG for the purpose of producing and selling electricity generated from the
combustion of LFG. In exchange, Energy 2001 pays the WPWMA a ground lease and remits
a portion of their electricity sales revenue to the WPWMA.
The primary mission of the WPWMA is to safely and cost-effectively manage the disposition
of all materials accepted at its facilities, productively using recyclable materials when
feasible. With respect to the management of LFG produced through the decomposition of
materials buried at the Landfill, the WPWMA has adopted the following additional Guiding
Principles, in order of priority1
:
1. Remain in regulatory compliance
2. Maximize the value realized for the LFG asset to benefit the WPWMA customer base
3. WPWMA ownership of infrastructure needed to collect, treat and utilize LFG is
preferred over private ownership
4. Protect the environment
5. Protect public health and safety
6. Demonstrate environmental leadership in our community
7. Job creation
1
Guiding Principles and Goals and Priorities were adopted by the WPWMA Board in April 2015.

Golder Associates conducted a lengthy review of LFG utilization options, included in Sections
4 through 6 of Exhibit A to this report. This review includes a discussion of the technologies
employed to treat and use LFG, risk factors, screening criteria and feasibility for use by
WPWMA.
Although on-site electrical load displacement and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) for vehicle
fuel appeared to show the most promise as uses for WPWMA LFG, both of these uses have
limitations with regard to the amount of LFG they can consume. Golder Associates projects
that only the richest gas wells (25% of the total supply) are of sufficient quality to produce
vehicle fuel. Likewise, on-site uses through PG&E’s NEM program are limited to 1 MW of
electricity generation out of a current potential 5 MW of capacity. To utilize either of these
methods, then, requires combining uses or flaring large quantities of excess gas.
When developing alternatives for the use of LFG it is not sufficient to simply choose a
utilization method (e.g. “electricity production”), because choices about ownership,
contracting, marketing and project delivery methods all have a major impact on the
financial outcome. Capitol PFG worked with WPWMA staff and the LFG Strategic Plan
Advisory Committee to choose Alternatives that best matched the Guiding Principles
adopted for this Plan. For example, WPWMA has expressed a clear preference for ownership
of infrastructure needed to collect, treat and utilize LFG; as such, Capitol PFG has assumed
that four of the five Alternatives subjected to a comparative financial analysis would involve
WPWMA ownership of some or all of the infrastructure. The following five Alternatives were
developed for further review:
Alternative 1a: All LFG would go towards off-site electricity generation under the
terms of a lease agreement. The lessee would retain ownership of all generating assets
and pay royalties to WPWMA at amounts equivalent to WPWMA’s agreement with Energy
2001 as it will exist in 2018.
Alternative 1b: The best quality LFG would be converted to RNG for transportation fuel
and sold to the City of Roseville and Recology at a fueling station dedicated to their use.
Some of the remaining LFG would be used to generate 0.8 MW of electricity (from one
assigned genset) to power the MRF through a Net Energy Metering agreement with
PG&E. All remaining gas would be used by Energy 2001 to generate electricity for
outside sale through their existing Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Marin Clean
Energy.2
Alternative 8a: A portion of the LFG would be used to generate 0.8 MW of electricity
(from one assigned genset) to power the MRF through a Net Energy Metering agreement
with PG&E. All remaining gas would be used to generate electricity for outside sale
through a PPA.
Alternative 8b: Similar to 1b, except all assets would be owned by WPWMA and
operated by one energy management contractor.
2
LFG supply headers would be physically separated to prevent conflicts.

Alternative 8c: The best quality LFG would be converted to RNG for transportation fuel
All remaining gas would be used to generate electricity for outside sale through a PPA.
Alternatives 8a, 8b and 8c were structured assuming that WPWMA would construct or
purchase (from Energy 2001) any necessary buildings and equipment and own them
throughout the term of the Agreement. WPWMA would also own the permits,
interconnection agreements, PPAs, ERCs, and etc. These alternatives assume that WPWMA
will contract with an energy management firm (EMF) that will accept raw LFG as an input
from the WPWMA and manage all aspects of using the LFG to create a marketable energy
product3
. In return for the use of this asset, the EMF will pay WPWMA a royalty on gross
sales. Both parties will enter into an Agreement that defines the products to be marketed,
who will purchase those products and the terms of sale. WPWMA would also assist in
marketing the products by facilitating the purchase of electricity for powering the MRF
(Alternatives 8a and 8b) and/or facilitating the purchase of RNG by Member Agency garbage
collection trucks (Alternatives 8b and 8c).
Alternative 1b assumes that an EMF would handle RNG production and on-site electricity
generation, but Energy 2001 would retain rights to all remaining LFG and ownership of the
assets needed to utilize that LFG.
Capitol PFG prepared Excel spreadsheets (Appendix D) comparing the expected financial
performance of the five Alternatives over the twenty-year Planning Horizon using consistent
assumptions whenever possible. Due to the difficulty in accurately predicting events over
twenty years, this analysis should be used only as an indication of the potential feasibility of
each Alternative as compared to the other Alternatives.
The financial comparison of the five Alternatives is shown in the “Summary” worksheet and
presented in Table 2 below. The capital investment required over the twenty year Planning
Horizon, the total Net Revenue over the same period and the Net Present Value of the Net
Revenue are shown for each of the Alternatives.
3
Potential EMFs could include Energy 2001 or Nortech in addition to other experienced firms.

For the
Present
because
this pers
Because
how the
report is
ranking o
Although
will likel
provide
Guiding
needed
ownersh
Table 3 s
purpose of
Value (NPV
it takes int
spective, Alt
the financia
outcomes
s dedicated
of Alternativ
h the financ
y prove ina
the best fi
Principle #
to collect,
ip over new
shows the t
Table 2
f comparing
V) of cash fl
to account
ternative 1b
al analysis d
change wit
to testing t
ves are very
cial compari
accurate, t
inancial ret
3 - because
treat and
w vehicle fue
ime frames
– Summar
g the finan
ows to WPW
the timing
comes out
depends on
th different
thirteen of t
y sensitive t
isons neces
hey do giv
turn. Altho
e it doesn’t
utilize LFG
el and onsite
and actions
ES - 4
y of Financ
cial perform
WMA may p
of revenues
far ahead o
many assu
assumption
the key ass
to some ass
ssarily includ
e a strong
ough Altern
result in W
- it does
e electricity
s needed to
cial Projec
mance of t
provide the
s and expen
of the other
umptions, it
ns or condit
sumptions.
umptions.
de many as
indication
native 1b d
WPWMA own
move in th
infrastructu
implement
tions
hese Altern
most impo
nses over t
four alterna
is importan
tions. Sect
As noted t
ssumptions,
that Altern
does not fu
nership of a
hat directio
ure.
Alternative
October 5,
natives, the
ortant data
he years.
atives.
nt to unders
tion 12.5 o
herein, NPV
, some of w
native 1b w
ully comply
all infrastru
on by exten
1b.
2015
e Net
point
From
stand
of the
V and
which
would
with
cture
nding

Table 3 – Implementation Plan
Time Frame Action
December 2015 – May
2016
Negotiate new and revised lease agreements with Energy 2001.
If unsuccessful, begin obtaining all assets needed to generate
and sell offsite energy and include these services in the EMF RFP.
December 2015 – June
2016
Assemble a team of staff and consultants to: develop an RFP for
Energy Management Firms, review proposals from legal, financial
and engineering perspectives, conduct environmental review and
obtain permits, negotiate agreements and prepare bid
documents.
July 2016 – September
2017
Develop an RFP for energy management services to commence
in July 2020.
September 2017 Issue the RFP for energy management services
February – April 2018 Review proposals and select top EMF
April 2018
Evaluate financing needs and opportunities and proceed with
most advantageous approach
May – July 2018
Complete negotiations with top EMF and begin the permitting
process
July – December 2018
Develop construction contract and equipment purchase
documents
January – February
2019
Accept and award bids
May 2019 Start construction
July 2020 Begin operations under new agreements
A key component of the Implementation Plan is to negotiate revised and/or new agreements
with Energy 2001. A negotiated deal with Energy 2001 should include the following
elements:
 Extension of the current lease agreement for production of offsite electricity from
April 2018 to June 2020.
 Creation of a new lease agreement for production of offsite electricity utilizing any
LFG remaining after use by the EMF, commencing June 2020 to June 2028. This
agreement should include a protocol for distribution of LFG from the WPWMA
wellfield. Adjustments in royalty payments should be considered if LFG supply falls
below specified levels.
 Sale of ERCs held by Energy 2001 to WPWMA in quantities needed to permit one
genset for onsite use of electricity.
WPWMA will need to complete negotiations with Energy 2001 prior to finalizing the RFP for
Energy Management Firms.

Capitol PFG suggests that the RFP and Agreement for EMFs be developed around the
following basic points4
:
1. Eight-year term.
2. Proposals must include proposed uses, an implementation plan and a 10% design
with a not-to-exceed cost estimate for permits, final design and construction of
improvements and purchase of equipment.
3. Proposers must demonstrate the ability to design improvements, select equipment
for purchase by WPWMA and manage construction of all improvements.
4. WPWMA will construct necessary improvements and provide and/or purchase
equipment, and will continue to own equipment throughout the term of the
Agreement.
5. The EMF will accept raw LFG as the WPWMA makes it available and manage all
aspects of using the LFG to create a marketable energy product. The EMF will be
responsible for all operating costs, marketing, environmental compliance and
collection of revenues.
6. Payment to WPWMA will be in the form of a defined royalty on the EMF’s gross sales.
A minimum annual royalty should be specified.
7. WPWMA may also assist in marketing the products by facilitating the purchase of
electricity for powering the MRF and/or facilitating the purchase of RNG by Member
Agency garbage collection trucks. The RFP should provide guidance to the proposers
regarding expected sales volume and pricing of energy marketed to the WPWMA.
This concludes the Executive Summary. The full report begins on page 1.
4
Obtaining input from potential proposers regarding the proposed contract terms and interest in bidding is
recommended, either before issuance of the RFP or at a pre-proposal conference.

1 October 5, 2015
Landfill Gas Strategic Plan
1.0 Background
The WPWMA was established in 1978 pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the County of Placer and the cities of Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln (which are
collectively referred to as the Member Agencies) for the purposes of acquiring, owning,
operating and maintaining a sanitary landfill and all related improvements for use by the
Member Agencies. Non-member agencies that also utilize the WPWMA’s facility include the
City of Auburn, City of Colfax and the Town of Loomis. The Member and non-member
agencies are collectively referred to as the Participating Agencies.
As a result of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, the WPWMA
constructed a materials recovery facility (MRF) to assist the Participating Agencies in
achieving the goal of diverting solid waste from land disposal. Nortech Waste, LLC, under
contract to the WPWMA, operates the MRF. The facility is classified as a mixed-waste MRF
which was designed and is operated to recover recyclable materials from the mixed
municipal solid waste stream. With the exception of residential greenwaste, commercial
cardboard and universal waste, curbside collection does not exist within the WPWMA’s
service area. Recyclable materials including cardboard, paper, plastics (including both
California Redemption Value and other rigid plastics), commercial and industrial grade film
plastic, glass, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, wood, concrete and other inert materials,
electronic wastes and household hazardous wastes are recovered from the waste stream
during the sorting process.
Greenwaste received via residential curbside collection programs operated by the
Participating Agencies, as well as other source separated greenwaste, is composted on site
in open windrows. The WPWMA is currently evaluating methods such as anaerobic digestion
and composting to divert additional organic materials (primarily pre and post-consumer
foodwaste) from landfill disposal.
Residual (non-recovered) wastes are hauled by Nortech Waste to the WPWMA’s Western
Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL) – adjacent to the MRF – for final disposal. Not all wastes
received at the WPWMA’s facility are directed to the MRF for processing. Loads that may
contaminate other materials on the MRF floor, such as commercial routes from restaurants
and wastewater treatment plant sludge, are sent directly to the landfill for burial.
Additionally, some loads of mixed waste (both municipal solid waste and construction and
demolition debris) that are known to have low recyclable value are also sent directly to the
landfill without first being processed through the MRF.
Currently, the WPWMA accepts an average of approximately 890 tons of municipal solid
waste per weekday at the MRF. Of this amount, approximately 540 tons is considered
residue and is subsequently transported to the WRSL for disposal.

2 October 5, 2015
The WRSL is a Class II/Class III municipal solid waste landfill with a total capacity of
approximately 36.5 million cubic yards. As of July 1, 2013, approximately 10.6 million cubic
yards of air space has been consumed. The WPWMA estimates that, at the current waste
acceptance and disposal rates, the WRSL will reach capacity in 2058. Nortech Landfill, Inc.,
under contract to the WPWMA, operates the WRSL.
The WPWMA has installed and has periodically expanded its LFG collection system at the
WRSL. The collection system generally consists of 73 vertical extraction wells, 14 horizontal
extraction wells, above ground conveyance piping and a blower/flare station. The WPWMA
contracts with Cornerstone Environmental Group, LLC to operate and maintain the LFG
collection system. The collection system is sized to accommodate a flowrate of
approximately 2,500 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) of landfill gas (LFG). The
WPWMA currently recovers between 1,700 to 1,900 scfm with a methane concentration of
50% by volume or more.
The WPWMA leases approximately 15,000 square feet of land to an independent private
party (Energy 2001) and provides them with LFG for the purposes of producing and selling
electricity generated from the combustion of LFG. In exchange, Energy 2001 pays the
WPWMA a ground lease and remits a portion of their electricity sales revenue to the
WPWMA. Energy 2001 has the capability to accept and process approximately 1,860 scfm
of LFG at 50% methane via six (6) Caterpillar 3516 engines. When insufficient gas is
available to operate all six engines or when one or more engines are down for maintenance
or repairs, excess gas is flared using an enclosed ground flare. The WPWMA currently earns
$11,070 in annual lease revenues and $0.004625 per kilowatt hour of electricity produced
and sold. The lease agreement between Energy 2001 and the WPWMA is scheduled to
expire in April 2018.
The WPWMA has engaged a consulting team led by Capitol Public Finance Group (“Capitol
PFG”) to produce this Landfill Gas Strategic Plan to guide the WPWMA towards maximizing
the value of the LFG asset while continuing to meet all applicable regulatory and legal
operating requirements. The consulting team includes Golder Associates and TSS
Consultants.
2.0 Mission Statement and Guiding Principles
The primary mission of the WPWMA is to safely and cost-effectively manage the disposition
of all materials accepted at its facilities, productively using recyclable materials when
feasible. With respect to the management of LFG produced through the decomposition of
materials buried at the Landfill, the WPWMA has adopted the following additional Guiding
Principles, in order of priority5
:
1. Remain in regulatory compliance
2. Maximize the value realized for the LFG asset to benefit the WPWMA customer base
5
Guiding Principles and Goals and Priorities were adopted by the WPWMA Board in April 2015.

3 October 5, 2015
3. WPWMA ownership of infrastructure needed to collect, treat and utilize LFG is
preferred over private ownership
4. Protect the environment
5. Protect public health and safety
6. Demonstrate environmental leadership in our community
7. Job creation
3.0 Goals and Priorities
In order to assist in adhering to the guiding principles for landfill gas management, WPWMA
has adopted the following goals and priorities, also in order of importance:
1. Minimize odor, noise and other impacts to neighbors
2. Minimize the risk of major upsets such as explosions, fires and hazardous spills
3. Maintain WPWMA control of the management and collection of landfill gas from the
Western Regional Sanitary Landfill
4. Minimize the cost to WPWMA of collecting, controlling and utilizing LFG
5. Maximize net revenues from utilizing LFG
6. Reduce greenhouse gas generation and obtain credits for this effort that can be
utilized by the Member Agencies
7. Achieve a “closed-loop” system in which LFG generated onsite is used to satisfy
onsite energy needs
8. Lock in long term agreements for energy use to insure consistent returns
9. Minimize impacts on current WRSL site development plans
10. Develop low-carbon fuels for use by the Participating Agencies and their haulers
11. Maintain flexibility in contracts and approach to respond to external influences
12. Increase solid waste decomposition rates to increase landfill capacity
13. Utilize established technologies to minimize risk
14. Consolidate control over the LFG resource to improve efficiencies and reduce conflicts
between contractors
15. Seek innovative technologies that show promise for the long term
16. Improve education, training and research opportunities

4 October 5, 2015
17. Provide green energy to neighboring businesses or communities
18. Improve opportunities for long-term employment in the Sunset Industrial Area
4.0 Planning Horizon
Selecting a planning horizon is a necessary first step in developing a plan for a new program
or for use of an asset. It determines the time period over which financial projections are
created and provides a starting point for negotiating appropriate contract terms.
Shorter planning horizons may be appropriate when the public agency only wishes to meet
short term goals, or when forecasting future events outside the control of the agency is very
difficult. Utilizing a short planning horizon will necessarily steer the agency towards projects
that maximize short-term returns or minimize short term losses.
Longer planning horizons are more appropriate when the public agency has the financial
strength and confidence to invest in projects that bring higher returns over longer periods of
time. Confidence should be tempered by an understanding of risks from unanticipated
changes. For LFG projects, risks could include regulatory changes, energy price
fluctuations, technological obsolescence, failure of business partners, etc.
Planning horizons for municipal energy planning vary from a few years to 20 years. In
evaluating this project, Capitol PFG considered several factors, including:
 WPWMA’s adopted Guiding Principles and Goals
 WPMWA favors ownership of the infrastructure needed to utilize LFG. This
will require additional time to implement and recover investment costs.
 Future LFG quantity and quality
 LFG production is expected to continue for another twenty years or more
with little reduction in quantity or quality.
 Contract terms typical for the energy industry
 Terms in excess of ten years are typical.
 Length of previous agreements approved by the WPWMA Board of Directors
 The Board approved a twenty-year lease with Energy 2001 and a ten-year
operating agreement with Nortech.
 Time required for public agencies to develop energy projects
 Two to four years may be necessary to begin producing energy.
 Ability to anticipate future changes in external factors
 Although it will be difficult to predict changes in factors such as energy
prices, it may be possible to reduce their importance; for example, by
locking in long-term payments for electricity or Renewable Natural Gas
(RNG)6
.
 Likely financing approaches and their repayment periods.
6
RNG is the term for biogas (including LFG) that is processed to standards equivalent to fossil-based compressed
natural gas (CNG) and is suitable for use in vehicles.

5 October 5, 2015
 The potentially large investment required to achieve WPWMA ownership of
LFG utilization assets will likely point to a loan or bond repayment period of
ten to twenty years.
Based on this analysis, and after consultation with the LFG Advisory Committee, Capitol PFG
has utilized a twenty-year planning horizon.
5.0 Stakeholders
The WPWMA understands that development of a successful LFG Strategic Plan requires
active engagement of all stakeholders. In order to insure all voices were heard, WPWMA
formed a LFG Strategic Plan Advisory Committee, composed of staff from each of the
Member Agencies, to guide the work of the Consulting Team. In addition to the Member
Agencies, which obviously have a stake in decisions made with regard to LFG utilization,
other major stakeholders and their interests were initially identified as follows:
 Nortech Waste: current landfill and MRF operator, responsible for site security. They
are a potential operator of an anaerobic digestion or aerated static pile composting
system that would divert organic materials from the landfill, potential generator of
electricity from digester biogas, potential consumer of electricity produced from LFG
onsite, and potential operator of LFG engines and/or equipment needed to clean,
compress, store and dispense LFG. WPWMA’s Agreements with Nortech terminate in
2020.
 Energy 2001: current leaseholder of WPWMA property with rights to use LFG to
generate electricity. Energy 2001 currently owns six CAT internal combustion
engines that generate power which is wheeled through PG&E lines and sold to Marin
Clean Energy. Energy 2001’s lease terminates in April 2018.
 Roseville Electric: potential purchaser of electricity or RNG.
 PG&E: utility supplying electricity to the MRF, owner of electrical and gas
transmission equipment, grantor of interconnect agreement with Energy 2001, and
potential purchaser of electricity and/or LFG.
 Placer County Air Pollution Control District: important permitting agency that also
offers grants for equipment, systems or studies that can lead to improvements in air
quality.
 Owners and developers of surrounding property: Owners will be concerned about
new LFG activities that conflict with their proposed developments, but may be willing
to support LFG alternatives that reduce current impacts or bring other positive
outcomes. This group includes developers of Placer Ranch, a proposed university
campus surrounded by commercial and residential uses.

6 October 5, 2015
 Thunder Valley Resort: nearby neighbor that could potentially use electricity or RNG
produced from LFG.
 Residential neighbors: suburban neighbors, primarily located in the Crocker Ranch
area, have expressed significant concerns about odors and other potential impacts
from WPWMA operations.
 Rio Bravo: a potential purchaser of LFG for use in their biomass to energy operation
located near the WPWMA.
 Recology Auburn Placer: franchisee or permitted waste hauler for the County of
Placer, the Town of Loomis and the cities of Rocklin, Auburn, Roseville, Lincoln
(debris boxes only for Roseville and Lincoln); also a potential purchaser (along with
the City of Roseville) of RNG produced from LFG.
Capitol PFG met individually with representatives from all of the stakeholder groups
mentioned above, with the exception of Rio Bravo - which did not accept our invitation - and
residential neighbors. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss key elements of the
Strategic Plan and solicit feedback regarding the future productive use of the LFG asset.
Information gathered from these meetings was used in many areas of this Strategic Plan.
To better assess potential changes in neighboring uses, Capitol PFG also met with Placer
County Planning Department and Economic Development staff. The County is proceeding
with a major review of its Sunset Industrial Plan, which governs the area in which WPWMA
facilities are located. Based on a meeting with Sherri Conway, Senior Planner for Placer
County7
, there do not appear to be any potential limitations on power use or marketability
of gas due to anticipated changes in the Sunset Industrial Area plan. How the area sewer,
water and power utilities will ultimately develop is still unknown, although planning for the
Placer Parkway, an expansion of the Thunder Valley Resort and a large development (Placer
Ranch) directly to the south of WPWMA properties is proceeding. Major utility transmission
corridors would be expected and required to facilitate development of these areas within
WPWMA’s LFG energy planning horizon. This could result in the extension of a PG&E natural
gas line from the south rather than the east as previously expected. A planned Placer
Parkway interchange on WPWMA property could also provide a prime location for a public
CNG filling station.
6.0 Asset Identification
Predicting the quantity and quality of LFG available over the Planning Horizon is a necessary
first step before discussing possible utilization methods. As discussed in detail in Appendix
A, Golder Associates utilized two different modeling approaches to estimate LFG production
rates at the Western Regional Sanitary Landfill (WRSL): the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) model and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
LandGEM model. In both cases they assumed a 1.92 percent annual growth rate in waste
7
May 12, 2015.

7 October 5, 2015
buried, consistent with WPWMA budgetary estimates. They also included two different
assumptions for the amount of organic waste diverted due to future programs implemented
by WPWMA or its Member Agencies to comply with AB 18268
: a “Base Case” which assumes
a moderate reduction in organic material, and an “Alternative Case” that includes more
aggressive programs with increased diversion. Their results are summarized in Table 2 of
their report, duplicated below.
LFG MODELING RECOVERY ESTIMATES
* Annual Average LFG Extraction Rate calculated from WRSL weekly Blower-Flare Station readings, June 2008 through February
2015. All LFG flow measurements and estimates normalized to 50%v methane concentration.
** IPCC Model assuming decay constants and degradable organic carbon fractions at upper limit for “wet temperate” range, and
IPCC North American default composition for unsegregated waste with diversion of 25% of WPWMA segregated food waste in 2017
and maintained thereafter.
*** USEPA LandGEM V3.02 assuming k = 0.03 yr
-1
, L0 = 116 m
3
/Mg.
**** IPCC Model assuming identical kinetic parameters and composition for unsegregated waste disposal as above with diversion of
50% of segregated food waste and 25% of unsegregated food waste achieved by 2021 and maintained thereafter.
***** USEPA LandGEM assuming identical kinetic parameters as above, with reduction of total waste inflow by approximately 2.75
percent (food waste diversion) achieved by 2021 and maintained thereafter.
The financial projections in this report utilize annual data corresponding to the “With Base
Case Food Waste Diversion, IPCC Recovery Flow Estimates” column of Table 2, whose
values fall between the LandGEM values and the “Alternative Case” IPCC model values. The
8
AB 1826 requires commercial generators to recycle organic waste, with a goal of 50% reduction. Future
programs in Placer County will likely be focused on food waste, as programs already exist for green yard wastes
and wood wastes.
With Base Case Food Waste
Diversion**
With Alternative Case Food Waste
Diversion****
Year Annual Avg.
LFG Extraction
Flows* (scfm)
IPCC LFG
Recovery Flow
Estimates**
(scfm)
LandGEM LFG
Recovery Flow
Estimates***
(scfm)
IPCC LFG
Recovery Flow
Estimates****
(scfm)
LandGEM LFG
Recovery Flow
Estimates*****
(scfm)
2008 848 1884 1614 1879 1614
2009 895 1880 1667 1875 1667
2010 1404 1862 1710 1857 1710
2011 1541 1833 1746 1830 1746
2012 1399 1808 1782 1805 1782
2013 1509 1782 1813 1781 1813
2014 1797 1773 1849 1772 1849
2015 1869 1769 1886 1768 1886
2020 - 1749 2061 1667 2053
2025 - 1776 2225 1667 2185
2030 - 1873 2411 1724 2339
2035 - 2014 2621 1840 2517
2040 - 2187 2856 1992 2720
2054
(peak)
- 2821 3665 2567 3439

8 October 5, 2015
LandGEM model will likely overestimate LFG production at the WRSL, while the Alternative
Case assumes aggressive implementation of programs that have not yet been identified. An
evaluation of the effects of lower than anticipated gas production on financial results is
included in the Section 12.5 of this report.
7.0 Utilization Methods and Technology Analysis
Golder Associates conducted a lengthy review of LFG utilization options, included in Sections
4-6 of Exhibit A to this report. This review includes a discussion of the technologies
employed to treat and use LFG, risk factors, screening criteria and feasibility for use by
WPWMA.
The uses reviewed can be summarized as follows:
1. Electricity Generation
a. Technologies
i. Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines
ii. Turbines and Microturbines
iii. Fuel Cells
b. Uses
i. Utility Power Purchase Agreements
ii. Load displacement, with or without heat capture
2. Processed Gas
a. Technologies
b. Uses
i. Direct thermal use
ii. RNG as vehicle fuel
iii. Liquefied natural gas
iv. RNG to the Utility Network (pipeline injection)
v. Bioplastic
On-site electrical load displacement and on-site RNG vehicle fueling received the highest
ratings based on Golder’s initial screening criteria9
. The following two sections are devoted
to further discussion of these uses.
7.1 Electricity Generation
An obvious choice for use of LFG is to continue generating electricity, which can be
marketed as follows:
1. Through an offsite Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), as is the current practice.
2. Onsite to displace loads at the MRF.
9
Intertwined with decisions regarding utilization methods and technologies are questions regarding ownership,
contracting, marketing and project delivery methods. These factors are discussed in Section 11.1, Selection of
Alternatives.

9 October 5, 2015
3. A combination of both PPA and onsite load displacement.
Important points to consider when evaluating these choices include:
 Onsite power generation has the potential to generate more revenue per kilowatt
hour (kWh) than offsite generation, because both the peak and average rates paid
by Nortech to PG&E for electricity are well above the rate paid under an expected
PPA10
.
 There are not sufficient onsite loads to absorb all the existing electrical generating
capacity11
; therefore, if onsite load displacement is not combined with other uses,
considerable amounts of LFG must be flared and lost to productive use to maintain
emission controls at the landfill.
 Going completely “off-grid”, i.e. relying solely on electricity generated onsite, would
require back-up power sources to prevent interruptions in MRF, landfill, scalehouse
and administrative functions, or the payment of expensive monthly “standby”
charges to PG&E. Backup sources are costly and add to permitting requirements.
 Offsite purchasers of electricity require consistency in production; thus, switching
between onsite and offsite feeds to match onsite demand appears to be infeasible
except through the Net Energy Metering Program discussed below.
The Net Energy Metering (NEM) Program currently in place through PG&E appears to offer
an advantageous approach to onsite electrical load displacement. This program would allow
WPWMA to:
1. Install a new genset with the capacity to generate up to 1MW.
2. Provide power from that dedicated genset directly to the MRF when demand exists.
3. Run the meter backwards when production exceeds demand.
4. Avoid standby charges12
.
Some of the hurdles to utilizing NEM include:
 A significant investment in on-site improvements would be necessary to achieve load
displacement.
 Costly and time-consuming studies and improvements to the PG&E system are
typically required for participation in NEM13
. PG&E advises that at least one year
should be budgeted to complete the studies.
10
Although we were not able to obtain copies of Nortech’s electrical bills, we estimate their average cost for
electricity at $0.17 per kWh. Energy 2001 receives $0.0925 per kWh for power they generate.
11
We estimate that peak electrical demand on Nortech’s meters is between 1.2 to 1.6 MW, while current
generating capacity is 4.8 MW.
12
The capacity reservation (standby) charge is calculated as 85% of generator capacity in kW multiplied by
$3.74/kW. A genset with 800 kW of capacity would therefore incur a $2,500 per month standby charge if not
enrolled in this program in addition to charges for energy used.
13
The capital investment needed to purchase and connect one new genset to produce electricity for onsite uses
through NEM will likely exceed $4 million.

10 October 5, 2015
 Application to the program is required and acceptance is not automatic.
 The program in its current form is set to end January 2017, and the cap on
participation may be reached before that date. PG&E is seeking legislative changes
to the program if it is continued.
 Nortech is the current account holder with PG&E. This could be changed through
negotiation of a revision in the current MRF agreement or through creation of a new
agreement in 2020.
In order to take advantage of the NEM program in its current form, WPWMA or Nortech
would need to submit an application almost immediately and proceed quickly to obtain a
building permit. This presents several challenges, including lack of agreements with
Nortech and Energy 2001. It is probably more realistic to wait for the next iteration of an
NEM tariff to see if the program is still worth pursuing.
Battery storage systems may also offer the opportunity to smooth demand curves for MRF
electricity use, and could be considered in conjunction with generation of onsite electricity.
Access to the MRF PG&E bills and 15-minute interval usage data would be needed to
accurately assess this potential.
7.2 Renewable Natural Gas for Vehicle Fuel
Processing the highest–quality “core” LFG at the WRSL to standards required for vehicle fuel
potentially offers the highest value use of LFG. Garbage collection fleets are well-suited for
the use of RNG and local haulers have begun purchasing CNG vehicles to replace old diesel
collection trucks. Garbage collection vehicles visit the WPWMA MRF at least once each day,
so an RNG dispensing station at the MRF would provide a convenient fueling location for
these fleets. At the present time, the State of California and the Federal government are
supporting CNG vehicles and RNG fuel production through grants and subsidies that greatly
improve the financial viability of this use.
A general process flow diagram for the production of RNG is shown below:
The systems necessary to prepare the gas for dispensing as vehicle fuel require a large
capital investment; therefore, it is critical to have an assured customer base of sufficient
size throughout the planning horizon to justify the investment.

11 October 5, 2015
Planning for an RNG fueling station requires choices regarding the marketing approach and
technologies used to dispense the RNG. Dispensing systems come in three types:
• Fast-fill: The compressor and storage capacity for fast-fill stations are designed such
that drivers experience fill times similar to those for gasoline or diesel fueling stations.
• Time-fill: This equipment fills CNG vehicles over a period of hours and is typically
used by fleets with vehicles that fuel at a central location each night. The time it takes
to fuel a vehicle depends on the number of vehicles, the amount of fuel required, and
the throughput of the compressor. Vehicles are unattended during the fueling process,
which may take several minutes to many hours.
• Combination-fill: At combination-fill stations, users have the ability to time-fill or
fast-fill vehicles on demand. Many fleets use the convenience of time-fill as the
primary method of fueling, with fast-fill available as needed.
Typically, retail stations (open to the public) use fast-fill dispensing systems, while systems
utilized by a dedicated fleet that have central refueling and the ability to fill overnight use
time-fill systems. The main structural differences are the high-pressure gas storage
capacity, the size of the compressor(s), and the dispensing rate.
For the purpose of preparing the financial comparison of alternatives, Capitol PFG assumed
that the WPWMA would utilize a fast-fill station open only to Recology Auburn Placer and the
City of Roseville14
. After further study and input from design engineers, WPWMA may wish
to expand its target market to include other dedicated fleet customers and/or the public.
Due to technical malfunctions and the occasional need to take down components of the gas
collection system for maintenance, service interruptions to the station could occur
periodically. For this reason, it is advisable to either have an alternative fueling station or a
backup supply of compressed natural gas. At the present time, the closest public stations
are at the McClellan Air Base and the PG&E yard in Auburn. For this report we are assuming
that the energy management firm contracting with WPWMA will procure CNG delivered by
truck during WPWMA RNG service interruptions to avoid shutting down the station.
7.3 Uses Not Feasible At This Time
Technologies and/or uses that were judged unworthy of further review by the consulting
team after this initial screening are discussed below.
Direct Thermal Use of LFG
Use of LFG for thermal use as compared to vehicle fuel has the advantage of requiring less
onerous cleanup and upgrading requirements. Unfortunately, during this period of low
natural gas prices it is not often financially feasible to cleanup, compress and deliver RNG to
a high-demand user, especially if they must adapt their existing equipment to RNG. Based
on discussions with Roseville Electric, Energy 2001 and others, three miles appears to be a
14
Wes Heathcock of the City of Lincoln indicated a continued preference for diesel trucks.

12 October 5, 2015
conservative upper limit for current LFG pipeline construction. Also, unlike vehicle fuel
applications, there are no government subsidies to support revenues.
Table 1 identifies existing thermal energy facilities in the study area.
Table 1 – Thermal Energy Facilities
Potential LFG User Potential Energy Use
Street Route
Distance
(miles)
Thunder Valley Resort
2 ea NG boilers
3 ea diesel gensets (back-up)
1.4
Rio Bravo Biomass Power 1 ea 24.4 MW biomass plant 2.3
Placer County Justice
Center
1 ea 1.25 MMBtu/h NG boiler 4.1
R.C. Willey
1 ea Diesel genset, 300 kw (back-
up)
4.8
Roseville Energy Park 2 ea 60 MW NG turbines 5.6
Pleasant Grove WWTP
2 ea 1.8 MW diesel gensets (back-
up)
5.6
In general, back-up and intermittent generation applications are not considered appropriate
uses for the continually produced LFG. Additionally, existing natural gas-fired equipment
would be much more cost-effective to retrofit than diesel equipment. Additional inquiries
were made with Thunder Valley Resort and Roseville Electric, but neither group expressed
ongoing interest in using LFG at this time. Rio Bravo management did not respond to
requests for a stakeholder discussion. The Placer County Justice Center equipment is likely
too small to be cost effective on its own, and potentially too critical of an application.
In summary, it does not appear that there are any likely candidates amenable to direct
thermal use of LFG in the vicinity of the WRSL at this time; however, there are no apparent
fatal flaws in permitting or construction of a CNG pipeline in the County right-of-ways
southeastward into the Sunset Industrial Area. It is conceivable that conditions may change
in the future to improve the feasibility of this use.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Renewable Natural Gas fuel for vehicles is available as a liquid or a compressed gas. For
certain applications where weight and vehicle range are critical, LNG may be the ideal
choice. LNG systems operate at low pressure and can store as much as 2.5 times the fuel
in the same space as conventional CNG systems. LNG is transported and stored at
extremely low temperatures and requires the use of vacuum-insulated storage tanks.
CNG systems appear to be the overwhelming choice for garbage collection vehicles that
return to the same base every night and have convenient access to fueling stations, so
there appears to be no reason to consider production of LNG.

13 October 5, 2015
RNG to Utility Network
A combination of high cleanup costs to meet recently legislated standards for injection of
RNG into PG&E’s distribution system, low natural gas prices and distance to an appropriate
injection location leaves this option infeasible at the present time. If industry advocates are
successful in reducing injection standards and/or obtaining more grant support from the
State of California, this situation could improve within the LFG Planning Horizon. As with
RNG production for vehicles, this technology only works with the 25% of WRSL gas that is
considered “core” gas of the highest quality.
Bioplastics
This industry is in the early stages of development, so demand for LFG to produce
bioplastics is low. It seems doubtful that this situation would change until late in the
Planning Horizon.
Fuel Cells
Fuel cells are an evolving technology for distributed electrical generation seeing increasing
commercial usage with natural gas as the energy source. Proven benefits for natural gas
that may transfer to LFG utilization include:
 Available in small incremental capacities to accommodate LFG flows from small-to-
medium-size landfills;
 Near zero air pollutant emissions and noise; and
 Minimal supervision required.
The major disadvantage of fuel cells is currently high capital cost for all applications and the
high fuel pre-treatment requirements to prevent catalyst contamination from trace LFG
constituents. A major technological breakthrough would likely be needed to improve the
feasibility of this potential LFG use.
8.0 Environmental, Permitting and Regulatory Considerations
A thorough discussion of these considerations is included in Appendix A, Section 7.
Although there would be many agencies involved, permitting is not anticipated to be
extremely complicated if new structures are confined to the existing WPWMA property.
9.0 Grants and Incentives
TSS Consultants prepared an in-depth review of grant, credit and subsidy programs
available to the WPWMA for LFG utilization that is attached to this Plan as Appendix B.
Grants, credits and subsidies are discussed separately in the report. These are defined as:
Grant. Grants are lump sums of money available from a government agency or
program, typically at the start of a bioenergy project, which have no re-payment of
the amount granted. Matching funding or in-kind services may be required at
varying percentage levels.

14 October 5, 2015
Credit. A carbon credit (also referred to as a carbon offset) is a financial instrument that
represents a metric ton of CO2 that was either removed from the atmosphere or
prevented from being emitted to the atmosphere. Carbon credits must be verified,
but once authenticated they can be bought and sold through a competitive market
process.
Subsidy. Subsidies vary in type, but their general purpose is to financially support the
development and delivery of bioenergy products with the aim of keeping bioenergy
prices low or competitive. Example subsidies are feed-in-tariffs, saleable certificates
for ‘green power’, mandated bioenergy purchasing requirements by energy
purchasers, and sales tax exemptions.
Table 1 from the TSS Report lists the potential opportunities discussed in the TSS Report.
Grant, Credit, and Subsidy Opportunities
Agency Program Funding
Vehicle
Bioenergy
Product
Grants
California Energy
Commission
ARFVTP (AB 118) Grant Renewable Fuels
California Energy
Commission
EPIC Grant Electricity
Placer County APCD Clean Air Grant
Program; Technical
Assessment
Program
Grant Multiple
Federal Programs survey Grant Multiple
Federal Tribal Energy Programs survey Grant Multiple
Credits
California Air
Resources Board
LCFS Credit Renewable Fuels
US Environmental RFS2 - RINS Credit/Subsidy Renewable Fuels

15 October 5, 2015
Agency Program Funding
Vehicle
Bioenergy
Product
Protection Agency
California Air
Resources Board
California Cap-and-
Trade Market
Not available Multiple products
Climate Action
Reserve
Voluntary Carbon
Market
Credit Multiple products
Subsidies
California Energy
Commission / IOUs
RECs Subsidy Electricity
California Public
Utilities Commission /
IOUs
Feed-In-Tariff
ReMAT
Subsidy Electricity
California Public
Utilities Commission /
IOUs
SGIP Subsidy Electricity
California Public
Utilities Commission
SB 1122 Not available Electricity
California Public
Utilities Commission
Pipeline Biogas Cost
Allocation
Proposed
Decision, not
available yet
Pipeline biogas
California Alternative
Energy and Advanced
Transportation
Financing Authority
Sales Tax
Exemption
Subsidy Multiple Products
Based on this review, the programs that show the most promise for WPWMA LFG utilization
are as follows15
:
1. California Energy Commission (CEC) ARFVTP (AB 118) grant funds could be used for
production or use of RNG for transportation purposes. The CEC issues Program
Opportunity Notices periodically that target specific types of projects. Applicants
must compete for limited statewide funds. An optimistic estimate of funds that could
be secured by WPWMA is $500,000.
15
RECs are not included here because they are assumed to belong to the purchaser of electricity.

16 October 5, 2015
2. The California Public Utilities Commission (through PG&E) Self Generation
Investment Program (SGIP) could provide financial incentives for purchasing new
equipment to produce electricity used on-site. If the WPWMA moves forward with a
1MW genset to power the MRF, up to $1,900,000 could be available from SGIP over
the first five years of operation (none thereafter).
3. WPWMA (or its energy management contractor) would qualify for two credit
opportunities supporting the production of renewable fuels: California’s Low Carbon
Fuel Standard (LCFS) credit market, and the US EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS) RIN (Renewable Identification Number) market. These credits can make a
substantial difference in the total compensation received for fuel. Prices fluctuate,
sometimes substantially, in both markets. For the year 2018, we have projected a
combined return of $180,00016
for these credits under Alternatives in which LFG is
converted to vehicle fuel (Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c).
To understand how Capitol PFG has incorporated grant, credit and subsidy information into
our financial projections, see additional discussion in Section 12.5, Sensitivity Analysis.
10.0 Partnership Opportunities
WPWMA’s preference for ownership of all infrastructure needed to collect, treat and utilize
LFG, limits the type of partnerships that can be considered for the use of LFG; however,
there are still business relationships that present opportunities to benefit from the strengths
and needs of other entities. Some of these possibilities are discussed below.
Energy 2001: Through the terms of their current lease agreement with the WPWMA,
Energy 2001 has invested several million dollars in buildings, equipment, permits and
agreements necessary for generating and selling electricity from engines powered by LFG.
Their current lease is set to expire in April 2018. Energy 2001 management has expressed
interest17
in continuing this relationship for an additional fifteen years under the same terms
and conditions of the recently approved one-year extension to their agreement, which has
the following basic terms18
:
 Energy 2001 has rights to all available LFG.
 Energy 2001 will continue to invest in buildings and equipment needed to produce
electricity.
 Energy 2001 pays a royalty based on 16% of gross revenues from the sale of
electricity, which includes incentives, grants and all other earnings except tax
rebates or credits.
 Energy 2001 will pay rent of approximately $12,000 per year.
16
This is assumed to be received by the EMF and shared with WPWMA through royalty payments.
17
Stakeholder meeting with Laura Rasmussen and Todd Stenhouse on March 9, 2015.
18
Memo to WPWMA Board dated Dec. 11, 2014

17 October 5, 2015
 Energy 2001 will no longer be eligible to take a credit against rent and royalties for
the costs associated with insurance coverage.
Energy 2001 management is interested in expanding into other areas as well, such as solar
photovoltaic power generation, waste heat conversion, wind power, and/or plastics
production from methane. They also expressed willingness to provide power directly to
WPWMA energy loads (MRF and landfill buildings and equipment) if a reasonable deal could
be negotiated.
Nortech Waste LLC: As the MRF contract operator since 1995, and operator of the
landfill since 2009, Nortech has invested millions of dollars in processing equipment and
rolling stock. Nortech’s two current contracts are both set to expire in 2020. Nortech
management would like to continue their current operations and are willing to own/operate
a CNG fueling facility and/or LFG electrical generating plant under the right circumstances19
.
Further investment by Nortech would require negotiation of one or more long-term
contracts that would allow them to recoup their investment over several years.
In 2010 Nortech proposed to include landfill gas services as part of their MRF operations
agreement. The terms of this proposal, which is summarized below, provides insight into
Nortech’s interest in this resource and their willingness to invest.
Nortech offer from June 22, 2010, regarding energy use:
 Nortech to Design, Construct and Operate a gas co-generation plant to use LFG not
consumed in three CAT engines operated by Energy 2001
 Nortech to Design, Construct and Operate a Photo Voltaic solar electric system with a
1.0 MW AC capacity
 Nortech to operate through an extended contract term and then give the facilities to
WPWMA for $1.00
 Nortech to pay royalty of $0.015 per kWh20
 Nortech would use the electricity they generate to power the MRF, with any excess
sold through the grid (possibly net-metered to PG&E)
 The estimated royalty from this deal was $150,000 per year assuming 1.5 MW co-
generation with 7,000 hours per year usage
 Nortech estimated a cost of $2.0 million for the co-generation facilities and
$4,850,000 for the solar system
 Nortech expected to take a 30% rebate from Federal government if construction
could be started prior to the end of 2010
 Nortech felt that the investment in co-generation and solar only make sense if done
in concert with each other.21
19
Stakeholder meeting with Stephanie Trewhitt, Paul Szura and Brandi Tapia on February 24, 2015.
20
This payment approximates the 2017-2018 royalty rate of 16% recently negotiated with Energy 2001 as part of
a one-year lease extension.

18 October 5, 2015
Thunder Valley Resort (TVR): This nearby casino, hotel and restaurant complex utilizes
three natural gas boilers to provide hot water and heat to their facilities. They currently
obtain the natural gas from PG&E. TVR also operates a small fleet of vehicles in a size and
use category that could potentially operate on natural gas. Capitol PFG met with
representatives from TVR in March 2015 to discuss possible business relationships with
WPWMA. TVR management expressed a willingness to consider investments necessary to
utilize compressed natural gas (CNG) delivered to their facility via pipeline. They also
expressed interest in converting some part of their fleet to operate on LFG converted to
CNG vehicle fuel as part of a mutual commitment. In May 2015 TVR management sent an
email expressing their interest in pursuing different green energy management solutions.
Garbage collection service providers: Capitol PFG met with and obtained information
from John Rowe, General Manager of Recology Auburn Placer, and Devin Whittington of the
City of Roseville, regarding their plans for purchasing CNG garbage collection vehicles. Wes
Heathcock of the City of Lincoln indicated that they would be relying on diesel trucks for the
foreseeable future.
Recology AP has three CNG trucks now, with 46 trucks total normally in service (six of these
are debris box trucks). Recology AP is getting three new CNG trucks in 2015. Mr. Rowe
expects an average growth in the CNG fleet of two trucks per year. They would accelerate
this fleet conversion if requested as part of new contract agreements with their clients
(County of Placer, Rocklin, Loomis, Colfax and Auburn). Recology AP is currently filling their
CNG vehicles at the PG&E corporation yard in Auburn. This location is not extremely
convenient for Recology AP, as many of their routes serve customers lower in the valley
(e.g. Granite Bay, Loomis and Rocklin). Mr. Rowe expressed concern that the evolution of
technology, for example expansion of electric heavy-duty vehicles, could change future
demand for CNG. He stressed the need for long term agreements to insure commitments to
CNG over the life of the investments.
Per Mr. Rowe, Recology AP contracts with local agencies have the following termination
dates:
• City of Auburn - 9-30-2016, with the expectation of an extension to 9-30-21
• Town of Loomis 9-30-2024
• Placer County - 6-30-2023
• City of Rocklin - 3-31-2019, with an automatic extension
• City of Colfax - 6-30-2021
Because Recology AP has a long history of service to these communities and has obtained
several contract extensions over the last 35 years, their ability to invest and enter into long-
term agreements with WPWMA is quite good.
21
Likely so they could go completely off-grid and not be subject to standby power costs, which are significant.

19 October 5, 2015
The City of Roseville’s 41 garbage collection trucks all operate on diesel now, but they plan
to begin replacing old diesel vehicles with CNG vehicles at the rate of four per year
beginning in 2016. The City has a slow-fill station at their corporation yard which will
require upgrading to meet the new fleet requirements. Natural gas is supplied by Roseville
Electric. The current cost, which is established annually, is $0.49 per therm (approximately
$0.59 cent per GGE).
Using the information provided by these two haulers, Capitol PFG prepared a forecast of
CNG consumption and production potential for each of the next twenty years, attached as
Appendix C, “Fleet Conversion and Use Projections”. Based on this projection, demand for
RNG between these two fleets would exceed 200,000 gallons per year in 2019 and would
continue upward thereafter. In 2019, projected consumption would amount to
approximately 25-29% of potential production. The potential supply of RNG will exceed
demand throughout the Planning Horizon. By 2040 projected consumption would amount to
approximately 69-81% of potential production22
.
Dispensing of RNG may be easier and cheaper with slow-fill station equipment; however,
the fleet using slow-fill equipment must be based on site. Per John Rowe, if WPWMA was
agreeable Recology AP could consider basing 25-30 trucks on WPWMA property to serve
their customers in southwestern Placer County. Many of these trucks would be converted to
natural gas over the course of several years. John feels that 1.5 acres would satisfy
Recology’s needs, allowing for a 2-3 bay shop, small dispatch office, restrooms and parking
areas. Access roads capable of handling a transfer trailer rig would be helpful. On-site
staffing would be limited to 2-3 people. Electrical, water and sewer utilities would be
needed.
Because there is limited space on the currently utilized 360-acre landfill/MRF/composting
site, a small corporation yard would likely be best situated in the undeveloped areas.
Other solid waste or energy management firms selected via a Request For
Proposals. WPWMA could elect to secure partners via competitive RFPs that define specific
investment requirements and roles for each party. The RFPs and contracts could retain the
current structure and duties or combine new and current functions now performed by
Nortech and Energy 2001 in different ways.
CNG filling station developers: Capitol PFG communicated on several occasions with
representatives of one nationally prominent firm to discuss private investment in a CNG fill
station. This firm would potentially be interested in investing in a fast-fill public station on
WPWMA property under the following conditions:
 Their responsibility would be limited to compressing, storing and dispensing
operations. WPWMA would be responsible for supplying gas of a defined quality on
a continuous basis. WPWMA would clean, condition, compress and transmit the gas
to the station location, and would need to insure gas was available during scheduled
and unscheduled shutdowns. This latter condition may require extension of a PG&E
gas supply line to the station.
22
This assumes that RNG is sold only to the City of Roseville and Recology garbage collection fleets.

20 October 5, 2015
 Demand for a minimum of 200,000 gasoline gallon equivalents (GGEs) of CNG per
year must be assured through long-term agreements.
 WPWMA would receive the Henry Hub spot price, as of June of 2015 priced at $2.78
per MMBTU (roughly $0.32 per GGE) for RNG delivered by WPWMA23
.
 A long-term agreement (ten to twenty years) would be necessary.
WPWMA could potentially generate and sell RINS (worth around $0.70 per GGE) and Low
Carbon Fuel Standard credits (worth around $0.21 per GGE) by supplying fuel. Under
these assumptions, gross revenue to WPWMA would equal $1.23 per GGE.
This firm was also interested in the potential for: a) injection of WPWMA CNG into PG&E
lines for use as transportation fuel at a remote facility24
, and b) shipping excess gas via
truck to a remote facility. They expect the requirements under AB 1900 to be relaxed in
the next few years, thus allowing more opportunity to develop a cost-effective injection
project. Shipping via trucks for a few years would allow time needed to develop a pipeline
injection project.
Due to the volatility of Henry Hub spot prices for CNG, and uncertainty regarding future
values for RINS and LCFS credits, WPWMA would be accepting much of the risk associated
with this type of arrangement. A more beneficial arrangement may be possible by
contracting for station management and selling RNG at stable prices negotiated with
Member Agency garbage collection providers.
Colleges and Universities
Collaboration with a college or university could be based on the following attributes that
each brings to the table:
Colleges offer -
• Talented individuals with specialized knowledge
• Grant funded research projects
• Students and professors that need to conduct research and publish papers
• Ability to influence public opinion and legislation
• Continual flow of new ideas
• WPWMA offers –
• LFG supply and facilities upon which to conduct research
23
To illustrate the volatility of this market, in June 2014 the value would have been $0.52 per GGE.
24
This is done as a paper credit rather than a direct transmission.

21 October 5, 2015
• Other facilities that would also be of interest for students in engineering, air quality,
water quality, chemistry, biology and related fields
• Opportunities for hands-on learning
• A source of long-term funding for projects that make financial sense, meet
regulatory requirements or satisfy some other goal of the organization
• A connection to Member Agency local governments
Sierra College and Energy 2001 have already shown some of the potential for future
relationships involving WPWMA. Their agreement is as follows:
• Sierra College Advanced Solar Program students will design and install a 9 kW solar
array on the Energy 2001 leased property over one semester of classes
• Students in later courses will maintain the equipment
• Energy 2001 will invest ($30,000) in the solar panels and other equipment
This collaboration provided the first opportunity for Sierra College students to complete a
commercial solar installation from beginning to end in one semester. The Energy 2001
existing interconnect agreement was key to Sierra College’s ability to offer this class.
The potential for new university and Sierra College campuses located nearby the WPWMA
seems to offer additional opportunities for collaboration, as physical proximity would allow
for easy student access. WPWMA would need to carefully consider security requirements
and staffing demands before entering into collaborative arrangements.
11.0 Selection of Alternatives
As mentioned in Section 7.0, when developing alternatives for the use of LFG it is not
sufficient to simply choose a utilization method (e.g. “electricity production”), because
choices about ownership, contracting, marketing and project delivery methods all have a
major impact on the financial outcome. This section will discuss our rationale for the
structure of the five top alternatives that became the subject of the financial comparison.
11.1 Ownership and Contracting
WPWMA has expressed a clear preference for ownership of infrastructure needed to collect,
treat and utilize LFG; as such, Capitol PFG has assumed that four of the five top Alternatives
would involve WPWMA ownership of some or all of the infrastructure. There are compelling
reasons, however, to include continuation of the current lease structure with Energy 2001
for offsite electricity sales within Alternatives 1a and 1b.
First, Energy 2001 ownership provides a relatively low risk baseline condition with which to
compare other alternatives. If none of the other alternatives can compete financially with
the Energy 2001 lease terms in 2018 - and Energy 2001 or some other leaseholder is likely

22 October 5, 2015
to continue with these terms for another ten years - then WPWMA would need to weigh its
goal to own all infrastructure against its goal of improved financial performance.
Second, by their expected lease termination date of 2018, Energy 2001 will have had
twenty-one years to invest in and gain knowledge regarding WPWMA LFG utilization. This
creates a competitive advantage for Energy 2001. Barriers to other competitors, including
WPWMA as owner/operator, include:
1. Equipment investment – the cost of all new equipment and data systems could
exceed $12 million. Used equipment might be available at a lower cost, but would
require earlier replacement and more maintenance.
2. Air permits and Emission Reduction Credit offsets (ERCs) –There is no inherent
obstacle to permitting a new LFG to energy facility that can meet the emission
standards of the Placer County Air Pollution Control District; however, air permits
for a 5 MW power plant will require purchase of ERCs, which are currently in
short supply. If available, the cost may exceed $1.6 million.
3. Interconnection agreements – New agreements with PG&E require studies and
improvements that could cost $1-5 million and take over two years to complete.
4. Falling values for electricity – Energy 2001 reportedly has locked in a price of
$92.50/MWH for well beyond the next fifteen years through their Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) with Marin Clean Energy. Although it is difficult to obtain
pricing information for power deals, most sources report falling values for PPAs in
Northern California.25
11.2 Preferred LFG Uses
As noted in Section 7.0, on-site electrical load displacement and RNG for vehicle fuel
appeared to show the most promise as uses for WPWMA LFG during our first screening
analysis; however, both of these uses have limitations with regard to the amount of LFG
they can consume. Golder Associates projects that only the richest gas wells (25% of the
total supply) are of sufficient quality to produce vehicle fuel. Likewise, on-site uses through
PG&E’s NEM program are limited to 1 MW of electricity generation out of a current potential
5 MW of capacity. To utilize either of these methods, then, requires combining uses or
flaring large quantities of excess gas.
11.3 Selected Alternatives
Taking these points into consideration, Capitol PFG, with the concurrence of the LFG
Strategic Plan Advisory Committee, chose to perform our financial analysis on the following
five alternatives:
Alternative 1a: All LFG would go towards off-site electricity generation under the terms
of a lease agreement. The lessee would retain ownership of all generating assets and
25
Although having a long-term fixed price agreement in place is beneficial when prices are falling, a fixed price can
become a liability when market prices exceed the contracted price. The likelihood of this occurring is low in the
short term, but increases throughout the Planning Horizon.

23 October 5, 2015
pay royalties to WPWMA at amounts equivalent to WPWMA’s agreement with Energy
2001 as it will exist in 2018.
Alternative 1b: The best quality LFG would be converted to Renewable Natural Gas
(RNG) for transportation fuel and sold to the City of Roseville and Recology at a fueling
station dedicated to their use. Some of the remaining LFG would be used to generate
0.8 MW of electricity (from one assigned genset) to power the MRF through a Net
Energy Metering agreement with PG&E. All remaining gas would be used by Energy
2001 to generate electricity for outside sale through their existing Power Purchase
Agreement (PPA) with Marin Clean Energy.26
Alternative 8a: A portion of the LFG would be used to generate 0.8 MW of electricity
(from one assigned genset) to power the MRF through a Net Energy Metering agreement
with PG&E. All remaining gas would be used to generate electricity for outside sale
through a PPA.
Alternative 8b: Similar to 1b, except all assets would be owned by WPWMA and
operated by one energy management contractor.
Alternative 8c: The best quality LFG would be converted to RNG for transportation fuel
All remaining gas would be used to generate electricity for outside sale through a PPA.
Alternatives 8a, 8b and 8c were structured assuming that WPWMA would construct or
purchase (from Energy 2001) any necessary buildings and equipment and own them
throughout the term of the Agreement. WPWMA would also own the permits,
interconnection agreements, PPAs, ERCs, and etc. These alternatives assume that WPWMA
will contract with an energy management firm (EMF) that will accept raw LFG as an input
from the WPWMA and manage all aspects of using the LFG to create a marketable energy
product27
. In return for the use of this asset, the EMF will pay WPWMA a royalty on gross
sales. Both parties will enter into an Agreement that defines the products to be marketed,
who will purchase those products and the terms of sale. WPWMA would also assist in
marketing the products by facilitating the purchase of electricity for powering the MRF
(Alternatives 8a and 8b) and/or facilitating the purchase of RNG by Member Agency garbage
collection trucks (Alternatives 8b and 8c).
Alternative 1b assumes that an EMF would handle RNG production and on-site electricity
generation, but Energy 2001 would retain rights to all remaining LFG and ownership of the
assets needed to utilize that LFG.
26
LFG supply headers would be physically separated to prevent conflicts.
27
Potential EMFs could include Energy 2001 or Nortech in addition to other experienced firms.

24 October 5, 2015
12.0 Economic Analysis
12.1 Financial Projections
Capitol PFG prepared Excel spreadsheets (Appendix D) comparing the expected financial
performance of the five Alternatives over the twenty-year Planning Horizon using consistent
assumptions whenever possible. Due to the difficulty in accurately predicting events over
twenty years, this analysis should be used only as an indication of the potential feasibility of
each Alternative as compared to the other Alternatives.
The first five worksheets provide the detailed financial projections for Alternatives 1a, 1b,
8a, 8b and 8c. These worksheets show the Capital Budget, Operating Budget, Revenue, Net
Revenue and cash flow from the perspective of the WPWMA. They also estimate cost and
revenues for the lessee (Alternative 1a and 1b) and/or energy management firms
(Alternatives 1b, 8a, 8b and 8c) for the purpose of estimating the royalty payment to
WPWMA.
There are also “Assumptions”, “E2001 Value”, “Fleet”, and “Golder” worksheets that feed
information into the Alternative worksheets.
12.2 Assumptions
Assumptions specific to each Alternative are noted near the bottom of the first five
worksheets. Those of a more general nature are listed on the “Assumptions” worksheet.
12.3 Energy 2001 Value
The intent of the “E2001 Value” worksheet is to arrive at an estimate of the cost to WPWMA
for the purchase of all assets owned by Energy 2001 that are necessary for the production
and sale of electricity from WPWMA LFG. These assets include buildings, equipment, data
systems and controls, air permits and ERCs, interconnection agreements with PG&E and the
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Marin Clean Energy. The value of these assets in
2018 is estimated at approximately $19.9 million if used at the WPMWA site; however, the
potential resale value to Energy 2001 if they sell to someone besides WPWMA was
estimated as only $5.4 million28
.
For the purpose of comparing Alternatives, Capitol PFG has assumed that WPWMA would
purchase all of the Energy 2001 assets for a negotiated price of $12.0 million; however,
although we consider this estimate reasonable based on the available information, it is
meant only for the purpose of conducting this feasibility analysis. Capitol PFG did not have
access to the assets in question and does not have the specific expertise needed to
accurately appraise them. WPWMA may wish to hire someone with that expertise in the
28
Several of the assets have value specific to the site. For example, the interconnection agreement with PG&E
cannot be used elsewhere. The cost of dismantling and reinstalling buildings and data systems likely offsets most
of their year 2018 residual value.

near fut
through
12.4 Co
The finan
presente
Horizon,
Revenue
For the
Present
because
this pers
million d
range of
but does
to utilize
Alternati
by WPW
12.5 Se
Because
how the
key assu
29
The Ene
difficult to
price for e
For this an
ure. Other
a negotiatio
nclusions
ncial compa
ed in Table 2
the total N
e are shown
purpose of
Value (NPV
it takes int
spective, Alt
dollars (infla
f capital bud
s not accom
e the LFG re
ves 8a, 8b
MA due to t
nsitivity A
the financia
outcomes c
umptions led
ergy 2001 ass
assess: the PP
lectricity throu
alysis we assu
r informatio
on process29
Drawn Fro
arison of the
2 below. Th
Net Revenue
for each of
Table 2
f comparing
V) of cash fl
to account
ternative 1b
ation include
dgets. Alter
mplish WPW
source.
and 8c, and
he investme
nalysis
al analysis d
change with
d to the follo
et that shows
PA with Marin C
ugh a new PPA,
med a new PP
on relevant
9
.
om Financia
e five Altern
he capital in
e over the s
the Alterna
– Summar
g the finan
ows to WPW
the timing
comes out
ed) over th
rnative 1a w
MA’s goal o
d to a lesser
ent required
depends on
h different a
owing result
s the greatest
Clean Energy.
, which can flu
A purchase pri
25
to asset v
al Compari
natives is sh
nvestment r
same period
atives.
y of Financ
cial perform
WMA may p
of revenues
far ahead o
e Planning
would not re
of obtaining
r extent 1b,
d and the ch
many assu
assumptions
ts.
value through
The value of t
uctuate conside
ice of $60.00 p
valuation mi
son
hown in the
required ove
d and the N
cial Projec
mance of t
provide the
s and expen
of the other
Horizon, Al
equire any W
ownership
require the
hange in use
umptions, it
s or conditio
h this analysis
this asset is de
erably, and the
per MWh and a
ight only b
“Summary
er the twen
et Present V
tions
hese Altern
most impo
nses over t
four alterna
lternative 1
WPWMA cap
over infras
e greatest ac
es of LFG.
is importan
ons. Testin
s ($12.1 millio
ependent on th
e length of tim
a ten year agre
October 5,
ecome ava
” worksheet
ty year Plan
Value of the
natives, the
ortant data
he years.
atives. At $
b is in the
pital investm
structure ne
cceptance o
nt to unders
ng several o
on) is also the
e assumed pu
me of the agree
eement.
2015
ilable
t and
nning
e Net
e Net
point
From
$12.1
mid-
ment,
eeded
of risk
stand
of the
e most
rchase
ement.

26 October 5, 2015
1. WPWMA and Energy 2001 will settle on a price of $12.0 million for all the
Energy 2001 assets. As discussed in Section 12.3, this price will be subject to
negotiation. Every $1 million increase or decrease in this cost to WPWMA changes
the projected NPV for Alternatives 8a, 8b and 8c by $1 million. Should negotiations
fail, WPWMA could attempt to procure all assets on the open market. If this should
occur, the price obtained for electricity sold offsite would be of critical importance.
Conclusion: Alternatives 8a, 8b and 8c are very sensitive to this assumption, while
Alternatives 1a and 1b are unaffected.
2. The City of Roseville and Recology Auburn Placer will purchase RNG from
WPWMA throughout the Planning Horizon in quantities consistent with their
projections of fleet conversion from diesel to CNG. The price for RNG will be
$2.33 per Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) in 201830
and will be adjusted
only for inflation in future years. This price will be a subject for negotiation
between the WPWMA, the City of Roseville and Recology, likely influenced by spot
market prices for CNG. A 10% increase in this price increases the NPV of
Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c by approximately $1.1 million. A 10% decrease has the
opposite effect. Conclusion: Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c are sensitive to this
assumption, while Alternatives 1a and 8a are unaffected.
3. WPWMA will finance capital expenditures through borrowing, with an
annual interest rate of 5.0%. A private lessee would pay 1.25 percentage
points above WPWMA’s public borrowing cost. Variations in interest rates
change the financial return of all options, because all options assume borrowing by
either a private lessee or WPWMA. However, within the realm of reasonable
expectations (4% to 6% public borrowing cost), the ranking according to NPV did not
change. Conclusion: The ranking of Alternatives is not sensitive to this assumption.
4. Inflation will average 2% per year throughout the Planning Horizon. The
model shows a drastic reduction in NPV for Alternatives 1a, 8a and 8c with an
increase to 4% annual average inflation. This is due to the assumption that the PPA
payment of $92.50 per MWh will remain in place throughout the twenty-year
Planning Horizon. In reality, though, if inflation were to average more than 2% it
should be possible after ten years to negotiate a new PPA that adjusts the $92.50
rate upwards. For the Alternatives that include CNG and onsite power, there is less
dependency on offsite power over time so inflation has less of an impact.
Conclusion: Alternatives 1a, 8a and 8c are very sensitive to inflation increases or
decreases, while Alternatives 1b and 8b are somewhat sensitive. An incorrect
assumption regarding inflation is unlikely to change the ranking of the Alternatives.
5. The average rate paid by the MRF operator for electricity purchased from
PG&E is $0.17 per kilowatt hour. This cost will increase by 3% per year. If
the MRF operator is paying, on average, more than $0.17 per kWh, they will be able
to pay more than expected for power produced onsite; thus, the financial return from
Alternatives 1b, 8a and 8b would be better than projected. The opposite is true if
they are paying less than $0.17 per kWh or the PG&E rates do not increase as fast as
projected. For example, if the average cost paid is $0.15 per kWh, the NPVs of
Alternatives 1b, 8a and 8b fall by approximately $1.7 million. Conclusion:
30
Determined by averaging August 2015 retail prices for CNG in Placer County. Opinions regarding future energy
prices vary considerably because the market is a complicated mixture of free market forces and government
regulation.

27 October 5, 2015
Alternatives 1b, 8a and 8b are sensitive to this assumption, while Alternatives 1 and
8c are unaffected.
6. Buildings and equipment will have a fifteen year life. Those purchased after
the first five years will have a residual value at the end of the Planning
Horizon equal to their unamortized balance31
. Conclusion: Changing this
assumption does not alter the ranking of Alternatives.
7. Grant funds are not assumed for any option. As discussed in Section 9, the
Alternatives most likely to receive grant funding are those associated with the
production of vehicle fuels (1b, 8b and 8c) and/or on-site electricity (1b, 8a, 8b).
Any grant funding received in the first year of the Planning Horizon would increase
the NPV by an amount roughly equal to the grant. For example, if WPWMA received
a $500,000 grant for RNG infrastructure in the year 2018, the resulting NPV for
Alternatives 1b, 8b or 8c would increase by slightly less than $500,000. Conclusion:
there is an opportunity for the NPV of Alternatives 1b, 8a, 8b and 8c to improve if
grant funding is obtained, potentially by as much as $2.5 million.
8. The value of credits per GGE from the Renewable Fuel Standard RIN
program will start at $0.72 per GGE, drop by 50% in the year 2023 and
remain constant in real terms thereafter. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard
average values will be stable except as adjusted for inflation. There has
historically been extreme volatility in the value of credits for each of these programs,
and some uncertainty as to whether the programs would remain in existence. Some
industry sources optimistically predict increasing values while others advise caution.
Looking at the worst case scenario, if credits from both programs were of no value
throughout the Planning Horizon, the NPV of Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c would each
fall by approximately $4 million and the rankings by NPV would change (although 1b
would remain on top). Because the RIN market is based on a Federal program and
the LCFS is a State of California program, the worst case scenario seems unlikely;
however, WPWMA should negotiate contract provisions to share this risk with the
energy management firm if proceeding forward with any of these Alternatives.
Conclusion: Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c are very sensitive to this assumption, while
Alternatives 1a and 8a are unaffected.
9. WPWMA will negotiate royalty rates with energy management firms
(Alternatives 1b, 8a, 8b and 8c) that result in Earnings Before Income Taxes
(EBIT) for these firms that range between 12-16%. A lessee operating
under Alternative 1a or 1b will require a higher EBIT because their capital
investment and risk levels are higher. Earnings expected by private firms will
affect the royalties they are willing to pay the WPWMA. If firms expect greater
returns, they will pay lower royalties to WPWMA and the Net Revenue and NPV will
fall. Conclusion: This assumption could affect NPV but will not affect the ranking of
the Alternatives.
10. WPWMA (Alternatives 8a, 8b and 8c) or Energy 2001 (Alternatives 1a and
1b) will continue to be paid $92.50 per MWh for electricity sold offsite
throughout the Planning Horizon, even when production is declining due to
use of LFG for other purposes. Without access to the Marin Clean Energy Power
Purchase Agreement with Energy 2001, it is not possible to confirm this assumption.
31
Because LFG generation is expected for more than twenty years, most assets will likely stay in service for
WPWMA beyond the twenty year Planning Horizon.

28 October 5, 2015
It is possible that reductions in power produced would result in penalties that reduce
the payment per MWh. If such a clause exists, this would most likely come into play
under Alternatives 1b and 8b, where the reduction in offsite electricity is the
greatest. For every $5.00 decrease in payment per MWh for electricity, the NPV of
1b and 8b would fall by $1.5 million. Conclusion: Alternatives 1b and 8b may be
sensitive to this assumption. Alternative 1a is unaffected, and Alternatives 8a and 8c
may be somewhat sensitive.
11. LFG quantity and quality will be as projected by Golder Associates for each
year of the Planning Horizon. Because all Alternatives assume the use of large
proportions of LFG for offsite electricity sales, and this is the lowest value use, they
will be similarly impacted by increases or decreases in gas production (within
reasonable ranges). Conclusion: Changing this assumption does not alter the
ranking of Alternatives.
12. RNG will only be marketed to refuse hauling trucks from the City of
Roseville and Recology (Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c). Other fleets operating in
the area may be interested in utilizing RNG sold from a station owned by WPWMA if
prices and service are competitive. WPWMA should consider allowing the Energy
Management Firm to seek such opportunities. Conclusion: If the energy
management firm was successful at selling RNG to other fleets, the NPV of
Alternatives 1b, 8b and 8c could increase significantly because excess high quality
gas is available and vehicle fuel appears to offer the most profitable use of the gas.
13. Net Energy Metering through PG&E will be available under the same terms
as the existing tariff (Alternatives 1b, 8a and 8b). As discussed in Section 7.1,
it is likely that the NEM tariff will be capped or expired by the time WPWMA is ready
to apply. The California Public Utilities Commission is currently working with the
California Investor Owned Utilities (including PG&E) to develop a NEM successor
tariff, but no decision has been made yet regarding the details of this future tariff.
Given this uncertainty, it is not possible to quantify the sensitivity of the assumption.
Conclusion: Alternatives 1b, 8a and 8b may be sensitive to this assumption and
Alternatives 1a and 8c are not.
13.0 Project Financing
The primary financing options for WPWMA investments in LFG energy infrastructure include:
WPWMA reserves: WPWMA is holding $16.5 million in Operating Fund reserves, of
which $8.9 million is labeled “Contingency” and $7.2 million is “Fixed Asset Acquisition”.
Staff is currently projecting increases in these reserves for the next twenty years.
WPWMA could potentially invest some of these reserves in a project and replenish them
through future royalty payments or rate increases as necessary.
Bonds: Bonds and state revolving loans (see below) are payable from a specific revenue
source that is pledged for repayment. Other revenue sources and reserves can be used
to help repay and/or secure the borrowing. The interest rate on Bonds are determined
based on market conditions at the time of sale, the credit rating on the Bonds, and the

29 October 5, 2015
ability to classify the bonds as tax-exempt under the Internal Revenue Code. The most
common type of Bond used for this purpose is a Revenue Bond.
State Revolving Loans: the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank
(I-Bank) offers subsidized loans to qualifying projects that “promote a healthy climate
for jobs, contribute to a strong economy and improve the quality of life in California
communities.” These loans typically have lower borrowing costs than Bonds; however,
the lending criteria required to qualify for the loan often does not match the project to
be financed. A subsidized loan must be evaluated through a pre-application process to
determine if the project is eligible.
Private Funding: Private funding may be achieved either through direct bank loans or
through public-private partnerships. In the case of public-private partnerships, the
WPWMA would share project responsibility with a private entity. The scope of the
partnership may range from oversight, design, construction, finance, and operations of
the project. Due to the uniqueness of public-private partnership arrangements, it is
critical to have a proper process for partner selection. It is also necessary to assess the
scope of the partnership, including the involvement and objectives of the WPWMA.
Clean Renewable Energy Bonds: “CREBs” are subsidized loans that are administered
by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They were part of the American Recovery &
Reinvestment Act, and provide a 70% direct pay subsidy towards allowable interest
costs. In March 2015, the IRS announced the re-allocation of approximately $597
million of CREBs awarded on a “first come, first serve” basis. Allowable projects include
capital expenditures for wind, geothermal, solar, small irrigation, close and open loop
biomass, hydro power, landfill gas, trash combustion, or marine/hydrokinetic projects.
To receive a subsidized loan WPWMA would need to work quickly to obtain an allocation
before all the funding is committed. The application for funding could state what
approvals are required and assert that WPWMA can reasonably meet the timelines (180
days from allocation to issue, and three years to complete the project). The potential
for future funding of this program is not known.
The initial capital investment for Alternative 1b is estimated at under $9 million, which
might allow financing from reserves depending on cash flow expectations. WPWMA should
consider bond financing, CREBs or an I-Bank Loan to finance Alternatives 8a, 8b or 8c.
Alternative 1a wouldn’t require any financing.
14.0 Recommendation
14.1 Top-ranked Alternative
Although the financial comparisons necessarily include many assumptions, some of which
will likely prove inaccurate, they do give a strong indication that Alternative 1b would
provide the best financial return. As stated above, under Alternative 1b the best quality

30 October 5, 2015
LFG would be converted to Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) for transportation fuel and sold to
the City of Roseville and Recology at a fueling station dedicated to their use. Some of the
remaining LFG would be used to generate 0.8 MW of electricity (from one assigned genset)
to power the MRF through a Net Energy Metering agreement with PG&E. All remaining gas
would be used by Energy 2001 to generate electricity for outside sale through their existing
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Marin Clean Energy.
Although Alternative 1b does not fully comply with Guiding Principle #3 - because it doesn’t
result in WPWMA ownership of all infrastructure needed to collect, treat and utilize LFG - it
does move in that direction by extending ownership over new vehicle fuel and onsite
electricity infrastructure. If WPWMA prefers to achieve full ownership in 2018 by purchasing
Energy 2001 assets, it will likely pay a significant surcharge due to the low prices currently
offered for electricity wheeled through the grid. Alternatively, WPWMA will need to accept
considerably less revenue through a new PPA procured independently32
.
A disadvantage of Alternative 1b is the possibility of future conflicts between Energy 2001
and the EMF, if Energy 2001 does not become the EMF. This will require careful
consideration when preparing an RFP for EMF services and when drafting Energy 2001 and
EMF agreements.
14.2 Agreements with Energy 2001
A key component of the Implementation Plan shown below is to negotiate revised and/or
new agreements with Energy 2001. A negotiated deal with Energy 2001 should include the
following elements:
 Extension of the current lease agreement for production of offsite electricity from
April 2018 to June 2020.
 Creation of a new lease agreement for production of offsite electricity utilizing any
LFG remaining after use by the EMF, commencing June 2020 to June 2028. This
agreement should include a protocol for distribution of LFG from the WPWMA
wellfield. Adjustments in royalty payments should be considered if LFG supply falls
below specified levels.
 Sale of ERCs held by Energy 2001 to WPWMA in quantities needed to permit one
genset for onsite use of electricity.
WPWMA will need to complete negotiations with Energy 2001 prior to finalizing the RFP for
Energy Management Firms.
32
If WPWMA wishes to own all the equipment necessary to utilize LFG after 2018, it would appear to be in the
interest of both parties to negotiate a transfer of all of the Energy 2001 assets to WPWMA at a reasonable cost.
From the perspective of the WPWMA, this would allow the smoothest transition to ownership with potentially the
lowest initial investment. For Energy 2001, it would result in the sale of all their assets with a single cash
transaction, including payment for some assets that potentially have little value to them without the WPWMA lease.

31 October 5, 2015
14.3 EMF RFP Structure
It is important to structure the RFP and draft Agreement for Energy Management Firms
(EMFs) in a manner that allows creative input as to the uses of the LFG, flexibility in
business terms and some sharing of risk. The goal will be to receive two or more feasible
proposals that provide a generous royalty to the WPWMA.
Capitol PFG suggests that the RFP and Agreement for EMFs be developed around the
following basic points33
:
1. Eight-year term.
2. Proposals must include proposed uses, an implementation plan and a 10% design
with a not-to-exceed cost estimate for permits, final design and construction of
improvements and purchase of equipment.
3. Proposers must demonstrate the ability to design improvements, select equipment
for purchase by WPWMA and manage construction of all improvements.
4. WPWMA will construct necessary improvements and provide and/or purchase
equipment, and will continue to own equipment throughout the term of the
Agreement.
5. The EMF will accept raw LFG as the WPWMA makes it available and manage all
aspects of using the LFG to create a marketable energy product. The EMF will be
responsible for all operating costs, marketing, environmental compliance and
collection of revenues.
6. Payment to WPWMA will be in the form of a defined royalty on the EMF’s gross sales.
A minimum annual royalty should be specified.
7. WPWMA may also assist in marketing the products by facilitating the purchase of
electricity for powering the MRF and/or facilitating the purchase of RNG by Member
Agency garbage collection trucks. The RFP should provide guidance to the proposers
regarding expected sales volume and pricing of energy marketed to the WPWMA.
33
Obtaining input from potential proposers regarding the proposed contract terms and interest in bidding is
recommended, either before issuance of the RFP or at a pre-proposal conference.

32 October 5, 2015
15.0 Implementation Plan
Table 3 shows the time frames and actions needed to implement Alternative 1b.
Table 3 – Implementation Plan
Time Frame Action
December 2015 – May
2016
Negotiate new and revised lease agreements with Energy 2001.
If unsuccessful, begin obtaining all assets needed to generate
and sell offsite energy and include these services in the EMF RFP.
December 2015 – June
2016
Assemble a team of staff and consultants to: develop an RFP for
Energy Management Firms, review proposals from legal, financial
and engineering perspectives, conduct environmental review and
obtain permits, negotiate agreements and prepare bid
documents.
July 2016 – September
2017
Develop an RFP for energy management services to commence
in July 2020.
September 2017 Issue the RFP for energy management services
February – April 2018 Review proposals and select top EMF
April 2018
Evaluate financing needs and opportunities and proceed with
most advantageous approach
May – July 2018
Complete negotiations with top EMF and begin the permitting
process
July – December 2018
Develop construction contract and equipment purchase
documents
January – February
2019
Accept and award bids
May 2019 Start construction
July 2020 Begin operations under new agreements

September 28, 2015
APPENDIX A: GOLDER ASSOCIATES – LFG UTILIZATION

September 28, 2015
WESTERN PLACER
WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
LFG Utilization Options
LFGUTILIZATIONOPTIONS
Report Number: 1411322
Revisions included herein:
Updated Section 3.1; Added Appendix A, Theoretical Modeling of LFG Recovery Estimates
Updated Section 7 and Appendix B, Permitting and Environmental Review Requirements
Submitted to:
Capitol Public Finance Group

LFG Strategic Plan v9 - Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to LFG Strategic Plan v9 - Final

Similar to LFG Strategic Plan v9 - Final (20)

LFG Strategic Plan v9 - Final