June 27, 2011 (Updated February 20, 2012)
1784-11
Study Alternatives
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
Case 1a
Case 1b
Case 1c
Case 1d
Food Scraps
Yard Trimmings
Biosolids
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD
Dry AD (Separate Cell)
Wet AD at Landfill
Wet AD at RWQCP
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Alternative 2: Export
Case 2
Proposed San
Jose AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 2a
Proposed San
Jose AD (Zanker)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
Alternative 3: Export
Case 3
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Continue Incineration at
RWQCP
Case 3a
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Gilroy Compost
(ZBEST)
Wet AD at RWQCP
2
Study Scenarios
Input
Assumption
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Ownership
Public
Private
Private
Financing
Public
Private
Private
Below Market
Market Rate
Market Rate
15%
15%
0%
Site Rent (Annual)
$1
$108,000
$908,000
Carbon Adder
Cost
Yes
Yes
No
15%
15%
0%
Financing Rate
Grants
Contingency on
Export Options
3
Projections of Food Scraps, Yard
Trimmings and Biosolids Quantities
(Tons/Year)
Food Scraps
Yard
Trimmings
Biosolids
Total
First year: 2015
14,000
21,000
27,000
62,000
Last Year: 2034
19,000
21,000
34,000
74,000
4
GHG Model Results
(with Electricity Production)
Alternative 1: In-City Options at Landfill Site
MT CO2-e/Year
Case 1a (All Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Biosolids)
13,831
Case 1b (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at Landfill)
14,234
Case 1c (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Wet AD Biosolids at RWQCP)
14,207
Case 1d (Dry AD – Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings; Continue Incinerate Biosolids)
21,106
Alternative 2: Export
Alternative 2 (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy ; Continue
Incinerate Biosolids)
Alternative 2a (Export Food Scraps to San Jose, Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD
Biosolids at RWQCP)
Alternative 3: Export
Alternative 3 (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Continue Incinerate
Biosolids)
Alternative 3a (Export Food Scraps and Yard Trimmings to Gilroy; Wet AD Biosolids
at RWQCP)
MT CO2-e/Year
23,329
16,430
MT CO2-e/Year
22,716
15,818
5
Summary of Economic Analyses: Lower Cost AD Technology
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD
in separate cells @ Palo Alto Landfill (PALF) Uncertainty
remains regarding Case 1a costs, limited data
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids
Wet AD – all @ PALF
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP
$59,861,995
$73,349,155
$96,226,397
$112,541,470
$133,646,188
$170,950,938
$111,359,855
$132,185,841
$169,007,164
$132,601,325
$142,514,693
$154,505,010
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed
Incinerator on line in 2031
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
Incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$135,032,640
$135,032,640
$116,714,351
$129,854,514
$129,854,514
$112,511,650
Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$115,598,644
$117,464,701
$103,029,446
$110,731,093
$112,597,150
$98,826,745
Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
6
Summary of Economic Analyses: Higher Cost AD Technology
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 1a: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings & Biosolids Dry AD in
separate cells @ PALF
Case 1b: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD, Biosolids
Wet AD – all @ PALF
Case 1c: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Wet AD @ RWQCP
$202,489,030
$236,505,592
$294,370,715
$179,744,473
$211,656,529
$268,294,477
$178,943,797
$210,683,346
$267,027,894
$194,566,502
$217,076,078
$249,502,488
Case 1d: Food Scraps, Yard Trimmings, Dry AD @ PALF,
Biosolids Incinerated @ RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator
on line in 2031
Alternatives 2 & 3 (Export/Incineration)
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard Trimmings
to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids Incinerated
at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
$135,032,640
$135,032,640
$116,714,351
$129,854,514
$129,854,514
$112,511,650
Case 3: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings to
SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
incinerated at RWQCP/New Fluidized Bed Incinerator in 2031
Alternatives 2a & 3a (Export/Wet AD)
NPV Total Costs over 20 Years
Case 2a: Food Scraps to San Jose AD Facility, Yard
Trimmings to Gilroy Composting Facility (via SMaRT), Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
$115,598,644
$117,464,701
$103,029,446
$110,731,093
$112,597,150
$98,826,745
Case 3a: Food Scraps to San Jose Transfer, Yard Trimmings
to SMaRT – then both to Gilroy Composting Facility, Biosolids
processed via Wet AD @ RWQCP
7
Summary Findings Economic Analyses
 Scenario 1: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export




options, Cases 1b and 1c are less costly than export with incineration, and
comparable in cost to export options with Wet AD
Scenario 2: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is less costly than export
options, Cases 1b and 1c are approximately same cost as export with
incineration, more costly than export with Wet AD, but competitive in cost
with export with Wet AD
Scenario 3: Case 1a Lower Cost AD Technology is comparable in cost to
export with Wet AD of biosolids, but less costly than export with
incineration
For all Scenarios, Higher Cost AD Technology is more costly than export
cases.
For Scenarios 1 and 2, Continued Incineration of Biosolids with
existing incineration, then replacing it with a fluid bed incinerator in 2030,
is more costly than Lower Cost Dry AD technology or Wet AD of biosolids.
For Scenario 3, incineration of biosolids is more costly than Lower Cost
DryAD or export, but less costly than Wet AD for biosolids with in-City dry
AD for food scraps and yard trimmings (as a result of eliminating the
“carbon adder” ).
8
Project Delivery Options
 DBOO(T) – Private ownership and financing; private
design, construction, operation
 DBO – Public ownership and financing; private
design, construction, operation
 DBB – Public ownership and financing; City
responsible for design, construction, operation
9
Next Steps
Should Site become available (note an affirmative vote
was cast in November 2011) and City decide to further
consider AD, other technologies:
 Complete CEQA checklist
 Obtain Firm Technical and Price Proposals for City
and Export Options (performance-based RFP process;
does not commit City)
 Review Proposals, Compare Options, Determine
Course of Action
10