Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
13 Attachment 1, Truckee Bioenergy Scoping Study
WILDEPHOR Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC 481 N Santa Cruz Ave #280 Los Gatos, CA 95030 USA +1 510 845 0016 June 8, 2022 Jennifer Callaway Town of Truckee 10183 Truckee Airport Road Truckee, CA 96161 RE: Truckee Bioenergy Scoping Study - Findings and Recommendations Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC has completed the bioenergy project scoping study and subsequent refinement effort on behalf of the Town of Truckee and its partners, Truckee Fire Protection District (TFPD) and Truckee Tahoe Airport District (TTAD). The scoping study was initially undertaken to evaluate the potential for using green waste from local defensible space and forest fuels management activities to produce heat and/or power for a cluster of five facilities located at and around the Truckee Tahoe Airport, thereby offsetting fossil fuel consumption while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the risk of catastrophic wildfires (see Attachment 1 for utility costs and usage for the identified facility cluster). The scoping study included a series of tasks to determine whether such a project warrants a more in-depth feasibility assessment to support potential capital investment in a bioenergy facility fueled by locally generated organic wastes. The initial scoping study was conducted from September 2021 through February 2022, with subsequent refinement being completed from March 2022 through May 2022. A total of seven (7) candidate solutions along with the baseline case of continuing to dispose of green waste at the Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) Eastern Regional Landfill (ERL) were evaluated using a multidimensional scorecard approach (see results in Attachment 5). Based on those results, the project team has identified two (2) candidate technologies that it believes should be investigated further as a means of addressing issues related to local green waste disposal. These two candidates, described in more detail below, are 1) biomass power generation using a gasifier with an electric generator; and 2) a modular combined heat and biochar (CHAB) system based on biomass pyrolysis. These two candidates could be further evaluated in a single feasibility assessment along with a market study of biochar, as outlined in the sections that follow. Since completing the initial scoping study, the project team has determined that two disposal options which originally seemed promising for near -term management of green waste, both WILDEPHOR [WIL-da-for] adjective: what nature can sustain www.wildephor.com based on air curtain burner technologies, are not currently viable due to various operational and permitting challenges. Consequently, the two bioenergy systems described below are the only feasible pathways for long-term reuse of local organic waste that remain from the original set of seven candidate solutions. Option A: Biomass Power Several different power generation options were evaluated as part of the bioenergy project scoping study, namely, 1) an air curtain burner coupled with an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator; 2) a biomass gasification and generator system; and 3) a biomass boiler system combined with an ORC generator. Based on a range of triple bottom line factors as depicted in the scorecards in Attachment 5, the biomass gasification system was judged to be the most promising biopower candidate for the particular application being considered by the Town and is partners. Biomass gasification is a thermochemical conversion process whereby biomass feedstock is heated in an oxygen -limited environment, preventing combustion and instead producing a hydrocarbon -rich synthesis gas ("syngas") that can then be either combusted in a gas turbine or internal combustion engine, or chemically converted to other liquid or gaseous biofuels. The evaluation was based on a representative floating fixed -bed gasifier having a nameplate capacity of 1.0 megawatt electric (MWe), which was sized to roughly match the quantity of high quality fuel estimated to be available as implementation of recently passed Measure T is ramped up over the next several years. More specifically, a model of projected green waste quantities developed with the partners (see Attachment 2) estimates a total of about 12,000 bone dry tons (BDT) of biomass being produced by annual defensible space and forest fuels treatment efforts. Of that material, it is believed that approximately half will be sufficiently high quality woody material of the type normally desired for gasification (as opposed to pine needles, leaves, brush, or other similar materials). Consistent with that preliminary estimate, a 1.0 MWe gasifier would consume approximately 6,000 BDT of wood chips annually during year-round operations. The primary source of revenue for a biomass power system would be from a power purchase agreement (PPA) negotiated with Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD). With such an agreement, the partners would be guaranteed a long-term (e.g., 20 years) revenue stream from electricity sold into the regional grid at a stable price. For the operating expense model developed as part of the scoping study (see summary in Attachment 3) and based on initial discussions with TDPUD staff, a PPA purchase price of $0.10 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) was assumed. Further evaluation of a potential PPA pricing structure would be undertaken by TDPUD in parallel with a more detailed bioenergy project feasibility assessment should one be pursued by the partners. A secondary source of revenue from a biomass gasification facility would be biochar sales. Biochar is a charcoal -like byproduct of biomass conversion processes such as gasification and pyrolysis that can be used for a range of purposes including as a soil amendment, a water and air filtration medium, and a construction material additive, among others. The market 2 for biochar is rapidly evolving and consequently presents significant uncertainty, and it may not represent a reliable revenue source in the near term. Biochar does, however, provide a significant means of carbon sequestration, thus making this alternative more attractive than most others included in the scoping study in terms of its environmental benefits. A summary of available GHG emissions reductions for all the candidate technologies considered in the scoping study is provided in Attachment 4. An additional important potential benefit of the proposed biopower generation option could be the ability to establish an islanded microgrid in the vicinity of the biomass power plant. Such a microgrid could allow critical municipal facilities to continue operating during Public Safety Outage Management (PSOM) events or other unscheduled grid outages. Based on a preliminary review with TDPUD staff of existing and planned electrical grid infrastructure, it appears that an islanded microgrid could be established to supply backup power to the Truckee Tahoe Airport, Truckee Fire Station 96 (including the co -located airport well and pump station), and the Truckee Town Hall and Truckee Police Department. Further analysis will be required to confirm system capacity and operating parameters, but at this time initial indications are that a microgrid powered by a 1.0 MWe gasification system sited on or near TTAD property would be able to serve most if not all of these critical electrical loads during main grid outages. Option B: Combined Heat and Biochar A second potentially viable option for the productive reuse of local green waste is a combined heat and biochar (CHAB) system using pyrolysis as the biomass conversion technology. This would be a "thermally -led" approach in that the energy content of biomass feedstocks would be converted into heat, with biochar and possibly a relatively small amount of electricity also being produced as co -products. Pyrolysis is a heat induced thermal decomposition process similar in many respects to gasification, but one that takes place in the absence of oxygen. This generally produces a greater proportion of biochar (25-30% by weight of the feedstock) compared with gasification (5-10% by weight), often along with bio-oil that can be converted into other biofuels. The largest source of revenue from this option would be from biochar sales. As shown in the operating expense model summary included in Attachment 3, biochar sales could represent more than 80% of annual project revenues, enough to cover all the estimated plant operating costs as well as the disposal costs for residual organic material not utilized by the pyrolysis system. Additional revenues totaling more than $150,000 per year could be generated from offsetting heating and electrical utility costs at Truckee Tahoe Airport facilities. As noted in the summary of the biomass power option above, however, biochar presents a great deal of uncertainty in terms of its pricing and reliability as a revenue stream. Therefore, the intent of the proposed biochar market study would be to reduce some of that uncertainty such that the economic value of the biochar could be more accurately estimated. Two key potential advantages of the CHAB option are its significantly lower capital cost and its modularity. As shown in the scorecards for each candidate (see Attachment 5), the capital cost of a 1.0 MWe biomass power plant based around gasification technology is estimated to be in the range of $15 million. A comparably sized CHAB system —that is, one sized to use the amount of feedstock anticipated to be available within the next 3-5 years —is estimated to cost around $7 million. Beyond its much lower initial capital cost, the payback period is estimated to be shorter based on its marginally higher annual revenues coupled with greater avoided green waste disposal costs. Second, and perhaps even more importantly, a CHAB system could be designed to be modular, such that additional units could be added in the future if local green waste streams continued to increase. For purposes of the scoping study, four (4) pyrolysis units each having a thermal output of just under 1.0 MWth were used to estimate feedstock throughput, annual operating expenses, and system outputs (i.e., heat, biochar, and behind -the -meter electricity generated using process waste heat). A summary of estimated operating expenses and revenues for a combined heat and biochar system are provided in Attachment 3. As shown in the estimated available GHG emissions reductions included in Attachment 4, the CHAB system could produce the greatest carbon sequestration benefit of all the candidate technologies considered in the scoping study. In fact, this option could sequester more than three times as much carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) as the biomass power option, due to its significantly higher production of biochar. It should be noted that biochar, particularly when used as a soil amendment, can sequester up to 3 tons of CO2e for every ton of biomass feedstock used, far exceeding the GHG emissions reductions available from offsetting utility purchases and avoiding in situ biomass decomposition combined. Unfortunately, based on discussions with staff from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), use of biochar is not currently eligible for meeting the Town's organic recycling targets established under Senate Bill (SB) 1383. Finally, the CHAB option also could offer another unique co -benefit in the form of hydronic snow melt for portions of the Truckee Tahoe Airport. Hydronic snow melt systems utilize cross -linked polyethylene (PEX) piping embedded in paved areas to circulate hot water for surface snow removal. Based on the quantities of organic waste that the partners expect to generate, an appropriately -sized CHAB system could produce enough supplemental heat to provide hot water for snow melting along high -traffic areas of the airport property such as the main apron. Although installation of hydronic snow melt systems can be relatively costly, the excess available waste heat from a pyrolysis plant could allow such a system to be cost- effective if it were able to offset sufficient snow removal expenses. TTAD management has expressed interest in evaluating this possibility further as part of a more detailed bioenergy project feasibility assessment. Recommendations Based on the findings highlighted above, it is recommended that the Town and its partners conduct a more in-depth feasibility assessment of both 1) the biomass power option using gasification; and 2) the combined heat and biochar option using pyrolysis, as two potentially viable methods of productively reusing locally generated organic wastes. A market study of biochar as a potentially merchantable co -product of either biomass conversion process also 4 should be conducted to better assess its possible financial contributions to any future capital project that may be undertaken by the partners. The cost of completing a detailed feasibility assessment for these two candidate bioenergy solutions is estimated to be $90,000. An additional $30,000 would be required to conduct a market study of biochar in parallel with the feasibility assessment. Together these analyses could provide the Town and its partners with a substantive basis for determining whether capital investment in a bioenergy plant would be warranted. They would include conceptual system designs, more refined capital and operating cost estimates, feedstock procurement and management strategies, and life -cycle pro forma financial models, among other items. Town of Truckee staff are currently pursuing several grant opportunities that could fund a portion or all of this next analysis phase. Project Timeline Assuming that the necessary funding is available and that the partners decide to go forward with a feasibility assessment and biochar market study, those analyses could be completed in approximately nine (9) months. That would put the partners on a path to being ready to engage an engineering design firm as early as summer 2023, with a detailed design package and subsequent procurement activities possibly allowing the partners to break ground on construction of a bioenergy facility sometime in 2024. While certainly possible, this timeline may be somewhat optimistic in light of current supply chain issues and labor shortages, and therefore should be considered preliminary. Wildephor appreciates having had the opportunity to perform this important work for the Town of Truckee and its partners, and remains available for further consultation related to the scoping study as well as for additional professional services that may be desired. Attachments 1. Partner Utility Costs and Usage 2. Partner Green Waste Summary 3. Operating Expense Summary 4. Available GHG Emissions Reductions S. Candidate Solution Scorecards CC: Bill Seline, Truckee Fire Protection District Robb Etnyre, Truckee Tahoe Airport District ATTACHMENT 1 Partner Utility Costs and Usage SUMMARY - PARTNER TOTAL UTILITY COSTS 2018 - ANNUAL $ 40,565.81 $ 123,773.65 $ 164,339.47 2021 MONTHLY $ 3,380.48 $ 10,314.47 $ 13,694.96 Month Date Natural Gas Electricity Total Cost 1 Oct-18 $ 2,190.15 $ 10,532.63 $ 12,722.78 2 Nov-18 $ 5,291.96 $ 9,963.01 $ 15,254.97 3 Dec-18 $ 6,715.83 $ 8,928.78 $ 15,644.61 4 Jan-19 $ 6,568.90 $ 12,434.72 $ 19,003.62 5 Feb-19 $ 8,697.63 $ 13,914.68 $ 22,612.31 6 Mar-19 $ 5,104.20 $ 10,163.44 $ 15,267.64 7 Apr-19 $ 2,805.68 $ 8,855.11 $ 11,660.79 8 May-19 $ 2,545.74 $ 8,941.66 $ 11,487.40 9 Jun-19 $ 1,004.91 $ 10,895.09 $ 11,900.00 10 Jul-19 $ 769.83 $ 10,062.04 $ 10,831.87 11 Aug-19 $ 746.05 $ 12,317.20 $ 13,063.25 12 Sep-19 $ 1,795.57 $ 10,646.55 $ 12,442.12 Year 1 Total $ 44,236.45 $ 127,654.91 $ 171,891.36 Average $ 3,686.37 $ 10,637.91 $ 14,324.28 13 Oct-19 $ 3,070.95 $ 9,193.72 $ 12,264.67 14 Nov-19 $ 5,314.66 $ 10,824.43 $ 16,139.09 15 Dec-19 $ 6,514.84 $ 10,183.20 $ 16,698.04 16 Jan-20 $ 6,485.40 $ 10,251.79 $ 16,737.19 17 Feb-20 $ 6,168.73 $ 11,117.60 $ 17,286.33 18 Mar-20 $ 4,925.17 $ 10,096.31 $ 15,021.48 19 Apr-20 $ 2,098.31 $ 8,451.47 $ 10,549.78 20 May-20 $ 1,280.88 $ 8,709.27 $ 9,990.15 21 Jun-20 $ 840.29 $ 8,590.45 $ 9,430.74 22 Jul-20 $ 614.84 $ 9,525.86 $ 10,140.70 23 Aug-20 $ 586.76 $ 11,671.39 $ 12,258.15 24 Sep-20 $ 777.49 $ 10,724.32 $ 11,501.81 Year 2 Total $ 38,678.32 $ 119,339.81 $ 158,018.13 Average $ 3,223.19 $ 9,944.98 $ 13,168.18 25 Oct-20 $ 1,613.73 $ 10,204.40 $ 11,818.13 26 Nov-20 $ 5,431.68 $ 9,531.66 $ 14,963.34 27 Dec-20 $ 6,511.83 $ 9,527.37 $ 16,039.20 28 Jan-21 $ 6,234.13 $ 11,366.96 $ 17,601.09 29 Feb-21 $ 5,862.17 $ 10,523.58 $ 16,385.75 30 Mar-21 $ 5,019.86 $ 9,796.07 $ 14,815.93 31 Apr-21 $ 2,849.92 $ 10,576.55 $ 13,426.47 32 May-21 $ 1,703.06 $ 9,438.75 $ 11,141.81 33 Jun-21 $ 908.23 $ 9,245.38 $ 10,153.61 34 Jul-21 $ 763.04 $ 12,628.00 $ 13,391.04 35 Aug-21 $ 890.95 $ 11,535.64 $ 12,426.59 36 Sep-21 $ 994.07 $ 9,951.88 $ 10,945.95 Year 3 Total $ 38,782.67 $ 124,326.24 $ 163,108.91 Average $ 3,231.89 $ 10,360.52 $ 13,592.41 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC SUMMARY - PARTNER NATURAL GAS USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 3,834 $ 40,565.81 25% 2021 MONTHLY 319 $ 3,380.48 $ 10.58 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (MMBtu) ($) ($/MMBtu) 1 Oct-18 223 $ 2,190.15 $ 9.81 2 Nov-18 539 $ 5,291.96 $ 9.82 3 Dec-18 618 $ 6,715.83 $ 10.87 4 Jan-19 626 $ 6,568.90 $ 10.50 5 Feb-19 894 $ 8,697.63 $ 9.73 6 Mar-19 498 $ 5,104.20 $ 10.25 7 Apr-19 271 $ 2,805.68 $ 10.35 8 May-19 237 $ 2,545.74 $ 10.74 9 Jun-19 84 $ 1,004.91 $ 11.99 10 Jul-19 64 $ 769.83 $ 11.97 11 Aug-19 61 $ 746.05 $ 12.17 12 Sep-19 167 $ 1,795.57 $ 10.75 Year 1 Total 4,282 $ 44,236.45 Average 357 $ 3,686.37 $ 10.33 13 Oct-19 293 $ 3,070.95 $ 10.49 14 Nov-19 506 $ 5,314.66 $ 10.50 15 Dec-19 629 $ 6,514.84 $ 10.37 16 Jan-20 619 $ 6,485.40 $ 10.47 17 Feb-20 492 $ 6,168.73 $ 12.54 18 Mar-20 504 $ 4,925.17 $ 9.77 19 Apr-20 217 $ 2,098.31 $ 9.67 20 May-20 127 $ 1,280.88 $ 10.08 21 Jun-20 79 $ 840.29 $ 10.66 22 Jul-20 57 $ 614.84 $ 10.75 23 Aug-20 55 $ 586.76 $ 10.73 24 Sep-20 70 $ 777.49 $ 11.09 Year 2 Total 3,648 $ 38,678.32 Average 304 $ 3,223.19 $ 10.60 25 Oct-20 161 $ 1,613.73 $ 10.05 26 Nov-20 541 $ 5,431.68 $ 10.05 27 Dec-20 670 $ 6,511.83 $ 9.73 28 Jan-21 573 $ 6,234.13 $ 10.88 29 Feb-21 540 $ 5,862.17 $ 10.85 30 Mar-21 443 $ 5,019.86 $ 11.34 31 Apr-21 266 $ 2,849.92 $ 10.71 32 May-21 131 $ 1,703.06 $ 12.97 33 Jun-21 66 $ 908.23 $ 13.87 34 Jul-21 53 $ 763.04 $ 14.45 35 Aug-21 61 $ 890.95 $ 14.70 36 Sep-21 69 $ 994.07 $ 14.51 Year 3 Total 3,572 $ 38,782.67 Average 298 $ 3,231.89 $ 10.86 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC SUMMARY - PARTNER ELECTRICITY USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 782,371 $ 123,773.65 75% 2021 MONTHLY 65,198 $ 10,314.47 $ 0.158 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (kWh) ($) ($/kWh) 1 Oct-18 70,829 $ 10,532.63 $ 0.149 2 Nov-18 67,757 $ 9,963.01 $ 0.147 3 Dec-18 53,142 $ 8,928.78 $ 0.168 4 Jan-19 87,245 $ 12,434.72 $ 0.143 S Feb-19 95,121 $ 13,914.68 $ 0.146 6 Mar-19 66,038 $ 10,163.44 $ 0.154 7 Apr-19 56,228 $ 8,855.11 $ 0.157 8 May-19 56,593 $ 8,941.66 $ 0.158 9 Jun-19 71,920 $ 10,895.09 $ 0.151 10 Jul-19 65,447 $ 10,062.04 $ 0.154 11 Aug-19 81,474 $ 12,317.20 $ 0.151 12 Sep-19 69,460 $ 10,646.55 $ 0.153 Year 1 Total 841,254 $ 127,654.91 Average 70,105 $ 10,637.91 $ 0.152 13 Oct-19 58,667 $ 9,193.72 $ 0.157 14 Nov-19 71,625 $ 10,824.43 $ 0.151 15 Dec-19 66,024 $ 10,183.20 $ 0.154 16 Jan-20 62,970 $ 10,251.79 $ 0.163 17 Feb-20 68,677 $ 11,117.60 $ 0.162 18 Mar-20 62,191 $ 10,096.31 $ 0.162 19 Apr-20 49,996 $ 8,451.47 $ 0.169 20 May-20 53,585 $ 8,709.27 $ 0.163 21 Jun-20 52,356 $ 8,590.45 $ 0.164 22 Jul-20 57,944 $ 9,525.86 $ 0.164 23 Aug-20 73,375 $ 11,671.39 $ 0.159 24 Sep-20 66,894 $ 10,724.32 $ 0.160 Year 2 Total 744,304 $ 119,339.81 Average 62,025 $ 9,944.98 $ 0.160 25 Oct-20 64,526 $ 10,204.40 $ 0.158 26 Nov-20 58,509 $ 9,531.66 $ 0.163 27 Dec-20 58,091 $ 9,527.37 $ 0.164 28 Jan-21 70,246 $ 11,366.96 $ 0.162 29 Feb-21 64,298 $ 10,523.58 $ 0.164 30 Mar-21 58,941 $ 9,796.07 $ 0.166 31 Apr-21 65,050 $ 10,576.55 $ 0.163 32 May-21 56,298 $ 9,438.75 $ 0.168 33 Jun-21 55,865 $ 9,245.38 $ 0.165 34 Jul-21 78,227 $ 12,628.00 $ 0.161 35 Aug-21 71,066 $ 11,535.64 $ 0.162 36 Sep-21 60,437 $ 9,951.88 $ 0.165 Year 3 Total 761,554 $ 124,326.24 Average 63,463 $ 10,360.52 $ 0.163 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC TRUCKEE TOWN HALL - NATURAL GAS USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 6,287 $ 6,847.79 15% 2021 MONTHLY 524 $ 570.65 $ 10.89 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (Therms) ($) ($/MMBtu) 1 Oct-18 463 , 504.z $ 10.90 2 Nov-18 749 ? 832.2- $ 11.11 3 Dec-18 1,039 > 1,117.0 $ 10.75 4 Jan-19 977 1,066.z $ 10.92 S Feb-19 769 806.E $ 10.49 6 Mar-19 747 772.` $ 10.34 7 Apr-19 455 $ 488.81 $ 10.74 8 May-19 321 $ 362.66 $ 11.30 9 Jun-19 133 $ 168.03 $ 12.63 10 Jul-19 113 $ 143.36 $ 12.69 11 Aug-19 112 $ 143.89 $ 12.85 12 Sep-19 250 $ 280.49 $ 11.22 Year 1 Total 6,128 $ 6,686.46 Average 511 $ 557.21 $ 10.91 13 Oct-19 463 $ 504.45 $ 10.90 14 Nov-19 749 $ 832.25 $ 11.11 15 Dec-19 1,039 $ 1,117.05 $ 10.75 16 Jan-20 977 $ 1,066.41 $ 10.92 17 Feb-20 769 $ 806.50 $ 10.49 18 Mar-20 747 $ 772.56 $ 10.34 19 Apr-20 430 $ 424.13 $ 9.86 20 May-20 348 $ 347.91 $ 10.00 21 Jun-20 143 $ 158.30 $ 11.07 22 Jul-20 106 $ 121.01 $ 11.42 23 Aug-20 105 $ 119.69 $ 11.40 24 Sep-20 129 $ 149.89 $ 11.62 Year 2 Total 6,005 $ 6,420.15 Average 500 $ 535.01 $ 10.69 25 Oct-20 355 $ 361.22 $ 10.18 26 Nov-20 1,118 $ 1,141.37 $ 10.21 27 Dec-20 1,304 $ 1,296.44 $ 9.94 28 Jan-21 1,045 $ 1,168.87 $ 11.19 29 Feb-21 983 $ 1,097.46 $ 11.16 30 Mar-21 749 $ 864.86 $ 11.55 31 Apr-21 531 $ 573.03 $ 10.79 32 May-21 209 $ 278.26 $ 13.31 33 Jun-21 115 $ 166.76 $ 14.50 34 Jul-21 91 $ 139.70 $ 15.35 35 Aug-21 102 $ 158.78 $ 15.57 36 Sep-21 127 $ 190.01 $ 14.96 Year 3 Total 6,729 $ 7,436.76 Average 561 $ 619.73 $ 11.05 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC NOTE: Data for Oct-18 to Mar-19 unavailable; Oct-19 to Mar-20 data used as proxy. TRUCKEE TOWN HALL - ELECTRICITY USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 236,800 $ 38,227.54 85% 2021 MONTHLY 19,733 $ 3,185.63 $ 0.161 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (kWh) ($) ($/kWh) 1 Oct-18 22,920 $ 3,274.45 $ 0.143 2 Nov-18 23,040 $ 3,317.34 $ 0.144 3 Dec-18 12,120 $ 2,237.60 $ 0.185 4 Jan-19 39,120 $ 5,178.13 $ 0.132 5 Feb-19 24,600 $ 3,729.14 $ 0.152 6 Mar-19 21,480 $ 3,428.44 $ 0.160 7 Apr-19 18,240 $ 3,008.88 $ 0.165 8 May-19 17,640 $ 2,888.25 $ 0.164 9 Jun-19 21,720 $ 3,252.63 $ 0.150 10 Jul-19 18,840 $ 2,884.13 $ 0.153 11 Aug-19 22,560 $ 3,348.66 $ 0.148 12 Sep-19 20,280 $ 3,114.67 $ 0.154 Year 1 Total 262,560 $ 39,662.32 Average 21,880 $ 3,305.19 $ 0.151 13 Oct-19 18,120 $ 2,982.60 $ 0.165 14 Nov-19 22,800 $ 3,452.15 $ 0.151 15 Dec-19 21,240 $ 3,351.18 $ 0.158 16 Jan-20 19,920 $ 3,431.24 $ 0.172 17 Feb-20 21,600 $ 3,708.69 $ 0.172 18 Mar-20 18,720 $ 3,252.81 $ 0.174 19 Apr-20 15,840 $ 2,838.22 $ 0.179 20 May-20 16,320 $ 2,853.04 $ 0.175 21 Jun-20 16,080 $ 2,824.97 $ 0.176 22 Jul-20 16,320 $ 2,860.98 $ 0.175 23 Aug-20 20,640 $ 3,366.07 $ 0.163 24 Sep-20 18,600 $ 3,082.28 $ 0.166 Year 2 Total 226,200 $ 38,004.23 Average 18,850 $ 3,167.02 $ 0.168 25 Oct-20 18,720 $ 3,025.61 $ 0.162 26 Nov-20 16,920 $ 2,952.59 $ 0.175 27 Dec-20 16,800 $ 2,929.81 $ 0.174 28 Jan-21 21,240 $ 3,437.45 $ 0.162 29 Feb-21 19,560 $ 3,234.11 $ 0.165 30 Mar-21 18,480 $ 3,197.00 $ 0.173 31 Apr-21 20,760 $ 3,417.32 $ 0.165 32 May-21 16,800 $ 2,959.20 $ 0.176 33 Jun-21 16,080 $ 2,715.74 $ 0.169 34 Jul-21 20,520 $ 3,285.86 $ 0.160 35 Aug-21 18,720 $ 3,039.75 $ 0.162 36 Sep-21 17,040 $ 2,821.63 $ 0.166 Year 3 Total 221,640 $ 37,016.07 Average 18,470 $ 3,084.67 $ 0.167 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC TFPD STATION 96 - NATURAL GAS USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 6,788 $ 7,564.93 36% 2021 MONTHLY 566 $ 630.41 $ 11.15 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (Therms) ($) ($/MMBtu) 1 Oct-18 284 $ 279.11 $ 9.83 2 Nov-18 1,057 $ 1,025.26 $ 9.70 3 Dec-18 1,082 $ 1,194.60 $ 11.04 4 Jan-19 905 $ 974.27 $ 10.77 5 Feb-19 1,407 $ 1,389.47 $ 9.88 6 Mar-19 922 $ 956.30 $ 10.37 7 Apr-19 483 $ 504.78 $ 10.45 8 May-19 322 $ 354.84 $ 11.02 9 Jun-19 102 $ 131.30 $ 12.87 10 Jul-19 80 $ 103.41 $ 12.93 11 Aug-19 82 $ 106.87 $ 13.03 12 Sep-19 260 $ 283.63 $ 10.91 Year 1 Total 6,986 $ 7,303.84 Average 582 $ 608.65 $ 10.45 13 Oct-19 535 $ 564.97 $ 10.56 14 Nov-19 828 $ 885.99 $ 10.70 15 Dec-19 1,250 $ 1,290.85 $ 10.33 16 Jan-20 1,191 $ 1,245.97 $ 10.46 17 Feb-20 1,057 $ 2,301.74 $ 21.78 18 Mar-20 1,019 $ 991.04 $ 9.73 19 Apr-20 478 $ 457.26 $ 9.57 20 May-20 203 $ 208.12 $ 10.25 21 Jun-20 83 $ 97.59 $ 11.76 22 Jul-20 97 $ 109.70 $ 11.31 23 Aug-20 87 $ 99.19 $ 11.40 24 Sep-20 117 $ 134.89 $ 11.53 Year 2 Total 6,945 $ 8,387.31 Average 579 $ 698.94 $ 12.08 25 Oct-20 284 $ 286.78 $ 10.10 26 Nov-20 1,112 $ 1,108.16 $ 9.97 27 Dec-20 1,221 $ 1,190.82 $ 9.75 28 Jan-21 987 $ 1,082.73 $ 10.97 29 Feb-21 996 $ 1,083.52 $ 10.88 30 Mar-21 802 $ 918.83 $ 11.46 31 Apr-21 464 $ 504.29 $ 10.87 32 May-21 212 $ 281.86 $ 13.30 33 Jun-21 92 $ 137.47 $ 14.94 34 Jul-21 90 $ 138.28 $ 15.36 35 Aug-21 84 $ 132.94 $ 15.83 36 Sep-21 88 $ 137.95 $ 15.68 Year 3 Total 6,432 $ 7,003.63 Average 536 $ 583.64 $ 10.89 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC TFPD STATION 96 - ELECTRICITY USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 80,680 $ 13,560.78 64% 2021 MONTHLY 6,723 $ 1,130.06 $ 0.168 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (kWh) ($) ($/kWh) 1 Oct-18 5,000 $ 818.44 $ 0.164 2 Nov-18 5,400 $ 882.16 $ 0.163 3 Dec-18 6,000 $ 977.73 $ 0.163 4 Jan-19 6,440 $ 1,053.21 $ 0.164 5 Feb-19 9,360 $ 1,518.37 $ 0.162 6 Mar-19 5,640 $ 925.77 $ 0.164 7 Apr-19 4,520 $ 747.36 $ 0.165 8 May-19 4,640 $ 766.47 $ 0.165 9 Jun-19 6,160 $ 1,008.61 $ 0.164 10 Jul-19 5,560 $ 913.03 $ 0.164 11 Aug-19 7,920 $ 1,288.98 $ 0.163 12 Sep-19 6,200 $ 1,014.98 $ 0.164 Year 1 Total 72,840 $ 11,915.11 Average 6,070 $ 992.93 $ 0.164 13 Oct-19 5,400 $ 887.54 $ 0.164 14 Nov-19 6,800 $ 1,110.56 $ 0.163 15 Dec-19 7,440 $ 1,212.51 $ 0.163 16 Jan-20 7,040 $ 1,183.99 $ 0.168 17 Feb-20 8,240 $ 1,381.15 $ 0.168 18 Mar-20 6,800 $ 1,144.56 $ 0.168 19 Apr-20 6,720 $ 1,131.42 $ 0.168 20 May-20 6,280 $ 1,059.12 $ 0.169 21 Jun-20 4,720 $ 802.82 $ 0.170 22 Jul-20 5,760 $ 973.69 $ 0.169 23 Aug-20 7,600 $ 1,276.00 $ 0.168 24 Sep-20 6,520 $ 1,098.56 $ 0.168 Year 2 Total 79,320 $ 13,261.92 Average 6,610 $ 1,105.16 $ 0.167 25 Oct-20 5,720 $ 967.12 $ 0.169 26 Nov-20 6,760 $ 1,137.99 $ 0.168 27 Dec-20 9,040 $ 1,512.59 $ 0.167 28 Jan-21 10,520 $ 1,818.88 $ 0.173 29 Feb-21 9,320 $ 1,614.52 $ 0.173 30 Mar-21 8,040 $ 1,396.53 $ 0.174 31 Apr-21 7,240 $ 1,260.29 $ 0.174 32 May-21 6,040 $ 1,055.93 $ 0.175 33 Jun-21 6,120 $ 1,069.56 $ 0.175 34 Jul-21 8,120 $ 1,410.16 $ 0.174 35 Aug-21 6,920 $ 1,205.80 $ 0.174 36 Sep-21 6,040 $ 1,055.93 $ 0.175 Year 3 Total 89,880 $ 15,505.30 Average 7,490 $ 1,292.11 $ 0.173 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC TTAD SUMMARY* - NATURAL GAS USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 25,265 $ 26,153.10 27% 2021 MONTHLY 2,105 $ 2,179.42 $ 10.35 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (Therms) ($) ($/MMBtu) 1 Oct-18 1,485 $ 1,406.59 $ 9.47 2 Nov-18 3,584 $ 3,434.45 $ 9.58 3 Dec-18 4,055 $ 4,404.18 $ 10.86 4 Jan-19 4,376 $ 4,528.22 $ 10.35 5 Feb-19 6,766 $ 6,501.66 $ 9.61 6 Mar-19 3,311 $ 3,375.34 $ 10.19 7 Apr-19 1,772 $ 1,812.09 $ 10.23 8 May-19 1,728 $ 1,828.24 $ 10.58 9 Jun-19 603 $ 705.58 $ 11.70 10 Jul-19 450 $ 523.06 $ 11.62 11 Aug-19 419 $ 495.29 $ 11.82 12 Sep-19 1,161 $ 1,231.45 $ 10.61 Year 1 Total 29,710 $ 30,246.15 Average 2,476 $ 2,520.51 $ 10.18 13 Oct-19 1,930 $ 2,001.53 $ 10.37 14 Nov-19 3,484 $ 3,596.42 $ 10.32 15 Dec-19 3,996 $ 4,106.94 $ 10.28 16 Jan-20 4,026 $ 4,173.02 $ 10.37 17 Feb-20 3,093 $ 3,060.49 $ 9.89 18 Mar-20 3,273 $ 3,161.57 $ 9.66 19 Apr-20 1,263 $ 1,216.92 $ 9.64 20 May-20 720 $ 724.85 $ 10.07 21 Jun-20 562 $ 584.40 $ 10.40 22 Jul-20 369 $ 384.13 $ 10.41 23 Aug-20 355 $ 367.88 $ 10.36 24 Sep-20 455 $ 492.71 $ 10.83 Year 2 Total 23,526 $ 23,870.86 Average 1,961 $ 1,989.24 $ 10.15 25 Oct-20 966 $ 965.73 $ 10.00 26 Nov-20 3,177 $ 3,182.15 $ 10.02 27 Dec-20 4,170 $ 4,024.57 $ 9.65 28 Jan-21 3,700 $ 3,982.53 $ 10.76 29 Feb-21 3,425 $ 3,681.19 $ 10.75 30 Mar-21 2,877 $ 3,236.17 $ 11.25 31 Apr-21 1,666 $ 1,772.60 $ 10.64 32 May-21 892 $ 1,142.94 $ 12.81 33 Jun-21 448 $ 604.00 $ 13.48 34 Jul-21 347 $ 485.06 $ 13.98 35 Aug-21 420 $ 599.23 $ 14.27 36 Sep-21 470 $ 666.11 $ 14.17 Year 3 Total 22,558 $ 24,342.28 Average 1,880 $ 2,028.52 $ 10.79 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC *10356 Truckee Airport Road, 10266 Truckee Airport Road, and 12110 Chandelle Way. TTAD SUMMARY* - ELECTRICITY USAGE 2018 - ANNUAL 464,891 $ 71,985.34 73% 2021 MONTHLY 38,741 $ 5,998.78 $ 0.155 Month Date Usage Total Cost Unit Cost (kWh) ($) ($/kWh) 1 Oct-18 42,909 $ 6,439.74 $ 0.150 2 Nov-18 39,317 $ 5,763.51 $ 0.147 3 Dec-18 35,022 $ 5,713.45 $ 0.163 4 Jan-19 41,685 $ 6,203.38 $ 0.149 5 Feb-19 61,161 $ 8,667.17 $ 0.142 6 Mar-19 38,918 $ 5,809.23 $ 0.149 7 Apr-19 33,468 $ 5,098.87 $ 0.152 8 May-19 34,313 $ 5,286.94 $ 0.154 9 Jun-19 44,040 $ 6,633.85 $ 0.151 10 Jul-19 41,047 $ 6,264.88 $ 0.153 11 Aug-19 50,994 $ 7,679.56 $ 0.151 12 Sep-19 42,980 $ 6,516.90 $ 0.152 Year 1 Total 505,854 $ 76,077.48 Average 42,155 $ 6,339.79 $ 0.150 13 Oct-19 35,147 $ 5,323.58 $ 0.151 14 Nov-19 42,025 $ 6,261.72 $ 0.149 15 Dec-19 37,344 $ 5,619.51 $ 0.150 16 Jan-20 36,010 $ 5,636.56 $ 0.157 17 Feb-20 38,837 $ 6,027.76 $ 0.155 18 Mar-20 36,671 $ 5,698.94 $ 0.155 19 Apr-20 27,436 $ 4,481.83 $ 0.163 20 May-20 30,985 $ 4,797.11 $ 0.155 21 Jun-20 31,556 $ 4,962.66 $ 0.157 22 Jul-20 35,864 $ 5,691.19 $ 0.159 23 Aug-20 45,135 $ 7,029.32 $ 0.156 24 Sep-20 41,774 $ 6,543.48 $ 0.157 Year 2 Total 438,784 $ 68,073.66 Average 36,565 $ 5,672.81 $ 0.155 25 Oct-20 40,086 $ 6,211.67 $ 0.155 26 Nov-20 34,829 $ 5,441.08 $ 0.156 27 Dec-20 32,251 $ 5,084.97 $ 0.158 28 Jan-21 38,486 $ 6,110.63 $ 0.159 29 Feb-21 35,418 $ 5,674.95 $ 0.160 30 Mar-21 32,421 $ 5,202.54 $ 0.160 31 Apr-21 37,050 $ 5,898.94 $ 0.159 32 May-21 33,458 $ 5,423.62 $ 0.162 33 Jun-21 33,665 $ 5,460.08 $ 0.162 34 Jul-21 49,587 $ 7,931.98 $ 0.160 35 Aug-21 45,426 $ 7,290.09 $ 0.160 36 Sep-21 37,357 $ 6,074.32 $ 0.163 Year 3 Total 450,034 $ 71,804.87 Average 37,503 $ 5,983.74 $ 0.160 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC *10356 Truckee Airport Road, 10266 Truckee Airport Road, and 12110 Chandelle Way. ATTACHMENT 2 Partner Green Waste Summary PARTNER GREEN WASTE SUMMARY Town of Truckee Cubic Yards Green Tons Bone Dry Tons Disposal Cost 2019 TTSD/ERL 21,084 4,217 3,373 7,942 2020 TTSD/ERL* 30,798 6,160 4,928 $ 255,526 2021 TTSD/ERL* 23,530 4,706 3,765 $ 252,287 Annual Average 25,1371 5,027 4,022 $ 253,907 *Includes residential programs (carts/dumpsters/drop-offs) and Town vegetation project. Airport District Acres Green Tons Bone Dry Tons Disposal Cost Removal 2,5< - Mastication* 20 320 256 - Annual Projected 320 256 *Assumes 16 green tons per acre @ 20% moisture. Truckee Fire Acres Green Tons Bone Dry Tons Disposal Cost Defensible Space - 2,000 1,600 - Fuels Reduction* 500 8,000 6,400 - Annual Projected 10,000 8,000 *Assumes 16 green tons per acre @ 20% moisture. PARTNER TOTAL 12,278 BDT/Year Heat output @ 70% boiler efficiency 144,388 MMBtu/Year Electrical output @ 5% ORC efficiency 2,116,012 kWh/Year Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC Partial payments only $41 per green ton $54 per green ton 33% Not projected for 10 years Would require collection 2% New curbside pick-up program Projected based on Measure T 65% 100% ATTACHMENT 3 Operating Expense Summary OPERATING EXPENSE SUMMARY Disposal Biomass Power Biomass Heat A-1 A-2 A-3 B-1 B-2 C-1 C-2 C-3 TTSD Landfill Air Curtain Burner ACB+Biochar ACB + Generator Gasifier + Biochar District Heating Heat +Power Heat +Biochar Disposal Cost $/yr $ 1,200,000 $ $ $ $ 610,000 $ 820,000 $ 750,000 $ 320,000 Heat Revenue $/yr $ - $ $ $ $ (40,000) $ (40,000) $ (40,000) $ (40,000) Electricity Revenue $/yr $ $ $ $ (40,000) $ (760,000) $ $ (110,000) $ (120,000) Biochar Revenue $/yr $ $ $ (240,000) $ - $ (200,000) $ $ - $ (890,000) System C&M Cost $/yr $ - $ 220,000 $ 180,000 $ 240,000 $ 410,000 $ 170,000 $ 160,000 $ 560,000 Net Annual Operating Cost $/yr $ 1,200,000 $ 220,000 $ (60,000) $ 210,000 $ 20,000 $ 950,000 $ 760,000 ($160,000) Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC NOTE: All values rounded to nearest $10k; discrepancies in annual totals due to rounding. ATTACHMENT 4 Available GHG Emissions Reductions A-3 B-2 C-3 AVAILABLE GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS Source Value Units Annual (MT CO2e) % 25 Years (MT CO2e) Natural Gas Offsets 3,834 MMBtu 203 30% 5,087 Electricity Offsets 782,371 kWh 122 18% 3,043 Avoided Decomposition 20 Acres 363 53% 9,072 PARTNER TOTAL 688 100% 17,202 150 Cars* 3,740 *Typical passenger vehicle emits roughly 4.6 metric tons of CO2 annually (U.S. EPA, 2021). Source Value Units Annual % Up 25 Years (MT CO2e) * (MT CO2e) Biochar Production 600 tons/yr 1,633 237 40,824 Biochar Production 493 tons/yr 1,342 195 33,543 Biochar Production 2,216 tons/yr 6,031 877 150,776 *Assumes 3 metric tons of CO2 sequestration per metric ton of biochar produced (T. R. Miles, 2021). Candidate Totals ID Biochar (YIN) Annual (MT CO2e) Cars (Annual) 25 Years (MT CO2e) TTSD Landfill (Baseline) A-1 N 0 0 0 Disposal A-2 N 363 79 9,072 Disposal with Biochar A-3 Y 1,996 434 49,896 Biomass Power B-1 N 485 105 12,115 Biomass Power with Biochar B-2 Y 2,030 441 50,745 Biomass Heat C-1 N 566 123 14,159 Combined Heat and Power C-2 N 688 150 17,202 Combined Heat and Biochar C-3 Y 6,719 1,461 167,977 Prepared by Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC ATTACHMENT 5 Candidate Solution Scorecards •' ' ' • A. Disposal B. Biomass Power C. Biomass Heat • 1. TTSD Landfill 2. Air Curtain 3. AC Burner 1. AC Burner 2. Gasifier 1. Hydronic 2. Combined 3. Combined (Baseline) Burner with Biochar with Generator with Generator District Heating Heat and Power Heat and Biochar DROP KEEP DROP DROP KEEP Technical Factors 1 Commercial Availability pr (Maximize) Moderate Moderate 2 Operational Efficiency/Flexibility (Maximize) Moderate Low Moderate 3 Size/Footprint (Minimize) > 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF > 10,000 SF 1,000 - 10,000 SF 1,000 - 10,000 SF 1,000 - 10,000 SF 1,000 - 10,000 SF 4 Scalability (Maximize) Moderate Low Moderate Moderate 5 Operational Structure (Nominal) Other Parties • : • TOT/Partners & TOT/Partners & • TOT/Partners & • TDPUD TDPUD TDPUD 6 Schedule/Timing (Minimize) . 1 . 2023 2024 2023 2023 2024 Economic Factors 7 Life Cycle Capital Cost (Minimize) ll .. r, $2,000,000 $15,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 8 Net Annual Operating Cost (Minimize) $1,200,000 $220,000 .... $210,000 $20,000 $950,000 $760,000 ..... 9 TDPUD Ratepayer Impacts (Minimize) Marginal Substantial Marginal Marginal Environmental Factors 10 Green Waste Reuse (Maximize) < 50% < 50% < 50% . •' • 50 - 100% < 50% < 50% 50 -100% 11 Life Cycle GHG Reductions (Maximize) < 50k MT CO2e < 50k MT CO2e < 50k MT CO2e < 50k MCO2e 50k -10 MT < 50k MT CO2e < 50k MT CO2e .. • CO2T e 12 Community Impacts (Minimize) Moderate = Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Social Factors 13 District Heating/Snow Melt (Nominal) No No No No 14 Renewable Power Generation (Nominal) No No No 7 No 15 Biochar Production (Nominal) No No No No No © 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID A-1 Type Offsite Disposal - Date 6/8/2022 TTSD Landfill (Baseline) Supplier/Provider Tahoe Truckee Sierra Disposal (TTSD) Eastern Regional Location Truckee, CA Landfill (ERL) - www.wastel01.com Description Collecting green waste produced by defensible space and fuels reduction programs from residential, commercial, and municipal sources and hauling in bulk for disposal at ERL. Unit disposal costs have more than doubled from $6.35/CY in 2018 to $15.00/CY in 2022 ($250k/yr current disposal cost). 91- • 11 • Local disposal of green waste is expected to continue to be 1. Commercial Technical available at ERL; however, downstream uses for the material imEfficiency/Flexibility Availability (e.g., large-scale bioenergy plants) are uncertain. TTSD is facing rapid increases in green waste receipts and is 2. Operational Technical working to adjust its material handling processes to segregate Moderate and manage additional green waste cleanly. Area required to store projected green waste quantities from 3. Size/Footprint Technical partner organizations could exceed 10,000 SF per month of > 10,000 SF storage at ERL. Local disposal of green waste is expected to continue to be 4. Scalability Technical available at ERL; however, capacity issues could arise in the Moderate future as a result of Measure T waste streams. Disposal of green waste at ERL is subject to material handling 5. Operational Structure Technical requirements and tipping fees as set by TTSD. Other Parties Disposal of green waste at ERL is currently available. 6. Schedule/Timing Technical • Additional heavy equipment purchases may be required to 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic effectively implement expanded biomass removal consistent with • Measure T fuels reduction goals (not included). Town anticipates paying at least $15/cubic yard for disposal at 8. Net Annual Operating Economic ERL going forward. At that rate, disposing of projected future $1,200,000 Cost waste quantities (-12,000 BDT/yr) would cost>$1MM annually. Disposal of green waste at ERL does not directly impact the 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic electricity rates paid by Truckee Donner PUD customers. Impacts Disposal of green waste at ERL would not allow the partners to 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental directly reuse material projected from green waste recycling < 50% and/or other biomass removal programs. Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental directly control reduction of their carbon footprints. < 50k MT CO2e Reductions Disposal of green waste at ERL is projected to require more than 12. Community Impacts Environmental 800 trucking round trips annually in the Truckee area. Moderate Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to 13. District Heating/ Social directly offset any of their current natural gas usage. No Snow Melt Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to 14. Renewable Power Social directly offset any of their current electricity usage. No Generation Disposal of green waste at ERL does not allow the partners to 15. Biochar Production Social produce biochar as a potentially merchantable co -product of No biomass removal. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID A-2 Type Onsite Disposal - Date 6/8/2022 Air Curtain Burner Supplier/Provider Air Burners, Inc. Location Palm City, FL www.airburners.com Description FireBox air curtain burner combusts unprocessed biomass waste onsite. Designed as a pollution control device for an alternative to open pile burning, reducing particulate matter and black carbon emissions. Would allow onsite disposal with some improved environmental impact but at high operating costs. 9=19wrMs11111 • DROP Technology in use since 1990. Demonstrated in the Tahoe Basin 1. Commercial Technical starting in 2001. Smaller versions owned and operated by USFS. Availability Similar units currently permitted and used by CAL FIRE. Clean, efficient combustion that effectively burns gases and 2. Operational Technical particulates. Can manage wide variety in moisture, size, and Efficiency/Flexibility density of feedstocks, including whole logs. 100 Series: 2-5 t/hr; skid -mounted with floor; < 30' length. 3. Size/Footprint Technical 200/300 Series: 5-13 t/hr; skid mounted; 30-40' length. > 10,000 SF 70,000 SF working circle required for safety. 15-100 t/day throughput; 12,000 BDT could be burned in 8-10 4. Scalability Technical months with larger units (@ 8 hr/day). Can manage variable fuel loads and be moved to different locations (no concrete pad). Two operators required: loader/excavator to feed burner and 5. Operational Structure Technical utility for wood handling and fire control. Could be operated by TFPD or other municipal staff. Delivery in —6 months. Rapid commissioning. Air quality 6. Schedule/Timing Technical permitting required as alternative to open pile burning; currently difficult based on discussions with regulators. Equipment - $125-200k; Commissioning - $20k; Freight and 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic indirect costs - $40k. is too Roughly 80% less than projected annual cost for disposal at ERL. 8. Net Annual Operating Economic Assumes two operators working 8 hr/day, accounting for —90% of $220,000 Cost total annual cost. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic directly impact the electricity rates paid by Truckee Donner PUD Impacts customers. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental the partners to directly reuse material projected from green < 50% waste recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reduction available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition of green waste that is currently masticated. < 50k MT CO2e Reductions Onsite/mobile air curtain burner could eliminate hundreds of 12. Community Impacts Environmental trucking round trips annually in the Truckee area versus hauling to ERL. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 13. District Heating/ Social the partners to offset any of their current natural gas usage. No Snow Melt Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 14. Renewable Power Social the partners to offset any of their current electricity usage. No Generation Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner is not designed 15. Biochar Production Social to produce biochar; however, some usable biochar could be No produced with additional 2 hr/day of manual operations. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID A-3 Type Onsite Disposal - Date 6/8/2022 Air Curtain Burner with Biochar Supplier/Provider Tigercat International Inc. Location Ontario, Canada www.tigercat.com Description 6050 Carbonator mobile air curtain burner with biochar recovery by Tigercat (formerly ROI Equipment). Combustion unit mounted on tracks with grate and augers to remove biochar after quenching. Leasing could be a low-cost option to test producing biochar as a co -benefit of green waste disposal. •'110 DROP Distributed by major mobile equipment suppliers, with nearest 1. Commercial Technical location in Reno, NV. Machines operating in 40+ countries. May Availability be available to lease for monthly/seasonal use. Mobile operation can handle wide variety in moisture, size, and 2. Operational Technical density of feedstocks, including whole logs. Can operate during Efficiency/Flexibility winter on burn days. 40' x 12' x 12' air curtain burner on tracks; 16" ground clearance 3. Size/Footprint Technical for mobile operations on uneven terrain. Required operating > 10,000 SF radius of—200-300'. 80-160 t/day throughput (10-20 t/hr). 5-7 months to process 4. Scalability Technical 12,000 BDT (@ 8 hr/day). Additional units could be purchased or leased if needed. Two operators required including excavator for loading waste. 5. Operational Structure Technical Units can be purchased, leased, or contracted. Would require water tanker from TFPD or elsewhere. Rental units available; purchases delivered in 3-6 months. Air 6. Schedule/Timing Technical quality permitting required as alternative to open pile burning; currently difficult based on discussions with regulators. Base price—$650k. Lease @ $30k/month could be good option to 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic I oil test before annual green waste quantity ramps up. OPEX could be more than offset by biochar sales. 4,800 CY of 8. Net Annual Operating Economic biochar could generate —$240k in annual revenue. Simple . • Cost payback = 13 years. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic directly impact the electricity rates paid by Truckee Donner PUD Impacts customers. Disposal of green waste using this air curtain burner would allow 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental the partners to reuse —5% of material projected from green < 50% waste recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reduction available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition of green waste that is currently masticated. < 50k MT CO2e Reductions Additional 1,600 MT CO2e/yr sequestered with biochar. Onsite/mobile air curtain burner could eliminate hundreds of 12. Community Impacts Environmental trucking round trips annually in the Truckee area versus hauling Moderate to ERL. Requires quench water @ up to 5 gpm. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 13. District Heating/ Social the partners to offset any of their current natural gas usage. No Snow Melt Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 14. Renewable Power Social the partners to offset any of their current electricity usage. No Generation Estimated revenue from biochar sales: —4,800 CY @ $50/CY = 15. Biochar Production Social —$240k annually. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID B-1 Type Biomass Power - Date 6/8/2022 Air Curtain Burner with Generator Supplier/Provider Air Burners, Inc. Location Palm City, FL www.airburners.com Description PGFireBox combines an air curtain burner with an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator provided by ElectraTherm to produce up to 250 kWe of emissions -free power from combustion waste heat. Allows offsetting of grid power purchases along with avoided landfill disposal costs. ei 0 DROP Air curtain burner technology in use since 1990. Partnered with 1. Commercial Technical ElectraTherm for power generation module in 2006. Multiple grid Availability connected units now operating at landfills in California. Clean burning operation up to 8 hr/day at 6-8 tons/hr. High 2. Operational Technical combustion efficiency; very low electrical efficiency using ORC Low Efficiency/Flexibility process (<5%) but good for maximizing waste disposal. Comparable to 200 Series FireBox with attached containerized 3. Size/Footprint Technical power module installed on slab with grid connection. 70,000 SF > 10,000 SF working circle required for safety. 50-70 t/day throughput; 12,000 BDT/yr could be processed using 4. Scalability Technical a single unit (@ 8 hr/day). System can be disassembled and relocated. 150 kWe maximum size currently available. Two operators required: loader/excavator to feed burner and TOT/Partners & 5. Operational Structure Technical utility for wood handling and fire control. Would require net metering or power purchase agreement with TDPUD. TDPUD Delivery in —6 months. Additional engineering required for grid 6. Schedule/Timing Technical connection. Air quality permitting required as alternative to open 2023 pile burning. Up to 6 months for grid interconnection. Equipment - $6,400-9,000/kW; plus installation on slab and 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic $2,000,000 electrical connections. Electricity sales offset only about 15% of annual 0&M costs. 8. Net Annual Operating Economic Payback not possible even at 1 MWe scale (currently under $210,000 Cost development) without additional subsidies. 250 kWe generating capacity could produce —375 MWh/yr. 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic Marginal Impacts Disposal of green waste using PGFireBox would allow the 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental partners to reuse 1.3x material projected from green waste • • . recycling and other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reductions available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition of green waste that is currently masticated and < 50k MT CO2e Reductions avoided electricity purchases from TDPUD. Onsite air curtain burner could eliminate hundreds of trucking 12. Community Impacts Environmental round trips annually in the Truckee area versus hauling to ERL. Moderate Requires 725 gpm of cooling water. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner would not allow 13. District Heating/ Social the partners to offset any of their current natural gas usage. No Snow Melt Installation of a 250 kWe PGFireBox could offset —50% of the 14. Renewable Power Social electricity currently consumed by the five buildings examined for Generation the scoping study. Disposal of green waste using air curtain burner is not designed 15. Biochar Production Social to produce biochar; however, some usable biochar could be No produced with additional 2 hr/day of manual operations. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID B-2 Type Biomass Power - Date 6/8/2022 Gasifier with Generator Supplier/Provider SynCraft Engineering GmbH Location Innsbruck, Austria www.syncraft.at/en Description CW1800x2-1000 floating fixed -bed gasifier with 1 MWe nominal output. Wood chips thermochemically converted into synthesis gas for combustion in an engine generator, with biochar as co -product. Offers somewhat low utilization (-50%) of projected green waste volumes at relatively high capital cost. �FACTOR EVALUATIONKEEP Several operating systems in Austria and Germany. Novel floating 1. Commercial Technical bed technology has demonstrated reliability. Supplier will not sell Moderate Availability in US without strong partner and good support. Efficient power conversion with —10% high -quality biochar co- 2.Operational Technical product. Good turndown and load response. Best to run engine Moderate Efficiency/Flexibility at > 80% full load. Requires well -formed wood chips. 3. Size/Footprint Technical 50' x 120' footprint; ^8,000 SF total for multi -story building with 1,000 - 10,000 SF fuel storage and drying (1 week supply). 1,900 Ib/hr = 23 t/day fuel feed rate. —6,000 BDT/yr of green 4. Scalability Technical waste consumed. Composed of two 500 kWe modular units. Low Plant can be automated to operate 24/7 with daily oversight by TOT/Partners & 5. Operational Structure Technical trained staff (-1.0 FTE). Best to have an operator experienced with IC engines. Would require a PPA with TDPUD. TDPUD Long delivery lead time. International supplier will require 6. Schedule/Timing Technical establishing US distributor to oversee design and installation. Up 2024 to 6 months for grid interconnection. Small-scale gasifiers driving internal combustion engines are 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic expensive on a per unit of output basis (up to $10,000/kW in $15,000,000 equipment costs). Engines require frequent maintenance, with overhauls every 8. Net Annual Operating Economic 10,000 operating hours. Payback challenging without subsidies at $20,000 Cost 1 MWe scale (assuming PPA rate of $0.10/kWh). 1 MWe generating capacity could produce —7,600 MWh/yr. 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic Terms of PPA could set precedent for other generators in TDPUD Substantial Impacts service area. Disposal of green waste using gasifier system would allow the 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental partners to reuse roughly 50% of material projected from green 50 - 100% waste recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reductions available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition and avoided electricity purchases from TDPUD. 50k - 100k MT Reductions Additional ^'1,300 MT CO2e/yr sequestered with biochar. CO2e Additional processing of wood waste (e.g., chipping, grinding) 12. Community Impacts Environmental could create noise and some dust in excess of what would be Moderate required for disposal using air curtain burner. Disposal of green waste in this type of gasification system also 13. District Heating/ Social could allow the partners to offset their current natural gas usage Snow Melt through heat recovery. 1 MWe gasifier could generate nearly 10 times the electricity 14. Renewable Power Social currently consumed by the five buildings examined for the Generation scoping study. Estimated revenue from biochar sales: ^3,900 CY @ $50/CY = 15. Biochar Production Social —$200k annually. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID C-1 Type Biomass Heat- Date 6/8/2022 Hydronic District Heating Supplier/Provider Messersmith Manufacturing Inc. Location Bark River, MI www.burnchips.com Description Advanced wood -fired boiler system used to generate hot water for hydronic district heating or other applications. Combined heat & power (CHP) systems available for applications needing electrical generation. System economics limited by relatively low concentration of existing heating loads. DROP Domestic supplier of automated biomass boiler systems for more 1. Commercial Technical than 35 years. Strong reputation for project delivery and long- Availability term reliability. Able to burn green fuel with up to 50% moisture content, 2. Operational Technical including whole tree chips. Boiler turndown ratio up to 10:1. Very Efficiency/Flexibility high combustion efficiency that can exceed 99%. 3. Size/Footprint Technical 50' x 100' footprint = 5,000 SF total for single -story building with 1,000 - 10,000 SF fuel storage at or below grade (1-2 week supply). Systems ranging from 1-60 MMBtu/hr heat output (analysis used 4. Scalability Technical 7 MMBtu/hr). Multiple boilers can be installed in phases to allow Moderate for future expansion and/or operational flexibility. Boiler plant could be highly automated, with 24/7 operations 5. Operational Structure Technical possible with daily system checks by existing municipal staff. ow District heating may require heat purchase agreements. 4-6 months for delivery of boiler equipment following 6. Schedule/Timing Technical completion of detailed design package and down payment, 2023 subject to ongoing supply chain constraints. Equipment - $2.5MM (installed); plus site work and central boiler 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic plant building, balance of plant, district piping, building $5,000,000 interconnections, and professional services. Relatively low avoided costs for existing heating are insufficient 8. Net Annual Operating Economic to offset plant operating costs. Capital investment could not be $950,000 Cost recovered through heating alone at this scale. Operation of a biomass -fueled district heating system would not 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic directly impact the electricity rates paid by Truckee Donner PUD Impacts customers. Operation of a biomass -fueled district heating system would 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental allow the partners to reuse —30% of material projected from < 50% green waste recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reductions available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition of green waste that is currently masticated and < 50k MT CO2e Reductions avoided natural gas purchases from Southwest Gas. Additional processing of wood waste (e.g., chipping, grinding) 12. Community Impacts Environmental could create noise and some dust in excess of what would be Moderate required for disposal using air curtain burner. 7 MMBtu/hr boiler system would allow the partners to offset 13. District Heating/ Social 100% of current natural gas usage. Significant boiler ca acit also Snow Melt could be available for hydronic snow melt system. Operation of a biomass -fueled district heating system without 14. Renewable Power Social CHIPwould not allow the partners to offset any of their current No Generation electricity usage. Disposal of green waste in a biomass boiler would not produce 15. Biochar Production Social biochar as a potentially merchantable co -product of biomass No removal, but could produce usable ash. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID C-2 Type Biomass Heat- Date 6/8/2022 Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Supplier/Provider ElectraTherm, Inc. Location Flowery Branch, GA www.electratherm.com Description Using heat from a 7 MMBtu/hr Messersmith biomass -fired boiler to generate electricity with a grid - connected POWER+ organic Rankine cycle (ORC) generator. CHP system allows offsets of utility heat and electricity purchases to improve environmental impacts, but still cost prohibitive at this scale. • DROP More than 100 ORC generators operating worldwide, including 1. Commercial Technical units powered by waste heat from biomass fired boilers. Availability Domestic manufacturer, with support staff in Reno, NV. Demonstrated availability factor of 95%when heat source is 2. Operational Technical available. Minimum operating output of 25 kWe. Closed loop Efficiency/Flexibility system having extremely low maintenance requirements. 50' x 120' footprint including liquid loop radiator (LLR) and 3. Size/Footprint Technical 1,000 - 10,000 SF biomass boiler building. 125-150 kWe gross power output. 75 kWe units also available. 4. Scalability Technical LLR allows shedding of waste heat to atmosphere in response to Moderate fluctuating heat demand. No additional operators required beyond those required for 5. Operational Structure Technical biomass boiler plant. Would require net metering agreement TOT/Partners & with TDPUD. TDPUD Delivery of boiler plant would control lead time for CHP project. 6. Schedule/Timing Technical Turnkey system with relatively simple connection to biomass 2023 boiler. Up to 6 months for grid interconnection. ORC Equipment - $300k; plus grid connection (in additional to Capital Cycle Ca 7. Life Cost y P Economic estimated $5MM CAPEX for boiler plant). $6,000,000 Savings from avoided natural gas purchases and electricity sales 8. Net Annual Operating Economic insufficient to offset annual boiler system O&M costs. Payback $760,000 Cost not achievable at this scale (snow melt not considered). 150 kWe generating capacity could produce —1,100 MWh/yr. 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic Marginal Impacts Operation of a biomass -fueled CHP system would allow the 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental partners to reuse —35% of material projected from green waste < 50% recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reductions available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition of green waste that is currently masticated and < 50k MT CO2e Reductions avoided natural gas and electric utility purchases. Closed loop ORC system produces no odor, smoke, or other 12. Community Impacts Environmental emissions. 72 dBA operating noise level at 1 meter. Primary Moderate impacts would be from biomass boiler plant. 7 MMBtu/hr boiler system would allow the partners to offset 13. District Heating/ Social 100% of current natural gas usage. Additional boiler capacity Snow Melt could be used to supply hydronic snow melt system. 150 kWe ORC generator could offset 100% of electricity currently 14. Renewable Power Social consumed by the five buildings examined for the scoping study. Generation Disposal of green waste in a biomass boiler would not produce 15. Biochar Production Social biochar as a potentially merchantable co -product of biomass No removal, but could produce usable ash. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC UTILIZATIONTRUCKEE BIOMASS CANDIDATE SOLUTION SCORECARD ID C-3 Type Biomass Heat- Date 6/8/2022 Combined Heat and Biochar (CHAB) Supplier/Provider Pyrocal Proprietary Ltd Location Queensland, Australia www.pyrocal.com.au Description Gasification system utilizing an advanced thermal treatment (i.e., pyrolysis) process known as Continuous Carbonization Technology (CCT) to convert biomass into thermal energy while sequestering carbon in the form of biochar. Capital cost recovery is highly dependent on revenue from biochar sales. �FACTOR EVALUATIONKEEP Proven technology implemented on a commercial scale in 1. Commercial Technical Australia since 2014, now with more than 30 installations in eight Moderate Availability countries. Currently no projects in the US. High overall conversion efficiency to heat. Requires long 2. Operational Technical operating hours for biochar production and sales to be Efficiency/Flexibility economical. Includes emissions control equipment. Pyrocal CCT 12 - 2.8 MMBtu/hr boiler with heat exchanger. 3. Size/Footprint Technical Containerized reactor and heat recovery unit. 550 Ib/hr of fuel 1,000 - 10,000 SF per gasifier. 75' x 120' footprint = 9,000 SF for 4 containers. Modular system allowing multiple units to be connected. Good 4. Scalability Technical turndown ratio and flexibility to adapt to changes in feedstock sizing and composition. Highest operating costs of all candidate solutions due to high 5. Operational Structure Technical volumes of biochar production. Adding power component would require PPA or net metering agreement with TDPUD. Fabricated and shipped from Australia. System of this scale may 2024 6. Schedule/Timing Technical require longer than normal lead time. Equipment - $4MM; plus site work, district piping, building 7. Life Cycle Capital Cost Economic interconnections, and professional services; includes 150 kWe $7,000,000 ORC unit for generating electricity from excess heat. Assumes processing —8,800 BDT/yr for heating and electricity 8. Net Annual Operating Economic offsets and biochar sales. Payback highly sensitive to biochar . • • • • Cost 0 revenue. 150 kWe generating capacity would produce —1,200 MWh/yr. 9. TDPUD Ratepayer Economic Marginal Impacts Operation of a biomass -fueled CHAB system would allow the 10. Green Waste Reuse Environmental partners to reuse —75% of material projected from green waste 50 - 100% recycling and/or other biomass removal programs. GHG emissions reductions available from avoided anaerobic 11. Life Cycle GHG Environmental decomposition and avoided gas and electric utility purchases. � � • - Reductions Additional 6,000 MT CO2e/yr sequestered with biochar. No additional impacts would be produced by the gasification 12. Community Impacts Environmental system relative to standard biomass boiler plant. Biochar would Moderate require removal by truck (up to 200 loads/yr). 11 MMBtu/hr boiler system would allow the partners to offset 13. District Heating/ Social 100% of current natural gas usage. Additional boiler capacity Snow Melt could be used to supply hydronic snow melt system. 150 kWe ORC generator could offset 100% of electricity currently 14. Renewable Power Social consumed by the five buildings examined for the scoping study. Generation Estimated revenue from biochar sales:—18,000 CY @ $50/CY = 15. Biochar Production Social —$900k annually. 9 2022 Wildephor Consulting Services, LLC