Workshop Agenda

Presentations on background, technical information and perspectives.

Discussion of “Measures” that can help CIWMB meet GHG emission reduction strategies.– Afternoon Session 1 – Presentation of

CIWMB Measures – Afternoon Session 2 – Public

Comment and Board Discussion

Measure

GHGReductionMMTCO2e

Cost$/Ton CO2e Comments

1-Smaller Landfill Controls 0.5 50 Modify 32 landfills

2-LF Capture Efficiencies 1.7 to 3.4? UnknownAssumes increased

efficiency 20%

3-Additional LF Data Unknown UnknownParameters to be

determined

4-Criteria Pollutant Issues -1.2 Unknown60 existing LF with

energy recovery

5-Multi-Family Recycling 0.5 to 0.8 212 2.6 million MF units

6-Curbside Recycling 0.07 300 250,000 units

7-Commercial Recycling 0.5 to ?? 51 0.5 is for 2 targeted sectors only

8-GHG Demo Grants 1.2 134 Ranges from LF to diversion programs

• Description: adopt regulations to: 1. Require methane control systems on uncontrolled landfills; 2. Maximize methane capture and emissions control (design and operation practices and performance standards); and 3. Require reporting of data (to target and verify reductions).

• Status: 1 and 2 are ARB proposed AB 32 Early Actions (April 20, 2007). Data reporting currently on voluntary basis (AB 32 Inventory, CEC Study, Climate Action Registry) and under consideration for AB 32 Mandatory Reporting.

Measures 1-3:Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills

Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1990 2006

StatewideLandfill WasteIn Place (milliontons)

Waste In Place-With MethaneGas ControlSystems

Waste In Place-No MethaneControl System

Important factor: most waste (94%) is in landfills with control systems that capture and destroy methane. Trend since 1990: more waste in fewer larger

landfills under more control and emissions control regulation.

Measures 1-3

• Estimated Reductions: Total 2-4 MMTCO2E

– 0.5 MMTCO2E (new control systems) (based on 32 landfills currently uncontrolled with 0.5-3.8 million tons waste-in-place (3.7% statewide total))

– 1.7-3.4 MMTCO2E (maximize capture efficiencies) (based on increased capture of 20% to 40% of fugitive emissions (statewide capture 78% to 84%)).

– Additional data would define subset of the role and potential reductions for working face/daily cover practices and green waste ADC.

– ARB Inventory and CEC study expected to improve confidence in estimates.

Measures 1-3

• Authority: PRC 43020: CIWMB shall not include any requirements that are already under the authority of the ARB for the prevention of air pollution.

– Landfill gas emissions are under the authority of ARB and enforced by local air districts under district rules, permits, and federal New Source Performance Standards/Emissions Guidelines (NSPS/EG) regulations.

– Under AB32, the ARB has the mandate and authority to regulate GHG emissions; determine the 1990 emissions level (inventory); and establish mandatory reporting requirements.

Measures 1-3

• Costs:

– New systems (extraction well field and flare): $48.50 per ton CO2E capital and $2.30 per ton CO2E per year operations and maintenance costs.

– Maximize landfill methane capture efficiency and emissions control: cost unknown but may be modest depending on site-specific factors (e.g., upgrade of control systems, compost in cover soils, partial final closure).

CIWMB funded study (recommended award 5/07 to SCS Engineers) will evaluate and recommend cost-effective options.

Measures 1-3

• Implementation Issues:

– Landfill emissions are regulated directly by local air districts not by ARB and coordination will be needed.

– Regulations need to address flexibility for landfills that do not generate enough methane to operate systems.

– Regulations to maximize capture/control will need to establish enforceable and verifiable performance criteria.

– Uncertain whether or not current voluntary data efforts from landfill operators will be adequate.

– CEC study will provide a model expected to address uncertainty in emissions estimates and additional data needs but will not be completed until 2010.

Measures 1-3

• Pros:

– Control technologies (flares) are commercialized and readily available.

– Small landfills are successfully utilizing these technologies.

– Added benefit of indirectly reducing other air contaminants from landfill gas and potential for explosive gas migration and ground water contamination.

– Significant reductions may be achievable at modest cost for measures other than new systems to maximize capture efficiency and emissions control.

Measures 1-3

Cons:

– Reductions from new systems relatively modest and high cost per ton CO2E. Costs may be burdensome, especially for the closed sites with no revenue sources.

– Small and old landfills may not generate enough landfill gas to operate systems without supplemental natural gas.

– Measures to maximize capture not clearly determined and benefits difficult to quantify and verify.

Measures 1-3

• Potential Approach:

– CIWMB continue to provide technical assistance and support to ARB on AB 32 Early Action Item on landfill gas (Measures 1-2) and Inventory Efforts (Measure 3).

– Based on ARB actions under AB 32, CIWMB later consider regulatory concepts within its purview if necessary to support ARB actions, either through authority granted by ARB under PRC 43020 or additional legislative authority and mandate.

Measures 1-3Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills

Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data

• Potential Approach (cont.):

– CIWMB continue to provide technical assistance and support to CEC on its landfill methane emissions study.

– CIWMB approve contract award May Agenda Item 8: Technologies and Management Practices Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Landfills and coordinate the project with stakeholders.

Measures 1-3Methane Control Systems on Uncontrolled Landfills

Maximize Landfill Methane Capture EfficiencyRequire Landfill Monitoring & Reporting Data

• Description: funding incentives for research and demonstration of pollution control technologies to address criteria air pollutants (NOx and CO) from devices that recover landfill gas and other biogas.

• Status: Proposed South Coast AQMD Amended Rule 1110.2 would impose emissions standards that may peril biogas recovery and shutdown existing systems.

CEC PIER Program and ARB continues funding of emissions control technology projects.

CIWMB funded UCD landfill gas to hydrogen study; landfill gas to LNG grant award May Agenda Item 7.

Measure 4

Overcoming Criteria Pollutant Challenges to Recovery of Landfill Gas and Other Solid-Waste Related Biogas

• Existing Data: 60 landfills utilize IC engines and gas and steam turbines to recovery landfill gas and produce over 200 MW in biomass electricity.

• Estimated Reductions:

– Recovery of landfill gas currently provides approximately 1.2 MMTCO2E in avoided emissions from displaced fossil fuel energy sources. There is potential to add to these avoided emissions by over 1.2 MMTCO2E (total 2.4+ MMTCO2E).

– Additional avoided emissions are being achieved and can be expanded from other biogas sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, solid waste anaerobic digesters).

Measure 4

• Implementation Issues– Funding source(s) need to be identified.– Need coordination with related programs (CEC, ARB).

• Pros:– Non-regulatory incentive based program will have more support

from industry stakeholders.– Significant positive contribution to in-state production of renewable

electricity and biofuels.– Biogas recovered would otherwise be a wasted resource by

combustion in flares.– Specific treatment technologies may be within CIWMB purview

such as compost biofilters.

Measure 4

• Cons:

– Technologies resolving criteria pollutant issues have limited demonstration for commercial scale use.

– CIWMB has minimal in-house expertise and resources.

– Potentially duplicates existing programs implemented by CEC and ARB.

• Implementation Options– Seek statutory direction and appropriation.– Establish funding through budget change proposals (BCPs)

and/or CIWMB discretionary contract concepts.– Rely on industry to provide necessary funding.

Measure 4

• Potential Approach to Implementation:

– Identify funding sources through BCPs and CIWMB discretionary funds.

– Consult with CEC, ARB, and stakeholders to determine potential projects or areas where CIWMB may focus efforts that would not duplicate or conflict with other programs.

Measure 4

Overcoming Criteria Pollutant Challenges to Recovery of Landfill Gas and Other Solid-Waste Related Biogas

Measures 5, 6 & 7Related Statewide Waste Characterization Data

Est. Percentage of Disposed

Waste Stream

Est. Tons Disposed Statewide

Commercial 47.0% 18,924,058

Residential 31.6% 12,721,055 Single-family residential 23.4% 9,403,504 Multifamily residential 8.2% 3,317,551

Self-hauled 21.3% 8,590,215 Commercial self-hauled 17.3% 6,963,322 Residential self-hauled 4.0% 1,626,894

Totals 100.0% 40,235,328 Numbers may not total exactly due to rounding. Source: Individual facility records and

2003 vehicle survey findings applied to CIWMB Disposal Reporting System 2003 tonnage figures.

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteStudies.htm

California’s Overall Disposed Waste Stream, 2003

Multi-family Residential Disposed Waste, 2003 (3.3 Million Tons)

Organic39.3%

Construction & Demolition

11.5%

Plastic8.5%

Electronics0.1%

Metal4.9%

Glass6.5%

Household Hazardous Waste

0.6%

Special Waste1.7%

Paper24.6%

Mixed Residue2.3%

Measure 5: Multi-Family Recycling Data

• Represents 8.2% of the statewide disposed waste stream (per 2003 Statewide Waste Characterization Study)

• Estimate of 2.6 million multifamily units statewide currently without recycling (Per Dept. of Finance data and CAW rate)

• Disposal Rate between 0.46 to 0.99 tons/unit/year (per 1999 and 2003 Statewide Waste Characterization Studies)

Measure 5: Multi-Family Recycling Benefits vs. Costs

• Moderate Benefit – 500,000 to 820,000 tons CO2e/year

• High Cost - $212/ton

• Potential Approach– A potential approach is that multi-family units be

considered as part of Measure 7 (Targeted Commercial Recycling) since multi-family services are usually provided as a commercial service

Single-Family Residential Disposed Waste, 2003 (9.4 Million Tons)

Mixed Residue1.8% Paper

21.4%

Special Waste1.1%

Household Hazardous Waste

0.2%

Glass2.8%

Metal6.5%

Electronics2.0%

Plastic9.8%Construction &

Demolition10.5%

Organic43.9%

Measure 6: Increase Curbside Recycling Data

• 23.4% of the statewide disposed waste stream (per 2003 Statewide Waste Characterization Study)

• 93% (397 out of 425) jurisdictions already have implemented some level of curbside recycling programs

• Remaining 7% (28 jurisdictions) are primarily rural/industrial or use MSW MRF’s

Measure 6: Increase Curbside Recycling Benefits vs. Costs

• Low Benefit - 70,000 tons CO2e/year

• High Cost - $300/ton

• Potential Approach– One consideration is to not require curbside

recycling for the remaining jurisdictions (not cost effective)

Commercial Disposed Waste,2003 (18.9 Million Tons)

Mixed Residue1.0%

Paper26.5%

Special Waste5.2%

Household Hazardous Waste

0.1%

Glass2.0%

Metal8.8%

Electronics1.2%Plastic

12.0%

Construction & Demolition

14.1%

Organic29.2%

Measure 7: Targeted Commercial Recycling Data

• 64% of the statewide disposed waste stream (per 2003 Statewide Waste Characterization Study)

• Plus another 8.2% for multi-family residences (commercially provided services)

• 1.4 million businesses in California

• Need to target efforts within commercial Sector

Measure 7: Targeted Commercial Recycling

• High Benefit - 450,000 tons CO2e/year (related only to wholesale goods & retail stores example) + ?? for other sectors

• Moderate Cost - $51/ton

• Potential Approach1. More information is needed to identify effective approaches to

increase commercial recycling. 2. One approach is to use CARB AB 32 authority (or seek

separate legislative authority for CIWMB) to mandate mandatory commercial reporting and recycling requirements

– target(s)/scope to be determined during the rulemaking process

• Description: Provide grants to– increase diversion – increase recovery of LF gas for fuels & electricity

• Currently – a few projects underway– UCD Anaerobic Digester ($125K) approved in May

2005– Yolo County Central Landfill, Landfill-based Anaerobic

Digestion Compost Pilot Project ($200K) approved in December 2006

– May 2007 consideration of LF gas to LNG ($740K)

Measure 8-Demonstration Grants

Measure 8-Demonstration Grants

• Example – based on doubling existing LF gas recovery to produce renewable electricity and direct gas use.

• Potential GHG reduction – 1.2 MMTCO2E

• Cost - $134/ton CO2E but revenue from sales would partially to completely offset cost

• Implementation – Funding source needed + additional staff may be required to manage grants

Summary and Next Steps

Summary

Next Steps

Workshop Conclusion