HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-9-16_AgendaPkt Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, December 9, 2016 @ 7:30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
Please Turn Off Cell Phones
7-30 - 7-35 I. ROLL CALL
7-35 - 7-40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 10/26/16 Meeting Minutes
Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 — 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT
Request to speak slips are available at the sign-in desk. Please present
request slips to the MWMC Secretary.
7:45 — 7:55 IV. LIABILITY INSURANCE RENEWAL FOR 2017. . . . . . . . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: By motion, authorize the General Manager to enter into
an agreement with Special Districts Insurance Services for liability insurance
coverage, plus associated SDAO membership renewal for the period of
January 1 , 2017 through December 31, 2017.
7-55 - 8-10 V. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) UPDATE. . . Katherine Bishop
Action Requested: Discussion & Input
8:10 — 8:25 VI. MWMC BIOGAS OPPORTUNITIES AND RFP UPDATE . . . . Josh Newman
Action Requested: Informational only
8:25 — 8:45 VII. NPDES PERMIT RENEWAL- INTRODUCTORY PRESENTATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Josh Newman/ Todd Miller
Action Requested: Informational only
8:45 — 9:00 VIII. PHASE 3 THERMAL LOAD AND RECYCLED WATER STUDY UPDATE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Todd Miller
Action Requested: Informational only
9:00 — 9:15 IX. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND
WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
9:15 X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided
with 48-hours-notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for service, call 541-726-3694.
All proceedings before the MWMC are recorded
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
AGENDA ITEM II.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRINGFIELD
s
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Wednesday, October 26, 2016 @ 7.30 a.m.
City of Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room
225 Fifth St., Springfield, OR 97477
President Pishioneri opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Kevin Kraaz.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: George Brown, Bill Inge, Walt Meyer, Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier,
and Faye Stewart
Commissioners Absent: Doug Keeler
Staff in Attendance: Meg Allocco, Todd Anderson, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Judy
Castleman, John Huberd, K.C. Huffman (attorney), Tonja Kling, Kevin Kraaz, Shawn Krueger,
Caleb Lennon, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, Josh Newman, Anette Spickard, Phil Sprague,
Matt Stouder, Mark Van Eeckhout, and Greg Watkins
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 9/9/16 Meeting Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RUFFIER.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLANNING
Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer, gave an update on the plant's electrical distribution
system. Since the August MWMC meeting, CH2M provided a technical memorandum
describing how MWMC should prioritize and phase the replacement of the electrical
distribution system based on a combination of electrical redundancy and process criticality.
This information provided a comprehensive view of what needs to be done but did not project
what the future connected load will be. Staff has identified a need for additional planning prior
to design to integrate needed emergency electrical outage mitigation optimization measures.
CH2M provided a cost estimate for doing the work at less than $100,000 which allows MWMC
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 2 of 7
to use the direct-appoint process. The current Facilities Plan Engineering Services contract
has a limit of$70,000 per year. Because the remaining FY 16-17 contract budget is insufficient
for the needed additional work, staff recommended approval of Resolution 16-13 for a new
direct-appoint contract with CH2M to provide these services. Staff feels that by using direct-
appoint process, additional work could be completed sooner (schedule being a driver in this
case) and that there is enough risk to warrant this work to be completed as quickly as possible.
It would be a two-phase contract because there is funding under the Facility Plan Engineering
Services contract line item that is unspent. Then in January, through a supplemental budget,
staff would request the remaining funds to do the work.
Matt Stouder, MWMC General Manager, added that the $70,000 Facilities Plan contract is for
all sorts of facility planning, not just for the electrical cables. It is also being used for the
Willamette Pump Station and various other planning activities.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stewart clarified that staff is asking for $98,000, that it would not
exceed $100,000.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
16-13. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER. THE
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 7/0.
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDC) UPDATE
Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager, stated that one of the main drivers of the SDC
update had to do with the reduction in interest associated with the Revenue Bonds. Also, to
bring in the SRF loans, which were not part of the previous key list because the SDC fees
were established in 2009 and the SRF loans started in 2010, 2011 , and 2013. The SRF Loans
expenses would go in and the savings from the revenue bonds would come out. There will be
no change in methodology just changes to the inputs.
The schedule for the SDCs is to meet again in December to decide on any additional details,
have a public hearing in January and adopt them, and then the SDCs would be transferred to
the local city councils for implementation through their process in March 2017. Ms. Bishop has
been in contact with both Springfield and Eugene regarding the fees.
The fees are based on strength of the discharge that the plant has to treat. Ms. Bishop went
over the categories and gave the preliminary changes on a percentage basis.
• Low strength has an increase of 2.384% (single family, dwelling unit which is about a $40
increase in a single family or duplex and $34 increase for a multi-family or mobile home).
• Medium strength remained fairly level with a -0.758% decrease (motel/hotel, auto care,
service station with a market, hospital, and industrial process with medium strength
discharge).
• High strength has a decrease of -2.798% (supermarket or industrial process with high
strength discharge).
• Very high strength has a decrease of-3.912% (restaurants, fast foods, and industrial
process with very high strength discharge).
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 3 of 7
• Super high strength has a decrease of -4.614% (only industrial processes with super high
strength discharge).
Usually July 1St is when the SDCs are adjusted due to annual inflation. Ms. Bishop said that
since the SDCs will be updated in March with the most current information, it would not be
planned to have the July 1St inflationary adjustment.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge asked about the inverted numbers for the higher strength.
Ms. Bishop said that with the annual inflationary adjustments and because of the inputs that
were used in that calculation, they have been inflated at a greater rate and it needed to be
adjusted. Mr. Stouder said it also has to do with the type of projects that have been done at the
plant. The actual costs of the projects versus the estimated costs (which the SDCs were based
on) have come in lower. Residential flow is easier to treat and therefore is not affected by the
project costs coming in lower than anticipated (they are charged at a lower rate). Ms. Bishop
added that another contributing factor is the two projects that were pushed outside the ten-year
window have a high treatment component; they are Waste Activated Sludge and Tertiary
Filtration Phase 3.
Commissioner Meyer asked, when the annual inflationary rates are done, does the MWMC go
before the local governments to have the SDCs adopted. Ms. Bishop said they are
administratively adjusted and then forwarded to the two Cities and their City Councils.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the MWMC could wait until July 1St to change the fees so that
the users only have a one-time adjustment instead of two. Ms. Bishop said that we could do
that but she has been looking at the construction season and getting fees on the books for
when people are gearing up for construction. If there would be more activity in the spring would
fees go down after they already paid their fees; the timing and position are important. Mr.
Stouder said that staff could look into it. This SDC update would be a true cost as of March 1St
and then there would be an incremental difference between March and July, based on
construction. Staff could look at that and apply it all at one time, although a three month period
could be negligible.
Commissioner Pishioneri said the Springfield Council is looking into housing issues and why
construction isn't happening, and what they can do to increase construction in all the different
modes of housing, from low income to upper income. He is concerned because SDCs can kill
a project. Springfield is trying to eliminate SDC increases because there is a serious housing
issue. There are SDCs with Willamalane, the City's, and then the regional, it all adds up.
Commissioner Inge clarified that if the SDCs go into effect in March there would not be an
inflationary increase in July. He just wants to see it at one time, whether it is March or July.
Mr. Huffman asked if the Commission wanted to know what the overall costs are if we waited
until July to implement the new SDC fees, in terms of revenue.
President Pishioneri said that the timing is pretty important and that it should be timed in
conjunction with the partners; to ask Springfield and Eugene what is best for them. It could
make or break a single project.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 4 of 7
Commissioner Ruffier said that he would be interested in the information but not to the point of
it contributing to the work load to try to estimate it. He thinks that Ms. Bishop makes good
points in regards to timing in terms of the construction season. He thinks that may be a more
relevant point, to resolve the rate structure before the construction begins.
Mr. Stouder said that staff will look at timing.
PROJECT UPDATE FOR INCREASE DIGESTION CAPACITY AND DECOMMISSION
LAGOON (P80084)
Troy McAllister, Managing Civil Engineer, said this project has been in the works since
December 2014. The objectives of this project are to increase digester capacity by adding a
fourth digester and to upgrade related systems. The project is being coordinated with
rebuilding the cogeneration system. Staff is also working on changing the way the digesters
are cleaned; currently the temporary lagoon is used. The temporary lagoon will be
decommissioned and the site restored. The decommissioning of the lagoon is a separate
construction bid package (P80084) and it is coming up to the 60% design deliverable from the
consultant team. MWMC should receive the package to review in November. The predesign
cost estimate for the construction is around $4M. Staff will have a better cost estimate when
the 60% design package is received.
In regards to the fourth digester, it is past the 90% design and gearing up for the final package.
Ultimately it will be 1.1 M gallon cast-in-place concrete and will be similar to the three existing
digesters except it will have external draft tube mixers. Staff is anticipating going to the
construction/bidding phase in December with bid results in January 2017.
Funding for project P80084 is as follows:
• Increase Digestion Capacity $16.6M
• Major Capital Outlay (items related to cogeneration system) $972K; electrical
switchgear, low pressure blower, waste heat radiator
• Decommission WPCF Lagoon $5M
Costs to complete the digester are as follows:
• Increase Digestion Funding is $17.57M ($16.6M +$972K)
• Cost to complete ranges from $17M to $19.2M
• Construction cost estimate is $12M (range $10.5M to $13.4M)
• Change orders $1 M (assuming <8.3% of $12M)
• Design consultant fees around $3.6M (range $3.5M to $3.7M)
• Administration, permits, etc. $1 .15M (special inspections, legal services, staff time, etc.)
Mr. Stouder added that feedback from the design consultant is that cost of construction
continues to go up; contractors are busy so they are not inclined to bid low. Staff is doing their
best to estimate but may need to come back for a supplemental budget to complete the
project.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Ruffier asked what the capacity of the lagoon is. Barry Mays,
Design/Construction Coordinator, replied that it is roughly 4-5 Acres. Commissioner Ruffier
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 5 of 7
asked if there is any value in cleaning it and retrofitting it with a liner for potential use for other
purposes such as thermal load. Mr. McAllister replied it had been talked about. Mr. Mays
stated that it would depend on what you want to use it for; it contains grit and plastics. Mr.
Stouder added one of the concerns of cleaning it is groundwater and that the river is close by.
Mr. Newman stated that the current strategy is to refurbish the lagoon at the Beneficial Reuse
Site as it is much larger in size. It would be used for storage during the wet season for thermal
load compliance issues, and then during the dry season use it for irrigation.
Commissioner Ruffier asked about the external draft tubes, does that represent efficient
technology versus designing in a more efficient internal system. Mr. Mays said that in 2008,
the internal bubblers were switched to the external draft tubes. It basically makes the digesters
act like a milk shake and works quite efficiently; plant staff is very happy with the technology.
Mr. Mays went on to say that the only difference between the fourth digester and the other
three is that the other three have heat exchangers and the fourth one has water jackets on the
tubes and is heated as the sludge goes through.
FY15-16 ANNUAL FINANCIAL SUMMARY, BUDGET RECONCILIATION
Meg Allocco, MWMC Accountant, explained that the MWMC is currently in the middle of the
annual audit. In January, Ms. Allocco will come back to tell the Commission how the audit
went. Today she is reporting on the budget basis on the FY 2015-16 Operating and Capital
budgets. She said the results are the same as most years, a little bit over on revenue and a
little bit under on expenses; the MWMC is basically on plan. She gave kudos to Ms. Bishop for
estimating the revenue so closely to what they actually ended up being; it rarely happens to be
so close. Overall, MWMC's revenues were within 1% of the budget. The septage fees were
higher than they had been in the past and internal engineering charges were a little bit less.
The net affect was a little bit higher revenue. The operating expenses were under budget. In
Springfield, legal and contractual services came in under budget. The total reserves are at
$80M at the end of 2016, which is down from last year at $110M. MWMC paid off a big bond
so the reserves were expected to go down. The total debt is currently sitting at about $48M,
down from last year at $89M. The budget basis and the audit will both reflect the payoff and
refinancing of the revenue bonds. It all happened in May 2016 so will be on the 2016 books.
Going forward there will be just the SRF loans and the refunded 2016 revenue bonds ($32.7M
down from $73M). Even the closing cost for the bonds came in under budget.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked if the digester is being funded from SDC funds.
Ms. Allocco said currently, the SDCs are being used for debt service. Mr. Stouder said it would
show that in the budget on the capital sheet for the digester.
President Pishioneri closed regular session at 8:25 a.m. and opened the executive session.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 6 of 7
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission met in Executive Session pursuant to
ORS 192.660(2)(e) to conduct deliberations with persons designated by the governing body to
negotiate real property transactions.
President Pishioneri asked if any representatives of the news media were present or general
public. There were none. Staff was allowed to attend the executive session.
President Pishioneri closed the executive session at 8:47 a.m. and opened the regular
session.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER STEWART TO SUPPORT STAFF
RECOMMENDATION TO HAVE APPRAISALS DONE ON ALL THREE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE
MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER INGE. THE MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY 7/0.
BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, AND WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
General Manager:
• Mr. Stouder stated that, when the Mission Statement was last discussed, the
Commission agreed to add "in partnership with Eugene, Springfield and Lane County to
the beginning of the statement." At the time, there was not a visual for the Commission
to see the statement and he felt that they should see how it affects the statement. When
added at the front of the statement, the addition becomes a fragment and puts the key
message at the end instead of up front. But if it is added to the end of the statement, it
reads better and the core purpose is up front. He asked the Commission for their
opinion.
o Commissioner Brown agreed with the second version, with the addition at the
end of the sentence. He felt it was more direct when stated that way.
Commissioner Ruffier and President Pishioneri verbally agreed and the rest of
the Commission nodded approval.
■ Mission Statement: To protect our community's health and the
environment by providing high-quality wastewater services to the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area in partnership with Eugene, Springfield and
Lane County. (7/0 approval)
• No meeting in November as it falls on Veteran's Day. Today's meeting makes up for
both October and November. He thanked the Commission on their flexibility to meet on
a Wednesday instead of a Friday.
• Kennedy/Jenks contacted staff to talk about Goshen. MWMC is the preferred option for
development in Goshen for wastewater. In the near future, Kennedy/Jenks will set up a
meeting with MWMC's Executive Officer, Mr. Stouder and possibly another staff person
or two in order to discuss potential governance issues, financial issues, and how to best
move forward. Mr. Stouder will keep the Commission updated as it moves along.
MWMC Meeting Minutes
October 26, 2016
Page 7 of 7
• Mr. Stouder had the opportunity to attend, for the first time, the Pacific Northwest Clean
Water Association (PNCWA) conference in Bend last week. He found it a very good
conference with presentations on things that will be impacting the MWMC (resiliency,
toxics, blending) as well as a good opportunity to network. Commissioner Meyer made a
excellent presentation on blending and Todd Miller, Environmental Management
Analyst, presented on the Triple Bottom Line process that we used with the Commission
on the Thermal Load project. It was a good opportunity for the MWMC to be
represented.
Wastewater Director:
• Mr. Breitenstein said that there had been a lot of rain in Eugene, 8 '/2 inches this month.
There were several back to back storms with wind advisories over the weekend. The
plant had two people on standby over the weekend. Fortunately there were no power
outages at pump stations. The rain did result in increasing plant flows considerably.
Near the end of the summer, the plant was averaging just shy of 20 MGD. The
maximum flow this month peaked at about 112 MGD which is more than a five-fold
increase. Currently we are in the last month of the summer permit which has more
stringent effluent standards to meet. He said that the plant operators did a great job in
responding with process control changes to protect the solids in the system.
o Commissioner Ruff ier said that he looked at the O&M report and noted that for
August and September the average flows were around 17 MGD. He asked if that
is a trend. Mr. Breitenstein said it has been for the last four to five years. It is
down to 17 to 18 MGD during the summertime now. Commissioner Ruffier said
that it highlights the importance of CMOM.
o Commissioner Meyer said that EWEB has seen their water consumption drop by
20% and there has been around an 18% increase in population. He believes we
are seeing the impact of all the water efficient fixtures that have been installed
and that people are paying more attention to their water consumption. Mr.
Breitenstein agreed that water conservation has a lot to do with it.
ADJOURNMENT
President Pishioneri adjourned the meeting at 8:56 a.m.
AGENDA ITEM IV.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, ESD Program Manager
SUBJECT: Liability Insurance Renewal for 2017
ACTION Authorize the General Manager to enter into an agreement for
REQUESTED: liability insurance coverage to be effective January 1 , 2017
ISSUE
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission's current general liability
insurance coverage with Special Districts Insurance Services (SDIS) covers the 2016
calendar year. The Commission is requested to authorize the General Manager to enter
into an agreement for liability (casualty) insurance coverage with SDIS to be effective
January 1, 2017 for the calendar year term through December 31, 2017.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC carries property insurance and general liability (casualty) insurance policies
that provide risk insurance coverage.
Property Insurance - In June 2016, the Commission authorized the MWMC General
Manager to enter into agreements to secure property insurance including earthquake
and flood coverage for the MWMC's assets currently valued at $295.2 million for the
fiscal year period of July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017.
Liability (Casualty) Insurance - In July 2015, the Commission recommended moving
from City County Insurance Services (CIS) to Special Districts Insurance Services
(SDIS) based on services, overall fit and better premiums. The initial general liability
coverage with SDIS included a 6-month period from July 1, 2015 through December 31 ,
2015 to transition from the prior fiscal year term to the SDIS coverage term which is
based on a calendar year. In November 2015, the Commission authorized the MWMC
General Manager to enter into an agreement to renew the liability (casualty) insurance
coverage with SDIS for 2016 calendar year.
Memo: Liability Insurance Renewal for 2017
December 2, 2016
Page 2 of 2
DISCUSSION
Liability (casualty) insurance covers general liability, administrative liability, public
officials' liability, non-owned and hired automobile liability, hired automobile physical
damage, and umbrella/excess liability coverage. Staff is recommending renewal of
liability insurance coverage with SDIS for the 2017 calendar year with the insurance
premium at $25,245, plus associated membership dues at $1,122 paid to the Special
Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO). The combined 2017 premium and membership
is $26,367, which is close to level when compared to the 2016 combined costs of
$26,210.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested by motion, to authorize and direct the General Manager
to enter into an agreement with Special Districts Insurance Services (SDIS) for liability
(casualty) insurance coverage, plus associated SDAO membership renewal for the
period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.
AGENDA ITEM V.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Katherine Bishop, Environmental Services Program Manager
SUBJECT: System Development Charges (SDC) - Proposed Fee Schedule
Provide staff with direction to schedule a public hearing to seek
ACTION input from interested parties on the proposed MWMC 2017 SDC
REQUESTED: Fee Schedule
ISSUE
A review of the MWMC SDCs, including an update of data inputs reflecting revised
costs associated with financing and interest, actual expenses for completed capital
projects and revised cost estimates for future capital projects, has been completed to
ensure equity and fairness in SDC fee amounts. Staff will present additional information
at the December meeting, with plans for a public hearing to be held in early 2017 to
seek input from interested parties.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of System Development Charges
SDCs are impact fees that are generally collected when expansion, new development
or intensification of use occurs on a property served by municipal infrastructure
(wastewater, stormwater, transportation, etc.). SDCs allow for the accumulation of
capital funding needed to provide sufficient capacity in infrastructure systems to
accommodate the growth associated with development/redevelopment. SDCs also
provide the ability to recover a portion of the community's investment in existing
infrastructure.
2009 MWMC System Development Charge Methodology
On September 11, 2009, following a 90-day public notification process and public
hearing, the Commission adopted the 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology via Resolution
09-15 for the MWMC Regional Wastewater System serving the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. Each year thereafter, the MWMC SDCs are adjusted for inflation
based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Cost of Construction Index (CCI).
The 2009 MWMC SDC Methodology (46 pages in length; located at
http://www.mwmcpartners.org/AboutMWMC/Documents/2009-SDCuPdate.pdf)
continues to meet Oregon Law requirements and was developed with the guidance of a
Memo: System Development Charges (SDC) - Proposed Fee Schedule
December 2, 2016
Page 2 of 3
Citizen Advisory Committee appointed by the MWMC. As such, the current evaluation
included refreshing the data inputs using the established 2009 MWMC SDC
Methodology.
2017 SDC Review and Initial Discussions
At the September 9, 2016 Commission Meeting staff discussed the factors driving the
2017 SDC review, which includes the following:
1. Refreshing financing and interest charges associated with revenue bonds and Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loans;
2. Updating the capital project list to reflect actual project costs for completed projects,
and capturing planned capital projects with current cost estimates incorporated into
the updated SDC calculation. Updates to the 10-year capital project list include
deferring two significant capital projects (Waste Activated Sludge Thickening and
Tertiary Filtration Phase 3) outside of the forecasted 10-year capital project list (2017
through 2027).
With assistance from Galardi Consulting, the most current MWMC data has been
integrated into the SDC calculations using the existing model based on the 2009 SDC
Methodology adopted by the MWMC on September 11 , 2009.
2017 SDC Review and Fee Outcomes
At the October Commission meeting, staff presented the preliminary SDC fee outcome
based on refreshed data inputs as referenced above, and incorporated into the MWMC
SDC calculation for consideration, discussion and Commission input. In summary, the
SDC fee outcomes reflect:
■ A slight increase in SDC fees for low strength discharge establishment types
including residential and commercial uses.
■ An SDC fee reduction for commercial/industrial establishments with a greater
discharge strength (ex: medium, high, very high and super high strengths) based on
average total biological oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids in mg/L.
DISCUSSION
The proposed 2017 SDC Fee Schedule is attached for review. Annually on July 1, the
MWMC SDCs are adjusted for inflation based on the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Cost of Construction Index (CCI). Upon implementation of the 2017 SDC Fee Schedule,
staff does not plan on an inflationary adjustment on July 1, 2017 as directed by the
Commission at the October meeting. The first annual inflationary adjustment will be
effective July 1 , 2018.
A summary of the fee outcomes, on a percentage basis for fee increases and fee
reductions, by discharge strength and typical establishment types is included as follows:
Residential and Commercial - Low Strength Discharge —An SDC fee increase of
2.384% for low strength discharge which includes residential (single family, duplex,
Memo: System Development Charges (SDC) - Proposed Fee Schedule
December 2, 2016
Page 3 of 3
multi-family and mobile homes) and the commercial establishments with low strength
discharge. For example, the SDC fee on a single family home would increase by about
$40 per dwelling unit, and a multi-family complex or mobile home would see an increase
of about $34 per dwelling unit.
Commercial and Industrial by Discharge Strenqth
Medium Strength Discharge - The SDC fee remains close to level, with a slight fee
reduction of-0.758% for medium strength discharge establishments which typically
includes motel / hotel, auto care / service station with market, hospital, and commercial
establishments and industrial process with medium strength discharge.
High Strength Discharge - An SDC fee reduction of-2.798% for high strength discharge
establishments which typically include supermarkets and industrial process with high
strength discharge.
Very High Strength Discharge - An SDC fee reduction of -3.912% for very high strength
discharge establishments typically includes restaurants, fast food, and industrial
process with very high strength discharge.
Super High Strength Discharge - An SDC fee reduction of-4.614% for industrial
process with super high strength discharge.
At the meeting on December 9, staff will provide further information, including next steps
and proposed timelines for the MWMC 2017 SDC Fees in terms of public review and
input, regional and local fee adoption and implementation.
ACTION REQUESTED
Provide staff with direction to schedule a public hearing to be held in early 2017, and to
seek input from interested parties on the proposed MWMC 2017 SDC Fee Schedule.
ATTACHMENT
1. Proposed MWMC 2017 SDC Fee Schedule
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) SCHEDULE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Regional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule-Proposed 2017,Pending Fee Adoption and Implementation Proposed 2017 July 1,2016
Dry Season
Springfield Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak BOD/TSS BOD TSS Reimburse-ment Improve-ment Compliance Improvement Total Cost per
Traffic/Waste Wastewater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact Strength Credit for Rate Prior Model %Change $Change
water Code Use Code Type of Establishment Unit(FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day)
(gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Strength(mg/1) (lbs/FEU/day)� (lbs/FEU/day)' Cost per FEU Cost per FEU Cost per FEU Support FEU
30 4X TRUCKTERMINAL TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
151 63 MINI WAREHOUSE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $31122 $3.91 $43.17 $293.09 $286.26 2.384% $6.83
170 4X UTILITIES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
200 1X OTHER RESIDENTIAL(SFD W/OTHER USES) DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0299 0299 $12320 $1,815.47 $22.82 $251.81 $1,709.67 $1,669.86 2.384% $39.81
220 11 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-MUTIFAMILY DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0256 0256 $105.60 $1,556.12 $19.56 $215.84 $1,465.43 $1,431.31 2.384% $34.13
200 13 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-RESIDENTIAL HOTEUMOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $140.79 $2,074.82 $26.09 $287.79 $1,953.91 $1,908.41 2.384% $45.50
240 14 OTHER RESIDENTIAL-MOBILE HOME PARK DU 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0256 0256 $105.60 $1,556.12 $19.56 $215.84 $1,465.43 $1,431.31 2.384% $34.13
210 1F SFD/DUPLEX DU 175 239 359 696 150 Low 0299 0299 $12320 $1,815.47 $22.82 $251.81 $1,709.67 $1,669.86 2.384% $39.81
300 15 MOTEL/HOTEL TGSF 200 273 410 796 300 Medium 0.684 0.684 $233.60 $2,864.96 $36.48 $384.86 $2,750.18 $2,771.20 -0.758% ($21.02)
400 7X PUBLIC PARK TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
435 7X MULTIPURPOSE RECREATION FACILITY(Indoor) TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
443 7X THEATER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
488 7X OUTDOOR ATHLETIC COMPLEX TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
491 7X TENNIS COURT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
492 7X RACQUET CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
493 7X HEALTH CLUB TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
494 7X BOWLING ALLEY TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
495 7X RECREATIONAL CENTER TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0.274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS LOW STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 150 Low 1.710 1.710 $703.97 $10,374.10 $130.43 $1,438.94 $9,769.56 $9,542.06 2.384% $227.51
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS MEDIUM STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 300 Medium 3.419 3.419 $1,167.99 $14,324.78 $182.40 $1,92428 $13,750.90 $13,855.99 -0.758% ($105.09)
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 500 High 5.699 5.699 $1,786.68 $19,592.36 $251.70 $2,571.40 $19,059.34 $19,607.90 -2-798% ($548.56)
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS VERY HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 700 Very High 7.979 7.979 $2,405.37 $24,859.93 $321.00 $3,218.52 $24,367.78 $25,359.82 -3.912% ($992.03)
500 3X INDUSTRIAL PROCESS SUPER HIGH STRENGTH TGALEF 1000 1,366 2,049 3,978 900 Super High 10258 10258 $3,024.06 $30,127.50 $390.31 $3,865.64 $29,67623 $31,111.73 4-614% ($1,435.50)
520 68 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
522 68 MIDDLE SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
530 68 HIGH SCHOOL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
540 68 COMMUNITY COLLEGE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
550 68 UNIVERSITY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
560 69 CHURCH TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
565 68 DAY CARE CENTER TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
590 68 LIBRARY TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
591 69 FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
600 54 SERVICE STATION/MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Medium 0.615 0.615 $21024 $2,578.46 $32.83 $346.37 $2,475.16 $2,494.08 -0.758% ($18.92)
610 65 HOSPITAL TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Medium 0.513 0.513 $17520 $2,148.72 $27.36 $288.64 $2,062.63 $2,078.40 -0.758% ($15.76)
620 65 NURSING HOME TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0256 0256 $105.60 $1,556.12 $19.56 $215.84 $1,465.43 $1,431.31 2.384% $34.13
630 65 CLINIC,MEDICAL OFFICE TGSF 150 205 307 597 150 Low 0256 0256 $105.60 $1,556.12 $19.56 $215.84 $1,465.43 $1,431.31 2.384% $34.13
700 5A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $12,429.97 $160.50 $1,609.26 $12,183.89 $12,679.91 -3.912% ($496.02)
720 82 VETERINARIAN SERVICES TGSF 200 273 410 796 150 Low 0.342 0.342 $140.79 $2,074.82 $26.09 $287.79 $1,953.91 $1,908.41 2.384% $45.50
750 67 OFFICE PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $95421 2.384% $22.75
770 67 BUSINESS PARK TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
730 67 GOVERNMENT BUILDING TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $95421 2.384% $22.75
732 67 US POST OFFICE TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
800 59 RETAIL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
831 5B QUALITY RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $12,429.97 $160.50 $1,60926 $12,183.89 $12,679.91 -3.912% ($496.02)
832 5C HIGH TURNOVER RESTAURANT TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 500 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $12,429.97 $160.50 $1,609.26 $12,183.89 $12,679.91 -3.912% ($496.02)
EATING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION- TGSF 300 410 615 1,193 150 Low 0.513 0.513 $211.19 $3,112.23 $39.13 $431.68 $2,930.87 $2,862.62 2.384% $6825
835 5D DRINKING PLACE WITH MINIMAL FOOD PREPARATION' TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 150 Low 0.581 0.581 $239.35 $3,527.20 $44.34 $489.24 $3,321.65 $3,244.30 2.384% $77.35
DRINKING PLACE WITH RESTAURANT LIKE FOOD PREP TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 150 Very High 3.989 3.989 $1,202.69 $12,429.97 $160.50 $1,609.26 $12,183.89 $12,679.91 -3.912% ($496.02)
835 5D DRINKING PLACE TGSF 340 464 697 1,353 150 Low 0.581 0.581 $239.35 $3,52720 $44.34 $48924 $3,321.65 $3,244.30 2.384% $77.35
840 64 AUTO CARE TGSF 40 55 82 159 150 Medium 0.137 0.137 $46.72 $572.99 $7.30 $76.97 $550.04 $554.24 -0.758% ($420)
841 55 NEW CAR SALES TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
847 6B CAR WASH TGSF 500 683 1,024 1,989 150 Low 0.855 0.855 $351.99 $5,187.05 $6521 $719.47 $4,884.78 $4,771.03 2.384% $113.75
848 55 TIRE STORE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
ATTACHMENT
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION (MWMC)
REGIONAL WASTEWATER
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE (SDC) SCHEDULE
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
Regional Wastewater SDC Charge Schedule-Proposed 2017,Pending Fee Adoption and Implementation Proposed 2017 July 1,2016
Dry Season
Springfield Eugene Flow Base Flow Average Flow Dry Season Max Wet Season Peak BOD/TSS BOD TSS Reimburse-ment Improve-ment Compliance Improvement Total Cost per
Traffic/Waste Wastewater Estimation Impact Impact Month Impact Flow Impact Strength Credit for Rate Prior Model %Change $Change
water Code Use Code Type of Establishment Unit(FEU) (gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day)
(gal/FEU/day) (gal/FEU/day) Strength(mg/1) (lbs/FEU/day)� (lbs/FEU/day)' Cost per FEU Cost per FEU Cost per FEU Support FEU
850 54 SUPERMARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 300 High 1.026 1.026 $321.60 $3,526.62 $45.31 $462.85 $3,430.68 $3,529.42 -2-798% ($98-74)
851 54 CONVENIENCE MARKET TGSF 180 246 369 716 150 Low 0.308 0.308 $126.72 $1,867.34 $23.48 $259.01 $1,758.52 $1,717.57 2.384% $40.95
854 5X DISCOUNT MARKET TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $31122 $3.91 $43.17 $293.09 $28626 2.384% $6.83
890 5X FU RNITURESTORE TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $31122 $3.91 $43.17 $293.09 $28626 2.384% $6.83
895 7X VIDEO ARCADE TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
900 61 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION TGSF 110 150 225 438 150 Low 0.188 0.188 $77.44 $1,141.15 $14.35 $15828 $1,074.65 $1,049.63 2.384% $25.03
251 12 B ELDERLY HOUSING-DETACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2384% $22.75
252 12A ELDERLY HOUSING-ATTACHED TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2384% $22.75
253 12C CONGREGATE ELDERLY CARE FACILITY TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
120 21 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL- TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
120 2X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL- TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
120 24 HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL- TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
120 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL- TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
120 3X HEAVY INDUSTRY/INDUSTRIAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
710 6X GENERAL OFFICE BLDG TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $95421 2.384% $22.75
860 51 WHOLESALE TRADE TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
870 5X CLOTHING/DRYGOODS/HOUSEWARES TGSF 30 41 61 119 150 Low 0.051 0.051 $21.12 $31122 $3.91 $43.17 $293.09 $286.26 2384% $6.83
820 6A LAUNDRY TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
900 62 OTHERSERVICES TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $954.21 2.384% $22.75
110 66 CONSTRUCTION TRADE TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.40 $1,037.41 $13.04 $143.89 $976.96 $95421 2.384% $22.75
440 68 OTHER EDUCATIONAL/CULTURAL TGSF 50 68 102 199 150 Low 0.085 0.085 $3520 $518.71 $6.52 $71.95 $488.48 $477.10 2.384% $11.38
450 7X OTHER ENTERTAINMENT TGSF 160 219 328 636 150 Low 0274 0274 $112.64 $1,659.86 $20.87 $23023 $1,563.13 $1,526.73 2.384% $36.40
820 Varies SHOPPING CENTER TGSF 100 137 205 398 150 Low 0.171 0.171 $70.55 $1,038.96 $13.06 $144.10 $978.48 $955.79 2.373% $22.68
ABBREVIATIONS NOTES
TGSF THOUSAND GROSS SQUARE FEET Calculated as average flow X 8.345 X strength
TSFGLA - THOUSAND SQUARE FEET GROSS LEASABLI Process flow is in addition to other flow
DU DWELLING UNITMinimal food preparation-food is assembled from prepackaged food products and cooking,other than warming,is not required
TGALEF - THOUSAND GALLONS ESTIMATED FLOW --Includes coffee houses and juice bars where appropriate
VFP VEHICLE FUELING POSITIONS
ATTACHMENT
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM VI.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 1 , 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: MWMC Biogas Opportunities and RFP Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only, no action requested
ISSUE
Opportunities for marketing the MWMC's biogas continue to evolve, in part due to the
rising monetary value of state and federal environmental credits associated with
Renewable Natural Gas (RNG). Accordingly, staff is exploring these opportunities and
has issued a request for proposals (RFP) to solicit interest from prospective RNG
buyers (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authorized a pathway for biogas
derived from anaerobic digestion of domestic wastewater solids to be considered a
"Cellulosic Biofuel" under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This pathway
allows RNG made from the MWMC's biogas to qualify for D3 Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs), which are the highest dollar value environmental attribute available
under the RFS program. A detailed discussion of the federal RFS and state low carbon
fuel programs is provided in Attachment 2.
In 2015, the MWMC completed an assessment to determine how best to use its biogas.
The study included a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment of biogas utilization
alternatives, which was presented to the Commission in February 2015. The highest
TBL ranked alternative involved retaining the current 800 kW co-generation system plus
addition of further biogas treatment to allow gas currently flared to be sold into the RNG
fuel market. In the long term, the study recommended continued tracking and
exploration of a list of items, including:
• Increasing biogas production through FOG and other high strength wastes
• Status of incentives and funding opportunities for renewable fuels
• Incentives and barriers for conversion of fleets to be able to run on RNG
Memo: MWMC Biogas Opportunities and RFP Update
December 1 , 2016
Page 2 of 3
In March of 2016, staff learned of a proposal developed by equipment manufacturer
Clean Methane Systems, Inc. (CMS). In the proposal concept, CMS would aggregate,
treat and transport biogas produced in Oregon (including municipal and private sector
biogas) to an injection point on the interstate natural gas transmission pipeline and
market the aggregated biogas for sale under a single off-taker agreement. Based on the
interest indicated by CMS and subsequently others for potential purchase of the
MWMC's biogas, staff developed an RFP concept to formally solicit interest in such a
purchase.
In June of 2016, staff issued a communication packet item describing an outline for the
RFP concept, which was roughly based on the CMS concept above.
DISCUSSION
MWMC's biogas is a renewable energy commodity with a variety of market possibilities.
Since the initial conversations with CMS, staff has been in communication with a variety
of RNG off-takers, project developers, equipment makers, renewable fuel credit brokers,
and other wastewater utilities. Based on these discussions, staff has determined the
following:
• Low forecasted electricity prices and associated revenue potential: Renewable
electricity prices are projected to be stagnant over the next decade in the Pacific
Northwest in general and in EWEB's service area in particular. Long paybacks on
investments to produce renewable energy with biogas are projected.
• Increasing opportunities in renewable fuel markets: Biogas-to-vehicle-fuel
projects are gaining momentum due to the steadily increasing value of renewable
attributes. High value federal D3 RINs appear strong for the next 5 years (and
potentially longer).
• State credit programs: State low carbon fuel programs are moving forward in the
western states. However, confidence in these programs is currently less robust
than the federal RFS:
o California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is the most mature of the
state programs and currently has a viable LCSF credit market.
o Oregon's Clean Fuel Standard has followed suit but is at an earlier stage
of development than California's LCFS.
o Washington recently adopted a Clean Air Rule which will become effective
in 2017.
• Biogas scrubbing equipment is highly scalable: An advantage of moving toward
vehicle fuel is that the equipment will better accommodate future increases in
biogas production (and associated revenue) without flaring should MWMC
choose to grow its service area or implement a FOG or high strength waste
program in the future.
Memo: MWMC Biogas Opportunities and RFP Update
December 1 , 2016
Page 3 of 3
While the trend of increasing value in renewable fuel environmental attributes is creating
demand and interest in the MWMC's biogas, obstacles to project implementation and
other uncertainties persist, including:
• Restrictive pipeline connection requirements
• Staff is unfamiliar with equipment operations and maintenance requirements
• Uncertainty of the long-term market value of D3 RINs
NEXT STEPS
The following proposal evaluation schedule was included in the RFP (as shown in
Attachment 1):
Issue Request for Proposals December 2, 2016
Pre-Submittal Conference and Site Tour December 15, 2016
Final Questions Deadline January 6, 2017
Due Date for Proposals January 13, 2017
Oral Interviews, if necessary January 25, 2017
Tentative Selection of Proposer February 1 , 2017
The RFP is structured to allow flexibility in terms of cost, revenue and risk sharing. Staff
anticipates the following variables will be better understood after reviewing the
proposals:
• Revenue potential
• Biogas scrubbing design and construction delivery and ownership options
• MWMC capital investment requirements
• Interconnection options and requirements
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only, no action requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Draft Request for Proposal
2. Federal RFS and State Low Carbon Fuel Programs
Electronic Procurement
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
SPRIHGF -
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
www.mwmcpartners.org
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
for
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes
lectronic Procurement
December 2, 2016
Proiect Name& Number:
Facility Planning - P80090
Proiect Location:
Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility(WPCF)
410 River Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97402
MWMC Proiect Manager/Contact:
Mr.Josh Newman
Managing Civil Engineer
City of Springfield—Development& Public Works Department
Environmental Services Division
225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
jnewman@springfield-or.gov
(541) 744-4154
Proposals Due:
February 1, 2017
Website Information:
http://www.mwmcpartners.org/proposals.htmi
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 1 of 29
Electronic Procurement
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental
Attributes
Facility Planning- P80090
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................................... II
LISTOF ACRONYMS.........................................................................................................................................................I
SECTION I: PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS................................................................................................... 1
A. PROJECT PURPOSE.........................................................................................................................................1
B. PROJECTGOALS.............................................................................................................................................1
C. GENERAL INFORMATION...............................................................................................................................2
D. CONTRACTURAL EXPECTATIONS ...................................................................................................................2
SECTION II: ABOUT THE MWMC AND ITS OPERATIONS.................................................................................. S
A. GENERAL........................................................................................................................................................5
B. OPERATIONS..................................................................................................................................................6
SECTION III: CONDITIONS AND PROPOSAL PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS..................................................... 7
A. CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................................................7
B. PROPOSAL PROCESS......................................................................................................................................9
C. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS.........................................................................................................................12
D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION,SELECTION,AND SCHEDULE................................................................................16
EXHIBIT A LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS OF PROCUREMENT................................................................... 1
A. RIGHTTOCANCEL..........................................................................................................................................1
B. PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE.................................................................................................................................1
C. PROPOSAL REVISION AND NEGOTIATION......................................................................................................1
D. STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE......................................................................ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
E. PROTEST ISSUES.............................................................................................................................................2
F. ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS...........................................................................................2
EXHIBIT B MWMC BIOGAS FACILITIES SITE PLAN.............................................................................................. S
List of Figures and Tables
No table of figures entries found.
Table 4. Proposal Organization................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 29
Electronic Procurement
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 3 of 29
Electronic Procurement
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 4 of 29
Electronic Procurement
List of Acronyms
BTU British Thermal Unit
CFS Clean Fuel Standard
CHP Combined heat and power
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
IGA Intergovernmental Agreement
kW Kilowatt
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
MMBTU One Million British Thermal Units
MWMC Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
NG Natural gas
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OAR Oregon Administrative Regulation
ORS Oregon Revised Statute
OPIS Oil Price Information Service
RFP Request for Proposals
RFS/RFS2 Federal Renewal Fuel Standard
RINs Renewable Identification Numbers
RNG Renewable Natural Gas
Scfd Standard cubic foot per day
WPCF Water Pollution Control Facility
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5 of 29
Electronic Procurement
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 6 of 29
SECTION 1: PROJECT PURPOSE AND GOALS
A. PROJECT PURPOSE
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) invites qualified interested parties to
respond to this Request for Proposals (RFP)for the purchase of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and
associated environmental attributes for RNG originating at the Water Pollution Control Facility(WPCF)
located at 410 River Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401.The purpose of this RFP is to provide information
allowing the MWMC an option to select a qualified purchaser from whom revenues can be maximized in
exchange for the RNG and associated environmental attributes.
The WPCF wastewater treatment process includes anaerobic digesters that produce raw biogas as a
byproduct of solids treatment.The WPCF captures this digester biogas and uses the gas to fuel either an
800 Kilowatt (kW) combined heat and power(CHP) system or a hot water boiler.The biogas that is sent
to the CHP system is "scrubbed" to remove water, hydrogen sulfide, siloxanes and other undesired
constituents, resulting in an energy-rich fuel that can be used by the engine-generator without causing
excessive wear and tear. Excess biogas, approximately 30%, that is not used as fuel for CHP or boiler
heat is flared to the atmosphere using a waste gas burner.
In the event that a suitable purchaser is selected through this RFP process, and the value of the
MWMC's potential RNG is known and acceptable to the MWMC, the MWMC could at that point move
forward with plans to upgrade the gas treatment systems to also remove carbon dioxide and other trace
impurities as required to convert the biogas into RNG meeting requirements for pipeline injection
and/or for sale to the selected purchaser. With the additional equipment furnished, the MWMC
anticipates that the sale of RNG would capture monetary value associated with the energy commodity,
as well as other environmental attributes such as: Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs).The RINs
would be available if RNG is used as a transportation fuel under the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS/RFS2). Other environmental attributes such as credits currently available through the California
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS); and any economic value available through Oregon's Clean Fuel
Standard (CFS) may also be available under these conditions.
B. PROJECT GOALS
The MWMC's goals in selling the RNG are to:
• Maximize monetary value of the RNG as an energy commodity
• Maximize the monetary value, and the MWMC's capture thereof, of the RNG's associated
environmental attributes
• Eliminate all or some of the flaring of unutilized biogas at the WPCF
• Encourage broader use of the RNG as a renewable fuel in Oregon by demonstrating the viability
of generating pipeline quality RNG from wastewater treatment anaerobic processes
• Reduce environmental impact and conserve natural resources
1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 7 of 29
C. GENERAL INFORMATION
• This solicitation shall only accept electronic proposal submissions. Detailed instructions on how
to submit electronic proposals are provided in Section III.B.
• Legal requirements and terms of procurement are described in detail in Exhibit A.
• Pre-Proposal Conference:An optional conference to discuss questions related to this RFP will be
held at 10:00 AM on Thursday, December 15, 2016 in the Operations Building of the
Eugene/Springfield Regional Water Pollution Control Facility located at 410, River Avenue,
Eugene, OR 97401. A tour of the existing gas scrubbing facilities and proposed staging area for
future equipment will be held at 11:00 A.M. following the conference.
• Questions:After the Pre-Proposal Conference, Proposers will be required to submit any further
questions via email prior to the close of business,Thursday October 20, 2016, in order for staff
to prepare any response required to be answered by Addendum. Email questions shall be sent
to jnewman@springfield-or.gov. If necessary, an addendum will be published on or about
December 30, 2016. Addenda in electronic format may also be emailed to those potential
Proposers providing an accurate email address. Hard copies of addenda may be obtained by
submitting a written request.
• Proposals shall be prepared effectively, providing a straightforward and concise but complete
and detailed description of the Proposer's abilities to meet the requirements of this RFP. Fancy
graphics, colored displays and promotional materials that increase file size without adding
information are not desired. Emphasis shall be on completeness of content.
• MWMC reserves the right to reject any or all proposals that are deemed not responsive to its
needs.
• In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, addenda shall be created and
posted at the MWMC website. Addenda will also be conveyed to those Proposers providing an
accurate email address. If desired, a hard copy of any addenda may be provided upon written
request.
• After proposals have been opened to the public, the MWMC will post a listing of the businesses
submitting proposals, and any final award determination made.
D. CONTRACTURAL EXPECTATIONS
Through this RFP process, the MWMC anticipates development of a Gas Purchase and Sale Agreement
(Agreement) between the MWMC and a qualified selected Proposer.The contract payment conditions
will be applicable to all gas volumes delivered via injection into the natural gas pipeline, after an agreed-
upon date of initial gas delivery.The selected Proposer(s) must accept and compensate the MWMC for
all RNG produced by the WPCF and injected into the natural gas pipeline, per the terms as submitted
through this RFP and agreed-upon through the subsequent negotiated Agreement.
Under the Agreement,the MWMC will be the RNG feedstock provider and generator of RINs (per EPA
Guidance)which would then be made available for purchase by the selected Proposer under the
Agreement.The Proposer will be responsible for documenting necessary pathways for the use of the
RNG. Accordingly, under terms of Agreement developed as an outcome of this RFP, the MWMC expects
2 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 8 of 29
the selected Proposer(s) shall, among other things:
• Demonstrate a pathway for the RNG to reach the end user(s), in order to link the production of
RNG with the use of RNG as a vehicle fuel for the purpose of RIN', LCFS and other applicable
credit generation
• Identify and verify contractual pathways for all proposed uses of the biogas; identify all
associated registration fees, application fees, and annual fees and propose cost sharing terms
and verify the corresponding contractual pathways for such uses of the RNG. Examples may
include registration with the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) for the Renewable Fuel
Standard program and/or registration for California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard.Any such
applications must be completed by the selected Proposer at no compensation to or from the
MWMC.The MWMC will pay for and provide to the selected Proposer any and all third party
reviews, or other required documentation, specific to the MWMC's RNG production and
associated facilities and operations as necessary for any applications of the selected Proposer to
maximize revenue of the RNG. Any necessary engineering reviews beyond the border of the
MWMC's RNG production facilities will be the responsibility of the selected Proposer.
• Identify all required on-going documentation for RINs, LCFS and/or other environmental
attributes and propose cost sharing terms.The MWMC will provide the selected Proposer with
data regarding RNG production, operation of the scrubbing system, and other required plant
production-specific information for the completion of such paperwork, at no compensation to
or from the selected Proposer or the MWMC.
• Propose a plan for handling gas upon contract approval but prior to LCFS of other certification
approval. Before certification approval, proposals should indicate if gas will be purchased and
stored for later monetization,or how fair market value gas commodity pricing will be negotiated
pending RIN, LCFS or other certification, before official acceptance of the RNG for such uses as
part of the Agreement.
• Market RINs, LCFS credits and/or other environmental attributes each month, and compensate
the MWMC based on the actual sales proceeds tied directly to Gas Daily, Oil Price Information
Service (OPIS) or other appropriate commodities markets for the sale of the RNG and
environmental attributes.The pricing terms and frequency for RIN and other environmental
attribute transactions for the selected Proposer will reflect the information outlined in the
submitted proposal, with final terms negotiated as part of the Agreement.
• Pay the MWMC monthly for the RNG commodity and RINs and/or other related environmental
attributes, sold during the previous calendar month, within 45 calendar days of the end of each
calendar month.These payments shall be independent of any contract issues between the
selected Proposer and any third party RNG end user, or other third parties. Proposals must
detail how payments will be calculated.
1 The MWMC expects that RIN generation values should be based upon D-3(Advanced Cellulosic Biofuels)
3 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 9 of 29
• Be responsible for all transportation-related, and any other downstream costs, per NW Natural's
and any other necessary pipelines (or costs related to transportation in case of an alternative
Proposal method)
The MWMC utilizes an additional volume of biogas from the facility for internal operations, and will
retain the right to utilize biogas produced for internal treatment plant and other MWMC uses.The
MWMC does not guarantee delivered gas volumes and will be held harmless for undelivered gas.
Undelivered gas may be the result of gas consumed by MWMC, system malfunctions or other
unanticipated issues or shutdowns at the MWMC gas production facility.
4 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 10 of 29
SECTION ABOUT THE MWMC AND ITS OPERATIONS
A. GENERAL
Regional Wastewater Program Partnership
The MWMC is an intergovernmental entity consisting of the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, and
Lane County, Oregon (collectively the Regional Partners) and is formed by an IGA to provide wastewater
collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The MWMC is also the
governing body that directs the Regional Wastewater Program.The Regional Wastewater Program
comprises the administration, operation, and management of the regional Eugene-Springfield
wastewater system. The regional system includes the WPCF and associated satellite facilities to provide
wastewater management services.
City of Eugene: Facilities Operation
The City of Eugene operates and maintains the regional wastewater facilities, which include the WPCF,
the Biosolids Management Facility(BMF), the Biocycle Farm, the Beneficial Reuse Site (BRS), the regional
pump stations, and the regional force mains and gravity sewers. In addition, major equipment
replacement, infrastructure rehabilitation programs, and laboratory services are also managed by the
City of Eugene.
City of Springfield: Program Administration
Administration of the MWMC is provided by the City of Springfield. This includes legal and risk
management services, financial management and accounting, budget and rate development, capital
program administration, public policy development, intergovernmental coordination, and public
education.The City of Springfield also provides long-range capital planning, design, and construction
management.
Governance
The MWMC is governed by a seven-member Commission composed of representatives appointed by the
City Councils of Eugene (three representatives: one City councilor and two citizens), Springfield (two
representatives: one City councilor and one citizen) and the Lane County Board of Commissioners (two
representatives: one City councilor and one citizen). Since its inception, the Commission, in accordance
with the IGA, has been responsible for oversight of the Regional Wastewater Program including:
construction, maintenance, and operation of the regional sewerage facilities; adoption of financing
plans; adoption of budgets, user fees and connection fees; adoption of minimum standards for industrial
pretreatment and local sewage collection systems; and recommendations for the expansion of regional
facilities to meet future community growth.
5 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 11 of 29
B. OPERATIONS
The MWMC owns and operates the following key facilities:
• Water Pollution Control Facility(WPCF) located at 410 River Avenue, Eugene, OR 97404,
• Biosolids Management Facility(BMF) located at 29686 Awbrey Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97402
• Biocycle Farm located at 29686 Awbrey Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97402
The biogas (precursor to RNG) is produced by anaerobic digestion of domestic wastewater solids in
digesters located at the WPCF.The digesters produce approximately 400,000 standard cubic feet per
day(scfd) of raw unfiltered biogas with an average low heat value of approximately 556 BTU per
standard cubic foot(scf) and an average high heat value of approximately 617 BTU per scf.A portion of
this biogas is "scrubbed"to a quality suitable for combustion in the MWMC's existing lean burn 800
kilowatt (kW) engine-generator, which is a component of the WPCF's combined heat and power(CHP)
system. With the current scrubbing equipment, the MWMC's scrubbed biogas contains carbon dioxide
and is not suitable for pipeline injection.The average low heat value of the scrubbed biogas is
approximately 565 BTU per scf and the average high heat value is approximately 628 BTU per scf.The
other major component of the CHP system is a boiler(with nameplate rating of 5537 MBH)that is biogas
fed.The biogas that is fed to the boiler is not normally scrubbed beforehand.The boiler is dual fuel,
capable of running on either biogas or natural gas (NG). Biogas produced in excess of what can be
beneficially used in the CHP system is flared to the atmosphere in a candlestick-type waste gas burner.
The proposals received under this RFP will provide the MWMC with the information required to
determine the financial feasibility of necessary gas conditioning upgrades that would be needed to
produce pipeline quality gas suitable for RIN generation.
6 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 12 of 29
SECTION 1 1 1 1 PROPOSAL" PROCESS" 1
REQUIREMENTS
A. CONDITIONS
Project Location
Site Addresses
WPCF MWMC Administration
Eugene-Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility City of Springfield
410 River Avenue Development& Public Works Department
Eugene, Oregon 97404 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477
Tel: (541)726-3694
http://www.mwmcpartners.org
WPCF
410 River Avenue
Eugene,OR 97401
Fir Grove
Irving
564
flOr[fi
Springfield
99 126
Danebo 11.11EAKER
s59 Eugene
726 726 Springfield ,ab
WESTERN
225
1222
Mt Pisgah
Arboretum
Anticipated RNG Quantity:
Currently, the MWMC produces both raw and conditioned biogas. Pending addition of the
7 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 13 of 29
needed equipment for pipeline quality RNG, the MWMC will produce RNG for sale 2. The total
annual quantity of biogas produced at the plant is 400,000 scfd with a low heat value of 565
BTU per scf. Three RNG quantity options are considered in this RFP:
Quantity Option 1: All available biogas converted to RNG for sale to selected Proposer(s)
Quantity Option 1 assumes all available biogas is converted to RNG. The "available" biogas is
equal to the total biogas produced at the WPCF minus the amount needed to satisfy the WPCF
thermal energy demand and maintain the engine-generator CHP in a standby ready position
(CHP standby would be necessary for plant heating requirements redundancy). In Option 1, the
thermal energy demand would be met through feeding a portion of the biogas to the plant's
boiler. The annual quantity of RNG that would be theoretically available for sale under Option 1
is 52,000 MMBTU/year.
Quantity Option 2: Only currently-flared biogas is converted to RNG for sale to selected
Proposer(s)
Quantity Option 2 assumes that only the biogas that is currently flared is converted to RNG for
sale. This alternative assumes continued operation of the existing 800 kW engine generator and
supplemental boiler operation as needed. The annual quantity of RNG that would be available
for sale under Quantity Option 2 is 23,000 MMBTU/year.
Quantity Option 3: Proposer defined RNG quantity
Quantity Option 3 allows the Proposer to propose an alternative to the two quantity options
listed above. If this RNG Quantity option is proposed, additional information about the
Proposer's is required as described in Part C of this Section (i.e., Section III.C).
RNG Delivery Options
This RFP contemplates two options for delivery of RNG to the purchaser. These are described
below:
RNG Delivery Option 1: MWMC connects to NW Natural pipeline
Under RNG Delivery Option 1, the MWMC scrubs the biogas to NW Natural tariff standards and
injects the RNG into the NW Natural pipeline located near the WPCF. The MWMC will be
responsible for issues related to gas monitoring and quality prior to injection into the pipeline
through an agreement with NW Natural. The selected Proposer will be responsible for all
downstream transportation-related and any other downstream costs per NW Natural's
transportation tariffs and rates. In this option, the sale of the RNG to the selected Proposer
would depend upon the subsequent establishment of a framework for NW Natural to accept
gas into the pipeline for third party use. Such a framework is currently being discussed among
z Actual RNG values above are subject to variances based on the gas scrubbing technology ultimately installed,the
pipeline connection/utility agreement requirements,and other variables to be determined.The theoretical RNG
quantities estimated in Quantity Options 1 and 2 assumed a 90%biomethane yield.
$ 1Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 14 of 29
stakeholders including NW Natural.
RNG Delivery Option 2: Proposer defined RNG capture/transportation
Under RNG Delivery Option 2, the MWMC scrubs the biogas to the Proposer's quality
specifications.The Proposer is responsible for the capture and transportation of the RNG
through a process defined by the Proposer. For this option, the Proposer must provide in the
submittal a description of the Proposer's gas capture and transportation methodology and
needed equipment as described in Part C of this Section (i.e., Section III.C).
B. PROPOSAL PROCESS
General
This RFP outlines the information necessary to understand the selection process and the
documentation required for submitting Proposals.
After reviewing the RFP and participating in the Pre-Proposal Conference (optional), any
prospective Proposer that determines it has the necessary expertise and experience to
successfully satisfy the goals and requirements of MWMC described herein shall apply for
consideration by submitting a Letter of Interest, a Statement of Qualifications and a Proposal.
These essential components are described in greater detail below.
Proposers can submit up to four proposals based on different uses, options noted herein,
pricing structures for the gas commodity and environmental attributes (RINs or other), and
contract duration per the framework below. If a Proposer submits more than one proposal,
please distinguish each proposal as "Alternative 1", "Alternative 2", and so on. In addition:
All Proposals submitted under this RFP shall remain valid for three hundred and sixty(360)
days. All submittals received in response to this RFP will be retained. MWMC Procurement Rule
137-047-0330(4) prohibits the acceptance of any proposal after the time and date specified on
the Request for Proposals. There shall be no exceptions to this requirement.
Proposals submitted under this RFP shall be considered public documents and with limited
exceptions proposals that are recommended for contract award will be available for inspection
by the public.
In the event it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, addenda shall be created and
posted on the MWMC Procurement website. Addenda will also be conveyed to those potential
Proposers providing an accurate email address. Hard copies of the RFP and any related addenda
may be obtained from the MWMC at cost by emailing a request to inewman@sprinfield-
or.gov .
The MWMC is not liable for any cost incurred by the Proposer in the course of responding to
9 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 15 of 29
this RFP. All costs incurred in the preparation of Proposals, and participation in in this RFP
process, shall be borne by the Proposer.
News releases pertaining to this RFP, the services, or the project to which it relates, shall not be
made without prior approval by, and then only in coordination with, the MWMC.
It is anticipated that if a selection is made as the result of this RFP, a Gas Purchase and Sale
Agreement (Agreement) will be developed between the selected Proposer and the MWMC.
The Agreement is subject to MWMC Commission Approval. If negotiations are not successful
with the selected Proposer, negotiations may be initiated with the second ranked Proposer, and
then with each subsequent Proposer, until the solicitation is cancelled or an Agreement
acceptable to the MWMC is executed.
All questions from Proposers interested in responding to this RFP during the solicitation period
are to be directed to:
Joshua Newman/Managing Civil Engineer
541.744.4154
inewman@springfield-or.gov
Protest Procedure
The MWMC has a process in place for receiving protests, which is described in Exhibit A.
Electronic Submittal Process
Proposers shall follow the requirements and procedures below in preparing their final proposal
document and ensuring proper submittal and receipt. Only proposals prepared and submitted
in electronic format will be accepted.3 Submit by email attachment your submittal package
(per the section below entitled "Proposal Format"), all files in PDF forma t4, submitted to the
MWMC Project Manager's (Joshua Newman's) e-mail address listed above.
The PDF documents must be organized to ensure proper electronic viewing and navigation to
proposal sections by reviewers. We suggest numbering the file names in order of expected
viewing. Alternatively, the package can be merged into a single PDF file. All attachments and
other materials shall also be included in PDF format.
Submittals must not exceed 10MB in file size; submittals in excess of 10MB may be rejected by
the e-mail server and will not be delivered to the MWMC Project Manager. Furthermore,
proposals in excess of 10MB may be rejected by the MWMC Project Manager as undeliverable
to the proposal review team.
3 Electronic procurements are as provided for and in accordance with ORS 279B.060(2)(a)and OAR 137-047-0330.
A detailed discussion of the Mwmc's electronic procurement considerations is provided in Exhibit A.
4 PDF requires document be published in Portable Document Format viewable in Adobe Acrobat Reader XI.
10 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 16 of 29
Submit no later than 5:00 p.m. on the proposal closing date. Electronic submittals that are time
stamped after 5:00 p.m. by the e-mail server, absent extenuating circumstances as determined
by MWMC, will be rejected. Proposers are highly encouraged to submit well in advance of the
due time to avoid delays in the electronic transmittal.
Confidential and/or Proprietary Information
If a Proposer considers any portion of his/her proposal to be protected under the law, the
Proposer shall clearly identify on the page(s) affected such words as "CONFIDENTIAL",
"PROPRIETARY" or "BUSINESS SECRET." The Proposer shall also use the descriptions above in
the following table to identify the affected page number(s) and locations(s) of material to be
considered as confidential.
Type of Exemption Beginning Page/Location Ending Page/location
If a request is made for disclosure of such portion, the MWMC will review the material in an
attempt to determine whether it may be eligible for exemption from disclosure under the law.
If the material is not exempt from public disclosure law, or the MWMC is unable to make a
determination of such an exemption, the MWMC will notify the Proposer of the request and
allow the Proposer ten (10) calendar days to take whatever action it deems necessary to
protect its interests. If the Proposer fails or neglects to take such action within said period, the
MWMC will release the portion of the proposal deemed subject to disclosure. By submitting a
proposal, the Proposer assents to the procedure outlined in this paragraph and shall have no
claim against the MWMC on account of actions taken under such procedure.
Proposal Format
Each Proposer shall submit the following documents in electronic format:
• One (1) signed and scanned original of the RFP document
• One (1) signed and scanned original Letter of Interest
• One (1) Statement of Qualifications
• A minimum of one (1) Proposal. Each Proposer may submit up to four(4) proposals.
Following receipt of Letters of Interest, Statements of Qualifications, and Proposal(s), and at the
MWMC's sole discretion, the MWMC reserves the right to request additional information.
Proposals shall be submitted according to the criteria established in this RFP. Proposals that fail
to be submitted in accordance with the procedures and specified requirements herein may be
considered "nonresponsive" and will be subject to rejection by the MWMC. All costs incurred in
the preparation of your Proposal, as well as the costs resulting from on-going participations in
this RFP process, shall be borne by the Proposer. The MWMC shall not reimburse Proposers for
11 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 17 of 29
such costs under any conditions.
Unless otherwise changed via Addendum, no Proposal shall be accepted after the time and
from the date set on Page 1 of this solicitation.
All Proposals received by MWMC shall remain valid for three hundred and sixty (360) calendar
days from the date of submittal.
It is anticipated that if a selection is made as a result of this RFP, a Gas Purchase and Sale
Agreement will be negotiated. Such an Agreement will be subject to MWMC Council approval.
If negotiations are not successful with the selected Proposer, negotiations may be initiated with
the second ranked Proposer, and then each subsequent Proposer, until the project is cancelled
or an agreement acceptable to MWMC is executed. MWMC reserves the right to reject any or
all Proposals received.
C. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
Part 1 -Letter of Interest
The Letter of Interest is not to exceed two (2) pages (with one-inch margins all around and 11
point font) and shall contain a summary of the proposed use of the gas and any general
information not included in the Statement of Qualifications. In the Letter of Interest, the
Proposer shall elaborate on the end use markets for the gas including the geographic locations
of intended points of use down to the city, county or state level; and the type(s) of end use
(e.g., transportation, etc.). In addition, the Proposer shall indicate if the proposed end users of
the RNG are already under contract with the Proposer. Finally, the Proposer shall indicate if and
to what degree the Proposer's use of RNG per this RFP is dependent upon any contracts for the
purchase of the RNG that have not yet been finalized.
Part 2 -Statement of Qualifications
A Statement of Qualifications is required with each Proposal. The Proposer must submit
evidence of experience with 1) handling or transporting biogas and/or natural gas for sale as a
transportation fuel; and/or 2) evidence of experience with RINs, LCSF or other environmental
attribute markets totaling at least three years combined experience. Each Statement of
Qualifications shall also contain the answers to the following questions:
Identification
• Organization
• Parent Company Name
• Contact Name
• Contact Phone Number
• Address
• Type of Business (Select one from the following)
12 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 18 of 29
o Team (Name all members)
o Joint venture (Name all partners)
o Other (Explain)
• Type of Organization (select from the following)
o Fuel End User
o Fuel Producer
o Contractor
o Fuel Marketer
o Other (Explain)
• Years in business (If team or joint venture, include years of each member company)
Experience and History
Please list the projects that your company has implemented related to:
• Handling and/or transporting CNG and/or RNG for sale as a transportation fuel
• Marketing environmental attributes associated with renewable fuel such as RINs and
LCFS credits
For each project listed provide the project name, location, role your company played, and the
details necessary to understand the following:
• Scale of project (MMBTU/Year)
• Type of fuel produced and/or delivered (Biogas, biofuel, natural gas, other)
• Renewable attributes marketed (RINs, California LCFCs, etc.)
• Start date
• Duration
• Identify if any of the projects listed were halted and why
• Status (e.g., construction, ongoing, completed)
• Business reference contact(s) information
Financial Stability
General creditworthiness of the Proposer's enterprise will be confirmed through a review of the
Standards and Poors (S&P) credit rating. An equivalent alternative to the S&P rating may be
considered at the request of the Proposer.
Part 3 -Proposal
Each proposal submitted in response to this RFP shall provide a response to the following
numbered proposal items, with the information in the order listed below. In the case a single
Proposer desires to submit multiple proposals, each proposal submitted shall address each
proposal item as indicated.
As part of each Proposal, the Proposer must, among other things, demonstrate a pathway for
13 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 19 of 29
the RNG to reach the end user(s), in order for that facility to be linked to the production facility
for RIN generation.
Proposal Item 1 - Pricing:
MWMC is seeking for Proposers to propose a price for the RNG originating from the WPCF, in
Eugene Oregon. The proposed price may reflect a percentage of the total value of the RNG
(including the commodity value, plus the value of the associated environmental attributes in
aggregate) at the point of use. Proposers can propose either a variable market price Proposal(s)
and/or a fixed price Proposal(s). Variable market price Proposal(s) are to be based on
fluctuating pricing as it relates to average daily market conditions for the RNG commodity, and
average monthly pricing for RIN and/or other environmental attributes.
Market price scenario Proposals are requested for the RNG commodity and other attributes, to
be based on a percentage of the market value of the RNG commodity and/or the percentages
of other environmental attribute values that will be shared with MWMC. As such, monthly
payments to MWMC, per the Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement to be developed with the
selected Proposer, will reflect the percentage of revenue paid to MWMC based on actual gas
commodity, RIN, LCFS and other environmental attribute transactions made by the Proposer,
for the RNG originating from the WPCF each month. Alternatively, Proposers may choose to
submit a fixed price Proposal(s).
MWMC will be scoring proposals based on the best total price Proposal for the RNG and related
environmental attributes. The scoring will be based on three (3) components: 1) The
commodity price to be paid to MWMC for its Renewable Natural Gas (RNG); 2) any RIN value,
as a percentage to be paid to MWMC associated with the RNG consumption; and 3) the
percentage of any other value to be paid to MWMC based on LCFS and/or other environmental
attributes associated with the sale of the RNG gas. Please use whole numbers for the
percentages to be shared with MWMC. If the Proposal is based on fixed pricing for the duration
of the contract, please indicate such on the pricing sheet.
Proposers are required to submit a total dollar value per MMBTU for the RNG commodity, RIN
and/or other environmental attribute values that are offered to be paid to MWMC, in addition
to providing the percentages of each value to be offered to MWMC. All prices are to be based
on the closing market conditions and assumptions on the date of November 30, 2016. For your
gas pricing assumptions, please use the Sumas daily midpoint average from Daily Gas. For RIN
pricing, please assume September monthly average RIN pricing, and indicate the type of RIN
and pricing source (e.g. OPIS or Argus, etc.).
• RNG Commodity price: Indicate the price per delivered MMBTU of gas (Methane) to be
paid to MWMC based on the above assumptions, and if the price is below, at, or above
market conditions. Identify the specific market index used in the proposal.
• Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)Type and Value: Indicate the type of each RIN
and the percentage of the dollar value that will be paid to MWMC per the Proposal, and
14 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 20 of 29
indicate your assumptions for how many RINs will be generated per MMBTU of RNG
consumed.
• Other Environmental Attributes: Indicate the percentage of other environmental
attributes per MMBTU to be paid to MWMC. Please include an estimated price for the
Other Environmental Attributes, and include your assumptions. If the price is based on
production facility-specific conditions, explain such conditions and provide a percentage
price based on the unknown pricing condition.
Please provide backup documentation for your chosen commodity price and any other detail
necessary for your indicated pricing in this section, reflecting November 30, 2016, market
condition assumptions.
For the selected Proposer, contracted price categories and percentages will be negotiated in
the Gas Purchase and Sale Agreement, reflecting the information provided in the Proposal and
corresponding to actual on-going market fluctuations. Please include a completed Pricing Chart
(template shown below) with each of your Proposal(s).
All prices to be per MMBTU.
❑Check if your pricing below is proposed as fixed for the duration of the contract.
❑Check if your pricing is based on percentages of revenue based on fluctuating market
conditions (market price scenario)
Pricing Chart
Item November 30, 2016 Type and%to be Price to be paid to
Price Assumption Provided to MWMC MWMC
RNG Commodity
RIN
Other Environmental
Attribute(s)
Totals
Proposal Item 2— RNG Quantity Option:
The Proposer shall indicate which RNG Quantity Options (described above in Section III, Part A)
that the Proposer is willing to consider and any conditions pertaining to each consideration. If
RNG Quantity Option 3 is selected, the Proposer must also explain the approach, the quantity
of RNG required, and any required deviations from current MWMC operation. For example, if
the Proposer suggests a quantity higher than Quantity Option 1 that may take needed energy
away from the MWMC's boiler otherwise used to meet internal process thermal energy
15 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 21 of 29
demand.The MWMC would need to make up this energy would in some way (e.g., by
purchasing additional natural gas, or increasing biogas production through co-digestion of high
strength wastes or other technique). The proposer would also be required to provide a
description of any additional on-site process equipment and controls needed for the proposed
Quantity Option 3. If additional facilities are required onsite through this option, the Proposer
shall describe which entity shall furnish, own, and operate the proposed additional facilities.
Proposal Item 3— RNG Delivery Option
The Proposer shall indicate which RNG Delivery Option they wish to propose. If the Proposer
wishes to propose RNG Delivery Option 3, the Proposer must also provide in the Proposal a
description of the Proposer's gas capture and transportation methodology; identify the types,
motor sizes, dimensions, capacities, electrical power requirements, and any other requirement
of all equipment that would be required to be located on the MWMC's site; the biogas quality
specifications expected for the MWMC to meet; access requirements for the Proposers
equipment; any concrete pad or staging area and associated security systems (e.g., fencing,
cameras etc.) to be provided by the MWMC necessary for the Proposers operation; If tube
trailers are involved, the unloaded and fully loaded weight of trailers and frequency of trailer
pickup and drop off. Under this option, the Proposer would be responsible for the operation
and maintenance of the required on-site equipment. The Proposer may, however, propose
contract terms whereby the MWMC would provide the O&M services to the Proposer for the
O&M of the equipment. Electrical power would be supplied by the MWMC to the Proposer's
equipment through a metered circuit and the cost would be assigned to the Proposer for the
power used by the Proposer's equipment. A site plan showing the area available for use under
RNG Delivery Option 3 is provided in Exhibit B.
Proposal Item 4—Contract Duration
Each proposal submitted shall be for a specified contract duration, which shall correspond to
the pricing structure identified in Proposal Item 1. If the Proposer wishes to submit more than
one contract duration option, a separate proposal shall be required.
D. PROPOSAL EVALUATION. SELECTION.AND SCHEDULE
Evaluation Criteria
A total of 100 points are possible for all criteria. A selection, if any, will be made of the Proposer
who, in the opinion of the MWMC proposal review team, best satisfies these evaluation criteria
and scores highest.To assist in evaluation, Proposers shall include the requested information in
a clear and comprehensive, yet concise manner. The criteria that will be applied in the
evaluation of Proposals received through this solicitation are summarized in the table below.
16 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 22 of 29
Evaluation Criteria Maximum
Possible Points
Part 1. Qualifications—Experience and History
I. Three of more years in business
II. Financial stability according to S&P index or MWMC approved
equivalent 10 possible
III. Transporting natural gas to vehicle end users points
IV. Previous experience transporting RNG to end use customers
V. Previous experience marketing Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs)
Part 2. Gas Use
Up to 10 points will be awarded based on the location of RNG end use.
Indicate the end use market for the gas, based on the fueling location.
• 5 points for 5%of RNG gas use within Lane County, OR
• 5 points for 10%or more RNG gas use within the State of Oregon 10 possible
points
Part 3. Offer Flexibility 10 possible
Up to10 points will be awarded to Proposers who do one or more of the points
following: 1) provide multiple options, 2) consider more than one biogas
quantity option, and/or 3) provide proposals reflecting more than one
contract duration and associated pricing structure.
Part 4. Price
Up to 70 points will be awarded to each submitted Proposal, based on the 70 possible
percentages of the price per MMBTU and non-commodity value, to include points
each of the values below. Please indicate pricing and assumptions
regarding the origin of your pricing (to ensure all Proposers are using
standard assumptions). All prices are to be based on closing market
conditions and assumptions on the date of September 30, 2016. For your
gas pricing assumptions, please use Sumas daily midpoint average price
from Daily Gas. For RIN pricing, please assume September monthly
average RIN pricing, and indicate the pricing source (e.g. OPIS or Argus,
etc.). Please use whole numbers for percentages to be paid to MWMC.
Submitted prices are for the purpose of ranking Proposals. Actual terms
will be negotiated in the Gas Purchase and Sale Agreement, based on the
relative assumptions provided by the selected Proposer.
I. RNG Commodity price: Up to 20 points. Indicate the price per
delivered MMBTU of gas (Methane) to be paid to MWMC
based on the above assumptions, and if the price below, at, or
17 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 23 of 29
Evaluation Criteria Maximum
Possible Points
above market value.
II. Renewable Identification Numbers(RINs) Value: Up to 35
points. Indicate the percentage of each Renewable
Identification Number (RIN)to be paid to MWMC per the
Proposal.
III. Other Environmental Attributes: Up to 15 points. Indicate the
percentage of the environmental attributes per MMBTU to be
paid to MWMC. Please include an estimated price for the
Other Environmental Attributes, based on 9/30/2016 market
conditions or other assumptions. If the price is based on
production facility-specific conditions, explain such conditions
and provide a percentage of the price to be provided to
MWMC, based on the unknown total dollar value and
condition.
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100 possible
points
Oral Presentation and Interviews
At the discretion of the MWMC, interviews may be scheduled and conducted of the top ranked
Proposers. The interviews shall seek to clarify information arising from the review of the
proposals. Interview results shall be evaluated based on the quality of Proposer's responses to
these clarifying questions.
Schedule(Some dates tentative and subject to change)
Event Timeline
Issue Request for Proposals December 2, 2016
Pre-Submittal Conference 10:00 a.m December 15, 2016
Site Tour, 11:00 a.m. to noon December 15, 2016
Final Questions Deadline January 6, 2017
Due Date for Proposals January 13, 2017
Oral Interviews, if necessary January 25, 2017
Tentative Selection of Proposer February 1, 2017
18 1 Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 24 of 29
EXHIBIT
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND TERMS OF PROCUREMENT
A. RIGHT TO CANCEL
ORS 2796.060(2)(e):The MWMC may cancel the procurement or reject any or all proposals in
accordance with ORS 2796.100.
ORS 2796.060(6)(c): If a request for proposals is canceled under ORS 27913.100 after proposals are
received or if a proposal is rejected, the contracting agency may return a proposal to the proposer
that made the proposal.The contracting agency shall keep a list of returned proposals in the file for
the solicitation.
B. PROPOSAL DISCLOSURE
ORS 2796.060(6)(a): Notwithstanding ORS 192.410 to 192.505, proposals may be opened in a
manner to avoid disclosing contents to competing proposers during,when applicable, the process of
negotiation, but the contracting agency shall record and make available the identity of all proposers
as part of the contracting agency's public records after the proposals are opened. Notwithstanding
ORS 192.410 to 192.505, proposals are not required to be open for public inspection until after the
notice of intent to award a contract is issued. The fact that proposals are opened at a meeting, as
defined in ORS 192.610, does not make the contents of the proposals subject to disclosure,
regardless of whether the public body opening the proposals fails to give notice of or provide for an
executive session for the purpose of opening proposals.
ORS 2796.060(6)(b): Notwithstanding a requirement to make proposals open to public inspection
after the contracting agency issues notice of intent to award a contract, a contracting agency may
withhold from disclosure to the public materials included in a proposal that are exempt or
conditionally exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501 or 192.502.
C. PROPOSAL REVISION AND NEGOTIATION
ORS 2796.060(8): For purposes of evaluation, when provided for in the request for proposals,the
contracting agency may employ methods of contractor selection that include, but are not limited to:
(a)An award or awards based solely on the ranking of proposals;
(b) Discussions leading to best and final offers, in which the contracting agency may not disclose
private discussions leading to best and final offers;
(c) Discussions leading to best and final offers, in which the contracting agency may not disclose
information derived from proposals submitted by competing proposers;
(d) Serial negotiations, beginning with the highest ranked proposer;
(e) Competitive simultaneous negotiations;
(f) Multiple-tiered competition designed to identify, at each level, a class of proposers that fall
within a competitive range or to otherwise eliminate from consideration a class of lower ranked
proposers;
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 25 of 29
(g)A multistep request for proposals requesting the submission of unpriced technical submittals,
and then later issuing a request for proposals limited to the proposers whose technical submittals
the contracting agency had determined to be qualified under the criteria set forth in the initial
request for proposals; or
(h)A combination of methods described in this subsection, as authorized or prescribed by rules
adopted under ORS 279A.065.
ORS 2796.060(9): Revisions of proposals may be permitted after the submission of proposals and
before award for the purpose of obtaining best offers or best and final offers.
ORS 2796.060(10): After the opening of proposals, a contracting agency may issue or electronically
post an addendum to the request for proposals that modifies the criteria, rating process and
procedure for any tier of competition before the start of the tier to which the addendum applies.
The contracting agency shall send an addendum that is issued by a method other than electronic
posting to all proposers who are eligible to compete under the addendum.The contracting agency
shall issue or post the addendum at least five days before the start of the subject tier of competition
or as the contracting agency otherwise determines is adequate to allow eligible proposers to
prepare for the competition in accordance with rules adopted under ORS 279A.065.
As provided in the request for proposals or in written addenda issued thereunder, the contracting
agency may conduct site tours, demonstrations, individual or group discussions and other
informational activities with proposers before or after the opening of proposals for the purpose of
clarification to ensure full understanding of, and responsiveness to,the solicitation requirements or
to consider and respond to requests for modifications of the proposal requirements.The contracting
agency shall use procedures designed to accord proposer's fair and equal treatment with respect to
any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals.
D. PROTEST ISSUES
Proposers who believe that this selection process is contrary to law or that it is unnecessarily
restrictive or that it is legally flawed or improperly specifies a brand name are encouraged to convey
their comments and specific recommendations for improving the selection process to the MWMC by
submitting them in writing to the MWMC Project Manager. Comments must be submitted at least
seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposal submittal deadline.
Furthermore,the MWMC has adopted Procurement Protest Procedures that are applicable to this
selection process. Protests based on the alleged violation of ORS Chapter 279B or the MWMC's
Administrative Rules governing procurement may only be filed by a party with an adversely affected
direct financial interest. Copies of the Procurement Protest Procedures may be obtained, upon
request from the MWMC, by contacting the MWMC Project Manager. Protests must be received not
less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the proposal submittal deadline.
E. ELECTRONIC PROCUREMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Electronic transactions are subject to all other applicable substantive law requirements including,
but not limited to, MWMC Rule 137-047-0330(reproduced below), ORS 279, 279A, 279B and 279C
as well as MWMC public contracting requirements.The applicable provisions of the Uniform
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 26 of 29
Electronic Transactions Act: ORS 84.001 et seq. shall apply to all electronic transactions undertaken
by the MWMC.
MWMC Rule 137-047-0330 Electronic Procurement
(1) Electronic Procurement Authorized.
(a)A Contracting Agency may conduct all phases of a Procurement, including without limitation
the posting of Electronic Advertisements and the receipt of Electronic Offers, by electronic
methods if and to the extent the Contracting Agency specifies in a Solicitation Document, a
Request for Quotes, or any other Written instructions on how to participate in the Procurement.
(b)The Contracting Agency shall open an Electronic Offer in accordance with electronic security
measures in effect at the Contracting Agency at the time of its receipt of the Electronic Offer.
Unless the Contracting Agency provides procedures for the secure receipt of Electronic Offers,
the Person submitting the Electronic Offer assumes the risk of premature disclosure due to
submission in unsealed form.
(c)The Contracting Agency's use of electronic Signatures shall be consistent with applicable
statutes and rules.A Contracting Agency may limit the use of electronic methods of conducting
a Procurement as Advantageous to the Contracting Agency.
(d) If the Contracting Agency determines that Bid or Proposal security is or will be required, the
Contracting Agency should not authorize Electronic Offers unless the Contracting Agency has
another method for receipt of such security.
(2) Rules Governing Electronic Procurements.The Contracting Agency shall conduct all portions of
an electronic Procurement in accordance with these Division 47 rules, unless otherwise set forth in
this rule.
(3) Preliminary Matters.As a condition of participation in an electronic Procurement the Contracting
Agency may require potential Contractors to register with the Contracting Agency before the date
and time on which the Contracting Agency will first accept Offers, to agree to the terms, conditions,
or other requirements of a Solicitation Document, or to agree to terms and conditions governing the
Procurement, such as procedures that the Contracting Agency may use to attribute, authenticate or
verify the accuracy of an Electronic Offer, or the actions that constitute an electronic Signature.
(4) Offer Process.A Contracting Agency may specify that Persons must submit an Electronic Offer by
a particular date and time, or that Persons may submit multiple Electronic Offers during a period of
time established in the Electronic Advertisement. When the Contracting Agency specifies that
Persons may submit multiple Electronic Offers during a specified period of time, the Contracting
Agency must designate a time and date on which Persons may begin to submit Electronic Offers, and
a time and date after which Persons may no longer submit Electronic Offers.The date and time after
which Persons may no longer submit Electronic Offers need not be specified by a particular date and
time, but may be specified by a description of the conditions that, when they occur, will establish
the date and time after which Persons may no longer submit Electronic Offers. When the
Contracting Agency will accept Electronic Offers for a period of time, then at the designated date
and time that the Contracting Agency will first receive Electronic Offers, the Contracting Agency
must begin to accept real time Electronic Offers on the Contracting Agency's Electronic Procurement
System, and shall continue to accept Electronic Offers in accordance with section (5)(b) of this rule
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 27 of 29
until the date and time specified by the Contracting Agency, after which the Contracting Agency will
no longer accept Electronic Offers.
(5) Receipt of Electronic Offers.
(a)When a Contracting Agency conducts an electronic Procurement that provides that all Electronic
Offers must be submitted by a particular date and time,the Contracting Agency shall receive the
Electronic Offers in accordance with these Division 47 rules.
(b)When the Contracting Agency specifies that Persons may submit multiple Electronic Offers during a
period of time,the Contracting Agency shall accept Electronic Offers,and Persons may submit Electronic
Offers, in accordance with the following:
(A) Following receipt of the first Electronic Offer after the day and time the Contracting Agency first
receives Electronic Offers the Contracting Agency shall post on the Contracting Agency's Electronic
Procurement System,and updated on a real time basis,the lowest Electronic Offer price or the
highest ranking Electronic Offer.At any time before the date and time after which the Contracting
Agency will no longer receive Electronic Offers,a Person may revise its Electronic Offer,except that a
Person may not lower its price unless that price is below the then lowest Electronic Offer.
(B)A Person may not increase the price set forth in an Electronic Offer after the day and time that the
Contracting Agency first accepts Electronic Offers.
(C)A Person may withdraw an Electronic Offer only in compliance with these Division 47 rules. If a
Person withdraws an Electronic Offer, it may not later submit an Electronic Offer at a price higher
than that set forth in the withdrawn Electronic Offer.
(6) Failure of the E-Procurement System. In the event of a failure of the Contracting Agency's
Electronic Procurement System that interferes with the ability of Persons to submit Electronic
Offers, protest or to otherwise participate in the Procurement, the Contracting Agency may cancel
the Procurement in accordance with OAR 137-047-0660, or may extend the date and time for
receipt of Electronic Offers by providing notice of the extension immediately after the Electronic
Procurement System becomes available.
Stat.Auth.:ORS 279A.065&2796.055
Stats.Implemented:ORS 279A.065
Hist.: DOJ 11-2004,f.9-1-04,cert.ef.3-1-05; DOJ 20-2005,f.12-27-05,cert.ef.1-1-06; DOJ 19-2007,f.12-28-07,cert.ef.
1-1-08
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 28 of 29
EXHIBIT B
MWMC BIOGAS FACILITIES SITE PLAN
Sale of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and Associated Environmental Attributes RFP-
December 2, 2016
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 29 of 29
Federal Renewable Fuel Program
Central to federal greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policy is the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS) program, which was established by congress through the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. This law mandated the expansion of renewable fuel in the U.S. gasoline
supply, requiring increasing amounts of biofuels to be mixed into the supply each year.
Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, congress then set the
minimum volume of renewable fuel required each year extending to the year 2022.
Figure 1 shows the EPA's schedule for the resulting mandated increases in the volumes
of biofuels required of US fuel producers through the year 2022.
ad
35 'cellulosic bialuel
'Biomass-based diesel
30 'Other Advanced fuel
25
00ther Renewable fuel
0,20
8
t� -
10
5
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 1 — EPA renewable fuel minimum volume schedule by fuel category
Under the RFS, obligated parties (mainly oil companies and fuel refiners) comply by
generating, trading, or purchasing Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). A "RIN" is
the given name to the paper credit generated along with the physical production of
renewable fuels that certifies its environmental attributes and classifies them according
to different fuel categories. In order to generate RINs, a renewable fuel must meet
GHG reduction thresholds and feedstock requirements that are specific to individual fuel
categories. One RIN is equal to 77,000 BTUs (i.e., the energy content of 1 gallon of
corn ethanol). As the RFS compliance mechanism — RINs have value to obligated
parties and are bought, sold, and traded in a RIN marketplace.
There are different categories of RINs based on the type of fuel being produced. The
fuel categories, D-code (RIN type), and category descriptions are summarized in Table
1. Obligated parties are required to hold a certain volume of RINs, by fuel category, to
maintain compliance.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 3
Table 1 — Summary of RFS fuel categories
D Code Fuel Category RFS mandates fulfilled by this fuel type
D7 Cellulosic Diesel Biomass-based Diesel, Cellulosic Biofuel,
Advanced Biofuel, Renewable Biofuel
D6 Renewable Biofuel Renewable Biofuel
D5 Advanced Biofuel Advanced Biofuel, Renewable Biofuel
D4 Biomass-based Biofuel Biomass-based Diesel, Advanced Biofuel,
Renewable Biofuel
D3 Cellulosic Biofuel Cellulosic Biofuel, Advanced Biofuel, Renewable
Biofuel
Wastewater biogas was reassigned in mid-2014 from a D5 RIN (Advanced Biofuel) to a
D3 RIN (Cellulosic Biofuel). D3 RINs are the most valuable RIN of these fuel
categories. This increasing requirement is illustrated in Figure 1 which shows that while
the minimum volume requirements for three of the categories flatten out after 2016, the
"Cellulosic Biofuels" category (from which D3 RINs originate and under which biogas
qualifies) is scheduled to rise continually through 2022. Recently, after hovering around
$1.80, D3 RINs generated in 2016 climbed above $2.30. That places an environmental
credit value of about $6,800 on an amount of biogas equivalent to the MWMC's daily
production if it were used as a transportation fuel'.
Although the EPA schedule only extends to the year 2022 (as shown in Figure 1),
statutes direct EPA to establish minimum volumes for all years after 2022 through
regulation using established criteria. Staff's understanding is that the program is set to
go on indefinitely in this manner unless repealed by legislation. In other words, there is
no expiration date for the RFS program. This feature, along with the increasing mandate
and associated RIN value, has created a demand for the RINs, high level of interest in
development of renewable fuel projects involving many stakeholders both public and
private, and an increasing sense of reliability in the value of renewable fuel
environmental attributes over time among investors and project developers.
State Low Carbon Fuel Programs:
At the state level, California, Oregon and Washington are positioned to lead the nation
with respect to incentivizing low carbon fuels. California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS) requires a 10% reduction in the average carbon intensity of California's
' In such a scenario, the MWMC would not be in a position to claim 100% of the D3 RIN
value unless the MWMC itself compressed and marketed biogas a fuel directly to
transportation fuel users, such as fleet operators, and/or used the fuel for transportation
internally. A desired outcome of the RFP will be to identify an off-taker who could use
the RIN to meet their obligations and would market to a fuel dispenser and ultimately an
end user. It would be anticipated that the off-taker would pay a portion of the RIN value
to the MWMC.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 3
transportation fuels by 2020. Unlike the federal RFS, California's LCFS is not
prescriptive in mandating annual production volumes by fuel type. Instead it incentivizes
the use of a variety of alternative, low-carbon fuels to reduce the average carbon
intensity of the state's overall fuel consumption. The LCFS allows participation from
renewable fuel producers outside of the state so long as the fuel is used in California
and a physical connection can be documented between the point of origin and the end
In addition to the LCFS program, California is also home to the largest fleets of natural
gas vehicles on the west coast. For these reasons, biogas producers (including landfills,
municipal digesters, and commercial dairy digesters) in areas as far away as the
Midwest are scrubbing their biogas and pumping it into natural gas transmission lines to
cash in on the RINs and California LCFS credits. Many of these projects are reportedly
seeing very short payback periods due to the high current values of these
environmental attributes.
Oregon has followed California's lead and has established a Clean Fuel Standard with
similar features to California's but has yet to reach the point where a viable market for
credits has been created. Under this program, early credit producers have the option of
"banking" credits until such time that they have market-based value. Accordingly,
Oregon is seeking to create renewable fuel markets in Oregon. Washington recently
adopted a Clean Air Rule that addresses the generation and release of GHGs by
capping their release over all business sectors including fuels. The new rule is set to go
into effect in 2017.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM VII.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Josh Newman, Managing Civil Engineer
Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst
SUBJECT: NPDES Permit Renewal — Introductory Presentation
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only, no action requested
ISSUE
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has indicated that MWMC's
NPDES permit will be coming up for renewal in the near future, potentially in federal
fiscal year 2019. Upcoming permit conditions will closely factor into the MWMC's
comprehensive facilities planning efforts. Staff has been evaluating anticipated permit
renewal conditions, risks and strategies associated with new requirements. At the
December meeting, staff will provide an overview of the NPDES renewal process and
describe staff's assessment process. It is anticipated that this presentation will be the
first of two or three presentations on this topic to inform the Commission on pending
permit renewal issues.
BACKGROUND
The MWMC's current NPDES permit was issued by DEQ in 2002 and set for renewal in
2007. The permit contains the discharge limits and monitoring and reporting
requirements the MWMC must meet to remain in compliance with the federal Clean
Water Act. These requirements provide the basis upon which the MWMC's
comprehensive facilities plan is founded.
However, since 2006, the DEQ has ceased renewing NPDES permits which contain a
temperature limit due to legal uncertainties regarding Oregon's temperature water
quality standard. Of specific concern is the legal status of Oregon's 2006 Willamette
temperature Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). As a result, the MWMC's NPDES
permit has remained on administrative extension since 2007.
Recently, the DEQ resumed renewals of certain NPDES permits containing temperature
limits, but has started with those not impacted by ongoing legal challenges. DEQ is now
Memo: NPDES Permit Renewal — Introductory Presentation
December 2, 2016
Page 2 of 2
considering how to move forward with the more complex temperature related NPDES
permits and has indicated they may renew and reissue the MWMC's NPDES permit as
soon as 2019.
DISCUSSION
DEQ's revised timeline brings to the forefront staff's effort to evaluate regulatory risks,
strategies and opportunities associated with the anticipated regulatory process and to
consider requirements that may be included into the MWMC's permit renewal.
In addition to temperature, new requirements are anticipated for toxics and potentially
mass loading, among others. Staff is in the preliminary stages of assessing the potential
regulatory risks and strategic opportunities for consideration as we plan for eventual
permit renewal. In addition to regulatory risks, opportunities to optimize biosolids and
recycled water plans and the MWMC's pretreatment programs will also be considered.
At the December Commission meeting, staff will provide a presentation discussing the
following topics:
• Federal NPDES program overview
• Water quality standards/permit renewal nexus
• The MWMC's recent NPDES permit history
• Priority issues (temperature, toxics, mass loading)
• Ongoing staff efforts and next steps
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only, no action requested.
AGENDA ITEM VIII.
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
^—A-k SPRINGFIELD - y..
OREGON
partners in wastewater management
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 2, 2016
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Phase 3 Thermal Load Mitigation and Recycled Water Study Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Information only
ISSUE
The MWMC is assessing potential thermal load mitigation strategies through a three-
phase study effort focused on recycled water use opportunities and other regulatory
compliance measures. Staff is at a point in the Phase 3 Recycled Water Study process
where we are ready to recall the technical services of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
through a contract amendment. At the December MWMC meeting, staff will present an
update on the Phase 3 study status, inform the commission of the current temperature
regulatory status, and outline the Phase 3 study tasks and consultant assistance need.
BACKGROUND
As outlined in the Regional Wastewater Program Monthly Reports, MWMC Project
P80062: Thermal Load Mitigation — Pre-Implementation is a planning effort comprising
three phases of recycled water use alternatives assessment and implementation
planning:
• Phase 1: Conceptual Alternatives Assessment (completed in March 2012).
Phase 1 recommended studying the feasibility of two alternatives consisting of a
pair of external users (Industrial Aggregate use) and a pair of internal site
applications (MWMC Facilities use).
• Phase 2: Alternatives Evaluation (completed fall 2014). The Phase 2 planning
study assessed near-term conceptual recycled water use options at (1) Delta
Sand & Gravel's and Knife River's industrial aggregate operations and (2) at the
MWMC's Beneficial Reuse Site and Biocycle Farm agricultural irrigation and
lagoon storage operations. These alternatives were compared with riparian
shade credit contracting as a thermal load mitigation strategy.
• Phase 3: Thermal Load Mitigation Strategic Plan (commenced 2015). The Phase
Memo: Phase 3 Thermal Load Mitigation and Recycled Water Study Update
December 2, 2016
Page 2 of 3
3 study comprises a series of assessments based on the thermal load
management strategies recommended as an outcome of Phase 2. The
assessments include:
o Riparian shade project development under EWEB's McKenzie watershed
protection program ("Pure Water Partners").
o Investigation of permit strategies and compliance mechanisms in
collaboration with ACWA, including a basin-wide Willamette cooperative
for cold water habitat mitigation ("Willamette River Alliance").
o Strategic use of recycled water at the Biocycle Farm for poplar irrigation
benefits.
o Temporary storage of effluent/recycled water at the Biosolids
Management Facility and Beneficial Reuse Site.
o Development of recycled water use pilot projects in collaboration with local
water resource agency interests.
Consultant contracts for technical study and stakeholder communications assistance
are currently closed but can be reopened as required scopes of work are defined.
Kennedy/Jenks has been on standby and is prepared to resume consulting services
starting in early 2017.
Since the Phase 3 study process started in 2015, staff has focused largely on the two
key elements to prepare for upcoming temperature regulatory compliance: (1)
understanding the current status and directions of the temperature standard
implementation in Oregon permits, and (2) understanding and planning for temperature
compliance through water quality trading credits developed from riparian shade
restoration (via EWEB's Pure Water Partners program) and/or a basin-wide, multi-
permittee compliance approach (ACWA's Willamette River Alliance strategy). Over the
past year, staff provided the following updates to the commission on these topics:
• March 2016 meeting: Phase 3 Recycled Water Planning Update
• April 2016 meeting: Temperature TMDL and Water Quality Trading rules update
• September 2016 meeting: EWEB Pure Water Partners program update
DISCUSSION
Attachment 1 presents a chart of the basic elements and study pathways of the Phase 3
scope of work. Primarily the scope comprises data and regulatory analysis, thermal load
mitigation strategy assessment, and outreach information development. The thermal
load mitigation strategies involve both near-term solutions and long-term possibilities for
eventual consideration of a permit compliance plan. These elements include riparian
shade credit program implementation, recycled water demonstration projects, MWMC
effluent storage and irrigation strategies, heat recovery and reduction opportunities, and
potential feasibility of indirect discharge and habitat enhancement projects.
Memo: Phase 3 Thermal Load Mitigation and Recycled Water Study Update
December 2, 2016
Page 3 of 3
Attachment 2 presents an outline of the consultant assistance scope of work based on
task structure presented by Attachment 1 . The outline provides detailed descriptions of
Phase 3 study tasks being undertaken by staff and the level of consultant review and
assistance needed for each. Staff is currently discussing the task list with Kennedy/
Jenks in preparation of the forthcoming amendment for consultant services. At the
December MWMC meeting, staff will present further details on the status and next steps
of the Phase 3 study elements based on the key study areas presented in Attachments
1 and 2:
• Modeling
o Thermal Load Modeling
• Heat Reduction & Offset Strategies
o Trading Credit Opportunity Development
o Heat Reduction/Recovery Assessment
• Effluent Diversion Strategies
o Indirect Discharge & Flow Augmentation Opportunities
o MWMC Temporary Effluent Storage
• Recycled Water Use Strategies
o MWMC Recycled Water Use
o Demonstration Recycled Water Plan
o Long Term recycled Water Use Opportunities Development
• Outreach
o Communication & Outreach tools
ACTION REQUESTED
Information only; no action requested.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Phase 3 Recycled Water Study Basic Elements
2. Consultant Assistance Scope of Work: MWMC Phase 3 Thermal Load and
Recycled Water Use Study.
PHASE 3 THERMAL LOAD MITIGATION & RECYCLED WATER STUDY
General Work Breakdown Structure Overview
ModelingOffset Effluent Diversion Strategies Recycled Water Use Strategies Outreach
Trading Credit Heat Indirect Discharge& Long-Term Recycled
Thermal Load Opportunity Reduction/Recovery Flow Augmentation MWMC Temporary MWMC Recycled Demonstration Water Use Communication &
Modeling Development Assessment Opportunities Effluent Storage Water Use Recycled Water Plan Opportunities Outreach
Development
Proposed
Potential Thermal Pure Water Partners WPCF Heat Flux Biocycle Farm/BRS FSL Storage Biocycle Farm Demonstration Sites Local water resources Potential User
Limiits Exceedance Wetland Discharge •Eugene Street Tree Questionnaire/
Analysis Shade Restoration Characterization Characterization Recommendations Irrigation Plan Program group advisory group Survey
•Sand&Gravel Site Uses
Water Balance Model Confluence Floodplain
Updates Delta Ponds Summer Economic
Restoration Cooling Tower BRS Storage Other Demonstration Briefing Sheet
•Effluent Diversion Flow Augmentation BRS Irrigation Plan opportunities
Partnership Efficacy Analysis Recommendations Site Recruitment development
•temperature Assessment assessment
Reduction/Mitigation Opportunities
Willamette River Conveyance Pipeline
Alliance partnership Heat Recovery Gravel Pit Discharge HRCCB Storage 16— Upgrade Environmental drivers
evaluation Concept Review Assessment Feasibility Review Recommendations and roles evaluation
Source Heat Stream Channel Potential user
Characterization Augmentation evaluation
Assessment
ATTACHMENT
Consultant Assistance Scope of Work:
MWMC Phase 3 Thermal Load and Recycled Water Use Study
The MWMC seeks to reactivate the contract with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants for"Recycled Water
Program Implementation Planning"—MWMC Project Number P80073, originally executed in 2011, via
amendment. The amended scope of work is to provide on-call technical review and research assistance
on a task order basis to help the MWMC complete the Phase 3 Thermal Load Implementation Study.
Glossary of Acronyms
The following acronyms are referred to in the scope of work.
ACWA—Association of Clean Water Agencies
BRS—beneficial reuse site
CHP—combined heat and power
DEQ— Department of Environmental Quality
DOGAMI —Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
EWEB—Eugene Water and Electric Board
FSL—facultative sludge lagoon
HRCCB—high rate chlorine contact basin
IMD—internal management directive
MWMC—Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
QA/QC—quality assurance/quality control
SUB—Springfield Utility Board
WPCF—water pollution control facility
Thermal Load Modeling
Thermal Load Assessment
Numeric temperature criteria compliance and load reduction evaluation:
Updating of data sets and calculations used to determine the MWMC's temperature risk and probable
permit compliance targets.
Consultant Assistance Need: Potential QA/QC of spreadsheet calculations used for accuracy and
appropriateness based on Oregon's temperature standard, IMD, and DEQ consultation, as well as
spreadsheet formulas applied to data sets and interpretation of thermal load results.
Water Balance Model Update
Model integration of current thermal reduction targets and mitigation strategies under consideration:
Adding seasonal temperature reduction needs into water balance model tool prepared under Phase 2
study and plugging in effluent diversion and thermal load reduction measures under consideration to
gauge effectiveness of proposed compliance strategies.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 7
Consultant Assistance Need: Potential QA/QC of spreadsheet calculations and formulas applied to
derive water balance solutions and recommendations for spreadsheet tool improvements to provide
information to be used toward strategy decisions.
Mitigation Strategies Assessments
Trading Credit Opportunities Assessment
Pure Water Partners shade credit project plan:
Evaluation of upper Willamette shade project potential via EWEB's Pure Water Partners outreach
program.
Consultant Assistance Need: The Freshwater Trust is assisting the MWMC with shade credit evaluation
work. No additional consultant work is foreseen for this element.
Watershed restoration partnerships assessment:
Consider potential, under a basin wide variance, ACWA's Willamette River Alliance and local confluence
floodplain efforts,to meet MWMC compliance needs. Consideration shall include necessity of a basin-
wide variance, different habitat/thermal impact objectives in the upper and lower Willamette systems,
and likelihood of incorporating MWMC shade project efforts or floodplain restoration concepts in the
Alliance framework.
Consultant Assistance Need: Additional consultant assistance could be needed for case study and legal
examples of floodplain restoration mitigation credits.
Recycled Water Demonstration Project Proposals
Recycled water demonstration project plan:
Development of proposed capital project and permitting needs for the following demonstration site
opportunities:
• Eugene street tree watering program
• Eugene fire training facility water use
• Sand &gravel company non-contact/no run-off site uses
• WPCF demonstration garden
Consultant Assistance Need: In-depth review and QA/QC of all proposal assumptions, calculations,
permitting strategies, and equipment and capital improvement implementation and costs will be
needed.Assistance may be needed with actual permitting and project planning to bring one or more
demonstration proposals to project construction phase.
On-Site Recycled Water Use Improvements
Biocycle Farm Poplar Irrigation Plan:
Full calculation and prescription of poplar irrigation plan using existing hose reels, including agronomic
irrigation and nutrient application loading considerations, equipment deployment strategy for
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 2 of 7
optimization of irrigation and biosolids application needs, and considerations for tree management unit
and grass buffer watering strategies.
Consultant Assistance Need: CIA/QC of all agronomic factors and condition assumptions, permit
restrictions, and equipment threshold considerations. Provide recommendations for plan improvements
or options not addressed in staff work product. The plan will differ from Phase 2 assumptions that a
separate drip irrigation system would be installed.
Beneficial Reuse Site Irrigation Plan:
BRS Water Management and Irrigation Upgrade Proposal: review of Phase 2 feasibility study findings
and recommendations for resurrection of the BRS pivot irrigation system and water handling and
management demands for tenant farmer crop use. Recommend site plan for BRS recycled water
irrigation use. It may be produced in tandem with BRS lagoon storage plan (described under Effluent
Storage strategies, below).
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC calculations; significant preliminary assessment was done as part of
the Phase 2 feasibility studies work. Provide comment and guidance on implementation of the proposed
plan.
Reclaimed Water Conveyance Line Service Upgrades Recommendation:
Evaluation of current pipeline conditions (based on previous assessments), proposed MWMC recycled
water use conveyance demands, and potential future use pipeline rehabilitation and spur line needs.
Includes future user survey(see Communication and Outreach Tools scope of work) to assess 20-year
look ahead at potential recycled water uses and immediate and long term needs for the Reclaimed
Water(W2) Pipeline and "Agripac" Pipeline. Provides full costing of options to rehabilitate, adapt, and
tap into existing pipelines. Project recommendations should be phased for immediate near term uses
(Biocycle Farm irrigation and FSL lagoon storage), intermediate uses (BRS lagoon storage and irrigation),
and long-term uses (external customers).
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC calculations and assumptions for pipe upgrades. Significant
preliminary calculations were done as part of the Phase 2 study. Additional engineering and cost
estimation may be needed on rehabilitation of the Agripac line for future use. Recommend optional
courses of action on investment in pipe infrastructure depending on future use scenarios (e.g. MWMC
only use, future spur uses).
Temporary Effluent Storage Management Plan
Present a strategic plan for individual or complementary use of temporary storage at the FSL, BRS, and
HRCCB facilities.
Facultative Sludge Lagoon (FSL)Storage Plan:
FSL storage study assessment of operational conditions, water balance and operation limits, and flow
limits. Prescribe a water management flow curve and operations plan for strategic temporary effluent
storage for peak thermal load condition mitigation. Calculate peak day and peak week thermal load
reduction benefit.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 3 of 7
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC of calculations and engineering/operational considerations in
implementing the proposed plan. Identify potential regulatory issues or complicating factors.
BRS Lagoon Storage Plan:
BRS storage study assessment of BRS irrigation plan demands, operational conditions, water balance
and operation limits, and flow limits. Prescribe a water management flow curve and operations plan for
strategic temporary effluent storage for peak thermal load condition mitigation and agronomic irrigation
demands, including economic benefits. Calculate peak day and peak week thermal load reduction
benefit.
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC plan against work previously done for the Phase 2 BRS lagoon
feasibility study. Identify any needed updates or new considerations.
High Rate Chlorine Contact Basin (HRCCB)Storage Plan:
Assess operational opportunities and constraints of using the HRCCB for temporary effluent storage
during peak thermal load mitigation periods. Develop management plan for diverting, storing, and
releasing water using the HRCCB. Calculate peak day and peak week thermal load reduction benefit.
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC of calculations and engineering/operational considerations in
implementing the proposed plan. Identify potential regulatory issues or complicating factors.
Indirect Discharge and Flow Augmentation Assessment
Assess the overall capacity, feasibility, and benefits of natural treatment and environmental
enhancement opportunities for effluent diversion using indirect discharge into floodplain systems or
wetlands and flow augmentation of local tributary channels for habitat or irrigation benefits.This is a
high-level assessment for future considerations of further study and to provide information helpful in
ongoing discussion with stakeholders and partners. It is anticipated that any of the below concepts will
need to be valued based on multiple environmental benefits and could be experimental in terms of
thermal reduction,which may need to be proven over years of monitoring.
Floodplain Discharge and Enhancement Evaluation
Research case study examples for reference data and other comparables to provide a high-level
assessment of the potential for floodplain pond and side channel discharge to provide cooling,
detention, habitat, and other water quality benefits in contrast to traditional river discharge.
Consultant Assistance Need: Provide comments, corrections, and enhancements to the evaluation,
particularly in regard to regulatory acceptability and feasibility. QA/QC any flow calculations or
assumptions made in developing evaluation conclusions. Provide references to case studies or helpful
examples.
Gravel Pit Storage and Discharge Management Assessment:
Estimate the discharge and flow capacity of reclaimed gravel ponds at the Delta Sand &Gravel facility to
provide a future indirect discharge opportunity. Consider complementary enhancements such as
floating islands and wetland cells to detain, cool, and provide other effluent treatment benefits, as well
as potential habitat benefits. Outline the minimum restoration requirements required by DOGAMI and
opportunities for the project to be a plan element of the Willamette River Alliance (ACWA proposed
partnership).
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 4 of 7
Consultant Assistance Need: Provide comments, corrections, and enhancements to the assessment,
particularly in regard to regulatory acceptability and feasibility. QA/QC any flow calculations or
assumptions made in developing evaluation conclusions. Provide references to case studies or helpful
examples.
Delta Ponds Complex Discharge Assessment:
Research and summarize the flow regime of the Delta Ponds natural area system managed by the city of
Eugene in concert with Army Corps of Engineers salmon habitat mitigation goals and requirements.
Determine physical capacity to receive flow augmentation (from diverted effluent), including seasonal
limitations—such as during summer no-river-inflow period. Evaluate system flow regime under flow
augmentation scenarios and potential thermal regime(cooling/heating of surface water and hyporheic
flows), flow detention (for delayed effluent discharge), and habitat impacts (pros/cons). Identify
permitting issues and pathway.
Consultant Assistance Need: Provide comments, corrections, and enhancements to the assessment,
particularly in regard to regulatory acceptability and feasibility. QA/QC any flow calculations or
assumptions made in developing evaluation conclusions. Provide references to case studies or helpful
examples.
Stream Channel Augmentation Opportunities Assessment:
Analyze the "outside-the-box' water resource management opportunities and benefits for local stream
augmentation with diverted effluent. Identify the water quality, habitat, and irrigation (or other water
demand) pros/cons for flow augmentation, including channel flow volumes, ratios, and seasonal
considerations. Outline the permitting issues and identify case study examples of similar beneficial uses.
Calculate potential thermal load balance issues, opportunities for cooling water during introduction (e.g.
filtered swales) or in-situ (cooling processes that exist or could be enhanced, like restoring riparian
shade or channel complexity). Channels to consider are Flat Creek, A-1 Channel, Amazon Creek, and
Biocycle Farm wetland swales.
Consultant Assistance Need: Key input is needed on regulatory pathways, permit implications, and case
study examples of similar project implementations.
Heat Reduction/Recovery Characterization
Summarize the potential for reducing effluent thermal load prior to discharge through management and
adaptations of WPCF systems, combined heat-and-power(CHP) system heat capture and diversion, in-
line cooling tower effectiveness, and heat recovery and use (heat capture device overview and
practicality of use), as well as source heat reduction.
WPCF Heat Flux Assessment:
Review previous studies of internal sources and heat gain across the WPCF treatment train and
opportunities to reduce heat. Include statistical evaluation of impact of the primary clarifier covers since
their installation. Identify best opportunities to reduce heat or to implement heat recovery devices.
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC of assessment data, calculations, and assumptions. Reference to
case studies of similar treatment plants would be helpful. Provide comments and recommendations for
further assessment, considerations, or applicability.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 5 of 7
CHP Thermal Source Control Analysis:
Review previous study of CHP engine jacket cooling water use and past, current, and potential future
changes to management of the waste heat. Calculate amount of achievable thermal load reduction.
Consultant Assistance Need: Calculations have been fairly well studied by WPCF staff; QA/QC of any
calculations/assumptions in the analysis will be needed. Provide additional comments and
recommendations.
Cooling Tower Efficacy Analysis:
Provide a generic assessment of cooling tower effectiveness based on local climatic (ambient) conditions
and seasonal effluent temperature characteristics. Calculate amount of effluent diversion through
cooling tower necessary based on efficacy necessary to meet thermal reduction benchmarks based on
historical conditions and projected thermal reduction need. Analyze carbon emissions budget.
Consultant Assistance Need:QA/QC of technological assumptions and calculations and conclusions
regarding potential thermal reduction. Provide comment and recommendations for additional study or
considerations.
Heat Recovery Evaluation:
Research and prepare an overview of available heat recovery devices (heat pumps, exchangers, etc.)
suitable for WPCF effluent applications, scale of system needed to have meaningful thermal load
reduction, and potential beneficial uses of recovered heat (such as heated Class A recycled water for
laundry services, car washes, etc.). Analyze carbon emissions budget.
Consultant Assistance Need: QA/QC of technological assumptions and calculations and conclusions
regarding potential thermal reduction. Provide comment and recommendations for additional study or
considerations.
Source Heat Characterization:
Generate an overview of system heat gains from point of extraction (EWEB/SUB water intakes)to point
of disposal (WPCF influent). Estimate and characterize heat gain budget through the potable network,
average commercial and residential uses, and wastewater collection system network. Characterize heat
sources by percent contribution and opportunity to reduce heat gains in the system, either through
engineering or behavioral changes. Estimate total potential impact on thermal load reduction compared
to target reductions.
Consultant Assistance Need: Review characterization for soundness of assumptions and interpretation
of data used. Provide comments and recommendations for additional study or considerations.
Communication and Outreach Tools
Potential User Questionnaire
Assess the interest in recycled water use by target community members. Identify potential users based
on geography(i.e. proximity to MWMC pipelines or realistic future alignments), water resource
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 6 of 7
considerations (groundwater overdraft, water rights availability, potable water costs) and user mission
(sustainability goals). Develop a simple questionnaire for targets to respond to that assesses interest in
recycled water, suitability of recycled water for their needs, and interest in using recycled water on a
demonstration or pilot basis. Additional outreach materials and briefing sheets should be available via
the MWMC website prior to conducting the survey.
Consultant Assistance Need: Review questionnaire for improvements to enhance audience
receptiveness and ease of answering, while ensuring necessary information for the MWMC's
considerations is gained.
Briefing Sheets
Produce key briefing sheets in support of ongoing community discussions including:
• water resource partnerships
• survey of potential users
• stakeholders involved with proposed demonstration uses or conceptual project ideas
The briefing sheets shall be modeled on the Phase 1 Briefing Book style set. One-pager topics include
Oregon examples of recycled water use, water resource benefits,flow augmentation benefits, water
quality comparison, human health, and environmental health.
Consultant Assistance Need: As requested, review briefing sheets for comments/suggestions on
accuracy, readability, and enhancements. Provide data, details, or case study information that may be
helpful for the outreach audience.
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 7 of 7