A MOTION acknowledging receipt of the feasibility study for a waste to energy facility to manage the region's solid waste that provides a comparison to waste export by rail in accordance with the 2019-2020 Biennial Budget, Ordinance 18835, Section 19, Proviso P4.
The October 21st meeting minutes are before us, so no discussion. All those in favor, please say I opposed. Nay, the ayes have it. The minutes are approved. That takes us to the first report on today's agenda, which would acknowledge receipt of a feasibility study related to the options for long term disposal of the region's waste. Comparing the waste energy facility to waste export by rail. As many of you know, the region's landfills in Sewer Hills is projected to close at some point in the next 20 years. The study in front of us today, conducted by consultant, provides cost and other estimates to help the county plan for the next disposal method after the ultimate closure of Cedar Hills and will begin to this discussion with the staff report from Teal Rose. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. For the record, Tara Rose Council staff the materials for proposed motion 2019 0429 begin on page five of your packet. The proposed motion would acknowledge receipt of a feasibility study, as the Chair mentioned, and I'm going to begin my remarks with a bit of background, but spend most of my time focused on the findings of the feasibility study in a few key areas. Turning now to page six of your packet. King County's Solid Waste Division operates a regional solid waste system for the unincorporated area and 37 partner cities who have signed in our local agreements that this system includes one remaining local landfill, the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill, a 920 site located in Maple Valley, which is owned and operated by the county and which has served as the final disposal location for the region's mixed municipal solid waste since 1965. This past spring, the Council approved the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, and this plan directed further development of the Cedar Hills landfill to maximize disposal capacity instead of the other options considered at the time of a waste to energy, facility and waste export by rail. The adopted 2019 2020 biennial budget included funding for landfill development, capital projects and the Solid Waste Division is currently conducting a State Environmental Policy Act process to evaluate three engineering options to develop Cedar Hills for additional capacity. Executive staff indicate that based on the three development alternatives being considered and the current tonnage forecast, Cedar Hills is expected to reach capacity sometime between 2035 and 2041, because the current in our local agreements with the partner cities obligate the county to dispose of the region's waste through 2040. And it is not yet known the exact year when Cedar Hills will reach capacity. An alternative waste disposal strategy will need to be identified given the lead time associated with implementing the next disposal method. While the adopted Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan directed the maximization of Cedar Hills, it did not specify the next disposal method. After the ultimate closure of the landfill in the 2019 2020 Biennial budget, the Council directed the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget, or PSB, to issue a request for proposal and managing contractor to conduct a study evaluating the feasibility of either a waste to energy facility or waste export by rail as the county's next disposal method, including in that budget, is the proviso that requires the feasibility study to, among other things, review the county's projected waste forecast, as well as provide estimates for the costs and environmental impacts of both options with the study to be transmitted to the Council by October 4th of this year. The full text of the related expenditure, restriction and proviso can be found on pages seven and eight. Now moving on to the bottom of page eight to the analysis section of the staff report. And I will just note before I begin for the committee that waste to energy is a specialized technology. And so my remarks will focus on the findings and assumptions contained within the study. But for things that are not explicitly mentioned, I will likely have to follow up and confer with the executive staff and the consultant. So with that said, I'll offer a bit of just process information. PSP issued an RFP earlier this year and selected Arcadis as the consultant to perform the work requested by Proviso. The resulting feasibility study with the motion in front of the committee would acknowledge the receipt of the feasibility study, and that was transmitted to the Council on October 4th. And now I will begin to dove into some of the findings. So the proviso required the consultant to review the factors that may affect the county's future waste tonnage forecast and analyze how different assumptions could affect the forecast as well as include a range of estimates. The consultant reviewed the Solid Waste Division forecast that was prepared in February 2019 and developed to waste tonnage forecasts representing a high and low bound over a 50 year planning period. These are based on a combination of the county's forecast data, as well as population projections from the Puget Sound Regional Council and per capita waste generation estimates . Executive staff indicate that the consultant used population as the major variable because it reduces the number of assumptions to project out over a long period of 50 years. The footnotes at the bottom of page nine describe the two forecasts in more detail, if you are interested. Table one on page ten provides the estimated waste generated in a few key areas under each developed forecast. And just for context. Approximately 931,000 tons of waste were disposed at Cedar Hills in 2017. So I'm now moving ahead to pages ten and 11 of your packet, which provide a high level summary of the consultant's findings in a few key areas. I know. Earlier. The Feasibility Studies study considers two options for long term disposal a waste to energy facility, where the region's waste would be directed to a facility where combustion would occur, and a controlled furnace system that generates electricity for use either at the facility or where excess electricity may be able to be sold . Ashes generated at the bipod product, which may be directed towards re-use opportunities or landfill. And then the second option considered is waste, export, and where the region's waste would be exported by rail to an out of landfill. Two landfills were considered under the study, one located in eastern Washington and the other in eastern Oregon. The remainder of the staff report identifies each of the proviso requirements and summarizes the consultant's findings for each of the requirements. But as I noted earlier in my remarks, in the interest of time and based on the historical interests of the Council, I'm going to focus my remarks in three areas the estimated implementation timelines, the estimated costs , and the modeled greenhouse gas emissions for both long term disposal options. So the consultant's conclusions in these areas are summarized on table two on page 11. And I'll begin with the implemented the potential implementation schedule. The feasibility study estimates an implementation schedule of 8 to 11 years for waste energy and 3 to 6 years for waste export by rail. Additional detail regarding the potential timelines can be found later in the staff report. However, I am just going to summarize it here since we have the table in front of us. The consultant notes that the citing and permitting process for waste energy largely account for the difference in the estimated implementation time needed. According to the study, the 11 year upper estimate allows for up to two years of delay for permitting or siting issues. The lower estimate of eight years assumes no significant regulatory hurdles or public opposition to the project, as well as assumes the availability of long lead time materials with waste expert. The schedule assumes that a new intermodal facility to transfer waste from trucks to train would be needed instead of using existing facilities. And both schedules assume that the procurement process would occur concurrently with siting, planning and permitting. Moving on to the next row of the table related to greenhouse gas emissions, the feasibility study provides that the consultant use two modeling techniques the Environmental Protection Agency, one tool and the worm tool with line item adjustments based on the consultant's professional judgment. And these are outlined further in the study attachment. According to the study, the modeling tools used do not quantify annual emissions from either disposal option because they don't explicitly model the timing of any emissions . Therefore, the figures should only be used in a comparative sense and don't themselves represent actual emissions in a specific period of time. Additionally, these modeling tools used by the consultant involve a sort of debit credit system where gross greenhouse gas emissions, for example, the emissions of carbon dioxide from combustion to be offset by avoided emissions, for example , avoided carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity generated by a waste energy facility. So for net greenhouse gas emissions, the consultant estimates that a waste to energy facility in its modeling would have comparatively lower greenhouse gas emissions than waste export by rail -0.05 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton of waste versus a range of 0.8 to 0.33 using the same metric. The negative result for waste to energy indicates that in the consultant's modeling, the estimated offsets or emissions avoided for things like ash and metals. Recycling at a waste energy facility are greater than the estimated generated emissions. And for reference, this information is further described in the staff report on pages 17 and 21. For comparison, the greenhouse gas emissions estimates in the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which also used the warm tool but included different assumptions, yielded the opposite conclusion and estimated that greenhouse gas emissions for a waste energy facility would be a net positive, meaning emissions are higher than the available offsets. The next rows in the table provide estimates for the total cost and the average cost for that for the proton for the ten, 20 and 50 year time periods. The feasibility study notes that total cost includes capital and operating costs as offset by revenues but does not include some departmental cost, though are assumed to be the same for both options. The consultant concludes, based on its final financial modeling, that the total costs offset by revenues for both long term disposal options are similar in the ten year near term at over $1 billion, but that a waste energy facility could cost less in the 50 year long term, estimating the total cost of waste energy over 50 years at approximately $7.9 billion and a total cost of approximately 11 and $16 billion for waste. Expert by rail. Over the same 50 year period. For comparison, the analysis contained in the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan. Comparing the to long term disposal options resulted in the opposite conclusion and determined that waste export was the more inexpensive option per tonne. Executive staff provided a memo to the council members by email on October 24th. I described the different assumptions that led to this conclusion. This memo is attached as attachment three to the staff report for your reference. I will now describe the waste to energy sizing options developed by the consultant and provide additional detail about the cost estimates . The bottom of page 11 of your packet discusses the facility size that would be needed to accommodate the county's waste over a 20 to 50 year period beginning in 2025. Based on the high and low bound forecasts described earlier, the consultant developed two facility sizing options, the first with an initial processing capacity of 3000 tons to be expanded to 4000 tons per day in 2048. And the second option a facility with initial processing capacity of 4000 tonnes per day, that would be expanded to 5000 tonnes per day in 2040. And the former refers to the low down forecast and the latter refers to the high down forecast. These initial facility size estimates are lower than the 5000 tonnes per day facility that the 2019 comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan assumed that would be needed and which was based on solid waste division and an external consultant analysis. And just for some context, the county Salt Lake system averaged roughly 2500 tons per day in 2018. The feasibility study indicates that approximately 43 to 55 acres would be needed for a waste energy facility with the processing capacities that I just described. But notes that it's often possible to condense buildings and equipment into a smaller footprint at additional cost, and that the acreage range figure provided represents a slightly larger site requirement than ultimately may be needed. Additional siting needs identified by the consultant are listed on page 12. I'm now moving on to more detail about the cost and financing options found on page. 12. In response to the proviso requirement or a discussion of estimated cost as well as potential financing options. The consultant developed a model financial model that includes the costs for development, construction operation and expansion of a waste energy facility based on the high and low bound forecast estimates again over the 50 year planning period. The feasibility study model assumes a design build operate contract is used, meaning the contracted entity is responsible for design, construction and operation of the county owned facility. Table three summarizes the estimated total cost information for a waste energy facility, including capital costs and operating and maintenance cost. And note that these are the same figures as in table two. Moving on to the following page or initial construction cost estimates, the estimated initial construction costs, according to the study, would range between 1.19 and 1.49 billion, depending on the facility size and for expansion cost between 231 million and 289.5 million. According to the study, these are based on the most recent facility constructed in the United States located in West Palm Beach, Florida, and are adjusted for regional prices for things such as labor sales tax and land acquisition costs. Also included in these estimates is the cost for carbon sequestration, technology and advanced metal recovery equipment, the former of which is anticipated to be required under a new state law concerning electricity sales. And I will discuss that further in a few moments. The consultant assumes a long term bond. That long term bond financing would be used, though notes that other options may be available, but at potentially higher cost. Table five summarizes the estimated operating, operating and maintenance costs for each sizing option offset by revenues. And I would just like to call your attention to an error on this table. So instead of revenue, the column headers should say costs. So my apologies for that error. The rest of the language in the figure is correct. And so the feasibility study provided operating and maintenance costs over a 20 year term, which roughly corresponds to the length of time before the facility would need to be expanded and the remaining 30 year term in the study period. The list on page 14 and 15 summarizes some of the costs included and the assumptions used by the consultant. For example, these costs include the value of an operator contract. Recall that the consultant assumes that the county would use a design build operate contract under the financial model the consultants developed and the this value is based on the actual operating contract for the West Palm Beach facility, as well as the additional costs for operation and maintenance of the carbon sequestration and advance metal recovery equipment. Information about the potential revenue sources are further discussed on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. However, I'll note that revenue is assumed from electricity sales, sale of recovered metals and from acceptance of out of county waste for a per tonne fee. Executive staff indicate that the available facility capacity for any out-of-county waste was determined by subtracting the projected county waste from the designed capacity of the facility in a given year. However, that actual interest on the part of non county jurisdictions was not specifically evaluated as a part of the study. The consultant indicates that the cost estimates provided are influenced by a variety of variables and assumptions, and so they have identified the top five risks or assumptions impacting the financial model, and these are summarized on table six on page 15. I'll highlight just two of these. The consultant notes that if the larger facility option is selected and the actual waste processed is significantly lower. For example, if the county is not able to secure out of county waste to process as assumed in the model, the cost per ton of waste may increase. Another risk identified by the consultant relates to carbon sequestration. The 2019 Clean Energy Transformation Act, passed by the Legislature this year, imposes new requirements for electricity generation and therefore may influence future electricity revenues should the county decided to move towards waste to energy. Under this law, the feasibility study explains that all retail electricity sales must be carbon neutral by 2030 and by 2045, all utilities in the state must obtain electricity from sources classified as renewable or non emitting. According to the consultant, new waste energy facilities would then likely require carbon sequestration or carbon capture technology and or require the purchase of renewable energy credits to offset emissions in order to meet the carbon neutral goal. However, the consultant suggests that in their analysis, it will be difficult for a waste energy facility to meet the 2045 requirement for renewable or non emitting electricity generation, even with carbon sequestration or capture absent a modification of the rule. The feasibility study also notes some uncertainties related to these technologies at a scale that would be required by the county. The implications of the Clean Energy Transformation Act is further discussed on page 16 of the staff report. And we can interrupt for a moment. Councilmember Dunn on point the modification of the rule set by the state legislature with respect to carbon sequestration goals by 2045. With regard to the implementation of the Clean Energy Transformation. Act, any indication that the legislature was considering waste to energy facilities when they were looking at that rule? I would have to look into some of the legislative history. And I'd be surprised if they were thinking about that, as opposed to things like hydroelectric facilities and other things where we're comfortable with. But we do have our state legislative director here as well as others. It would be something that we can work through. But when you're talking globally about the environmental need to deal with waste and then the fact that in order to do that, you've got to incinerate it, creating energy, that might be a little bit different tack they may be willing to take. And I'm not going to speculate on exactly what they were thinking, but I think there's room there at least to possibly modify some of the state rules. I will note that there is one waste energy facility located in Spokane. So to the extent that the city of Spokane did any lobbying, that it may have been addressed, but I can't speak to. That's good to know. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. So I'll now turn to the study findings for waste expert by rail, which can be found on page 20 of your packet, skipping right ahead. So as I did for waste energy, I'll provide some additional detail related to the estimated costs for waste export by rail. Table nine summarizes the estimated total cost and average cost per ton for both the high and low bound forecasts as before. Total cost includes capital and operating costs, but does not include some departmental costs. The feasibility study notes that a waste expert program would have four major cost components. Construction of an intermodal facility is assumed a transport of waste from the transfer stations to the intermodal facility. Transport of waste by rail to the landfill and the disposal fee at the landfill. The study assumes, again, that current intermodal facilities would not offer sufficient capacity to handle the county's volume of waste. And so the financial model assumes construction of a new intermodal facility financed and constructed by a rail company. Under the model, the rail company would charge the county for these capital expenses in the proton fee charged for waste export by rail. The consultant identified the top five risks or assumptions impacting the financial model, and these are summarized in table ten. I'll highlight three and he lists on page 21. According to the consulting. Interviews with railroad companies. The railroads indicated they're unlikely to grant long term contracts and instead would anticipate offering something in the 5 to 10 year range . The consultant notes that this may result in some uncertainty relating to hauling and disposal costs over the long term. The second note relates to the rail capacity as part of the proviso the consultant was required to review future rail capacity, and that concluded that there appears to be sufficient capacity now to accommodate the region's waste and that there will continue to be some rail capacity in the future. But the availability of that capacity may depend on an entity's willingness to pay. Additionally, the consultant notes that the out of county landfills typically partner with a specific rail hauler, which may make it more difficult to switch landfills and rail hauler at the end of a contract period, particularly if an intermodal facility is constructed with a specific railroad. And that all of this would potentially result in less competition. Flipping ahead to page 23 to the summary of consultant recommendations based on its analysis, the consultant recommends that the county consider pursuing additional preliminary evaluation, permitting and fighting considerations in order to move forward with a waste to energy facility over waste export by rail. Specifically, the feasibility study states that, quote, due to the long term cost savings, improved recycling rates and potential for net greenhouse gas emissions. With the inclusion of carbon capture technology, waste to energy disposal will provide a significant financial and environmental benefit to the county over waste expert by rail . Additionally, even with potential hurdles during the permitting and siting process, waste energy represents a more, much more stable long term financial profile underway. Expert by rail to protect the county's solid waste rate structure against future inflation and escalation, end quote. I'll close my remarks in noting that the proposed motion in front of the committee would acknowledge receipt of the feasibility study and approval would release the funds encumbered by the proviso. However, it would not provide council approval for the next disposal method. The main vehicle for solid waste planning decisions is through updates to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan the council included in the 2019 plan that was adopted earlier this year, a requirement for the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget to engage with the Solid Waste Division, as well as regional partners to develop a plan for long term disposal. With a progress report on that work due to the Council in 2021. That concludes my remarks and I'd be happy to take questions. We also have Dwight Dave Lee from the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget and Pat McLaughlin from Solid Waste available for questions. Thank you very much, colleagues. Council up the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm not sure. Who to address the question. I looked over. I thought, Jeanie, there are there. Questions. That weren't asked in terms of points of comparison? You know, this was pretty specific about comparing certain factors. I wonder if and I'm not sure if you're the right person to address this, too. However, are there other strengths and weaknesses of the proposals that can be measured with other metrics that weren't addressed in this other environmental output ? Those kinds of things. I would say that the the consultant's work was driven in large part by the budget proviso, which identified a number of very specific requirements to be contained, whether there could be other things included, I would have to think about that more and get back to you or defer to I could of staff. Okay. I'm sorry if there are glaring if either is in feature communication if there's glaring things but what what they didn't look at was X or what. They should have looked at was Y, that kind of thing. And but for. Both this and the previous study. You know the the interesting to me. Council member, Lambert. I don't think you're surprised that I want to talk about this. So one of the comparisons is that the underlying says that we're capturing about 95% of the methane of the land, though we don't really have a way of knowing that for sure. And so I think that the comparisons are very important to look at. And in Germany, which is one of the 13 ways to energy plants I've seen now in the world, and they do a lot of work. And on the website, it says, since the Hamburg facility represents the world's most environmentally sustainable, commercial, proven solid waste solution is not surprising that it serves as the model facility for the European Union and enjoys the exclusive support of the German Green Party as the best available technology for the treatment of solid waste to achieve the Green Party's 2020 concept to avoid landfilling of all degradable solid waste from human activities. And when I was in Germany and talked to the ministers of the environment, they were very proud of what their facility has accomplished as one of the finest in the world. So I think this is really an important study. The experts were asked questions very as much as possible to be comprehensive because this is an important study. And in the study it says that potentially by the year 2035 that our landfill could be filled. And it also says in the study that on the long range, it could take 11 years to get the next facility up and running. So when you think about this being 2020 and you had 11 to that, it's pretty darn close to 2035. So making a decision soon, I think is an important thing that we need to be doing and looking at proven technologies for the size of the volume that we have and also looking at all the byproducts that we would get from this. And there is a reason why the European Union requires this to be in all of their member and member countries so the rest of the world is doing this. There's data online, 24 seven out of Hamburg, so that we can see exactly what's happening. We do not have that same kind of information available for the landfill because it cannot be gleaned where with the waste energy plant it can be cleaned and it meets and exceeds our federal standards. So after 12 years of talking about this, it's very nice to see the report is here and I look forward to people reading it. Council member Done. Thanks for that very good staff report as outstanding and appreciate your work on this. I want to concur with my colleague, Councilmember Lambert and others that this report is well timed after the comprehensive plan that we move forward on solid waste with a ten year provision for the continuation of using the Cedar Hills landfill, followed by possibly , and I hope not a ten year option to continue out there if we can possibly fit anything in. And given the report coming back saying, you know, something like an 8 to 10 year time horizon, assuming that is even is inaccurate, the time to discuss the matter is really now if we are going to seamlessly move to a different technology and get rid of the landfill. The time for this body us to have the conversation is really in the next 12 months. And so I really hope that folks are willing to at least have a conversation that's either go no go decision or sequence the steps so we can do slowly get our feet wet on the matter. Driving towards a point in time which we do have sort of a command decision on what are substantive, solid waste policy is going to be moving forward. So I wanted to flag that we working on this issue. It's an important issue with Councilmember Lambert and Dwight Daley in the executive and others and see if we can't go in a different direction, because the the days of huge monolithic landfills, I think, are are slowly coming to an end. They have to it's just not sustainable into the future. Thank you for your time. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I just want to make two extra quick points that we are preparing to put millions of dollars into a new pit. And I think that that's something we need to be looking at and that those dollars could be used in a much better way. And I want to thank DSB for all their work on this and for Mr. Dave. Like going to Florida to see it. And I'm hoping his capture the executive to go with us. So thank you. And his manager that oversaw the study did an absolutely fabulous job. She didn't have any background in ways to energy, but it didn't take her long to become very well versed. And she was an excellent project manager, so please thank her for her good work. Thank you. Thank you. And Morales, we've complimented PSP in the study. I want to also acknowledge your analysis and review of the study. Substantial study with a key question, a key decision point. This coming before the council with the exceptional analysis that you've presented to us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues prepared to accept the report in Council Member Vale. Did you just make one comment as Richard, please? It's just slightly off topic but related. So I had an opportunity to go visit the landfill last week, which I thank the folks from Solid Waste Division for setting that up. It really is something to see it in operation and all the different challenges and things that they do they work with. I mean, it's a very it's a very modern professional landfill. And but I have to say, watching a truck dump up to 18 tons of waste and then the next trip drive down to do it again and see that there's going to be over 100 trucks like that that day alone and then every day after that. Our challenge isn't just how to get rid of it. Our challenge is to create a lot less waste. We have just got to and this is way bigger than King County, but we have to start to figure out how to produce less waste because our society is going to be drowning in our waste, whether we burn it and bury the ashes and put some of it into the air, whether we bury it in the ground , whether we shoot it into space. There needs to be less of it. And so I just think that that's something that we should be figuring out how we get into our discussions about future planning for waste as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Colwell, would you be willing to put the item before us? Definitely would. Mr. Chair, an acknowledgment to Councilmember Lambert. I moved the proposed motion to move 2019 0429. You're given a do pass recommendation. Councilmember Caldwell's move that we give a do pass recommendation to motion 2019 429 and again, that's simply accepting the report before us make these decisions about our long range waste disposal that are timely for us to be considering now. But the acknowledging that we see the report itself further discussion. Others other than favorably say, But do I need a roll call? I'm sorry. Will you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Duty Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn. Hi, Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Colwell. Councilmember Amber. Hi. Councilmember autograph. All right. Councilmember one right there. Mr. CHAIR. But, Mr. Chair, the. Vote is 19 zero no's. Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation in motion 2019 429. And can we put that in consent? We'll put that on the consent agenda for at the regular course. That takes us to our next item, which is about how the county can play a more active role in expanding and enhancing the market for