copies of this agenda neighborhood information …€¦ · provided a powerpoint presentation...

AGENDA MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

September 23, 2014

MEMBERS Margaret McAustin, Chair, District 2

Bill Bogaard, Mayor Terry Tornek, District 7

STAFF

Phyllis Currie, General Manager Valerie Flores, Recording Secretary

MISSION STATEMENT The City of Pasadena is dedicated to delivering exemplary municipal services,

responsive to our entire community and consistent with our history, culture and unique character.

Public meeting begins at 4:00 p.m.

Agendas and supporting documents are available on the Internet at

http://www.cityofpasadena.net/commissions

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Municipal Services Committee after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office at 100 N.

Garfield Avenue, Room S-228, Pasadena, during normal business hours.

COPIES OF THIS AGENDA

ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE

NEIGHBORHOOD

INFORMATION SERVICE AT

THE CENTRAL AND ALL

BRANCH LIBRARIES.

POSTING STATEMENT:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Agenda, in its entirety, was posted on the Council Chamber Bulletin Board S249, the bulletin board in the rotunda area at City Hall, 100 North Garfield Avenue, the City Clerk’s Office, and a copy was distributed to the Central Library for posting on the 18th day of September, 2014 by 4:00 p.m.

Sharon Stovall DISTRIBUTION: MSC Committee Members Central Library General Manager Pasadena Weekly City Council City Clerk Director of Planning and Permitting Pasadena Star-News City Manager Director of Public Works Los Angeles Times Neighborhood Connections City Attorney Public Information Officer La Opiñion Pasadena Journal

In compliance with the Disabilities Act of 1990, listening assistive devices are available from the City Clerk’s Office with a 24-hour advance notice. Please call (626) 744-7062 or (626) 744-4785 to request use of a listening device. Language translation services are available for this meeting by calling (626) 744-4386 at least 24 hours in advance. Habra servicio de interpretactión disponible para éstas juntas llamando al (626) 744-4386 por lo menos con 24 horas de anticipactión. Items on the agenda may not be called in the order listed.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

Tuesday, September 23, 2014, 4:00 P.M. 100 North Garfield Avenue, Pasadena, Council Chambers

AGENDA

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 24, 2014, July 22, 2014, August 12, 2014 and September 9, 2014 – Regular Meetings*

4. NEW BUSINESS

A. AB 2514 Energy Storage System Procurement Targets and Policies* B. Approve a Project Contingency Amount of $2,500,000 for existing contracts related to the

Local Generation Repowering Project – Phase II (“CIP 3194”) and Authorize the City Manager to amend and/or approve change orders for such contracts in amounts not to exceed the project contingency amounts; Increase the budget by $5,000,000; Approve an additional $5,000,000 of appropriation to CIP 3194 for Fiscal Year 2015; and Transfer $5,000,000 from the currently approved Light and Power Fund Capital Improvement Projects to CIP 3194*

5. INFORMATION ITEMS

A. GT-5 Repowering Project Update* B. Receive and file the Draft Zero Waste Strategic Plan for future discussion at the Special MSC

Meeting on October 7, 2014* (Public Works) 6. ADJOURNMENT * Attachment NEXT REGULAR MEETING October 14, 2014

Margaret McAustin, Chair

Municipal Service Committee

01 6/24/2014

CITY OF PASADENA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE JUNE 24, 2014

COUNCIL CHAMBERS 100 N. GARFIELD AVENUE (2ND FLOOR)

OPENING The Chair called the regular meeting of the Municipal Services

Committee to order 4:03 p.m. ROLL CALL:

Staff:

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, ChairMayor Bill Bogaard Councilmember Terry Tornek Michael Beck, City Manager Julie Gutierrez, Assistant City Manager Lisa Hosey, Deputy City Attorney Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power Gurcharan Bawa, Asst. General Manager, Water and Power Art Silva, Power Production Superintendent Lilia Novelo, Recording Secretary

PUBLIC COMMENT No one appeared for public comment. NEW BUSINESS REBRANDING OF PASADENA AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM

(ARTS) (TRANSPORTATION) The Chair announced that the Rebranding of Pasadena Area Rapid

Transit System (ARTS) item will return on a later date; it will be heard by the Transportation Commission before returning to the Municipal Services Committee.

APPROVE A PROJECT CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $2,300,000

FOR EXISTING CONTRACTS RELATED TO THE GLENARM REPOWERING PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND AND/OR APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS FOR SUCH CONTRACTS FOR NOT TO EXCEED THE PROJECT CONTINGENCY AMOUNT

Bawa Gurcharan, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power,

provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the project contingency amount for existing contracts and responded to questions. Following discussion, on consensus of the Committee no action was taken at this time. Staff was directed to return with a revised Financial Summary spreadsheet displaying the corrected descriptions of columns and financial information at the next scheduled Municipal Services Commission meeting.

INFORMATION ITEMS GT-5 REPOWERING PROJECT UPDATE Art Silva, Power Production Superintendent, provided a PowerPoint

presentation of the history of the Glenarm Power Plant, summarized the monthly status of the Glenarm (“GT-5) Repowering Project, and responded to questions.

02 6/24/2014

Mr. Silva invited the City Council and Staff to the ground breaking ceremony scheduled for July 2, 2014 from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Antonio Watson, Project Manager, provided an update on the Local Hire and Participation outreach activities and an analysis for the overall readiness of the City’s database for construction job referrals and responded to questions. Following brief discussion, on the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.

ADJOURNMENT

On the order of the Chair, the regular meeting of the Municipal Services Committee was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

____________________________ MARGARET McAUSTIN, Chair Municipal Services Committee

ATTEST: ____________________ Lilia Novelo Recording Secretary

01 7/22/2014


MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE JULY 22, 2014




Staff:

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, ChairMayor Bill Bogaard Councilmember Terry Tornek (Excused at 5:00 p.m.) Michael Beck, City Manager Julie Gutierrez, Assistant City Manager Lisa Hosey, Deputy City Attorney Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power Art Silva, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power Eric Klinkner, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power Roumiana Voutchkova, Engineer, Water and Power Shari Thomas, Asst. General Manager, Water & Power Tungi Adedeji, Manager of Planning & Analysis Valerie Flores, Recording Secretary

PUBLIC COMMENT Wes Reutimann, Day One, provided documentation and spoke of issues

related to polystyrene and asked that the Committee review the possibility of banning polystyrene in the City of Pasadena. The Chair stated staff will further review the request to ban polystyrene and explore the possibility of including in the Zero Waste Initiative. Chris Cunningham, Transition Pasadena, spoke in support of polystyrene ban, listed other municipalities that have approved a polystyrene ban ordinance and asked that this initiative be considered separate from the Zero Waste Initiative. Theresa Gumal, Transition Pasadena, encouraged staff to also consider banning the sale of styrofoam in the City of Pasadena.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

It was moved by Mayor Bogaard, seconded by Councilmember Tornek, to approve the minutes of May 13, 2014 (regular meeting), June 10, 2014 (regular meeting), May 20, 2014 (special meeting) and May 27, 2014 (cancelled meeting) as submitted. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

NEW BUSINESS DETERMINE A WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE EXISTS, ESTABLISH A

20% CONSERVATION TARGET AND IMPLEMENT LEVEL 1 WATER SUPPLY SHORTAGE MEASURES AS DESCRIBED IN PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE (PMC) SECTION 13.10.040

Eric Klinkner, Water and Power, provided a PowerPoint presentation

summarizing the agenda report and responded to questions. The Chair distributed an email submitted by Don Simpson, Pasadena resident.

02 7/22/2014

Eric Klinkner responded to the questions and concerns outlined in the email. Councilmember Tornek requested that staff update the Water and Power website to address how the City is conserving water at public places, and water conservation methods at the Brookside Golf Course. Mr. Tornek also encouraged staff to enforce the City’s water waste penalties.

The following individuals provided comments, questions, and concerns regarding the agenda item:

Theresa Brummel, Pasadena resident David Czamanske, Pasadena Group of Sierra Club

The Chair expressed concerns with the lack of information presented for identifying the 20% baseline for the proposed conservation target and requested staff agendize for a future meeting an update to the Water Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), proposed water projects, and water conservation plans for City Parks and Brookside Golf course. Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power, responded to questions regarding the 20% conservation target and the procedure for regulating water usage for new development. Following discussion, it was moved by the Councilmember Tornek, and seconded by Mayor Bogaard, to approve staff’s recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration, with the additional clarification that the year 2013 be established as the baseline for the 20% water conservation target. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

Councilmember Tornek (Excused at 5:00 p.m.)

ADOPTION OF THE 2014 UPDATED GREATER LOS ANGELES COUNTY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN

Roumiana Voutchkova, Engineer, Water and Power, provided a

PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda report and responded to questions.

It was moved by Mayor Bogaard, and seconded by the Chair, to approve staff’s recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: Councilmember Tornek)

INFORMATION ITEMS FOOTHILL RECYCLED WATER PROJECT UPDATE Nina Jazamadrian, Foothill Municipal Water District, provided a

PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda item and responded to questions.

On the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.

GT-5 REPOWERING PROJECT UPDATE Art Silva, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power provided a

PowerPoint presentation summarizing the current activities and status of

03 7/22/2014

the Glenarm Repowering Project and responded to questions. On the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.

AMENDED ENERGY PORTFOLIO RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY On the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the committee, the

information item will be held until the next Committee meeting. ADJOURNMENT



ATTEST: ____________________ Valerie Flores Recording Secretary

01 8/12/2014

CITY OF PASADENA MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

MINUTES PASADENA CITY HALL

100 NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS

AUGUST 12, 2014 REGULAR MEETING


Committee to order at 4:03 p.m. ROLL CALL: Staff:

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, Chair Mayor Bill Bogaard Councilmember Terry Tornek Michael Beck, City Manager Julie Gutierrez, Assistant City Manager Lisa Hosey, Deputy City Attorney Valerie Gibson, Transportation Services Manager Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power Shari Thomas, Asst. General Manager, Water & Power Tunji Adedeji, Energy Risk Manager Gurcharan Bawa, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power Art Silva, Power Production Superintended Valerie Flores, Recording Secretary

PUBLIC COMMENT No one appeared for public comment. OLD BUSINESS REBRANDING OF PASADENA AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM

(ARTS) (TRANSPORTATION )

Valerie Gibson, Transportation Services Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda report and responded to questions. It was moved by Mayor Bogaard, seconded by Councilmember Tornek, to approve staff’s recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

INFORMATION ITEM AMENDED ENERGY PORTFOLIO RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY Shari Thomas, Asst. General Manager, Water & Power, provided a brief

synopsis on the amended energy portfolio risk management policy and responded to questions. Tunji Adedeji, Energy Risk Manager, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the proposed revised policies and responded to questions. Following discussion, on the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed

GT-5 REPOWERING PROJECT UPDATE

02 8/12/2014

Councilmember Tornek (Excused at 4:59 p.m.) COUNCIL COMMENTS

Gurcharan Bawa, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda item and responded to questions. Art Silva, Power Production Superintendent, responded to questions regarding any foreseen soil excavation, testing and clean up at the Glenarm site. Following brief discussion, on the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed. The Chair requested that staff provide additional information on NASA’s cleanup efforts at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

ADJOURNMENT:


_________________________________ Margaret McAustin, Chair Municipal Services Committee


01 9/9/2014


MUNICIPAL SERVICES COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 9, 2014




Staff:

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, ChairMayor Bill Bogaard (Excused at 5:42 p.m.) Councilmember Terry Tornek

Julie Gutierrez, Assistant City Manager Lisa Hosey, Deputy City Attorney Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power Joe Awad, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power Siobhan Foster, Director of Public Works Carmen Rubio, Program Coordinator II, Public Works Eric Klinkner, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power Brad Boman, Engineering Manager, Water and Power Valerie Flores, Recording Secretary

PUBLIC COMMENT No one appeared for public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

It was moved by Mayor Bogaard, seconded by Councilmember Tornek, to approve the minutes of July 8, 2014 (regular meeting), and August 26, 2014 (cancelled meeting) as submitted. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

NEW BUSINESS AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH UTILITY TREE SERVICES, INC., TO

PROVIDE POWERLINE CLEARANCE TREE TRIMMING SERVICES FOR THE WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT

Joe Awad, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power, provided a

PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda report and responded to questions.

Siobhan Foster, Director of Public Works, responded to questions regarding nesting birds in trees designated to be trimmed, stating the City’s consulting biologist will be notified in order to take the appropriate action. Phyllis Currie, General Manager, Water and Power responded to the Mayor’s question regarding palm trees falling on power lines and stated staff will provide the number of such incidents and also provide information on the City’s process to maintain palm trees. Following discussion, it was moved by the Councilmember Tornek, and seconded by Mayor Bogaard, to approve staff’s recommendation, and forward the item to the City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FRANCHISE SYSTEM ORDINANCE

AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 8.61 OF PMC) – PUBLIC WORKS

02 9/9/2014

Carmen Rubio, Program Coordinator II, Public Works, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the agenda report and responded to questions.

Tommy Ouzoonian, Athens Services, stated his opposition to open the Non-Exclusive Solid waste Collection Franchise System. Christine Lenches-Hinkel, Waste Less Living, provided documentation and asked that the committee not approve the proposed amendments to the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) until the definitions and exemptions are clarified for businesses that collect organic material.

Brad Fuller responded to questions and provided information on the City’s definition of haulers, classification and requirements for composting companies. The Chair requested that staff review the possibility of expanding the definition of “organics” outlined in Attachment D Proposed Amendments to PMC Chapter 8.60.020 of the staff report and to distribute the letter amongst staff submitted by Waste Less Living for review. It was moved by Councilmember Tornek, seconded by Mayor Bogaard, to approve staff’s recommendation, with staff’s determination on whether to expand the proposed definition of “organics” outlined in Attachment D of the staff report and forward the item to the full City Council for consideration. (Motion unanimously carried) (Absent: None)

INFORMATION ITEMS WATER IRP UPDATE Brad Bomann, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the

water IRP update and responded to questions. Eric Klinkner, Assistant General Manager, Water and Power, continued the PowerPoint presentation summarizing conservation efforts, emergency shortage measures, and public outreach and responded to questions. Following discussion, on the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.

SOLID WASTE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (PUBLIC WORKS) Mayor Bogaard excused at 5:52 p.m.

Deborah Salzma, Program Coordinator I, Public Works, provided a PowerPoint presentation summarizing potential legislative impacts to the solid waste industry and responded to questions. On the order of the Chair, and by consensus of the Committee, the information was received and filed.

COUNCIL COMMENTS The Chair requested for a future meeting a report on the process and

criteria established in identifying streets that require street lighting.

03 9/9/2014

ADJOURNMENT




AB 2514 Energy Storage Systems Evaluation

September 9, 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 PROCUREMENT TARGETS ..................................................................................................... 3

1.2.2 ONGOING EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 3

1.2.3 CEC REPORTING .................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 2514 ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................ 5

2.3 DEFINITION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM .................................................................................. 6

3.0 TYPICAL ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................................... 8

3.1 TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY TABLE ................................................................................................... 8

3.2 COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE (“CAES”) ............................................................................. 9

3.3 PUMPED HYDRO STORAGE ......................................................................................................... 11

3.4 FLYWHEELS .................................................................................................................................. 12

3.5 ADVANCED LEAD-ACID BATTERIES.............................................................................................. 13

3.6 SODIUM SULFUR BATTERIES (NaS) ............................................................................................. 15

3.7 LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES ............................................................................................................. 17

3.8 FLOW BATTERIES - VANADIUM REDOX ...................................................................................... 18

3.9 THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE ...................................................................................................... 21

4.0 TYPICAL ENERGY STORAGE APPLICATIONS/USES ........................................................................... 22

4.1 ENERGY STORAGE FUNCTION OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 22

4.2 BULK ENERGY SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 22

4.3 ANCILLARY SERVICES ................................................................................................................... 23

4.4 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SERVICES.............................................................................................. 24

4.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVICES ............................................................................................... 24

4.6 CUSTOMER ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES .......................................................................... 25

AB 2514 Energy Storage Systems Evaluation Page i

4.7 STACKED SERVICES―USE CASE COMBINATIONS ........................................................................ 26

4.8 SCPPA SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGIES/APPLICATIONS ............................................................... 28

5.0 ENERGY STORAGE PROCUREMENT TARGETS OF OTHERS .............................................................. 29

5.1 CPUC JURISDICTIONAL ENTITIES ................................................................................................. 29

5.1.1 CPUC ENERGY STORAGE ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING ............................................ 29

5.1.2 ALLOCATION OF IOU PROCUREMENT TARGETS ................................................................. 30

5.1.3 PROCUREMENT PROGRESS BY IOUS ................................................................................... 31

5.1.3.1 SCE ....................................................................................................................................... 31

5.1.3.2 PGE ...................................................................................................................................... 32

5.1.3.3 SDG&E ................................................................................................................................. 33

5.2 OTHER PUBLICLY-OWNED CALIFORNIA UTILITIES ...................................................................... 33

5.2.1 SMUD .................................................................................................................................. 33

5.2.2 ANAHEIM ............................................................................................................................ 34

5.2.3 REDDING ............................................................................................................................. 36

5.2.4 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ...................................................................................................... 36

5.2.5 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT ...................................................................... 37

5.2.6 THE CITY OF LODI ................................................................................................................ 37

5.2.7 LADWP AND IID ................................................................................................................... 37

6.0 PWP ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 38

6.1 PRIOR PWP ENERGY STORAGE EXPERIENCE ............................................................................... 38

6.2 SCPPA ENERGY STORAGE WORKING GROUP .............................................................................. 39

6.3 ENERGY STORAGE MODELING TOOL .......................................................................................... 39

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 44

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................................... 45

8.1 PROCUREMENT TARGETS ........................................................................................................... 45

8.2 ONGOING EVALUATION .............................................................................................................. 45

8.3 CEC REPORTING .......................................................................................................................... 45

9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 46


Page ii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is written in response to the requirements of California Assembly Bill 2514 regarding Energy Storage Systems. The law requires that California utilities evaluate the potential to procure viable and cost-effect energy storage systems and that the governing bodies of local publicly owned utilities (the Pasadena City Council, in the case of Pasadena Water and Power, or “PWP”) set appropriate procurement targets, if any, by October 1, 2014 for energy storage systems to be procured by December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2021. The law defines energy storage systems, but does not define cost effective. There is rather broad consensus through-out the industry that one indicator of cost-effectiveness is a benefit-to-cost ratio greater than or equal to one. More debatable is the question of whether an energy storage system must fill a need in order to be cost-effective. The California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”), in establishing initial procurement targets for the state’s Investor-Owned Utilities (“IOUs”), Electricity Service Providers (“ESPs”) and Customer Choice Aggregators (“CCAs”), found that AB2514 is silent on any requirement to conduct or apply a system need determination as a basis for storage procurement targets. The CPUC found that prior precedent supports the setting of storage procurement targets without a system needs determination, and that it was reasonable for it to set procurement targets to encourage the development and deployment of new energy storage technologies. However, in the longer term, the CPUC will consider adjusting procurement target for energy storage to reflect need determinations within its Long Term Procurement Plan proceeding and as part of its regular evaluation of energy storage procurement targets and policies. Most publicly-owned utilities do not find it reasonable to set procurement targets in the absence of need, and are concerned that doing so will lead to higher costs for their customers. For this reason, PWP has added to its definition of “cost effective” the qualifier that, in addition to having a benefit-to cost ratio greater than or equal to one, an energy storage system must fill an existing or anticipated unmet need. This is consistent with prudent risk management principals practiced by PWP. This report provides summary descriptions of several leading forms of energy storage technology and the most common applications or uses for them in the electric utility industry, borrowed heavily from the research and writings of other industry leaders. Energy storage can be connected at the transmission, distribution or customer level. The table at the end of Section 4, from a SCPPA Energy Storage Working Group report, maps out some of the primary technologies and their applications. Section 5 summarizes the procurement targets established by the CPUC for the state’s IOUs, ESPs, and CCAs. It also summarizes some early reports submitted by a few of the


Page 1

local publicly-owned utilities. Most of the publicly-owned utilities are finding that viable energy storage systems are not cost effective for them at this point in time.

1.1 CONCLUSIONS

There are relatively few viable, cost-effective, integrated, utility scale energy storage systems available today. Those that make the most sense (e.g., pumped hydro and CAES) tend to be very large in scale and dependent on geologic site conditions. PWP already has at its disposal cost-effective means of achieving most of the functions provided by energy storage systems. For example, conservation and demand response can provide energy time-shift, congestion relief and upgrade deferrals. Existing generation and the market can provide ancillary services such as regulation, reserves, voltage support and reliability services. Time-of-use rates can provide energy time-shift and demand charge management. As a CAISO participant, with sufficient generation to meet its reliability requirements, PWP does not presently have a “need” for the identified bulk energy, ancillary service, or transmission infrastructure services provided by energy storage systems. If there is a need for these services by the CAISO, market prices do not adequately reflect it. As a consequence, it does not appear that PWP customers would benefit from, nor recover the costs of, energy storage systems procured by PWP to provide these services today. Without a need and a sufficient revenue stream, even viable energy storage systems cannot be cost-effective. PWP has not identified specific distribution upgrades that could cost-effectively be deferred through the use of energy storage systems. If, at some point in the future, certain radial feeders experience voltage fluctuations or other power quality issues as a result of a high penetration of local solar installations, electric vehicle charging, or other distribution network transformation, energy storage systems on the distribution network or for customer energy management services may begin to make sense from a reliability perspective, although cost-effectiveness may still be difficult to demonstrate. PWP will continue to monitor the situation and will advise the City Council of any recommendations during periodic updates. The City Council need not set specific procurement targets for PWP to procure or encourage cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems as needs arise, these systems mature and their costs decrease. Through its regular annual updates of its procurement plan, PWP will advise the City


Page 2

Council of any changes in its forecast needs and the least cost/best fit means of satisfying those needs. Furthermore, at least every three years, PWP will reevaluate the issue of energy storage system procurement targets and policies and make recommendations to the City Council pursuant to AB2514.

1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

1.2.1 PROCUREMENT TARGETS

PWP does not recommend at this time that the City Council establish any specific energy storage system procurement targets to be achieved by December 31, 2016, or December 31, 2021, since no cost-effective, viable energy storage systems have been identified by PWP.

1.2.2 ONGOING EVALUATION

PWP staff will continue to look for appropriate opportunities to encourage cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems as it executes its Integrated Resource Plan, and procures future renewable and conventional energy. PWP staff will continue to work with the Southern California Public Power Authority (“SCPPA”) to evaluate various energy storage technologies through solicitation of proposals for energy storage systems as standalone offers as well as in conjunction with renewable and conventional energy projects.

PWP will reevaluate the issue of energy storage system procurement targets and policies and make recommendations to the City Council at least once every three years.

1.2.3 CEC REPORTING

PWP will report to the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding energy storage system procurement targets and policies adopted by the City Council. If the City Council adopts any energy storage system procurement targets or policies to encourage the cost effective deployment of energy storage systems, then by January 1, 2017, PWP will submit a report to the CEC demonstrating that it has complied with the energy storage system procurement targets, if any, and policies adopted by the City Council. Such report, with confidential


Page 3

information redacted, will be made available to the public by being published by the CEC and/or PWP on their respective websites.

By January 1, 2022, PWP will submit a report to the CEC demonstrating that it complied with any energy storage system procurement targets and policies adopted by the City Council. The report, with confidential information redacted, will be made available to the public by the CEC and/or PWP on their respective websites.


Page 4

2.0 ASSEMBLY BILL 2514

2.1 SUMMARY

California Assembly Bill 2514 (2010, Skinner. Energy Storage Systems.) (“AB 2514”) requires that publicly-owned utilities begin evaluating the potential to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems by March 1, 2012, and that their governing boards, such as the Pasadena City Council, set appropriate procurement targets, if any, by October 1, 2014 for energy storage systems to be procured by December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2021. The City Council may also consider a variety of possible policies to encourage the cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems, including refinement of existing PWP procurement methods to properly value energy storage systems. The City Council must reevaluate the policies and procurement targets, if any, at least once every three years. The Pasadena City Council, PWP’s governing board, directed PWP to begin the evaluation process as part of the Integrated Resource Plan Update adopted by the City Council on March 5, 2012. The law imposed a similar requirement on the California Public Utilities Commission to open a proceeding to determine appropriate targets, if any, for other load-serving entities in the state, including investor-owned utilities and energy service providers, to procure viable and cost-effective energy storage systems to be achieved by December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2020, and to adopt the procurement targets, if determined to be appropriate, by October 1, 2013 (one year earlier than the targets for publicly-owned utilities).

2.2 PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

The legislative policy embodied in AB 2514 was enacted to expand the use of energy storage systems to: (a) Assist in integrating increased amounts of renewable energy resources into

the electrical transmission and distribution grid in a manner that minimizes emissions of greenhouse gases;

(b) Optimize the use of the significant additional amounts of variable,

intermittent, and off-peak electrical generation from wind and solar energy that will be entering the California power mix on an accelerated basis;

(c) Reduce costs to ratepayers by avoiding or deferring the need for new fossil

fuel-powered peaking power plants and avoiding or deferring distribution and transmission system upgrades and expansion of the grid;


Page 5

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100AB2514

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200920100AB2514

(d) Reduce the use of electricity generated from fossil fuels to meet peak load

requirements on days with high electricity demand and potentially avoid or reduce the use of electricity generated by high carbon-emitting electrical generating facilities during those high electricity demand periods, which could have substantial co-benefits from reduced emissions of criteria pollutants ;

(e) Provide the ancillary services otherwise provided by fossil-fueled

generating facilities to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and criteria pollutants.

2.3 DEFINITION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM

According to AB 2514, the term “energy storage system” means commercially available technology that is capable of absorbing energy, storing it for a period of time, and thereafter dispatching the energy. An “energy storage system” may be either centralized or distributed. It may be either owned by a load-serving entity or local publicly owned electric utility, a customer of a load-serving entity or local publicly owned electric utility, a third party, or jointly owned by two or more of the above. An “energy storage system” must be cost effective and: Reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, Reduce demand for peak electrical generation, Defer or substitute for an investment in generation, transmission, or

distribution assets, or Improve the reliable operation of the electrical transmission or distribution

grid. An “energy storage system” must do one or more of the following: (A) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy that was

generated at one time for use at a later time. (B) Store thermal energy for direct use for heating or cooling at a later time in

a manner that avoids the need to use electricity at that later time. (C) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy generated

from renewable resources for use at a later time.


Page 6

(D) Use mechanical, chemical, or thermal processes to store energy generated

from mechanical processes that would otherwise be wasted for delivery at a later time.

AB 2514 doesn’t define cost effective. The following is the definition PWP has used in its analysis. At a minimum:

a. The product or service must fill an existing or anticipated unmet need, and b. Must have a benefit-to-cost1 ratio ≥ 1, and c. The benefits must accrue proportionately to the parties that pay the costs2.

To be cost effective, the energy storage product or service generally must be less expensive (or more effective) than alternative means of providing the same product or service, especially if existing equipment (such as the local natural gas-fired plant) is already available.

1 Benefit-to-cost ratio is defined as the net present value (NPV) of all direct, quantifiable benefits divided by the NPV of the direct, quantifiable costs of a defined energy storage system providing specific grid (or distribution/customer) services over its lifetime. 2 For example, if it is determined that an energy storage system installed in Pasadena could provide hundreds of millions of dollars of net benefits to the CAISO system (of which PWP load is only about 1%), but there is no way for PWP customers to recover the remaining cost of the energy storage system from the other 99% of CAISO customers if PWP were to install it, then by this definition, it would not be cost effective for PWP, even if the benefit-to-cost ratio were >1 for the CAISO.


Page 7

3.0 TYPICAL ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES3

3.1 TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY TABLE The following table summarizes the major energy storage system technologies, their primary applications, what is currently known about them, and challenges with each.

Technology Primary Application What we know currently Challenges

CAES • Energy management • Backup and seasonal

reserves • Renewable integration

• Better ramp rates than gas turbine plants

• Established technology in operation since the 1970’s

• Geographically limited • Lower efficiency due to

roundtrip conversion • Slower response time than

flywheels or batteries • Environmental impact

Pumped Hydro • Energy management • Backup and seasonal

reserves • Regulation service also

available through variable speed pumps

• Developed and mature technology

• Very high ramp rate • Currently most cost effective

form of storage

• Geographically limited • Plant site • Environmental impacts • High overall project cost

Fly wheels • Load leveling • Frequency regulation • Peak shaving and off

peak storage • Transient stability

• Modular technology • Rotor tensile strength • Proven growth potential to limitations

utility scale • Limited energy storage time • Long cycle life due to high frictional losses • High peak power

without overheating concerns

• Rapid response • High round trip

Advanced Lead- Acid

• Load leveling and regulation

• Grid stabilization

• Mature battery technology • Limited depth of discharge • Low cost • Low energy density • High recycled content • Large footprint • Good battery life • Electrode corrosion limits • useful life

NaS • Power quality • Congestion relief • Renewable source

integration

• High energy density • Operating Temperature • Long discharge cycles required between 250° and • Fast response 300° C • Long life • Liquid containment issues • Good scaling potential (corrosion and brittle glass

seals)

3 Excerpts from Chapter 2 of DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA


Page 8

Technology Primary Application What we know currently Challenges

Li-ion • Power quality • Frequency regulation

• High energy densities • High production cost - • Good cycle life scalability • High charge/discharge • Extremely sensitive to over

efficiency temperature, overcharge and

internal pressure buildup Flow Batteries • Ramping • Ability to perform high • Developing technology, not

• Peak Shaving number of discharge cycles mature for commercial scale • Time Shifting • Lower charge/discharge development • Frequency regulation efficiencies • Complicated design • Power quality • Very long life • Lower energy density • SMES • Power quality

• Frequency regulation • Highest round-trip efficiency • Low energy density

from discharge • Material and manufacturing cost

Electrochemical • Power quality • Very long life • Currently cost prohibitive Capacitors • Frequency regulation • Highly reversible and fast

discharge Thermochemical • Load leveling and • Extremely high energy • Currently cost prohibitive Energy Storage regulation densities

• Grid stabilization

3.2 COMPRESSED AIR ENERGY STORAGE (“CAES”)

CAES systems use off-peak electricity to compress air and store it in a reservoir, either an underground cavern or aboveground pipes or vessels. When electricity is needed, the compressed air is heated, expanded, and directed through an expander or conventional turbine-generator to produce electricity. CAES is the only commercial bulk energy storage plant available today, other than pumped hydro. There are two operating first-generation systems: one in Germany and one in Alabama. CAES plants employing aboveground air storage would typically be smaller than plants with underground storage, with capacities on the order of 3 to 50 MW and discharge times of 2 to 6 hours. Aboveground CAES plants are easier to site but more expensive to build (on a $/kW basis) than CAES plants using underground air storage systems, primarily due to the incremental additional cost associated with aboveground storage. Underground CAES storage systems are most cost-effective with storage capacities up to 400 MW and discharge times of 8 to 26 hours. Siting such plants


Page 9

involves finding and verifying the air storage integrity of a geologic formation appropriate for CAES in a given utility’s service territory. One of the largest natural salt formations in the United States happens to be located adjacent to the 1,800 MW Intermountain Power Project, from which PWP purchases coal-fired generation. A 1,200 MW CAES project has been proposed there to take advantage of wind energy delivered from Wyoming via the proposed Zephyr transmission project. The City of Burbank has lead efforts to get transmission studies focused on the feasibility and potential benefits of the development. PWP and other SCPPA members are following the project with interest.

Figure 3.2 Schematic of Compressed Air Energy Storage Plant with Underground

Compressed Air Storage


Page 10

3.3 PUMPED HYDRO STORAGE

Pumped hydroelectric energy storage is a large, mature, and commercial utility-scale technology currently used at many locations in the United States and around the world. Pumped hydro typically employs off-peak electricity to pump water from a reservoir up to another reservoir at a higher elevation. When electricity is needed, water is released from the upper reservoir through a hydroelectric turbine into the lower reservoir to generate electricity. Figure 3.2A shows a cutaway view of a typical pumped hydro plant.

Figure 3.3A - Cutaway Diagram of a Typical Pumped Hydro Plant


Page 11

Figure 3.3B – Pumped Storage Preliminary Permits/Proposed Projects in the US

3.4 FLYWHEELS Flywheels store energy in the form of the angular momentum of a spinning mass, called a rotor. The work done to spin the mass is stored in the form of kinetic energy. A flywheel system transfers kinetic energy into AC power through the use of controls and power conversion systems. Most modern flywheel systems have some type of containment for safety and performance-enhancement purposes. This containment is usually a thick steel vessel surrounding the rotor, motor-generator, and other rotational components of the flywheel. If the wheel fractures while spinning, the containment vessel would stop or slow parts and fragments, preventing injury to bystanders and damage to surrounding equipment. Containment systems are also used to enhance the


Page 12

performance of the flywheel. The containment vessel is often placed under vacuum or filled with a low-friction gas such as helium to reduce the effect of friction on the rotor.

Figure 3.4 Integrated Flywheel System Package Cutaway Diagram

(Courtesy Beacon Power)

3.5 ADVANCED LEAD-ACID BATTERIES Lead-acid batteries are the oldest form of rechargeable battery technology. Originally invented in the mid-1800s, they are widely used to power engine starters in cars, boats, planes, etc. All lead-acid designs share the same basic chemistry. The positive electrode is composed of lead-dioxide, PbO2, while the negative electrode is composed of metallic lead, Pb. The active material in both


Page 13

electrodes is highly porous to maximize surface area. The electrolyte is a sulfuric acid solution, usually around 37% sulfuric acid by weight when the battery is fully charged. Lead-acid energy storage technologies are divided into two types: lead-acid carbon technologies and advanced lead-acid technologies. Lead-acid carbon technologies use a fundamentally different approach to lead-acid batteries through the inclusion of carbon, in one form or another, both to improve the power characteristics of the battery and to mitigate the effects of partial states of charge. Certain advanced lead-acid batteries are conventional valve-regulated lead-acid (VRLA) batteries with technologies that address the shortcomings of previous lead-acid products through incremental changes in the technology.4 Other advanced lead-acid battery systems incorporate solid electrolyte-electrode configurations, while others incorporate capacitor technology as part of anode electrode design. Laboratory carbon technology prototypes have undergone deep-discharge testing and withstood more than 1600 cycles before failure. In comparison, most lead-acid batteries designed for deep discharges deliver 300 to 500 cycles. Application-specific prototypes may offer several performance advantages over conventional lead-acid batteries, including: • Significantly faster recharge rates, • Significantly longer cycle lives in deep discharge applications, and • Minimal required maintenance. Some advanced lead batteries have supercapacitor-like features that give them fast response, similar to flywheels or Li-ion batteries. Advanced lead-acid systems from a number of companies are currently in early field trial demonstrations. Disposal of lead-acid batteries is an important part of the life cycle. The environmental and safety hazards associated with lead require a number of regulations concerning the handling and disposal of lead-acid batteries. Lead-acid batteries are among the most recycled products in the world. Old batteries are accepted by lead-acid manufacturers for recycling. Batteries are separated into their component parts. The lead plates and grids are smelted to purify the lead for use in new batteries. Acid electrolyte is neutralized, scrubbed to remove dissolved lead, and released into the environment. Other component parts such as plastic and metal casings are also recycled.

4 “Energy Storage and Distributed Generation Technology Assessment: Assessment of Lead-Acid-Carbon, Advanced Lead-Acid, and Zinc-Air Batteries for Stationary Application”, EPRI, EPRI ID 1017811, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, December 2009.


Page 14

Figure 3.5

1.5-MW/1-MWh Advanced Lead-acid Dry Cell Systems by Xtreme Power in a Maui Wind Farm

3.6 SODIUM SULFUR BATTERIES (NaS) Sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries are a commercial energy storage technology finding applications in electric utility distribution grid support, wind power integration, and high-value grid services. NaS battery technology holds potential for use in grid services because of its long discharge period (approximately 6 hours). Like many other storage technologies, it is capable of prompt, precise response to such grid needs as mitigation of power quality events and response to Automatic Generation Control (AGC) signals for area regulation. The NaS batteries use hazardous materials including metallic sodium, which is combustible if exposed to water. Therefore, construction of NaS batteries includes airtight, double-walled stainless-steel enclosures that contain the series-parallel arrays of NaS cells. Each cell is hermetically sealed and surrounded with sand both to anchor the cells and to mitigate fire, as shown in Figure 3.5B. Other safety features include fused electrical isolation and a battery management system that monitors cell block voltages and temperature. The sodium, sulfur, beta-alumina


Page 15

ceramic electrolyte, and sulfur polysulfide components of the battery are disposed of by routine industrial processes or recycled at the end of the NaS battery life. NaS batteries can be installed at power generating facilities, substations, and at renewable energy power generation facilities where they are charged during off peak hours and discharged when needed. Battery modules contain cells, a heating element, and dry sand.

Figure 3.6A - Chemical Structure of a Sodium-sulfur Cell

Standard units typically used in energy storage contain five 50-kW NaS modules that include a control unit, heater, heater controller, and voltage and current measurement sensors. Multiple, parallel standard units are used to create multi-megawatt systems.


Page 16

Figure 3.6B

Sodium-sulfur Battery Module Components

3.7 LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES In the past two years, Li-ion battery technology has emerged as the fasted growing platform for stationary storage applications. Already commercial and mature for consumer electronic applications, Li-ion is being positioned as the leading technology platform for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and all-electric vehicles, which will use larger-format cells and packs with capacities of 15 to 20 kWh for PHEVs and up to 50 kWh for all-electric vehicles. The most common types of liquid Li-ion cells are cylindrical and prismatic cell. They are found in notebook computers and other portable power applications. Another approach, prismatic polymer Li-ion technology, is generally only used for small portable applications such as cellular phones and MP3 players. Rechargeable Li-ion batteries are commonly found in consumer electronic products, which make up most of the worldwide production volume of 10 to 12 GWh per year. Compared to the long history of lead-acid batteries, Li-ion technology is relatively new. There are many different Li-ion chemistries, each with specific power-versus-energy characteristics. Large-format prismatic cells are currently the subject of intense R&D, scale-up, and durability evaluation for near-term use in hybrid EVs, but are still only available in very limited quantities as auto equipment manufacturers gear up production of PHEVs.5

5 Electric Energy Storage Technology Options: A White Paper Primer on Applications, Costs and Benefits, PI: Dan Rastler, EPRI ID 1020676, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, September 2010.


Page 17

A Li-ion battery cell contains two reactive materials capable of undergoing an electron transfer chemical reaction. To undergo the reaction, the materials must contact each other electrically, either directly or through a wire, and must be capable of exchanging charged ions to maintain overall charge neutrality as electrons are transferred. A battery cell is designed to keep the materials from directly contacting each other and to connect each material to an electrical terminal isolated from the other material’s terminal. These terminals are the cell’s external contacts (see Figure 3.6).

Figure 3.7 – Principles of a Li-ion Battery

3.8 FLOW BATTERIES - VANADIUM REDOX In flow batteries, one or both active materials is in solution in the electrolyte at all times. Vanadium reduction and oxidation (redox) batteries are one type of flow batteries. In this case, the vanadium ions remain in an aqueous acidic solution throughout the entire process. The vanadium redox flow battery is a flow battery based on redox reactions of different ionic forms of vanadium. During battery


Page 18

charge, V3+ ions are converted to V2+ ions at the negative electrode through the acceptance of electrons. Meanwhile, at the positive electrode, V4+ ions are converted to V5+ ions through the release of electrons. Both of these reactions absorb the electrical energy put into the system and store it chemically. During discharge, the reactions run in the opposite direction, resulting in the release of the chemical energy as electrical energy.

In construction, the half-cells are separated by a proton exchange membrane that allows the flow of ionic charge to complete the electrical circuit. Both the negative and positive electrolytes (sometimes called the anolyte and catholyte, respectively) are composed of vanadium and sulfuric acid mixture at approximately the same acidity as that found in a lead-acid battery. The electrolytes are stored in external tanks and pumped as needed to the cells (see Figure 3.7.1A).

Figure 3.8.1A – Construction of a Vanadium Redox Cell Stack

(Courtesy Sumitomo Electric Industries)

Vanadium redox flow batteries have an important advantage among flow batteries: the two electrolytes are identical when fully discharged. This makes shipment and storage simple and inexpensive and greatly simplifies electrolyte management during operation.


Page 19

Vanadium redox systems are capable of stepping from zero output to full output within a few milliseconds, if the stacks are already primed with reactants. In fact, the limiting factor for beginning battery discharge is more commonly the controls and communications equipment. For short-duration discharges for voltage support, the electrolyte contained in the stacks can respond without the pumps running at all. The cell stack can produce three times the rated power output provided the state of charge is between 50% and 80%.

The physical scale of vanadium redox systems tends to be large due to the large volumes of electrolyte required when sized for utility-scale (megawatt-hour) projects. Unlike many other battery technologies, cycle life of vanadium redox systems is not dependent on depth of discharge. Systems are rated at 10,000 cycles, although some accelerated testing performed by Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd., produced a battery system with one 20-kW stack for cycle testing that continued for more than 13,000 cycles over about two years. When decommissioning a vanadium redox system, the solid ion exchange cell membranes may be highly acidic or alkaline and therefore toxic. They should be disposed of in the same manner as any corrosive material. If possible, the liquid electrolyte is recycled. If disposed of, the vanadium is extracted from the electrolyte before further processing of the liquid. Research is ongoing to determine the exact environmental risk factors for vanadium. Figure 3.7.1B6 illustrates the schematic of a vanadium redox flow battery.

6 VRB Energy Storage for Voltage Stabilization: Testing and Evaluation of the PacifiCorp Vanadium Redox Battery Energy Storage System at Castle Valley, Utah, PI: Harash Kamath – EPRI PEAC Corporation, EPRI ID 1008434, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, March 2005.


Page 20

Figure 3.8.1B – Principles of the Vanadium Redox Battery

(Courtesy of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory)

3.9 THERMAL ENERGY STORAGE7

Thermal energy storage refers to storage systems that store heat or cooling (in the form of chilled or frozen water) to displace electrical air conditioning load during peak periods. In the case of California, ice thermal storage is particularly relevant. Most firms in this space offer large-scale systems for commercial businesses such as airports, convention centers, or large hotels. Small, modular systems have also been developed for single-building applications such as office buildings.

7 SMUD Energy Storage AB 2514 Report, 8/29/2014 (Sacramento Municipal Utility District)

AB 2514 Energy Storage Systems Evaluation Page 21

4.0 TYPICAL ENERGY STORAGE APPLICATIONS/USES8

4.1 ENERGY STORAGE FUNCTION OVERVIEW The DOE’s Electricity Storage Handbook9 identifies 18 services or functional uses that are available from various electricity storage devices that can be broken down into 5 groups (presented with no order of importance or preference): 1) Bulk Energy Services 2) Ancillary Services 3) Transmission Infrastructure Services 4) Distribution Infrastructure Services 5) Customer Energy Management Services Based on this broad range, electricity storage can possibly provide services to all levels of grid operations.

4.2 BULK ENERGY SERVICES There are 2 primary bulk energy services that can be provided with energy storage systems: 1) time-shift of electric energy consumption; and 2) electric supply capacity. 1) Electric energy time-shift allows utilities to purchase inexpensive electricity and store it for use or sale at a later time when system marginal cost or market prices are higher (i.e., arbitrage). Time shift can also be achieved when excess generation from wind or solar that might otherwise be curtailed is stored for use at a later, high load period. These time shifts can be very short (hourly), but also of longer duration (diurnal swings and seasonal differences). 2) Energy storage can be used to defer and/or reduce the need to build new generation facilities or purchase capacity in the wholesale market to meet system requirements. The use or applicability of storage as supply capacity is very utility-specific and dependent on load/resource balance, climate, and economics. Pumped hydro, compressed air and thermal energy storage technologies have traditionally been deployed to meet such system needs.

8 “Energy Storage Technology Abstract,” Southern California Public Power Authority Energy Storage Working Group, February 2014, Bryan Cope, SCPPA Director of Program Development – Principal Author 9 “DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA,” Sandia Report SAND2013-5131, Unlimited Release - July 2013


Page 22

http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2013-5131.pdf

4.3 ANCILLARY SERVICES

Ancillary services represent grid support functions that are available from energy storage. The descriptions and examples presented below are very general in nature and not intended to represent the full complexity of electric utility operations. These services include: 1) Regulation – or the managing of interchange flows between control areas to closely match scheduled flows with the load variations in each balancing authority. Regulation and response is needed to maintain grid frequency and for operators to comply with specific North American Reliability Council (NERC) standards. Battery storage technologies are particularly well-suited for regulation support because of relatively fast response times and ramp rates. 2) Spinning, Non-Spinning, and Supplemental Reserves – are required for grid stability and represent capacity that can be called on when other electric supply resources become unavailable unexpectedly. Spinning reserves include generating capacity that is on-line but unloaded from the system and typically needs to be available and synchronized within 10 minutes. Frequency-responsive spinning reserves need to be available in 10 seconds. Non-spinning reserve is generating capacity that may be off-line but can be brought on-line within 10 minutes. Supplemental Reserves are resources that can serve load within 1 hour of system disturbance. Many energy storage technologies can be well-suited to serve any or all of these reserve capacity roles. Ideally, the use of storage to serve as a spinning reserve resource can allow utilities to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuel-fired power plants as a spinning reserve resource. In such a scenario, the thermal resource can be held as a non-spinning resource to “take-over” the reserve role initially provided by the storage system. 3) Voltage Support – is the system operators’ requirement to maintain voltages within specified limits. The nominal time needed for voltage support is assumed to be 30 minutes. This is typically done with specific power plants that are used to generate reactive power (VAR) to offset fluctuating load and reactance in the grid. The power conversion systems (PCS) of many, if not all, electricity storage systems on the market are capable of operating at a non-unity power factor and “absorb” or “provide” reactive power or volt-ampere reactive (VARs). Battery and flywheel technologies are generally seen as very good alternatives to typical resources used to provide voltage support. 4) Black Start – is the ability for a resource to provide an active reserve of power to energize transmission or distribution lines or provide station power to bring power plants back on-line after a catastrophic failure or outage. Storage can


Page 23

provide such start-up power if the storage system is suitably sized and there is a clear transmission path from the storage system to the power plant. 5) Load Following and Ramping Support for Renewables – Electricity storage is ideally suited for and is already being used in balancing the variability of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) systems’ generation and/or large load swings on utility systems. Normally, generation is used for load following. However, there are operational considerations (e.g., ramp rates, efficiency degradation, emissions) that can make the use of thermal resources for load following challenging. Since most electricity storage systems can operate at “partial load” with modest or nominal performance penalties or efficiency loss and they can respond (ramp up – or down) very quickly (as compared to most generation) – storage is a very good fit for load following services.

4.4 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SERVICES Storage may be useful in three key areas of transmission system support: 1) transmission system upgrade deferral, 2) transmission congestion relief, as well as 3) damping support. 1) Deferral or elimination of large capital investments to upgrade a transmission line that is at or near its fully loaded capacity can probably be achieved with a relatively small investment in energy storage downstream from the overloaded transmission node. In addition, assuming the storage system reduces the loading on existing equipment, one result of the energy storage system could be to improve or increase the life of the existing transmission equipment, including transformers and cables. 2) Transmission congestion relief might be achieved by placing storage systems at locations downstream of the congested area(s) on the transmission system, with energy stored during low load periods and discharged during high load periods when the transmission line is congested. This could provide high value for many utilities and customers as congestion costs may be reduced or eliminated. 3) Storage systems that have sub-second response times can increase the load-carrying capacity of a transmission system by improving the system’s dynamic stability and providing active real and/or reactive power modulation at sub-synchronous resonance frequencies.

4.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVICES Storage can defer the need for distribution system upgrades (and associated voltage support), similar to effects on transmission systems. Distribution systems are typically designed for 15- to 20-year planning horizons. As systems evolve and grow, upgrades are made to serve load requirements and meet the needs of


Page 24

customers. With the changing utility industry including the deployment of distributed generation resources and electric vehicles, utilities’ distribution systems are experiencing significant changes that were not anticipated when they were designed. However, energy storage systems that are located in circuits and on feeders that are impacted or near full-load capacity can defer or eliminate the need for large capital investments to upgrade the system in that specific region. Similar to the transmission system discussion above, and assuming that the storage system reduces loading on existing equipment, the energy storage system could improve or increase the life of the existing distribution equipment, including transformers and cables.

4.6 CUSTOMER ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES Energy storage can be valuable to utilities, as well as directly to customers. It is important for utilities to understand the relative value of site-specific storage applications for customers to ensure that the cost and benefits of energy storage additions are shared equitably among all participants. Below are some of the key areas in which customers can derive value from energy storage technology. 1) Power Quality – protect customer on-site loads that are downstream of the

storage against voltage or frequency fluctuations, low power factor, harmonics, and short (partial to full second) interruptions in service;

2) Power Reliability – protect from total loss of power from utility; 3) Retail Energy Time Shift – take advantage of time of day/real-time pricing

(arbitrage); 4) Demand Charge Management – shift demand at their facility to avoid peak

period demand charges. Beyond these 4 items, there is an additional benefit or value to customers from energy that is not addressed in the Handbook, as it relates to the use of thermal energy storage. Specifically, the application of thermal energy storage systems to shift peak demand of large-scale, chiller-based air conditioning systems and/or small-scale, refrigerant-based systems can provide customers who employ these technologies with improved cooling capacity from their system and an associated, increased level of comfort for occupants. Each of the services or functions listed above can be provided by the correct energy storage system(s). Each service also presents a specific value proposition for each utility. Some services may not be needed at all while one (or more) may be useful to a particular electric system’s operations. Similarly, and importantly, energy storage can possibly provide great value for customers. For those who may choose to employ location-specific storage applications and take advantage of arbitrage or cost-saving opportunities or improve power quality/reliability – the


Page 25

impact will be direct. However, the development and addition of cost-effective energy storage anywhere on the local electric system will provide value for all of the customers/owners of each Publicly Owned Utility. These storage systems will improve a utility’s operating efficiencies and maintain or reduce costs which will directly flow through to customers as the utility is able to continue to provide low-cost and highly reliable electric service. Determining the need for such services and understanding the value of those services for all participants as we continue to evaluate the changing energy storage market will be important for utilities and potential participating customers.

4.7 STACKED SERVICES―USE CASE COMBINATIONS Electricity storage can be used for any of the services listed above, but it is rare for a single service to generate sufficient revenue to justify its investment. However, the flexibility of storage can be leveraged to provide multiple or stacked services, or use cases, with a single storage system that captures several revenue streams and becomes economically viable. How these services are stacked depends on the location of the system within the grid and the storage technology used. However, due to regulatory and operating constraints, stacking services is a process that requires careful planning and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. In the California Public Utility Commission’s (CPUC’s) energy storage proceeding R1012007, a series of electricity storage use cases was considered and studied by multiple stakeholders. CPUC divided the use cases into three general categories based on the location of the storage as shown in Table 4.7. When connected to the grid at the transmission level, energy storage can provide grid-related service to ancillary markets under the control of ISOs while bidding into the energy market. Energy storage can also act as a peaker to provide system capacity. When placed on the distribution circuits, energy storage can help solve local substation-specific problems (mitigating voltage problems, deferring investment upgrades, etc.) while providing ancillary services to the grid. On the customer side of the meter, energy storage system can shave the customer’s peak load and reduce the electricity bill while improving power quality and reliability. Detailed documents about the CPUC-defined electricity storage use cases can be found on the CPUC website.10

10 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/electric/storage.htm, last accessed March 15, 2013.


http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/electric/storage.htm

Table 4.7. Illustration of California Public Utility Commission Use Cases (Source: EPRI presentation in CPUC Storage OIR Workshop, March 25, 201311)

11 http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/electric/storage.htm, last accessed March 15, 2013.



4.8 SCPPA SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGIES/APPLICATIONS


Page 28

A-1

Technology Primary Application What We Currently Know Challenges Freq

uenc

y Reg

ulat

ion

Peak

Shift

ing a

nd Fi

rmin

g

Ram

ping

Rene

wab

le In

tegr

atio

in

Blac

k Sta

rt

Load

Shav

ing

Pow

er Q

ualit

y

Defe

rring

Tran

smiss

ion

Upgr

ade

Cong

estio

n M

itiga

tion

Regu

latio

n, Lo

ad Fo

llow

ing

Tran

sient

Stab

ility,

Impr

ove S

hort-

Dura

tion

Perfo

rman

ce

Back

up an

d Se

ason

al Re

serv

es

Spin

ning

and

Non-

Spin

ning

Res

erve

s

Pow

er Q

ualit

y

Defe

rring

Dist

ribut

ion

Infra

stru

ctur

e Upg

rade

Peak

ShIft

ing D

owns

team

of

Dist

ribut

ion

Syst

em

Inte

rmitt

ent D

istrib

uted

Gene

ratio

n In

tegr

atio

n

Micr

o-Gr

id Fo

rmat

ion

Tran

spor

tabl

e Out

age M

itiga

tion

Time-

of-U

se ra

te O

ptim

izatio

n

Inte

rmitt

ent D

istrib

uted

Gene

ratio

n In

tegr

atio

n

Micr

o-Gr

id Fo

rmat

ion

Pow

er Q

ualit

y

Back

up P

ower

Dur

ing O

utag

es

Compressed Air

Energy Storage

• Energy management

• Backup and seasonal

reserves

• Renewable integration

• Better ramp rates than gas

turbine plants

• Establ ished technology in

operation s ince the 1970's

• Geographica l ly l imited

• Lower efficiency due to

roundtrip convers ion

• Slower response time than

flywheels or batteries

• Environmental impact

● ● ● ● ● ○

Pumped Hydro

Energy Storage

• Energy management

• Backup and seasonal

reserves

• Regulation service a lso

avai lable through variable

speed pumps

• Developed and mature

technology

• Very high ramp rate

• Currently most cost effective

form of s torage

• Geographica l ly l imited

• Plant s i te

• Environmental impacts

• High overa l l project cost

● ● ● ● ● ○

Flywheel Energy

Storage

• Load level ing

• Frequency regulation

• Peak shaving and off peak

storage

• Trans ient s tabi l i ty

• Modular technology

• Proven growth potentia l to

uti l i ty sca le

• Long cycle l i fe

• High peak power without

overheating concerns

• Rapid response

• High round trip energy

efficiency

• Rotor tens i le s trength

l imitations

• Limited energy s torage time

due to high frictional losses

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Advanced Lead-Acid

Batteries

• Load level ing and regulation

• Grid s tabi l i zation

• Mature battery technology

• Low cost

• High recycled content

• Good battery l i fe

• Limited depth of discharge

• Low energy dens i ty

• Large footprint

• Electrode corros ion l imits

useful l i fe

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Sodium-Sulfur (NaS)

Batteries

• Power qual i ty

• Congestion rel ief

• Renewable source

integration

• High energy dens i ty

• Long discharge cycles

• Fast response

• Long l i fe

• Good sca l ing potentia l

• Operating temperature

required between 250⁰ and

300⁰ C

• Liqiud conta inment i ssues

(corros ion and bri ttle glass

sea ls )

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Lithium-Ion Batteries• Power qual i ty


• High energy dens i ty

• Good cycle l i fe

• High charge/discharge

efficiency

• High production cost -

sca labi l i ty

• Extremely sens i tive to over

temperature, overcharge and

internal pressure bui ldup

• Intolerance to deep

discharges

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Flow Batteries

• Ramping

• Peak shaving

• Time shi fting


• Power qual i ty

• Abi l i ty to perform high number

of dischange cycles

• Lower charge/discharge

efficiencies

• Very long l i fe

• Developing technology, not

mature for commercia l sca le

development

• Compl icated des ign

• Lower energy dens i ty

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Superconducting

Magnetic Energy

Storage (SMES)

• Power qual i ty


• Highest round-trip efficiency

from discharge

• Low energy dens i ty

• Materia l and manufacturing

cost prohibi tive●

Electrochemical

Capacitors

• Power qual i ty


• Very long l i fe

• High revers ible and fast

discharge

• Currently cost prohibi tive ● ●

Thermochemical

Energy Storage/

Thermal Energy

Storage/ Generation

Storage

• Load level ing and regulation

• Grid s tabi l i zation• Extremely high energy dens i ty • Currently cost prohibi tive ● ● ● ●

Reference: SANDIA Report, DOE/ EPRI 2013 Electric Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA, Grid Energy Storage U.S. Department of Energy December 2013

DISTRIBUTION BEHIND THE METERTRANSMISSION

5.0 ENERGY STORAGE PROCUREMENT TARGETS OF OTHERS

5.1 CPUC JURISDICTIONAL ENTITIES

5.1.1 CPUC ENERGY STORAGE ORDER INSTITUTING RULEMAKING12 In October 2013, the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) issued Decision 13-10-040 adopting an energy storage procurement framework and design program in its Rulemaking establishing procurement targets for viable and cost-effective energy storage systems for its jurisdictional entities, which include investor-owned utilities, Electric Service Providers (“ESPs”), and Customer Choice Aggregators (“CCAs”) in the state of California (excluding local publicly-owned utilities such as PWP). The CPUC established a procurement target of 1,325 MW across the three investor-owned utilities, Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”), Southern California Edison (“SCE”), and San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”) within three specific grid domains: transmission-connected, distribution-connected, and customer-side applications. The energy storage is to be installed and operational no later than the end of 2024. The decision concluded that IOU ownership of 100% in transmission and distribution-connected storage was premature until it was determined what narrow applications are best suited for utility ownership versus third-party ownership, and limited utility ownership of storage systems to 50% across grid domains, evaluated on a case-by-case basis consistent with the CPUC’s Long-Term Procurement Proceeding. The CPUC established targets for ESPs and CCAs to purchase energy storage projects equal to 1% of their 2020 annual peak load by 2020, with installation and operation of the projects required by the end of 2024. The decision acknowledged that the utilities have a number of energy storage projects either installed or under contract. It further acknowledged that pumped storage projects offer similar benefits as all of the emerging storage technologies, but the majority of pumped storage projects are each sized at 500 MW or greater. A single pumped storage project could account for the entire procurement target within a utility territory, and

12 California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) Order Instituting Rulemaking 10-12-007 Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2514 to Consider Adoption of Procurement Targets for Viable and Cost-Effective Targets for Energy Storage Systems, Decision 13-10-040, issued October 17, 2013


Page 29

https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/435ea164-60d5-433f-90bc-b76119ede661/R1012007_StorageOIR_D1310040_AdoptingEnergyStorageProcurementFrameworkandDesignProgram.pdf?MOD=AJPERES


would dwarf smaller, emerging technologies, inhibiting the fulfillment of market transformation goals. The decision excluded pumped storage projects larger than 50 MW from participating in the IOU’s Energy Storage program, but stated that pumped storage projects larger than 50 MW should be evaluated by utilities in their generation solicitations for new capacity in other proceedings. The CPUC found that AB2514 is silent on any requirement to conduct or apply a system need determination as a basis for storage procurement targets. The CPUC found that it is reasonable to set procurement targets to encourage the development and deployment of new energy storage technologies, and that prior precedent supports the setting of storage procurement targets without a system needs determination. However, in the longer term, the CPUC will consider adjusting procurement target for energy storage to reflect need determinations within the Long Term Procurement Plan proceeding and as part of its regular evaluation of energy storage procurement targets and policies13. The CPUC considered the use of EPRI and DNV KEMA models to determine the cost-effectiveness of energy storage. These were two of the models that SCPPA considered that are similar to the Navigant model in many respects. The CPUC rejected the use of these models as the sole methodology for assessing cost effectiveness, and allowed investor-owned utilities instead to propose their own methodology to evaluate the cost and benefits of energy storage proposals, but based on the full range of benefits and costs identified in the use-case framework and the EPRI and DNV KEMA reports submitted in the proceeding. The decision found that it is reasonable to develop cost containment strategies that protect ratepayers.

5.1.2 ALLOCATION OF IOU PROCUREMENT TARGETS14 The following table summarizes how the 1,325 MW of energy storage assigned by the CPUC was allocated among the three investor-owned utilities:

13 Decision 13-10-040, p. 26 14 Appendix A of Decision 13-10-040, Ibid.


Page 30

Table 5.1.2

5.1.3 PROCUREMENT PROGRESS BY IOUS

5.1.3.1 SCE SCE states in its 2014 Energy Storage filing that it expects to meet the 90 MW target set for it by the CPUC for 2014. In addition to existing energy storage projects that are eligible to count toward SCE’s storage procurement target, SCE has a number of planned storage projects that should count toward its future targets. SCE also expect to procure energy storage through existing procurement mechanisms, including its Local Capacity Requirements solicitation, and potentially its Renewables Portfolio Standard solicitation and its Preferred Resources Pilot. SCE will also procure energy storage through an Energy Storage competitive solicitation that it expects to launch by December 1, 2014, and SCE will consider bilateral contract opportunities, as well as utility-owned storage. SCE’s supporting testimony identifies the existing projects that it expects


Page 31

https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/4054ab0f-b852-4505-af8d-2503854d63c2/A14-02-XXX-2014_EnergyStorageProcurementPlanApplication.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

https://www.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/2e4abe8b-d988-48d1-96fc-840179b03424/SCE_StorageTestimony.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

to count towards its procurement target (see Appendix A), its specific valuation and selection process, and outlines the upcoming 2014 Energy Storage Request for Offers.

5.1.3.2 PGE In PG&E’s 2014 Energy Storage filing, PG&E states that it intends to procure sufficient storage to meet its 2014 Biennial Target through: 1) A competitive Request for Offers for energy storage resources

connected to the CAISO controlled transmission and distribution systems;

2) CPUC approved programs, including the Self Generation Incentive Program (“SGIP”), Permanent Load Shifting (“PLS”) program, Demand Response (“DR”) and Electric Vehicle (“EV”) pilots where applicable, and any future programs and pilots developed on an on-going basis for customer-connected storage;

3) Mechanisms including but not limited to electric vehicle funding programs that also provide grid storage;

4) Energy Storage projects developed under CPUC approved contracts from other proceeding, such as the Long Term Procurement Plan (“LTPP”) proceeding, the Renewables Portfolio Standard (“RPS”) Program, and the Resource Adequacy (“RA”) proceeding; and

5) Other CPUC approved channels, such as the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Research (“PIER”) or the CPUC’s Electric Program Investment Charge (“EPIC”) funded projects, under certain conditions.

As for existing operational projects that should count towards its 2014 targets, PG&E claims 8.5 MW of distribution level storage projects, 3.5 MW of eligible projects at the customer level, and procurement of 150 MW of transmission level storage from an eligible pre-approved project that will be applied to future procurement targets between 2016 and 2020. PG&E will seek stranded cost recovery for the cost of energy procured energy storage over the full life of the contract from any departing load (e.g., that switches to a CCA or ESP). PG&E also seeks to have control of any transmission connected energy storage it procures turned over to the CAISO so that the costs will be incorporated into the Transmission Access Charge and recovered from all transmission connected customers.


Page 32

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D9CACD21-AB1C-411A-8B79-84FB28E88C58/0/PGE_StorageApplication.pdf

PG&E seeks the broadest interpretation of eligibility – PG&E requests that the CPUC determine that electric generation using biogas technology will be considered Eligible Energy Storage. PG&E’s argument is that, when biogas is created (e.g., at a dairy from the decomposition of biomass), the energy in the methane produced is captured and stored for later use, rather than wasted, and used to generate electricity at a later time.

5.1.3.3 SDG&E

SDG&E issued its 2014 Energy Storage Request for Offers on September 5, 2014. Offers will be due on January 5, 2015. The Energy Storage System procurement is part of SDG&E’s Local Capacity Requirement “All Source” procurement effort. SDG&E is targeting energy storage within its local subarea, and has specified that resources within the transmission and distribution domains must be eligible to contribute to SDG&E’s local resource adequacy requirements (e.g., at or electrically west of the Miguel or Suncrest substations and electrically south of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station 230 kV switchyard, and follow the appropriate process for obtaining a deliverability study from the CAISO and paying for any necessary deliverability upgrades in order to achieve full capacity deliverability status).

5.2 OTHER PUBLICLY-OWNED CALIFORNIA UTILITIES

5.2.1 SMUD

Staff of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”) prepared an AB2514 Storage Procurement Report dated August 29, 2014. According to the report: Since 2008, SMUD has invested over $30 million dollars in internally and externally funded research to understand and prepare SMUD and its customers for eventual deployment and utilization of energy storage. Staff has been conducting various field demonstrations, studies, and assessments of different storage technologies, used for different applications ranging from transmission scale to distribution scale to customer scale systems. On technical issues, this body of work has assessed technology performance including such factors as efficiency, reliability, and durability. On economic issues, this body of work has assessed capital costs, installation costs, operation costs, value, and cost effectiveness. Additionally through this body of work, staff has assessed grid integration issues and strategies for interconnecting, aggregating,


Page 33

visualizing and controlling storage systems from grid planning and operations perspectives.

Based upon this body of research, staff finds the storage applications examined are not cost-effective at this time, with the exception of large scale pumped hydro storage. Consequently, staff recommends the SMUD Board of Directors should decline to establish a storage procurement target for December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2020 at this time.

SMUD has been seriously evaluating and developing the Iowa Hill pumped hydro storage project. Analysis to date indicates that the facility will be cost effective under certain market and cost assumptions. The project, however, will not be developed until after 2020, so SMUD is not including the project in its pre-2020 energy storage procurement targets determination. SMUD will continue to study and evaluate the project.

SMUD further notes that, although other energy storage applications are not currently cost-effective, storage costs have continued to decline as technology advancements have been made, as global production capacity has increased, and as the transportation industry has continued development of electric vehicles. Staff anticipates energy storage will become cost effective for some applications within the next ten years. To prepare for cost effective energy storage, staff recommend that SMUD continue investing in energy storage technology assessment, demonstrations and pilots, monitor other storage developments in California, and develop staff expertise in Customer Services to provide assistance to customers considering installation of energy storage systems.

5.2.2 ANAHEIM

On August 12, 2014 the City of Anaheim passed a resolution determining that a procurement target for energy storage systems is not appropriate due to lack of cost effective and viable options. The Anaheim Public Utilities Department prepared an Energy Storage System Evaluation Plan, dated July 2014, and made the following findings:

• Energy Storage is not cost effective for most applications at thistime. In the City of Anaheim, only thermal energy storagetechnologies (e.g., Ice Bear) have been cost effective for customersunder specific circumstances.

• Because the City of Anaheim is essentially built-out, siting EnergyStorage will be difficult. Energy Storage technologies are spaceintensive and difficult to site in urban settings such as Anaheim. Asan example, a 5 MW battery system would require enough space to


http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG47419/AS47458/AS47461/AI47589/DO47591/DO_47591.pdf

http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG47419/AS47458/AS47461/AI47589/DO47592/DO_47592.pdf

house 5 semi-trailer sized containers, in addition to all the wiring and balance of plant to connect the batteries to a substation.

• Peak reduction is one of the primary uses for Energy Storage systems but has already been addressed by the Department with the construction of the Canyon Power Plant. One of the key benefits of Energy Storage is that it addresses shortfalls in energy supply and allows a utility to call upon it when needed; however, Anaheim Public Utilities has Canyon Power Plan which, similar to PWP’s Glenarm units, effectively performs the same function with many other benefits of reducing CAISO fees, providing local and regional grid support, and the ability to bid into the wholesale energy market.

• Use of Energy Storage Systems to improve reliability is not currently needed by the Anaheim Department of Public Utilities. The Anaheim Public Utilities Department already has a prominent track record of high system reliability, and has been recognized as a Reliable Public Power Provider (RP3) by the American Public Power Association since 2006. The installation of Energy Storage would have a marginal impact.

• Many Energy Storage technologies are still maturing. For example battery systems have been available for many years at locations such as data centers. As additional utility applications are identified, research and innovation will continue to improve the technology and the associated costs will decrease over time. And, the corresponding safety concerns such as batteries catching on fire will need to be addressed by manufacturers.

From the findings above, the Anaheim Public Utilities Department concluded the following: 1. Adoption of procurement targets for either the December 31, 2016 or

the December 31, 2021 time periods is premature at this point based on the findings related to costs and viability;

2. Since technology improvements will continue to be made given mandates for investor-owned utilities to invest in ES systems, the Department will closely monitor other utility projects; and,

3. The Department will continue to offer customer choice programs such as time-based rates that encourage shifting energy consumption to off-peak hours.


Page 35

5.2.3 REDDING

On August 26, 2014, the staff of the Redding Electric Utility (“REU”) recommended that the Electric Utility Commission review and recommend the Energy Storage Compliance Plan to the City Council for Approval. According to the report, REU has been actively investing in energy storage systems for nearly 10 years and has been installing thermal energy storage systems in increasing amounts since 2005. These thermal energy systems shift electrical demand from the summer peak period by making ice in the off-peak hours. REU contracted with Ice Energy, Inc., Redding’s main supplier of thermal energy storage systems, to evaluate what level of commercial thermal energy storage could be adopted in REU’s service area. The study revealed the potential for up to 14 MW of Permanent Load Shifting. REU proposes to meet the requirements of AB2514 by expanding by its successful thermal energy storage program, which has already procured and installed approximately 1.3 MW of between 2005 and May of 2012. REU recommends that the City Council approve REU’s Energy Storage Procurement Plan, with energy storage targets of 3.6 MW for 2016 and 4.4 MW for 2020.

5.2.4 THE CITY OF PALO ALTO On December 4, 2013, Staff of the City of Palo Alto Public Utilities recommended that the Utilities Advisory Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution declining to set an energy procurement target for the City of Palo Alto Utilities, or provide thermal energy storage rebate incentives because such targets and incentives are not cost effective. The report found that:

“Over the next five years, the costs of utility-owned and operated energy storage exceed the value of benefits, and are therefore not cost-effective for CPAU, its customers or the City. In addition, staff has determined that there is currently no need for the City to procure energy storage systems within Palo Alto for purposes of load-shifting, demand response, deferral of distribution system upgrades, or integration of distributed generation.”

On February 10, 2014, the Palo Alto City Council adopted Resolution 9396 determining that a target for the city of Palo Alto Utilities to procure


Page 36

http://www.ci.redding.ca.us/cclerk/Agendas-2014/EUC/Staff%20Reports/Energy%20Storage%20Compliance%20Plan%2008-26-2014.pdf

https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/37995



energy storage systems is not appropriate due to lack of cost-effective options.

5.2.5 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT On February 20, 2013, staff of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District recommended that its Board of Directors find that energy storage systems are not currently viable and cost effective for the District and the District should not adopt procurement targets.

5.2.6 THE CITY OF LODI

On October 16, 2013, the City Council of the City of Lodi passed Resolution No. 2013-183 regarding the viability of energy storage for the City of Lodi. The City Council supported the staff assessment that no cost-effective energy storage systems are viable for the Lodi community at this time.

5.2.7 LADWP AND IID The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (“LADWP”) and the Imperial Irrigation District (“IID”) are each expected to set procurement targets for energy storage. Both of these utilities have relatively large service territories and operate their own balancing areas outside of the CAISO, so have a potential need for services that many smaller municipalities do not. It is also expected that these utilities may set their targets administratively for reasons other than a pre-determination of cost-effectiveness or need. There may be a few other municipalities that also set modest energy storage procurement targets, but the vast majority are expected to find that energy storage is not currently cost-effective for them, and will decline to set procurement targets at this time.


Page 37

http://publicdocs.lodi.gov/Docs/RESOLUTIONS/2013/res2013-183.pdf

6.0 PWP ANALYSIS

6.1 PRIOR PWP ENERGY STORAGE EXPERIENCE In a pilot demonstration program commissioned by SCPPA, an Ice Bear15 thermal storage pilot project was contracted and installed at a few SCPPA member utilities’ facilities in 2010. An Ice Bear demonstration project was also installed at the SCPPA office in Glendora, CA as well as. This early pilot program was undertaken primarily to investigate the load shifting/shaving application of energy storage, i.e., to reduce the on-peak demand created by air conditioning units in order to supply the load with less expensive surplus off-peak generation. During the evening off-peak, the Ice Bear unit freezes water with cheaper off-peak power. During the day, rather than run the normal AC compressor units, cold air is generated using this ice. However, this type of thermal storage utilizes relatively small, distributed storage capacity and is mainly directed at behind-the-meter installations for electric service customers. This particular project was found to be non-cost effective for Pasadena. It was found that to be viable, aggressive revisions of Pasadena’s electric rate structure by tailoring Time-of-Use rates to optimize load shifting thermal storage would have been required. However, the Ice Bear unit continues to run at SCPPA offices as a demonstration project for possible adoption in the future should it become necessary and/or cost effective and SCPPA’s contract with Ice Bear allows additional installations for those customers who express a desire to do so. Also, in response to the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”) 10-12-007 Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2514 to Consider Adoption of Procurement Targets for Viable and Cost-Effective Targets for Energy Storage Systems, Decision 13-10-040, issued October 17, 2013, Southern California Edison (“SCE”) issued a Request for Offers (“RFO”) last year to procure energy storage projects in the Los Angeles area. Some energy storage vendors approached PWP about potentially locating energy storage systems at PWP’s Broadway/Glenarm site for delivery to SCE at the T.M. Goodrich substation. Such an arrangement would not have caused PWP to incur the costs of a direct investment or contract for energy storage, nor provided the same beneficial services it would have provided to SCE and the CAISO, but could have allowed Pasadena to facilitate the advancement of energy storage systems and potentially gain access to certain black start and reliability benefits, in addition to site rent and, once PWP established a Wholesale Distribution Access Tariff (“WDAT”),

15 For more information, go to http://www.scppa.org/pages/projects/ice_energy.html


Page 38


http://www.scppa.org/pages/projects/ice_energy.html

distribution access charges. Unfortunately, none of these energy storage proposals were shortlisted by SCE in the initial RFO. A policy to continue to pursue such cooperative ventures could be a cost-effective means for PWP to facilitate and promote energy storage systems in the future.

6.2 SCPPA ENERGY STORAGE WORKING GROUP Since initiating the investigation into energy storage systems in March of 2012, PWP has reviewed energy storage system research and documentation prepared by others, and been involved with the Southern California Public Power Authority (“SCPPA”) in several efforts. The most notable of these efforts included participation in the SCPPA Energy Storage Working Group, and the SCPPA Request for Information (“RFI”) for Energy Storage proposals. Through the SCPPA RFI for Energy Storage proposals, the SCPPA 2014 Request for Proposals for Renewable Energy and Energy Storage Projects, and the SCPPA RFI for Generation Replacement and Future Resources, PWP and other SCPPA participants have received and reviewed several innovative energy storage proposals providing real world data to validate the analysis. PWP has also had discussions, through SCPPA and directly, with several energy storage vendors and consultants, and with the California Energy Storage Alliance. PWP reviewed the reports and filings of other utilities, including Southern California Edison (“SCE”), Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”), San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”), and the Cities of Palo Alto, Truckee, Redding, Lodi, Anaheim, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (“SMUD”).

6.3 ENERGY STORAGE MODELING TOOL

Through the SCPPA Energy Storage Working Group, PWP interviewed several consultants in search of a reasonably priced model to help evaluate the cost-effectiveness of energy storage technologies. The group considered at least three different models, and selected the Navigant SCPPA Energy Storage Tool, V.1.0. (“ES Tool”) for licensing. The ES Tool provides a framework for evaluating potential energy storage costs and benefits depending on system characteristics (e.g., location on the grid, regulatory structure, and owner). The ES Tool is based in Microsoft Excel and takes a variety of inputs. The user first enters the project location, owner, regulatory environment and technology type. Next, the user enters information such as installed cost, operation and maintenance costs, round trip efficiency, and cycle life. Default values are available for many of these inputs, depending on the selected technology. Then the user selects which applications to analyze. Based upon the applications selected, the user is prompted to enter inputs to help calculate benefits, such as amount of


Page 39

energy storage dispatched by application, market prices and rate structures. Finally, the user has the option of selecting to run various scenarios. After inputting all the necessary information, the tool presents the net present costs and benefits of the project. According to Navigant, the tool has gone through extensive review and usage. Sandia National Labs and the US Department of Energy (DOE) conducted formal peer reviews of the framework.

PWP considered the various technologies and functions that energy storage can provide, and narrowed the list to those that PWP believed would have the highest potential viability and best fit for PWP by 2016 and by 2021. The ES Tool is capable of modeling seventeen (17) different energy storage technologies, seven of which were selected by PWP as commercially viable for Pasadena’s needs. In order to “level the playing field” between the different technologies, staff standardized all of the energy storage technologies to a 20 MW capacity model, and all costs, outputs, and revenues were scaled accordingly. The 20 MW size was chosen because it seemed to be an applicable energy storage size given the mix of PWP’s contracted renewable technologies, PWP’s monthly Flexible Resource Adequacy Capacity requirements, market opportunities for Ancillary Services sales, and the current price differentials between off-peak and on-peak power. Proportional scaling of larger (50~250MW capacity) projects is realistic, since PWP could take a fractional share of large scale projects and pay and receive its proportional share of benefits, as it does with other generation projects through SCPPA. Table 6.2.1 lists the technologies that were modeled by PWP using the ES Tool, including:

1. Compressed Air Energy Storage (“CAES”) – below ground, 2. Compressed Air Energy Storage – above ground, 3. Pumped Hydro Storage, 4. Flywheel Energy Storage, 5. Advanced Lead Acid Batteries, 6. Lithium Ion Batteries, and 7. Thermal Energy Storage.


Page 40

Table 6.3.1

Investigated Technology List

The ES Tool can evaluate up to thirteen (13) applications for each energy storage technology. Applications which serve a common purpose were bundled into one of six scenarios to maximize the potential savings and/or revenues from each technology option. The applications and scenarios are summarized in Table 6.2.2 below. Analysis was focused on Scenarios 1 through 4, which evaluate transmission and generation level energy storage systems.

Table 6.3.2 Energy Storage Applications and Scenarios

Scenarios Applications

Scenario 1 1. Renewable Energy Capacity FirmingRenewable Shaping and Firming 2. Renewable Energy Ramping

3. Renewable Energy SmoothingScenario 2 4. Renewable Energy ShiftingLoad Shaping and Shaving 5. Wholesale Energy Market and Cost OptimizationScenario 3 6. Black Start ProvisionReliability and backup Power (Local Only) 7. Backup PowerScenario 4 8. Asset ManagementGird Support and Ancillary Services 9. Load Following

10. Operating reserves11. Regulation

Scenario 5 12. Power QualityEnd-User Load Management (local Installation) 13. Retail Market Cost OptimizationScenario 6 NoneGrid and Local System Improvement Deferrals


Page 41

Although the ES Tool does include Thermal Storage technology, it is at the end-user levels only, PWP has already investigated such storage through SCPPA by participating in the Ice Bear project. Consequently, no analysis was performed for Scenario 5. In addition, no grid or local (distribution) system deferrals were identified to model in Scenario 6. The results of the ES Tool modeling are summarized in Table 6.2.3 below. Compressed Air Energy Storage (“CAES”) and Pumped Hydro have a positive benefit-to-cost ratio for the Reliability and Backup Power (Local) Scenario. For applications in this scenario, the storage facility needs to be located within the City’s limits. While it may be possible to locate a 20 MW above ground project in the City (as modeled), typically projects are sized around 50 MW to 200 MW or larger, which are much too large for Pasadena to procure alone. Pasadena would have to partner with other utilities, and siting will become a critical issue. There are no locations identified in the City that would accommodate or can be converted for an underground CAES project. PWP has received, and continues to consider, proposals for a large (up to 1,200 MW) CAES project near the Intermountain Power Project that would accommodate wind energy from Wyoming delivered over the proposed Zephyr transmission line. This proposed energy storage project would not provide the local reliability and backup power benefits required to achieve the positive cost-effectiveness shown below. For renewable shaping and firming, PWP will continue to monitor the development of this project, and advise the City Council if enough interest is expressed by larger utilities to make the project viable for PWP to consider a small participant share. Along with CAES, advanced lead acid technologies have the lowest installation and operation and maintenance costs, which help the economic performance of these technologies. However, on the benefit side, the ES Tool relies on assumptions about the number of customer-outage minutes with reimbursable economic costs, referred to as “avoided cost and/or loss of revenue due to outages.” Pasadena does not collect or produce such data, so PWP had to rely on the tool’s default metric. It is unlikely that PWP has a reliability “need” that requires investing in energy storage as a solution. Based on work completed to date, PWP has not identified any viable energy storage technologies that are cost-effective at a scale that is practical for PWP at this time. The energy storage industry is still in its early stages, with many technologies still evolving, and cost-effectiveness expected to improve rapidly over the coming years. PWP will continue to monitor the situation and continue to provide updates as conditions warrant.


Page 42

Table 6.3.3

Energy Storage Net Benefit for Projects Scaled to 20 MW

Scenario benefit/cost ratios

CAES Underground

CAES Above

Ground Flywheel Advanced

Lead Acid Lithium

Ion Pumped Hydro

Renewable Shape/Firm 0.671 0.325 0.227 0.536 0.096 0.002

Load shape/shave -0.128 -0.21 -0.071 -0.087 -0.005 0.025 Reliability/Backup

1.025 2.419 0.432 Grid Support 0.18 0.323 0.055 0.13 0.023 0.149


Page 43

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

There are relatively few viable, cost-effective, integrated, utility scale energy storage systems available today. Those that make the most sense (e.g., pumped hydro and CAES) tend to be very large in scale and dependent on geologic site conditions. PWP already has at its disposal cost-effective means of achieving most of the functions provided by energy storage systems. For example, conservation and demand response can provide energy time-shift, congestion relief and upgrade deferrals. Existing generation and the market can provide ancillary services such as regulation, reserves, voltage support and reliability services. Time-of-use rates can provide energy time-shift and demand charge management. As a CAISO participant, with sufficient generation to meet its reliability requirements, PWP does not presently have a “need” for the identified bulk energy, ancillary service, or transmission infrastructure services provided by energy storage systems. If there is a need for these services by the CAISO, market prices do not adequately reflect it. As a consequence, it does not appear that PWP customers would benefit from, nor recover the costs of, energy storage systems procured by PWP to provide these services today. Without a need and a sufficient revenue stream, even viable energy storage systems cannot be cost-effective. PWP has not identified specific distribution upgrades that could cost-effectively be deferred through the use of energy storage systems. If, at some point in the future, certain radial feeders experience voltage fluctuations or other power quality issues as a result of a high penetration of local solar installations, electric vehicle charging, or other distribution network transformation, energy storage systems on the distribution network or for customer energy management services may begin to make sense from a reliability perspective, although cost-effectiveness may still be difficult to demonstrate. PWP will continue to monitor the situation and will advise the City Council of any recommendations during periodic updates. The City Council need not set specific procurement targets for PWP to procure or encourage cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems as needs arise, these systems mature and their costs decrease. Through its regular annual updates of its procurement plan, PWP will advise the City Council of any changes in its forecast needs and the least cost/best fit means of satisfying those needs. Furthermore, at least every three years, PWP will reevaluate the issue of energy storage system procurement targets and policies with the City Council pursuant to AB2514.


Page 44

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 PROCUREMENT TARGETS

PWP does not recommend at this time that the City Council establish any specific energy storage system procurement targets to be achieved by December 31, 2016, or December 31, 2021, since no cost-effective, viable energy storage systems have been identified by PWP.

8.2 ONGOING EVALUATION

PWP staff will continue to look for appropriate opportunities to encourage cost-effective deployment of energy storage systems as it executes its Integrated Resource Plan, and procures future renewable and conventional energy. PWP staff will continue to work with the Southern California Public Power Authority (“SCPPA”) to evaluate various energy storage technologies through solicitation of proposals for energy storage systems as standalone offers as well as in conjunction with renewable and conventional energy projects. PWP will reevaluate the issue of energy storage system procurement targets and policies with the City Council at least once every three years.

8.3 CEC REPORTING

PWP will report to the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding energy storage system procurement targets and policies adopted by the City Council. If the City Council adopts any energy storage system procurement targets or policies to encourage the cost effective deployment of energy storage systems, then by January 1, 2017, PWP will submit a report to the CEC demonstrating that it has complied with the energy storage system procurement targets, if any, and policies adopted by the City Council. Such report, with confidential information redacted, will be made available to the public by being published by the CEC and/or PWP on their respective websites. By January 1, 2022, PWP will submit a report to the CEC demonstrating that it complied with any energy storage system procurement targets and policies adopted by the City Council. The report, with confidential information redacted, will be made available to the public by the CEC and/or PWP on their respective websites.


Page 45

9.0 REFERENCES

• “Moving Energy Storage from Concept to Reality: Southern California Edison’s Approach to Evaluating Energy Storage,” Johannes Rittershausen and Mariko McDonagh

• “Energy Storage Systems Cost Update - A Study for the DOE Energy Storage Systems Program,” Sandia National Laboratories Report SAND2011-2730, April 2011, Susan Schoenung, Ph.D.

• “Grid Energy Storage,” US Department of Energy, December 2013 • “Energy Storage Cost-Effectiveness Methodology and Preliminary Results,” Public

Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program Interim/Final Project Report, June 2013; Prepared for: California Energy Commission, Prepared by: DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

• “Energy Storage Innovations At Black & Veatch,” March 26, 2013, Lucas Oehlerking • “Energy Storage Technology Abstract,” Southern California Public Power Authority

Energy Storage Working Group, February 2014, Bryan Cope, SCPPA Director of Program Development – Principal Author

• “DOE/EPRI 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook in Collaboration with NRECA,” Sandia Report SAND2013-5131, Unlimited Release - July 2013

• “Cost-Effectiveness of Energy Storage in California,” Application of the EPRI Energy Storage Valuation Tool to Inform the California Public Utility Commission Proceeding R. 10-12-007, Electric Power Research Institute Technical Update, June 2013, EPRI Project Manager B. Kaun

• “Energy Storage Applications and Economics – Costs, Benefits, Revenue,” Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) presentation at California Energy Commission IEPR Committee Workshop on Energy Storage for Renewable Integration, Sacramento, CA, April 28, 2011; Dan Rastler.

• “SMUD AB 2514 Storage Procurement Report,” Sacramento Municipal Utility District, August 29, 2014

• Electric Energy Storage Technology Options: A White Paper Primer on Applications, Costs and Benefits, PI: Dan Rastler, EPRI ID 1020676, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, September 2010.

• “Energy Storage and Distributed Generation Technology Assessment: Assessment of Lead-Acid-Carbon, Advanced Lead-Acid, and Zinc-Air Batteries for Stationary Application”, EPRI, EPRI ID 1017811, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, December 2009.

• VRB Energy Storage for Voltage Stabilization: Testing and Evaluation of the PacifiCorp Vanadium Redox Battery Energy Storage System at Castle Valley, Utah, PI: Harash Kamath – EPRI PEAC Corporation, EPRI ID 1008434, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, March 2005.

• http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/electric/storage.htm, last accessed March 15, 2013.


Page 46

http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/innovation/smart-grids/Energy-Storage-Concept-to-Reality-Edison.pdf

http://www.edison.com/content/dam/eix/documents/innovation/smart-grids/Energy-Storage-Concept-to-Reality-Edison.pdf

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2011/112730.pdf

http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2011/112730.pdf

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20December%202013.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A7FF0A4E-44FA-4281-8F8F-CFB773AC2181/0/DNVKEMA_EnergyStorageCostEffectiveness_Report.pdf

http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2013-5131.pdf

http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000003002001162

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/2011-04-28_workshop/presentations/11_EPRI_Rastler_Panel2_IEPR_Applications_and_Economics.pdf


• California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) Order Instituting Rulemaking (“OIR”)

10-12-007 Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2514 to Consider Adoption of Procurement Targets for Viable and Cost-Effective Targets for Energy Storage Systems, Decision 13-10-040, issued October 17, 2013


Page 47


P A S A D E N A W A T E R A N D P O W E R

MEMORANDUM

September 23, 2014

To: Municipal Services Committee From: Phyllis, Currie General Manager Subject: Glenarm Repowering Project Status Report

This item is for information only.

The attached report provides an update to the Municipal Services Committee (“MSC”) on the current activities and status of the Glenarm (“GT-5”) Repowering Project as part of staff efforts to ensure the project stays on schedule and within the budget. The status report lists current activities, major issues, concerns, project pictures, schedule, financial summary, health and safety record, local workforce utilization, and Pasadena First Buy Local activities.

Pasadena Water and Power generally provides status reports to the MSC on the second meeting each month. The report format continues to evolve and improve based on the feedback from the MSC, public, and staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 - Glenarm Repower Project Status Report Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 - Financial Summary Attachment 2 - Execution of the Local Participation Plan (Plan) for the Glenarm Repowering Project

Status Report September 2014

Glenarm Repowering Project Combined Cycle Power Plant (GT-5)

Greater reliability of Power

Most advanced technology

Most efficient in its class

Least emissions in its class

Help integrate solar and wind power

Preserve historic buildings on site

Attachment 1 – Glenarm Repowering Project Status Report

Glenarm Plant Mid-1950s

Rendering of GT-5

Site Demolition

City of Pasadena Water and Power Department Glenarm GT5 Repowering Project Status Report

September 2014

The project continues to move forward towards a May/June 2016 Commercial Operation date. The following major activities have occurred since the last update.

Budget o Due to the cost estimate for the fuel meter from the Gas Company and unforeseen

changes in scope of the Balance of the Plant contract budget staff will recommend an increase to the project budget in the amount of $5 million and an additional appropriation in the amount of $5 million for FY2015.

Balance of the Plant contract (“BOP”) – Contractor: ARB, Inc. o Demolition activities have been nearly completed; quantities of concrete, asphalt and

contaminated soil in excess of the contract were discovered on the site. A Change Order 1 for this excess work is pending for the approximate amount of $421,000.

o A proposal to simplify the plant electrical distribution system has been accepted; as a result the cost reduction to the City will be approximately $216,000. Credit will be applied to Change Order 1.

o Backfill and compaction at the site have started. o Four invoices in the total amount of $6,774,772 have been received.

Power Island Contract (“PIE”) – Contractor: General Electric o Procurement and manufacturing are proceeding on schedule. o The combustion turbine engine acceptance test at the factory in Cincinnati, OH is

tentatively scheduled for the middle of October. PWP staff will witness the test. o Invoice # 7 in the approximate amount of $2.8 million was received and paid. o Invoice # 8 in the approximate amount of $5.6 million is expected at the engine test

milestone now scheduled for October o Change order 4 to change the steam turbine enclosure delivery date, incorporate the plant

general arrangement drawing into the contract, identify the control panel delivery location, and adjust the plant auxiliary load performance guarantee by 186 kW due to the absence of Variable Frequency Drives for the boiler feed pumps and 52 kW for the use of glycol instead of Dynalene® in the plant chill water loop. The change order does not change the contract amount.

Site Operations o City staff removed 3 utility poles from the project area.

Other Project Activities o State Street Cul-de-Sac closure is pending approval by Public Works; the required

courtesy notices have been mailed.

Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) o The PLA was signed by all members of the building trades. The agreement has been fully

executed.

Major Potential Issues New Issues

o Budget needs to be increased by $5 million dollars. An Agenda Report would be presented to the Municipal Services Commission on September 23, 2014 for reasons and staff recommendations.

o GE’s sound engineer has indicated there may be a need to install sound walls around the generator step-up transformer. The preliminary estimate for the sound wall including installation is $150,000.

On Going Issues

o Gas Compressor Fire Protection – Updated The gas compressor sound attenuation enclosure has been redesigned to have 3 walls and a partial roof. Pasadena Fire Department has indicated they will require a fire protection system for the enclosures. The cost implications and potential change orders for work beyond the contract are not finalized yet.

o Natural gas supply for GT-5 - Updated The proposed connection and meter upgrade by Southern California Gas Company (“Gas Company”) has been designated as a special services request. Staff is seeking estimates and evaluating the following alternatives:

Upsizing the Broadway meter connection by the Gas Company and a directional bore under the MTA tracks from the meter to the project area to be done by a separate contractor.

A new meter station along Fair Oaks all work performed by the Gas Company.

Upsizing the piping and meter at the Glenarm meter station by the Gas Company.

o California Clean Energy Committee filed an appeal and petitioned for a stay order for the GT-5 Repowering project. The judge denied the petition for the stay order. The appeal is in progress.

o EIR consultant is claiming approx. $100,000 in costs in excess of the contracted amount. Staff has not made final determination yet.

o Eighty-six percent of the $3 million dollar Owner’s Engineer contract amount is expended, Owner’s Engineer has provided a detailed task and cost estimate for their expected remaining involvement. Staff will contain the scope of work to remain within the contracted amount.

Schedule o The project is on schedule to date. ARB is currently incorporating comments into the

detailed project schedule that was submitted in August.

Safety o Nothing to report at this time

Reporting Through August 19, 2014 Approved Budget

Commitment

With

Contingencies

A B C D E F G H I J K L M

Description Approved BudgetBase Contract

Amounts

Approved

Revisions to

Base Contract

Contractual

Contingency

Total Awarded

Contract Amount

(B + C + D)

Potential

Changes

Total Awarded &

Potential Changes

(E + F)

Contractual Contingency

Future Project

Contingency,

if any (placeholder)

Total Contingency

Used

(H + I)

Total Awarded,

Potential Changes

(G + I)

Savings Available

at Closure of

Contracts/PO's

Positive If Budget Amount

Higher Than Potential

Contract Amount & Project

Contingency

(A - G - I + L)

Major Contracts

PIE Contract - GE Packaged Power 65,843,230$ 60,494,529$ 0$ 1,376,000$ 61,870,529$ 61,870,529$ $ 0 0$ 0$ 61,870,529$ 3,972,701$

PM/CM Contract - PROU 3,325,800$ 3,004,000$ 300,000$ 3,304,000$ 3,304,000$ $ 0 0$ 0$ 3,304,000$ 21,800$

Air Permit -Worley Parsons 400,000$ 235,000$ 75,500$ 20,000$ 330,500$ 330,500$ $ 0 0$ 0$ 330,500$ 69,500$

CEQA/EIR - PCR Services 400,000$ 61,590$ 150,407$ 21,110$ 233,107$ 100,000$ 333,107$ 15,740$ 0$ 15,740$ 333,107$ 66,893$

BOP Contract - ARB 45,232,388$ 55,661,973$ 0$ 0$ 55,661,973$ 0$ 55,661,973$ $ 0 0$ 0$ 55,661,973$ (10,429,585)$

OE Contract - Power Engineers 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ 0$ 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ $ 0 0$ 0$ 3,000,000$ 0$

Subtotal: Major Contracts 118,201,418$ 122,457,092$ 225,907$ 1,717,110$ 124,400,109$ 100,000$ 124,500,109$ 15,740$ 0$ 15,740$ 124,500,109$ 0$ (6,298,691)$

Other Contracts and Miscellaneous

PWP & Other Dept. PO's 0$ 1,481,878$ 71,897$ 1,553,775$ 1,553,775$ 1,553,775$ 622,436$ (931,339)$

Art Funding 885,407$ 302,088$ 302,088$ 302,088$ 302,088$ 583,319$

Local Hire/Buy Local - CBA 0$ 10,000$ 74,999$ 84,999$ 84,999$ 84,999$ 1,520$ (83,479)$

AQMD Fees 1,500,000$ 87,790$ 87,790$ 87,790$ 87,790$ 1,412,210$

PWP Labor and Materials 1,892,400$ 1,892,400$ 1,892,400$ 1,892,400$ 1,892,400$ 0$

Subtotal: Other Contracts and Miscellaneous 4,277,807$ 3,774,156$ 146,896$ 3,921,052$ 0$ 3,921,052$ 3,921,052$ 623,956$ 980,712$

Project Subtotal 122,479,225$ 126,231,248$ 372,803$ 1,717,110$ 128,321,161$ 100,000$ 128,421,161$ 15,740$ 0$ 15,740$ 128,421,161$ 623,956$ (5,317,979)$

Contingency 9,424,958$ 4,106,978$

Totals 131,904,183$ 126,231,248$ 372,803$ 1,717,110$ 128,321,161$ 100,000$ 128,421,161$ 15,740$ 0$ 15,740$ 128,421,161$ 623,956$ 0$

Contingency Reconciliation Approved

Budget Used Remaining

Budget Contingency 9,424,958$ 5,317,979$ 4,106,978$

Contingency Totals 9,424,958$ 5,317,979$ 4,106,978$

Table 1 - Repowering Project Budget Summary

EXHIBIT - 1: Financial Summary

Glenarm Repowering Project (GT-5) Status Report For MSC on September 23, 2014

Updated: September 9, 2014

Contracted CommitmentsPotential Contract

Committments

Varinace Between Budget and Potential

Contract Amount & Project Contingency

Used

How Much Contingency Has Been Used?

Comments

Reporting Through August 19, 2014

Remaining

Commitments

With

Contingencies Updated: September 9, 2014

K N O P Q

Description

Total Awarded,

Potential Changes

& Project

Contingency

Applied minus

Savings realized

(K - L)

Spent through

8/19/14

Amount Spent

Between Last Report

Period (7/15/14)

and 8/19/14

% Of Total

Awarded and

Approved Contract

Amount

(N ÷ E)

Pending

Invoices Reporting Through August 19, 2014 Contracted Used

Remaining

(R - S)

Major Contracts Major Contracts R S T

PIE Contract - GE Packaged Power 61,870,529$ 22,364,657$ 0$ 36.1% 2,795,582$ PIE Contract - GE Packaged Power 1,376,000$ 0$ 1,376,000$

PM/CM Contract - PROU 3,304,000$ 275,932$ 21,574$ 8.4% 0$ PM/CM Contract - PROU 300,000$ 0$ 300,000$

Air Permit -Worley Parsons 330,500$ 307,172$ 0$ 92.9% 0$ Air Permit -Worley Parsons 20,000$ 0$ 20,000$

CEQA/EIR - PCR Services 333,107$ 227,737$ 0$ 97.7% 0$ CEQA/EIR - PCR Services 21,110$ 15,740$ 5,370$

BOP Contract - ARB 55,661,973$ 5,800,524$ 5,800,524$ 10.4% 974,248$ BOP Contract - ARB 0$ 0$ 0$

OE Contract - Power Engineers 3,000,000$ 2,591,317$ 32,500$ 86.4% 59,381$ OE Contract - Power Engineers 0$ 0$ 0$

Subtotal: Major Contracts 124,500,109$ 31,567,338$ 5,854,598$ 25.4% 3,829,211$ Subtotal: Major Contracts 1,717,110$ 15,740$ 1,701,370$

Other Contracts and Miscellaneous

PWP & Other Dept. PO's 931,339$ 916,440$ (5,606)$ 59.0% 16,694$

Art Funding 302,088$ 0.0% 0$

Local Hire/Buy Local - CBA 83,479$ 8,480$ 0$ 10.0% 0$ Contingency Reconciliation Approved

Budget Used Remaining

AQMD Fees 87,790$ 87,790$ 0$ 100.0% 0$ Budget Contingency 9,424,958$ 5,317,979$ 4,106,978$

PWP Staff/Costs 1,892,400$ 1,185,255$ 4,359$ 62.6% 0$ -$ 0$ -$

Subtotal: Other Contracts and Miscellaneous 3,297,095$ 2,197,964$ (1,248)$ 56.1% 16,694$ Contingency Totals 9,424,958$ 5,317,979$ 4,106,978$

Project Subtotal 127,797,204$ 33,765,302$ 5,853,351$ 26.3% 3,845,905$

Totals 127,797,204$ 33,765,302$ 5,853,351$ 26% 3,845,905$



Table 3 - Repowering Project Contingency Table 2 - Repowering Project Payments



Updated: September 9, 2014

Contract Contingency

Payments

City of Pasadena Department of Finance, Purchasing Division

Pasadena First Buy Local

Local Participation Plan Update For the Glenarm Repowering Project (Project)

As of September, 2014

1) Staff has participated in weekly meetings with the contractors and the Project Team to maintain focus on the Local Participation Plan (Plan). The Plan calls for 15% local subcontracting and procurement. As of September 17, 2014, ARB and their subcontractors have reported $440,994 which is 49.7% of their total spending with Pasadena businesses.

2) The Plan also calls for 25% of the payroll to be satisfied by Pasadena residents. Staff has been monitoring the payroll since the start of the Project, and advising the Prime and Project Team on strategies that will enable the Project to meet or exceed the local hiring goal. As of September 17, 2014, ARB and their subcontractors have reported $18,877 in payroll to Pasadena residents, which represents 21% of the total payroll for the project. Staff has informed the Project team of the status and has recommended that it participate in future meetings with subcontractors prior to them starting work. This recommendation is part of an increased effort to better prepare subcontractors to meet the local hiring goal.

3) Staff provided a “late certified payroll” report to the Project Team, the Prime and subcontractors. The purpose of this report was to inform the team of the contractor’s certified payroll submittals that were more than 14 days late. Staff has recommended that contractors be required to be current with their payroll reports prior to processing their Pay Applications.

4) Staff followed up on local hiring referrals made to ARB and their subcontractors. Local Hiring referrals included Pasadena residents hired by union contractors on previous major public projects in various trades. There were over 200 Pasadena residents referred. The report included the employers/contractors names and the number of hours worked. The purpose of this report, and previous efforts, was to better enable ARB to meet or exceed 25% local hiring.

5) Staff facilitated a “Special Recruitment” for Pasadena residents with the Electricians, Iron Workers and Boilermakers on August 15, 2014 at 8:30AM at the Jackie Robinson Community Center (JRCC). These trades were estimated by the Project Team to be three of the top six trades for the Project. The trade unions gave detailed presentations of their local and provided their unique application processes to approximately 30 Pasadena residents. The purpose of this effort was to expand the Pasadena workforce with the unions.

The computer lab (at the JRCC) was available to potential candidates to apply online for IBEW’s apprenticeship training. In addition, the Prime provided an overview of the project and its workforce needs. The outreach for this effort included direct briefing to various community stakeholders, a posting on the Project’s web page (http://cityofpasadena.net/waterandpower/gt5/), a mailer to over 900 Pasadena residents in our database, and a posting on the City’s Facebook, and Twitter accounts.

6) Staff has continued its outreach to the Building and Construction Trades Unions (below). The purpose of this coordination with the unions was to make each hall keenly aware of the 25% local hiring goal, and provide them with additional Pasadena residents to meet the Project’s labor force needs. The ensuing phase of outreach will focus on the next top three projected trades, and potential sponsorships.

Unions

Bricklayers/Allied Craftworkers

Carpenters

Cement Masons

Electricians/Los Angeles

Electricians/Pasadena

Elevator Constructors

Iron Workers

Laborers

Operating Engineers

Painters

Plasterers & Cement Masons

Plasterers/Cement Masons & Shop Hands

Plumbers

Plumbers & Fitters

Plumbers Sprinkler Fitters

Plumbers/Air Condition/Refrigeration

Plumbers/Steam & Pipefitters

Resilient Floor & Decorative Covering

Roofers & Waterproofers

Sheet Metal Workers

Teamsters

7) Staff continued its coordination with the Los Angeles Urban League. The Urban League has served as a partner providing financial assistance to Pasadena residents for union dues, tools, equipment and transportation. The Urban League received applications from 10 Pasadena residents during the aforementioned “Special Recruitment”. Staff will continue working with the Urban League to facilitate referrals throughout the lifecycle of the Project.

8) Staff reached out to the Foothill WIB, and the Flintridge Center to provide contact information for potential Pasadena apprentices to be included in the City’s local hiring database. The purpose of this effort was to ensure that Pasadena residents seeking apprenticeship and employment opportunities were included in the recruitment and referral process during the course of the Project.

9) Staff continued its coordination with the Prime and its subcontractors for the web-based tracking and reporting system for the Project. To date, ARB and

http://cityofpasadena.net/waterandpower/gt5/

PFBL – Local Participation Plan for Glenarm Project: September 2014

other subcontractors are logged into the system and have been submitting payroll data. The purpose of the system is to utilize an automated web-based tracking system to collect certified payroll and other local participation results for the Project.

10) Staff has added several members of the Project Team into the web-based tracking and reporting system to enable them to monitor data from the contractors, log purchases made in Pasadena, and generate necessary reports.

11) Staff continued its monthly meeting with community stakeholders to discuss Local Participation. The purpose of these meetings is to provide information on strategies the City uses to maximize local participation. The benefit of these meetings are information sharing, and overall communication with community members interested in the results of the City’s local hiring and procurement efforts.

D e p a r t m e n t o f p u b l i c W o r k S

Zero Wastes t r a t e g i c P l a nSeptember 2014

Zero Waste Strategic Plan222:Layout 1 8/1/14 9:20 AM Page 1

CITY OF PASADENA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Zero Waste Strategic Plan

Pasadena’s Path Toward Zero Waste

September 2014

This page intentionally left blank

1

Footnotes ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 34343234

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

What is Zero Waste? ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Why this plan? .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Who participated in the development of this plan? ........................................................................................................................... 3

What does the plan do? .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

How much waste do we generate? ................................................................................................................................................... 5

What do we throw away? .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

What diversion rate will we achieve with this plan? .......................................................................................................................... 6

When will these programs be implemented? .................................................................................................................................... 6

How will these programs be funded? ................................................................................................................................................ 6

How does Pasadena compare with other California cities? .............................................................................................................. 6

Pasadena's Path toward Zero Waste ................................................................................................................................................ 8

ZERO WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN ................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Zero Waste Planning Process ........................................................................................................................................................ 10

Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10

City Demographics .......................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Materials Management ................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Disposal Characterization ............................................................................................................................................................... 15

Stakeholder Outreach and Input ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

Zero Waste Initiatives ..................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Diversion Potential .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential ............................................................................................................................................ 31

Implementation Schedule ............................................................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDICES

Appendix A WASTE CHARACTERIZATION DATA

Appendix B CURRENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Appendix C DIVERSION CALCULATIONS

Appendix D GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Appendix E PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Appendix F OPTIONS EVALUATION

34

2

This page intentionally left blank

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What is Zero Waste?

Zero Waste is a philosophy and design framework that promotes

not only reuse, recycling, and conservation programs, but also,

and more importantly, emphasizes sustainability by considering

the entire life-cycle of products, processes, and systems. In this

Zero Waste Strategic Plan (Zero Waste Plan), we will use the

term “Zero Waste” to mean both reducing waste at the source

and maximizing diversion from landfills, with the overall goal of

striving for Zero Waste.

Zero Waste is not necessarily 100 percent recycling but it shifts

the focus to waste reduction, product redesign and elimination of

wasteful practices. It is a framework for reducing generation of

waste and maximizing diversion, not a strict tonnage goal. By

implementing the proposed policies and programs, Pasadena will

be moving towards Zero Waste, even though there will still be

some residual waste that will be disposed.

Pasadena has already met and exceeded the State of California’s

ambitious 50 percent diversion goal and achieved 73 percent

diversion in 2010. This Zero Waste Plan is anticipated to

accomplish a minimum of 87 percent diversion, which sets

Pasadena well on the path to Zero Waste. Pasadena is now

poised to move beyond “waste management” to envisioning a

world without waste.

Why this plan?

The City of Pasadena (City) began its journey on the road to Zero

Waste in 2005 with the adoption of the United Nations Urban

Environmental Accords, which include a goal of Zero Waste by

2040.

In fall 2011, the City began a planning process to identify the

policies, programs, and facilities that will be needed to move as

close to Zero Waste as possible by 2040. The Zero Waste Plan is

the beginning of a long-term systematic effort to:

Reduce the total amount of disposed materials originating

within Pasadena

Reduce the quantity of disposed materials generated per

person within Pasadena

Increase the quantity of recyclable and compostable materials

as these items are diverted from landfills

Support State and federal efforts to build the environmental

and social costs into the price of products and packaging and

require manufacturers to take back products at the end of their

useful life.

In developing Pasadena’s Zero Waste Plan, consideration was

given to existing programs and the feasibility of undertaking

additional initiatives. Community involvement was integral

throughout the planning process.

Who participated in the development of this plan?

The plan was prepared by the City of Pasadena Department of

Public Works with input from businesses, schools and community

members, all included as stakeholders in the planning process.

These stakeholders participated in the Zero Waste workshops

that were held on February 2, May 24 and August 22, 2012.

Details on the public participation process are included in

Appendix E.

Celebrating the 2013 Green City Awards

4



What does the plan do?

This plan describes the policies, programs and infrastructure that

could be developed to achieve the City’s goal of Zero Waste.

To understand the effectiveness of the Zero Waste policies and

programs identified through the Zero Waste planning process, the

City refined and estimated the diversion potential of 19 Zero

Waste initiatives which address each of the generator sectors in

Pasadena:

Single-family residential – single-family homes and multiplex

residences up to four units

Commercial and multifamily – businesses and institutions

with cart service or bin service and multifamily complexes with

five units or more

Other – Pasadena residents or businesses (including

landscapers and construction companies) hauling materials to

a landfill or transfer station in their own vehicles

Table ES-1 lists the initiatives developed during the planning

process.

Table ES-1 Recommended Initiatives

Recommended Zero Waste Programs Initiatives

1. Adopt Zero Waste Plan/resolution

2. Implement product & disposal bans (e.g., polystyrene food

packaging)

3. Enhance educational outreach

4. Promote junk mail blocking & catalog & phone book opt-out

5. Expand product stewardship efforts & extended producer

responsibility (EPR) policies

6. Enhance enforcement of anti-scavenging ordinance

7. Foster development of local & regional infrastructure for

processing food scraps & other organics & compostables

8. Provide business technical assistance

9. Expand school programs

10. Implement diversion programs for food scraps & other

organics & compostables

11. Review Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) fee structure

12. Expand commercial & multifamily recycling

13. Optimize construction & demolition (C&D) waste diversion

14. Optimize waste diversion at City facilities

15. Implement diversion of food scraps & other organic &

compostable materials at stadiums & other large events

16. Develop Zero Waste business partnership program

17. Expand recycling in public areas

18. Optimize self-haul reporting & waste diversion

19. Foster development of local & regional infrastructure for

processing residual mixed waste (i.e., no market materials)

Recycling Tree created by Pasadena Unified School District students

5

How much waste do we generate?

One destination for Pasadena’s waste is disposal in a landfill.

Waste can also be redirected or “diverted” from the landfill

through activities such as recycling, beneficial reuse and

composting.

“Generation” is the sum of tons disposed plus tons diverted and it

is used to determine the diversion rate. “Diversion Rate” is the

percent of waste diverted from the landfill.

Generation = Disposal + Diversion

Diversion Rate = (Generation – Disposal)/Generation x 100%

For 2010, the State estimated that Pasadena generated as a

whole 584,840 tons of waste. Of this total, 152,881 tons were

disposed in a landfill and 431,959 tons were diverted, yielding a

diversion rate of just over 73 percent for Pasadena.

A portion of Pasadena’s diverted material consisting of green

waste, such as tree trimmings, grass clippings and other

landscaping materials, is used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at

Scholl Canyon landfill. However, based on legislative trends,

diversion credit for ADC is likely to be discontinued. The City’s

diversion rate would be reduced by approximately 3 percent (or

daily per capita disposal would be increased by 0.65 pounds per

person per day) if this material is not diverted by other means

such as composting. It is therefore in Pasadena’s best interest to

develop alternatives for diverting food scraps and other organic

and compostable materials.

What do we throw away?

To plan for Zero Waste, we first need to understand what we

throw away. Exhibit ES-1 shows the composition of Pasadena’s

disposed materials based on the results of the 2008 Statewide

Waste Characterization Study conducted by CalRecycle.

Currently, 77 percent of what is disposed could be recycled or

composted and the remaining 23 percent are “no market”

materials that cannot be recycled or composted.

Recyclable materials include: paper, plastic, metals, glass, and

construction and demolition materials. Compostable materials

include: food scraps, yard trimmings, and compostable paper. No

market materials (those that cannot be recycled) include: treated

wood, composite materials (things stuck to other things) and

diapers. Exhibit ES-1 Waste Management Trends and Material Recovery Potential

Source: CalRecycle 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study

6

What diversion rate will we achieve with this plan?

Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste

disposal reduction potential of each recommended policy and

program. The diversion projections are based on comparable

policies and programs implemented in other jurisdictions,

research, and educated estimates. Table ES-2 summarizes the

diversion potential by sector for the proposed Zero Waste policies

and initiatives. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that

Pasadena can achieve over 87 percent diversion, a very high rate

of diversion, by implementing the Zero Waste Plan.

Table ES-2 Existing Generation and Potential Diversion

When will these programs be implemented?

In developing the program implementation schedule, the City

grouped initiatives into short-term, medium-term and long-term

categories. Factors considered in categorizing the initiatives were

available resources and technology, performance of current

programs and existing infrastructure. Short-term was defined as

being from the present to 2017, medium-term as 2017 to 2020,

and long-term as 2020 to 2040. The Zero Waste Strategic Plan

implementation schedule is shown in Table ES-3.

How will these programs be funded?

Many of the policies and programs recommended in this plan can

be implemented by the City without increasing resources.

However, additional resources may be needed to fully implement

initiatives such as compostable materials collection and

processing. The majority of the planned initiatives will be funded

through Public Works’ approved annual budget. Any unbudgetted

costs will be presented to City Council for approval.

How does Pasadena compare with other California cities?

Many cities across the country are adopting Zero Waste Plans to

optimize resources and meet ever higher waste diversion goals.

In considering Pasadena’s Zero Waste Plan, it is helpful to look at

other California cities to gain perspective. Plans vary depending

on the initiatives selected, infrastructure available, waste

processing opportunities and levels of service provided.

Highlights of Zero Waste Plans are shown for the Cities of

Term Initiative

. Short-term . 2014 – 2017

Adopt Zero Waste Plan/resolution

Implement product & disposal bans (e.g., polystyrene food packaging)

Enhance educational outreach

Promote junk mail blocking, catalog & phone book opt-out

Expand product stewardship efforts & EPR policies

Enhance enforcement of anti-scavenging ordinance

Foster infrastructure development for processing food scraps & other organics & compostables

Provide business technical assistance

Expand school programs

Short

to Medium-term

Implement diversion programs for food scraps & other organics & compostables

Review Pay-As-You-Throw fee structure

2014 – 2020 Expand commercial & multifamily recycling

Optimize C&D waste diversion

. Medium-term . 2017 – 2020

Optimize waste diversion at City facilities

Implement composting programs at stadiums & other large events

Develop Zero Waste business partnership program

Expand recycling in public areas

Self-haul reporting & waste diversion

. Long-term . 2020 – 2040

Foster infrastructure development for processing residual mixed waste (i.e., no market materials)

Zero Waste Plan Projected Diversion by Sector

Sector Projected Diversion

(%)

Single-family Residential 3.4%

Multifamily Residential 0.4%

Commercial 6.6%

Other 3.7%

City’s 2010 estimated diversion 73 %

Total Projected Diversion with Zero Waste Initiatives

87.1%

Table ES-3 Zero Waste Strategic Plan Implementation Schedule

7

Alameda, Los Angeles, Pasadena and Santa Monica in

Table ES-4. Based on this comparison, Pasadena’s Zero Waste

Plan initiatives are very similar to those of other cities.

City

Baseline Diversion

Rate

Zero

Waste Diversion

Goal

Key Initiatives of Zero Waste Plan

Alameda 67% 89% Process mixed waste prior to landfilling (i.e., dirty MRFing)

Add materials to recycling & green carts, both residential & commercial

Provide commercial technical assistance

Advocate for producer responsibility

Increase take back programs with local retailers

Increase C&D Ordinance requirements

Develop social marketing campaign targeting all generator sectors

Los Angeles 76% 90% Implement Pay-As-You-Throw

Implement bulky item reuse

Process compostables

Develop social marketing campaign targeting all generator sectors

Provide recycling in public areas


Develop recycling markets

Implement environmental purchasing policy

Implement LAUSD Zero Waste Curriculum


Implement multifamily recycling rollout

Pasadena 73% 87% Collect & process residential & commercial food scraps, organics & other compostable materials



Enhance waste reduction programs


Enhance education & outreach

Provide recycling in public areas

Provide commercial technical assistance

Expand mandatory commercial recycling

Santa Monica 77% 95% Collect residential & commercial food scraps

Foster behavior change

Switch to bi-weekly refuse collection

Start wet/dry collection

Process residual wastes

Expand mandatory commercial recycling

Table ES-4 Comparison to Other California Cities

8

Pasadena’s Path toward Zero Waste

Pasadena began the transition from a consuming to a conserving

society when the Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly

Bill 939) passed in 1989. From the initial blue box curbside

recycling pilot through implementation of a fully automated Pay-

As-You-Throw variable rate system, Pasadena’s diversion rate

has increased from 37 percent to 73 percent in FY2010.

Partnering with the City are the franchise haulers who divert 60

percent of mixed waste and 75 percent of Construction and

Demolition Materials from the landfill. Although Pasadena

diverted 73 percent of materials from landfills in fiscal year 2010,

further diversion is possible. Based on a waste characterization

study conducted by CalRecycle in 2008, nearly 77 percent of

Pasadena's disposed materials are reusable, recyclable or

compostable. To move beyond the current level of diversion

toward the goal of Zero Waste, a plan and implementation

schedule is needed. This is no small task. The City and its

partners will need to increase diversion through existing

programs and develop new, more aggressive programs.

The City conducted workshops and solicited input from

stakeholders throughout Pasadena and among different

generator sectors to elicit feedback on the interests and

preferences of the community to implement Zero Waste

programs and policies. Based on this feedback, the City has

developed a 26-year program which is expected to increase

Pasadena's diversion rate to a minimum of 87 percent by 2040.

The Zero Waste Plan is a working document. It represents what

the Department of Public Works believes to be the best initiatives

at this point in time to achieve maximum diversion. In developing

this plan, careful consideration was given to the potential

effectiveness, feasibility and level of community support for each

initiative proposed. In order for this to be the best possible plan

for Pasadena to approach Zero Waste, it will be necessary to

review and update this plan as new technologies, opportunities,

and challenges arise. City staff will review and update the plan

every three years.

View of the Colorado Street Bridge

9

ZERO WASTE STRATEGIC PLAN

Introduction

Pasadena is part of a worldwide movement which began in the

mid-1990s as communities recognized that “waste” was not

inevitable. The City is a Green City leader and has made an effort

to reduce its carbon footprint and help conserve natural resources

by implementing programs and policies, offering educational

outreach, and committing to environmental initiatives such as the

United Nations Urban Environmental Accords. The Zero Waste

Strategic Plan (Zero Waste Plan) is intended to supplement these

efforts by further minimizing disposal and increasing diversion as

much as possible.

As defined by the Grassroots Recycling Network1, Zero Waste is a

design principle that goes beyond recycling and focuses first on

reducing waste, reusing and recycling products, and then

composting the rest. Zero Waste promotes not only reuse,

recycling, and conservation programs, but also, and more

importantly, emphasizes sustainability by considering the entire

life-cycle of products, processes, and systems. As illustrated in

Exhibit 1, Zero Waste systems strive to eliminate waste by

reducing consumption and getting products and packaging

redesigned for reuse and repair, and then recycled back into the

marketplace or composted back into soil.

The Zero Waste International Alliance has developed a peer-

reviewed, internationally accepted definition of Zero Waste2: Zero

Waste is a goal that is both pragmatic and visionary, to guide

people to emulate sustainable natural cycles, where all discarded

materials are resources for others to use. Zero Waste means

designing and managing products and processes to reduce the

volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover

all resources, and not burn or bury them. Implementing Zero

Waste will eliminate all discharges to land, water, or air that may

be a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.

Exhibit 1 The Zero Waste Loop

10

In this plan, we will use the term “Zero Waste” to mean both

reducing waste at the source and maximizing diversion from

landfills, with the overall goal of striving for Zero Waste.

The Zero Waste Plan is the culmination of a planning process that

began in 2005, when the City became a signatory to the United

Nations Urban Environmental Accords and continued with the

development and adoption of the Green City Action Plan in 2006.

As part of its Green City Action Plan, the City has established the

following solid waste targets:

Increase waste diversion to 75 percent by 2015

Move as close to Zero Waste as possible by 2040

The Zero Waste Plan is designed to help Pasadena reduce waste,

increase diversion, and build a greener and more sustainable local

economy. The plan will serve as a broad environmental and policy

framework and will guide the future development of the City’s Zero

Waste policies, programs, and infrastructure. The Zero Waste Plan

is anticipated to accomplish a minimum of 87 percent diversion,

which sets Pasadena well on the path toward Zero Waste.

Pasadena has already met and exceeded the State of California’s

ambitious 50 percent recycling goal and achieved 73 percent

diversion in 2010 based on calculations provided by the California

Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle),

which is in step with the statewide goal of achieving 75 percent

waste diversion by 2020 as set in Assembly Bill 341.

Zero Waste Planning Process

The Zero Waste Planning process included the following tasks:

Evaluating Pasadena’s needs

Conducting a waste characterization study of the types and

quantities of disposed materials generated in Pasadena

Developing guiding principles for the plan

Incorporating stakeholder participation in the decision-making

process

Identifying policy, program, and infrastructure initiatives to

address Pasadena’s needs

Evaluating and selecting initiatives to meet the City’s Zero

Waste goals and objectives

Developing and adopting a Zero Waste Plan

The year 2010 is used as the baseline year for the Zero Waste

Plan. Most of the data developed for the plan uses information

from fiscal year 2010 (July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010).

Guiding Principles

The City of Pasadena’s Zero Waste Plan is based on six guiding

principles that provide a framework for the policies, programs and

actions identified for implementation in the plan. These Zero Waste

Guiding Principles are consistent with the goals of the City’s Green

City Action Plan and the City’s Environmental Charter:

1. Develop sustainable policies and programs that are equitable,

environmentally responsible, and economically sound

2. Maintain Pasadena’s position as a leader in innovation and a

role model in resource management

3. Pursue “upstream” strategies that prevent and reduce waste

and encourage the transition from a consuming to a conserving

society

4. Improve “downstream” reuse and recycling programs to ensure

the highest and best use of end-of-life products and materials

5. Lead by example at all City operations and City-sponsored

events and activities

6. Increase the diversion of compostable materials and promote

development of local infrastructure

City Demographics

To develop the Zero Waste Plan, it is important to understand the

demographic makeup of Pasadena. Information on population, age

distribution, housing, and employment are important for identifying

the types of policies and programs that best meet the needs of

Pasadena, its residents, institutions, and businesses.

Pasadena stretches across 23 square miles and is one of the ten

largest cities in Los Angeles County. In 2010, the population of

Pasadena was 137,122. Exhibit 2 shows the historical growth in

11

population. From 2000 to 2010, Pasadena experienced a

population increase of 2.4 percent3.

Exhibit 3 provides a graph of the age distribution of Pasadenans

in 2010; the median age was 37 years old. In 2010, there were

59,551 housing units within Pasadena; 49 percent were multifamily

units. Currently, there are approximately 15,000 businesses in

Pasadena. Restaurants, medical/health facilities, and other

professional businesses are some of the largest employers. The

age distribution, housing and business data offers information the

City can use to help tailor outreach to targeted groups of people.

Materials Management

For 2010, the State estimated that Pasadena generated as a

whole 584,840 tons of waste. Of this total 152,881 tons were

disposed in a landfill and 431,959 tons were diverted, yielding a

diversion rate of 73 percent for Pasadena.

The City tracks waste data for City-controlled programs, which

include all curbside services as well as the franchise hauler

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Year

Po

pu

lati

on

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

<55 - 9

10 - 1

4

15 - 1

9

20 - 2

4

25 - 2

9

30 - 3

4

35 - 3

9

40 - 4

4

45 - 4

9

50 - 5

4

55 - 5

9

60 - 6

4

65 - 6

9

70 - 7

4

75 - 7

9

80 - 8

4>85

Years of Age

Nu

mb

er o

f P

eop

le

Exhibit 2 Population Growth 1910-2010

Exhibit 3 Age Distribution of Population in 2010

12

system. In fiscal year 2010, City controlled waste accounted for

over 255,000 tons of materials that were either diverted or

disposed. Nearly 153,000 tons were disposed in landfills, more

than 8,000 were treated at waste-to-energy facilities, and over

94,000 tons were diverted from disposal through waste prevention,

recycling, and composting.

Approximately 60,000 tons of materials were disposed by “self-

haulers,” including residents and businesses who haul their

materials directly to landfills or transfer stations. The amount of

materials disposed by self-haulers makes up almost 25 percent of

the materials that are attributed to Pasadena, which is greater than

expected for an urban city. This may be due to self-haulers from

adjacent unincorporated areas incorrectly reporting their loads as

being from “Pasadena” and inaccurate record keeping by scale

house employees4. Exhibit 4 shows the percentage of materials

generated by Pasadena’s single-family residential, commercial and

multifamily, and other/self-haulers sectors.

Single-family homes and multiplex residences up to four units

comprise 60 percent of all households (30,310 housing units) in

Pasadena and multifamily complexes with five units or more

comprise 40 percent of all households (23,863 housing units)5.

However, the multifamily residential sector generates only five

percent of the total amount of discarded materials in Pasadena.

Although this is consistent with both statewide and national data,

this chart likely underestimates the multifamily waste generation in

Pasadena. The franchise haulers report waste collected from

multifamily/retail mixed use properties as commercial tonnage.

This tonnage, however, includes waste from approximately 4,000

multifamily units, which represents 16.8 percent of the multifamily

units. Also, this chart likely overestimates the waste generated in

the Other sector due to inaccurate reporting of waste originating

from Pasadena at the Scholl Canyon Landfill. The disproportionally

large Other sector throws all the relative percentages off

somewhat.

Exhibit 4 Materials Generated in Pasadena by sector in Fiscal Year 2010

Single-family residential – single-family homes and multiplex residences up to four units

Multifamily residential – multifamily complexes with five units or more

Commercial – businesses and institutions with cart service or bin service. Includes multifamily/retail mixed use properties.

Other – residents or businesses (including landscapers and construction companies) from Pasadena that bring materials to a

landfill or transfer station in their own vehicles

13

Table 1 Tons of Materials Generated in Pasadena (Fiscal Year 2010)

Table 1 provides a summary of the data including tons disposed,

diverted (recycled, composted, etc.), and transformed (processed

at a waste-to-energy facility). In order to calculate the total

materials managed through programs operated by the City in fiscal

year 2010, the project team obtained hauler tonnage data for

residential and commercial mixed waste, recyclables, and yard

trimmings. The City documents municipally collected tonnage by

day and by route type (recycling, yard trimmings, residential mixed

waste, and commercial mixed waste). The City collects tonnage

data from the non-exclusive haulers and enters this data into a

database by sector and material type. The data was then

segregated by the residential, multifamily, and commercial sectors

for fiscal year 2010. The segregation of the municipal data was

determined by descriptions provided by the City. The self-haul

tonnage was estimated by gathering disposal data from

CalRecycle’s Disposal Reporting System and the landfill tonnage

reports from the Counties of Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside,

and subtracting the municipal and non-exclusive hauler tonnage

provided by the City.

Table 2 and Table 3 summarize, respectively, the disposal

and diversion tonnages of the materials collected by the City and

by the non-exclusive haulers (including commercial and multifamily

residential service provided by the City). These tables do not

include diversion activities conducted by residents and businesses

that fall outside of the collections performed by the City and the

franchised haulers. These diversion activities include source

reduction, backyard composting, and other waste prevention or

recycling activities that contribute to the City’s overall 2010

estimated diversion rate of 73 percent.

Sector Disposal Diversion Transformation Total1

Residential – Single-family2 28,273 37,163 239 65,675

Residential – Multifamily2 5,595 6,372 967 12,934

Commercial2 59,069 50,410 6,985 116,464

Other3 59,945 - - 59,945

TOTAL GENERATED WASTE 152,882 93,945 8,191 255,018 Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

1Table 1 does not include diversion activities conducted by residents and businesses that fall outside of the collections performed by the City and the franchised haulers. These diversion activities include source reduction, backyard composting, and other waste prevention or recycling activities that contribute to Pasadena’s overall 2010 estimated diversion rate of 73 percent. Sources: 2City of Pasadena Collection Reports and Non-exclusive Franchised Hauler Reports, Fiscal Year 2010 3CalRecycle Disposal Reporting System, 2010-2011

14

Table 2 Materials Collected by the City (Fiscal Year 2010)

Table 3 Materials Collected by Non-Exclusive Haulers (Fiscal Year 2010)

Table 3 Materials Collected by Non-Exclusive Haulers (Fiscal Year 2010)

Material Total Disposal

(Tons) Total Diversion

(Tons) Total

(Tons)

RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 27,138 28,088 55,226 Recyclables 0 8,348 8,348

Mixed Waste 25,747 0 25,747

Recyclable 9,011 0

Compostable 10,814 0

No Market 5,922 0

Appliances 6 0 6

Abandoned Items 110 0 110

Bulky Items 1,275 0 1,275

Yard Trimmings 0 19,687 19,687

Christmas Trees 0 53 53

COMMERCIAL TOTAL 11,112 1,154 12,266 Mixed Waste 11,112 0 11,112

Street Sweeping 0 1,154 1,154

TOTAL 38,250 29,242 67,492 Source: City of Pasadena Collection Reports, Fiscal Year 2010. Quantities in italics represent components of total mixed waste composition No Market materials are those that cannot be recycled, such as treated wood, composite materials and diapers.

Sector Total Disposal

(Tons) Total Diversion

(Tons) Total

(Tons)

RESIDENTIAL – SINGLE-FAMILY TOTAL 1,134 9,314 10,448

RESIDENTIAL – MULTIFAMILY TOTAL 5,595 7,338 12,934

COMMERCIAL TOTAL 47,957 56,241 104,199 Mixed Waste 32,694 25,151 57,845

3rd Party Diversion 0 17,625 17,625

Industrial 8,197 4,771 12,968

Construction & Demolition 1,216 8,692 9,908

Exemptions 5,850 0 5,850

Large Venue 0 2 2

TOTAL 54,686 72,893 127,581 Source: City of Pasadena Non-Exclusive Hauler Reports, Fiscal Year 2010. Note that some single-family materials are collected by franchised haulers from construction & demolition projects.

15

Exhibit 5 Pasadena 1995 – 2010 Diversion Rate

Pasadena’s diversion rate for fiscal year 2010 was 73 percent6.

Exhibit 5 shows the City’s historic diversion rates from 1995-2010,

based on the data available from CalRecycle. The slight decline in

the diversion rate from 2009 to 2010 may be indicative of the

economic challenges experienced throughout the State.

Pasadena’s per capita disposal rate, which is used as another

indicator to determine a jurisdiction’s diversion accomplishments,

was 5.8 pounds per person per day (PPD) in 2010. Compared to

Pasadena’s per capita disposal target of 10.9 PPD, the City easily

surpassed the targeted disposal rate. The targeted per capita

disposal rate is based on a 50 percent diversion rate requirement

that was calculated from waste generation and population data for

2003-2006.

Disposal Characterization

It is important to identify the types of materials disposed in order to

identify new diversion opportunities. For this plan, the waste

composition percentages contained in the California 2008

Statewide Waste Characterization Study were used to identify the

types and quantities of disposed materials7. The specific data used

for Pasadena was taken from the “Overall Disposed Waste

Composition: Southern Region.”

The overall waste characterization for Pasadena is indicated in

Table 4. Recyclable materials are highlighted in blue, compostable

materials are highlighted in green, and materials that cannot

currently be recycled or composted are in white/no color cells.

Exhibit 6 shows the composition of Pasadena’s disposed

materials and the following key findings regarding disposal trends

and recovery potential can be made:

Approximately 77 percent of disposed materials could be

diverted from the landfill

o Approximately 42 percent of this material is

compostable, including food scraps, compostable

paper, leaves, grass, wood chips and branches,

stumps and trimmings

o Approximately 35 percent of this material is

recyclable, including recyclable paper, plastic, glass,

metals, and inert materials such as concrete and

asphalt

The remaining 23 percent of disposed materials are “No Market

Materials” for which there is no existing market and which

cannot be recycled or composted. The three largest categories

of these materials by weight are: painted wood or wood treated

with chemicals, diapers, and composite bulky items, such as

furniture or equipment

The waste characterization study also profiled Pasadena’s

disposed materials based on four generator types. Waste

characterization data for specific generator types is included in

Appendix A. The following generator types were characterized:

Single-family residential – single-family homes and multiplex

residences up to four units (30,310 housing units)

Multifamily residential – multifamily complexes with five units

or more (23,863 housing units)

Commercial – businesses and institutions with cart service or

bin service (includes 4,000 multifamily units in residential/retail

mixed use properties)

Other – residents or businesses (including landscapers and

construction companies) from Pasadena that bring materials to

a landfill or transfer station in their own vehicles8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

Year

Div

ers

ion

Ra

te

16

Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 detail the materials disposed for each

sector and recovery potential, by tons and percentages,

respectively. The percentages displayed in Exhibit 8 indicate that

81-83 percent of the single-family and multifamily disposed

materials are recyclable or compostable, 80 percent of the

commercial disposed materials are recyclable or compostable, and

72 percent of the self-haul disposed materials are recyclable or

compostable. Based on this understanding, the City can develop

targeted programs for each generator sector.

Paper sort line at a Material Recovery Facility

A Pasadena neighborhood

17

Table 4 Overall Disposal Composition

CATEGORY TYPE TONS PERCENT

Paper 21,300 14%

Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 6,207 4%

Paper Bags 460 0%

Newspaper 1,596 1%

White Ledger Paper 901 1%

Other Office Paper 1,403 1%

Magazines and Catalogs 802 1%

Phone Books and Directories 57 0%

Other Miscellaneous Paper 3,479 2%

Remainder/Composite Paper 6,395 4%

Glass 1,699 1%

Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 566 0%

Green Glass Bottles and Containers 225 0%

Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 313 0%

Other Glass Colored Bottles and Containers 108 0%

Flat Glass 149 0%

Remainder/Composite Glass 338 0%

Metals 6,410 4%

Tin/Steel Cans 696 0%

Major Appliances 76 0%

Used Oil Filters 17 0%

Other Ferrous 2,814 2%

Aluminum Cans 138 0%

Other Non-Ferrous 326 0%

Remainder/Composite Metal 2,344 2%

Electronics 361 0%

Brown Goods 99 0%

Computer-related Electronics 219 0%

Other Small Consumer Electronics 42 0%

Video Display Devices - 0%

Plastics 12,793 8%

PETE Containers 612 0%

HDPE Containers 445 0%

Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 493 0%

Plastic Trash Bags 1,192 1%

Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 385 0%

Non-Bag commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 652 0%

Film Products 865 1%

Other Film 1,506 1%

Durable Plastic Items 3,260 2%

Remainder/Composite Plastic 3,384 2%

Other 40,513 26%

Food 17,372 11%

Leaves and Grass 4,257 3%

Prunings and Trimmings 4,686 3%

Branches and Stumps 1,561 1%

Manures 21 0%

Textiles 2,234 1%

18

Table 4 Overall Disposal Composition

CATEGORY TYPE TONS PERCENT

Carpets 5,800 4%

Remainder/Composite Compostables 4,582 3%

Inert and Other Miscellaneous

Building Materials

59,472 39%

Concrete 2,420 2%

Asphalt Paving 1,312 1%

Asphalt Roofing 4,986 3%

Lumber 28,036 18%

Gypsum Board 3,568 2%

Rock, Soil and Fines 8,355 5%

Remainder/Composite Inert and Other Materials 10,797 7%

Household Hazardous Waste

(HHW)

332 0%

Paint 183 0%

Vehicle and Equipment Fluids 16 0%

Used Oil 23 0%

Batteries 35 0%

Remainder/composite Household 76 0%

Mixed Residue 1,059 1%

Mixed Residue 1,059 1%

TOTAL 152,881 100%

Blue = recyclable material Green = compostable material White/no color = no market material

*Due to rounding the percentages may not total 100 percent

Exhibit 6 Materials Recovery Potential by Category (percent)

Exhibit 6 Waste Management Trends and Material Recovery Potential

Source: CalRecycle 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study

19

Exhibit 8 Materials Recovery Potential by Sector (percent)

Exhibit 7 Materials Recovery Potential by Sector (tons)

Single-familyDwellings

MultifamilyDwellings

Commercial Self-Haul

Recyclable = Blue 27% 33% 35% 40%

Compostable = Green 54% 50% 45% 32%

No Market = No Color 19% 17% 20% 28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Tota

l

Single-familyDwellings

MultifamilyDwellings

Commercial Self-Haul

Recyclable = Blue 7,564 1,863 20,770 23,819

Compostable = Green 15,417 2,788 26,304 19,484

No Market = No Color 5,290 943 11,995 16,642

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Ton

s

Source: CalRecycle 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study; City of Pasadena Non-exclusive Franchised Hauler Reports; City of Pasadena Collection Reports Fiscal Year 2010

20

Stakeholder Outreach and Input

A series of stakeholder workshops were held during the initial

project planning period to introduce the Zero Waste concept to the

community and to gather input from residents and businesses on

the plan’s process and development. The workshops included a

presentation from City staff and consultants (project team) and

breakout sessions where community members were provided the

opportunity to share their input about existing City policies and

programs and suggestions for the Zero Waste Plan. The input from

the workshops was incorporated into the key policy, program, and

infrastructure needs that are discussed in this plan. Details on the

stakeholder workshops are included in Appendix E.

Zero Waste Initiatives

During the Zero Waste planning process, the City developed a

number of initiatives for reducing waste generation and

increasing recycling and composting. The initiatives incorporate

stakeholder suggestions and address opportunities for both the

residential and commercial sectors. The following pages outline

the description, objective, approach and timeframe for each of

these initiatives. For purposes of this plan, the short-term is

considered to be the present to 2017, the medium-term is years

2017-2020, and the long-term is years 2020-2040. Although

research and preparatory work will begin immediately for many

of the initiatives, timeframes reflect the intervals during which

active program development and implementation are

anticipated. Most initiatives will be ongoing after they are fully

implemented. The City will review and update the Zero Waste

plan every three years. The next steps for the first three year

period are detailed for each initiative.

1. Adopt a Zero Waste Plan and Resolution

Objective: Adopt a Zero Waste Plan and resolution that

establishes the City’s commitment to achieving Zero Waste

by 2040

Approach: The City will prepare a Zero Waste Plan and

resolution for presentation to the City Council for

consideration. The plan will outline the City’s goals and

objectives for achieving Zero Waste and will align with current

City policies, including but not limited to the Pasadena

Municipal Code, the California Green Building Standards

Code, the United Nations Urban Environmental Accords and

Green Cities Declaration, the Green City Action Plan, the U.S.

Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the

Green Cities California Sustainability Resolution, the

Extended Producer Responsibility Resolution and the

Pasadena Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance. The Zero Waste

resolution would set the City’s intentions for achieving Zero

Waste by 2040 and its commitment to implementing the Zero

Waste Plan.

Next Steps:

Adopt Zero Waste Strategic Plan and Zero Waste

Resolution

Timeframe: 2014

2. Implement product and disposal bans (e.g., polystyrene

food packaging)

Objective: Reduce the disposal of reusable, recyclable,

organic and other compostable materials at landfills

Approach: The City will support product and disposal bans for

environmentally problematic materials by supporting

legislation at the State level and implementing local bans and

ordinances as appropriate. Building on the success of the

local plastic bag ban, an example of another product that

could be banned locally is expanded polystyrene (Styrofoam)

take-out food containers and cups. Examples of direct landfill

disposal bans include C&D debris, food scraps, and yard

trimmings.

21

Next Steps:

Research other California cities that have successfully

adopted polystyrene food packaging bans

Research compostable alternatives to polystyrene food

containers and insure compatibility with current organics

processing systems

Organize stakeholder meetings with local food vendor

representatives, franchise haulers, the Pasadena Public

Health Department and other potentially affected parties

to collaborate on eliminating the use of polystyrene food

packaging and ensuring a smooth transition to

compostable packaging replacements

Compile a list of appropriate compostable food

packaging options and provide to local restaurants and

food service establishments

Work with stakeholders to determine specifics of a

polystyrene food packaging ban

Prepare draft polystyrene food packaging ban ordinance

for presentation to appropriate City committee(s) and the

City Council for consideration

Upon adoption of the polystyrene food packaging ban

ordinance, move forward with implementation,

education, technical assistance to businesses and

compliance monitoring

Monitor State legislation regarding product and disposal

bans and provide letters of support as appropriate

Timeframe: 2014 – 2017


Objective: Increase community awareness and participation

in Zero Waste efforts

Approach: The City has a goal of increasing participation in

existing diversion activities and improving marketing to

targeted groups. The City will partner with community groups

to increase the visibility of the recycling program and use

social marketing techniques to reach populations that have

not responded to traditional outreach methods. The City will

build on its school recycling program to provide outreach and

education to the school community as a conduit to the greater

community. Generators in the City need to be educated on

the connection between waste prevention and recycling to

other environmental impacts as well as economic impacts.

Next Steps:

Inventory existing educational outreach tools and

programs and increase the types of outreach methods

and frequency of distribution

Establish a regular schedule for updates, circulation, and

announcements

Review needs/interests of stakeholders, including

commercial businesses and restaurant groups

Develop a Zero Waste marketing plan to increase

awareness of the Zero Waste Plan

Develop an information packet for new customers or

residents

Increase usage of refuse truck signage for messaging

and explore utilizing other types of fleet vehicles

Explore utilizing existing neighborhood newsletters as

outlets for publishing information about waste reduction

initiatives

Explore additional outreach opportunities through

community events and the City’s Neighborhood

Connections programs

Enhance City website and explore increased use of

social media

Increase English/Spanish bilingual outreach materials

and explore the need for translation of materials into

additional languages

Utilize resources for outreach and advertising such as

the City’s Arts buses, Metro buses, bus stops, billboards

and other media opportunities


22

4. Promote junk mail blocking, catalog and phone book opt-

out

Objective: Reduce the generation and disposal of junk mail,

catalogs and phone books

Approach: Expand awareness and adoption of methods to

prevent the automatic delivery of junk mail, catalogs and

phone books by centralizing pertinent information on the

City’s website and increasing the availability of information on

a regular basis. The City currently promotes participation in

Catalog Choice, a mail preference service administered by

TrustedID to help residents reduce unwanted junk mail. The

City will build on this successful program and provide

information about reducing all types of unwanted junk mail

through electronic newsletters, newspapers, City websites,

and City events.

Next Steps:

Raise awareness of junk mail opt-out program on City

website, City’s Twitter messages, and email news blasts

Promote program through print ads in local newspaper

and include in seasonal notifications


5. Expand product stewardship efforts and extended

producer responsibility (EPR) policies

Objective: Implement policies for producers to take

responsibility for the end of life management of products and

packaging they generate and/or sell. Educate consumers on

alternative purchasing practices that support product

stewardship.

Approach: Develop EPR policies within Pasadena that build

on the existing EPR resolution adopted by the City. Policies

could include mandatory take back for problem products,

such as pharmaceuticals, batteries, or fluorescent bulbs.

Provide education and outreach to consumers on purchasing

practices that support product stewardship. The City can

support State and federal efforts to build the environmental

and social costs into the price of products and packaging and

then require manufacturers to take back products at the end

of their useful life. The City can do this by supporting groups

such as the California Product Stewardship Council. The

mission of the California Product Stewardship Council is to

shift California’s product waste management system from one

focused on government funded and ratepayer financed waste

diversion to one that relies on producer responsibility in order

to reduce public costs and drive improvements in product

design that promote environmental sustainability.

Next Steps:

Keep City staff, elected officials and the community

abreast of product stewardship legislation and support

legislation as appropriate

Compile and publicize a list of all local retailers who are

willing to take back items such as dry cleaner hangers,

batteries, mattresses, carpet and paint

Publish this list of retailers in City communications and

on the City’s website


6. Enhance enforcement of anti-scavenging ordinance

Objective: Reduce theft of recyclables from the City’s carts

and bins, receive full credit for diversion tonnage, and

increase the revenue generated from the sale of the

recyclables from the City’s residential curbside collection

program

Approach: The City will commit staff resources to enforce the

existing anti-scavenging ordinance. Public Works staff will

work with the Pasadena Police Department to identify and

cite scavengers. Public Works staff will meet with the Police

Department staff to identify strategies for reducing

scavenging. These could include: increasing police or code

enforcement presence in neighborhoods where scavenging

has been significant, conducting public education to raise

23

awareness and help prevent scavenging, advertising a call-in

number for residents who observe scavenging, and training

collection truck drivers to identify and report scavenging

activities they observe on their routes.

Next Steps:

Review best practices for preventing scavenging

throughout the state and across the country

Formulate strategies for reducing scavenging

Develop a scavenging prevention educational campaign

targeted to residents

Increase frequency of periodic, coordinated enforcement

sweeps


7. Foster development of local and regional infrastructure

for processing food scraps and other organic and

compostable materials

Objective: Increase the diversion of organic and compostable

materials, including yard trimmings and food scraps. Develop

regional processing capacity for organics and compostable

materials near Pasadena.

Approach: Using information from the waste characterization

study on the types and quantities of organics and other

compostable materials generated in Pasadena, identify needs

and available processing capacity. (Compostable materials

must be confirmed in writing as compostable by a certified

processing facility.) Consider partnering with neighboring

municipalities that are pursuing facilities for compostable

materials processing, such as the Cities of Los Angeles and

Glendale. Some of the City’s commercial haulers, including

Athens Services and Crown Disposal Company, operate

composting facilities within the region. The City of Glendale is

pursuing expansion of compostable materials processing

capacity at the Scholl Canyon Landfill. There may be an

opportunity for a potential partnership between the Cities of

Pasadena and Glendale. The City of Glendale is also

evaluating building an anaerobic digestion facility at Scholl

Canyon Landfill.

A portion of the material the City of Pasadena is currently

diverting consists of green waste made up of tree trimmings,

grass clippings and other landscaping materials that are used

as alternative daily cover (ADC) at Scholl Canyon landfill.

Diversion credit for ADC is likely to be discontinued based on

legislative trends and the City’s diversion rate would be

reduced by approximately 3 percent (or daily per capita

disposal would be increased by 0.65 pounds per person per

day) if this material is not diverted by other means such as

composting.

Next Steps:

Evaluate the potential for transporting materials to

existing organics processing facilities and conduct a

formal Request for Proposals

Support appropriate legislation that facilitates the

development of local composting capacity

Stay abreast of developing technologies and facilities for

food waste processing within the vicinity of Pasadena

Pursue partnerships with other jurisdictions as

opportunities arise

Explore funding opportunities for developing new or

expanding existing organics processing infrastructure



Objective: Increase understanding of Zero Waste and the

ability to reduce waste generation and increase reuse,

recycling, and composting

Approach: Offer free technical assistance to businesses to

transition to new programs such as food waste composting

and comply with potential mandatory measures such as a

polystyrene food packaging ban. Conduct outreach to

educate businesses about requirements and ensure their

24

compliance through site visits. City staff will be available to

visit businesses, assess existing conditions, provide training

materials and make recommendations for enhancements to

waste reduction, reuse, recycling, composting and other Zero

Waste initiatives.

Next Steps:

Develop an outreach plan to work collaboratively with

businesses in developing new programs and to prepare

for mandates such as food waste composting and a

polystyrene food packaging ban

Develop a Zero Waste Pasadena website with

information for businesses, schools and institutions to

keep them informed of waste diversion options and new

initiatives

Promote the lending of City recycling equipment for all

large business events



Objective: Expand waste reduction, reuse, and recycling at

Pasadena schools to help the City meet its Zero Waste goals

Approach: During the 2012/2013 school year, the City and the

Pasadena Unified School District (PUSD) collaborated to

develop a Green Living Curriculum (GLC) and recycling

program for Pasadena schools. The City and PUSD jointly

created a curriculum and designed a school recycling

program. The Pasadena Department of Public Works and

Pasadena Water and Power provided funds to cover 100

percent of the GLC educator’s costs.

The GLC educator provides instruction on the 3Rs (Reduce,

Reuse, Recycle) and resource conservation (energy and

water). The educator also assists with establishment of

student “Green Teams” for student run recycling programs

and leads field trips.

The first year of the program, the GLC was taught to second

and third grade classes in ten schools. The second year, the

GLC was taught to only the second grade classes to avoid

repeating the lessons to the same children in 13 schools. In

2013/2014, the GLC was taught to 1,003 second graders in

13 PUSD elementary schools. The program is ongoing.

The City also obtained a State grant to purchase recycling

equipment for all PUSD schools. A recycling team made up of

Public Works staff, the GLC educator and the PUSD science

contractor was formed to design a recycling program tailored

to each school. The team strived to develop a convenient,

long term, stable recycling program. Although the two year

grant period has ended, the City will continue to monitor and

support the recycling program by maintaining high

awareness, addressing any problems that arise and

expanding to other areas such as composting.

Next Steps:

Investigate the waste diversion efforts at private schools

and college campuses and encourage the development

of new programs and expansion of existing programs

Create “Go Zero” challenge for school campuses

In conjunction with the Pasadena Education Foundation,

develop a Zero Waste course to add to the summer

enrichment program

Explore collaborative projects with local colleges to

develop engaging Zero Waste videos tailored to students

in specific age groups


10. Implement diversion programs for food scraps and other

organic and compostable materials

Objective: Divert food scraps and other organic and

compostable materials for beneficial use

Approach: Currently there is limited local infrastructure and

experience in food waste collection and processing, though

25

there is some developing regional infrastructure. The

approach will be to identify processors within the Pasadena

vicinity, work out the collection logistics and identify and

remove barriers to diverting this waste material. Investing in

local infrastructure will reduce transportation and collection

costs, increase the efficiency of City operations and reduce

environmental impacts.

Pasadena receives diversion credit for sending yard waste to

Scholl Canyon Landfill to be utilized as alternative daily cover

(ADC). Diversion credit for ADC is likely to be discontinued

based on legislative trends. Consequently, the City’s

diversion rate would be reduced by 3 percent (or daily per

capita disposal would be increased by 0.65 pounds per

person per day) if this material is not diverted by other means

such as composting. The City will seek alternative diversion

options for residential yard waste in order to continue

receiving diversion credit.

Next Steps:

To encourage innovative food waste diversion efforts,

open the franchise system to composting haulers

Investigate best practices for organics diversion and

facilitate options for the collection and processing of food

scraps and other organic and compostable materials

generated by businesses and multifamily properties with

five or more units

Keep City staff, elected officials and the community

abreast of legislation concerning food waste diversion

and support as appropriate

In anticipation that there will be State mandates for

commercial food waste diversion in the near future,

assess the feasibility of creating an exclusive restaurant

and grocery store franchise zone.

Provide technical assistance to the business community

to optimize participation in commercial food waste

diversion programs

Investigate alternatives to sending residential yard waste

to the landfill to be used as ADC

Haul a limited number of residential yard waste loads

over a three to six month timeframe to an organics

processing facility in the region to assess feasibility and

logistics

Assess the feasibility of commingling residential yard

waste with food waste for transport to an organics

processing facility in the region and potentially design a

six month residential organics collection pilot

Promote grass-cycling and backyard composting


11. Review Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) fee structure

Objective: Ensure the viability and effectiveness of the PAYT

system

Approach: Evaluate the current PAYT system and identify

opportunities to improve diversion incentives while

maintaining a rate structure that is fair and equitable to rate

payers. Over time, if more customers reduce waste and

migrate to lower levels of service, these rates may not be

adequate to cover the costs of the collection system and pay

for the programs needed. Additionally, staff needs to consider

whether the cost differential between the three cart sizes is

adequate to incentivize residents to recycle more and move

toward a smaller, less expensive mixed waste cart. City staff

will carefully monitor program costs and needs as well as rate

revenues. Future implementation will include an analysis of

potential “Zero Waste rate structures” where residents pay a

rate based on all services (recycling, compostable materials,

and mixed waste) to reflect a true cost of service.

Next Steps:

Compare rates and included services from other PAYT

cities in California and across the country, particularly

those cities providing residential food waste programs

26

Develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a

consultant/third party expert to perform a rate study and

review of Pasadena’s PAYT system, evaluate the cost

differential between the mixed waste cart sizes and

determine if changes will be needed to maintain

incentives for the future

Hire consultant to perform rate study and PAYT review


12. Expand commercial and multifamily recycling

Objective: Increase the diversion rate within the commercial

and multifamily sector

Approach: Pasadena has a robust commercial/multifamily

recycling infrastructure as well as a competitive environment.

Encourage expansion of commercial and multifamily recycling

for generators to increase participation and diversion. Some

commercial generators in Pasadena fall below the State’s

mandatory recycling threshold of four cubic yards of waste

generation per week. This initiative may extend recycling

requirements to all commercial and multifamily generators.

Multifamily residents express confusion and dissatisfaction

concerning the current apartment recycling system. The

majority of the multifamily complexes have a system in place

where trash and recycling are commingled in the same

container. Recyclables are removed at material recovery

facilities. The City will investigate encouraging or requiring

source separated recycling at apartment complexes by

adding more requirements to franchise agreements or by

implementing a commercial/multifamily recycling ordinance.

Source separated programs are more visible to participants

and they can potentially recover a higher percentage of

recyclables if participation is high and contamination is kept

low. Outreach would also be conducted to property

managers, industry groups, apartment residents, and

employees so that they understand requirements and

implementation timeframes, thus ensuring a smooth

transition. Any mandatory recycling policy adopted would be

accompanied with an aggressive education and outreach

component (as described below) to ensure that generators

understand how to “right-size” their mixed waste collection

services to reduce costs of collection and increase recycling

capacity for additional commodities. Based on the franchised

haulers’ compliance with the commercial recycling reporting

requirement, the City has an understanding of the existing

commercial recycling programs, service opportunities and

service voids. The City can work with its franchised haulers to

prioritize commercial generators for technical assistance. For

this initiative, the City will conduct stakeholder meetings to

identify barriers to implementation of source separated

recycling programs, develop a draft commercial/multifamily

recycling ordinance for City Council consideration and, as

appropriate, implement the new requirements in a phased

manner over time. The performance standards which

currently require franchise haulers to divert 60 percent of

mixed waste and 75 percent of Construction and Demolition

Materials from the landfill will be reviewed and raised as

diversion technology improves over time.

Next Steps:

Work through the franchise hauler system to identify the

commercial and multifamily properties that generate less

than four cubic yards of waste per week

Determine the amount of waste generated by Pasadena

businesses that do not fall under the current commercial

recycling mandate and the disposition of this waste

stream

Investigate barriers to requiring source separated

recycling at multifamily properties

Investigate the appropriateness of implementing

mandatory measures such as modifications to the

franchise hauler system or a commercial/multifamily

recycling ordinance

27

Research existing commercial/multifamily recycling

ordinances throughout the state and across the country

to determine best practices


13. Optimize C&D waste diversion

Objective: Review and optimize the C&D diversion

requirements in order to divert the maximum amount of C&D

debris generated in Pasadena

Approach: Revise/amend the C&D ordinance and the hauler

C&D reporting and diversion requirements. In 2014, the C&D

Ordinance was amended to comply with the State’s updated

California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen)

requirements. Square footage thresholds of covered projects

were lowered and the diversion requirements were increased

to 75 percent in support of the City of Pasadena’s Zero Waste

goal. The City will continue to reevaluate administrative

procedures and determine the optimum level of diversion that

is achievable.

Next Steps:

Evaluate future measures such as prohibiting direct

disposal of C&D debris or mandatory processing of all

C&D materials

Stay current with C&D recycling ordinances throughout

the state and evaluate the applicability to Pasadena’s

conditions



Objective: Expand waste reduction, reuse, and recycling at

City facilities, establishing the City’s leadership and

commitment to meeting its Zero Waste goals

Approach: Assess programs and policies currently in place at

City facilities and parks and identify opportunities to expand

waste reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. Establish

consistent waste reduction, recycling and composting

programs for City facilities to implement, with provisions for

monitoring and accountability. The City will model the

behavior it seeks in its residents and businesses by

maximizing recycling and composting at all City facilities.

Public Works staff will partner with other City departments to

recruit Recycling Coordinators within each department to

assist with implementing and monitoring recycling and

composting systems. As with commercial and school

recycling programs, collection systems at City facilities can be

optimized through waste assessments, sharing of “best

practices,” and “right-sizing” recycling and mixed waste

containers and services. For this initiative, Public Works staff

will convene quarterly meetings of the City’s Recycling

Coordinators to identify service voids and opportunities and to

provide technical assistance and training. A phased-in

approach will be utilized to facilitate implementation within the

City’s available budget and resource allocations.

Next Steps:

Perform an audit of existing in-house recycling at all City

facilities and parks

Recruit and train recycling coordinator for each City

facility

Establish recycling programs at facilities lacking existing

programs

Establish guidelines for hosting Zero Waste events


15. Implement diversion of food scraps and other organic

and compostable materials at stadiums and other public

venues and events

Objective: Divert food scraps and other compostable

materials for beneficial use

Approach: Require the implementation of diversion programs

for food scraps and other compostable materials at large

28

events (greater than 2,000 persons per day or event) such as

Rose Bowl Stadium football games and concerts. The City

will conduct a feasibility study and explore grant opportunities

for organics diversion programs. Conduct meetings with

venue operators and franchised haulers to identify

opportunities and barriers to implementation of organics

diversion programs. Prepare program materials, identify costs

and implementation tasks, and develop a draft ordinance

requiring composting at large events for consideration by the

City Council. Require venue operators to collect the materials

and arrange for transportation and processing of the

materials. Require affected facility managers and event

organizers to report to the City on the types and quantities of

materials diverted and the final use of the materials.

Next Steps:

Continue to work with the Rose Bowl Operating

Company toward transitioning from conventional food

packaging to use of compostable products

Promote use of compostable food packaging at all large

venue events such as the Tournament of Roses Parade,

runs, marathons, festivals and flea markets

Develop Green Events guidelines for events requiring

City permits


16. Develop Zero Waste business partnership program

Objective: Expand the visibility of local businesses making

significant strides toward eliminating waste to model and raise

awareness of best waste reduction practices within the

commercial sector

Approach: The City will develop incentive programs to

recognize businesses with exemplary waste diversion

achievements

Next Steps:

Review green business programs being implemented

locally, throughout the state and across the country and

determine best practices

Develop a Zero Waste business partnership program

Collaborate with business owners and industry

associations to identify businesses interested in

participating in the Zero Waste business partnership

program

Recognize business partners through methods such as

publishing the names of partnering businesses on the

City’s website and running list ads in local publications

Enhance existing Green City Award program to

recognize businesses that have made substantial

progress toward achieving Zero Waste

Explore implementing a “Go Zero” challenge for

businesses and institutions



Objective: Increase recovery of recyclables from high traffic

public areas

Approach: Provide collection receptacles for beverage

containers and recyclable paper in public areas throughout

Pasadena. Containers would be stationed in high traffic areas

such as parks, shopping districts, libraries, museums, the

Playhouse District, etc.

Next Steps:

Identify recycling containers appropriate for Pasadena

(preferably high-tech, environmentally friendly

compactors), estimate the number of recycling

containers needed and the cost to purchase the

containers

Develop a budget line item for purchasing new

containers over a five-year period

29

Pursue grant programs and other funding opportunities

for purchasing recycling containers

Develop routes for servicing recycling containers

Procure and install recycling containers


18. Optimize self-haul reporting and waste diversion

Objective: Increase accuracy of disposal reporting by self-

haulers

Approach: In order to reach diversion goals it is important to

accurately account for the point of origin of waste. Based on

the waste characterization study, an unrealistic amount of

self-hauled waste is being reported as originating from

Pasadena. The City of Pasadena will partner with local

jurisdictions to develop more accurate accounting of self-haul

waste origin, involving transfer stations, MRFs, and landfill

operators.

Next Steps:

Conduct survey of local landfills to determine the current

practices for documenting waste origin (driver’s license,

commercial accounts)

Obtain the records of the landfills and review the list of

self-haulers (contractors, clean-up companies,

commercial generators)

Work with the Sanitation District to develop more

stringent reporting requirements for self-haulers

Support regional development of resource recovery

parks at landfills and transfer stations for self-haulers to

segregate their loads for recycling


19. Foster development of local and regional infrastructure

for processing residual mixed waste (i.e., no market

materials)

Objective: Develop appropriate options for diverting waste

materials for which there are currently no markets

Approach: Using information from the waste characterization

study on the components and quantities of mixed waste, the

City will research opportunities for beneficial use. Several

nearby communities are investigating future development of

mixed waste processing and are evaluating emerging

technologies including anaerobic digestion, gasification and

advanced thermal recycling (waste-to-energy). As landfill

capacity in the region decreases, these alternative treatment

methods will become more economically viable. It may be

beneficial to evaluate the initiatives being pursued by

Pasadena Water and Power as well as other communities

and the private sector before actively engaging in the

development of alternative technologies. The City will look for

appropriate opportunities for partnerships and continue to

monitor the technical and economic viability of emerging

residual mixed waste processing technologies.

Next Steps:

As opportunities arise, partner with Pasadena Water and

Power and neighboring jurisdictions that are pursuing

facilities for residual mixed waste processing, such as

the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County and the

City of Glendale


30

Diversion Potential

Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste reduction

potential of each policy and program. The diversion estimates are

based on comparable policies and programs implemented in other

jurisdictions, research, and educated estimates. Table 5 shows the

2010 generation and diversion rate and summarizes the diversion

potential by generator sector for the proposed Zero Waste policies

and programs. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that

Pasadena can achieve 87 percent diversion, a very high rate of

diversion, by implementing the policies and programs identified.

Appendix C includes the calculations used for estimating the

diversion potential of each of the policies and programs considered

by the City.

The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time assuming

full implementation of all programs. In reality, policies and

programs will be developed over time through additional research,

testing, and pilot programs before the programs are fully

implemented. Some initiatives will require new ordinances and

regulations, which will require City Council action and time to

implement.

Zero Waste is a design framework for reducing generation of

waste and maximizing diversion, not a strict tonnage goal. By

implementing the proposed policies and programs, the City will be

striving towards Zero Waste, even though there will still be some

residual waste that will be disposed.

Zero Waste Plan Estimated Diversion

Sector 2010 Baseline Waste Generation

(tons)1

Projected Diversion

(tons)

Projected Diversion Increase

(%)

Single-family Residential 65,674 8,788 3.4%

Multifamily Residential 12,934 1,047 0.4%

Commercial 116,464 16,785 6.6%

Other 59,945 9,390 3.7%

TOTAL 255,017 36,010 14.1%

Pasadena’s 2010 overall diversion 73 %

TOTAL PROJECTED DIVERSION WITH ZERO WASTE INITIATIVES 87.1%

1The data reflects tonnages tracked by the City including the Pay-As-You-Throw Curbside Services, the Franchise Hauler System, Waste to Energy and Other Waste disposed at the landfill.

Wood pile at a local construction site

Table 5 Existing Generation and Potential Diversion

31

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Potential

The City of Pasadena is committed to reducing greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions in order to comply with legislation such as

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of

2006, and achieve goals outlined in the City’s various policies such

as the Climate Action Plan. The Zero Waste initiatives

recommended in this plan can significantly reduce the City of

Pasadena’s greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the estimated

diversion rates previously discussed, Table 6 presents the GHG

reduction potential of the scenarios using the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM) to

estimate GHG reduction based on material types and amounts

diverted.

The U.S. EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and

organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas

emissions reductions from several different waste management

practices. WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions of baseline

and alternative waste management practices—source reduction,

recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates

emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons

of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million

British thermal units, or Btu) across a wide range of material types

commonly found in municipal solid waste. Calculation of carbon

equivalency allows for a comparison of sectors contributing to the

reduction of greenhouse gases. Appendix D includes the detailed

results of the WARM calculations.

Table 6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Potential

Zero Waste Emissions Reduction

Sector Emissions Reduction

(MTCO2E)

Single-Family Residential 2,428

Multifamily Residential 468

Commercial 6,870

Other 1,925

Wood pile at a local construction site

32

Implementation Schedule

In determining the implementation schedule of the plan, the City

grouped programs and initiatives into short-term, medium-term and

long-term categories. Short-term is defined as being from the

present to 2017, medium-term is defined as 2017 to 2020, and

long-term as 2020 to 2040. The following factors were considered

in categorizing the programs: available resources and technology,

feasibility of implementation, performance of current programs and

existing infrastructure.

The implementation schedule for the recommended Zero Waste

initiatives is indicated in Table 7 and Exhibit 8.

Table 7 Zero Waste Strategic Plan Implementation Schedule

Term Initiative

Short-term 2014 – 2017

Adopt Zero Waste Plan/resolution


Enhance educational outreach

Promote junk mail blocking, catalog & phone book opt-out

Expand product stewardship efforts & EPR policies

Enhance enforcement of anti-scavenging ordinance

Foster infrastructure development for processing food scraps & other organics & compostables

Provide business technical assistance

Expand school programs

Short to Medium-term 2014 – 2020

Implement diversion programs for food scraps & other organics & compostables

Review Pay-As-You-Throw fee structure

Expand commercial & multifamily recycling

Optimize C&D waste diversion

Medium-term 2017 – 2020

Optimize waste diversion at City facilities

Implement composting at stadiums & other large events

Develop Zero Waste business partnership program

Expand recycling in public areas

Optimize self-haul reporting & waste diversion

Long-term 2020 – 2040

Foster infrastructure development for processing residual mixed waste (i.e., no market materials)

Pasadena residents dropping off recyclables at a redemption center

33

Exhibit 8 Zero Waste Plan Timeline

2. Implement product & disposal bans

(e.g., polystyrene food packaging)


4. Promote junk mail blocking, catalog &

phone book opt-out

5. Expand product stewardship efforts &

EPR policies

6. Enhance enforcement of anti-

scavenging ordinance

10. Implement diversion programs for food scraps & other organics & compostables

11. Review Pay-As-You-Throw fee structure

7. Foster infrastructure development for

processing food scraps, organics & compostables

19. Foster development of local & regional

infrastructure for processing residual mixed waste (i.e., no market materials)

12. Expand commercial & multifamily recycling




15. Implement composting at stadiums &

large events

16. Develop Zero Waste business partnership

program


18. Optimize self-haul reporting & waste

diversion

13. Optimize C&D waste diversion

Color CodeLight blue = Short-term

Pink = Short to medium-termGreen = Medium-termBeige = Long-term

1. Adopt Zero Waste Plan/resolution─2014

2014 - 2017 (Short-term)

2014 - 2020 (Short to medium-term)

2017 - 2020 (Medium-term)

2020 - 2040 (Long-term)

34

FOOTNOTES

1. Grassroots Recycling Network, What is Zero Waste? http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/zerowaste_faq.html

2. The internationally peer-reviewed definition of “Zero Waste” was developed by the Zero Waste International Alliance,

http://zwia.org/standards/zw-definition/

3. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, State and Cities Quick Facts.

4. The City may conduct a future audit of the local landfills and transfer stations to determine the accuracy of the self-haul reporting.

5. California Department of Finance, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2013 with 2010 Census

Benchmark, January 2013. http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php According to the 2010

Census, Pasadena has 59,551 total housing units comprised of 30,310 Single-Family units, 5,248 Multiplex (2-4) units, 23,863 Multifamily

(5 or more) units and 130 mobile homes.

6. CalRecycle, “Diversion/Disposal Rate Report.”

7. Cascadia Consulting Group, for the California Integrated Waste Management Board (now “CalRecycle”).

8. The amount of disposed materials from self-haul generators attributed to Pasadena was 39 percent in fiscal year 2010. This is

significantly higher than the statewide average of 20 percent for self-haul (source: CalRecycle 2008 Waste Characterization Study). There

are several potential reasons for this: 1) self-haulers from adjacent unincorporated areas of Pasadena could be misreporting loads as

being from Pasadena; 2) building contractors in Pasadena under certain circumstances may self-haul C&D materials to the landfill instead

of subscribing to C&D collection from the franchised haulers.

http://www.grrn.org/zerowaste/zerowaste_faq.html

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php

APPENDIX A WASTE CHARACTERIZATION DATA

Appendix A Waste Characterization Data

Page A - 1

Composition of Waste Disposed (2010/11)

City of Pasadena

Methodology: % composition was obtained from the California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study (Southern Region data) prepared by Cascadia Consulting Group for CIWMB (CalRecycle).

Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11)

Waste Composition (2008) - Southern Region

TOTAL Single -family dwellings

Multifamily dwellings

Commercial Self-haul

Single-family dwellings



Category Type 152,881 28,272 5,595 59,069 59,945

Paper 21,300 5,158 1,241 11,844 3,056

18.2459% 22.1830% 20.0514% 5.0978%

1 Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 6,207 566 250 4,410 981

2.0035% 4.4681% 7.4661% 1.6361%

2 Paper Bags 460 116 28 146 171

0.4092% 0.4936% 0.2467% 0.2844%

3 Newspaper 1,596 812 170 547 67

2.8720% 3.0432% 0.9258% 0.1114%

4 White Ledger Paper 901 99 21 647 133

0.3509% 0.3817% 1.0958% 0.2216%

5 Other Office Paper 1,403 307 159 783 154

1.0861% 2.8346% 1.3262% 0.2574%

6 Magazines and Catalogs 802 339 64 330 69

1.1996% 1.1501% 0.5583% 0.1147%

7 Phone Books and Directories 57 32 1 24 0

0.1145% 0.0102% 0.0409% 0.0000%

8 Other Miscellaneous Paper 3,479 1,262 289 1,343 585

4.4652% 5.1603% 2.2733% 0.9761%

9 Remainder/Composite Paper 6,395 1,624 260 3,614 897

5.7449% 4.6412% 6.1181% 1.4961%

Glass 1,699 608 161 706 225

2.1493% 2.8804% 1.1946% 0.3751%

10 Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 566 222 65 275 3

0.7862% 1.1705% 0.4661% 0.0048%

11 Green Glass Bottles and Containers 225 117 34 70 4

0.4124% 0.6005% 0.1189% 0.0070%

12 Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 313 101 29 170 13

0.3582% 0.5140% 0.2885% 0.0215%

13 Other Glass Colored Bottles and Containers 108 32 26 18 31

0.1145% 0.4733% 0.0303% 0.0513%

14 Flat Glass 149 3 0 11 136

0.0104% 0.0000% 0.0182% 0.2263%

15 Remainder/Composite Glass 338 132 7 161 38

0.4676% 0.1221% 0.2725% 0.0642%


Page A - 2

Category Type TOTAL

Single -family dwellings



Single-family dwellings



Metals 6,410 1,037 187 2,559 2,626

16 Tin/Steel Cans 696 251 54 372 19

0.8862% 0.9720% 0.6291% 0.0317%

17 Major Appliances 76 0 0 76 0

0.0000% 0.0000% 0.1294% 0.0000%

18 Used Oil Filters 17 17 0 0 0

0.0594% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

19 Other Ferrous 2,814 350 47 889 1,528

1.2371% 0.8397% 1.5044% 2.5493%

20 Aluminum Cans 138 69 6 59 4

0.2436% 0.0997% 0.0995% 0.0074%

21 Other Non-Ferrous 326 103 9 148 65

0.3647% 0.1628% 0.2511% 0.1085%

22 Remainder/Composite Metal 2,344 248 71 1,015 1,010

0.8768% 1.2723% 1.7191% 1.6845%

Electronics

361 104 2 62 193

0.3665% 0.0305% 0.1056% 0.3220%

23 Brown Goods 99 55 0 44 0

0.1937% 0.0000% 0.0752% 0.0000%

24 Computer-related Electronics 219 26 0 0 193

0.0927% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.3220%

25 Other Small Consumer Electronics 42 23 2 18 0

0.0802% 0.0305% 0.0303% 0.0000%

26 Video Display Devices 0 0 0 0 0

0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

Plastics 12,793 2,799 390 6,209 3,394

9.8998% 6.9719% 10.5119% 5.6626%

27 PETE Containers 612 235 60 293 24

0.8304% 1.0687% 0.4954% 0.0406%

28 HDPE Containers 445 144 57 228 15

0.5092% 1.0229% 0.3865% 0.0254%

29 Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 493 168 32 286 8

0.5925% 0.5649% 0.4845% 0.0132%

30 Plastic Trash Bags 1,192 251 42 747 152

0.8862% 0.7532% 1.2646% 0.2537%

31 Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 385 192 29 150 14

0.6774% 0.5242% 0.2531% 0.0241%

32 Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 652 12 1 508 131

0.0427% 0.0153% 0.8600% 0.2193%

33 Film Products 865 3 11 138 713

0.0115% 0.1883% 0.2339% 1.1891%

34 Other Film 1,506 409 67 949 80

1.4474% 1.1959% 1.6074% 0.1336%

35 Durable Plastic Items 3,260 949 29 985 1,298

3.3551% 0.5140% 1.6675% 2.1650%

36 Remainder/Composite Plastic 3,384 437 63 1,925 958

1.5474% 1.1247% 3.2589% 1.5988%

Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Waste Composition (2008) –Southern Region


Page A - 3

Category Type TOTAL Single -family dwellings


Commercial Self-haul Single-family dwellings



Other Organics 40,513 13,293 2,336 18,817 6,067

47.0175% 41.7502% 31.8567% 10.1212%

37 Food 17,372 6,837 1,206 9,027 302

24.1825% 21.5570% 15.2820% 0.5038%

38 Leaves and Grass 4,257 2,189 83 1,473 512

7.7432% 1.4911% 2.4932% 0.8535%

39 Prunings and Trimmings 4,686 945 5 2,490 1,247

3.3416% 0.0814% 4.2160% 2.0798%

40 Branches and Stumps 1,561 1 0 435 1,124

0.0052% 0.0000% 0.7369% 1.8750%

41 Manures 21 21 0 0 0

0.0739% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

42 Textiles 2,234 978 185 625 446

3.4582% 3.3079% 1.0579% 0.7445%

43 Carpet 5,800 360 346 2,950 2,144

1.2746% 6.1781% 4.9944% 3.5770%

44 Remainder/Composite Organic 4,582 1,962 511 1,817 292

6.9383% 9.1348% 3.0763% 0.4875%

Inerts and Other 59,472 4,159 992 16,593 37,729

14.7107% 17.7250% 28.0903% 62.9392%

45 Concrete 2,420 414 0 440 1,566

1.4641% 0.0000% 0.7452% 2.6119%

46 Asphalt Paving 1,312 0 0 0 1,312

0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 2.1882%

47 Asphalt Roofing 4,986 57 0 1,372 3,556

0.2031% 0.0000% 2.3226% 5.9328%

48 Lumber 28,036 2,200 694 9,719 15,422

7.7818% 12.4121% 16.4540% 25.7266%

49 Gypsum Board 3,568 92 0 1,031 2,445

0.3270% 0.0000% 1.7446% 4.0781%

50 Rock, Soil and Fines 8,355 464 0 930 6,961

1.6401% 0.0000% 1.5748% 11.6123%

51 Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 10,797 931 297 3,101 6,468

3.2947% 5.3129% 5.2490% 10.7893%

HHW 332 68 10 185 68

0.2418% 0.1863% 0.3139% 0.1138%

52 Paint 183 10 0 157 15

0.0354% 0.0000% 0.2665% 0.0251%

53 Vehicle & Equipment Fluids 16 6 5 0 5

0.0229% 0.0814% 0.0000% 0.0091%

54 Used Oil 23 23 0 0 0

0.0823% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

55 Batteries 35 16 4 6 9

0.0551% 0.0743% 0.0097% 0.0151%

56 Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 76 13 2 22 39

0.0461% 0.0305% 0.0377% 0.0645%

Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Waste Composition (2008) –Southern Region


Page A - 4

Category Type TOTAL Single -family dwellings


Commercial Self-haul Single-family dwellings

Multifamily

dwellings


Special Waste 8,942 61 215 2,090 6,576

0.2145% 3.8371% 3.5389% 10.9698%

57 Ash 103 5 7 91 0

0.0177% 0.1170% 0.1543% 0.0000%

58 Treated Medical Waste 0 0 0 0 0

0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

59 Bulky Items 8,610 0 208 1,826 6,576

0.0000% 3.7201% 3.0921% 10.9698%

60 Tires 147 5 0 142 0

0.0167% 0.0000% 0.2403% 0.0000%

61 Remainder/Composite Special Waste 82 51 0 31 0

0.1801% 0.0000% 0.0522% 0.0000%

Mixed Residue 1,059 986 61 2 10

3.4863% 1.0890% 0.0040% 0.0171%

62 Mixed Residue 1,059 986 61 2 10

3.4863% 1.0890% 0.0040% 0.0171%

TOTAL 152,881 28,272 5,595 59,069 59,945

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

18% 4% 39% 39%

Tonnage Allocation (% of total)

Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11)

Waste Composition (2008) –Southern Region Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11)

Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11) Tons Disposed by Sector and Materials Type (2010/11)

APPENDIX B CURRENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Page B - 1

CURRENT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Current Policies and Plans

In planning for Zero Waste, it is important to review and understand existing policies and plans to ensure that the Zero Waste

Plan supports and enhances the City’s existing goals.

Pasadena Municipal Code

Chapters 8.60, 8.61, and 8.62 of the Pasadena Municipal Code (PMC) directly relate to the City’s solid waste programs.

Ordinances related to solid waste collection are covered in Chapters 8.60-8.61. Chapter 8.60 contains ordinances for the City’s

solid waste collection services, including the waste reduction program, solid waste collection and service fees, and the bulky item

pickup program. Chapter 8.61 provides ordinances for the franchised collection services, which include requirements for waste

reduction and recycling services as well as required recycling diversion rates.

Chapter 8.62 includes a requirement to have waste management plans for certain construction and demolition (C&D) projects. C&D

recycling was mandated with the adoption of Ordinance 6917 in 2002. An amendment to Chapter 8.62 was adopted in February

2014 requiring applicable C&D projects to divert a minimum of 75 percent of the materials generated through recycling, salvage, or

deconstruction. The ordinance is applicable to all demolitions, residential additions and remodels regardless of size, new structures

of at least 120 square feet, tenant improvements of at least 1,000 square feet, and all City projects and competitively bid projects

regardless of size. A performance security deposit is required to be collected at the beginning of each project and is refundable

when recycling requirements are met. A final report with a summary of the diversion obtained, including documentation, are

required in order for the deposit to be returned.

Table B-1 provides an overview of the amount of C&D materials disposed and diverted from 2006 to 2013 from covered projects

hauled by franchised haulers.

Table B-1 C&D Debris Disposal and Diversion

Year C&D Disposed (Tons) C&D Diverted

(Tons) Diversion

(%)

2006 4,586 19,011 81%

2007 3,534 19,506 85%

2008 2,525 17,173 87%

2009 1,705 12,732 88%

2010 1,216 8,692 88%

2011 1,295 11,544 90%

2012 1,467 10,365 88%

2013 1,447 9,929 87%

Source: City of Pasadena Non-Exclusive Hauler Reports, 2006-2013

Page B - 2

Zoning Code

The Zoning Code (PMC 17.10-80) describes various types of zoning districts and land use classifications, land use regulations,

development standards, and environmental performance standards. The Zoning Code’s purpose is to protect and promote the

public’s health, safety, and general welfare, and to implement the policies of the General Plan. Related to solid waste, Ordinance

17.40.120 requires development and construction of new structures to include storage areas for the collection of mixed waste

and recyclable materials. This helps ensure that new buildings account for the space to house the collection of recyclables,

which helps promote the implementation of recycling programs.

General Plan

The City’s General Plan provides a long range road map to guide the City’s decision making process for the future. The General

Plan is made up of seven elements that include the following:

1. Land Use

2. Circulation or Mobility

3. Housing

4. Open Space

5. Conservation

6. Noise

7. Safety

In 2009, the City began updating four elements of the General Plan: Land Use, Mobility, Open Space, and Conservation. A

General Plan community survey was distributed in the summer of 2011 to collect feedback on the alternatives and the existing

General Plan's guiding principles. The survey responses were used to help draft the concept land use map and policies that were

presented for review by the public, advisory commissions and City Council in the spring of 2012.

The General Plan’s Conservation Element recognizes the finite limits of Pasadena’s natural resources and develops means for

their protection and orderly use. A major role of this section is to provide policy guidelines for managing Pasadena's natural

resources. Goal 2.3 in the Conservation Element states “Environmental management is a key consideration in the planning and

decision-making process.” The Zero Waste Plan will complement the General Plan by incorporating environmental management

as a means of reducing the impact to natural resources.

California Green Building Standards Code

Similar to the City’s C&D Ordinance, the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requires a construction waste

management plan for residential and non-residential projects. The State Code requires the diversion of a minimum of 50 percent

of the C&D debris generated by “efficient usage, recycling, and reuse on the project site or salvage for future use or sale.” The

City’s C&D Ordinance has many features in common with CALGreen. The added requirement of a deposit plus the higher 75

percent diversion requirement, however, make the City’s C&D Ordinance more stringent than the Green Building Standards

Code, resulting in it being the superseding document for C&D projects. As discussed previously in this document, the City square

footage thresholds were lowered in 2014 to meet the most current CALGreen requirements.

Page B - 3

United Nations Urban Environmental Accords and Green Cities Declaration

On September 18, 2006, the City endorsed the United Nations (U.N.) Urban Environmental Accords (UEA). The U.N.’s Green

Cities Declaration is an agreement signed as a part of the UEA that recognizes the importance of global cooperation to mitigate

climate change. The UEA contains 21 action items that lay the groundwork for addressing urban environmental issues in seven

different areas:

1. Energy

2. Waste reduction

3. Urban design

4. Urban nature

5. Transportation

6. Environmental health

7. Water

The UEA was aimed at implementing as many of the 21 Actions as possible by World Environment Day, June 5th, 2012. The 21

action items covered in the UEA are the basis of the City’s Green City Action Plan described further in this plan. The UEA

addresses the goal of achieving Zero Waste by 2040; the Zero Waste Plan will be developed to help Pasadena reach that goal.

Green City Action Plan

Approved by the City Council on September 18, 2006, the Green City Action Plan is a progressive list of environmental initiatives

for the City to take in its mission to become a sustainable and green community. The Green City Action Plan is modeled off of

the goals listed in the UEA.

The City has developed a set of sustainability indicators grouped by the seven thematic areas of the UEA. The goal is to use

these indicators as a tool for assessing Pasadena’s progress in meeting the UEA targets in a verifiable and measurable way;

2008 was the first year the indicators were produced and they have been reported every year since then.

The City has been actively pursuing projects to attain the goals outlined in the Green City Action Plan. As of 2010, the City had

successfully implemented eight of the 21 actions.

The Waste Reduction category listed in the Green City Action Plan (and UEA) contains the following three initiatives:

UEA 4 – Achieve Zero Waste to landfill and incinerators by 2040

UEA 5 – Reduce the use of a disposable, toxic or nonrenewable product category at least 50 percent by

2012

UEA 6 – Implement “user-friendly” recycling and composting programs with the goal of reducing 20 percent

per capita waste disposal to landfills and incinerators by 2012

Of the three initiatives listed above, the City has successfully achieved UEA 6 and is making progress on achieving UEA 4 and 5.

As of 2010, the City had achieved the goal listed in UEA 6 by increasing diversion for yard trimmings, hazardous waste, and

electronic waste. The development and implementation of the Zero Waste Plan is designed to enable the City to meet the Zero

Page B - 4

Waste goal stated in UEA 4. To target UEA 5, City staff conducted an inventory of toxic chemicals used in City facilities in 2010

and they have developed a process to replace those chemicals with safer, more sustainable alternatives. The plastic bag ban,

which went into effect on July 1, 2012, is another way the City is reducing the use of disposable products in this category.

U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement

The U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, signed at the same time as the UEA, advances the goals of the

Kyoto Protocol. The Agreement offers 12 measures for cities to take that will contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions

(GHG). In order to achieve these goals, cities are asked to take actions in their own operations and communities. Under the

Agreement, cities commit to the following three actions:

1. Strive to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities

2. Urge state governments and the federal government to enact policies and programs to meet or exceed the

GHG emission reduction target of a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012

3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan GHG reduction legislation, which would establish a national

emission trading system

The Agreement is compatible with the UEA and

the Green Cities Action Plan, although it has no

set dates for communities to reach each measure

and the focus is directed towards reducing

climate change. The specific measure that

targets solid waste is listed in the 10th action:

“Increase recycling rates in City operations and in

the community.” The City has been actively

increasing recycling rates and will further expand

efforts through implementation of its Zero Waste

Plan.

Green Cities California Sustainability Resolution

On February 4, 2008, the City adopted the Green Cities California (GCC) Sustainability Resolution. The purpose of this

collaborative effort is to take action to accelerate local, regional, national and international efforts to achieve sustainability.

Participating cities include Berkeley, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose,

Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, and the County of Marin, which together represent over eight million California residents.

The Pasadena City Council adopted the resolution that committed to take the following five actions:

1. Purchasing 100 percent post-consumer recycled paper for municipal operations

2. Prohibiting the purchase of bottled water for municipal operations and government-sponsored events

3. Adopting a carbon offset plan for municipal employee air travel

Beverage container recycling at a UCLA football game at the Rose Bowl

Page B - 5

4. Adopting municipal fleet fuel efficiency standards

5. Promoting the purchase of California foods for municipal events and operations

The Resolution and mission of GCC are consistent with the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the U.N. Green Cities

Declaration and UEA, and the Green City Action Plan. The City has either implemented or actively promotes the five GCC

actions (via the Green City Action Plan), where possible, meeting the requirements of the Resolution.

Urban Climate Action Plan

The City intends to develop the first-ever Urban Climate Action Plan to focus on reduction strategies to cut GHG emissions by 25

percent by 2030. On top of increasing energy efficiency to reduce GHG emissions, the City is also encouraging residents to

compost as a part of the plan. The policies and programs that are addressed in the Zero Waste Plan will support efforts in

composting and other waste reduction activities that will lead to a reduction in GHG emissions.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Resolution

The City adopted an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Resolution on February 22, 2010. The City’s EPR Resolution

establishes the following:

Support to pursue legislation and statewide EPR policies

Support and membership in the California Product Stewardship Council (CPSC)

Signature of the CPSC Pledge of Support and contributing to CPSC to educate and advocate for EPR policies and

programs

Development of EPR policies within the City

Extended producer responsibility is an important area to address in order to reach Zero Waste and implementation of the Zero

Waste Plan will support the goals of the EPR Resolution.

Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance

On October 3, 2011 the City Council unanimously approved an ordinance to prohibit the distribution of single-use plastic carryout

bags for consumer use and to establish a $0.10 fee on single-use paper carryout bags.

Implementation of the Pasadena Plastic Bag Ban Ordinance took place in two phases. Phase 1 of the ordinance went into effect

for large supermarkets on July 1, 2012. Phase 2 of the ordinance went into effect on December 31, 2012 and applies to the

smaller markets, liquor stores, convenience stores, farmers markets, drug stores, pharmacies, and vendors at City-sponsored

events, facilities, or on City property.

The definition of a supermarket includes the following:

Per the California Public Resources Code (Section 14526.5), a “’Supermarket’ means a full-line, self-service retail store

with gross annual sales of two million dollars ($2,000,000), or more, and which sells a line of dry grocery, canned

goods, or nonfood items and some perishable items”

Page B - 6

Buildings that have over 10,000 square feet of retail space that generate sales or use tax pursuant to the Bradley-

Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law and have a pharmacy licensed pursuant to Chapter 9 of Division 2 of the

Business and Professions Code

At a minimum, the implementation of this ordinance advances the Zero Waste goals by reducing the following: the amount of

litter in Pasadena; the number of plastic bags that are disposed in landfills; and the amount of contamination in yard trimmings

containers.

Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan

The Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan was released in October 2009 under the premise that the City is capable of

addressing the various sources of emissions that contribute to climate change. The objectives of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory

and Reduction Plan were to achieve the following:

Create a greenhouse gas (GHG) baseline

Provide a plan that is in line with the efforts conducted at the state (AB 32), federal, and global level

Determine if the City’s sustainability efforts meet the City’s GHG emissions reduction goals

Provide a policy for future developments

The GHG emission goals identified in the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Plan were to reduce emissions to 1990

GHG emissions levels by 2020, and ultimately by 80 percent below 1990 GHG emissions levels by 2050, which is consistent with

the Kyoto Protocol.

Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the California Air Resources Board to

develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by

2020. The City has demonstrated that it will surpass the 2020 reduction target established in AB 32 as a result of the ordinances

and existing City programs implemented in combination with established State reduction programs. The City is also expected to

meet the 2050 goal. Recommended solid waste programs to reduce GHG emissions include implementing the following: a Zero

Waste plan; composting; multifamily and commercial recycling; reduction of C&D debris; E-waste recycling; and eliminating

single-use bags. Some of the programs have been implemented by the City wholly or partially. Those that are partially addressed

are expanded on in the Zero Waste Plan.

Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC)

The Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) was formed in January 2007 and consists of nine residents who advise the City

Council and make policy recommendations in support of the goals and objectives of the City’s Environmental Charter and

monitor and guide the Green City Action Plan. This commission holds monthly meetings open to the public to discuss

environmental issues with local, regional, and global impacts.

Page B - 7

Current Programs

Municipal Collection, Recycling, and Disposal

Single-Family Residential Program

The City is responsible for the collection, removal, and disposal of materials from all single-family residences and multifamily

complexes that have four units or less. Each single-family home and multifamily residence has three carts for the separate

collection of recyclables, yard trimmings, and mixed waste. The wheeled carts are all collected on the same day each week. The

City uses a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) variable rate structure for residential collection. The PAYT system charges residents for

the mixed waste portion based on the size of the cart: 32, 60, or 100-gallons. It is estimated that approximately 26 percent of

residents use 32 gallon carts, 42 percent use 60 gallon carts, and 32 percent use 100 gallon carts. As part of the PAYT system,

residents are not charged separately for recycling (collected in 60 gallon carts) or yard trimmings (collected in 100 gallon carts).

Single-family customers can schedule free bulky item pickups twice a year. Additional bulky item pickups are available for a fee

that ranges from approximately $49 to $104 per pickup. Free curbside collection of used motor oil and oil filters may also be

scheduled. Christmas tree recycling is

offered in January through a free curbside

program and through a drop-off program at

locations around Pasadena.

Commercial and Multifamily Program

The City operates a non-exclusive Solid Waste Franchise System that allows authorized haulers to collect and dispose of

materials from commercial businesses and multifamily complexes with five or more units. The current non-exclusive franchised

haulers for the City are listed in Table B-2. In August 2007, City Council approved the closure of the franchise system to improve

customer service and reduce the number of trucks operating within Pasadena and the resulting environmental pollution. The

environmental impact of solid waste collection vehicles is significant and includes street deterioration, traffic, noise, decreased air

quality and solid waste vehicles interfering with resident vehicle access. Other considerations for the closure of the system

included the desire to increase the diversion rate required of franchise haulers, making haulers responsible for collection of all

refuse onsite, demonstration by haulers of a greater commitment to applicable elements of the Green City Action plan and

providing staff more time to enforce franchise requirements. After the franchise system was closed, the City stopped accepting

City of Pasadena PAYT cart options

Page B - 8

applications for new franchised haulers and any non-permitted haulers found operating in Pasadena are fined. Disposed

materials from commercial generators are collected primarily in three cubic yard bins, serviced by front-loader collection vehicles.

There are a number of compactors located at large commercial sites as well, including office buildings, shopping centers,

schools, and colleges/universities. Each franchisee is required to ensure that recycling services are provided to all of its

customers directly or by arrangement with another franchised hauler. At least every six months, each franchisee is also required

to provide educational outreach to its customers on collection and recycling options for various materials such as Christmas

trees.

As of October 2008, (per Municipal Code 8.61.175), the City requires the franchised haulers to divert a minimum of 60 percent of

the solid waste and 75 percent of the construction and demolition (C&D) debris collected on a monthly basis. Haulers must report

to the City monthly on the quantities of materials disposed and diverted. If the diversion goals are not met, then the haulers are

required to pay a fee per ton of recycling shortfall tonnage, based on the diversion rate that was obtained. The recycling shortfall

tonnage is the number of additional tons of material that a franchisee would need to divert in order to meet the diversion

requirements.

Annually, haulers have the option to report to the City on the quantity of third party diversion that takes place within their

customer accounts. The third party diversion reported is incorporated into the hauler’s overall diversion rate. Up to 25 percent of

materials collected by the hauler can be accounted for from third party diversion at commercial businesses. Each year, the City

contacts a select number of businesses that generate a significant amount of disposed materials in Pasadena. Each of the

businesses confirm the source reduction and/or recycling programs implemented on-site so the City can account for the third

party diversion separately from the materials the hauler collects.

Per Section 12 of the Rules and Regulations, franchised haulers are required to provide customers with on-call, curbside pickup

of bulky items twice per calendar year as a part of customers’ basic commercial solid waste services. Bulky items include small

appliances, furniture, carpets, mattresses, white goods, oversized yard trimmings such as tree trunks and large branches and

similar large items discarded by franchisees’ customers. Bulky items cannot interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic or

regular access to the public right-of-way and cannot create a nuisance or a danger to public health and safety.

Also, per Section 13 of the Rules and Regulations, franchised haulers are required to pick up abandoned items on or in front of

customer locations as soon as possible upon driver observation and within 24 hours when requested by the City.

Page B - 9

Table B-2 Non-Exclusive Franchised Haulers

# Company

1. AAA Rubbish, Inc.

2. American Reclamation

3. Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. doing business as Athens Services

4. Cedarwood-Young, Company doing business as Allan Company*

5. City of Pasadena*

6. City Rent A Bin/Serv-Wel Disposal/A Rent A Bin

7. Consolidated Disposal Service, L.L.C.

8. Crown Disposal Company, Inc.

9. Direct Disposal

10. Haul-Away-Rubbish Service Company, Inc.

11. Heritage Disposal, Inc.

12. Interior Removal Specialist, Inc.

13. J & L Hauling & Disposal, Inc.

14. Metropolis Disposal Inc.

15. Nasa Services, Inc.

16. Perez Disposal Company, Inc.

17. Southland Disposal Company

18. United Pacific Waste

19. Universal Waste Systems, Inc.

20. USA Waste of California doing business as Waste Management

21. Valley Vista Services, Inc.

22. Ware Disposal Company, Inc.

23. Waste and Recycling Services

Source: City of Pasadena list of Non-Exclusive Franchised Haulers, 2012

*Indicates companies that do not accept C&D debris

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris

C&D debris is collected by a majority of the non-exclusive franchised haulers (see Table B-2). Commercial haulers are required

to divert 75 percent of C&D debris generated at construction, demolition, renovation, and remodeling projects.

In 2002, the City established an ordinance requiring each applicable and permitted construction or demolition project to divert 50

percent of C&D debris generated through recycling, salvage, or deconstruction. Projects are required to pay a performance

security deposit at the beginning of the project and the deposit is reimbursed if the diversion requirement is met and if the

supporting documentation is provided. From 2006 through 2013, the program has contributed to the diversion of over 108,000

Page B - 10

tons of materials from landfilling. (Note: The Puente Hills Landfill closed and stopped disposing of waste in the landfill in

October 2013.)

In 2014, the C&D Ordinance was amended to comply with the State’s updated California Green Building Standards Code

(CALGreen) requirements. Covered projects’ square footage thresholds were lowered and the diversion requirements were

increased to 75 percent to support the City of Pasadena’s Zero Waste Goal.

Disposal

The majority of the mixed waste from Pasadena is disposed at the Scholl Canyon landfill located in Glendale, approximately

three miles west of the City. Pasadena is one of the Scholl Canyon wasteshed cities, which by ordinance, limits disposal at the

landfill to materials generated within the cities of Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Marino,

Sierra Madre, and a select number of Los Angeles County unincorporated communities.

Other Los Angeles County landfills utilized by haulers serving Pasadena include the Antelope Valley, Chiquita Canyon,

Lancaster, Puente Hills , and Sunshine Canyon landfills (Note: The Puente Hills Landfill closed and stopped disposing of waste in

the landfill in October 2013). Landfills in surrounding counties are also utilized for disposal of materials from Pasadena. Based on

fiscal year 2010 data, approximately 5 percent of disposed materials were taken to one of the waste-to-energy facilities in Los

Angeles County: Commerce Refuse to Energy Facility or Southeast Resource Recovery Facility.

Other City Programs

A description of waste reduction, recycling, and disposal programs offered by the City, in addition to those discussed above, is

included below:

Free mulch for residents from February through October at Victory Park

Ten certified used oil centers at various locations in Pasadena

Fourteen residential drop off sites located through Pasadena for compact fluorescent light bulbs/batteries/cell phones

Periodic electronic waste (E-waste) recycling and document shredding events open to all Pasadena residents and

businesses

Recycling receptacles loaned for special events

Free mail-back program for home generated medical sharps (hypodermic needles) through the Pasadena Public

Health Department

Compost bins available for sale at cost

Free junk mail opt-out program through Catalog Choice

Page B - 11

City Facilities

The City does not own or operate any solid waste transfer stations or landfills. The City contracts with facilities located outside of

City limits for waste processing and disposal. Pasadena’s residential recyclables are processed by Allan Company at its facility

located in Baldwin Park. Mixed waste collected by the City, which includes residential waste and waste generated by City

operations, is disposed of at the Scholl Canyon Landfill located in Glendale. When the City’s contract for processing curbside

recyclables was about to expire in 2013, a Request for Proposals was advertised. In addition to curbside recycling, proposals

were solicited for processing food waste, green waste, special events waste and street sweeping materials. Through the Request

for Proposals process, the City has secured processing capacity for material generated at special events, including material from

the Rose Parade and the Rose Bowl Game.

The City has many programs in place to divert waste generated by City operations. At City-owned facilities, the City collects

single stream recyclables including: mixed paper, cardboard, and beverage containers. At offices leased by the City, franchise

haulers run the waste management

programs. For special employee events

and public meetings held at City facilities,

the City provides beverage container

recycling. The City has established

employee CFL/battery recycling drop off

locations at City offices. At the City Yards

and Rose Bowl Stadium, dedicated

cardboard recycling bins have been

installed and they are serviced as needed.

Tree trimmings produced by the

maintenance of City-owned trees is turned

into mulch for use on parkways and City

grounds. This free mulch is offered to the

public from February through October.

Baled commodities at a Material Recovery Facility

APPENDIX C DIVERSION CALCULATIONS

Commercial Sector

Diversion Estimates

Tons Disposed (Source Tab: Tonnage Data) % TonnagePercent Diverted

from SectorTons Diverted

Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

20.05% 11,844 - 2,961 8,883 - 89 8,794 - 879 7,915 - 396 7,519

Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard 7.47% 4,410 25.00% 1,103 3,308 1.00% 33 3,275 10.00% 327 2,947 5.00% 147 2,800

Paper Bags 0.25% 146 25.00% 36 109 1.00% 1 108 10.00% 11 97 5.00% 5 93

Newspaper 0.93% 547 25.00% 137 410 1.00% 4 406 10.00% 41 365 5.00% 18 347

White Ledger Paper 1.10% 647 25.00% 162 485 1.00% 5 481 10.00% 48 433 5.00% 22 411

Other Office Paper 1.33% 783 25.00% 196 588 1.00% 6 582 10.00% 58 524 5.00% 26 497

Magazines and Catalogs 0.56% 330 25.00% 82 247 1.00% 2 245 10.00% 24 220 5.00% 11 209

Phone Books and Directories 0.04% 24 25.00% 6 18 1.00% 0 18 10.00% 2 16 5.00% 1 15

Other Miscellaneous Paper 2.27% 1,343 25.00% 336 1,007 1.00% 10 997 10.00% 100 897 5.00% 45 852

Remainder/Composite Paper 6.12% 3,614 25.00% 903 2,710 1.00% 27 2,683 10.00% 268 2,415 5.00% 121 2,294

Glass 1.19% 706 176 529 - 5 524 - 52 472 - 24 448

Clear Glass Bottles and Containers 0.47% 275 25.00% 69 206 1.00% 2 204 10.00% 20 184 5.00% 9 175

Green Glass Bottles and Containers 0.12% 70 25.00% 18 53 1.00% 1 52 10.00% 5 47 5.00% 2 45

Brown Glass Bottles and Containers 0.29% 170 25.00% 43 128 1.00% 1 127 10.00% 13 114 5.00% 6 108

Other Glass Colored Bottles and Containers 0.03% 18 25.00% 4 13 1.00% 0 13 10.00% 1 12 5.00% 1 11

Flat Glass 0.02% 11 25.00% 3 8 1.00% 0 8 10.00% 1 7 5.00% 0 7

Remainder/Composite Glass 0.27% 161 25.00% 40 121 1.00% 1 120 10.00% 12 108 5.00% 5 102

Metals 4.33% 2,559 640 1,919 - 19 1,900 - 190 1,710 - 86 1,625

Tin/Steel Cans 0.63% 372 25.00% 93 279 1.00% 3 276 10.00% 28 248 5.00% 12 236

Major Appliances 0.13% 76 25.00% 19 57 1.00% 1 57 10.00% 6 51 5.00% 3 49

Used Oil Filters 0.00% 0 25.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 5.00% 0 0

Other Ferrous 1.50% 889 25.00% 222 666 1.00% 7 660 10.00% 66 594 5.00% 30 564

Aluminum Cans 0.10% 59 25.00% 15 44 1.00% 0 44 10.00% 4 39 5.00% 2 37

Other Non-Ferrous 0.25% 148 25.00% 37 111 1.00% 1 110 10.00% 11 99 5.00% 5 94

Remainder/Composite Metal 1.72% 1,015 25.00% 254 762 1.00% 8 754 10.00% 75 679 5.00% 34 645

Electronics 0.11% 62 16 47 - 0 46 - 5 42 - 2 40

Brown Goods 0.08% 44 25.00% 11 33 1.00% 0 33 10.00% 3 30 5.00% 1 28

Computer-related Electronics 0.00% 0 25.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 5.00% 0 0

Other Small Consumer Electronics 0.03% 18 25.00% 4 13 1.00% 0 13 10.00% 1 12 5.00% 1 11

Video Display Devices 0.00% 0 25.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 5.00% 0 0

Plastics 10.51% 6,209 1,552 4,657 - 47 4,610 - 461 4,149 - 207 3,942

PETE Containers 0.50% 293 25.00% 73 219 1.00% 2 217 10.00% 22 196 5.00% 10 186

HDPE Containers 0.39% 228 25.00% 57 171 1.00% 2 170 10.00% 17 153 5.00% 8 145

Miscellaneous Plastic Containers 0.48% 286 25.00% 72 215 1.00% 2 213 10.00% 21 191 5.00% 10 182

Plastic Trash Bags 1.26% 747 25.00% 187 560 1.00% 6 555 10.00% 55 499 5.00% 25 474

Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags 0.25% 150 25.00% 37 112 1.00% 1 111 10.00% 11 100 5.00% 5 95

Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film 0.86% 508 25.00% 127 381 1.00% 4 377 10.00% 38 339 5.00% 17 323

Film Products 0.23% 138 25.00% 35 104 1.00% 1 103 10.00% 10 92 5.00% 5 88

Other Film 1.61% 949 25.00% 237 712 1.00% 7 705 10.00% 70 634 5.00% 32 603

Durable Plastic Items 1.67% 985 25.00% 246 739 1.00% 7 731 10.00% 73 658 5.00% 33 625

Remainder/Composite Plastic 3.26% 1,925 25.00% 481 1,444 1.00% 14 1,429 10.00% 143 1,286 5.00% 64 1,222

Other Organic 31.86% 18,817 - 0 18,817 - 0 18,817 - 1,882 16,936 - 0 16,936

Food 15.28% 9,027 0.00% 0 9,027 0% 0 9,027 10.00% 903 8,124 0.00% 0 8,124

Leaves and Grass 2.49% 1,473 0.00% 0 1,473 0% 0 1,473 10.00% 147 1,325 0.00% 0 1,325

Prunings and Trimmings 4.22% 2,490 0.00% 0 2,490 0% 0 2,490 10.00% 249 2,241 0.00% 0 2,241

Branches and Stumps 0.74% 435 0.00% 0 435 0% 0 435 10.00% 44 392 0.00% 0 392

Manures 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

Textiles 1.06% 625 0.00% 0 625 0% 0 625 10.00% 62 562 0.00% 0 562

Carpet 4.99% 2,950 0.00% 0 2,950 0% 0 2,950 10.00% 295 2,655 0.00% 0 2,655

Remainder/Composite Organic 3.08% 1,817 0.00% 0 1,817 0% 0 1,817 10.00% 182 1,635 0.00% 0 1,635

Inerts and Other 28.09% 16,593 - 0 16,593 - 0 16,593 - 1,659 14,933 - 0 14,933

Concrete 0.75% 440 0.00% 0 440 0% 0 440 10.00% 44 396 0.00% 0 396

Asphalt Paving 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

Asphalt Roofing 2.32% 1,372 0.00% 0 1,372 0% 0 1,372 10.00% 137 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235

Lumber 16.45% 9,719 0.00% 0 9,719 0% 0 9,719 10.00% 972 8,747 0.00% 0 8,747

Gypsum Board 1.74% 1,031 0.00% 0 1,031 0% 0 1,031 10.00% 103 927 0.00% 0 927

Rock, Soil and Fines 1.57% 930 0.00% 0 930 0% 0 930 10.00% 93 837 0.00% 0 837

Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other 5.25% 3,101 0.00% 0 3,101 0% 0 3,101 10.00% 310 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790

HHW 0.31% 185 - 0 185 - 0 185 - 19 167 - 0 167

Paint 0.27% 157 0.00% 0 157 0% 0 157 10.00% 16 142 0.00% 0 142

Vehicle & Equipment Fluids 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

Used Oil 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

Batteries 0.01% 6 0.00% 0 6 0% 0 6 10.00% 1 5 0.00% 0 5

Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous 0.04% 22 0.00% 0 22 0% 0 22 10.00% 2 20 0.00% 0 20

Special Waste 3.54% 2,090 - 0 2,090 - 0 2,090 - 209 1,881 - 0 1,881

Ash 0.15% 91 0.00% 0 91 0% 0 91 10.00% 9 82 0.00% 0 82

Treated Medical Waste 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0% 0 0 10.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

Bulky Items 3.09% 1,826 0.00% 0 1,826 0% 0 1,826 10.00% 183 1,644 0.00% 0 1,644

Tires 0.24% 142 0.00% 0 142 0% 0 142 10.00% 14 128 0.00% 0 128

Remainder/Composite Special Waste 0.05% 31 0.00% 0 31 0% 0 31 10.00% 3 28 0.00% 0 28

Mixed Residue 0.00% 2 - 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2

Mixed Residue 0.00% 2 0.00% 0 2 0% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2

TOTAL 100.0% 59,069 4.59% 5,345 53,724 0.1% 160 53,563 4.60% 5,356 48,207 0.61% 714 47,493

Calculation of Tons Disposed by

Materials Type (2010/11)

Short Term

15. School Recycling Programs12. Expand Mandatory Commercial Recycling Program 13. Enhanced Educational Outreach 14. Technical Assistance to Businesses

Commercial Sector

Diversion Estimates

Tons Disposed (Source Tab: Tonnage Data)

Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard

Paper Bags

Newspaper

White Ledger Paper

Other Office Paper

Magazines and Catalogs

Phone Books and Directories

Other Miscellaneous Paper

Remainder/Composite Paper

Glass

Clear Glass Bottles and Containers

Green Glass Bottles and Containers

Brown Glass Bottles and Containers

Other Glass Colored Bottles and Containers

Flat Glass

Remainder/Composite Glass

Metals

Tin/Steel Cans

Major Appliances

Used Oil Filters

Other Ferrous

Aluminum Cans

Other Non-Ferrous

Remainder/Composite Metal

Electronics

Brown Goods

Computer-related Electronics

Other Small Consumer Electronics

Video Display Devices

Plastics

PETE Containers

HDPE Containers

Miscellaneous Plastic Containers

Plastic Trash Bags

Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags

Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film

Film Products

Other Film

Durable Plastic Items

Remainder/Composite Plastic

Other Organic

Food

Leaves and Grass

Prunings and Trimmings

Branches and Stumps

Manures

Textiles

Carpet

Remainder/Composite Organic

Inerts and Other

Concrete

Asphalt Paving

Asphalt Roofing

Lumber

Gypsum Board

Rock, Soil and Fines

Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other

HHW

Paint

Vehicle & Equipment Fluids

Used Oil

Batteries

Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous

Special Waste

Ash

Treated Medical Waste

Bulky Items

Tires

Remainder/Composite Special Waste

Mixed Residue

Mixed Residue

TOTAL

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

- 0 7,519 - 44 7,476 - 9 7,467 - 4 7,463 - 277 7,186 - 72 7,114

0.00% 0 2,800 1.00% 28 2,772 0.00% 0 2,772 0.15% 4 2,768 10.00% 277 2,491 1.00% 25 2,466

0.00% 0 93 1.00% 1 92 0.00% 0 92 0.00% 0 92 0.00% 0 92 1.00% 1 91

0.00% 0 347 1.00% 3 344 0.00% 0 344 0.00% 0 344 0.00% 0 344 1.00% 3 340

0.00% 0 411 1.00% 4 407 0.00% 0 407 0.00% 0 407 0.00% 0 407 1.00% 4 403

0.00% 0 497 1.00% 5 492 0.00% 0 492 0.00% 0 492 0.00% 0 492 1.00% 5 487

0.00% 0 209 1.00% 2 207 0.00% 0 207 0.00% 0 207 0.00% 0 207 1.00% 2 205

0.00% 0 15 0.00% 0 15 0.00% 0 15 0.00% 0 15 0.00% 0 15 1.00% 0 15

0.00% 0 852 0.00% 0 852 1.00% 9 844 0.00% 0 844 0.00% 0 844 1.00% 8 836

0.00% 0 2,294 0.00% 0 2,294 0.00% 0 2,294 0.00% 0 2,294 0.00% 0 2,294 1.00% 23 2,271

- 0 448 - 3 445 - 0 445 - 0 445 - 32 412 - 4 408

0.00% 0 175 1.00% 2 173 0.00% 0 173 0.00% 0 173 10.00% 17 156 1.00% 2 154

0.00% 0 45 1.00% 0 44 0.00% 0 44 0.00% 0 44 10.00% 4 40 1.00% 0 39

0.00% 0 108 1.00% 1 107 0.00% 0 107 0.00% 0 107 10.00% 11 96 1.00% 1 95

0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 1.00% 0 11

0.00% 0 7 0.00% 0 7 0.00% 0 7 0.00% 0 7 0.00% 0 7 1.00% 0 7

0.00% 0 102 0.00% 0 102 0.00% 0 102 0.00% 0 102 0.00% 0 102 1.00% 1 101

- 0 1,625 - 3 1,622 - 0 1,622 - 0 1,622 - 4 1,618 - 16 1,602

0.00% 0 236 1.00% 2 234 0.00% 0 234 0.00% 0 234 0.00% 0 234 1.00% 2 231

0.00% 0 49 0.00% 0 49 0.00% 0 49 0.00% 0 49 0.00% 0 49 1.00% 0 48

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 564 0.00% 0 564 0.00% 0 564 0.00% 0 564 0.00% 0 564 1.00% 6 559

0.00% 0 37 1.00% 0 37 0.00% 0 37 0.00% 0 37 10.00% 4 33 1.00% 0 33

0.00% 0 94 0.00% 0 94 0.00% 0 94 0.00% 0 94 0.00% 0 94 1.00% 1 93

0.00% 0 645 0.00% 0 645 0.00% 0 645 0.00% 0 645 0.00% 0 645 1.00% 6 638

- 0 40 - 0 40 - 0 40 - 0 40 - 0 40 - 0 39

0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 1.00% 0 28

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 1.00% 0 11

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0

- 0 3,942 - 3 3,939 - 0 3,939 - 2 3,937 - 37 3,900 - 39 3,861

0.00% 0 186 1.00% 1.9 184 0.00% 0 184 0.00% 0 184 10.00% 18 166 1.00% 2 164

0.00% 0 145 1.00% 1 144 0.00% 0 144 0.00% 0 144 0.00% 0 144 1.00% 1 142

0.00% 0 182 0.00% 0 182 0.00% 0 182 0.00% 0 182 10.00% 18 164 1.00% 2 162

0.00% 0 474 0.00% 0 474 0.00% 0 474 0.00% 0 474 0.00% 0 474 1.00% 5 469

0.00% 0 95 0.00% 0 95 0.00% 0 95 0.00% 0 95 0.00% 0 95 1.00% 1 94

0.00% 0 323 0.00% 0 323 0.00% 0 323 0.00% 0 323 0.00% 0 323 1.00% 3 319

0.00% 0 88 0.00% 0 88 0.00% 0 88 0.50% 0 87 0.00% 0 87 1.00% 1 86

0.00% 0 603 0.00% 0 603 0.00% 0 603 0.00% 0 603 0.00% 0 603 1.00% 6 597

0.00% 0 625 0.00% 0 625 0.00% 0 625 0.00% 0 625 0.00% 0 625 1.00% 6 619

0.00% 0 1,222 0.00% 0 1,222 0.00% 0 1,222 0.10% 1 1,221 0.00% 0 1,221 1.00% 12 1,209

- 81 16,854 - 80 16,774 - 278 16,496 - 0 16,496 - 0 16,496 - 165 16,331

1.00% 81 8,043 1.00% 80 7,963 3.00% 239 7,724 0.00% 0 7,724 0.00% 0 7,724 1.00% 77 7,646

0.00% 0 1,325 0.00% 0 1,325 1.00% 13 1,312 0.00% 0 1,312 0.00% 0 1,312 1.00% 13 1,299

0.00% 0 2,241 0.00% 0 2,241 1.00% 22 2,219 0.00% 0 2,219 0.00% 0 2,219 1.00% 22 2,197

0.00% 0 392 0.00% 0 392 1.00% 4 388 0.00% 0 388 0.00% 0 388 1.00% 4 384

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 562 0.00% 0 562 0.00% 0 562 0.00% 0 562 0.00% 0 562 1.00% 6 557

0.00% 0 2,655 0.00% 0 2,655 0.00% 0 2,655 0.00% 0 2,655 0.00% 0 2,655 1.00% 27 2,629

0.00% 0 1,635 0.00% 0 1,635 0.00% 0 1,635 0.00% 0 1,635 0.00% 0 1,635 1.00% 16 1,619

- 0 14,933 - 0 14,933 - 87 14,846 - 0 14,846 - 0 14,846 - 0 14,846

0.00% 0 396 0.00% 0 396 0.00% 0 396 0.00% 0 396 0.00% 0 396 0.00% 0 396

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235 0.00% 0 1,235

0.00% 0 8,747 0.00% 0 8,747 1.00% 87 8,660 0.00% 0 8,660 0.00% 0 8,660 0.00% 0 8,660

0.00% 0 927 0.00% 0 927 0.00% 0 927 0.00% 0 927 0.00% 0 927 0.00% 0 927

0.00% 0 837 0.00% 0 837 0.00% 0 837 0.00% 0 837 0.00% 0 837 0.00% 0 837

0.00% 0 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790 0.00% 0 2,790

- 0 167 - 0 167 - 0 167 - 18 149 - 0 149 - 0 149

0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 5 0.00% 0 5 0.00% 0 5 70.00% 4 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2

0.00% 0 20 0.00% 0 20 0.00% 0 20 70.00% 14 6 0.00% 0 6 0.00% 0 6

- 0 1,881 - 8 1,873 - 0 1,873 - 0 1,873 - 0 1,873 - 0 1,873

0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0

0.00% 0 1,644 0.50% 8 1,636 0.00% 0 1,636 0.00% 0 1,636 0.00% 0 1,636 0.00% 0 1,636

0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128

0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28

- 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2 - 0 2

0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2

0.07% 81 47,412 0.12% 142 47,270 0.32% 374 46,896 0.02% 23 46,872 0.30% 349 46,523 0.25% 297 46,226

18. Product and Disposal Bans16. Additional waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and

composting policies at City Facilities17. Expand EPR Policies

Short-to-Medium Term

19. Commercial Food Scraps & Organics Collection-

Pilot program

20. Mandatory Organics Separation and Collection at

Stadiums and Large Venues/Events21. Green Business Partnership Program

Commercial Sector

Diversion Estimates

Tons Disposed (Source Tab: Tonnage Data)

Uncoated Corrugated Cardboard

Paper Bags

Newspaper

White Ledger Paper

Other Office Paper

Magazines and Catalogs

Phone Books and Directories

Other Miscellaneous Paper

Remainder/Composite Paper

Glass

Clear Glass Bottles and Containers

Green Glass Bottles and Containers

Brown Glass Bottles and Containers

Other Glass Colored Bottles and Containers

Flat Glass

Remainder/Composite Glass

Metals

Tin/Steel Cans

Major Appliances

Used Oil Filters

Other Ferrous

Aluminum Cans

Other Non-Ferrous

Remainder/Composite Metal

Electronics

Brown Goods

Computer-related Electronics

Other Small Consumer Electronics

Video Display Devices

Plastics

PETE Containers

HDPE Containers

Miscellaneous Plastic Containers

Plastic Trash Bags

Plastic Grocery and Other Merchandise Bags

Non-Bag Commercial and Industrial Packaging Film

Film Products

Other Film

Durable Plastic Items

Remainder/Composite Plastic

Other Organic

Food

Leaves and Grass

Prunings and Trimmings

Branches and Stumps

Manures

Textiles

Carpet

Remainder/Composite Organic

Inerts and Other

Concrete

Asphalt Paving

Asphalt Roofing

Lumber

Gypsum Board

Rock, Soil and Fines

Remainder/Composite Inerts and Other

HHW

Paint

Vehicle & Equipment Fluids

Used Oil

Batteries

Remainder/Composite Household Hazardous

Special Waste

Ash

Treated Medical Waste

Bulky Items

Tires

Remainder/Composite Special Waste

Mixed Residue

Mixed Residue

TOTAL

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Percent Diverted


Resulting

Tonnage

Total Tons

Diverted

Resulting

Disposal

Tonnage

- 200 6,915 - 0 6,915 4,930 6,915

5.00% 123 2,343 0.00% 0 2,343 2,068 2,343

5.00% 5 86 0.00% 0 86 60 86

5.00% 17 323 0.00% 0 323 224 323

5.00% 20 383 0.00% 0 383 265 383

5.00% 24 463 0.00% 0 463 320 463

5.00% 10 195 0.00% 0 195 135 195

0.00% 0 15 0.00% 0 15 9 15

0.00% 0 836 0.00% 0 836 507 836

0.00% 0 2,271 0.00% 0 2,271 1,343 2,271

- 14 394 - 0 394 312 394

5.00% 8 146 0.00% 0 146 129 146

5.00% 2 37 0.00% 0 37 33 37

5.00% 5 91 0.00% 0 91 80 91

0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 7 11

0.00% 0 7 0.00% 0 7 4 7

0.00% 0 101 0.00% 0 101 60 101

- 2 1,600 - 0 1,600 959 1,600

0.00% 0 231 0.00% 0 231 140 231

0.00% 0 48 0.00% 0 48 28 48

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 559 0.00% 0 559 330 559

5.00% 2 31 0.00% 0 31 28 31

0.00% 0 93 0.00% 0 93 55 93

0.00% 0 638 0.00% 0 638 377 638

- 0 39 - 0 39 23 16

0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 17 11

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 11 0.00% 0 11 7 5

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

- 15 3,846 - 0 3,846 2,363 3,846

5.00% 8 156 0.00% 0 156 137 156

5.00% 7 135 0.00% 0 135 93 135

0.00% 0 162 0.00% 0 162 124 162

0.00% 0 469 0.00% 0 469 278 469

0.00% 0 94 0.00% 0 94 56 94

0.00% 0 319 0.00% 0 319 189 319

0.00% 0 86 0.00% 0 86 52 86

0.00% 0 597 0.00% 0 597 353 597

0.00% 0 619 0.00% 0 619 366 619

0.00% 0 1,209 0.00% 0 1,209 716 1,209

- 0 16,331 - 0 16,331 2,487 16,331

0.00% 0 7,646 0.00% 0 7,646 1,380 7,646

0.00% 0 1,299 0.00% 0 1,299 174 1,299

0.00% 0 2,197 0.00% 0 2,197 294 2,197

0.00% 0 384 0.00% 0 384 51 384

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 557 0.00% 0 557 68 557

0.00% 0 2,629 0.00% 0 2,629 322 2,629

0.00% 0 1,619 0.00% 0 1,619 198 1,619

- 0 14,846 - 3,711 11,134 5,458 11,134

0.00% 0 396 25.00% 99 297 143 297

0.00% 0 0 25.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 1,235 25.00% 309 926 446 926

0.00% 0 8,660 25.00% 2,165 6,495 3,224 6,495

0.00% 0 927 25.00% 232 696 335 696

0.00% 0 837 25.00% 209 628 302 628

0.00% 0 2,790 25.00% 698 2,093 1,008 2,093

- 0 149 - 0 149 36 149

0.00% 0 142 0.00% 0 142 16 142

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 4 2

0.00% 0 6 0.00% 0 6 16 6

- 0 1,873 - 0 1,873 217 1,873

0.00% 0 82 0.00% 0 82 9 82

0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0

0.00% 0 1,636 0.00% 0 1,636 191 1,636

0.00% 0 128 0.00% 0 128 14 128

0.00% 0 28 0.00% 0 28 3 28

- 0 2 - 0 2 0 2

0.00% 0 2 0.00% 0 2 0 2

0.20% 231 45,995 3.19% 3,711 42,284 16,785 42,261

Medium-to-Long Term

25. C&D Diversion Requirements

Short-to-Medium Term

22. Recycling in Public Areas

APPENDIX D GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

City of Pasadena

1

Single-Family Residential - Short Term Programs – GHG Estimates

GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCE): (1,091) GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCE): (1,801)

CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons

Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCE CommodityTons Source

ReducedTons

Recycled Tons LandfilledTons

Combusted Tons Composted Total MTCE Change

(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 69.0 - NA 1 Aluminum Cans - 7.0 62.0 - NA (16) (17)Steel Cans - 251.0 - NA 3 Steel Cans - 25.0 226.0 - NA (10) (13)Glass - 608.0 - NA 6 Glass - 61.0 547.0 - NA 1 (5)HDPE - 144.0 - NA 2 HDPE - 14.0 130.0 - NA (2) (3)PET - 235.0 - NA 2 PET - 23.0 212.0 - NA (5) (7)Corrugated Containers - 566.0 - NA (111) Corrugated Containers - 57.0 509.0 - NA (148) (37)Magazines/third-class mail - 339.0 - NA (68) Magazines/third-class mail - 37.0 302.0 - NA (91) (24)New spaper - 812.0 - NA (275) New spaper - 81.0 731.0 - NA (309) (34)Office Paper - 406.0 - NA 7 Office Paper - 41.0 365.0 - NA (25) (33)Phonebooks - 32.0 - NA (11) Phonebooks - 4.0 28.0 - NA (12) (2)Dimensional Lumber - 2,200.0 - NA (646) Dimensional Lumber - - 2,200.0 - NA (646) 0Food Scraps NA 6,837.0 - - 690 Food Scraps - NA 6,153.0 - 684.0 584 (106)Yard Trimmings NA 945.0 - - (80) Yard Trimmings - NA 851.0 - 94.0 (77) 3Grass NA 1,094.5 - - 43 Grass - NA 985.0 - 109.5 33 (10)Leaves NA 1,094.5 - - (202) Leaves - NA 985.0 - 109.5 (188) 14Branches NA 1.0 - - (0) Branches - NA 0.9 - 0.1 (0) 0Mixed Paper (primarily residenti - 3,002.0 - NA (562) Mixed Paper (primarily residenti NA 312.0 2,690.0 - NA (803) (241)Mixed Metals - 718.0 - NA 8 Mixed Metals NA 72.0 646.0 - NA (71) (79)Mixed Plastics - 2,421.0 - NA 26 Mixed Plastics NA 242.0 2,179.0 - NA (42) (67)Mixed Organics NA 2,961.0 - - 34 Mixed Organics NA NA 2,665.0 - 296.0 14 (19)Mixed MSW NA 986.0 - NA 16 Mixed MSW NA NA 986.0 - NA 16 0Carpet - 360.0 - NA 4 Carpet - 36.0 324.0 - NA (20) (24)Personal Computers - 104.0 - NA 1 Personal Computers - 10.0 94.0 - NA (5) (7)Concrete - 1,809.0 NA NA 19 Concrete NA - 1,809.0 NA NA 19 0Fly Ash - 5.0 NA NA 0 Fly Ash NA 1.0 4.0 NA NA (0) (0)Tires - 5.0 - NA 0 Tires - - 5.0 - NA 0 0Asphalt Shingles - 57.0 - NA 1 Asphalt Shingles - - 57.0 - NA 1 0Dryw all - 92.0 NA NA 3 Dryw all - - 92.0 NA NA 3 0

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0

Total Change in GHG Emissions (MTCE): (710)Note: a negative value (i.e., a value in parentheses) indicates an emission reduction; a positive value indicates an emission increase.

Appendix D

City of Pasadena

2

Single-Family Residential - Medium Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 62.0 - NA 1 Aluminum Cans - 9.0 53.0 - NA (21) (22)Steel Cans - 225.0 - NA 2 Steel Cans - 11.0 214.0 - NA (3) (6)Glass - 547.0 - NA 6 Glass - 65.0 482.0 - NA 0 (6)HDPE - 130.0 - NA 1 HDPE - 6.0 124.0 - NA (0) (1)PET - 211.0 - NA 2 PET - 31.0 180.0 - NA (7) (10)Corrugated Containers - 510.0 - NA (100) Corrugated Containers - 74.0 436.0 - NA (148) (48)Magazines/third-class mail - 302.0 - NA (60) Magazines/third-class mail - 15.0 287.0 - NA (70) (10)New spaper - 731.0 - NA (248) New spaper - 37.0 694.0 - NA (263) (16)Office Paper - 365.0 - NA 6 Office Paper - 18.0 347.0 - NA (8) (14)Phonebooks - 29.0 - NA (10) Phonebooks - 1.0 28.0 - NA (10) (0)Dimensional Lumber - 2,200.0 - NA (646) Dimensional Lumber - 1,155.0 1,045.0 - NA (1,081) (435)Food Scraps NA 6,153.0 - - 621 Food Scraps - NA 2,630.0 - 3,523.0 75 (545)Yard Trimmings NA 850.0 - - (72) Yard Trimmings - NA 727.0 - 123.0 (68) 4Grass NA 985.0 - - 39 Grass - NA 842.0 - 143.0 25 (13)Leaves NA 985.0 - - (182) Leaves - NA 842.0 - 143.0 (163) 19Branches NA 1.0 - - (0) Branches - NA 1.0 - - (0) 0Mixed Paper (primarily residenti - 2,691.0 - NA (504) Mixed Paper (primarily residenti NA 669.0 2,022.0 - NA (1,021) (517)Mixed Metals - 646.0 - NA 7 Mixed Metals NA 33.0 613.0 - NA (29) (36)Mixed Plastics - 2,178.0 - NA 23 Mixed Plastics NA 137.0 2,041.0 - NA (15) (38)Mixed Organics NA 2,664.0 - - 30 Mixed Organics NA NA 2,531.0 - 133.0 22 (9)Mixed MSW NA 986.0 - NA 16 Mixed MSW NA NA 986.0 - NA 16 0Carpet - 324.0 - NA 3 Carpet - 16.0 308.0 - NA (7) (11)Personal Computers - 93.0 - NA 1 Personal Computers - 5.0 88.0 - NA (2) (3)Concrete - 1,809.0 NA NA 19 Concrete NA 91.0 1,718.0 NA NA 18 (1)Fly Ash - 5.0 NA NA 0 Fly Ash NA - 5.0 NA NA 0 0Tires - 4.0 - NA 0 Tires - - 4.0 - NA 0 0Asphalt Shingles - 57.0 - NA 1 Asphalt Shingles - 3.0 54.0 - NA 0 (0)Dryw all - 92.0 NA NA 3 Dryw all - 5.0 87.0 NA NA 3 (0)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0

Total Change in GHG Emissions (MTCE): (1,718)Note: a negative value (i.e., a value in parentheses) indicates an emission reduction; a positive value indicates an emission increase.

Appendix D

City of Pasadena

3

Multi-Family Residential - Short Term Programs – GHG Estimates

GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCE): (290) GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCE): (743)

CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 6.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - 2.0 4.0 - NA (5) (5)Steel Cans - 54.0 - NA 1 Steel Cans - 18.0 36.0 - NA (8) (9)Glass - 161.0 - NA 2 Glass - 52.0 109.0 - NA (3) (4)HDPE - 57.0 - NA 1 HDPE - 19.0 38.0 - NA (4) (5)PET - 60.0 - NA 1 PET - 19.0 41.0 - NA (5) (6)Corrugated Containers - 250.0 - NA (49) Corrugated Containers - 81.0 169.0 - NA (102) (53)Magazines/third-class mail - 64.0 - NA (13) Magazines/third-class mail - 21.0 43.0 - NA (26) (13)New spaper - 170.0 - NA (58) New spaper - 55.0 115.0 - NA (81) (23)Office Paper - 180.0 - NA 3 Office Paper - 59.0 121.0 - NA (44) (47)Phonebooks - 1.0 - NA (0) Phonebooks - - 1.0 - NA (0) 0Dimensional Lumber - 694.0 - NA (204) Dimensional Lumber - 69.0 625.0 - NA (230) (26)Food Scraps NA 1,206.0 - - 122 Food Scraps - NA 1,085.0 - 121.0 103 (19)Yard Trimmings NA 5.0 - - (0) Yard Trimmings - NA 5.0 - - (0) 0Grass NA 41.5 - - 2 Grass - NA 37.5 - 4.0 1 (0)Leaves NA 41.5 - - (8) Leaves - NA 37.5 - 4.0 (7) 1Mixed Paper (primarily residenti - 577.0 - NA (108) Mixed Paper (primarily residenti NA 189.0 388.0 - NA (254) (146)Mixed Metals - 127.0 - NA 1 Mixed Metals NA 41.0 86.0 - NA (44) (45)Mixed Plastics - 274.0 - NA 3 Mixed Plastics NA 88.0 186.0 - NA (22) (24)Mixed Organics NA 696.0 - - 8 Mixed Organics NA NA 626.0 - 70.0 3 (5)Mixed MSW NA 61.0 - NA 1 Mixed MSW NA NA 61.0 - NA 1 0Carpet - 346.0 - NA 4 Carpet - 35.0 311.0 - NA (19) (23)Personal Computers - 2.0 - NA 0 Personal Computers - 1.0 1.0 - NA (1) (1)Concrete - 297.0 NA NA 3 Concrete NA 30.0 267.0 NA NA 3 (0)Fly Ash - 7.0 NA NA 0 Fly Ash NA 1.0 6.0 NA NA (0) (0)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

4

Multi-Family Residential - Medium Term Programs – GHG Estimates

GHG Emissions from Baseline Waste Management (MTCE): (211) GHG Emissions from Alternative Waste Management Scenario (MTCE): (226)

CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 4.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - - 4.0 - NA 0 0Steel Cans - 37.0 - NA 0 Steel Cans - - 37.0 - NA 0 0Glass - 109.0 - NA 1 Glass - 9.0 100.0 - NA 0 (1)HDPE - 39.0 - NA 0 HDPE - - 39.0 - NA 0 0PET - 40.0 - NA 0 PET - 4.0 36.0 - NA (1) (1)Corrugated Containers - 169.0 - NA (33) Corrugated Containers - 17.0 152.0 - NA (44) (11)Magazines/third-class mail - 43.0 - NA (9) Magazines/third-class mail - - 43.0 - NA (9) 0New spaper - 115.0 - NA (39) New spaper - - 115.0 - NA (39) 0Office Paper - 121.0 - NA 2 Office Paper - - 121.0 - NA 2 0Dimensional Lumber - 625.0 - NA (184) Dimensional Lumber - - 625.0 - NA (184) 0Food Scraps NA 1,086.0 - - 110 Food Scraps - NA 1,086.0 - - 110 0Yard Trimmings NA 4.0 - - (0) Yard Trimmings - NA 4.0 - - (0) 0Grass NA 37.5 - - 1 Grass - NA 33.5 - 4.0 1 (0)Leaves NA 37.5 - - (7) Leaves - NA 33.5 - 4.0 (6) 1Mixed Paper (primarily residenti - 387.0 - NA (72) Mixed Paper (primarily residenti NA - 387.0 - NA (72) 0Mixed Metals - 86.0 - NA 1 Mixed Metals NA - 86.0 - NA 1 0Mixed Plastics - 183.0 - NA 2 Mixed Plastics NA 5.0 178.0 - NA 1 (1)Mixed Organics NA 627.0 - - 7 Mixed Organics NA NA 627.0 - - 7 0Mixed MSW NA 61.0 - NA 1 Mixed MSW NA NA 61.0 - NA 1 0Carpet - 311.0 - NA 3 Carpet - - 311.0 - NA 3 0Personal Computers - 1.0 - NA 0 Personal Computers - - 1.0 - NA 0 0Concrete - 268.0 NA NA 3 Concrete NA - 268.0 NA NA 3 0Fly Ash - 6.0 NA NA 0 Fly Ash NA - 6.0 NA NA 0 0

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

5

Commercial - Short Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 59.0 - NA 1 Aluminum Cans - 21.0 38.0 - NA (51) (51)Steel Cans - 372.0 - NA 4 Steel Cans - 136.0 236.0 - NA (64) (68)Glass - 706.0 - NA 7 Glass - 258.0 448.0 - NA (15) (22)HDPE - 228.0 - NA 2 HDPE - 83.0 145.0 - NA (18) (20)PET - 293.0 - NA 3 PET - 107.0 186.0 - NA (30) (33)Corrugated Containers - 4,410.0 - NA (864) Corrugated Containers - 1,610.0 2,800.0 - NA (1,914) (1,050)Magazines/third-class mail - 330.0 - NA (66) Magazines/third-class mail - 120.0 210.0 - NA (142) (77)New spaper - 547.0 - NA (185) New spaper - 200.0 347.0 - NA (269) (84)Office Paper - 1,430.0 - NA 25 Office Paper - 522.0 908.0 - NA (390) (416)Phonebooks - 24.0 - NA (8) Phonebooks - 9.0 15.0 - NA (12) (3)Dimensional Lumber - 9,719.0 - NA (2,854) Dimensional Lumber - 972.0 8,747.0 - NA (3,220) (366)Food Scraps NA 9,027.0 - - 911 Food Scraps - NA 8,124.0 - 903.0 771 (140)Yard Trimmings NA 2,490.0 - - (212) Yard Trimmings - NA 2,241.0 - 249.0 (204) 8Grass NA 736.5 - - 29 Grass - NA 663.0 - 73.5 22 (7)Leaves NA 736.5 - - (136) Leaves - NA 663.0 - 73.5 (126) 10Branches NA 435.0 - - (128) Branches - NA 391.0 - 44.0 (117) 11Mixed Paper (general) - 5,103.0 - NA (905) Mixed Paper (general) NA 1,863.0 3,240.0 - NA (2,362) (1,457)Mixed Metals - 2,128.0 - NA 23 Mixed Metals NA 777.0 1,351.0 - NA (828) (850)Mixed Plastics - 5,688.0 - NA 60 Mixed Plastics NA 2,079.0 3,609.0 - NA (518) (579)Mixed Organics NA 2,442.0 - - 28 Mixed Organics NA NA 2,198.0 - 244.0 12 (16)Mixed MSW NA 2.0 - NA 0 Mixed MSW NA NA 2.0 - NA 0 0Carpet - 2,950.0 - NA 31 Carpet - 295.0 2,655.0 - NA (162) (194)Personal Computers - 62.0 - NA 1 Personal Computers - 23.0 39.0 - NA (14) (15)Concrete - 4,471.0 NA NA 47 Concrete NA 447.0 4,024.0 NA NA 42 (6)Fly Ash - 91.0 NA NA 1 Fly Ash NA 9.0 82.0 NA NA (1) (2)Tires - 142.0 - NA 2 Tires - 14.0 128.0 - NA (0) (2)Asphalt Shingles - 1,372.0 - NA 15 Asphalt Shingles - 137.0 1,235.0 - NA 10 (5)Dryw all - 1,031.0 NA NA 36 Dryw all - 103.0 928.0 NA NA 33 (3)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

6

Commercial - Medium Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 37.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - 6.0 31.0 - NA (14) (15)Steel Cans - 236.0 - NA 2 Steel Cans - 5.0 231.0 - NA (0) (3)Glass - 448.0 - NA 5 Glass - 54.0 394.0 - NA 0 (5)HDPE - 145.0 - NA 2 HDPE - 10.0 135.0 - NA (1) (2)PET - 186.0 - NA 2 PET - 30.0 156.0 - NA (7) (9)Corrugated Containers - 2,800.0 - NA (548) Corrugated Containers - 457.0 2,343.0 - NA (847) (298)Magazines/third-class mail - 209.0 - NA (42) Magazines/third-class mail - 14.0 195.0 - NA (51) (9)New spaper - 347.0 - NA (118) New spaper - 24.0 323.0 - NA (128) (10)Office Paper - 908.0 - NA 16 Office Paper - 62.0 846.0 - NA (33) (49)Phonebooks - 15.0 - NA (5) Phonebooks - - 15.0 - NA (5) 0Dimensional Lumber - 8,747.0 - NA (2,569) Dimensional Lumber - 87.0 8,660.0 - NA (2,601) (33)Food Scraps NA 8,124.0 - - 820 Food Scraps - NA 7,646.0 - 478.0 746 (74)Yard Trimmings NA 2,241.0 - - (191) Yard Trimmings - NA 2,196.0 - 45.0 (189) 1Grass NA 662.5 - - 26 Grass - NA 649.5 - 13.0 25 (1)Leaves NA 662.5 - - (122) Leaves - NA 649.5 - 13.0 (121) 2Branches NA 392.0 - - (115) Branches - NA 384.0 - 8.0 (113) 2Mixed Paper (general) - 3,239.0 - NA (575) Mixed Paper (general) NA 46.0 3,193.0 - NA (611) (36)Mixed Metals - 1,352.0 - NA 14 Mixed Metals NA 13.0 1,339.0 - NA 0 (14)Mixed Plastics - 3,612.0 - NA 38 Mixed Plastics NA 55.0 3,557.0 - NA 23 (15)Mixed Organics NA 2,197.0 - - 25 Mixed Organics NA NA 2,175.0 - 22.0 24 (1)Mixed MSW NA 2.0 - NA 0 Mixed MSW NA NA 2.0 - NA 0 0Carpet - 2,655.0 - NA 28 Carpet - 27.0 2,628.0 - NA 10 (18)Personal Computers - 40.0 - NA 0 Personal Computers - - 40.0 - NA 0 0Concrete - 4,023.0 NA NA 43 Concrete NA - 4,023.0 NA NA 43 0Fly Ash - 82.0 NA NA 1 Fly Ash NA - 82.0 NA NA 1 0Tires - 128.0 - NA 1 Tires - - 128.0 - NA 1 0Asphalt Shingles - 1,235.0 - NA 13 Asphalt Shingles - - 1,235.0 - NA 13 0Dryw all - 927.0 NA NA 32 Dryw all - - 927.0 NA NA 32 0

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

7

Commercial - Long Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 31.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - - 31.0 - NA 0 0Steel Cans - 231.0 - NA 2 Steel Cans - - 231.0 - NA 2 0Glass - 394.0 - NA 4 Glass - - 394.0 - NA 4 0HDPE - 135.0 - NA 1 HDPE - - 135.0 - NA 1 0PET - 156.0 - NA 2 PET - - 156.0 - NA 2 0Corrugated Containers - 2,343.0 - NA (459) Corrugated Containers - - 2,343.0 - NA (459) 0Magazines/third-class mail - 195.0 - NA (39) Magazines/third-class mail - - 195.0 - NA (39) 0New spaper - 323.0 - NA (109) New spaper - - 323.0 - NA (109) 0Office Paper - 846.0 - NA 15 Office Paper - - 846.0 - NA 15 0Phonebooks - 15.0 - NA (5) Phonebooks - - 15.0 - NA (5) 0Dimensional Lumber - 8,660.0 - NA (2,543) Dimensional Lumber - 2,165.0 6,495.0 - NA (3,358) (815)Food Scraps NA 7,646.0 - - 771 Food Scraps - NA 7,646.0 - - 771 0Yard Trimmings NA 2,197.0 - - (187) Yard Trimmings - NA 2,197.0 - - (187) 0Grass NA 649.5 - - 25 Grass - NA 649.5 - - 25 0Leaves NA 649.5 - - (120) Leaves - NA 649.5 - - (120) 0Branches NA 384.0 - - (113) Branches - NA 384.0 - - (113) 0Mixed Paper (general) - 3,193.0 - NA (567) Mixed Paper (general) NA - 3,193.0 - NA (567) 0Mixed Metals - 1,338.0 - NA 14 Mixed Metals NA - 1,338.0 - NA 14 0Mixed Plastics - 3,555.0 - NA 38 Mixed Plastics NA - 3,555.0 - NA 38 0Mixed Organics NA 2,176.0 - - 25 Mixed Organics NA NA 2,176.0 - - 25 0Mixed MSW NA 2.0 - NA 0 Mixed MSW NA NA 2.0 - NA 0 0Carpet - 2,629.0 - NA 28 Carpet - - 2,629.0 - NA 28 0Personal Computers - 39.0 - NA 0 Personal Computers - - 39.0 - NA 0 0Concrete - 4,023.0 NA NA 43 Concrete NA 1,006.0 3,017.0 NA NA 30 (13)Fly Ash - 82.0 NA NA 1 Fly Ash NA - 82.0 NA NA 1 0Tires - 128.0 - NA 1 Tires - - 128.0 - NA 1 0Asphalt Shingles - 1,235.0 - NA 13 Asphalt Shingles - 309.0 926.0 - NA 2 (11)Dryw all - 927.0 NA NA 32 Dryw all - 232.0 695.0 NA NA 26 (6)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

8

Self-Haul - Short Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 4.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - - 4.0 - NA 0 0Steel Cans - 19.0 - NA 0 Steel Cans - 2.0 17.0 - NA (1) (1)Glass - 225.0 - NA 2 Glass - 22.0 203.0 - NA 0 (2)HDPE - 15.0 - NA 0 HDPE - 2.0 13.0 - NA (0) (0)PET - 24.0 - NA 0 PET - 2.0 22.0 - NA (0) (1)Corrugated Containers - 981.0 - NA (192) Corrugated Containers - 98.0 883.0 - NA (256) (64)Magazines/third-class mail - 69.0 - NA (14) Magazines/third-class mail - 7.0 62.0 - NA (18) (4)New spaper - 67.0 - NA (23) New spaper - 7.0 60.0 - NA (26) (3)Office Paper - 287.0 - NA 5 Office Paper - 28.0 259.0 - NA (17) (22)Dimensional Lumber - 15,422.0 - NA (4,529) Dimensional Lumber - 1,542.0 13,880.0 - NA (5,109) (581)Food Scraps NA 302.0 - - 30 Food Scraps - NA 272.0 - 30.0 26 (5)Yard Trimmings NA 1,247.0 - - (106) Yard Trimmings - NA 1,122.0 - 125.0 (102) 4Grass NA 256.0 - - 10 Grass - NA 230.5 - 25.5 8 (2)Leaves NA 256.0 - - (47) Leaves - NA 230.5 - 25.5 (44) 3Branches NA 1,124.0 - - (330) Branches - NA 1,012.0 - 112.0 (303) 27Mixed Paper (general) - 1,653.0 - NA (293) Mixed Paper (general) NA 166.0 1,487.0 - NA (423) (130)Mixed Metals - 2,603.0 - NA 28 Mixed Metals NA 261.0 2,342.0 - NA (258) (286)Mixed Plastics - 3,354.0 - NA 36 Mixed Plastics NA 335.0 3,019.0 - NA (58) (93)Mixed Organics NA 738.0 - - 8 Mixed Organics NA NA 664.0 - 74.0 4 (5)Mixed MSW NA 10.0 - NA 0 Mixed MSW NA NA 10.0 - NA 0 0Carpet - 2,144.0 - NA 23 Carpet - 214.0 1,930.0 - NA (118) (141)Personal Computers - 193.0 - NA 2 Personal Computers - 19.0 174.0 - NA (10) (12)Concrete - 14,995.0 NA NA 159 Concrete NA 1,500.0 13,495.0 NA NA 140 (19)Asphalt Concrete - 1,312.0 NA NA 14 Asphalt Concrete - 131.0 1,181.0 NA NA 10 (4)Asphalt Shingles - 3,556.0 - NA 38 Asphalt Shingles - 356.0 3,200.0 - NA 25 (13)Dryw all - 2,445.0 NA NA 84 Dryw all - 244.0 2,201.0 NA NA 78 (6)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

City of Pasadena

9

Self-Haul - Long Term Programs – GHG Estimates


CommodityTons

Recycled Tons

LandfilledTons


ReducedTons



(Alt - Base) MTCEAluminum Cans - 4.0 - NA 0 Aluminum Cans - - 4.0 - NA 0 0Steel Cans - 17.0 - NA 0 Steel Cans - - 17.0 - NA 0 0Glass - 203.0 - NA 2 Glass - - 203.0 - NA 2 0HDPE - 13.0 - NA 0 HDPE - - 13.0 - NA 0 0PET - 22.0 - NA 0 PET - - 22.0 - NA 0 0Corrugated Containers - 883.0 - NA (173) Corrugated Containers - - 883.0 - NA (173) 0Magazines/third-class mail - 62.0 - NA (12) Magazines/third-class mail - - 62.0 - NA (12) 0New spaper - 60.0 - NA (20) New spaper - - 60.0 - NA (20) 0Office Paper - 259.0 - NA 5 Office Paper - - 259.0 - NA 5 0Dimensional Lumber - 13,880.0 - NA (4,076) Dimensional Lumber - 1,388.0 12,492.0 - NA (4,599) (523)Food Scraps NA 272.0 - - 27 Food Scraps - NA 272.0 - - 27 0Yard Trimmings NA 1,122.0 - - (95) Yard Trimmings - NA 1,122.0 - - (95) 0Grass NA 230.5 - - 9 Grass - NA 230.5 - - 9 0Leaves NA 230.5 - - (43) Leaves - NA 230.5 - - (43) 0Branches NA 1,012.0 - - (297) Branches - NA 1,012.0 - - (297) 0Mixed Paper (general) - 1,487.0 - NA (264) Mixed Paper (general) NA - 1,487.0 - NA (264) 0Mixed Metals - 2,342.0 - NA 25 Mixed Metals NA - 2,342.0 - NA 25 0Mixed Plastics - 3,019.0 - NA 32 Mixed Plastics NA - 3,019.0 - NA 32 0Mixed Organics NA 664.0 - - 8 Mixed Organics NA NA 590.0 - 74.0 3 (5)Mixed MSW NA 10.0 - NA 0 Mixed MSW NA NA 10.0 - NA 0 0Carpet - 1,930.0 - NA 20 Carpet - - 1,930.0 - NA 20 0Personal Computers - 174.0 - NA 2 Personal Computers - - 174.0 - NA 2 0Concrete - 13,495.0 NA NA 143 Concrete NA 1,349.0 12,146.0 NA NA 126 (17)Asphalt Concrete - 1,181.0 NA NA 13 Asphalt Concrete - 118.0 1,063.0 NA NA 9 (4)Asphalt Shingles - 3,200.0 - NA 34 Asphalt Shingles - 320.0 2,880.0 - NA 23 (11)Dryw all - 2,201.0 NA NA 76 Dryw all - 220.0 1,981.0 NA NA 70 (6)

0 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0


Appendix D

APPENDIX E PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Page E - 1

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

February Workshops

The first two Zero Waste workshops were held on February 2, 2012, including a morning workshop focusing on businesses and

an evening workshop focusing on residents and the community in general. At these initial workshops, the concept of Zero Waste

was introduced and an overview was provided on the City’s Zero Waste Goal and the existing programs that contribute to

Pasadena’s diversion accomplishments. The presentation portion concluded with case studies of businesses and communities

that have implemented Zero Waste strategies. The workshops continued with breakout sessions where stakeholders were given

the opportunity to provide their thoughts on Zero Waste, the City’s efforts, and where they think the City should concentrate in

order to reach its Zero Waste goals.

The results of the stakeholder input/brainstorming from these workshops are included in the following pages, organized

according to the main areas that were discussed by residents and businesses.

Economics

Identify the costs and impacts to implementing the Zero Waste Plan

Provide information on how reducing waste and recycling minimizes costs incurred by a business (at the very least,

consider a no-cost alternative as part of the study)

Explore if the City’s general fund can be used to finance social responsibility investments

Create financial incentives to get to Zero Waste

Research increasing the cost variance of the Pay-As-You-Throw system to create more incentives

Minimize or eliminate the financial burden of the plan onto businesses (Note: Any costs should be appropriated

amongst the user groups. This may mean higher costs for residents, especially when subsidies from the commercial

sector are removed.)

Explore incentives to expand recycling market development zones (i.e., program combines recycling with economic

development to fuel new businesses, expand existing ones, create jobs, and divert waste from landfills)

Minimize the financial barrier of the franchise fee

City Programs/Management

Identify how the Zero Waste Plan will be implemented and how the City will provide the personnel and oversight

Examine ways to encourage construction, recycling, and reuse centers to do business in Pasadena

Create incentives that encourage businesses to get to Zero Waste

Provide a list of local recycling centers and green businesses to assist consumers on where to recycle and shop locally

and responsibly

Make information on the City’s recycling program website easier to find and provide information on what is recyclable

and compostable

Implement mandatory recycling and composting to get to Zero Waste

Characterize commercial and residential waste and share the results with the community

Page E - 2

Engage and explore partnerships with other City of Pasadena facilities (i.e., Pasadena Water and Power), colleges,

universities, and neighboring cities and mayors

Expand the recognition program for businesses who are achieving Zero Waste (Green City Awards)

Research and provide information on Zero Waste best practices nationally and internationally

Organize a working group made up of professionals, environmentalists and business owners to examine, consider and

make recommendations on the Zero Waste initiative before any program is considered for implementation (Note: The

group should be equally made up of representatives from various constituencies.)

Yard Trimmings & Other Compostable Materials

Eliminate the use of yard trimmings as alternative daily cover (ADC) in landfills as the materials are not being

composted

Strong support for compostable materials collection infrastructure from residents and businesses

Research opportunities to compost, such as partnering with other communities or investing in an anaerobic digestion

facility

Investigate the viability of a mandate requiring grocery stores to divert outdated or leftover food from the dumpsters

Consider space needs for food scraps collection, health and cleanliness standards, transportation and staff time to

oversee and implement the program

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Concern that the cost of EPR is levied onto the consumers

Research upstream policies for packaging

Encourage manufacturers of packaging and products to adopt EPR principles (e.g., Avery-Dennison is a Pasadena-

based corporation; collaborate with corporation headquarters.)

Implement more EPR policies, such as a pharmaceutical take-back program

Regulations & Policies

Ensure regulations are compatible and effective so programs are attainable and viable

Provide information on Assembly Bill (AB) 341 to address recycling for businesses and multifamily complexes (Note:

California Assembly Bill 341(Statutes of 2011) requires all commercial generators with four cubic yards or

more of solid waste collection per week and all multifamily buildings with five units or more to recycle.)

Interest in bans of products like polystyrene or juice boxes

Align program goals with the Renewable Portfolio Standards and State standards

Educational Outreach

Share and promote resources available to the community (e.g., Trash 4 Teachers, Repurpose, Free Cycle, etc.)

Provide information on green washing so educated sustainable purchases can be made (e.g., SF approved.com)

Page E - 3

Support and provide outreach for reuse opportunities

Start with educating students on recycling, composting, and reuse

Advertise events, programs, and information through KPCC, local radio, media, newsletters, door-to-door promotions,

and Mayor Public Service Announcements

Use social media including: YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to share information

Publish the names of green businesses located within Pasadena to increase recognition

Promote Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and Re-purpose

Use LEED certification as an incentive; currently it is a disincentive and creates hurdles (Note: “LEED” stands for

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a program of the U.S. Green Building Council.)

General

Research conversion technologies such as anaerobic digestion or waste-to-energy

Research alternatives to plastics and Styrofoam

Include reuse as part of the Zero Waste Plan

Identify interim goals (e.g., 5 years) to reach Zero Waste before 2040

Remove barriers rather than impose rules

Ensure that members of the City Council are present in the stakeholder process

May Workshops

The second series of workshops were held on May 24, 2012. Using a format similar to the February workshops, the morning

presentation focused on the business sector and the evening workshop was geared towards residents and the community in

general. These workshops presented questions and input from the February workshops, details on the types and quantities of

materials generated by residents and businesses in Pasadena, and thoughts on potential Zero Waste policies, programs, and

infrastructure. The workshops concluded with breakout sessions where attendees were given the opportunity to provide their

comments and input on some potential policies, programs, and infrastructure options. The results of the stakeholder input from

these workshops are included below, organized according to the main areas that were discussed by residents and businesses.

Economics

Demonstrate how businesses can achieve cost savings and identify cost-neutral options that increase recycling and

compostable materials collection

Phase-in the program to demonstrate cost neutrality

Examine creative ways to restructure rates to incentivize recycling and composting (e.g., Pasadena Water and Power

solar and energy incentives)

Create incentives so revenues are generated to fund programs

Apply for grants to establish and fund programs

Provide subsidies for pilot projects to demonstrate costs and ease of implementation

Phase-in program subsidies; first year is full subsidy and wean the second and third years

Page E - 4

Require or develop financial incentives for higher diversion rate from Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)

City Programs/Management

Incentivize diversion for franchised haulers (i.e., fee reduction for recycling more or increase fee on waste disposed in

the landfill)

Create interim goals in the Zero Waste Plan, such as 80 percent by 2020, 85 percent by 2030, and 90 percent by 2040

Identify synergies between programs, business groups, charities, colleges, environmental organizations, etc.

Develop a program for food scraps, compostable materials, and reusable items

Encourage franchised haulers to provide lockable bins to minimize scavenging

Provide “milk-run” pickups from retail locations, libraries, senior centers, etc. for recyclables or hard to recycle items

Determine which programs work in other franchised cities and whether those programs would be useful as part of

Pasadena’s Zero Waste Plan

Phase-in new programs as infrastructure becomes available

Implement the Zero Waste Plan through a phased-in approach

Help organize business and charity mixers to encourage donations and tax write-offs

Develop multifamily recycling requirements and source separation programs versus haulers “dirty MRFing” the

materials (processing mixed waste through a mixed waste Material Recovery Facility)

Place water bottle refill stations throughout the City and parks

Develop a program to collect aseptic items so they are sent to the right mills

Yard Trimmings & Other Compostable Materials

Factor in costs and logistics in developing a commercial composting facility locally or regionally

Determine the costs to businesses in establishing a food waste collection program

Establish exclusive franchise zones to collect compostable materials

Host mobile events for chipping and grinding yard trimmings

Create a permanent mulch give-away program that is free to all Pasadena residents

Add food scraps to green bin program

Make recycling and compostable materials collection mandatory for residents

Plan for a composting facility for City generated yard trimmings

Policy and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Establish voluntary take-back programs before making them mandatory

Work with businesses to incentivize participation in an EPR and take-back program

Partner with universal waste suppliers to provide clear labeling on how to dispose of items

Support statewide bans and EPR legislation because Pasadena is not an island

Develop policy for businesses to require using recyclable and compostable products

Page E - 5

Educational Outreach

Provide information on AB 341 to businesses and multifamily complexes

Expand outreach and education to neighborhood associations, homeowner associations, Pasadena City College,

college staff and students, and attendees at City events and meetings

Focus Zero Waste outreach activities to college and high school students that belong to sustainability clubs

Research the cost and possibility of using lockable bins to minimize scavenging

Examine various behavioral change marketing approaches that increase recycling participation

Brand the Zero Waste program

Provide residents with more clearly labeled bins that explain what goes in the blue and green bins

Increase the recycling image of the City by placing clearly labeled recycling bins on City streets and parks

Provide Information on how to recycle ink toner cartridges, batteries, and fluorescent bulbs

Publicize/model successful Zero Waste businesses to increase peer pressure

Delineate what is compostable and recyclable

Correctly define gypsum as it’s not truly “inert”

Make school education a higher priority

Examine all the ways to educate children on recycling at home, school, playgrounds, and parks

Provide technical assistance for businesses

Incorporate additional outreach approaches including door-to-door outreach and personal connections

Develop a program that focuses on positive reinforcement

Develop competitions to increase participation

Provide information on AB 341 and make businesses aware that they are in compliance through the franchise

agreement

Direct haulers to provide training and bins for services they provide

August Workshop

Based on the input from the stakeholders at the February and May workshops, the City conducted an analysis of the policies and

programs to estimate their diversion potential, greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential, and feasibility of implementation.

The preliminary findings and draft plan elements were presented to the stakeholders at an all day workshop and open house

held on August 22, 2012. The open house format for this workshop allowed residents, representatives from local businesses,

business associations, and other community members to attend at a time convenient for them and enabled one-on-one interface

with the project team. Posters displayed in the room presented information on the following draft plan elements:

Guiding Principles - The guiding principles introduced to the workshop attendees were developed by the City and incorporated

the City’s Zero Waste goals, the City’s Green City Action Plan and input from previous stakeholder workshops:

1. Develop sustainable policies and programs that are equitable, environmentally responsible, and economically sound

2. Maintain Pasadena’s position as a leader in innovation and a role model in resource management

Page E - 6

3. Pursue “upstream” strategies that prevent and reduce waste and encourage the transition from a consuming to a conserving

society

4. Improve “downstream” reuse and recycling programs to ensure the highest and best use of end-of-life products and materials

5. Lead by example at all City operations and City-sponsored events and activities

6. Increase the diversion of compostable materials and promote development of local infrastructure

These guiding principles provide a framework for the policies, programs and actions to be implemented as part of the plan.

Policy, Program, and Facility Options -The potential policies, programs, and facilities the City is considering for

implementation in the Zero Waste Plan were displayed on a series of posters in the workshop venue. The options were broken

out by implementation schedule as follows:

Short-term

Short to medium-term

Medium to long-term

Attendees were able to ask questions and also to provide feedback on the potential options.

Estimated Diversion Potential and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions - The diversion potential of each of the options

was calculated based on the types and quantities of materials disposed and the potential for the option to divert some of the

disposed materials from landfilling or transformation. The diversion potential of the options was grouped by the generator type

(residential, commercial, and self-haul). In direct relation to the diversion potential of each option is the potential for reducing

greenhouse gas emissions. These potential results were also displayed for the stakeholders and they were explained by the

project team.

Stakeholder Survey - In addition to attending the final workshop, interested community members and stakeholders were also

given the opportunity to complete a survey on the City’s Zero Waste Plan. The Zero Waste survey solicited input on 25 ideas for

possible programs, policies, and infrastructure identified during the community workshops. Information about the survey and a

link to the survey were posted on the City’s website. The input received was incorporated into the plan. The survey input is

included at the end of this section.

7/24/2014 Survey : Results

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e6fitfakh7jm97lm/results 1/8

Overall Survey Results:Zero Waste Survey

Text Block:

Imagine a Pasadena 30 years from now thatproduces no garbage and recycles/reuses all that we throw away. The City of Pasadena invites residentsand businesses to help develop the Zero Waste Strategic Plan. Yourinput is valuable as we move toward the City's ambitious goal to achieve ZeroWaste by 2040. In 2006, the Pasadena City Council adoptedthe United Nations Green Cities declaration and Urban Environmental Accords, whichprovides the framework for the Green City Action Plan. Achieving Zero Waste by 2040 is one ofthe Urban Environmental Accord Actions. The Zero Waste Strategic Plan is afirst step to reaching this goal. Please provide yourinput on 23 ideas for possible programs, policies, and infrastructure suggestedby businesses and residents during recent community workshops. Please complete the Zero Waste Survey byOctober 8, 2012. Results of the Zero Waste Survey will be available on theCity's Zero Waste webpage on October 22, 2012.

Text Block:

POLICY OPTIONS

Are you in favor of the City adopting a Zero Waste policy that formalizes the



City's commitment to achieving Zero Waste by 2040?

1 = Strongly Agree , 2 = Agree , 3 = Neutral , 4 = Disagree , 5 = Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5Number of

ResponsesRatingScore*

45 1.5

*The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of totalresponses. Show Details

Do you support the expansion of recycling efforts at City facilities to serve as a modelfor the whole City?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


Private waste haulers provide waste collection services to apartment units ancommercial customers throughout the City. Would you support the City evaluatingincentive programs for haulers to increase recycling at the commercial buildings?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


Do you support the City evaluating the current residential curbside recycling program,to identify opportunities to improve recycling and try to incorporate incentives into therate structure


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 1.3


Do you support the City requiring manufacturers to takeback their products?

1 = Strongly Agree , 2 = Agree , 3 = Neutral , 4 = Disagree , 5 = Strongly DisagreeNumber of Rating

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e6fitfakh7jm97lm/results






1 2 3 4 5 Responses Score*

41 1.9


Do you support the City educating residents about sustainable purchasing practices?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 1.5


Many residents have expressed their concern over scavengers that rummage throughtrash and recycling containers when they are placed at the curb for collection. Do yousupport the City increasing enforcement of the antiscavenging ordinance?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 2.6


Do you support the City targeting specific, hard to recycle materials in the residentialand commercial trash (i.e. plastic bags, Styrofoam food packaging) that could bebanned from use?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.9


Trash hauled by selfhaulers to the landfill is a significant portion of the City's totalwaste. Do you support the City working to improve accuracy of selfhaul wastereporting? Accurate waste reporting will be vital in tracking the City's progress towardachieving Zero Waste.


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 2.0








Do you support the City requiring separate recycling bins at apartment and commercialunits?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 1.4


Text Block:

PROGRAM OPTIONS

Do you support the City providing a residential food waste recycling program?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.7


Do you support the City pursuing a food waste recycling program for restaurants,supermarkets and other businesses that generate high volume of food scraps?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


Do you support the City pursuing a food waste recycling program at stadiums andother large venues and events?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


43 1.3

*The Rating Score is the weighted average calculated by dividing the sum of all weighted ratings by the number of total







responses. Show Details

Do you support the City increasing educational outreach on recycling program,and establishing a regular schedule for updates, circulation, and announcements?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.6


Do you support the City's efforts to recognize local green businesses through anawards program to increase the awareness of the businesses achievements?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


43 1.6


Do you support the City offering free technical assistance to businesses to helpcommercial customers achieve Zero Waste through recycling/reuse, and composting?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


Would you use an online service to help reduce/stop junk mail?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


The City require private waste haulers to recycle a minimum of 60 percent of the wastethey collect. Do you support the City establishing incentives for hauler's to exceed








recycling requirements?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 1.8


Do you support the City helping to support school recycling programs at schools toincrease youth recycling awareness?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.4


Do you support the City providing recycling collection containers in public placesthroughout the City?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


45 1.5


Text Block:

INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

Do you support the City supporting the development of regional organics (i.e. foodscraps, yard trimmings, soiled paper) composting facilities in partnership withneighboring cities?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


43 1.5








Recycling facilities generate a certain amount of residual waste material that cannot beeasily recycled. Do you support the City pursuing the development of residual wasterecycling facilities in partnership with neighboring cities?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


42 1.5


Do you support the City establishing a permanent household hazardous waste (i.e.paints, chemicals, ewaste) collection program within the City limits?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 1.6


Do you have interest in regular document shredding services?


1 2 3 4 5Number of


44 2.6


If you have experienced construction projects do you have any suggestions forimproving the Construction and Demolition (C&D) recycling Program?

Number ofResponses

8

Additional policies not included above (list below)

Number ofResponses

5






Personal Information Optional

AnswerNumber ofResponses

First Name 20Last Name 19Job Title 12Company Name 12Work Phone 11Email Address 18Address 1 12City 17State/Province(US/Canada)

19

Postal Code 20

APPENDIX F OPTIONS EVALUATION

Page F - 1

EVALUATION OF POLICY, PROGRAM AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

Evaluation Process

A list of criteria was established to review the policy, program and infrastructure options under consideration by the City. The

criteria categories included environmental benefits, impact on services, ability to implement, support of local and state policies,

and fiscal impacts. For each category, definitions were established to assist the evaluation of the options. The criteria and

definitions are included in Table F-1.

Table F-1

Evaluation Criteria

A Environmental Benefits to the Community Maximum Points

1 Considers the highest and best use of materials 10

2 Reduces greenhouse gas emissions

3 Supports new, safe technologies and processes for infrastructure

4 Protects public health and the environment

5 Implements sustainable policies and programs

B Impact on Services

1 Improves collection and recycling programs for residents and businesses 6

2 Improves opportunities for recycling and proper management of mixed waste

3 Improves City operations and City sponsored events

C Ability to Implement

1 Can be implemented using existing, local infrastructure 4

2 Can be implemented using existing services

D Support Local and State Policies

1 Increases diversion to achieve Zero Waste by 2040, in support of the City’s Urban Environmental Accords, Action 4

6

2 Expands Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) efforts in support of the City 's existing EPR resolution

3 Supports 75 percent state-wide recycling goal

E Fiscal Impacts

1 Minimizes impact on customer rates and provides rate equity 8

2 Minimizes impact on City’s revenue streams

3 Minimizes contract management and enforcement costs for programs

4 Invests in green jobs and economic development

Using the criteria, the scoring was conducted by City staff and a ranking of the list of options was established. The results of the

scoring and ranking are included at the end of this section. As indicated in the scoring results, Option 3, identification of potential

improvements to the franchised hauler system, and Option 23, establishment of a permanent household hazardous waste

(HHW) program, both scored considerable lower than the other options. These two options were eliminated from the

recommended future programs to be implemented.

POLICIES, PROGRAM AND INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS

CATEGORY

Criteria A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 Subtotal B1 B2 B3 Subtotal C1 C2 Subtotal D1 D2 D3 Subtotal E1 E2 E3 E4 Subtotal TOTAL

POLICIES

1 Adopt Zero Waste policy that establishes the City's commitment to achieving ZW by 2040 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 30.0

2 Expand waste reduction, reuse, and recycling at all City facilities, to establish consistent waste reduction, recycling and composting programs to serve as a model for the whole City

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 30.0

3 Identify potential improvements to the franchise waste hauler fee system streamline administering the program without adversely impacting rate payers or service providers

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 6.0

4 Evaluate the C&D diversion requirements for haulers and covered projects to improve consistency and diversion opportunities

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 26.0

5 Evaluate the current residential curbside collection system, to identify opportunities to improve recycling and incorporate incentives into the rate structure

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 32.0

6 Implement producer take-back requirements of products and packaging and educate consumers on sustainable purchasing practices

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 34.0

7Enhance enforcement of the existing anti-scavenging policy in order to reduce loss of recyclables and potentially increase the revenue generated from the recyclables collected curbside

2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 7.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 23.0

8 Target specific materials in the disposed waste stream that could be banned from sale, distribution or disposal

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 34.0

9 Partner with neighboring jurisdictions to improve the accuracy of self-haul waste reporting. 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 25.0

10 Implement a mandatory source separated commercial recycling policy for all commercial and multifamily generators

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 30.0

PROGRAMS

11 Implement a pilot residential food scraps recycling program for potential City wide implementation

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 26.0

12 Implement a pilot food scraps recycling program for restaurants, supermarkets and other businesses that generate high volume of food scraps for potential City wide implementation

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 25.0

13 Implement mandatory food waste recycling program at stadiums and other large venues and events

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 24.0

14 Increase educational outreach on waste reduction and recycling and establish a regular schedule for updates, circulation, and announcements

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 34.0

15 Expand the visibility of local green businesses to increase the awareness of their achievements 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 32.0

16 Offer free technical assistance to businesses to help them achieve Zero Waste through reuse, recycling, and composting

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 32.0

17 Assist residents to reduce their junk mail by promoting the utilization of the tools on the City's website

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 34.0

18 Establish incentives for hauler that exceed recycling requirements 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 20.0

19 Provide school recycling programs at Pasadena Unified School District campuses 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 23.0

20 Provide recycling in public places throughout the City 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 27.0

INFRASTRUCTURE

21 Support the development of regional organics processing facilities through partnerships with neighboring cities

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 26.0

22 Pursue the development of residual waste processing facilities through partnerships with neighboring cities

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 26.0

23 Establish a permanent household hazardous waste collection program, either through a permanent facility within the City, or a curbside collection program

0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 14.0

B. Impact on Services C. Ability to ImplementD. Support Local and State Mandate E. Fiscal Impacts

Point Scale: Yes = 2; Somewhat = 1; No = 0; Not Applicable = NA

A. Environmental Benefits to the Community

copies of this agenda neighborhood information …€¦ · provided a powerpoint presentation...

Documents