METHANE MANAGEMENT

Ian Whil Idfills

e th can

By Michael Fickes

dfills soon may get paid to help efray the cost of reducing green- ouse gas emissions.

As an indication of this, last October, an Avon, Conn.-based company, Zahren Alternative Power Corp. (ZAPCO) sold the rights to emit about 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide to Ontario Power Generation Inc. in Canada.

According to news reports, the value of the deal approached $25 million, or $10 per ton.

Perhaps even more interesting, the source of the rights sold by ZAPCO comes from 119,000 tons of methane gas collected from a number of landfills based in the United States.

ZAPCO collects methane gas from landfills and sells it to utilities and in- dustries that burn the gas to generate power. In the process, it claims emis- sion reduction rights for reducing the amount of methane, a designated greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere.

Over the past few years, an interna- tional system for buying and selling greenhouse gas emission reductions has

68

tak ling

;e in, syste !m.

begun to evolve. In this system, a single ton of methane counts as much as 21 tons of carbon dioxide - because sci- ence has established that the effect of methane on the atmosphere is 21 times greater than the effect of carbon diox- ide. Traders value all greenhouse gases in relation to 1 ton of carbon dioxide.

In the ZAPCO-Ontario Power exam- ple, the two companies valued the methane by multiplying 119,000 tons of methane by 21. The result, approxi- mately 2.5 million tons, represents the equivalent effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere.

While the details of the Ontario Power deal remain confidential, ob- servers say the approximate price of $10 per ton stands below the price of a handful of previous transactions made in this fledgling system. In other words, the price of greenhouse gas reduction rights will vary according to the values placed on those rights by buyers and sellers. This is characteristic of a com- modities trading system, which this new trading system has begun to emulate.

Landfill gas, of course, is 50 percent methane, and industry observers say the Ontario Power transaction illus- trates an emerging and potentially valu- able source of income for landfills around the world.

Where did this trading system come from? And when will it begin to prove useful to landfill operators?

A Tall Tale The complicated story begins with

the Clean Air Act of 1990, which cre- ated an opportunity for industry to buy and sell emission reduction cred- its - ERCs - keyed to atmospheric pollutants.

When a company builds a power generation or manufacturing plant, the process being used may generate one or another of a half dozen crileria pol- lutants. These include substances such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), partic- ulate matter, lead and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Experts in this area carefully distin-

W a s t e A g e

guish be tweh pollutants and green- house gases. Pollytants poison the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases may warm the atmosphere.

The Clean Air Act only addresses pol- lutants. No legislation deals with or con- trols greenhouse gases in any way - yet. But more on that later; an evolution of ERCs trading system is on its way

“Suppose a new plant emits 500 tons per year of VOCs into the environ- ment,” says Jim Walsh, senior vice pres- ident with SCS Engineers in Cincinnati, Ohio. “You have two choices. You can pay for emissions control equipment, or you can find someone who has generat- ed 500 tons of VOC emission reduction credits or ERCs by shutting down a plant or by installing emission controls.

“Usually these credits must trade within a given non-attainment area. In other words, a company in the Balt- imore area that emits a criteria pollutant wodd have EO find^ x ” e - € r e m i ~ s designated non-attainment area.”

___ __ . _ _ _ _ _

With itr landfill methane gas collection gatem, the Los Reales site in Tucson, Ariz., is an example of the operation that could sell ERG.

A landfill operating within a non- attainment area theoretically could gen- erate and sell ERCs. “If you collect and GFeTaiiam gG, or 3ell-itEi-benefi- cia1 use as an energy source, then you are removing certain pollutants that d d &me ewer the amqhe~e,’’ Walsh says.

us). A seller receives revenue from

e Section 29 tax

nd renewable energy sources. Politic tives managed to remove landfill gas

When Section 29 landfill gas tax credits come t may not lose their tax credits. “As an industry, we cept of Section 29 tax credits under Section 45 o Walsh, senior vice president with SCS Engineers i

What are the prospects for this? sympathetic review next year, foll

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 0

Three problems generally prevent landfills from doing this directly: gov- ernment regulations, state administra- ti.on.and.financel

While creating a market for ERCs rooted in criteria pollutants, the Clean Air~Aft-adthe t.&at* that accem- pany it also created restrictions based on New Source Performance Standards or NSPS. A power generator, manufac- turer, landfill operator or any entity operating a site subject to NSPS regula- tions must reduce emissions of criteria pollutants and cannot claim ERCs.

“If you are complylng with the Clean Air Act, have a migration or odor prob- lem and are forced by a regulator to install a gas system and flare landfill gas, then you cannot generate ERCs,” Walsh says.

On the other hand, a landfill operator that takes the initiative in the absence of regulations may claim and sell credits.

Then again, not always. Another wrinkle in the ERC market involves the administrative ERC framework. The federal govemment created ERCs in the Clean Air Act but left the states to implement the concept. “Most ERC programs are done through the states where the federal regulations are imple- mented,” says Greg McCarron, a project manager with SCS in West Nyack, N.Y.

States that have implemented these

facing ozone problems. Massachusetts, for instance, has a program called the Innovative Market Program for Air Credit Trading, or IMPACT. The pro- gram includes only emission reductions for credit from three pollutants: NOx, CO and VOCs, and prohibits “interpol- lutant” trades. In other words NOx ERCs only offset NOx emissions, not CO emissions.

. ~ ~. ~ .~ ~ ~.

programs usually contain a large city .~~

69

The 122nd Street project in Chicago is a 2 m Wproject using two Jenbacher JGC 320 GS- L.L. engines to generate electriu’ that is sold to Commonwealth Edison Company.

A landfill operator interested in trad- ing credits usually must make deals in dxtiurrtu a state program, if one exists.

The third problem arises from finan- cial realities. Creating ERCs by installing a LFG collection system, quantifying what is collected and certifying the numbers may cost more than the invest- ment will retum to individual landfills.

~

The ERC concept comes with a lot of ifs, a lot of capital expense, and a lot of red tape to gain the relatively small return a single landfill might generate.

Enter companies that develop pro- jects to collect and sell landfill gas to energy producers. “We seek out land- fills that can provide an energy source for our customers,” says Michael Caro-

lan, president of ZAPCO ‘Develophent in Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

A group of landfills that satisfies ZAPCO Development’s criteria in terms of gas volume may provide enough vol- ume for the company to gain financial benefits from criteria pollutant ERCs, the emerging market for greenhouse gas -~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ emission reduction rights, and a federal tax credit program [see “Tax Credits Past and Future” on page 691. “If we can aggregate a lot of incentives, a pro- ject becomes more economical for us,” Carolan says. “A single landfill by itself may not have the size, patience or sophistication to put together a legal package to monetize these incentives. The role we play is in aggregating sever- al landfills into a package that spreads the fixed costs of production.”

Today, a company may pay a royalty to a landfill for the rights to develop a gas collection system and to sell the gas to power generators. In some cases, a landfill may need a gas collection sys- tem and simply assign the rights to a landfill power development firm.

According to Walsh of SCS, about 300 landfills in the United States host landfill-gas-to-energy installations.

a I 4

The Benefits: . Water-resistant . Highly durable . Lightweight Flame resistant . Applies evenly, rain or shine Designed for many months of use . Controls disease vectors Tarpomatic” compatible Longest lasting tarp on the market . FabreneMamdmaterial

Please call

1-800-694-55 1 5 or visit US on-line at

E-mail: airspace@eatel.net Website: www.tarpsandcovers.com

70

Circle No. 40 on Reader Service Card W a s t e A g e

mailto:airspace@eatel.nethttp://www.tarpsandcovers.com

+ Third-party contractors own and oper- ate about 80 percent of those installa- tions and may claim and sell ERCs that flow from them

Most observers generally agree that the value to landfills of ERCs generated from the collection of cntena pollutants contained in landfill gas has been and will remain limited Landfill gas, after all, contains only relatively small amounts of cntena pollutants

The significance of criteria pollutant ERCs lies in the trading system that has evolved around these credits and how

that system appears to be shaping the emerging market for greenhouse gas emission reductions.

If there is any significant financial value in all of this for landfills, it lies in the future. And the future began to take shape in a model created by ZAPCO’S sale of greenhouse gas emission reduc- tion rights to Ontario Power.

On to Kyoto In 1997, a United Nation’s confer-

ence held in Kyoto, Japan, adopted a plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse

Reliable Efficient

www.hy-bon.com

Specialists in Gas Management Since 1952

Circle No 42 on Reader Service Card

gases Called the Kyoto Protocol, the plan urges developed countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012 by an average of 5 2 percent from 1990 levels

Vice President A1 Gore signed the Protocol, which specified that the United States, as the largest emitter of . greenhouse gases, would reduce its emissions to 7 percent below the levels measured in 1990

Representatives from other developed countnes made similar commitments

None of this, however, carried the force of law In the United States, for ex- ample, only Congress can enact legisla- tion designed to meet the goals agreed upon in Kyoto For a vanety of reasons, Congress so far has refused to ratify the Protocol or seriously consider legisla- tion designed to implement its goals

Other countries also have resisted ratifylng the Protocol

“It ean take a long time for a group of governments to ratify and enforce a multilateral protocol,” says Garth Edward, a principal on the greenhouse gas desk with Natsource LLC, a New York City-based broker of gas, coal, power and emissions instruments

Nevertheless, industries around the world view the Protocol as a wakeup call Companies such as Ontano Power cannot afford to ignore the possibility that their governments soon may enact legislation requiring significant reduc- tions in greenhouse gas emissions

As a result, these companies express increasing interest in purchasing the rights to emit greenhouse gas

Edward recommends distinguishing between emission reduction credits related to pollutants and emission reductions related to greenhouse gas “The term credit specifies credit against some legislative requirement,” Edward says “Because no legislation controls greenhouse gas emissions, there is, right now, no such thing as a green- house gas emission credit ”

What is being bought and sold in this

~ ~~~

area is the right to emit greenhouse gases in the future. Traders operate under the assumption that legislation that may be enacted in the future will adopt the recommendations made in the Kyoto Protocol following the model of emission reduction credit trading.

Companies like Natsource have bro- kered a small but growing number of transactions related to greenhouse gas emissions rights. “Our sense is that there

W a s t e A g e 72

http://www.hy-bon.com

A cost-effective alternative to a The eose and construction Economical installation

Economic Benefits

geomembrane seams The option of welding bentonite-free geomembrane edges for composite FMVGCL liner or cap applications

Geomembrone wrinkle concerns ore minimized, resulting in increased welding windows, improved installation productivity, and decreased potential material installation damage

Smooth or textured HDPE or LLDPE geomembrane backing available in thickness ranging from 0.3 mm to 2.0 mm for both flat and sloping applications

Product Benefits Improved double barrier protection, combining a GCL and a geomembrane into

Continuous protection of the bentonite layer by the geomembrane backing from adverse

The best intimate contact for interface composite sealing action between the bentonite,

* Long-term protection of the bentonite layer by the geomembrone backing agoinst

one product

weather conditions during installation

geomembrane, and subgrade

cation-exchange, root penetration, and bentonite dessication cracking in cap applicotions

Well established shear strength properties can be incorporated into a project design with confidence

To find out more about GSE GundSeal or other GSE products and services please contact us.

GSE lining Technology, Inc. www.gseworld.com e 800-435-2008 0 281 -443-8564 A GurdlelSLT Environmmtdl, I n c Company

Circle No. 41 on Reader Service Card

http://www.gseworld.com

have been just under 100 such transactions around the world over the past two or three years,” Edward says. “About 20 of these transactions have involved North American landfills.

How do these trades work? Edward says a landfill might col- lect 50,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent emis- sion reductions from a landfill site not covered by existing leg- islation requiring emissions reductions. “There are buyers who would be happy to find a forward stream of 50,000 tons per year of reductions over five years,” he explains. “Right now, a reasonable price for these reductions might be $1 per ton to $2 per ton. Suppose the seller is lucky and gets $2 per ton. If the buyer agrees to pay in full up-front, the seller would receive $500,000 for a five-year stream of reductions totaling 50,000 tons per year, or 250,000 tons overall.

“In reality, though, the buyer won’t fork over $500,000 today for something he won’t receive until later. The buyer will want to pay on delivery The seller wants cash up front. The position in the middle is called an option. The buyer may agree to buy an option to purchase those reductions at 50 cents a ton or $125,000.”

1 The agreement also might stipulate that the option to buy reductions will run from 2008 to 2012, the period covered by 1 the Kyoto Protocol. During those years, the buyer could exer- 1 ciSeihe option and puTchase tonnage reductions for $2 a ton.

i If the transaction eventually went through, the seller would

I Trades we have participated in have run to seven figures.”

~

!

t

essentially receive a premium based on the amount of the option sale plus the agreed upon price per ton for the emis- sion rights themselves.

Edward and other industry observers call the greenhouse gas emissions reduction market a considerable opportunity for the landfill industry, but qualify their enthusiasm by not- ing that the rules may change if and when the governments that signed the Kyoto Protocol ratify the agreement and enact related legislation.

“If you’re a buyer, you look at these transactions as a way to manage risk,” Edward says. “Currently, there is no greenhouse gas law. But you may project having to comply with a law in the future. If you’re a large power generation source coughing out a million tons a year of carbon dioxide, you would have to imagine that you are an elephant in the sites of regulators planning to do something about greenhouse gas emissions.”

Still, governments have yet to weigh in on the issue. Views expressed vary greatly, leading to uncertainty about the future.

Japan, for example, recently drafted a plan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The draft calls for reliance on domestic efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and recommends against allowing international purchases of emission rights.

On the other hand, U.S. observers anticipate heavy reliance on national as well as international market mechanisms, should Congress ratify the Protocol and enact legislation. Frank Lox Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs and a key U.S. negotiator on climate change issues, recently said that the United States cannot meet its Kyoto Protocol obliga- tions without trading emission rights with other countries. In fact, according to Loy, the economic boom in the United States has raised emissions to a level that will require a 30 per- cent cut to satisfy the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

If Loy is right, US. landfills may discover that landfill gas is WA worth its weight in gold.

Michael Fiches is Waste Age? Business Editor:

S e p t e m b e r 2 0 0 0

KF”’IlM~4D\ V h V 4,1B E Q U I P M E N T SALES COMPANY, INC 6995 Northwest 32nd Avenue

MFG. BY

Miami, Florida 33147 Y

I =800=328=9088 (305) 696-3621 FAX (305) 693-1602

A U T O M A T I C C O V E R FOR ROLL-OFF T R U C K

Model ROC 2600 HR HYDRAULIC AND SPRING LOADED

+ /. ......----- A -.. t. , u %. i e ; *,.e‘ f a ‘\

OPERATES FROM HYDRAULICS ON TRUCK IF THE TRUCK WORKS, THE COVER WORKS COVERS ALL HEIGHTAENGTH CONTAINERS REQUIRES LITTLE SPACE TO MOUNT SIDEARMS POWERED BY TORSION SPRING HEAD ROLLER POWERED BY HYDRAULIC MOTOR & GEARBOX

WHEN NOT IN USE TENSION ON SIDEARMS IS CONTROLLED BY TENSION ADJUSTER

121-1 GEARBOX PREVENTS UNROLLING

Model - ROC 230 HYDRAULIC POWERED SIDE ARMS COVERS AND

UNCOVERS I N SECONDS. SPRING LOADED HEAD ROLLER CAN BE MOUNTED ON

ELEVATOR OR END OF SIDE ARMS. ELEVATOR CAN BE STATIONARY OR USED WITH A HYDRAULIC CYLINDER TO MOVE UP AND DOWN. SPRING LOADED HEAD ROLLER ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR A HYDRAULIC MOTOR AND GEAR BOX.

LOW PROFILE HYDRAULIC SIDE ARMS PROTECT UNIT FROM DAMAGE WHEN LOADING AND UNLOADING CONTAINER.

E-mail: Bbcover@aol.com www. kwi kcover.com

~~~~ ~

Circle No. 43 on Reader Service Card

7 3

mailto:Bbcover@aol.comhttp://kcover.com