Agenda 1 Part 1 Integrated Resource Recovery Integrated Resource - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Agenda

Part 1 Integrated Resource Recovery

3

Integrated Resource Recovery Potential Inputs Potential Products

4

5

Feedstock: Food Waste & Yard Waste

Food Waste

Increased energy generation potential

Yard Waste

Cellulosic material doesn’t break down in digestion Limited quantity used for structure

• More solids generated for compost
• r other end use

6

Potential Off-Site Energy Centre

7

High Solids Digestion

7

8

High Solids Digestion (Dry)

8

9

Pictures from Harvest Power, Richmond BC

9

10 10

10

11 11

11

12 12

12

13 13

Low Solids Digestion (Wet)

13

14 14

BTA Pulper and Grit Removal System

14

15 15

Toronto Source Separated Organics Facility 15

16

Biogas Generation Potential

Fuel, electricity and heat potential

Wastewater solids: 270 GJ/d North Shore Food waste/Yard waste: Up to 200 GJ/d

17

Electricity and Heat from Biogas

Electricity and high grade heat potential

Wastewater solids: 108 GJ/d, 1.3 MW Food waste/yard waste: 80 GJ/d, 0.9 MW

Estimated plant electricity demand: ~180 GJ/d Estimated plant heat demand: ~180 GJ/d

18

Biomethane Potential

Remove carbon dioxide, H2O, H2S, siloxanes from biogas Sell as biomethane to natural gas grid Plant electricity, some plant heat purchased

Wastewater solids: 270 GJ/d North Shore Food waste/Yard waste: Up to 200 GJ/d

Total equivalent to natural gas heat for 2,140 homes

19

Low Grade Heat

Use electrical heat pumps to extract heat Wastewater effluent: 2,350 GH/d, 27 MW Existing District Energy System demand: 1-2 MW Potential demand: 3 to 27 MW 27MW would provide heat and hot water for 10,700 homes

Effluent Heat Potential

20

Reclaimed Water

Advanced treatment required for non-potable use Secondary conveyance system required Potential supply: 100 ML/d High industrial water user demand: 3-6 ML/d Estuary enhancement potential Future development potential

Reclaimed Water Potential

21

Nutrient Generation Potential

Liquid stream Biosolids

22

Nutrients from Liquid Stream

Nitrogen, Phosphorus Struvite crystals

• Magnesium ammonium phosphate
• Nuisance formation in piping, digester
• Extract in special reactors
• Sell as slow release fertilizer

Potential generation: up to 230 T/y P Demand: unlimited

23

Nutrients in Solids Stream

Biosolids land application

High nitrogen and phosphorus Other micronutrients

• Generation: ~3500 dry T/y
• Demand: limited

24

Energy from Solids Stream

Organic matter in biosolids has energy value Dried biosolids has ~ 2/3 energy value of low grade coal Evaporation of water requires energy input

Drying Thermal reduction

70-80% water

25

Energy from Biosolids

75% water 10% water 75% water Heat Water

Potential energy available: 500 GJ/d (before digestion) Net energy available after water evaporated: up to 25%

Questions?

Part 2 Introduction to Procurement Models

28

Introduction and Objectives

Background

• Lion’s Gate Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant (LGWWTP)
• $400 m +
• Currently in Project Definition Phase
• Business plan anticipated (Fall 2013) and Procurement in 2014
• Wastewater treatment plants in Metro Vancouver have been traditionally undertaken

by traditional delivery models

• Metro Vancouver interested in exploring alternate procurement models

Objective

• To establish a base understanding of potential procurement models available to

deliver LGWWTP

29

Partnerships BC – Information

Why will Partnerships BC be involved?

• Any capital project valued > $50 million with Provincial Contribution

 P3 business case to be undertaken

• Business case required for provincial funding

Mandate & Information

• Mission is to structure and implement partnership solutions for infrastructure

projects in the public’s interest

• Standalone provincial crown corporation
• 26 projects procured or under construction, 9 announced or under procurement
• Standardized business case processes and procurement document templates

Value for Money Assessment core part of Procurement Model Selection

30

Partnerships BC – Process

A business case needs to be developed to support the development and approval of the process for Provincial Funding. Business Case components include:

• Project Justification (Definition of future requirements)
• Procurement Delivery Options
• Procurement Model Analysis including Multi-Criteria Analysis
• Risk assessment & quantification
• Value for Money Assessment

Final procurement model selected must: 1) Best serve project requirements 2) Demonstrate Value for Money Value for Money assesses the value for risk transferred under each procurement model. Quantification of risk is fundamental to Partnerships BC process

31

Partnerships BC – Value for Money

Value for Money (“VFM”) Process Public Sector Comparator Financial Model (“DBB”) Risk Adjusted Annual Cash Flows to the Public Sector

Capital, operating, lifecycle

Shadow Bid Financial Model (“P3”) Risk Adjusted Annual Cash Flows to the Public Sector

(Including efficiencies) Capital, operating, lifecycle and financing

Short-Listed Procurement Models Risk Assessment Process Value for Money Assessment

32

PPP Canada – Information

PPP Canada involvement

• PPP Canada is Federal Crown Corporation to improve delivery of public

infrastructure by achieving better value, timelines and accountability through P3s

• Manages $1.2 billion P3 Canada Fund; 4 funding rounds to date
• Eligible applicants include: Province, Territory, Municipal or Regional Government,

First Nations, Not-for-Profit

• Eligible infrastructure categories include*: Water and Wastewater , Public Transit,

National Highway, Green Energy, Disaster Mitigation, Solid Waste Mgt

• Access to P3 Canada funding of potentially up to 25% of eligible costs of project if

delivered through P3.

• Business case with Value for Money assessment must be submitted as part of

funding process 20% of funding in P3 Canada Round Three for water & wastewater projects: 1) Sudbury Biosolids 2) Kananaskis Wastewater (Evan Thomas) 3) Capital Regional District – Biosolids Energy Centre

Part 2 Procurement Models

34

Procurement Models

Procurement models include: 1) Traditional Design-Bid-Build (“DBB”) 2) Construction Management at Risk (“CM@R”) 3) Design-Build (“DB”) ■ Progressive ■ Prescriptive ■ Performance ■ Design-Build-Finance (“DBF”) 4) Design-Build-Operate/Maintain (“DBO/M”) 5) Design-Build-Financial-Operate/Maintain (“DBFO/M”)*

Alternative Delivery (“AD”) Models

*Only those with a “Finance” component are generally given priority to P3 Canada Funding

35

Procurement Models

• CM
• DBB
• CM@

R

• Alliance
• DBO
• DBM
• Progressive DB
• Prescriptive DB
• Performance DB
• DBF
• DBFO
• DBFOM

Increasing Risk T ransfer and Private Sector Involvement Value for Money is achieved when the risks are allocated to the party best able to manage the risks

36

Traditional Delivery Model – DBB

Design-Bid-Build Model

• Separate Contracts for design, construction, and operations
• Fully financed by Metro Vancouver – progress payments made to each of the

contractors

Construction Contract Design Contract Metro Vancouver Operations Maintenance Revenue Collection Construction Design

Sub - contractors and suppliers

Separate contracts for design and construction

37

Traditional Delivery Model

Design-Bid-Build Model

Pros Cons

• Control and Oversight over entire

Project

• Public Sector retains all risks of project
• Accepted Model in which MV has

experience

• Separate procurement processes may take

longer

• Cost overruns and schedule risks due to

design flaws

• Contractor has no on-going responsibility

for operations or asset performance

• Schedule risk due to potential lack of

contractor financial incentive

38

Design-Build

• Single contract for design-build under a fixed price
• MV is responsible for operations after substantial completion
• Fully financed by MV – progress payments made to contractor

DB Contract Metro Vancouver Operations Maintenance Revenue Collection Construction Design DB Consortium

Sub - contractors and Suppliers

39

Design-Build

Pros Cons

• DB Contractor assumes design risk
• Schedule risk borne by MV
• Schedule can be accelerated –

construction can commence before design is complete

• Asset performance risk in operations

retained by MV

• Better certainty on price
• Price subject to competition

40

Design-Build-Operate/Maintain

• Single contract for design-build-operate/maintain
• Fully financed by MV
• Progress payments during construction fixed construction price
• Monthly performance-based operating payments fixed operating payments

DBO/ M Contract Maintenance Metro Vancouver DBO/ M Consortium Design Construction Operations Revenue Collection

Sub - contractors and suppliers

41

Design-Build-Operate/Maintain

Pros Cons

• DBO/M Contractor assumes design risk
• Schedule risk borne by MV
• Schedule can be accelerated
• Limited Asset performance guarantee
• Better certainty on price
• Contractor is held more responsible for

asset performance after substantial completion

• Price subject to competition
• Some trade-offs made between up-front

capital and on-going operations Prescriptive DB component more challenging to implement due to risk retention from components prescribed

42

Design-Build-Finance-Operate/Maintain

DBFO/ M Contract Metro Vancouver DBFO/ M Consortium Design Construction Maintenance Revenue Collection

Sub-contractors and Suppliers

Project Finance

• Single contract for design-build-finance-operate/maintain
• Private sector finances (in whole or in part) construction costs – “Skin in the Game”
• MV pays a portion at key milestones and “availability” payments during operations

43

Design-Build-Finance-Operate/Maintain

Pros Cons

• DBFO/M Contractor assumes design risk
• Less direct control by MV
• Schedule can be accelerated
• Private sector financing more expensive
• Better certainty on price
• Less able to prescribe requirements
• "Contractor is held more responsible for

asset performance after substantial completion (more “skin” in the game)

• Price subject to competition
• Optimal trade-offs made between up-front

capital and on-going operations

• Schedule risk borne by DBOM contractor

due to “skin” in the game

Questions?