1. A Comparison of Estimated Costs of Waste Disposal Options Is there a Future for Waste-to-Energy? Jeffrey F. Clunie R. W. Beck, Inc. N O V E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Presentation to the Municipal Waste Management Association

2. Comparative Analysis 1. Continued land filling at county-owned landfills 2. Use of county-owned, privately operated transfer stations for long-haul truck transfer to out-of-state landfills  Increase at inflation  Increase at twice inflation 3. Municipal solid waste composting facility – total waste stream 4. WTE facility sized to accept waste from just one county 5. Regional WTE facility sized to accept waste from two counties Feasibility study compared following disposal options for two counties Included cost of each county’s administration of the solid waste management system, including recycling

3. Comparative Analysis  Future landfill cells for continued county landfill operation including purchase of additional land  Municipal solid waste composting facility  WTE facilities sized at  600 TPD  900 TPD  1500 TPD Developed estimated capital costs of:

4. Comparative Analysis  Landfill cells for county landfill  Long haul transfer, transportation & disposal  Municipal solid waste composting facility  Unit operating costs of WTE facilities  Long range energy prices  RECS  Compost product Developed operating and maintenance expenses of: Developed estimates of revenues from:

5. Comparative Analysis  Level debt service payments  Public ownership  Issuance of tax – exempt bonds  Net present value analysis Prepared 20 year projections for all options assuming

6. Results – Total Cost of Entire System Including Administration, Recycling, Disposal 1 Four alternatives considered with variations in compost revenues and residue disposal 1. County Landfill 2. Regional WTE Facility (1500 TPD) 3. Long Haul @ Inflation 4. Compost Facility 1 5. 600 TPD WTE 6. Long Haul – Increased Transportation Costs 407 492 542 550-651 645 746 221 270 287 298-344 343 370 Nominal Cost Net Preset Value Millions of Dollars County A

7. Results 1 Four alternatives considered with variations in compost revenues and residue disposal 1. County Landfill 2. Regional WTE Facility (1500 TPD) 3. Long Haul @ Inflation 4. Compost Facility 1 5. 600 TPD WTE 6. Long Haul – Increased Transportation Costs $56 $67 $72 $78-91 $94 $97 $30 $37 $39 $42-49 $50 $49 Nominal Cost $/Ton Net Preset Value $/Ton Tipping Fee County A

8. Results County B 1. Regional WTE facility (1500 TPD) 2. Long Haul @ Inflation 3. Compost Facility – Landfill Residue 4. Compost Facility – Long Haul Residue 5. WTE Facility (900 TPD) 6. Long Haul – Increased Transportation Costs 960 1003 1065 1126 1146 1269 506 520 556 581 596 628 Nominal Cost Net Preset Value Millions of Dollars

9. Current Market Drivers for Waste Disposal  Increased fuel costs, increased fuel costs, increased fuel costs  Increased price for electricity  Increased cost to transport waste to competitive means of disposal (out-of-area landfills)  Availability of renewable energy credits  Ability to sell power to alternative power grids  Public solid waste authorities have become much more entrepreneurial  Special Waste  Public/Private Partnerships  Sale of RECS

10. Current Market Drivers  Significant savings with economies of scale – push to regional facilities  Long haul transfer impacted by cost of diesel fuel and driving distance to landfills  Challenge to find markets for compost produced from municipal solid waste

11. Current Market Drivers  Waste-to-ethanol  Gasification that converts MSW to a fuel gas with the use of some oxygen  Conversion of plastics to oil  Pyrolysis systems convert solid waste to gas in the absence of oxygen  Plasma systems use plasma torches to provide the energy to convert solid waste to energy  Chemical and biological conversion of the cellulose fraction of MSW to ethanol  Currently Unanswered questions  Ability to process a heterogeneous fuel like MSW  Scale up  Economics Status of innovative technologies

12. Items for Consideration  Location, location, location  Must charge market-based tip fee  Physical proximity of a community to privately owned/operated landfills will determine what the market-based tip fee will be  Future price of diesel fuel will have a significant impact on the market-based tip fee  WTE may make economic sense for some parts of the country due to distance to landfills  Portions of New England  Eastern New York  Maryland  Florida  Must address:  NIMBY mindset  Emotional reaction to combustion  Will economics be more of a motivator than environmental concerns?  WTE only current commercially demonstrated alternative to land filling