430R07003
Opportunities for and Benefits of
Combined Heat and Power at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Heat and Power Partnership
§ CHP
&EPA CO&SSiNED HgAT AND
POWER
April 2007
-------
&EPA COMBINED HEM ANC
KSWEB WlBTNtflSMIP .^1
Opportunities for and Benefits of
Combined Heat and Power at
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
www.erg.com
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Combined Heat and Power Partnership
I
5
\
December 2006
For more information about the EPA CHP Partnership, please visit:
www.epa.gov/chp or email: chpteam@epa.gov.
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Data Sources 2
3.0 The Market 2
3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion 2
3.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities with CHP 4
4.0 Technical Fit 4
4.1 Electric and Thermal Generation Potential from CHP Systems at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities 5
4.2 National Electric Generation Potential from CHP at Wastewater Treatment Facilities 7
4.3 Potential Carbon Dioxide Emission Benefits 8
5.0 Cost-Effectiveness 9
6.0 Wastewater Treatment Biogas as Renewable Energy 12
7.0 Additional Resources 13
7.1 Organizations 13
7.2 Articles 14
7.3 Case Studies 14
Appendix A: Full List of U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities (> 5 MGD) with at Least One
Anaerobic Digester 16
Al: Facilities with no off-gas utilization 16
A2: Facilities with off-gas utilization 37
Appendix B: Anaerobic Digester Design Criteria 42
List of Tables
Table 1: U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion and Off-Gas Utilization
by Number 3
Table 2: U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion and Off-Gas Utilization
by Flow Rate 3
Table 3: Number of Wastewater CHP Systems and Total Capacity by State 4
Table 4: Electric and Thermal Energy Potential with CHP for Typically Sized Digester:
Mesophilic 6
Table 5: Electric and Thermal Energy Potential with CHP for Typically Sized Digester:
Thermophilic 7
Table 6: Potential Carbon Dioxide Emission Offsets with CHP at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities 8
Table 7: CHP System Performance Characteristics for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 10
Table 8: Estimated Capital Costs for Three CHP Systems at Wastewater Treatment Facilities.. 11
Table 9: Net Power Cost Estimates for Three CHP Systems at Wastewater Treatment Facilities
12
-------
-------
Executive Summary
As part of its broader outreach and education efforts to expand knowledge of the benefits and
applications of combined heat and power (CHP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) CHP Partnership (CHPP) has undertaken targeted efforts to increase CHP use in three
specific market sectors: dry mill ethanol production, hotels/casinos, and wastewater treatment.
The CHPP's work in these sectors is intended to serve two main audiences: energy users and
industry Partners. Sector-specific information on the technical and economic benefits of CHP is
provided so energy users can consider employing CHP at their own facilities. Market analyses
help our CHP industry Partners increase their penetration into these sectors. This guide presents
the opportunities for and benefits of CHP applications at municipal wastewater treatment
facilities (WWTFs), also known as publicly owned treatment works (POTWs).
CHP is a reliable, cost-effective option for WWTFs that have, or are planning to install,
anaerobic digesters. The biogas flow from the digester can be used as "free" fuel to generate
electricity and power in a CHP system using a turbine, microturbine, fuel cell, or reciprocating
engine. The thermal energy produced by the CHP system is then typically used to meet digester
heat loads and for space heating. A well-designed CHP system offers many benefits for WWTFs
because it:
Produces power at a cost below retail electricity.
Displaces purchased fuels for thermal needs.
Qualifies as a renewable fuel for green power programs.
Enhances power reliability for the plant.
Offers an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas and other air emissions.
The primary purpose of this guide is to provide basic information for assessing the potential
technical fit for CHP at WWTFs that have anaerobic digesters. It is intended to be used by CHP
project developers, WWTF operators, and other parties who are interested in exploring the
benefits of CHP for a WWTF. The guide provides the following information:
The size of facilities that have the greatest potential for employing cost-effective CHP.
Rules of thumb for estimating a CHP system's potential electricity and thermal outputs
based on wastewater flow rate.
The emission reduction benefits associated with CHP at WWTFs.
The cost-effectiveness of CHP at WWTFs.
Strategic issues involved with employing CHP at WWTFs.
Through its market and technical analyses, the CHPP has found that:
CHP is a strong technical fit for many WWTFs.
CHP is commercially available and has been proven effective in application at WWTFs.
CHP can be a compelling investment at WWTFs, depending on local electricity prices
and fuel costs.
CHP offers additional values and benefits for WWTFs, including offset equipment costs,
increased reliability, and emission reductions.
CHP has been underutilized at WWTFs to date.
11
-------
Specifically, the CHPP estimates that if all 544 WWTFs in the United States that operate
anaerobic digesters and have influent flow rates greater than 5 MGD were to install CHP,
approximately 340 MW of clean electricity could be generated, offsetting 2.3 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide emissions annually. These reductions are equivalent to planting approximately
640,000 acres of forest, or the emissions of approximately 430,000 cars.
Engineering Rules of Thumb for Considering CHP at a WWTF
A typical WWTF processes 100 gallons per day of wastewater for every person
served.1
Approximately 1.0 cubic foot (ft3) of digester gas can be produced by an anaerobic
digester per person per day.2 This volume of gas can provide approximately 2.2 Watts
of power generation.3
The heating value of the biogas produced by anaerobic digesters is approximately 600
British thermal units per cubic foot (Btu/ft3).4
For each 4.5 MGD processed by a WWTF with anaerobic digestion, the generated
biogas can produce approximately 100 kilowatts (kW) of electricity.5
1 Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers,
"Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (Ten-State Standards)," 2004.
2 Metcalf & Eddy, "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse," 1991.
3 Assumes the energy content of biogas is 600 Btu/ft3, and the power is produced using a 30 percent efficient electric
generator.
4 Metcalf & Eddy, "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse," 1991.
5 See section 4.1: Electric and Thermal Generation Potential from CHP Systems.
ill
-------
1.0 Introduction
Today, more than 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) operate in the
United States, ranging in capacity from several hundred million gallons per day (MOD) to less
than 1 MOD. Roughly 1,000 of these facilities operate with a total influent flow rate greater than
5 MGD, but only 544 of these facilities employ anaerobic digestion to process the wastewater.
Moreover, only 106 WWTFs utilize the biogas produced by their anaerobic digesters to generate
electricity and/or thermal energy. In places where the spark spread1 is favorable, great potential
for combined heat and power (CHP) at WWTFs exists.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Combined Heat and Power Partnership
(CHPP) has developed this guide to provide basic information for assessing the potential
technical fit of CHP at WWTFs that have anaerobic digesters. The guide is intended to be used
by CHP project developers, WWTF operators, and other parties who are interested in exploring
the benefits of CHP for a WWTF.
Though outside the scope of the remainder of this guide, WWTFs that do not presently employ
anaerobic digesters for biosolids management should note that the benefits of CHP deployment
at a WWTF are in addition to the typical benefits of anaerobic digesters, which include:
Production of biogas that can offset purchased fuel and be used in a CHP system.
Enhanced power reliability at the facility if biogas is used to produce backup power.
Reduced odors and uncontained methane emissions.
Additional revenue streams, such as soil fertilizers that can be produced from digester
effluent.
The CHPP based its analyses of the opportunities for and benefits of CHP within the wastewater
treatment market sector on data obtained from the 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
(CWNS), Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.'s (EEA's) Combined Heat and Power
Installation Database, and additional independent research. The guide is organized as follows:
Section 2 introduces the wastewater treatment data used for the CHPP's analyses,
including information on data collection and limitations.
Section 3 describes the potential market for CHP at WWTFs.
Section 4 explains the technical fit for CHP at WWTFs, presenting the CHPP's analyses
of electric and thermal energy generation potential at WWTFs, and the associated
greenhouse gas emissions benefits.
Section 5 presents cost-effectiveness information for CHP at WWTFs.
Section 6 presents some strategic issues related to installing CHP at WWTFs, including
the potential eligibility for renewable fuel credits and clean energy funding.
Section 7 lists additional sources of relevant information.
Appendix A includes a full list of WWTFs in the United States with flow rates greater
than 5 MGD that have at least one anaerobic digester. This list includes the potential
electricity capacity a CHP system could produce at each facility.
Appendix B presents the anaerobic digester design criteria and models used in the
analyses.
1 Spark spread is the differential between the price of electricity and the price of natural gas or other fuel used to
generate electricity, expressed in equivalent units.
1
-------
2.0 Data Sources
To develop an overview of the wastewater treatment sector and the potential energy available for
CHP, the CHPP used publicly available information contained in the 2004 Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey (CWNS) Database2, EEA's Combined Heat and Power Installation Database3, and
conducted independent research.
The CWNS is conducted as a joint effort between EPA's Office of Wastewater Management and
the states in response to Section 205(a) and 516 of the Clean Water Act. The CWNS contains
information on POTWs, facilities for control of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), stormwater control activities, nonpoint sources, and programs designed
to protect the nation's estuaries. Wastewater facilities voluntarily report facility-specific
information through a survey, and information obtained from the survey is maintained in the
CWNS Database. The collected data are used to produce a Report to Congress that provides an
estimate of clean water needs for the United States. The 2004 CWNS contains information on
16,676 operating wastewater treatment facilities.
Several limitations exist when using the CWNS data to analyze the potential for CHP at
WWTFs. First, the data are voluntarily reported. As such, a completely accurate picture of
wastewater activity cannot be obtained from the CWNS. Second, although facilities report if they
have anaerobic digesters, the CWNS does not indicate how many digesters are in operation at a
facility, or how facilities use the produced biogas. Third, the data contained in the 2004 CWNS
are two years old, and therefore might not reflect the current state of operations for each plant.
The Combined Heat and Power Installation Database is maintained by EEA for the U.S.
Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The database lists all CHP systems
in operation in the United States. Information is gathered in real time and originates from
industry literature, manufacturer contacts, regional CHP centers, and EPA. The database is a
work in progress, and EEA notes that all data might not be complete.
The CHPP also conducted independent research, which included reviewing case studies of
WWTFs that employ CHP, acquiring accepted carbon dioxide emissions factors for power
generation, and utilizing the extensive CHP resources and contacts available to the CHPP.
3.0 The Market
3.1 Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion
To evaluate the market potential for CHP systems in the wastewater treatment sector, the CHPP
queried the CWNS Database to determine the number of WWTFs using anaerobic digestion. The
CHPP focused on facilities with anaerobic digesters because anaerobic digesters have the ability
to produce "free" fuel (i.e., biogas), and they have a heat load that a CHP system can meet. The
CHPP then categorized WWTFs by influent flow rate to evaluate the CHP potential for various
sizes of WWTFs. The minimum flow rate for WWTFs included in the analysis is 5 MGD, which
is based on previous analyses performed by the CHPP that showed that WWTFs with influent
flow rates less than 5 MGD could not produce enough biogas from anaerobic digestion of
2 The 2004 CWNS is available through EPA's Office of Wastewater Management.
3 EEA's Combined Heat and Power Installation Database can be accessed online at:
www. eea-inc. com/chpdata/index. html
-------
biosolids to make CHP technically and economically feasible. Table 1 shows the number of
WWTFs with anaerobic digestion and off-gas utilization, and Table 2 shows the flow rate to
WWTFs with anaerobic digestion and off-gas utilization.
Table 1: U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion and Off-Gas
Utilization by Number
WWTFs by
Wastewater
Flow Rates
(MGD)
>200
100 - 200
75 - 100
50-75
20-50
10-20
5-10
Total
Total
WWTFs
15
26
27
30
178
286
504
1,066
WWTFs with
Anaerobic
Digestion
10
17
16
18
87
148
248
544
WWTFs with
Anaerobic Digestion
and Gas Utilization
5
9
7
5
25
19
36
106
Percentage of WWTFs with
Anaerobic Digestion that
Utilize Biogas
50
53
44
28
29
13
15
19
Source: 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
Table 2: U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities with Anaerobic Digestion and Off-Gas
Utilization by Flow Rate
WWTFs by
Wastewater
Flow Rates
(MGD)
>200
100 - 200
75 - 100
50-75
20-50
10-20
5-10
Total
Total
WWTFs
15
26
27
30
178
286
504
1,066
Total
Wastewater
Flow at
WWTFs
(MGD)
5,147
3,885
2,321
1,847
5,373
3,883
3,489
25,945
Wastewater
Flow to
WWTFs with
Anaerobic
Digestion
(MGD)
3,783
2,652
1,350
1,125
2,573
2,036
1,728
15,247
Wastewater Flow
to WWTFs with
Anaerobic
Digestion and Gas
Utilization (MGD)
1,530
1,462
604
327
698
261
257
5,140
Wastewater Flow to
WWTFs with
Anaerobic
Digestion and No
Gas Utilization
(MGD)
2,253
1,190
745
798
1,876
1,775
1,471
10,107
Source: 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
The 2004 CWNS identified 16,676 operational WWTFs in the United States. As Tables 1 and 2
show, only 1,066 of these facilities have flow rates greater than 5 MGD. The data in Table 1
indicate that for WWTFs with total influent flow rates greater than 5 MGD, nearly 50 percent
(544/1,066) operate anaerobic digesters for biosolids management. However, only about 19
percent (106/544) of the WWTFs with anaerobic digestion utilize digester gas for heating or
electricity generation. The CFtPP assumes that the remaining WWTFs with anaerobic digestion
flare their digester gas. The data in Table 1 also indicate that larger WWTFs tend to use their
digester gas, while smaller WWTFs do not. Specifically, 50 percent of WWTFs with design
influent flows greater than 200 MGD utilize the biogas generated from anaerobic digesters, while
only 13 percent of WWTFs with influent flows ranging between 10 and 20 MGD utilize the
digester gas.
-------
The data in Table 2 indicate that, for WWTFs with total influent flow greater than 5 MOD,
roughly 58 percent (15,247 MGD/25,945 MGD) of all wastewater flow goes to facilities with
anaerobic digestion. However, only 20 percent (5,140 MGD/25,945 MGD) of wastewater flow
goes to facilities with anaerobic digestion and gas utilization.
3.2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities with CHP
As of December 2006, wastewater treatment CHP systems were in place at 76 sites in 24 states,
representing 220 megawatts (MW) of capacity. Table 3 shows the number of sites by state, as
well as the total CHP capacity in each state. California and Oregon have the largest number of
facilities with CHP systems, and Massachusetts has the largest installed capacity.
Table 3: Number of Wastewater CHP Systems and Total Capacity by State
State
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
FL
IA
ID
IL
MA
MN
MT
NE
NH
NJ
NY
OH
OR
PA
UT
VA
WA
Wl
WY
Total
Sites
1
1
23
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
5
1
10
3
2
1
3
2
1
76
Capacity (MW)
1.7
4.2
38.1
7.9
0.2
6.0
3.4
0.5
4.3
76.0
5.1
1.1
5.4
0.4
4.6
13.3
0.1
5.9
22.4
2.6
3.0
13.6
0.5
0.03
220.1
Source: EEA Combined Heat and Power Installation Database
4.0 Technical Fit
Anaerobic digestion is the key indicator of CHP potential at WWTFs because the process
generates biogas containing approximately 60 percent methane. The biogas can be used as fuel
for a number of purposes:
To fire boilers and hot water heaters needed to maintain optimal digester temperatures
and provide space heating.
To generate electricity to operate pumps and blowers used throughout the treatment
process.
To generate electricity using equipment such as microturbines for onsite use and/or to sell
back to the grid.
-------
Anaerobic digestion produces biogas on a continuous basis, allowing for constant electricity
production. Internal process heat used for the digesting process represents the most common use
of wastewater treatment methane, but great potential exists for facilities to use the generated
biogas for CHP applications.
4.1 Electric and Thermal Generation Potential from CHP Systems at Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
To determine the electricity and thermal energy generation potential for CHP at WWTFs, the
CHPP modeled the fuel produced and required by two typically sized digestersone mesophilic
digester and one thermophilic digester.4 Each digester model was based on a total influent flow
rate of 9.1 MOD.5 This wastewater flow rate produces roughly 91,000 standard cubic feet (ft3) of
biogas per day, which has an energy content of 58.9 million British thermal units per day
(MMBtu/day).6 Both types of digesters were modeled for summer and winter operation.
Appendix B contains the digester design criteria used for the analysis.
The CHPP estimated the biogas utilization of each model digester under four possible cases of
biogas utilization. The first case assumes no CHP system, where only the amount of biogas
needed for the digester heat load is utilized and the rest is flared. The other three cases assume
that a CHP system utilizes the captured biogas to produce both electricity and thermal energy.
The three modeled CHP systems include an internal combustion engine, a microturbine, and a
fuel cell. In its analysis, the CHPP used a current industry average electric efficiency for each
CHP technology as listed in the "Catalogue of CHP Technologies."7 However, the possibility for
employing a CHP system capable of achieving greater electric efficiencies exists. The use of any
CHP technology must be determined by both the site and policy conditions of a particular
location. Tables 4 and 5 present the results for each of these models. In each table, the results
represent an average of winter and summer digester operation.
As Tables 4 and 5 illustrate, an influent flow rate of 9.1 MGD can produce approximately 200
kilowatts (kW) of electricity along with roughly 25 MMBtu/day of thermal energy. Using the
biogas from a typically sized digester, a fuel cell CHP system can produce the most electricity
(roughly 285 kW). The thermal output of a fuel cell also most closely matches the heat load of
4 Two conventional anaerobic digestion processes exist: mesophilic and thermophilic. Both have heat loads. The
mesophilic process takes place at ambient temperatures typically between 70° F and 100° F; the thermophilic
process takes place at elevated temperatures, typically up to 160° F. Due to the temperature differences between the
two processes, the residence time of the sludge varies. In the case of mesophilic digestion, residence time may be
between 15 and 30 days. The thermophilic process is usually faster, requiring only about two weeks to complete.
However, thermophilic digestion is usually more expensive because it requires more energy and is less stable than
the mesophilic process.
5 The total influent flow rate of 9.1 MGD is based on the sludge capacity of a typically sized digester (i.e., 20 ft.
deep and 40 to 60 feet in diameter). See Appendix B for the digester design parameters.
6 Biogas generation was calculated based on 100 gallons of wastewater flow per day per capita, and approximately
1.0 cubic foot per day of digester gas per capita (See "Engineering Rules of Thumb" in Executive Summary for
sources). Although the values used to calculate gas generation are empirical, they do provide a good estimate of gas
volume. For example, the city of Rockford, Illinois, operates an anaerobic digester for biosolids management at its
wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater plant receives on average 32 MGD of raw wastewater, and its anaerobic
digester produces 320,000 ft3 per day of biogas (i.e., 1.0 ft3/100 gallons of raw wastewater).
7 The "Catalogue of CHP Technologies" can be downloaded from the CHPP Web site at:
www.epa.gov/chp/project resources/catalogue.htm.
5
-------
the digester (which minimizes the amount of heat that is wasted).8 In many cases, however, the
use of fuel cells is limited due to high cost. The two more common CHP systems employed at
WWTFsinternal combustion engines and microturbinescan produce roughly 200 kW of
electricity and 25 MMBtu/day of thermal energy with a wastewater flow rate of 9.1 MGD. This
analysis indicates that roughly 100 kW of electric capacity can result from a total wastewater
influent flow rate of 4.5 MGD.
Table 4: Electric and Thermal Energy Potential with CHP for Typically Sized Digester:
Mesophilic
Total POTW flow (MGD)
Heat requirement for sludge (Btu/day)
Wall heat transfer (Btu/day)
Floor heat transfer (Btu/day)
Roof heat transfer (Btu/day)
Total digester heat load (Btu/day)
Heat required for digester heat load*
(Btu/day)
Heat potential of gas (Btu/day)
% of gas used for digester heat load
(Btu/day)
Amount of gas flared** (Btu/day)
Electric Efficiency
Power to heat ratio
Electric production (Btu/day)
Electric production (kW)
Heat recovery (Btu/day)
Additional heat available*** (Btu/day)
No CHP
system
9.1
5,148,750
541,727
507,869
326,231
6,524,577
8,155,721
54,370,800
15.0%
46,215,079
Micro turbine
CHP
9.1
5,148,750
541,727
507,869
326,231
6,524,577
54,370,800
0.28
0.61
15,223,824
186
24,957,089
18,432,512
Fuel Cell
CHP
9.1
5,148,750
541,727
507,869
326,231
6,524,577
54,370,800
0.43
1.95
23,379,444
286
11,989,458
5,464,882
Internal
Combustion
Engine CHP
9.1
5,148,750
541,727
507,869
326,231
6,524,577
54,370,800
0.30
0.64
16,311,240
199
25,486,313
18,961,736
Note: Assumes 50 percent summer and 50 percent winter.
* Assumes 80 percent efficient boiler.
** Assumes no other uses except boiler.
***Assumes digester is only heat load.
8 Table 5 indicates that the thermal generation from a fuel cell CHP system does not meet the thermophilic digester
heat load. Running less biogas through the fuel cell and using it to produce heat for the digester would rectify this,
but less electricity would be produced.
-------
Table 5: Electric and Thermal Energy Potential with CHP for Typically Sized Digester:
Thermophilic
Total POTW flow (MOD)
Heat requirement for sludge (Btu/day)
Wall heat transfer (Btu/day)
Floor heat transfer (Btu/day)
Roof heat transfer (Btu/day)
Total digester heat load (Btu/day)
Heat required for digester heat load*
(Btu/day)
Heat potential of gas (Btu/day)
% of gas used for digester heat load
(Btu/day)
Amount of gas flared** (Btu/day)
Electric efficiency
Power to heat ratio
Electric production (Btu/day)
Electric production (kW)
Heat recovery (Btu/day)
Additional heat available*** (Btu/day)
No CHP
system
9.1
11,155,625
490,799
419,334
343,303
12,409,061
15,511,327
54,370,800
28.53%
38,859,473
Microturbine
CHP
9.1
11,155,625
490,799
419,334
343,303
12,409,061
54,370,800
0.28
0.61
15,223,824
186
24,957,089
12,548,027
Fuel Cell CHP
9.1
11,155,625
490,799
419,334
343,303
12,409,061
54,370,800
0.43
1.95
23,379,444
286
11,989,458
-419,603
Internal
Combustion
Engine CHP
9.1
11,155,625
490,799
419,334
343,303
12,409,061
54,370,800
0.30
0.64
16,311,240
199
25,486,313
13,077,251
Note: Assumes 50 percent summer and 50 percent winter.
* Assumes 80 percent efficient boiler.
** Assumes no other uses except boiler.
***Assumes digester is only heat load.
4.2 National Electric Generation Potential from CHP at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
The 2004 CWNS identified 10,107 MOD of wastewater flow at facilities greater than 5 MOD
that have anaerobic digestion but no biogas utilization. If these facilities were to employ a CHP
system, approximately 225 MW of electric capacity could be produced.9 The CWNS also
identified 5,140 MGD of wastewater flow at facilities greater than 5 MGD that have anaerobic
digestion with biogas utilization. Anecdotal evidence suggests that very few facilities with
anaerobic digestion and off-gas utilization use the biogas for electricity generation. As such,
assuming these facilities only use the captured biogas for digester heat loads, an additional 115
MW of electric capacity could be produced.10 CHP at WWTFs represents an excellent technical
fit, with the ability to generate roughly 340 MW of electric capacity that could be used for onsite
electricity needs or sold back to the electric grid. Appendix A lists all U.S. WWTFs greater than
Assumes 100 kW of electric capacity results from a wastewater influent flow rate of 4.5 MGD.
10 The CHPP recognizes that the total flow rate identified by the 2004 CWNS at facilities that have anaerobic
digestion and use the captured biogas does not yield the CHP capacity reported in Table 3 when using 4.5 MGD =
lOOkW. This is most likely due to the two-year time difference between 2006 data and the 2004 dataset, and the fact
that not all WWTFs report data for the CWNS.
7
-------
5 MOD that have at least one anaerobic digester and notes the electric generation potential
associated with CHP utilization for each facility.
4.3 Potential Carbon Dioxide Emission Benefits
The CHPP estimated the potential carbon dioxide emission offsets associated with increased use
of CHP at WWTFs. To estimate these emission reductions, the CHPP assumed the following:
Biogas from WWTFs is biogenic; therefore, utilizing it in a CHP system yields no net
positive carbon dioxide emissions.
100 kW of electric grid capacity is offset with an influent flow rate of 4.5 MGD.
WWTFs with anaerobic digestion and no off-gas utilization use natural gas for their
digester heat loads.
Using CWNS data, a total of 2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emission reductions can
be achieved through increased use of CHP at WWTFs. These reductions are equivalent to
planting approximately 640,000 acres of forest, or the emissions of approximately 430,000 cars.
Table 6 presents these results.
Table 6: Potential Carbon Dioxide Emission Offsets with CHP at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Total flow (MGD)
(kW/MGD)
Total electric offset (kW)
(MMBtu/day)
Electrical Emission Offset (tons CO2/year)
(metric tons CO2/year)
Number of 9. 1 MGD digesters
Heat load per digester* (MMBtu/day)
Total heat offset (MMBtu/day)
Heat Emission Offset (tons CO2/year)
(metric tons CO2/year)
Potential Offsets (metric tons CO2/year)
Acres of forest
Cars
Total Potential Offsets (metric tons
CO2/year)
Acres of forest
Cars
All WWTFs with
anaerobic digestion, but
no gas utilization
(>5MGD)
10,107
22
224,598
18,392
1,527,229
1,388,390
1,111
12
13,139
280,553
255,048
1,643,438
448,330
298,887
2,349,516
640,948
427,299
All WWTFs with anaerobic
digestion and gas utilization,
assuming all gas used for
digester heat load only
(>5 MGD)
5,140
22
114,221
9,353
776,685
706,078
706,078
192,618
128,412
-------
5.0 Cost-Effectiveness
A well designed CHP system can be an attractive investment for a WWTF. A CHP system
allows a WWTF to generate both electric and thermal energy on site, offsetting the costs of grid
power and purchased fuel. To highlight the cost savings of generating energy with a CHP system
at a WWTF, the CHPP estimated the cost-effectiveness of three representative CHP systems11
that would be appropriate for different size WWTFs:
130 kW microturbine
300 kW carbonate fuel cell
1,060 kW reciprocating engine
Each WWTF considering CHP will need to perform its own site-specific feasibility analysis to
determine potential biogas generation rates; methods to compress, clean, and dry the biogas
before combustion; and the specific costs and benefits of generating onsite heat and electricity
for their WWTF. In states where electricity prices are low, using biogas directly in boilers might
be the best investment for a WWTF.
Based on influent flow rates and typical digester heat loads (as presented in Section 4.1, Tables 4
and 5), the microturbine would be appropriate for a small WWTF with a minimum influent flow
rate of 6.8 MGD. The fuel cell could serve a medium-size WWTF with a minimum influent flow
rate of 10.7 MGD. The reciprocating engine would be appropriate for a large WWTF with at
least a 41.4 MGD influent flow rate.
Table 7 presents the system performance characteristics for the three sample CHP systems on
which the economic analyses are based. The electric output that can be generated from the
digester gas input and the amount of heat that can be recovered drive the project economics.
11 Data used for performing these analyses were based on actual prices and performance characteristics of
commercially available equipment (as stated by the manufacturers). To avoid implicitly endorsing any
manufacturers or products, the CHPP has removed the brand names from the discussion of these systems.
9
-------
Table 7: CHP System Performance Characteristics for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Performance Characteristic
Minimum WWTF Size (MOD)
Digester Biogas Produced/day (MMBtu)
Nameplate Capacity (kW)
Compressor/ Aux. (kW)
Net Output* (kW)
Electrical Efficiency
Electricity Production/day (kWh)
Electric/Thermal Output Ratio
Heat Rate (Btu/kWh HHV)
Thermal Output (Btu/kWh)
Heat Production/day (MMBtu)
CHP System Type
Micro turbine
6.8
40.7
130
(4)
126
26.1%
3,024
0.86
13,050
3,984
12.0
Fuel Cell
10.7**
58.0
300
300
42.3%
7,200
2.84
8,060
1,200
8.6
ReciprocatingEngine
41.4
247.4
1,060
1,060
35.1%
35,440
0.82
9,724
4,173
106.2
* The net power output of the microturbine system is adjusted because the fuel must be compressed to about 75 to
100 psig using an electrically driven fuel compressor.
** The fuel cell does not produce enough waste heat to meet the digester heat load. About 10 percent of the
available digester gas must go directly to a supplemental boiler. The 10.7 MOD size is 10 percent more than the 9.7
MOD needed to fuel a 300 kW fuel cell.
Table 8 presents the capital costs for the three sample CHP systems. The largest cost component
for each system is the gen-set package which contains the prime mover and the generator. The
next major cost component is the fuel treatment system to ensure that the biogas is of operational
quality. Fuel treatment can consist of chillers, moisture separators, hydrogen sulfide removal
vessels, siloxane removal vessels, heat exchangers, blowers, and connections. Switchgear and
controls are required for system operation and paralleling with the utility grid. Additional
switchgear (transfer switches, wiring, and electrical panels) would also be needed if the WWTF
decides to configure back-up capabilities into the system (i.e., to allow the system to serve
critical loads during a utility outage). The heat recovery equipment in each of these sample
systems produces hot water for the digesters and other facility needs.
For the three CHP systems, the major equipment costs range from 58 to 65 percent of the total
installed costs. Remaining costs include those for design, engineering, consulting, installation,
and obtaining necessary permits. Typically, municipal facilities use a design-bid-build approach
in which the facility is first designed and then the system components are competitively bid. In
order to have a better integrated package, some facility managers suggest employing a design-
build approach. However, using this contracting avenue might necessitate a special municipal
directive.
12
The capital costs shown in Table 8 do not include any credits for federal or state incentive
programs that might be available either to stimulate renewable energy, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, promote high efficiency, or to support particular technologies, such as fuel cells.
These credits can significantly enhance the economic value of CHP to WWTFs.
12 Gresham Waste Water Treatment Plant: Case Study, Energy Trust of Oregon (prepared by Energy and
Environmental Analysis, Inc.) September 2006.
10
-------
Table 8: Estimated Capital Costs for Three CHP Systems at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Capital Cost
Gen-Set
Fuel Gas Compressor
Fuel Treatment
Switchgear & Controls
Heat Recovery
Total Equipment Costs
Consulting and Design
Installation
Permits & Inspection
Contingency 5%
Total Project Costs
CHP System Type
126 kW (net)
Microturbine
Cost ($)
$143,000
$15,600
$89,000
$19,500
$26,000
$293,100
$114,400
$23,400
$9,750
$22,033
$462,683
Cost per kW
($/kW)
$1,135
$124
$706
$155
$206
$2,326
$908
$186
$77
$175
$3,672
300 kW Fuel Cell
Cost ($)
$1,200,000
$147,000
$97,600
$23,200
$1,467,800
$125,000
$433,500
$25,000
$102,565
$2,153,865
Cost per kW
($/kW)
$4,000
$490
$325
$77
$4,893
$417
$1,445
$83
$342
$7,180
1,060 kW Internal
Combustion Engine
Cost ($)
$685,000
$313,000
$125,000
$100,000
$1,223,000
$150,000
$576,500
$25,000
$98,725
$2,073,225
Cost per kW
($/kW)
$646
$295
$118
$94
$1,154
$142
$544
$24
$93
$1,956
The CHPP estimated net power costs for each of the three sample CHP systems based on three
separate cases:
Case 1 assumes that the WWTF previously used digester gas for all thermal
requirements, and that there was no purchased fuel used at the site. In this case, the CHP
system replaces the thermal load with recovered heat from the prime mover. As
previously mentioned, the fuel cell does not produce enough waste heat after generation
of electricity, so this unit must be sized appropriately to allow some of the digester gas to
fuel a supplemental boiler to provide the necessary make-up heat.
Case 2 assumes that the WWTF previously used digester gas in a boiler for digester heat
loads and purchased natural gas for other facility needs. In this case, the excess thermal
energy produced by the CHP system (beyond what's required for the digester heat load)
displaces natural gas purchased for other facility needs such as space heating.
Case 3 assumes that the WWTF previously did not use digester gas and purchased
natural gas for both digester heat loads and other facility needs. In this case, the thermal
energy produced by the CHP system displaces natural gas purchased for all of the
facility's thermal needs including the digester heat load.
Table 9 presents the net power cost estimates for each CHP system. The capital recovery costs
are estimated for municipal facilities. Municipal facilities are assumed to have a cost of capital
(municipal bonds) of 5 percent and a capital repayment horizon of 20 years. In cases where it is
assumed that natural gas is being replaced, the CHPP assumes a natural gas price of
$7.00/MMBtu. In these cases, a thermal credit is incorporated into the net power costs to account
for the avoided fuel costs. The fuel savings and the digester heat requirements assume that the
necessary thermal energy would have been produced from an 80 percent efficient boiler.
11
-------
Table 9: Net Power Cost Estimates for Three CHP Systems at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Cost Element
Maintenance ($/kWh)
CHP System Type
126 kW (net)
Microturbine
$0.022
300 kW Fuel Cell
$0.030
1,060 kW Internal
Combustion Engine
$0.018
Case 1 : CHP thermal replaces biogas-fueled boiler for digester heating and other local use*
Capital Recovery ($/kWh)
Unit Power Cost ($/kWh)
$0.035
$0.057
$0.069
$0.099
$0.019
$0.037
Case 2: Excess thermal energy (above digester needs) replaces natural gas elsewhere on site**
Digester Heat Needed (Btu/kWh)
Natural Gas Displaced (Btu/kWh)
Thermal Credit ($/kWh)
Net Unit Power Cost ($/kWh)
2,979
1,006
$0.009
$0.049
1,840
(640)
No Excess
$0.099
2,219
1,953
$0.017
$0.020
Case 3: 100 percent natural gas replacement with CHP thermal energy***
Natural Gas Displaced (Btu/kWh)
Thermal Credit ($/kWh)
Net Unit Power Cost ($/kWh)
4,980
$0.035
$0.023
1,500
$0.011
$0.089
5,216
$0.037
$0.000
*Assumes: Municipal Capital Recovery Factor of 8.0 percent (5 percent interest rate, 20 years); 95 percent capacity
factor.
**Assumes: Digester fuel requirement as a percent of total gas produced = 28.5 percent (consistent with
thermophilic average in Table 5); avoided boiler efficiency of 80 percent; avoided boiler fuel cost of $7.00/MMBtu.
***Assumes: Avoided boiler efficiency of 80 percent; avoided boiler fuel cost of $7.00/MMBtu.
A facility manager can easily compare the net costs presented in Table 9 to the WWTF's current
cost of purchased power to get a quick estimate of whether a CHP system might be cost-
effective. If a WWTF purchases power for less than the net power cost, a CHP system may not
be cost-effective. However, each WWTF needs to perform its own cost-effectiveness analysis to
determine the economic feasibility of investing in a CHP system at their particular facility with
site-specific digester, heating, and electric loads. A system-specific level 1 feasibility analysis
will uncover additional costs and value streams that are not captured in this basic cost-
effectiveness analysis.
6.0 Wastewater Treatment Biogas as Renewable Energy
The use of biogas from anaerobic digestion at WWTFs is often eligible for renewable fuel credits
and clean energy funding. For example, biogas-fueled electricity generation qualifies as a
renewable energy source in each state with a renewable portfolio standard (i.e., 22 states and the
District of Columbia as of October 2006). National voluntary renewable energy credit (REC)
programs also consider new electricity generation fueled by biogas from WWTFs as eligible
sources for RECs.
In addition, some states offer financial incentives (e.g., grants, rebates) for the production of
clean onsite generation (such as biogas-fueled CHP) that reduces peak period electricity demand.
For an up-to-date list of states that provide such incentives, see the Partner Resources section of
the CHPP Web site at: www.epa.gov/chp/funding opps.htm.
12
-------
7.0 Additional Resources
EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership (CHPP) - The CHPP is a voluntary program
that seeks to reduce the environmental impact of power generation by promoting the use of CHP.
The CHPP works closely with energy users, the CHP industry, state and local governments, and
other stakeholders to support the development of new projects and promote their energy,
environmental, and economic benefits. Web site: www.epa.gov/chp/
The CHPP offers a number of tools and resources that can help a WWTF implement a CHP
system. These include:
Description of the CHP project development process, including information on key
questions for each stage of the process along with specific tools and resources:
www. epa.gov/chp/project resources/projdev_process. htm
The CHP and biomass/biogas funding database with bi-weekly updates of new state and
federal incentive opportunities : www.epa.gov/chp/funding opps.htm
The CHP Catalogue of Technologies, which describes performance and cost
characteristics of CHP technologies: www.epa.gov/chp/project resources/catalogue.htm
7.1 Organizations
The following organizations work closely with the wastewater treatment industry and offer a
wealth of knowledge concerning wastewater treatment and the use of anaerobic digestion.
EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) - The OWM oversees a range of programs
contributing to the well-being of the nation's waters and watersheds.
Web site: www.epa.gov/owm/
National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) - NACWA represents the interests
of more than 300 public agencies and organizations. NACWA members serve the majority of the
sewered population in the United States and collectively treat and reclaim more than 18 billion
gallons of wastewater daily.
Web site: www.nacwa.org/
Water Environment Federation (WEF) - Founded in 1928, the WEF is a not-for-profit
technical and educational organization with members from varied disciplines who work toward
the organization's vision of preservation and enhancement of the global water environment.
Web site: www.wef.org/Home
Water Environment Research Foundation (AVERT) - WERF helps improve the water
environment and protect human health by providing sound, reliable science and innovative,
effective, cost-saving technologies for improved management of water resources.
Web site: www.werf.us/
Air and Waste Management Association (A&WMA) - A&WMA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
professional organization that provides training, information, and networking opportunities to
thousands of environmental professionals in 65 countries.
Web site: www.awma.org/
13
-------
7.2 Articles
The following journal article and conference presentation highlight the technologies available for
digester gas utilization.
Hinrichs, Doug; Jimison, John; Lemar, Paul. (November/December 2005). Using Biogas to Fuel
DG and CHP plants. Plaits Power: Business and Technology for the Global Generation
Industry, Vol 49, No. 9, 67-70.
Mosteller, Kevin L. (2002). Energy Crisis Impact on Anaerobic Digester Gas Utilization
Technology: Fuel Cells, Co-Generation, and Other Options. South Carolina
Environmental Conference. Retrieved June 20, 2006, from
http://sc-ec.org/PDFs/2002SCEC/20-Digester%20Gas.pdf.
7.3 Case Studies
Following are selected case studies that demonstrate the benefits and operational characteristics
of installing CFIP systems at a variety of WWTFs. These case studies highlight a variety of
technologies and biogas utilization options.
"Waukesha Engine Energizes New Hampshire Water Utility Digesting Sludge for
Fuel" - New Hampshire's Water Utility uses its 12 to 18 MGD of wastewater to produce
electricity and hot water for the facility with a 365 kW internal combustion engine. The
anaerobic digesters at the facility handle approximately 60,000 gallons of sludge per day,
and what is left after the digestion process is sold as compost.
Web site:
https://dresser.com/internet/businessunits/waukesha/pages/documents/publications/casehisto
ry/nh water utility.pdf
"Maintenance Helps Million Hour Engines Thrive at Tucson, Arizona Wastewater
Cogeneration Plant" - The Ina Road WWTF treats approximately 35 MGD of
wastewater. The facility uses six internal combustion engines to generate approximately
2.5 MW of electricity and thermal energy that is used for hot water; chilled water;
heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC); and to run the anaerobic digesters. By utilizing
biogas, the facility pays no more than $0.05/kWh, which compares very favorably with
the local average of $0.08 to $0.11/kWh.
Web site:
www.grove.it/mternet/busmessunits/waukesha/pages/documents/publications/casehistory/tuc
sonwater utility.pdf
"King County (Washington) Fuel Cell Demonstration Project" - In 2003, King
County's South WWTF installed a 1 MW molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
demonstration project that generates electricity and thermal energy for onsite needs.
Web site: www.fce.com/downloads/king county brochure 03.pdf
"Essex Junction WWTF (Vermont): 60 kW CHP Application" - The Essex Junction
WWTF uses two 30 kW microturbines to generate electricity and thermal energy. The
CHP system's operational efficiency is 80 percent and produces annual energy savings of
412,000 kWh (36 percent of the facility's electricity demand). The project was installed
in 2003 and has an estimated payback of seven years.
14
-------
Web site:
http://www.northeastchp.org/uploads/Essex%20Junction%20Project%20Profile.pdf
"Albert Lea WWTF (Minnesota): 120 kW CHP Application" - The Albert Lea
WWTF uses four 30 kW microturbines to generate 120 kW of electricity and 28 MMBtus
of thermal energy per year, which is used for space heating and to heat the facility's
anaerobic digesters. The CHP system was installed in 2003 and has an estimated payback
of four to six years.
Web site:
www.chpcentermw.org/pdfs/Project Profile Albert Lea WastewaterTreatment Center.pdf
"Columbia Boulevard Wastewater Treatment Plant (Portland, Oregon): 320 kW
Fuel Cell and Microturbine Power Plants" - The Columbia Boulevard WWTF uses a
200 kW CHP system to produce electricity and thermal energy for the facility. A primary
motivation for the CHP system was to provide back-up power for the facility after it
experienced several extended power outages during the mid-1990s. The CHP system was
financed by tax dollars, as well as multiple national, state, and utility grants.
Web site: www. chpcenternw. org/NwChpDocs/ColumbiaBlvdWastewaterCaseStudyFinal.pdf
15
-------
Appendix A: Full List of U.S. Wastewater Treatment Facilities (> 5 MGD) with at Least
One Anaerobic Digester
Notes:
The potential electric capacity calculation assumes that 100 kW of capacity is produced for
every 4.5 MGD of influent flow. The plant data comes from the 2004 CWNS. Several limitations
exist when using the CWNS data. First, the data are voluntarily reported. As such, the following
tables might not include all WWTFs in the United States with influent flow rates greater than 5
MGD. Second, although facilities report if they have anaerobic digesters, the CWNS does not
indicate how many digesters are in operation at a facility, or how facilities use the produced
biogas. Third, the data contained in the 2004 CWNS are two years old, and therefore might not
reflect the current state of operations for each plant.
The following tables present an estimate of the potential electric capacity from CHP utilization
at each facility based off the CHPP analysis. Each WWTF considering CHP will need to perform
its own site-specific feasibility analysis to determine the true potential biogas generation rates;
methods to compress, clean, and dry the biogas before combustion; and the costs and benefits of
generating onsite heat and electricity.
Al: Facilities with no off-gas utilization
State
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ALABAMA
ARIZONA
Facility
Name
ANNISTON
CHOCCOLOC
COWWTP
DECATUR
DRY CREEK
WWTP
GADSDEN
WEST WWTP
MOBILE
WILLIAMS
WWTP
MONTGOMER
Y CATOMA
CREEK WWTP
MONTGOMER
Y
ENCONCHATE
WWTP
TUSCALOOSA
WWTP
ALBERTVILLE
EASTSIDE
WWTP
PHOENIX
91 STAVE
WWTP
County
CALHOUN
MORGAN
ETOWAH
MOBILE
MONTGOMERY
MONTGOMERY
TUSCALOOSA
MARSHALL
MARICOPA
Authority
Name
CITY OF
ANNISTON WW
&SB
CITY OF
DECATUR WW
DEPT
GADSDEN
WATERWORKS
AND SEWER
BOARD
MOBILE, BOARD
OF WATER AND
SEWER
COMMISSIONER
S
MONTGOMERY
WW & SAN SWR
BD
MONTGOMERY
WW&SAN SWR
BD
TUSCALOOSA
WW & SWR BD
ALBERTVILLE,
CITY OF
CITY OF
PHOENIX
Total
Influent
(MGD)
9.11
18.08
9.71
20.471
20.005
10.591
16.5
6.04
124
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
202
402
216
455
445
235
367
134
2756
16
-------
State
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
Facility
Name
ROGER RD
TRTMNT PLNT
YUMA
FIGUEROA
WPCF
LITTLE ROCK
FOURCHE
CREEK STP
SPRINGDALE
STP
LACUNA
WASTEWATE
R TREATMENT
PLANT
DUBLIN-SAN
RAMON WWTF
SUNNYVALE
WWTF
CENTRAL
CONTRA
COSTA WWTF
HAYWARD
WPCF
DALY CITY
WWTP
SAN
JOSE/SANTA
CLARA WPCP
SAN MATED
WWTF
SANTA CRUZ
WWTF
SANTA
BARBARA
WWTF
WATSONVILL
EWWTF
VENTURA
WATER
RECLAMATIO
N FACILITY
HILL CANYON
WWTP
VALENCIA
WRP
TERMINAL
ISLAND WWTP
County
PIMA
YUMA
PULASKI
WASHINGTON
SONOMA
ALAMEDA
SANTA CLARA
CONTRA COSTA
ALAMEDA
SAN MATED
SANTA CLARA
SAN MATED
SANTA CRUZ
SANTA
BARBARA
SANTA CRUZ
VENTURA
VENTURA
LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES
Authority
Name
PIMA COUNTY
WWMD
CITY OF YUMA
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT
LITTLE ROCK
SPRINGDALE
SANTA ROSA,
CITY OF
DUBLIN SAN
RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
SUNNYVALE,
CITY OF
CENTRAL
CONTRA COSTA
SANITARY
DISTRICT
HAYWARD, CITY
OF
DALY CITY, CITY
OF
SAN JOSE, CITY
OF,
ENVIRONMENTA
L SERVICES
DEPART.
SAN MATED,
CITY OF
SANTA CRUZ,
CITY OF
SANTA
BARBARA, CITY
OF
WATSONVILLE,
CITY OF
VENTURA, CITY
OF
THOUSAND
OAKS, CITY OF
COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
CITY OF LOS
ANGELES,
BUREAU OF
SANITATION
Total
Influent
(MGD)
29.6
8.5
13.1
12.2
17.5
9.9
16.22
49.39
13.7
6.27
143.3
12.7
15.32
8.8
7.4
10
10.3
14
16
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
658
189
291
271
389
220
360
1098
304
139
3184
282
340
196
164
222
229
311
356
17
-------
State
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
COLORADO
Facility
Name
SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL
WWTF
BAKERSFIELD
WWTP#2
BAKERSFIELD
WWTP#3
CHICOWPCP
LODI WPCF
MODESTO
WWTF
VISALIA
WWTP
YUBACITY
WRP
CLEAR CREEK
WWTF
TRACY WWTP
MADERA STP
DAVIS WWTF
SOUTH
TAHOE WWTF
PALM
SPRINGS
WWRF
PALM DESERT
WWRF
SAN J AC INTO
REGIONAL
WRF
IEUA
REGIONAL
PLANT NO. 1
CORONA
WWTF#1
R I ALTO WWTP
SAN
CLEMENTE
WRP
PUEBLO
WWTP
BOULDER
75TH STREET
WWTP
FORT
COLLINS
DRAKE WW
RECLAMAT
FAC
GREELEY
WWTP
LONGMONT
WWTP
County
SACRAMENTO
KERN
KERN
BUTTE
SAN JOAQUIN
STANISLAUS
TULARE
SUTTER
SHASTA
SAN JOAQUIN
MADERA
YOLO
EL DORADO
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
RIVERSIDE
SAN
BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
SAN
BERNARDINO
ORANGE
PUEBLO
BOULDER
LARIMER
WELD
BOULDER
Authority
Name
SACRAMENTO
COUNTY
REGIONAL
SANITATION
DISTRICT
BAKERSFIELD,
CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD,
CITY OF
CHICO, CITY OF
LODI, CITY OF
MODESTO, CITY
OF
VISALIA, CITY
OF
YUBA CITY, CITY
OF
REDDING, CITY
OF
TRACY, CITY OF
MADERA, CITY
OF
DAVIS, CITY OF
SOUTH TAHOE
PUD
PALM SPRINGS,
CITY OF
COACHELLAVLY
COWTRDIST
EASTERN
MUNICIPAL
WATER
DISTRICT
INLAND EMPIRE
UTILITIES
AGENCY
CORONA, CITY
OF
RIALTO, CITY OF
SAN CLEMENTE,
CITY OF
PUEBLO, CITY
OF
BOULDER, CITY
OF
FORT COLLINS,
CITY OF
GREELEY W&S
DEPT
LONGMONT,
CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
165
17.3
11.3
7.5
6.2
27.4
12
5.5
7.93
7.1
5.85
6.5
5
8.29
5.38
8.72
38.8
9.007
7.4
5
16.8
5.86
13
8.42
7.39
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
3667
384
251
167
138
609
267
122
176
158
130
144
111
184
120
194
862
200
164
111
373
130
289
187
164
18
-------
State
COLORADO
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
Facility
Name
LITTLETON/EN
GLEWOOD
WWTP
BOULDER
CREEK
DANBURY
WPCF
EAST
HARTFORD
WPCF
TORRINGTON
MAIN WPCF
WILMINGTON
STP
BUCKMAN
STREET STP
SOUTH WWTF
ALTAMONTE
SPGS MAIN
STP
MAIN STREET
PLANT
THOMAS P.
SMITH WTP
HOWARD F
CURREN
AWTP
PLANT CITY
STP
LARGO STP
MARSHALL
STREET
AWTTP
ST
PETERSBURG
SOUTHWEST
WWTP
ST
PETERSBURG
NORTHEAST
WWTP
ST
PETERSBURG
NORTHWEST
WWTP
ALBERT
WHITTED
WWTP
LOXAHATCHE
ER. REG STP
DAYTONA
BEACH REG.
STP
BETHUNE
POINT WWTP
County
ARAPAHOE
BOULDER
FAIRFIELD
HARTFORD
LITCHFIELD
NEWCASTLE
DUVAL
ORANGE
SEMINOLE
ESCAMBIA
LEON
HILLSBOROUGH
HILLSBOROUGH
PINELLAS
PINELLAS
PINELLAS
PINELLAS
PINELLAS
PINELLAS
PALM BEACH
VOLUSIA
VOLUSIA
Authority
Name
LITTLETON/ENG
LEWOOD
BOULDER, CITY
OF
DANBURY CITY
OF
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
TORRINGTON,
CITY OF
WILMINGTON
CITY COUNCIL
JEA
ORANGE CO FL
SEW&WDEPT
ALTAMONTE
SPRINGS, CITY
ECUA
TALLAHASSEE,
CITY OF
TAMPA
PLANT CITY,
CITY OF
LARGO, TOWN
OF
CLEARWATER,
CITY OF
ST
PETERSBURG,
CITY OF
ST
PETERSBURG,
CITY OF
ST
PETERSBURG,
CITY OF
ST
PETERSBURG,
CITY OF
LOXAHATCHEE
RIVER
ENVIRONMENTA
L CONTROL
DISTRICT
DAYTONA
BEACH, CITY OF
DAYTONA
BEACH, CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
32.67
16
6.37
5.963
5.28
71.23
37.96
14.98
5.46
14.63
13.39
50.5
5.3
13
6.34
10.1
11.5
11.04
7.9
7.5
6.05
8.46
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
726
356
142
133
117
1583
844
333
121
325
298
1122
118
289
141
224
256
245
176
167
134
188
19
-------
State
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
HAWAII
HAWAII
IDAHO
Facility
Name
MACON
POPLAR
STREET
WPCP
INTRENCHME
NT CREEK
WWTP
SOUTH RIVER
WWTP
R M CLAYTON
WPCP
JOHNS
CREEK WPCP
FULTON CO-
CAMP CREEK
WPCP
COBB
COUNTY
SUTTON
WPCP
COBB
NOONDAY
CREEK WPCP
GWINNETT
CROOKED
CREEK STP
SOUTH
COLUMBUS
WPCP
ALBANY
JOSHUA
ROAD WPCP
AUGUSTA
WWTP
ATHENS
NORTH
OCONEE
WPCP
GAINESVILLE
FLAT CREEK
WPCP
MILLEDGEVIL
LE WPCP
ROME WPCP
THOMASVILLE
WPCP
SAND ISLAND
WWTF
KAILUAWWTF
HONOULIULI
WWTF
POCATELLO
STP
County
BIBB
DEKALB
FULTON
FULTON
FULTON
FULTON
COBB
COBB
GWINNETT
MUSCOGEE
DOUGHERTY
RICHMOND
CLARKE
HALL
BALDWIN
FLOYD
THOMAS
HONOLULU
HONOLULU
HONOLULU
BANNOCK
Authority
Name
MACON-BIBB
CO. WSA
ATLANTA
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT
ATLANTA
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT
ATLANTA
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT
FULTON CO BD
OF
COMMISSIONER
S
FULTON CO BD
OF
COMMISSIONER
S
COBB COUNTY
WATER &
SEWER
COBB COUNTY
WATER AND
SEWER
GWINNETT
COUNTY WATER
POL
COLUMBUS BD
OF WAT COMM.
ALBANY, CITY
OF
AUGUSTA, CITY
COUNCIL OF
ATHENS, CITY
OF
GAINESVILLE,
CITY OF
MILLEDGEVILLE,
CITY OF
ROME WATER
AND SEWER
DEPT
THOMASVILLE,
CITY OF
HONOLULU,
CITY AND CO
HONOLULU,
CITY & CO
HONOLULU,
CITY & CO
POCATELLO,
CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
16.75
14.57
32.26
87.52
7.05
10.07
31.84
8.75
14.13
30
19.09
30.64
7.9
5.68
5.9
9.68
5.29
77.6
6.93
24.6
6.34
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
372
324
717
1945
157
224
708
194
314
667
424
681
176
126
131
215
118
1724
154
547
141
20
-------
State
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
Facility
Name
TWIN FALLS
STP
BOISE, CITY
OF- LANDER
STREET
BOISE, CITY
OF-WEST
BOISE
IDAHO FALLS
STP
NAM PA STP
CALDWELL
SEWAGE TRT
FACIL
QUINCYSTP
KANKAKEE
RIVER
METROPOLIT
AN AGENCY
FREEPORT
STP
UCSD-
NORTHEAST
STP
FOX LAKE NW
REGIONAL
WRF
JOLIET -
EASTSIDE
STP
JOLIET-
WESTSIDE
STP
ELMHURST
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
WHEATON SD
SEWAGE TR
PLNT
DEKALB MAIN
PLANT
BELLEVILLE
STP#1
ALTON STP
ROCK ISLAND
MAIN STP
SPRINGFIELD
SD E SUG
CRK
DECATUR SD
STP
PEORIA STP
County
TWIN FALLS
ADA
ADA
BONNEVILLE
CANYON
CANYON
ADAMS
KANKAKEE
STEPHENSON
CHAMPAIGN
LAKE
WILL
WILL
DUPAGE
DUPAGE
DEKALB
ST. CLAIR
MADISON
ROCK ISLAND
SANGAMON
MACON
PEORIA
Authority
Name
TWIN FALLS,
CITY OF
BOISE, CITY OF
BOISE, CITY OF
IDAHO FALLS,
CITY OF
NAMPA, CITY OF
CALDWELL, CITY
OF
QUINCY, CITY
OF
KANKAKEE
RIVER
METROPOLITAN
AGENCY (KRMA)
FREEPORT
WATER &
SEWER CO
URBANA &
CHAMPAIGN
S.D.
FOX LAKE,
VILLAGE OF
JOLIET, CITY OF
JOLIET, CITY OF
ELMHURST,
CITY OF
WHEATON
SANITARY
DISTRICT
DEKALB
SANITARY
DISTRICT
BELLEVILLE,
CITY OF
ALTON, CITY OF
ROCK ISLAND,
CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD
SANITARY DIST
DECATUR SAN.
DIST.
GREATER
PEORIA
SANITARY D
Total
Influent
(MGD)
7.95
14.6
11.5
10.5
9.89
7.31
7
14.68
5.1
10
6.4
16
5.9
10.4
7
6
5.95
8.42
8
9.27
38.4
27
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
177
324
256
233
220
162
156
326
113
222
142
356
131
231
156
133
132
187
178
206
853
600
21
-------
State
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
Facility
Name
BLOOM INGTO
N-NORMAL
STP
THORN
CREEK BASIN.
S.D. STP
JACKSONVILL
ESTP
GALESBURG
STP
MCELWAIN
REG STP
GLENBARD
WWAUTH
DOWNERS
GROVE STP
STICKNEY
WRD
HANOVER
PARKWRP
JOHN E EGAN
WRP
CALUMET
WRP
SOUTHPORT
WWTP
SPEEDWAY,
TOWN OF
EAST
CHICAGO STP
GARY
SANITARY
DISTRICT
HAMMOND
WWTP
VALPARAISO
STP
TERRE HAUTE
WWTP
SOUTH BEND
WWTP
W LAFAYETTE
SEWAGE
WRKS
MOSS ISLAND
ROAD PLANT
EASTSIDE
WWTP
EVANSVILLE
WESTSIDE
WWTP
JEFFERSONVI
LLE STP
COLUMBUS
WWTP
CONNERSVILL
EWWTP
County
MCLEAN
COOK
MORGAN
KNOX
COOK
DUPAGE
DUPAGE
COOK
COOK
COOK
COOK
MARION
MARION
LAKE
LAKE
LAKE
PORTER
VIGO
ST. JOSEPH
TIPPECANOE
MADISON
VANDERBURGH
VANDERBURGH
CLARK
BARTHOLOMEW
FAYETTE
Authority
Name
BLOOM INGTON-
NORMAL SD
THORN CREEK
BASIN S.D.
JACKSONVILLE,
CITY OF
GALESBURG
SANITARY DIST
HINSDALE
SANITARY DIST
GLEN ELLYN,
VILLAGE OF
DOWNERS
GROVE SAN
DIST
CHICAGO
MWRDGC
CHICAGO
MWRDGC
CHICAGO
MWRDGC
CHICAGO
MWRDGC
INDIANAPOLIS
SAN. DIST.
SPEEDWAY,
TOWN OF
EAST CHICAGO,
CITY OF
GARY SANITARY
DISTRICT
HAMMOND SD
VALPARAISO,
CITY OF
TERRE HAUTE
S.D.
SOUTH BEND
BOARD OF
PUBLIC
WEST
LAFAYETTE,
CITY OF
ANDERSON,
CITY OF
EVANSVILLE,
CITY OF
EVANSVILLE,
CITY OF
JEFFERSONVILL
E, CITY OF
COLUMBUS,
CITY OF
CONNERSVILLE,
CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
16
13
5.95
10
10.48
10
8
812
9
27
232.58
125
7.5
15
41.32
48
6
13.34
37.7
9
20.53
18
20.6
5.2
7.94
6.58
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
356
289
132
222
233
222
178
18044
200
600
5168
2778
167
333
918
1067
133
296
838
200
456
400
458
116
176
146
22
-------
State
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
IOWA
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
Facility
Name
ELKHART
WWTP
GOSHEN
WWTP
KOKOMO MUN
WWTP
LAPORTE
WWTP
LOGANSPORT
WWTP
MICHIGAN
CITY STP
NEWCASTLE
STP
AMES WWTP
COUNCIL
BLUFFS
WWTP
DAVENPORT
WWTP
DESMOINES
MAIN WWTP
IOWA CITY
NORTH WWTP
OTTUMWA
WWTP
SIOUX CITY
WWTP
WATERLOO
WWTP
HUTCHINSON
WWTP
WICHITA
WWTP #1 + #2
KCKWWTP
#1-KPWWTP
LAWRENCE
WWTP
PITTSBURG
WWTP
TOPEKA
OAKLAND
WWTP
JO CO
MISSION
TOWNSHIP
MSD#1 WWTP
JO CO TOM
CRKWWTP
JO CO
TURKEY
CREEK MSD
#1 WWTP
LFUCG TOWN
BRANCH STP
County
ELKHART
ELKHART
HOWARD
LA PORTE
CASS
LA PORTE
HENRY
STORY
POTTAWATTAMI
E
SCOTT
POLK
JOHNSON
WAPELLO
WOODBURY
BLACK HAWK
RENO
SEDGWICK
WYANDOTTE
DOUGLAS
CRAWFORD
SHAWNEE
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
JOHNSON
FAYETTE
Authority
Name
ELKHART, CITY
OF
GOSHEN, CITY
OF
KOKOMO, CITY
OF
LAPORTE, CITY
OF
LOGANSPORT,
CITY OF
MICHIGAN CITY
NEWCASTLE,
CITY OF
AMES, CITY OF
COUNCIL
BLUFFS, CITY
OF
DAVENPORT,
CITY OF
DES MOINES
WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION
FACILITY
IOWA CITY, CITY
OF
OTTUMWA, CITY
OF
SIOUX CITY,
CITY OF
WATERLOO,
CITY OF
HUTCHINSON,
CITY OF
WICHITA, CITY
OF
KANSAS CITY,
CITY OF
LAWRENCE,
CITY OF
PITTSBURG,
CITY OF
TOPEKA, CITY
OF
JOHNSON CO
UNIFIED SD
JOHNSON CO.
UNIFIED SD
JOHNSON CO
UNIFIED SD
LEXINGTON-
FAYETTE
URBAN COUNTY
GOVERNMENT
Total
Influent
(MGD)
16.31
12.5
19.5
5.06
6.76
12
8
5.89
6.71
19.02
33.35
5.91
5.36
18.29
16.91
5.506
40.617
23.1
7.77
5.423
10.23
7.1
5
6.86
19.85
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
362
278
433
112
150
267
178
131
149
423
741
131
119
406
376
122
903
513
173
121
227
158
111
152
441
23
-------
State
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
LOUISIANA
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
Facility
Name
LFUCGW
HICKMAN STP
RWRA
OWENSBORO
WEST & CS
MSD- MORRIS
FORMAN STP
&CSO
ELIZABETHTO
WN
HOUMAS
REG TRTMT
PLT
KENNERTF
STP#1
LAKE
CHARLES
PLANT A
MONROE
WATER POLL
CONTROL
CENTER
HARVEY
PLANT
BRIDGE CITY
OLD PLANT
MARRERO
PLANT
MUNSTER
BLVD PLANT
COX CREEK
WWTP
ANNAPOLIS
CITY WWTP
SOD RUN
WWTP
WESTERN
BRANCH
WWTP
CUMBERLAND
WWTP
MATTAWOMA
N WWTP
FREDERICK
CITY WWTP
HAGERSTOW
N WPCF
OCEAN CITY
WWTP
SENECA
CREEK WWTP
LYNN
REGIONAL
WPCF
County
JESSAMINE
DAVIESS
JEFFERSON
HARDIN
TERREBONNE
JEFFERSON
CALCASIEU
OUACHITA
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
ST. BERNARD
ANNEARUNDEL
ANNEARUNDEL
HARFORD
PRINCE
GEORGE'S
ALLEGANY
CHARLES
FREDERICK
WASHINGTON
WORCESTER
MONTGOMERY
ESSEX
Authority
Name
LEX-FAYETTE
UCG
REG WATER
RESOURCE
AGENCY
LOU-JEFF CO
MSD
ELIZABETHTOW
N, CITY OF
TERREBONNE
PARISH
CONSOLIDATAE
D GOVERNMENT
KENNER, CITY
OF
LAKE CHARLES,
CITY OF
MONROE, CITY
OF
JEFF PARISH DD
&S
JEFF PARISH DD
&S
JEFF PARISH DD
&S
ST BERNARD
PARISH
GOVERNMENT
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY DPW
ANNEARUNDEL
COUNTY DPW
HARFORD
COUNTY DPW
WASHINGTON
SUBURBAN
SANITARY
COMMISSION
CUMBERLAND,
MAYOR OF
CHARLES CO.
PLANNING DEPT
FREDERICK,
CITY OF
HAGERSTOWN,
CITY OF
OCEAN CITY
WASTEWATER
DEP
WASH SUB SAN
COM
LYNN, CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
17.56
8.146
60.36
5.21
8
5.3
5
17
7.5
6
6.4
6.5
11.11
6.609
11.476
17.679
10.886
7.675
6.5
8.149
10.783
6.392
25.8
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
390
181
1341
116
178
118
111
378
167
133
142
144
247
147
255
393
242
171
144
181
240
142
573
24
-------
State
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSISSIPPI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
Facility
Name
PITTSFIELD
WWTF
LEOMINSTER
WWTP
MWRA DEER
ISLAND WWTP
GRAND
RAPIDS
WWTP
WYOMING
WWTP
FLINT WPCF
MARYSVILLE
STP
WARREN
WWTP
PONTIAC STP
DETROIT STP
ANN ARBOR
WWTP
YCUAWWTP
MONROE
METRO WWTP
SAGINAWSTP
JACKSON
WWTP
BENTON
HARBOR-ST
JOSEPH
MIDLAND
WWTP
HURON
VALLEY
WWTP-SOUTH
AUSTIN WWT
FACILITY
GRAND
RAPIDS STP
HCW&SWMA -
WEST BILOXI
POTW
HCW&SWMA,
GULFPORT
POTW
NATCHEZ
POTW
CAPE
GIRARDEAU
WWTP
HINKSON-
PERCHE
PLANT
County
BERKSHIRE
WORCESTER
SUFFOLK
KENT
KENT
GENESEE
ST. CLAIR
MACOMB
OAKLAND
WAYNE
WASHTENAW
WASHTENAW
MONROE
SAGINAW
JACKSON
BERRIEN
MIDLAND
WAYNE
MOWER
ITASCA
HARRISON
HARRISON
ADAMS
CAPE
GIRARDEAU
BOONE
Authority
Name
PITTSFIELD,
CITY OF
LEOMINSTER
DPW
MWRA
GRAND RAPIDS,
CITY OF
WYOMING
WWTP
FLINT, CITY OF
MARYSVILLE,
CITY OF
WARREN, CITY
OF
PONTIAC DEPT
OF PUB WKS
DETROIT BOARD
OF WATER CO
ANN ARBOR
DEPT OF PUB
WKS
WASHTENAW
COUNTY DPW
MONROE
METROPOLITAN
WASTE
SAGINAW DPW
PU
JACKSON, CITY
OF
BENTON
HARBOR ST
JOSEPH J
MIDLAND , CITY
OF
HURON VALLEY
AUSTIN, CITY OF
GRAND RAPIDS,
CITY OF
HARR. CO.
WWMD
HARR. CO.
WWMD
NATCHEZ.CITY
OF, WORKS, C
CAPE
GIRARDEAU,
CITY OF
COLUMBIA, CITY
OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
10.57
6.03
348
54.6
14
43.3
6.14
30
8
660.5
15.14
8.27
15.794
8.3
13.43
7.21
8.5
14
7.875
10.31
8.83
10.22
5
6.4
14.5
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
235
134
7733
1213
311
962
136
667
178
14678
336
184
351
184
298
160
189
311
175
229
196
227
111
142
322
25
-------
State
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MISSOURI
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
MONTANA
NEBRASKA
NEBRASKA
NEVADA
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
Facility
Name
ROCK CREEK
WWTP
TURKEY
CREEK WWTP
K.C. BLUE
RIVER STP
K. C. WEST
SIDE WWTP
ST JOSEPH
WWTP
COLDWATER
CREEK WWTP
MISSOURI
RIVER WWTP
SPRINGFIELD
SWWWTP
SPRINGFIELD
NWWWTP
MISSOULA
STP
BOZEMAN
WWTP
GREAT FALLS
STP
BILLINGS
WWTP
THERESA
STREET STP
NORTHEAST
STP
LAS VEGAS
WWTF
BERGEN
CNTY
UTILITIES
AUTHORITY
JOINT
MEETING OF
ESSEX &
UNION
LINDEN
ROSELLE SA
STP
MOLITOR
WATER
POLLUTION
CONTROL
FAC
RAHWAY
VALLEY SEW.
AUTHORITY-
STP
NORTH
HUDSON S.A.
- ADAM ST.
WTP
County
JACKSON
JASPER
JACKSON
JACKSON
BUCHANAN
ST. LOUIS
ST. LOUIS
GREENE
GREENE
MISSOULA
GALLATIN
CASCADE
YELLOWSTONE
LANCASTER
LANCASTER
CLARK
BERGEN
UNION
UNION
MORRIS
MIDDLESEX
HUDSON
Authority
Name
INDEPENDENCE,
CITY OF
JOPLIN, CITY OF
KANSAS CITY,
CITY OF
KANSAS CITY,
CITY OF
ST JOSEPH,
CITY OF
ST LOUIS MSD
ST LOUIS MSD
SPRINGFIELD,
CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD,
CITY OF
MISSOULA, CITY
OF
BOZEMAN, CITY
OF
GREAT FALLS,
CITY OF
BILLINGS, CITY
OF
LINCOLN, CITY
OF
LINCOLN, CITY
OF
LAS VEGAS,
CITY OF
BERGEN
COUNTY
UTILITIES
AUTHORITY
J M OF ESSEX &
UNION
LINDEN
ROSELLE SA
MADISON
CHATHAM JT
MTG
RAHWAY
VALLEY SA
NORTH HUDSON
SA
Total
Influent
(MGD)
8.2
8.2
75
19.31
19
27.59
24
35
5.35
7.52
5
9.9
15.8
20.2
6.5
62
75.19
85
12
7.58
31.85
13.053
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
182
182
1667
429
422
613
533
778
119
167
111
220
351
449
144
1378
1671
1889
267
168
708
290
26
-------
State
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
Facility
Name
NORTH
BERGEN MUA
- CENTRAL
STP
PARSIPPANY-
TROY HILLS
STP
MOUNTAIN
VIEW STP
MIDDLESEX
CNTY UA
MIDDLETOWN
SA (TOMSA)
SOUTHERN
WPC FAC -
OCUA
OCEAN TWP.
SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY
SOUTH
MONMOUTH
REG STP
NEPTUNE
TWP REG STP
ATLANTIC
COUNTY
UTILITIES
AUTH WWTF
GLOUCESTER
CNTY UTIL
AUTH
ELSA STP -
EWING-
LAWRENCE
S.A.
TRENTON
SEWER
UTILITY
ALBUQUERQU
E #2 PLANT
LAS CRUCES
STP
LONG BEACH
WPC PLANT
BAY PARK
(NASSAU C)
STP & SD#2
CEDAR
CREEK
(NASSAU C)
STP/SD#3
ROCKLAND
COUNTY (CO)
SD#1
County
HUDSON
MORRIS
PASSAIC
MIDDLESEX
MONMOUTH
OCEAN
MONMOUTH
MONMOUTH
MONMOUTH
ATLANTIC
GLOUCESTER
MERCER
MERCER
BERNALILLO
DONA ANA
NASSAU
NASSAU
NASSAU
ROCKLAND
Authority
Name
NORTH
BERGEN, TWP.
OF
PAR-TROY HILLS
TOWNSHIP
WAYNE
TOWNSHIP
MIDDLESEX
COUNTY UA
MIDDLETOWN
TOWNSHIP S.A.
OCEAN COUNTY
UA
TOWNSHIP OF
OCEAN
SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY
SOUTH
MONMOUTH
RSA
TWP OF
NEPTUNE SA
ATLANTIC CO
UA (CSTL)
GLOUCESTER
COUNTY
UTILITIES
AUTHORITY
EWING-
LAWRENCE
SEWERAGE
AUTHORITY
TRENTON, CITY
OF
ALBUQUERQUE,
CITY OF
LAS CRUCES,
CITY OF
LONG BEACH
(CITY) DPW
NASSAU
COUNTY DPW
NASSAU
COUNTY DPW
ROCKLAND
COUNTY SEWER
DISTRICT NO.1
Total
Influent
(MGD)
7.68
12.66
6.9
177.633
8.04
7
5.23
7.198
5.978
31.333
19
11.306
20
47.9
5.5
5.217
53.017
57.067
21.335
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
171
281
153
3947
179
156
116
160
133
696
422
251
444
1064
122
116
1178
1268
474
27
-------
State
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
Facility
Name
WESTCHESTE
R(CO)
PEEKSKILLSD
STP
WESTCHESTE
R (CO)PORT
CHESTER SD
STP
WESTCHESTE
R(CO)
YONKERS
JOINT STP
SCHENECTAD
Y (C) SEWERS
&STP
GLOVERSVILL
E-
JOHNSTOWN
(C)WWTP
WATERTOWN
(C)WWTP
ROME (C) STP
BINGHAMTON-
JOHNSON
CITYJT.S
BD.STP
ENDICOTT (V)
STP
CORTLAND
(C)WWTP
ONONDAGA
(CO) METRO
SYRACUSE
STP
ONONDAGA
(CO) OAK
ORCHARD
WWTP
ITHACA (C)
ITHACA AREA
STP
CHEMUNG
(CO)ELMIRA
SDSTP
WEBSTER (T)
WWTP&
ONSITES
JAMESTOWN
(C)WWTP
BUFFALO(SE
WER
AUTH.JBIRD
ISLAND STP
TONAWANDA
(T)WWTP
LOCKPORT
(C)WWTP
NORTH
TONAWANDA
(C)WWTP
County
WESTCHESTER
WESTCHESTER
WESTCHESTER
SCHENECTADY
FULTON
JEFFERSON
ONEIDA
BROOME
BROOME
CORTLAND
ONONDAGA
ONONDAGA
TOMPKINS
CHEMUNG
MONROE
CHAUTAUQUA
ERIE
ERIE
NIAGARA
NIAGARA
Authority
Name
WESTCHESTER
CODEF
WESTCHESTER
CODEF
WESTCHESTER
COUNTY DEF
SCHENECTADY,
CITY OF
GLOVERSVILLE-
JOHNSTOWN
JOINT WATER
BOARD
WATERTOWN,
CITY OF
ROME, CITY OF
BINGHAMTON -
JOHNSON CITY
JOINT SEWAGE
BOARD
ENDICOTT,
VILLAGE OF
CORTLAND,
CITY OF
ONONDAGA
COUNTY DEPT.
OF DRAINAGE &
SANITATION
ONONDAGA
COUNTY DEPT.
OF DRAINANGE
& SANITATION
ITHACA, CITY OF
ELMIRA, CITY OF
(CHEMUNG CO.
SD OWNER)
WEBSTER,
TOWN OF
JAMESTOWN
DPW
BUFFALO
SEWER
AUTHORITY
TONAWANDA,
TOWN OF
LOCKPORT DPW
NORTH
TONAWANDA,
CITY OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
6.4
5.25
79.428
13.325
7.29
9.105
6.683
19.079
6.387
6.167
64.395
5.583
6.1
6.081
6.171
5.891
149
19.625
8.8
5.746
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
142
117
1765
296
162
202
149
424
142
137
1431
124
136
135
137
131
3311
436
196
128
28
-------
State
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH CAROLINA
NORTH DAKOTA
OHIO
OHIO
Facility
Name
SOUTH
BURLINGTON
WWTP
EAST
BURLINGTON
WWTP
BUNCOMBE
COUNTY MSD
WWTP
NORTH
DURHAM
WATER REC.
FAC.
SOUTH
DURHAM
WATER REC.
FAC.
ROCKY
MOUNT WWTP
ARCHIE
ELLEDGE
WWTP
HIGH POINT
EASTSIDE
WWTP
NORTH
BUFFALO
WWTP
MCALPINE
CREEK WWTP
IRWIN CREEK
WWTP
SUGAR
CREEK WWTP
JALOUGHLIN
WWTP
MKEAN
MAFFITT
WWTP(S)
MASON FARM
WWTP
MT. AIRY
WWTP
HOMINY
CREEK WWTP
FARGO WWTP
ALLIANCE
WWTP&
SEWERS
ASHTABULA
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
County
ALAMANCE
ALAMANCE
BUNCOMBE
DURHAM
DURHAM
EDGECOMBE
FORSYTH
GUILFORD
GUILFORD
MECKLENBURG
MECKLENBURG
MECKLENBURG
NEW HANOVER
NEW HANOVER
ORANGE
SURRY
WILSON
CASS
STARK
ASHTABULA
Authority
Name
BURLINGTON,
CITY OF
BURLINGTON,
CITY OF
METSEWDIST
OF BUNCOMBE
DURHAM, CITY
OF
DURHAM, CITY
OF
ROCKY MOUNT,
CITY OF
CITY/COUNTY
UTILITIES COM
HIGH POINT,
CITY OF
GREENSBORO,
CITY OF
CHARLOTTE-
MECKLENBURG
UTI
CHARLOTTE-
MECKLENBURG
UTI
CHARLOTTE-
MECKLENBURG
UTI
WILMINGTON
DEPTOFPUBW
WILMINGTON,
DEPTOFPUBW
ORANGE WAT
ANDSEWAUTH
MT AIRY, TOWN
OF
WILSON, CITY
OF
FARGO
MUNICIPAL
WWTP
CITY OF
ALLIANCE
CITY OF
ASHTABULA
Total
Influent
(MGD)
7.4
7.9
20.08
8.3
8.4
13
23.55
8.23
14.3
28.68
11.48
13.3
9.69
8.48
5.8
5.448
8.93
12.58
6.2
7
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
164
176
446
184
187
289
523
183
318
637
255
296
215
188
129
121
198
280
138
156
29
-------
State
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
Facility
Name
UPPER MILL
CREEK VWVTP
& SEWERS
NORTH
REGIONAL
WWTP
SOUTHERLY
WWTP
COLUMBUS
JACKSON
PIKE WWTP &
SEWERS
COLUMBUS
SOUTHERLY
WWTP&
SEWERS
ELYRIAWWTP
& SEWER
SYSTEM
EUCLID WWTP
& SEWER
SYSTEM
FAIRFIELD
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
FINDLAY
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
FOSTORIA
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
FREMONT
WPCC&
SEWER
SYSTEM
LITTLE MIAMI
DRAINAGE
BASIN/WWTP
SYCAMORE
CREEK
DRAINAGE
BASIN/WWTP
GREATER
MENTOR
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
County
BUTLER
MONTGOMERY
CUYAHOGA
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
LORAIN
CUYAHOGA
BUTLER
HANCOCK
WOOD
SANDUSKY
HAMILTON
HAMILTON
LAKE
Authority
Name
BUTLER
COUNTY
DEPARTMENT
OF
ENVIRONMENTA
L SERVICES
TRI CITIES
NORTH
REGIONAL
WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
NORTHEAST
OHIO REGIONAL
SEWER
DISTRICT
COLUMBUS
DIVISION OF
SEWERAGE AND
DRAINAGE
COLUMBUS
DIVISION OF
SEWERAGE AND
DRAINAGE
CITY OF ELYRIA
CITY OF EUCLID
CITY OF
FAIRFIELD
CITY OF
FINDLAY
CITY OF
FOSTORIA
CITY OF
FREMONT
MSDOF
GREATER
CINCINNATI
MSDOF
GREATER
CINCINNATI
LAKE COUNTY
DEPARTMENT
OF UTILITIES
Total
Influent
(MGD)
9.11
7.937
200
68
92
7.89
20.64
6.7
9.07
5.7
5
34.3
6.7
11.26
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
202
176
4444
1511
2044
175
459
149
202
127
111
762
149
250
30
-------
State
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA
Facility
Name
LAKEWOOD
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
LIMAWWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
LORAIN
BLACK RIVER
WWTP
MANSFIELD
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
MASSILLON
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
MIDDLETOWN
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
NEWARK
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
NILESWWTP
& SEWER
SYSTEM
NORTH
OLMSTED
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
ROCKY RIVER
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
SANDUSKY
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
SPRINGFIELD
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
WASHINGTON
CHWWTP&
SEWERS
WOOSTER
WWTP&
SEWER
SYSTEM
ENIDWWT
STILLWATER
WWT
NORMAN
(MAIN) WWT
County
CUYAHOGA
ALLEN
LORAIN
RICHLAND
STARK
BUTLER
LICKING
TRUMBULL
CUYAHOGA
CUYAHOGA
ERIE
CLARK
FAYETTE
WAYNE
GARFIELD
PAYNE
CLEVELAND
Authority
Name
CITY OF
LAKEWOOD
CITY OF LIMA
CITY OF LORAIN
CITY OF
MANSFIELD
CITY OF
MASSILLON
CITY OF
MIDDLETOWN
CITY OF
NEWARK
CITYOFNILES
CITY OF NORTH
OLMSTED
CITY OF ROCKY
RIVER
CITY OF
SANDUSKY
CITY OF
SPRINGFIELD
CITY OF
WASHINGTON
COURT HOUSE
CITY OF
WOOSTER
ENID, CITY OF,
S-20931
STILLWATER,
CITY OF, S-
20947
NORMAN, CITY
OFS-20616
Total
Influent
(MGD)
7
12
13.1
12
11
16
10
5.31
7
16.063
12.5
14
5.36
6
8.5
6.8
12
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
156
267
291
267
244
356
222
118
156
357
278
311
119
133
189
151
267
-------
State
OKLAHOMA
OREGON
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
Facility
Name
TULSA
NORTHSIDE
WWT
MEDFORD
STP
MCMINNVILLE
WWTP
VALLEY
FORGE
SEWER AUTH
WEST
GOSHEN STP
AMBLER
BORO STP
WARMINSTER
STP
PHILADELPHI
A WATER
DEPT (SE)
DOWNINGTO
WN AREA STP
NORRISTOWN
MUN WASTE
AUTH
HARRISBURG
AUTHORITY
STP
ALLENTOWN
CITY STP
LEBANON
CITY STP
BETHLEHEM
CITY STP
READING
AREA FRITZ
ISLAND STP
EASTON
AREA STP
SCRANTON
SEWER
AUTHORITY
WYOMING
VALLEY SAN
AUTH
YORK CITY
SEW AUTH
JOHNSTOWN
CITY STP
ALTOONA
EASTERLY
STP
County
TULSA
JACKSON
YAM HILL
CHESTER
CHESTER
MONTGOMERY
BUCKS
PHILADELPHIA
CHESTER
MONTGOMERY
DAUPHIN
LEHIGH
LEBANON
NORTHAMPTON
BERKS
NORTHAMPTON
LACKAWANNA
LUZERNE
YORK
CAMBRIA
BLAIR
Authority
Name
TULSA
METROPOLITAN
UTILITY
AUTHORITY, S-
21309
MEDFORD, CITY
OF
MCMINNVILLE,
CITY OF
VALLEY FORGE
SEWER AUTH
WEST GOSHEN
SEWER AUTH
AMBLER,
BOROUGH OF
WARMINSTER
TWNSHP MUN
AUT
PHILADELPHIA
WATER DEPT -
WPC DIVISION
DOWNINGTOWN
AREA REGIONAL
AUTH
NORRISTOWN
MUN WASTE
AUTH
HARRISBURG
AUTHORITY
ALLENTOWN
AUTHORITY
LEBANON
AUTHORITY,
CITY OF
BETHLEHEM
AUTHORITY,
CITY OF
READING, CITY
OF
EASTON AREA
JOINT SEW
AUTH
SCRANTON SEW
AUTH
WYOMING
VALLEY SAN
AUTH
YORK CITY
SEWER
AUTHORITY
JOHNSTOWN,
CITY OF
ALTOONA CITY
AUTHORITY
Total
Influent
(MGD)
36.1
20.05
5.5
9.3
5.57
5.79
6
94.8
6.41
6.08
13.2
34
6
12.6
15.66
6.7
15.9
22.3
11.74
9
5.858
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
802
446
122
207
124
129
133
2107
142
135
293
756
133
280
348
149
353
496
261
200
130
32
-------
State
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
Facility
Name
ALTOONA
WESTERLY
STP
SHAMOKIN-
COAL TWP
STP
INDIANA
BORO STP
KISKI VALLEY
WPCA
ERIE CITY
STP
NEWCASTLE
STP
VEOLIA
WATER -
CRANSTON
WPCF
WOONSOCKE
T REGIONAL
WWTF
BUCKLIN PT
STP
METRO WWTP
MANCHESTER
CREEK WWTP
FLORENCE/M
AIN PLANT
RAPID CITY
WWT
FACILITY
SIOUX FALLS
WWT
FACILITY
OOSTANAULA
WWTP
MOCCASIN
BEND WWTP
CLEVELAND
UTILITIES STP
COOKEVILLE
STP
JACKSON UD
WWTP-
MILLER
AVENUE
BRUSH
CREEK STP
KINGSPORT
STP
KUWAHEE
WWTP
FOURTH
CREEK WWTP
County
BLAIR
NORTHUMBERL
AND
INDIANA
WESTMORELAN
D
ERIE
LAWRENCE
PROVIDENCE
PROVIDENCE
PROVIDENCE
RICHLAND
YORK
FLORENCE
PENNINGTON
MINNEHAHA
MCMINN
HAMILTON
BRADLEY
PUTNAM
MADISON
WASHINGTON
SULLIVAN
KNOX
KNOX
Authority
Name
ALTOONA CITY
AUTHORITY
SHAMOKIN-
COAL TWP JT
AUTH
INDIANA,
BOROUGH OF
KISKI VALLEY
WPCA
ERIE SEWER
AUTHORITY
NEWCASTLE
SAN AUTH
CRANSTON,
DPW
WOONSOCKET
DPW SEWAGE
DIV
NARRAGANSETT
BAY COMM.
COLUMBIA, CITY
OF
ROCK HILL, CITY
OF
FLORENCE
UTILITIES DIVISI
RAPID CITY,
CITY OF
SIOUX FALLS,
CITY OF
ATHENS UTILITY
BOARD
CHATTANOOGA,
CITY OF
CLEVELAND
UTILITIES
COOKEVILLE,
CITY OF
JACKSON
ENERGY
AUTHORITY
JOHNSON CITY,
CITY OF
KINGSPORT,
TOWN OF
KNOXVILLE
UTILITIES
BOARD
KNOXVILLE
UTILITIES
BOARD
Total
Influent
(MGD)
6.2
6
7.25
6
68.59
6.02
13.4
7.85
23.6
44.575
15
9.9
10.3
11.79
6.318
70.227
8.21
6.83
11.5
7.471
7.74
35.3
9.09
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
138
133
161
133
1524
134
298
174
524
991
333
220
229
262
140
1561
182
152
256
166
172
784
202
33
-------
State
TENNESSEE
TENNESSEE
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
Facility
Name
NASHVILLE -
DRY CREEK
WWTP
NASHVILLE -
WHITE'S
CREEK WWTP
WACO
REGIONAL
WWTP
RIVER ROAD
WWTP
HOLLYWOOD
ROAD WWTP
MIDLAND
PLANT #1
WWTP
HASKELL ST
WWTP
LAREDO STP
CARTER'S
CREEK WWTP
CENTRAL
WWTP-
DALLAS
SOUTHSIDE
WWTP-
DALLAS
ROWLETT
CREEK WWTP
POST OAK
CREEK WWTP
VILLAGE
CREEK STP
WILSON
CREEK WWTP
WESTSIDE
STP #2
SOUTHSIDE
STP #2
LONGVIEW
MAIN WWTP
HILLEBRANDT
WWTP
VINCE BAYOU
WWTP
DOS RIOS
WWTP
NORTHSIDE/S
OUTHSIDE
STP
MARTINSVILL
ESTP
HARRISONBU
RG-
ROCKINGHAM
County
DAVIDSON
DAVIDSON
MCLENNAN
POTTER
RANDALL
MIDLAND
EL PASO
WEBB
BRAZOS
DALLAS
DALLAS
DALLAS
GRAYSON
TARRANT
COLLIN
SMITH
SMITH
GREGG
JEFFERSON
HARRIS
BEXAR
DANVILLE
MARTINSVILLE
ROCKINGHAM
Authority
Name
METRO.
NASHVILLE
DEPT. OF
WATER &
SEWER SVCS.
METRO.
NASHVILLE
DEPT. OF
WATER &
SEWER SVCS.
BRAZOS RIVER
AUTHORITY
AMARILLO
AMARILLO
MIDLAND
EL PASO
LAREDO
COLLEGE
STATION
DALLAS
DALLAS
GARLAND
SHERMAN
FORT WORTH
NORTH TEXAS
MWD
TYLER
TYLER
LONGVIEW
BEAUMONT
PASADENA
SAN ANTONIO
DANVILLE, CITY
OF
MARTINSVILLE,
CITY OF
HARRISONBURG
-ROCKINGHAM
Total
Influent
(MGD)
17.6
34.935
21.23
12.01
5.33
13.21
16.792
10.2
6.5
166.704
78.81
17.066
11.69
138.9
31.327
9.56
5.12
14.41
24
6.82
58
16.05
5.35
7.5
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
391
776
472
267
118
294
373
227
144
3705
1751
379
260
3087
696
212
114
320
533
152
1289
357
119
167
34
-------
State
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Facility
Name
RICHMOND
STP
FALLING
CREEK STP
SOUTH
CENTRAL
REGIONAL
WWTP
MOORES
CREEK STP
HOPEWELL
STP
JAMES RIVER
WPCF
YORK RIVER
WPCF
ARMY BASE W
PCF
VIRGINIA
INITIATIVE
PLANT
NANSEMOND
WPCF
ALEXANDRIA
STP
ARLINGTON
COWPCP
W.
BREMERTON/
CHARLESTON
STP
CENT. KITSAP
REG. STP
RICHLAND
STP
SPOKANE STP
TACOMA
CENTRAL STP
#1
WALLA WALLA
STP
YAKIMA
REGIONAL
WWTP
FAIRMONT
STP
MORGANTOW
N WPC FAC
WHEELING
WPC FAC
County
RICHMOND CITY
CHESTERFIELD
PETERSBURG
CHARLOTTESVIL
LE
HOPEWELL
NEWPORT
NEWS
YORK
NORFOLK
NORFOLK
SUFFOLK
ALEXANDRIA
ARLINGTON
KITSAP
KITSAP
BENTON
SPOKANE
PIERCE
WALLA WALLA
YAKIMA
MARION
MONONGALIA
OHIO
Authority
Name
RICHMOND,
CITY OF
CHESTERFIELD
COUNTY
SOUTH
CENTRAL
WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
RIVANNA
WATER AND
SEWER
HOPEWELL,
CITY OF
HAMPTON
ROADS SAN
DIST
HAMPTON
ROADS SAN
DIST
HAMPTON
ROADS SAN
DIST
HAMPTON ROAD
SAN DIST
HAMPTON
ROADS SAN.
DIST
ALEXANDRIA
SANITATION
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
BREMERTON,
CITY OF
KITSAP CO.
COMMISSIONER
S
RICHLAND
UTILITY
SERVICES
SPOKANE, CITY
OF
TACOMA, CITY
OF
WALLA WALLA,
CITY OF
YAKIMA, CITY
OF
FAIRMONT,
TOWN OF
MORGANTOWN
UTILITY BOARD
WHEELING
SANITARY
BOARD
Total
Influent
(MGD)
59.53
7.5
20
10.37
33.69
13.99
6.66
14.18
28.05
17
36.8
22.43
7.6
8
6
44
26
6.18
11.308
6.06
8.3
10
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
1323
167
444
230
749
311
148
315
623
378
818
498
169
178
133
978
578
137
251
135
184
222
35
-------
State
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WISCONSIN
WYOMING
PUERTO RICO
Facility
Name
PINEY CREEK
STP
APPLETON
WWTP
BELOITWWTP
BROOKFIELD-
FOX RIVER
WPCC
EAU CLAIRE
WWTP
HEART OF
THE VALLEY
MSD
JANESVILLE
WWTP
KENOSHA,
CITY OF -
WWTP
LA CROSSE
WWTP
MADISON
MSD STP
MANITOWOC
WWTP
RACINE STP
SHEBOYGAN
REGIONAL
WWTP
SUN PRAIRIE
STP
WAUKESHA
STP
WAUSAU
WWTP
SALEM
UTILITY
DISTRICT STP
METRO
CHEYENNE
WWTP
BARCELONET
A REGIONAL
SYSTEM
County
RALEIGH
OUTAGAMIE
ROCK
WAUKESHA
EAU CLAIRE
OUTAGAMIE
ROCK
KENOSHA
LA CROSSE
DANE
MANITOWOC
RACINE
SHEBOYGAN
DANE
WAUKESHA
MARATHON
KENOSHA
LARAMIE
BARCELONETA
Authority
Name
BECKLEY, CITY
OF
APPLETON, CITY
OF
BELOIT, CITY OF
BROOKFIELD
FOX WATER
POLLUTION
CONTROL
EAU CLAIRE,
CITY OF
HEART OF THE
VALLEY
METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE
DIST.
JANESVILLE,
CITY OF
KENOSHA, CITY
OF
LA CROSSE,
CITY OF
MADISON MSD
MANITOWOC,
CITY OF
RACINE, CITY
OF
SHEBOYGAN,
CITY OF
SUN PRAIRIE,
CITY OF
WAUKESHA
CITY OF
WAUSAU, CITY
OF
SALEM, TOWN
OF
CHEYENNE
BOARD OF PUB
UTILITIES
PRASA
Total
Influent
(MGD)
8
14.564
5.67
6.74
6.4
5.84
12.23
21.8
10.18
41
8.72
25.71
12
6.321
11.56
5.31
6.96
5.491
6.15
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
178
324
126
150
142
130
272
484
226
911
194
571
267
140
257
118
155
122
137
36
-------
A2: Facilities with off-gas utilization
State
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARIZONA
ARKANSAS
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
Facility Name
WILDCAT HILL
WWTF
TOLLESON WWTF
INA ROAD STP
LITTLE ROCK
ADAMS FIELD STP
ELK RIVER WWTF
RICHMOND WWTF
EAST BAY MUD
MAIN WWTP
SAN LEANDRO
WPCP
SO SF-SAN
BRUNO WWTF
OROLOMAWWTF
SAN PABLO WWTF
INDUSTRIAL
SHORE SUB FAC
ALVARADO WWTF
LIVERMORE WRP
MRWCPAWWTF
SIMI VALLEY
WWTP
JOINT WPCP
LANCASTER WRP
PALMDALE WRP
HYPERION WWTP
County
COCONINO
MARICOPA
PIMA
PULASKI
HUMBOLDT
CONTRA COSTA
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA
SAN MATED
ALAMEDA
CONTRA COSTA
CONTRA COSTA
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA
MONTEREY
VENTURA
LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES
LOS ANGELES
Authority Name
CITY OF
FLAGSTAFF,
UTILITIES DEPT.
TOLLESON, CITY
OF
PIMA CO WW
MGMT DEPT
LITTLE ROCK
EUREKA, CITY OF
RICHMOND, CITY
OF
EAST BAY MUD
SAN LEANDRO,
CITY OF
CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO
ORO LOMA
SANITARY
DISTRICT
WEST COUNTY
WASTEWATER
DISTRICT
DELTA DIABLO
SAN DIST
UNION SANITARY
DISTRICT
LIVERMORE, CITY
OF
MONTEREY
REGIONAL WATER
POLLUTION
CONTROL
AGENCY
SIMI VALLEY, CITY
OF
LACSD
COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTRICTS OF
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
CITY OF LOS
ANGELES,
BUREAU OF
SANITATION
Total
Influent
(MGD)
7.8
13
31
30
5
6.6
80
6
10.97
17.3
7.8
7.45
30
6.4
21.5
9
322
13.2
9.2
362
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
173
289
689
667
111
147
1778
133
244
384
173
166
667
142
478
200
7156
293
204
8044
37
-------
State
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
FLORIDA
Facility Name
OXNARD WWTP
FRESNO-CLOVIS
REGIONAL WRF
MERCED STP
EASTERLY WWTP
VICTOR VALLEY
REGIONAL WWRP
SAN BERNARDINO
WRP
OCSDWRPNO. 1
OCSD WWTP NO.
2
ENCINAWPCF
LATHAM WWTP
POINT LOMA
WWTF
HALE AVENUE
RRF
C SPRINGS WWTP
METRO
RECLAMAT DIST
CENTRAL PLANT
BRISTOL STP
FAIRFIELDWPCF
GREENWICH
WPCF
ROCKY HILL
WPCF
MANCHESTER
WPCF
MERIDEN WPCF
MILFORD-
HOUSATONIC
WPCF
WALLINGFORD
WPCF
BROWARD CNTY
N. DIST REG
PLANTATION STP
County
VENTURA
FRESNO
MERCED
SOLANO
SAN BERNARDINO
SAN BERNARDINO
ORANGE
ORANGE
SAN DIEGO
ORANGE
SAN DIEGO
SAN DIEGO
EL PASO
ADAMS
HARTFORD
FAIRFIELD
FAIRFIELD
HARTFORD
HARTFORD
NEW HAVEN
NEW HAVEN
NEW HAVEN
BROWARD
BROWARD
Authority Name
OXNARD, CITY OF
FRESNO, CITY OF
MERCED, CITY OF
VACAVILLE, CITY
OF
VIICTOR VALLEY
WASTEWATER
RECLAMATION
AUTHORITY
SAN BERNARDINO
MUNICIPAL
WATER
DEPARTMENT
ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTRICT
ORANGE COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTRICT
ENCINA
WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
SOUTH ORANGE
COUNTY
WASTEWATER
AUTHORITY
CITY OF SAN
DIEGO
METROPOLITAN
WASTEWATER
DEPART.
ESCONDIDO, CITY
OF
COLORADO
SPRINGS, CITY OF
METRO WW
RECLAM DISTRICT
BRISTOL, CITY OF
FAIRFIELD, TOWN
OF
GREENWICH
CHIEF EXECUTIVE
METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
MANCHESTER,
TOWN OF
MERIDEN, CITY OF
MILFORD, TOWN
OF
WALLINGFORD,
TOWN OF
BROWARD
COUNTY
UTILITIES
BROWARD CO.
UTILITIES
Total
Influent
(MGD)
22.4
75
7.7
8.4
10.7
26.5
88
151
26.2
10.9
184
15.625
32
160
9.569
9.078
9.413
7.09
6.449
9.672
6.827
5.364
70
11
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
498
1667
171
187
238
589
1956
3356
582
242
4089
347
711
3556
213
202
209
158
143
215
152
119
1556
244
38
-------
State
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
INDIANA
IOWA
KENTUCKY
KENTUCKY
MASSACHUSETTS
MISSISSIPPI
NEVADA
NEVADA
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
Facility Name
UTOY CREEK
WWTP
DANVILLE STW
FOX METRO WRD
STP
FORT WAYNE
WPCP
MUNCIEWWTP
LAFAYETTE
WWTP
MARION WWTP
RICHMOND SD
FT. DODGE WWTP
ASHLAND WPCP
MCCRACKEN CO
JSA-PADUCAH
BROCKTON WPCF
HCW&SWMA,
EAST BILOXI
POTW
CARSON CITY
WWTF
RENO-SPARKS
WWTF
NORTHERN WPC
FAC -OCUA
CENTRAL WPC
FAC - OCUA
HAMILTONTWP
WPCF
NEW YORK (C)-
WARDS ISLAND
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
HUNTS POINT
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
BOWERY BAY
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
TALLMAN ISLAND
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
JAMAICA WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
26TH. WARD
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
RED HOOK WPCP
County
FULTON
VERMILION
KENDALL
ALLEN
DELAWARE
TIPPECANOE
GRANT
WAYNE
WEBSTER
BOYD
MCCRACKEN
BRISTOL
HARRISON
CARSON CITY
WASHOE
OCEAN
OCEAN
MERCER
NEW YORK
BRONX
QUEENS
QUEENS
QUEENS
KINGS
KINGS
Authority Name
ATLANTA PUBLIC
WORKS DEPA
DANVILLE S D
FOX METRO WRD
FORT WAYNE
BOARD OF PUBLI
MUNCIE
SANITARY
DISTRICT
LAFAYETTE, CITY
OF
MARION, CITY OF
RICHMOND
SANITARY
DISTRIC
FT DODGE, CITY
OF
ASHLAND, CITY
OF
PADUCAH, CITY
OF
BROCKTON, CITY
OF
HARR. CO. WWMD
CARSON CITY
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF SPARKS
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT.
OCEAN COUNTY
UA
OCEAN COUNTY
UA
HAMILTON
TOWNSHIP WPC
OFFICE
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
Total
Influent
(MGD)
32.314
10.1
24.5
85
24
16
12
18
6.5
6.01
6.65
15.73
8.5
5
30
23
23
17
250
122.12
129.11
61.06
96.09
64.06
60
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
718
224
544
1889
533
356
267
400
144
134
148
350
189
111
667
511
511
378
5556
2714
2869
1357
2135
1424
1333
39
-------
State
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
NEW YORK
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OHIO
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
OREGON
Facility Name
NEW YORK (C)-
PORT RICHMOND
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
CONEY ISLAND
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
OWLS HEAD
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
NEWTON CREEK
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
NORTH RIVER
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
OAKWOOD BEACH
WPCP
NEW YORK (C)-
ROCKAWAY WPCP
DAYTON WWTP &
SEWER SYSTEM
MILL CREEK
DRAINAGE
BASIN/WWTP
LANCASTER
WWTP & SEWER
SYSTEM
PORTSMOUTH
LAWSON RUN
WWTP & SEWERS
ZANESVILLE
WWTP & SEWER
SYSTEM
KELLOGG CREEK
STP
TRI CITY WPCP
GRESHAM STP
TRYON CREEK
STP
ROCK CREEK STP
SALEM WILLOW
LAKE STP
MWMC-
EUGENE/SPRINGF
IELD STP
CORVALLIS STP
GRANTS PASS
STP
ALBANY STP
ST HELENS STP
County
RICHMOND
KINGS
KINGS
KINGS
NEW YORK
RICHMOND
QUEENS
MONTGOMERY
HAMILTON
FAIRFIELD
SCIOTO
MUSKINGUM
CLACKAMAS
CLACKAMAS
MULTNOMAH
CLACKAMAS
WASHINGTON
MARION
LANE
BENTON
JOSEPHINE
LINN
COLUMBIA
Authority Name
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
NYCDEP
CITY OF DAYTON
MSD OF GREATER
CINCINNATI
CITY OF
LANCASTER
CITY OF
PORTSMOUTH
CITY OF
ZANESVILLE
CLACKAMAS CO
SERV DIST 1
WATER
ENVIRONMENT
SERVICES
GRESHAM, CITY
OF
PORTLAND, CITY
OF
CLEAN WATER
SERVICES, INC
SALEM, CITY OF
METROPOLITAN
WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION
CORVALLIS, CITY
OF
GRANTS PASS,
CITYOF
ALBANY, CITY OF
ST HELENS, CITY
OF
Total
Influent
(MGD)
34.03
93.09
87.09
271.26
170
24.02
21.02
72
151
5.52
5
7.75
7.9
7
10.531
6.98
32.02
29.7
24.7
7.75
5.2
5.7
30.7
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
756
2069
1935
6028
3778
534
467
1600
3356
123
111
172
176
156
234
155
712
660
549
172
116
127
682
40
-------
State
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
TEXAS
TEXAS
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Facility Name
PHILADELPHIA
WATER DEPT (NE)
PHILADELPHIA
WATER DEPT (SW)
E NORR PLYM
WHIT STP
MAULDIN RD
PLANT
SOUTHEAST
PLANTS 1 2 .3
PECAN CREEK
WWTP
TEXARKANA
SOUTH REGIONAL
WWTP
RUTLAND WPCF
WESTERN
VIRGINIA WATER
AUTH. WWTP
ATLANTIC WPCF
WEST POINT
WWTP
BUDD INLET STP
CHARLESTON
WWTF
PARKERSBURG
WWTF
County
PHILADELPHIA
PHILADELPHIA
MONTGOMERY
GREENVILLE
LUBBOCK
DENTON
BOWIE
RUTLAND
ROANOKE CITY
VIRGINIA BEACH
KING
THURSTON
KANAWHA
WOOD
Authority Name
PHILADELPHIA
WATER DEPT -
WPC DIVISION
PHILADELPHIA
WATER DEPT
E. NOR./PLY/WHIT
JSA
WCRSA
LUBBOCK, CITY
OF
DENTON
TEXARKANA
RUTLAND, CITY
OF
WESTERN
VIRGINIA WATER
AUTHORITY
HAMPTON ROADS
SAN DIST
MUN OF METRO
SEATTLE
OLYMPIA, CITY OF
CHARLESTON,
CITY OF
PARKERSBURG
SANBD
Total
Influent
(MGD)
196.7
198.5
6.26
29
20.78
13.324
13.63
5.7
40.5
34.65
325
17.9
14
8.812
Potential
Electric
Capacity
(kW)
4371
4411
139
644
462
296
303
127
900
770
7222
398
311
196
41
-------
Appendix B: Anaerobic Digester Design Criteria
The following anaerobic digester design criteria were used to estimate the total wastewater
influent flow rate that a typically sized digester can treat, as well as the biogas generation rate
and the heat load of a typically sized digester. Design parameters were obtained from the
sources listed below.
Mesophilic
System Design Requirements
Reactor Type
Reactor Shape
Organic Load
Percent Solids in Flow
Sludge Density
Flow to Reactor
Flow to Reactor
Flow to Reactor
Reactor Depth
Design Load
Total Reactor Volume
Reactor Area
Reactor Diameter
Retention Time
Influent Temp (Winter)
Air Temp (Winter)
Earth around wall Temp (Winter)
Earth below floor Temp (Winter)
Reactor Temp
Influent Temp (Summer)
Air Temp (Summer)
Earth around wall Temp (Summer)
Earth below floor Temp (Summer)
Sp. Heat sludge
Area walls
Area roof
Area floor
U walls (concrete)
U roof (concrete)
U floor (concrete)
Gas Generation
Gas Heat Content
VS Removal Percent @ 20 days
VS Removed
Gas Generation
Heat Potential of Gas
Gas Generation per Capita
Population Served by POTW
Flow per Capita
Total POTW Flow
Value
Complete Mix
Circular
13730
8
8.5
171625
20191
2699
20
0.25
54920
2746
60
20
50
50
40
40
95
80
80
50
50
1.0
3769.9
2827.4
2827.4
0.119748
0.160251
0.149685
12
600
55
7,552
90,618
54,370,800
1
90,618
100
9.1
Units
Ibs/dayVS
% (w/w)
Ibs/gal
Ibs/day
gal/day
ft3/day
ft
Ibs VS/ft3/day
ft3
ft
ft
days
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
Btu/(lb*deg F)
ft2
ft2
ft2
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
cu ft/lb VS removed
Btu/cu ft
%
Ibs/day
cu ft/day
Btu/day
cu ft/day/person
persons
gal/day/person
MGD
Source
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
Thermophilic
System Design Requirements
Reactor Type
Reactor Shape
Organic Load
Percent Solids in Flow
Sludge Density
Flow to Reactor
Flow to Reactor
Flow to Reactor
Reactor Depth
Design Load
Total Reactor Volume
Reactor Area
Reactor Diameter
Retention Time
Influent Temp (Winter)
Air Temp (Winter)
Earth below floor Temp (Winter)
Reactor Temp
Influent Temp (Summer)
Air Temp (Summer)
Earth below floor Temp (Summer)
Sp. Heat sludge
Area walls
Area roof
Area floor
U walls (concrete)
U roof (concrete)
U floor (concrete)
Gas Generation
Gas Heat Content
VS Removal Percent @ 20 days
VS Removed
Gas Generation
Heat Potential of Gas
Gas Generation per Capita
Population Served by POTW
Flow per Capita
Total POTW Flow
Value
Complete Mix
Circular
13730
8
8.5
171625
20191
2699
20
0.5
27460
1373
42
10
50
50
40
130
80
80
50
1.0
2627.3
1373.3
1373.3
0.119748
0.160251
0.149685
12
600
55
7,552
90,618
54,370,800
1
90,618
100
9.1
Units
Ibs/dayVS
% (w/w)
Ibs/gal
Ibs/day
gal/day
ft3/day
ft
Ibs VS/ft3/day
ft3
ft
ft
days
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
oF
Btu/(lb*deg F)
ft2
ft2
ft2
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
Btu/(hr*ft2*deg. F)
cu ft/lb VS removed
Btu/cu ft
%
Ibs/day
cu ft/day
Btu/day
cu ft/day/person
persons
gal/day/person
MGD
Source
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
Sources:
1. Eckenfelder, Principals of Water Quality Management, 1980.
2. Metcalf and Eddy, Wastewater Engineering and Design, 1991.
3. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (10-State Standards), 2004.
Notes
** Mesophilic digester is below grade (wall heat transfer with ground).
** Thermophilic digester is completely above ground (wall heat transfer with air).
** With no CHP, only the amount of energy needed for digester heat load is used from gas. The rest is flared.
** With CHP applications, all of the gas energy is run thorugh electric generator. The heat needed for the digester heat load is used from the heat recovered,
and the rest is dumped.
42
------- |