Lfgcost Web v3.5 Usersmanual Mar2021

User’s Manual
Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
LFGcost-Web User’s Manual Version 3.5
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Using LFGcost-Web ....................................................................................................................... 2
Summary of Revisions ................................................................................................................ 2
General Instructions and Guidelines ........................................................................................... 2
Inputs........................................................................................................................................... 2
Outputs ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Calculators .................................................................................................................................. 3
Summary Reports........................................................................................................................ 3
Software Requirements ............................................................................................................... 4
Cost Basis.................................................................................................................................... 4
Cost Scope .................................................................................................................................. 4
Cost Uncertainty ......................................................................................................................... 5
Evaluating Economic Benefits and Job Creation........................................................................ 7
Further Assistance ....................................................................................................................... 8
Technical Basis of LFGcost-Web ................................................................................................... 9
INST: General Instructions and Guidelines ............................................................................. 10
INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs...................................................................................................... 11
WASTE: Waste Calculator / Disposal History ........................................................................ 18
REGIONAL PRICING: Regional Electricity Pricing ............................................................. 19
CURVE: Landfill Gas Curve ................................................................................................... 20
AVOIDED CO2 - ELEC: Regional Grid Carbon Dioxide Avoided Emission Factors ........... 21
ENV: Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................. 22
FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations ......................................................................... 25
C&F: Collection and Flaring System....................................................................................... 27
DIR: Direct-Use System .......................................................................................................... 28
BLR: Boiler Retrofit ................................................................................................................ 29
RNG: Renewable Natural Gas Processing Plant ..................................................................... 30
CNG: Onsite CNG Production and Fueling Station ................................................................ 31
TUR: Standard Turbine-Generator Set .................................................................................... 32
ENG: Standard Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set .............................................................. 33
MTUR: Microturbine–Generator Set ....................................................................................... 34
SENG: Small Reciprocating Engine–Generator Set ................................................................ 35
CHPE: CHP Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set .................................................................. 36
CHPT: CHP Turbine-Generator Set ........................................................................................ 37
CHPM: CHP Microturbine-Generator Set ............................................................................... 38
ECN: Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................ 39
BUDGET-ENG: Allocation of Recip. Engine Costs for Economic Benefitsa ........................ 42
BUDGET-DIR: Allocation of Direct-Use Project Costs for Economic Benefitsa................... 44
BUDGET-RNG: Allocation of RNG Costs for Economic Benefitsa ...................................... 46
ECON-BEN SUMMARY: Economic Benefits and Job Creation Summarya ......................... 49
Appendix A: Default Value Documentation.............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B: Common Abbreviations ....................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C: Evaluating Projects with Multiple Equipment and/or Start Dates ....................... C-1
ii
Appendix D: Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects................................................... D-1

Appendix E: Evaluating Boiler Retrofit Projects........................................................................E-1
Appendix F: Economic Multipliers for Economic Benefits and Job Creation Analysis ............. F-1
Appendix G: Ranking Analysis for Economic Multipliers ........................................................ G-1
iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Worksheet Names and Functions in LFGcost-Web ......................................................... 9

Table 2. LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes .................................................... 10
Table D-1. Recommended Default Assumptions for Local Government-Owned Projects ........ D-1
List of Figures
Figure 1. Example of LFG generation, collection and utilization curve in LFGcost-Web .......... 20
Figure C-1. Example of a project with multiple equipment and start dates ............................... C-2
Figure C-1A. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for project
component A ............................................................................................................................... C-3
Figure C-1B. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for project
component B ............................................................................................................................... C-4
Figure C-1C. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for project
component C ............................................................................................................................... C-5
Background on the Model

LFGcost was initially developed in 2002 to help stakeholders estimate the costs of an LFG energy
project. Since then, the U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) has routinely
updated the tool to reflect changes in the LFG energy industry. In 2015, LMOP undertook a peer
review of LFGcost-Web, Version 3.0. For more information on the peer review, see the Emission
Guidelines and Compliance Times for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills rule docket (Docket ID#
EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0451-0210). Based on the results of the peer review as well as other updates,
LMOP revised certain elements of the model, replacing it with LFGcost-Web, Version 3.1 in 2016.
In May 2017 and August 2019, LMOP released minor updates in Versions 3.2 and 3.3,
respectively. LFGcost-Web, Version 3.4, was released in October 2020 and included a significant
update to the underlying capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses for large-scale
renewable natural gas (RNG) pipeline-injection projects.
LFGcost-Web, Version 3.5, was released in March 2021 and includes a new economic impact tool
which can be used to calculate the economic benefits provided by RNG projects.
The model and user’s manual were prepared for LMOP by Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG)
with assistance and data contributions for the model from Tetra Tech SWE; Smith Gardner, Inc.;
Energy Vision; Enerdyne Power Systems, Inc.; The Hunter Group LLC; and CPL Systems, Inc.
iv
Introduction
The Landfill Gas Energy Cost Model, LFGcost-Web, is a software tool developed for LMOP to
conduct initial economic analyses of prospective landfill gas (LFG) energy recovery projects in
the United States. Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered estimates and
should be used for guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment should be conducted
by qualified LFG professionals prior to preparing a system design, initiating construction,
purchasing materials or entering into agreements to provide or purchase energy from an
LFG energy project.
The software was created in Microsoft® Excel to make the computations transparent and to allow
for the model to be efficiently updated as the economics of LFG energy projects mature. This
document describes how to use the LFGcost-Web spreadsheet tool and presents the technical basis
underlying the software methodology.
The various LFG energy project types that can be analyzed in LFGcost-Web include:
 New LFG collection and flaring systems (not expansion of existing systems);
 Direct-use (boiler, greenhouse, etc.);
 Boiler retrofit;
 RNG processing plant;
 Onsite compressed natural gas (CNG) production and fueling station;
 Seven different electricity generation project types:
o Standard turbine-generator sets;
o Standard reciprocating engine-generator sets;
o Microturbine-generator sets;
o Small reciprocating engine-generator sets;
o Combined heat and power (CHP) reciprocating engine-generator sets;
o CHP turbine-generator sets; and
o CHP microturbine-generator sets.
LFGcost-Web is an LFG energy project cost estimating tool developed for EPA’s LMOP.
LFGcost-Web estimates LFG generation rates using a first-order decay equation. This
equation is used to estimate generation potential but cannot be considered an absolute
predictor of the rate of LFG generation. Variations in the rate and types of incoming waste,
site operating conditions and moisture and temperature conditions may provide
substantial variations in the actual rates of generation.
The default inputs and costs estimated by LFGcost-Web are based on typical project designs
and for typical landfill situations. While the model allows a user to adjust certain inputs to
site- and project-specific conditions, the equations within the model are locked to maintain
the integrity of the model. The model attempts to include all equipment, site work, permits,
operating activities and maintenance that would normally be required for constructing and
operating a typical project. However, individual landfills may require unique design
modifications which would add to the cost estimated by LFGcost-Web.
1
Using LFGcost-Web
Summary of Revisions
LFGcost-Web, Version 3.5, replaces Version 3.4. Significant revisions between Version 3.5 and
Version 3.4 of LFGcost-Web included:
 Updating the economic benefits analysis for Reciprocating Engine and Direct-Use
projects and adding an economic benefits analysis for RNG projects.
 Revising the O&M costs for RNG projects to correct for a calculation error.
 Removal of the Leachate Evaporator project type given that the cost basis was outdated.
General Instructions and Guidelines
The first worksheet within LFGcost-Web (see INST worksheet) provides important instructions
on the proper use of LFGcost-Web. These instructions include the size ranges over which
LFGcost-Web is expected to be most accurate for a given project type. Within these size ranges
LFGcost-Web is estimated to have an accuracy of ± 30 to 50 percent. Using LFGcost-Web to
evaluate projects outside of these recommended ranges will likely provide cost estimates with a
greater uncertainty. The INST worksheet also provides definitions of input and output parameters,
outlines the organization of LFGcost-Web and summarizes important notes described below
regarding the model and its functionality.
Detailed information about running the model for unique project scenarios is contained in
Appendices C, D and E. Appendix C provides guidance for evaluating projects with multiple
equipment and/or start dates, Appendix D outlines the suggested inputs for local government-
owned projects and Appendix E explains how to set up and interpret results for boiler retrofit
projects.
Inputs
The second worksheet of LFGcost-Web (see INP-OUT worksheet) is where users enter the
required input data for evaluating an LFG energy project. In this worksheet, the Required User
Inputs table allows users to enter the minimum input parameters required for conducting an
economic analysis. The Optional User Inputs table gives users the option to adjust the default
input parameters used by LFGcost-Web. If these optional input parameters are not known for the
project being evaluated, the default parameters should provide a reasonable economic evaluation
of the project.
Outputs
The INP-OUT worksheet summarizes the results of the economic and environmental analysis
performed by LFGcost-Web in the Outputs table. This table has been arranged so users of
LFGcost-Web are able to change the project design and immediately see the resulting change in
economic analysis, without having to switch to another worksheet in LFGcost-Web. Most users of
LFGcost-Web will not need to look at other worksheets in LFGcost-Web when conducting a
routine economic analysis.
2
Calculators
LFGcost-Web provides two calculators to assist model users. The Waste Acceptance Rate
Calculator in the WASTE worksheet calculates the average annual waste acceptance rate based
on the amount of waste-in-place and the year representing the time required to accumulate this
waste. Model users who do not know the average annual waste acceptance rate for a particular
landfill can use this calculator to estimate this rate.
The Financial Goals Calculator, located below the Outputs table in the INP-OUT worksheet,
calculates the initial product price that would be required for the project to achieve its financial
goals. It is assumed that financial goals are achieved when the internal rate of return (IRR) equals
the discount rate and the net present value is equal to $0. If a given economic analysis does not
achieve its financial goals or greatly exceeds the goals, model users can use this calculator to
determine the initial product price that is required to pay back the investment within the lifetime
of the project.
Model users must select “Enable Macros” or “Enable Content” when prompted (immediately after
opening the file) to allow the LFGcost-Web software to use the embedded macros that control the
operation of the Financial Goals Calculator. Enabling macros is discussed further in the
“Software Requirements” section below. The Financial Goals Calculator can be used ONLY
when macros are enabled and the Solver Add-in has been installed and loaded within Microsoft®
Excel. Please see the instructions below the Calculate Initial Product Price button in the INP-
OUT worksheet to load the Solver Add-in. This functionality is not compatible with Mac
computers.
Summary Reports
The first summary report (see REPORT worksheet) presents input, output and curve information
similar to data found in the INP-OUT and CURVE worksheets. The printout will be labeled with
the landfill name or identifier that has been entered at the top of the INP-OUT worksheet as well
as the file name and current date. The appropriate initial product price needed to achieve financial
goals must be determined for each LFG energy project scenario using the Financial Goals
Calculator in order for the correct financial goal prices to appear in the report.
The second summary report (see RPT-CASHFLOW worksheet) presents a detailed summary of
the project cash flow analysis using data similar to data found in the ECN worksheet. Given the
detailed nature of this spreadsheet, it may be appropriate to include only for certain scenarios.
The third summary report (see ECON-BEN SUMMARY worksheet) presents the regional
economic benefits and job creation estimates for the following three project types: electricity
generation with standard reciprocating engines, direct-use and injection of RNG into the pipeline.
An Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) of the summary reports can be created from the
REPORT, RPT-CASHFLOW and/or ECON-BEN SUMMARY worksheets in order to save or
distribute read-only electronic copies. In order to create a PDF of the reports users must have a
printer driver installed on their computer that has the capability to convert files to this format (for
example, PDF995 or Adobe Acrobat). With this PDF printer driver installed, users can follow the
steps listed below to create a PDF of the summary reports.
1. Select the worksheet tab(s) you are interested in printing.
2. Select Print from the menu.
3
3. Select the PDF printer driver (e.g., PDF995) from the Printer drop-down menu and click
OK.
4. Once the PDF dialog box appears in a new window, users can preview the report and save
it to a file location of their choice. If using Adobe Acrobat, users can also specify which
worksheets to include in the .pdf file.
More information about downloading and purchasing PDF printer drivers can be obtained at
http://www.pdf995.com/ or https://www.adobe.com.
Software Requirements
LFGcost-Web has been specified as a “Read-Only” file. The “Read-Only” restriction is intended
to protect the original file from being accidentally over-written by users. You need to save a copy
of the LFGcost-Web file under a new file name when running each economic analysis.
The LFGcost-Web model was created in Microsoft® Excel and must be operated in a Microsoft®
Excel 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016 or Office 365 environment. Earlier versions of Microsoft® Excel
are not able to properly run the model due to embedded macros. Several functions operate slowly
when running LFGcost-Web on computers that have a processor speed of 333 MHz or less. This
model was tested on a PC. The Solver functionality does not work on a Mac.
Model users must “Enable Macros” or “Enable Content” when prompted (immediately after
opening the file) to allow the LFGcost-Web software to use the embedded macros.
Microsoft® Excel 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016 and Office 365 users must set their Macro Security Level
to “Disable all macros with notification” (menu select Developer…Macro Security). [If the
Developer menu is not displayed in Excel 2007, click the Microsoft Office Button, select Excel
Options and then in the Popular category, under Top options for working with Excel, select Show
Developer tab in the Ribbon. If the Developer menu is not displayed in Excel 2010, 2013, 2016,
Office 365 on the File menu, select Options and then in the Customize Ribbon category,
under Customize the Ribbon, check the Developer box.] Then, upon opening LFGcost-Web, users
must select “Enable this content” from the Security Warning – Options… box that appears beneath
the menu.
Cost Basis
The costs and economic parameters, such as net present value (NPV), are based on actual or
“nominal” rates and include the effects of inflation. For example, if a project was constructed in
2020 and began operation in 2021, then installed capital costs in the year of construction are in
2020 dollars, operating costs for the initial year of operation are in 2021 dollars and NPV at year
of construction is in 2020 dollars. Within the structure of the various cost estimating worksheets
in LFGcost-Web, the costs for any given year in the life of the project are presented in that specific
year’s dollars.
Cost Scope
The cost estimates produced by LFGcost-Web include all direct and indirect costs associated with
the project. In addition to the direct costs for equipment and installation, LFGcost-Web includes
indirect costs associated with:
 Engineering, design and administration;
 Site surveys and preparation;
4
 Permits, right-of-ways and fees; and

 Mobilization/demobilization of construction equipment.
Since these costs are estimated for an average project site in the United States, individual sites will
experience variations to these costs due to unique site conditions.
Cost Uncertainty
The uncertainty in the cost estimates produced by LFGcost-Web is estimated to be + 30 to
50 percent. As detailed in the list below, this uncertainty is a composite of uncertainties related to
LFG generation rates, future economic conditions and unique site characteristics.
The uncertainty of + 30 to 50 percent is estimated based on the following:
 Equipment used in the actual LFG energy project may need to be purchased at a larger size
than what is estimated by LFGcost-Web, because the standard equipment sizes vary from
one manufacturer to another. This may result in an underestimate of the actual costs.
 Unusual site conditions may limit the type of LFG energy project that could be selected or
require additional site preparation and equipment. This may result in an underestimate of
the actual costs.
 Environmental or permitting constraints may lead to higher costs. This can vary from
additional air pollution controls to increased equipment maintenance. This may result in an
underestimate of the actual costs.
 Regional construction cost differences within the United States may result in either an
overestimate or an underestimate of the actual costs, depending on the region where the
landfill is located.
More specifically, the uncertainty of various project components can vary based on site-specific
or project-specific needs. Below is a summary of factors affecting components of gas collection
and control systems, electricity-generating projects, direct-use projects and pipeline-injection
RNG projects:
5
Gas Collection and Control System Components and Cost Factors

Component / Attribute Key Site-Specific Factors
Gas collection wells or connectors • Area and depth of waste
• Spacing of wells or connectors
Gas piping • LFG flow rate
• Length of piping required
Condensation knockout drum • Volume of drum required
Blower • Size of blower required (a function of LFG flow
rate)
Flare • Type of flare (open, ground or elevated)
• Size of flare (a function of LFG flow rate)
Instrumentation and control system • Types of controls required
Electricity-Generating Project Components and Cost Factors

Engine size • Flow rate (gas curve)
• Electricity rate structures
• Minimum electricity generation requirements
(contract obligations)
Capacity to expand • Maximum flow rate
• LFG flow rate over time (gas curve)
Gas compression and treatment • Quality of the LFG (methane content)
equipment • Contaminants (e.g., siloxane, hydrogen sulfide)
Interconnection equipment • Project size
• Local utility requirements and policies
Direct-Use Project Components and Cost Factors

End use of the LFG • Type of equipment (e.g., boiler, process heater, kiln
furnace)
• LFG flow rate over time
• Requirements to modify existing equipment to use
LFG
Gas compression and treatment • Quality of the LFG (methane content)
equipment • Contaminants and moisture removal requirements
• Filtration requirements
Gas pipeline • Length (distance to the end use)
• Obstacles along the pipeline route
• LFG flow rate
Condensate management system • Length of the gas pipeline
6
Pipeline-Injection RNG Project Components and Cost Factors

Gas compression and treatment • Quality of the raw LFG (methane content)
equipment • Flow rate of raw LFG
• Pipeline gas quality specifications
Gas pipeline • Length (distance to the end use)
• Obstacles along the pipeline route
• Location and class designation of pipeline (local
distribution, interstate)
• RNG flow rate and size/type of pipe material
Pipeline interconnect • Whether or not compression is needed for
interconnection to pipeline
• Utility-specific interconnection fees
• Utility-specific gas quality monitoring and testing
parameters and frequency
• Utility-specific requirements for gas odorization
Evaluating Economic Benefits and Job Creation

LFG energy projects generate benefits for the communities and states in which they are located,
as well as for the United States as a whole. These benefits include new jobs and expenditures
directly impacting the local and state-wide economies as a result of the construction and operation
of an LFG energy project. In addition, there are indirect economic benefits when the direct
expenditures for an LFG energy project flow through the economy resulting in increased overall
economic production and economic activity within the local, state and national economies.
While in the construction phase, an LFG energy project provides a one-time boost to the local and
state economies whereas the O&M of the project generates ongoing economic activity throughout
the lifetime of the project. The annual impacts use the estimated expenditures during the first year
of the project’s operation to estimate the annual economic benefits during the O&M phase.
LFGcost-Web allocates the estimated capital and O&M costs for reciprocating engine, direct-use
and RNG projects to various wholesale trade and industrial manufacturing sectors in order to
estimate the regional economic benefits of the project. Here, the “region” is defined to be the state
where the project is constructed and so its output will include any benefit to the local and state
economies resulting from LFG energy project expenditures. The cost of large or specialized
components, or specialized engineering and design labor likely to be manufactured or hired outside
of the state, is not included in the state-wide impacts estimates. A specific description of how
project costs are allocated to each industry multiplier is presented in the BUDGET-RNG,
BUDGET-DIR and BUDGET-ENG sections of this user’s manual.
The model allows the user to select a specific state in the BUDGET-RNG, BUDGET-DIR and
BUDGET-ENG worksheets to represent where the project is constructed. Alternatively, if you
leave the state blank and want to know the general economic benefits resulting from an LFG energy
project, regardless of the state, you can review the outputs provided for states representing the
median (Wisconsin) and upper (Arizona) and lower (West Virginia) quartiles for both employment
7
and economic output in the ECON-BEN SUMMARY sheet. A summary of the multipliers and
how the multipliers were ranked according to their employment and economic output is shown in
Appendices F and G.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) does not endorse any resulting estimates and/or
conclusions about the economic impact of a proposed change on an area.
Further Assistance
If you would like assistance using LFGcost-Web, please contact LMOP through the website at
https://www.epa.gov/lmop/forms/contact-us-about-landfill-methane-outreach-program.
Analyses performed using LFGcost-Web are considered estimates and should be used for
guidance only. A detailed final feasibility assessment should be conducted by qualified LFG
professionals prior to preparing a system design, initiating construction, purchasing
materials or entering into agreements to provide or purchase energy from an LFG energy
project.
8
Technical Basis of LFGcost-Web

Table 1 lists the worksheets that comprise the LFGcost-Web spreadsheet model. The following
sections document the design and technical basis of the contents of these worksheets.
Table 1. Worksheet Names and Functions in LFGcost-Web
Worksheet Name Function

INST General instructions and guidelines
INP-OUT Required and optional user inputs and model output results
WASTE Optional user inputs for annual waste acceptance data
REGIONAL PRICING Regional power grid price reference
REPORT Summary report of user inputs, model outputs and curve
RPT-CASHFLOW Detailed summary of 15-year cash flow analysis
CURVE Landfill gas generation, collection and utilization curve
AVOIDED CO2-
ELEC Regional power grid emission factors reference
ENV Environmental benefits calculations
FLOW Landfill gas generation, collection and utilization calculations
C&F Design and costing of new collection and flaring system
DIR Design and costing of direct-use of landfill gas
BLR Design and costing of boiler retrofit
RNG Design and costing of RNG processing plant
CNG Design and costing of onsite CNG production and fueling station
TUR Design and costing of standard turbine-generator set
ENG Design and costing of standard reciprocating engine-generator set
MTUR Design and costing of microturbine-generator set
SENG Design and costing of small reciprocating engine-generator set
CHPE Design and costing of CHP reciprocating engine-generator set
CHPT Design and costing of CHP turbine-generator set
CHPM Design and costing of CHP microturbine-generator set
ECN Economic analysis (cash flow) calculations
BUDGET-ENG Allocates recip. engine project costs to calculate economic benefits
BUDGET-DIR Allocates direct-use project costs to calculate economic benefits
BUDGET-RNG Allocates RNG project costs to calculate economic benefits
ECON-BEN
SUMMARY Summary of economic benefits and job creation analysis
9
INST: General Instructions and Guidelines

 Glossary of Input and Output Parameters – The definitions contained within these two tables
in the model are provided in the “INP-OUT: Inputs/Outputs” section below.
 LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes – This table outlines the 11 LFG energy
project types included in LFGcost-Web, as shown in Table 2 below. In addition, project sizes
are recommended for each type of LFG energy project, with units varying by project type as
follows:
− Direct-use, boiler retrofit, RNG and CNG projects - cubic feet per minute (ft3/min) of LFG.
− Projects generating electricity (engines, turbines and microturbines) - amount of electricity
generated in kilowatts (kW) or megawatts (MW).
LFGcost-Web is designed to accommodate the recommended size ranges given for each type of LFG
energy project. Model output results may not be valid for project sizes outside of the recommended
project size ranges.
 Workbook Design – This table summarizes the name and function for each of the
27 worksheets contained in LFGcost-Web, as shown in Table 1 above.
 Important Notes – The items listed under Important Notes in the model are described in more
detail in the “Using LFGcost-Web” section above.
Table 2. LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes
LFG Energy Project Type Recommended Project Size

Direct-use (Boiler, Greenhouse, etc.) 400 to 3,000 ft3/min LFG
Boiler Retrofit Less than or equal to 3,000 ft3/min LFG
RNG Processing Plant 1,000 to 6,000 ft3/min LFG
Onsite CNG Production and Fueling Station 50 to 600 ft3/min LFG
Standard Turbine-Generator Sets Greater than 3 MW
Standard Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 800 kW and greater
Microturbine-Generator Sets 30 to 750 kW
Small Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 100 kW to 1 MW
CHP Reciprocating Engine-Generator Sets 800 kW and greater
CHP Turbine-Generator Sets Greater than 3 MW
CHP Microturbine-Generator Sets 30 to 300 kW
10
INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

 Required User Inputs – These inputs MUST be entered to properly characterize the landfill and
project parameters. Defaults are not provided for the required inputs because they are unique for
each landfill and project.
− Year landfill opened – Four-digit year that the landfill opened or is planning to open.
− Year of landfill closure – Four-digit year that the landfill closed or is expected to close.
− Area of LFG wellfield to supply project – Acreage of the landfill that contains waste and generates
LFG to be collected and utilized by the LFG energy project. The model assumes one well per acre to
determine vertical gas well, wellhead, pipe gathering system and other costs for the collection and
flaring system. Acreage should represent area of landfill for gas collection to feed project, not total
landfill area. Gas collection and flaring cost estimates represent a complete new system (costs for
expansion of an existing system will be higher); inaccurate cost estimates may result for smaller landfill
areas (<10 acres) due to economic infeasibility of designing and installing an entire new collection and
flaring system.
− Method for entering waste acceptance data – Unless a project size is selected to be ‘Defined by user’
in the optional user inputs section, the user must choose one of the three methods listed to represent
average or actual tonnage of municipal solid waste (MSW) accepted each year the landfill is open. The
waste data are used to calculate flow rate for projects that are not user-specified sizes.
- Average annual waste acceptance rate – Average annual tons of MSW accepted each year the
landfill is open. This method should be used if actual yearly waste acceptance data are unknown.
- Waste acceptance rate calculator – see “WASTE: Waste Calculator/Disposal History” section
below.
- Annual waste disposal history – see “WASTE: Waste Calculator/Disposal History” section below.
− LFG energy project type – Pick list to choose one of the 11 LFG energy project types you want to
analyze. Table 2 (above) contains a list of project types to use for selecting the project type appropriate
for the size of your project.
− Will LFG energy project cost include collection and flaring costs? – Determines if costs for new
vertical well collection and flaring equipment (not expansion of existing equipment) are included in
the total LFG energy project cost.
- Select Y (for yes) if the landfill does NOT have collection and flaring equipment installed and you
want to include collection and flaring costs in the total project cost.
- Select N (for no) if the landfill already contains a collection and flaring system or you do not want
to include collection and flaring costs in the total project cost.
Collection and flaring costs cannot be included if boiler retrofit costs are not combined with direct-use
project costs.
− For Boiler Retrofits: Will boiler retrofit costs be combined with direct-use project costs? –
Determines if direct-use project costs are included in the total LFG energy project cost.
- Select Y (for yes) if boiler retrofit costs are to be combined with other direct-use project costs (i.e.,
developer incurs all costs).
- Select N (for no) if boiler retrofit costs are kept separate (i.e., end user incurs boiler retrofit costs
only).
This input is discussed in further detail in Appendix E (Evaluating Boiler Retrofit Projects). Collection
and flaring costs cannot be included if N is entered or input cell is left blank.
− For Boiler Retrofits: Distance between end user’s property boundary and boiler – Number of
miles between the end user’s property boundary and the boiler.
11

Required User Inputs (continued)
− For Direct-use, RNG and CHP projects: Distance between landfill and end use, pipeline or CHP
unit
- For direct-use projects, the number of miles between the landfill and the end user of the LFG. When
costs are combined for direct-use and boiler retrofit projects, this input is the distance from the landfill
to the end user’s property boundary.
- For RNG projects, the number of miles between the landfill and the natural gas pipeline or the end
user of the RNG.
- For CHP projects, the number of miles between the landfill and the CHP engine, turbine or
microturbine.
To maintain integrity of the cost estimates, this distance should be limited to 10 miles or less.
− For CHP projects: Distance between CHP unit and hot water/steam user – Number of miles between
the CHP engine, turbine or microturbine and the end user of the hot water/steam. To maintain integrity of
the cost estimates, this distance should be limited to 1 mile or less. The CHP unit and the hot water/steam
user are typically co-located, which would be a distance of zero (0) miles.
− Year LFG energy project begins operation – Four-digit year that the LFG energy project installation
will be complete and begin operating. The model requires the year to be between 2010 and 2025.
− Will model calculate avoided CO2 from energy generation at electricity projects? – Determines if
avoided CO2 emissions will be calculated by the model for electricity projects.
- Select Y (for yes) if you prefer the model to calculate these emissions. Then go to the AVOIDED
CO2- ELEC worksheet to select the appropriate grid factor, using AEO 2020 data, or follow the
instructions in the AVOIDED CO2- ELEC worksheet to select the grid factor for another year of AEO
data.
- Select N (for no) if you do not want to calculate the avoided emissions for electricity projects.
Note: avoided emissions for non-electricity generating projects will be calculated, regardless of selection.
 Optional User Inputs – These inputs are initially set to the suggested defaults provided. To edit the
optional inputs, enter the requested input in the Optional User Input Data column. (Note: Data in
the Suggested Default Data column are protected and cannot be edited.)
− LFG energy project size – Pick list to choose LFG flow rate over the project life used to design the LFG
energy project – Minimum, Average, Maximum or Defined by user. When ‘Defined by user’ is selected,
an LFG design flow rate MUST be entered in the input box below the LFG energy project size selection.
The default is for minimum LFG generation. However, the optimum project size will vary for different
project types. You are encouraged to try multiple size options to determine the optimum size for your
project conditions.
- For direct-use projects, the optimum size is often based on the maximum gas flow.
- The optimum size for electricity generation projects (including CHP) is often based on the average
flow.
− For user-defined project size only: Design flow rate – The design LFG flow rate, in cubic feet per
minute, entered for projects sized manually by users. ‘Defined by user’ MUST be selected for LFG energy
project size to indicate the project size is user-defined. A user-defined project size can be entered without
waste data. Since waste data are used to calculate flow rate, you will receive a warning message indicating
that the user-defined project size exceeds the maximum calculated LFG flow rate in cell AG28 of the
FLOW worksheet. Further, if you are using waste data to estimate flow rate, this warning message is
indicating that the landfill may not have enough gas available for this project.
12

Optional User Inputs (continued)
− Methane generation rate constant, k – The methane generation constant (k) used to determine the
amount of LFG generated generally varies depending on the climate of the area surrounding the landfill.
There are three k values to choose from: 0.04 per year for areas that receive 25 inches or more of rain
annually; 0.02 per year for drier (arid) areas that receive less than 25 inches of rain annually; or 0.1 per
year for bioreactors. The suggested default is 0.04 per year for typical climates. The k value entered should
equal one of these suggested values unless site-specific data are available. k values are discussed further
in the “FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations” section below.
− Potential methane generation capacity of waste, LO – The potential methane generation capacity of the
waste (LO) in cubic feet per ton. This parameter primarily depends on the type of waste in the landfill. The
default of 3,204 cubic feet per ton should be used to represent MSW unless site-specific data are available.
LO values are discussed further in the “FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations” section below.
− Methane content of landfill gas – The methane content of LFG generally ranges between 45 and
60 percent. This parameter is used to calculate environmental benefits and normalize LFG production.
The default of 50 percent should be used unless site-specific data are available.
− Average depth of landfill waste – The average depth of the landfill waste (in feet) is used to estimate
costs of the vertical gas wells for the new collection and flaring system (not expansion of existing system).
The suggested default is 65 feet, but this should be changed if site-specific average waste depth is known
for the landfill.
− Landfill gas collection efficiency – The equipment used to collect LFG normally operates at efficiencies
between 70 and 95 percent. The suggested default is 85 percent.
− Utilization of CHP hot water/steam potential – For CHP projects, the percent of hot water/steam used
by the end user, out of the potential hot water/steam generated by the CHP unit. The range for the
utilization is between 0 and 100 percent. The suggested default is 100 percent.
− Expected LFG energy project lifetime – Estimated number of years that the LFG energy project will be
operating. The default project lifetime is 15 years, but the model sets the lifetime to 10 years for
microturbines (non-CHP applications). The project lifetime for all other project types should be greater
than or equal to 10 years but cannot exceed 15 years.
Generally, 15 years is considered the average lifetime for the equipment installed in LFG energy projects
and thus, the longest period over which to evaluate project economics. In addition, LFGcost-Web uses the
project lifetime for determining the tax-based capital depreciation rate. In Section 179 of the 2001 Federal
Tax Code, the IRS recommends using 15 years for the depreciation of electricity and fuel pipeline projects
that are analogous to LFG energy projects. For these reasons, the default project lifetime is 15 years and
it is recommended not to use a value of less than 10 years or more than 15 years. However, microturbine
projects (non-CHP applications) should be set to a project lifetime of 10 years to match their expected life
of 10 years, as observed by manufacturers of LFG microturbines.
− Operating schedule – LFG may be used seasonally (e.g., for space heating six months out of the year).
This parameter allows users to specify how many hours of the day, days of the week and weeks of the
year the project will be requiring LFG. The suggested defaults are 24 hours per day, 7 days per week and
52.14 weeks per year to result in the maximum operating schedule of 8,760 hours per year.
13

− Global warming potential (GWP) of methane – The suggested default GWP of methane is 25 to reflect
the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This
parameter is used to calculate environmental benefits and direct methane reductions for greenhouse gas
reduction credits. This default is consistent with the use of IPCC AR4 GWP values by the annual national
U.S. GHG inventory submitted to the UNFCCC and emissions reported by large facilities and industrial
suppliers to EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Users may enter an alternate GWP value, if
desired.
− Will cost of metering station that serves as custody transfer point be borne by end user? – For boiler
retrofit projects, determines if the cost to install a metering station will be incurred by the end user
because it will serve as a custody transfer point.
− Select Y (for yes) if metering station costs will be included.
− Select N (for no) if metering station costs will not be included.
The suggested default is Y, to include metering station costs.
− Loan lifetime – The period over which the project loan will be repaid. The loan lifetime is assumed to
begin during the year of project design and construction. It is common for project loan periods to be
limited to half or two-thirds of the equipment lifetime to assure that the loan is repaid before the project
ends. Since much of the equipment used in LFG energy projects has a projected lifetime of 15 years, the
default loan lifetime is set to 10 years. However, loan lifetime should not exceed the project lifetime,
because it is not practical to assume that project financing would exceed the expected life of the project
equipment and revenues. See Appendix A for additional information.
− Interest rate – The actual or “nominal” interest rate of the project loan. The suggested default is 6 percent
based on recent Moody Corporate AAA and BAA bond rates published by the Federal Reserve. See
Appendix A for additional information.
− General inflation rate – The inflation rate applied to O&M costs. The suggested default is 2.5 percent
based on recent Consumer Price Indexes. See Appendix A for additional information.
− Equipment inflation rate – The inflation rate applied to project equipment (capital) costs. The suggested
default is 2 percent based on recent plant construction cost indices. See Appendix A for additional
information.
− Marginal tax rate – The tax rate used to estimate tax payments; this item is not applicable to projects
funded and developed by local governments. For publicly owned projects, see Appendix D (Evaluating
Local Government-Owned Projects). The suggested default tax rate is 35 percent for projects funded and
developed by private entities, which is based on recent LFG energy project experience with commercial
projects. See Appendix A for additional information.
− Discount rate – The discount rate, or hurdle rate, is used to determine the present value of future cash
flows. This rate represents the internal time-value of money (on an actual or “nominal” basis) used by
companies to evaluate projects. The suggested default is 8 percent based on recent LFG energy project
experience with commercial projects. See Appendix A for additional information.
− Down payment – The down payment on the project loan. The suggested default is 20 percent based on
recent LFG energy project experience with commercial projects. See Appendix A for additional
information.
14

− Energy tax credits – Energy tax credits may be available for LFG utilization projects in select areas.
These energy tax credits include LFG or RNG utilization ($/million Btu) and electricity generation
($/kWh). Municipalities installing LFG energy projects are generally tax exempt and are not directly
eligible for tax credits. In these instances, the values for the tax credits should be entered as zero.
However, a municipality may arrange to sell the tax credits to a third party. In this situation, only the
third-party payment to the municipality, provided in return for the tax credit, should be entered as energy
tax credits in LFGcost-Web. All of the default values are initialized to zero.
− Direct credits – Other credits can be evaluated for special situations. All of the default values are
initialized to zero.
- Greenhouse gas reduction credit ($/MTCO2E) – for direct methane reductions from the landfill and
avoided carbon dioxide generated from displacing fossil fuels (in units of $ per metric ton of carbon
dioxide equivalents). Direct methane reductions (i.e., methane collected and either flared or utilized
in an LFG energy project) may contribute to this credit if the landfill is not required to collect and
combust LFG (e.g., complying with the NSPS/EG). You have the option of including (Y for yes) or
excluding (N for No) direct methane reductions. The suggested default is Y, to include direct methane
reductions.
- Renewable electricity credit ($/kWh) – represents tradable renewable certificates (TRCs) or “green
tags” that are created when a renewable energy facility generates electricity (in units of $ per
kilowatt-hour). Each unique certificate represents all the environmental benefits of a specific quantity
of renewable electricity generation, namely the benefits received when fossil fuels are displaced.
- Renewable fuel credit ($/GGE) – for alternative vehicle fuel (CNG and RNG) projects, including
projects with Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) where a gallon of renewable fuel produced
in or imported into the United States receives a credit. A typical arrangement is that the RNG project
developer will retain approximately 70 percent of the renewable fuel credit while the remainder of
the credit goes to the gas marketer, the station owner or the fleet. Since pricing for RINs is based on
ethanol gallon equivalents, to calculate the price of the credit on a $/GGE basis, multiply the credit
price by the ratio of the heating value of gasoline to ethanol (115,400 Btu/gal gasoline divided by
75,700 Btu/gal of ethanol), or a factor of 1.52.
- Construction grant ($) – a government cash grant for project capital costs.
− Royalty payment for landfill gas utilization – Project developers that do not own the LFG may be
required to pay the landfill owner a royalty for the amount of gas utilized (in units of $ per million Btu).
The default is initialized to zero.
− Initial year product price – Initial year product prices are suggested for the sale of energy from the
project. These prices represent the initial year of project operation. See Appendix A for additional
information and documentation of the review of current product prices used to determine the following
suggested default prices:
- Landfill gas production – $1.74/million Btu
- Electricity generation – $0.057/kWh
- CHP hot water/steam production – $3.11/million Btu
- RNG production – $1.74/million Btu
- CNG production – $2.14/gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) [to determine $/diesel gallon equivalent
(DGE), divide $/GGE by 0.866]
15

− Annual product price escalation rate – The initial year product price will be escalated by this annual
value in the future years of the project. The suggested default for electricity prices is -1.2 percent, for
CNG prices is -2.2 percent and for direct-use or RNG prices is 1.0 percent. This rate represents an
escalation in real prices as discussed in Appendix A.
− Electricity purchase price for projects NOT generating electricity – The price for electricity
purchased by projects that do not generate their own electricity, such as direct-use projects. The suggested
default is $0.088 per kWh, as discussed in Appendix A.
− Annual electricity purchase price escalation rate – The annual escalation rate applied to purchased
electricity. The suggested default is 1.5 percent, as discussed in Appendix A.
− RNG pipeline interconnection fee – The fees associated with interconnecting a project with an
established pipeline. Since this fee varies widely and is utility-specific, there is no default value. Users
may enter a fee if desired for their project. The value entered should reflect the fee anticipated in the first
year the project will operate.
− RNG pipeline injection fee – This is a necessary fee for most projects, but it can vary widely depending
on the pipeline injection location. The local utility may offer a more specific number. The suggested
default is $2.50 per MMBtu based on typical fees paid from recent LFG energy contracts in the range of
$2 to $3 per MMBtu.
− RNG technology methane capture rate – The default for this input is set to 90 percent, but this rate can
vary significantly between technology types and system-specific design goals. LMOP’s RNG Flow Rate
Estimation Tool offers the following values:
- 65 to 80% for single pass membrane technology
- 96 to 99% for multiple pass membrane technology
- 95 to 98% for Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) systems
- 97 to 99% for solvent scrubbing processes with physical solvents
- Over 99% for solvent scrubbing processes with amine solvents
- Over 99% for water scrubbing systems
− RNG product use – The end use of the RNG product. If Vehicle Fuel is chosen, this allows for a
renewable fuel credit to be applied by the user, if applicable. This user selection also affects how avoided
carbon dioxide emissions are calculated, as natural gas parameters are used to calculate the offsets for
Direct Thermal Use applications while diesel parameters are used for Vehicle Fuel.
 Outputs – Results of the economic analysis and environmental benefits. Economic outputs are
discussed further in the “ECN: Economic Analysis” section below.
Economic Analysis (Individual project costs can vary by +30-50% due to situational factors):
− Design project size –The amount of LFG (in cubic feet per minute) used to determine the design flow
rate of the project.
− Generating capacity for projects generating electricity – For electricity generation projects, the
generation capacity (in kilowatts) of the power producing equipment.
− Average project size for projects NOT generating electricity – For direct-use, boiler retrofit, RNG
and CNG projects, average project size represents the average amount of actual LFG utilized over the
lifetime of the LFG energy project. This output is presented in units of million cubic feet per year and
cubic feet per minute.
− Average project size for projects generating electricity – For engine, turbine, microturbine and CHP
projects, average project size represents average annual kilowatt-hours of electricity generated (net).
− Average project size for CHP projects producing hot water/steam – For CHP projects, average
project size represents the average annual amount of hot water/steam produced in units of million Btu
per year.
16

Outputs: Economic Analysis (continued)
− Total installed capital cost for year of construction – Total capital cost of the installed LFG energy
project.
− Annual costs for initial year of operation – Equipment operating and maintenance (O&M) cost for the
initial year of the LFG energy project.
− Internal rate of return – Return on investment based on the total revenue from the project and
construction grants, minus down payment (i.e., cash flow). More simply, the rate that balances the overall
costs of the project with the revenue earned over the lifetime of the project such that the net present value
of the investment is equal to zero.
− Net present value at year of construction – First year monetary value that is equivalent to the various
cash flows, based on the discount rate (which is defaulted to 8 percent, as discussed in Appendix A). In
other words, the NPV is calculated as the present value of a stream of current and future benefits minus
the present value of a stream of current and future costs.
− Years to breakeven – Years required for the total present value to exceed zero. An output of “None”
means there is no return on investment or no payback in the LFG energy project lifetime.
Environmental Benefits:
− Total lifetime amount of methane collected and destroyed – Total million cubic feet of methane that
is collected and either destroyed by the flare (assuming 100 percent destruction efficiency) or utilized by
the LFG energy project.
− Average annual amount of methane collected and destroyed – Average annual million cubic feet of
methane that is collected and either destroyed by the flare (assuming 100 percent destruction efficiency)
or utilized by the LFG energy project on a yearly basis.
− GHG value of total lifetime amount of methane utilized in energy project* – Total million metric
tons of methane (represented by carbon dioxide equivalents, or MMTCO2E) that is utilized by the LFG
energy project. This output takes into account the operating schedule and gross capacity factor of the
project. Flared gas is not included in this value.
− GHG value of average annual amount of methane utilized in energy project* – Average annual
million metric tons of methane (represented by carbon dioxide equivalents per year, or MMTCO2E per
year) that is utilized by the LFG energy project on a yearly basis. This output takes into account the
operating schedule and gross capacity factor of the project. Flared gas is not included in this value.
− Total lifetime carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation* – Total emissions that are avoided
because LFG is utilized instead of combusting fossil fuels. This output is presented in units of million
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. For direct-use, boiler retrofit and RNG projects for direct
thermal use, LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of natural gas. For CNG or RNG vehicle fuel
projects, LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of diesel fuel. For projects that generate electricity
(turbines, engines and microturbines), electricity produced is assumed to offset the emissions from the
local electricity market module region where the project is located. See the Avoided CO2- ELEC page
for additional discussion on how to estimate these values.
− Average annual carbon dioxide from avoided energy generation* – Average annual emissions that
are avoided because LFG is utilized instead of combusting fossil fuels. This output is presented in units
of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year. For direct-use, boiler retrofit and RNG for
direct thermal use projects, LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of natural gas. For CNG or RNG
vehicle fuel projects, LFG is assumed to offset the combustion of diesel fuel. For projects that generate
electricity (turbines, engines and microturbines), electricity produced is assumed to offset the emissions
from the local electricity market module region where the project is located. See the Avoided CO2- ELEC
page for additional discussion on how to estimate these values.
*Note: These output values are presented in scientific notation. This format is used because these outputs are
smaller values, typically less than 0.1. An output value of 1.23E-02 is equivalent to 1.23 x 10-2 or 0.0123.
17
WASTE: Waste Calculator / Disposal History

 Waste Acceptance Rate Calculator – calculates the average annual waste acceptance rate in tons
per year based upon the amount of waste-in-place and the year representing the time required to
accumulate this amount of MSW. This calculator is meant to be used when average or year-to-
year annual acceptance rates are unknown.
− Waste-in-place – total tons of MSW accepted and placed in the landfill.
− Year representing waste-in-place – four-digit year that corresponds to the waste-in-place tonnage.
- OR -
 Annual Waste Disposal History – this table allows users to enter yearly waste acceptance rate
data in tons per year for up to 75 years. The waste disposal history should be used only when
year-to-year waste acceptance is known for each year that the landfill operates. In other words,
the annual waste acceptance column must be completed for all years beginning with the landfill
open year and ending with the landfill closure year. The Year and Waste-In-Place columns
within the table are protected and cannot be edited.
− Year – four-digit year with Year 0 being the open year of the landfill.
− Annual waste acceptance – tons of MSW accepted per year for the corresponding year.
− Waste-in-place – a cumulative total of the tonnage of MSW accepted for previous years.
18
REGIONAL PRICING: Regional Electricity Pricing

 A lookup table for 2021 electricity prices for each electricity market module is available for
users that want to reference a more regional price basis for selling LFG electricity or purchasing
electricity to run a gas collection and control system. These reference prices can be used to
replace the national average default values in cell D58 or cell D63 of the INP-OUT worksheet.
 The basis of the prices in the lookup table is the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 published by the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
19
CURVE: Landfill Gas Curve

 The graph presented on the CURVE worksheet displays the LFG generation, collection and
utilization in average standard cubic feet per minute from the year the project begins
operations to 25 years beyond start-up.
− The LFG generation curve is represented by a thick solid line and shows the estimated amount
of gas that the landfill is capable of producing. The gas generation does not take into account the
fact that not all of the gas is recoverable.
− The LFG collection curve is represented by a thin solid line and provides an estimate for the
amount of gas collected. The gas collection rate is estimated by multiplying the gas generation
rate by the collection efficiency. For more information about collection efficiency, please see
the “INP-OUT: Inputs/Outputs” section above.
− The LFG utilization curve is shown as a dashed line and represents the amount of gas utilized
by the project for the years the project is operating. Collection efficiency, project size, operating
schedule, gross capacity factor and parasitic loss efficiency are taken into account when
calculating the LFG utilization. An example of the LFG generation, collection and utilization
curve is shown in Figure 1 for a 15-year project beginning operation in 2015.
Figure 1. Example of LFG generation, collection and utilization curve in LFGcost-

Web
20
AVOIDED CO2 - ELEC: Regional Grid Carbon Dioxide Avoided Emission

Factors
 A lookup table for 2019 through 2029 projected CO2 emission factors for each electricity market
module is available for users that want to estimate avoided CO2 emissions from an LFG
electricity generating project. A user must select the factor of interest and enter it in cell C10 of
the ENV worksheet. In addition, the user must indicate “Y” in cell C20 of the INP-OUT
worksheet to indicate a preference to estimate avoided CO2 emissions.
 The basis of the factors in the lookup table is the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 published by
EIA.
 Below the lookup table is a hyperlink to the generic Annual Energy Outlook website and
instructions to allow users to re-calculate avoided CO2 emission factors as new datasets are
released by EIA.
21
ENV: Environmental Benefits

 Environmental benefits are determined for each year of the LFG energy project. The benefits
are calculated separately for projects that DO NOT generate electricity and projects that DO
generate electricity. The four primary calculations that occur for each type of project are
listed below:
− Methane collected and destroyed – total annual amount of methane (in cubic feet per year,
ft3/yr) that is collected and either destroyed by the flare or utilized by the LFG energy project.
 Methane collected   Annual gas 

     % methane 
 and destroyed  =  collection  *  
     in LFG 
 ( ft 3 / yr ) 3
  ( ft / yr ) 
− Direct methane reduced – total annual amount of methane (in million metric tons carbon
dioxide equivalents per year, MMTCO2E/yr) that is collected and either destroyed by the flare
or utilized by the LFG energy project.
 Direct methane   Methane collected 

     0.0423 lbs methane   short ton 
 reduced  =  and destroyed  *  3
 *  
 ( MMTCO E / yr )     ft methane   2, 000 lbs 
 2   ( ft 3 / yr ) 
 0.9072 MT   GWP of   MMT 
*   *   *  6 
 short ton   methane   10 MT 
− Methane utilized by project – annual million metric tons of methane (in MMTCO2E/yr) that
is utilized by the LFG energy project.
 Actual gas 
 Methane utilized     % methane   0.0423 lbs methane   short ton 
  =  utilization  *   *   *  
 ( MMTCO2 E / yr )   in LFG 2, 000
3
3     ft methane   lbs 
 ( ft / yr ) 
 0.9072 MT   GWP of   MMT 
*   *   *  6 
 short ton   methane   10 MT 
22

Environmental Benefits (continued)
− Avoided carbon dioxide emissions – annual carbon dioxide emissions avoided because LFG is
utilized instead of combusting fossil fuels (MMTCO2E/yr).
- For direct-use, boiler retrofit and RNG for direct thermal use projects, carbon dioxide emissions
typically offset the combustion of natural gas. The emission factor of 0.12037 pounds carbon
dioxide per cubic foot natural gas (conversion from kg CO2 per million Btu) is referenced in
Table C-1 of “2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule” (Nov. 2013),
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-29/pdf/2013-27996.pdf.
- For CNG or RNG vehicle fuel projects, carbon dioxide emissions typically offset the
combustion of diesel fuel. The emission factor of 161 pounds carbon dioxide per million Btu
(conversion from kg CO2 per million Btu for Distillate Fuel Oil) is referenced in Table C-1 of
“2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule” (Nov. 2013),
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-11-29/pdf/2013-27996.pdf.
- For projects that generate electricity (turbines, engines and microturbines, including CHP),
carbon dioxide emissions offset the combustion of fossil fuels. The emission factor will vary
by region in which the project is located. The AVOIDED CO2- ELEC worksheet contains the
grid-specific emission factors, in units of pounds carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour, for 2019
through 2029, based on the AEO 2020. The user must select the appropriate factor for the
model to compute an estimate. CHP avoided carbon dioxide emissions are determined using
the same natural gas emission factor as direct-use projects, as described above.
Direct-use and boiler retrofit projects:
 Direct - use avoided 

   Actual gas 
 carbon dioxide     % CH 4   1,012 Btu   ft 3 natural gas 
=  utilizatio n  *  * * 
 emissions 
   in LFG   ft 3 methane   1,050 Btu 
  3
 ( MMTCO E / yr )   ( ft / yr ) 
 2 
 0.12037 lbs CO2   short ton   0.9072 MT   MMT 
*  3  *   *   *  6 
 ft natural gas   2,000 lbs   short ton   10 MT 
RNG projects with direct thermal product use:

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 1,012 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 % 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶4
� � = � 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 � ∗ � �∗� 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �∗� 3 �
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3 ⁄𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (%)
(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2 𝐸𝐸 ⁄𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 )
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 0.12037 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.9072 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
∗� �∗� 3 �∗� �∗� �∗� 6 �
1,050 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 2,000 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 10 𝑀𝑀𝑇𝑇
23

Environmental Benefits (continued)
RNG projects with vehicle fuel product use the following, assuming an offset of diesel vehicle fuel:
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 1,012 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 % 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶4
� � = � 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 � ∗ � �∗� 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 �∗� 3 �
𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3 ⁄𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (%)
(𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2 𝐸𝐸 ⁄𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 )
161 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶2 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 0.9072 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
∗� �∗� �∗� �∗� �∗� 6 �
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 106 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 2,000 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 10 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
CNG projects:
 CNG avoided 
   Actual gas 
 carbon dioxide     % CH 4   65% Conversion Efficiency LFG CH 4  1,012 Btu 
=  utilization  *  *  3 
 emissions 
   in LFG   CNG CH 4   ft methane 
  3
 ( MMTCO E / yr )   ( ft / yr ) 
 2 
 161 lbs CO2   millionBtu   short ton   0.9072 MT   MMT 
* *  *   *   *  6 
 millionBtu   10 Btu   2,000 lbs   short ton   10 MT 
6
Non-CHP electricity generation projects:
 Electricity generation 
   Net electricity 
 avoided carbon   grid − specific lbs CO2     short ton 
 dioxide emissions  =   *  produced  *  
 kWh     2,000 lbs 
   (kWh / yr ) 
 ( MMTCO E / yr ) 
 2 
 0.9072 MT   MMT 
*   *  6 
 short ton   10 MT 
CHP electricity generation projects:

  Net electricity  
 CHP    grid − specific lbs CO2     short ton  
    *  produced  *  
 avoided carbon    kWh     2,000 lbs  
 dioxide emissions  =   (kWh / yr )  +
    0.9072 MT   MMT  
 ( MMTCO E / yr )   *   *   
 2      10 6 MT  
  short ton    
  Hot water/steam produced   0.12037 lbs CO2   short ton  0.9072 MT   MMT  
  *  3  *    *  6  * 
  (million Btu/yr)   ft (natural gas )   2,000lbs  short ton   10 MT  
 
  1   ft 3 natural gas   10 6 Btu  
  0.80(efficiency of hot water/steam boiler )  *  1,050 Btu  *  million Btu 
  

      
24
FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations

 The first-order decay equation is commonly used to estimate LFG generation from MSW
landfills. LFG production is normalized for actual methane content entered in the Optional
User Inputs table of the INP-OUT worksheet. The LFG generation equations used in LFGcost-
Web vary slightly depending on the type of waste acceptance rate data used (see the “INP-
OUT: Inputs/Outputs” section above). The two first-order decay equations used in LFGcost-
Web to determine LFG generation are as follows:
First-Order Decay Equation for Average Annual Waste Acceptance Rate:
Qt = (1/(CH4/100)) * Lo * R * [e(-kc) – e(-kt)]
Where,
Qt = landfill gas generation rate at time t (ft3/year)
CH4 = methane content of landfill gas (%)
Lo = potential methane generation capacity of waste (ft3/ton)
R = average annual waste acceptance rate during active life (tons)
k = methane generation rate constant (1/year)
c = time since landfill closure (years)
t = time since the initial waste placement (years)
First-Order Decay Equation for Waste Disposal History (year-to-year acceptance rate):
Qt = Σi [(1/(CH4/100)) * k * Lo * Mi * e(-kti)]
Where,
Qt = landfill gas generation rate at time t (ft3/year)
CH4 = methane content of landfill gas (%)
k = methane generation rate constant (1/year)
Lo = potential methane generation capacity of waste (ft3/ton)
Mi = waste acceptance rate in the ith section (tons)
ti = age of the ith section (years)
 The suggested default potential methane generation capacity (Lo) is 3,204 cubic feet per ton
(100 cubic meters per megagram). This default Lo value comes from EPA’s “Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors”, commonly known as “AP-42”, and is appropriate for most
landfills. Estimation of Lo is generally treated as a function of the moisture and organic content
of the waste. Therefore, it is recommended that users utilize Lo values that differ from these
defaults only when site-specific data are available to reasonably estimate the potential methane
generation capacity for a particular landfill.
25
FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations

Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations (continued)
 Estimation of the methane generation rate constant (k) is a function of a variety of factors,
including moisture, pH, temperature and landfill operating conditions. The constant k can vary
from less than 0.02 per year to more than 0.285 per year, depending on these site-specific
factors. EPA’s AP-42 recommends that areas receiving 25 inches or more of rain per year use
a default k of 0.04 per year, and drier (arid) areas receiving less than 25 inches of rain per year
use a default k of 0.02 per year. A default k value of 0.1 per year is commonly accepted for
bioreactors or wet landfills (yet values >0.1 per year are common). It is recommended that
users utilize k values that differ from these defaults only when site-specific data are available
to reasonably estimate the methane generation constant for a particular landfill.
 LFG flow rates are determined for each year of the LFG energy project. The eight primary
calculations that occur are listed below:
− Annual gas generation – cubic feet of LFG generated per year.
− Gas generation flow rate – cubic feet of LFG generated per minute.
− Annual gas collection – cubic feet of LFG collected per year.
− Gas collection flow rate – cubic feet of LFG collected per minute.
− Annual project gas utilization – cubic feet of LFG per year available for use by the LFG
energy project, which depends on the project size chosen. This calculation does not account for
operating schedule, gross capacity factor or parasitic loss efficiency.
− Project gas utilization flow rate – cubic feet of LFG per minute available for use by the LFG
energy project, which depends on the project size chosen. This calculation does not account for
take operating schedule, gross capacity factor or parasitic loss efficiency.
− Annual actual gas utilization – actual cubic feet of LFG utilized per year by the LFG energy
project. Based on user input and the type of project chosen, this calculation accounts for project
size, operating schedule, gross capacity factor and parasitic loss efficiency.
− Actual gas utilization flow rate – actual cubic feet of LFG utilized per minute by the LFG
energy project, on an average annual basis. Based on user input and the type of project chosen,
this calculation accounts for project size, operating schedule, gross capacity factor and parasitic
loss efficiency.
26
C&F: Collection and Flaring System

Typical components include  Engineering, permitting and administration;
 Wells and wellheads;
 Pipe gathering system (includes additional
fittings/installations);
 Condensate knockout system;
 Blowers;
 Instrument controls;
 Flare; and
 Site survey, preparation and utilities.
Drilling and pipe crew mobilization $20,000
 average waste 
 −10 ft  * $85/ft = $X/well,
Installed capital cost of vertical gas extraction  depth (ft) 
wells
($4,675 * number of wells) for default average waste
depth of 65 feet
Installed capital cost of wellheads and pipe
$17,000 * number of wells
gathering system
0.61
Installed capital cost of knockout, blower and flare (ft3/min) * $4,600
system
Engineering, permitting and surveying $700 * number of wells
Annual O&M cost (excluding energy costs)* ($2,600 * number of wells) + $5,100 for flare
Electricity usage by blowers 0.002 kWh / ft3
Note: Raw cost data are in 2013$’s.
* Annual O&M for wells include the cost for monthly wellhead monitoring for gas quality and wellhead
adjustment purposes as well as the cost to maintain each well.
27
DIR: Direct-Use System

Typical components include  Engineering, permitting and administration;
 Skid-mounted filter, compressor and
dehydration unit;
 Pipeline to convey gas to project (includes
below-grade HDPE piping, condensate
removal system and pipe fittings); and
 Site survey, preparation and utilities.
(Cost does not include payments for right-of-way
easements which may or may not be required.)
Installed capital cost of skid-mounted filter,
($360 * ft3/min) + $830,000
compressor and dehydration unit
For flow rates ≤1,000 ft3/min (8” piping):
($80* feet of pipeline) + $178,000
Installed capital cost of pipeline
For flow rates 1,001 - 3,000 ft3/min (12” piping):
($106 * feet of pipeline) + $207,000
0.2
 ft 3 /min 
Annual O&M cost (excluding electricity) $57,000 *  
 700 
For pipeline distances of 5 miles or less:
0.002 kWh/ft3
For pipeline distances where

Electricity usage
 miles * ( ft 3 / min) 2 
 6
 > 120 :
 10 
0.003 kWh/ft3
Gross capacity factor* Assume 90%
*
Gross capacity factor accounts for loss of energy production due to problems in the gas collection
system, problems with project equipment, weather related interruptions of the local utilities and
shut-downs at the energy consumer end of the system.
28
BLR: Boiler Retrofit

Typical components include  Pipeline delivery from end user’s property boundary
to boiler (includes below-grade HDPE piping,
condensate removal system and pipe fittings,
engineering, permitting and administration);
 Metering station (includes LFG analyzer and flow
meter and moisture analyzer); and
 Boiler conversion for seamless controls (includes fuel
delivery system, burner modifications and control
modifications). Raw cost data for boiler conversion
provided by CPL Systems, Inc.
For flow rates ≤1,000 ft3/min (8” piping):
$75 * (feet of pipeline) + $88,000
Installed capital cost of pipeline delivery from
end user’s property boundary to boiler
For flow rates 1,001 - 3,000 ft3/min (12” piping):
$100 * (feet of pipeline) + $105,500
For flow rates ≤1,000 ft3/min:
$79,000
Installed capital cost of metering station
For flow rates 1,001 - 3,000 ft3/min:
$89,000
Installed capital cost of boiler conversion for
($113 * ft3/min) + $84,143
seamless controls*
Gross capacity factor** Assume 90%
Raw cost data are in 2010$’s.
*
Boiler conversion costs for manual controls are significantly less than seamless controls, but it is
becoming increasingly common for boiler owners with manual controls to upgrade to seamless controls
due to increased optimization. Conversion costs for multi-burner boilers, typically located at
petrochemical plants & refineries, are significantly higher than seamless controls due to inherent
complexities at facilities where these types of boilers are often found. Cost does NOT include boiler
re-certification, which may be necessary due to state/local regulations or insurance requirements.
**
29
RNG: Renewable Natural Gas Processing Plant

Typical components include  Blowers, compressors, piping controls, gas
separators and dryers;
 Pipeline interconnect equipment;
 Pipeline to convey gas to project site or
natural gas pipeline; and
 Site work, building construction, utilities and
total facility engineering, design and
permitting.
(Includes all equipment downstream of collection
and flaring system.) Raw cost data for RNG
processing, interconnect and pipeline costs
provided by Energy Vision and The Hunter Group.
Installed capital cost of gas processing equipment 3
$6,000,000 ∗ 𝑒𝑒 (0.0003∗(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 /𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚)
for pipeline quality gas
Installed cost of interconnection equipment $400,000
For pipelines < 1 mile long:
$600,000
Installed capital cost of pipeline
For pipelines ≥1 mile long:
$1,000,000 * miles of pipeline
Initial pipeline interconnection fee Varies by utility. User-specified amount.
Annual O&M cost (excluding electricity) (250 * 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 3 ⁄𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚) + 148,000
Electricity usage 0.009 kWh/ft3
Varies by utility. Suggested default of $2.50 per
Ongoing pipeline interconnection fee
MMBtu of RNG injected.
[(1,012 Btu/ft3 CH4) * (% CH4 in LFG) *
(90% methane capture rate) * (million Btu/106
RNG production rate (MMBtu/ft3 LFG)*
Btu)] = 0.0005 million Btu/ft3 LFG with default
50% CH4 in LFG
(90% methane capture rate)* (% CH4 in LFG)
RNG production (GGE)*
*(1,012 Btu/ft3 CH4)/ 111,200 Btu/GGE
Note: Raw cost data are in 2019$’s. Gas processing equipment costs were determined based on pressure
swing adsorption and membrane separation technologies.
*
Default methane capture rate is 90% but this can be changed by the user.
**
30
CNG: Onsite CNG Production and Fueling Station

Typical components include  LFG-to-CNG conversion and conditioning unit;
 Fueling station equipment (includes compressors,
dispensers and storage tanks for all fill types -- fast,
slow and combination of fast/slow);
 Winterization equipment, if needed (includes heat
tracing and insulation of hydrogen sulfide vessel and
heated and insulated structure over other
equipment);
 Engineering and project management (includes site
design, layout and permitting); and
 Installation of all equipment, startup and training.
(Includes all equipment downstream of collection and
flaring system.)
Installed capital cost $95,000 * (ft3/min)0.6
Annual O&M cost for media and equipment
$1.00/gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE)*
replacement and parasitic load
[(1,012 Btu/ft3 CH4) * (% CH4 in LFG) *
CNG production (65% conversion efficiency)] / 111,200 Btu/GGE
= 0.0030 GGE/ft3 LFG with default 50% CH4 in LFG
*
To determine $/diesel gallon equivalent (DGE), divide $/GGE by 0.866.
**
system, problems with project equipment and weather-related interruptions of the local utilities.
31
TUR: Standard Turbine-Generator Set

Typical components include  Gas compression and treatment (includes
dehydration equipment, siloxane adsorbers and
filtration);
 Turbine and generator (includes exhaust
silencers and all wiring and plumbing);
 Electrical interconnect equipment; and
 Site work, housings, utilities and total facility
engineering, design and permitting.
and flaring system.)
For most situations:
[($2,340 * kW capacity) – (0.103 * (kW capacity)2)]
+ $250,000 for interconnect
Installed capital cost
For [$2,340 – (0.103 * kW capacity)] < 1,015:
($1,015 * kW capacity) + $250,000 for interconnect
$0.0144 * kWh generated/yr
Annual O&M cost (excluding energy)
(before parasitic uses)
88% of capacity due to parasitic electrical needs of
Parasitic loss efficiency
compression and treatment
13,000 Btu/kWh generated (HHV)
Fuel use rate
*
32
ENG: Standard Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set

dehydration equipment and filtration);
 Reciprocating engine and generator (includes
motor controls, switch-gear, radiators, exhaust
silencers and all wiring and plumbing);
[($1,300 * kW capacity) + $1,100,000] +
$250,000 for interconnect
Fuel use rate
*
33
MTUR: Microturbine–Generator Set

Typical components include  Gas compression and treatment (includes dehydration
equipment, siloxane adsorbers and filtration);
 Microturbine and generator (includes exhaust silencers
and all wiring and plumbing);
(Includes all equipment downstream of collection and
flaring system.)
Installed capital cost $19,278 * (kW capacity)0.6207
($0.0736 – (0.0094 * ln(kW capacity))) * kWh
generated/yr
(before parasitic uses), includes gas cleanup system O&M
and microturbine overhauls
83% of rated capacity due to parasitic electrical needs of
Parasitic loss efficiency boost compressor and cooling water pumps, fans and
dryer system
Fuel use rate
*
34
SENG: Small Reciprocating Engine–Generator Set

dehydration equipment and filtration);
 Reciprocating engine and generator (includes
motor controls, switch-gear, radiators, exhaust
silencers and all wiring and plumbing;
Installed capital cost $2,300 * kW capacity
Fuel use rate 36 ft3/kWh generated (before parasitic uses)
*
35
CHPE: CHP Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set

Typical components include  Gas compression and treatment (includes dehydration equipment
and filtration);
 Heat recovery exchangers;
 Reciprocating engine and generator (includes motor controls,
switch-gear, radiators, exhaust silencers and all wiring and
plumbing);
 Electrical interconnect equipment;
 Site work, housings, utilities and total facility engineering, design
and permitting;
 Gas pipeline from compressor to engine;
 Water pipelines from engine to hot water user (assumes 2 lines for
supply and return); and
 Circulation pump for water pipelines.
(Includes all equipment downstream of collection and flaring system.)
($1,900 * kW capacity) + ($250,000 for interconnect) +
Installed capital cost ($63 * ft of gas pipeline) + ($106 * ft of trench for water pipelines) +
($12,000 for circulation pump)
Annual O&M cost
$0.02 * kWh generated/yr (parasitic)
(excluding energy)
93% of capacity due to parasitic electrical needs of compression and
treatment
Fuel use rate
Hot water production 3,800 Btu/kWh (net) * % utilization of hot water potential
*
36
CHPT: CHP Turbine-Generator Set

Typical components include  Gas compression and treatment (includes dehydration equipment, siloxane
adsorbers and filtration);
 Turbine and generator (includes exhaust silencers and all wiring and
plumbing);
 Site work, housings, utilities and total facility engineering, design and
permitting;
 Gas pipeline from compressor to turbine;
 Steam pipelines from turbine to steam user (assumes 2 lines for supply and
return); and
 Circulation pump for steam pipelines.
For most situations:
[($2,340 * kW capacity) – (0.103 * (kW capacity)2)] + ($250,000 for
interconnect) + ($355 * kW capacity, for heat recovery exchangers) + ($63 * ft
of gas pipeline) + ($106 * ft of trench for steam pipelines) + ($12,000 for
circulation pump)
For [$2,340 – (0.103 * kW capacity)] < 1,370:
($1,370 * kW capacity) + ($250,000 for interconnect) + ($355 * kW capacity,
for heat exchangers) + ($63 * ft of gas pipeline) + ($106 * ft of trench for steam
pipelines) + ($12,000 for circulation pump)
Annual O&M cost $0.0144 * kWh generated/yr
(excluding energy) (before parasitic uses)
Parasitic loss efficiency 88% of capacity due to parasitic electrical needs of compression and treatment
Fuel use rate
Steam production 5,500 Btu/kWh (net) * % utilization of steam potential
*
37
CHPM: CHP Microturbine-Generator Set

Typical components include  Gas compression and treatment (includes dehydration equipment,
siloxane adsorbers and filtration);
 Microturbine and generator (includes exhaust silencers and all wiring
and plumbing);
 Site work, housings, utilities and total facility engineering, design and
permitting;
 Gas pipeline from compressor to microturbine;
 Water pipelines from microturbine to hot water user (assumes 2 lines
for supply and return); and
 Circulation pump for water pipelines.
($20,057 * (kW capacity) ) + [ ($20,057 * (kW capacity)
0.6207
) * (0.06,
0.6207
Installed capital cost for heat recovery exchangers)] + ($63 * ft of gas pipeline) + ($106 * ft of
trench for water pipelines) + ($12,000 for circulation pump)
Annual O&M cost
$0.0773 – 0.00987* ln(kW capacity)
(excluding energy)
83% of rated capacity due to parasitic electrical needs of boost compressor
and cooling water pumps, fans and dryer system
Fuel use rate
Hot water production 5,800 Btu/kWh (net) * % utilization of hot water potential
*
38
ECN: Economic Analysis

Economic Inputs:
Rows 4-25 These data are user-specified inputs that are retrieved from the INP-OUT worksheet.
Row 28 Initial IRR estimate used by Microsoft® Excel’s IRR calculation function.
Row 29 LFG heat content calculated using user-specified methane heat content.
Inputs Calculated from Other Worksheets:
Rows 33-42 These data are the results calculated on other worksheets and brought to the ECN worksheet
for use in the economic analysis.
Economic Analysis (Rows 45 to 90):
Row 45 Year of operation The chronological year in the life of the project. The zero
year is the year of construction and year 1 is the first year of
operation.
Row 46 Revenue The revenues from selling gas, electricity, CNG or CHP hot
water/steam.
Row 47 Direct-use or RNG sales For Direct-use: (ft3 LFG sold)*(Btu/ft3)*(million Btu/106
Btu)*($/million Btu)*(price escalation equationa);
For RNG: (RNG produced (million Btu)*($/million
Btu)*(price escalation equationa)
Row 48 Electricity sales (kWh electricity produced)*($/kWh)*(price escalation
equationa)
Row 49 CNG sales (GGE produced)* ($/GGE)*(price escalation equationa)
Row 50 CHP hot water/steam sales (million Btu water/steam produced)*($/million Btu)*(price
escalation equationa)
Row 51 Operating cost The operating and maintenance costs for the project,
calculated on the various technology worksheets.
Row 52 Greenhouse gas credit (avoided CO2 emissions-MTCO2E)*($/MTCO2E)*(106
MTCO2E/ MMTCO2E)
This credit can include direct methane emissions as well if
indicated in the Optional User Inputs table of the INP-OUT
worksheet.
Row 53 Renewable electricity credit (kWh electricity sold)*($/kWh)
Provides credits to LFG electricity projects that utilize
tradable renewable energy certificates (TRCs) or “green
tags.”
Row 54 Renewable fuel credit (GGE produced)*($/gal)
Provides credits to CNG or RNG vehicle fuel projects
including projects that use Renewable Identification
Numbers (RINs) where a gallon of renewable fuel produced
in or imported into the United States receives a credit.
39

Economic Analysis (continued)
Row 55 Gas royalty (ft3 LFG utilized)*(Btu/ft3)*(million Btu/106 Btu)*(royalty
$/million Btu)
A royalty paid to landfill for use of LFG.
Row 57 Down payment Portion of capital cost not financed.
(total capital cost)*(% down payment)
Row 58 Construction grant A government cash grant towards project capital costs.
Row 59 Loan (principal) The levelized annual loan payment – calculated using
Microsoft® Excel’s payment function, based on interest rate,
loan period and amount borrowed.
Row 60 Loan (interest) Annual interest on remaining loan balance (principle).
(total capital cost – down payment)*(% interest rate)
Row 61 Equity payment Amount of annual loan payment applied to principle.
(annual loan payment) – (annual interest)
Row 62 Principal remaining Unpaid loan principle.
(previous year principle) – (previous year equity payment)
Row 63 Depreciation The straight line depreciation of capital cost for tax
purposes.
(total capital cost) / (project life-years)
Row 65 Tax liability Sum of revenues minus expenses.
(direct or RNG sales) + (electricity sales) + (CHP hot
water/steam sales) + (greenhouse gas credit) + (renewable
electricity credit) – (operating cost) – (gas royalty) –
(interest) – (depreciation)
Row 66 Tax before credit Estimation of base tax before energy credits.
(tax liability)*(marginal tax rate)
Row 67 Tax credit Sum of energy credits.
(LFG utilization credit) + (electricity generation credit) +
(RNG production credit)
Row 68 Net tax Sum of taxes minus tax credits.
(tax before credit) – (tax credit)
Row 70 Net income Sum of revenues less operating costs.
(direct or RNG sales) + (electricity sales) + (CHP hot
water/steam sales) + (greenhouse gas credit) + (renewable
electricity credit)– (operating cost) – (gas royalty) –
(interest) – (depreciation) – (net tax)
Row 73 Cash flow Sum of annual cash flows.
(net income) – (down payment) + (construction grant) +
(depreciation) – (equity payment)
Row 75 Internal rate of return The return on investment based on cash flow.
(calculated using Microsoft® Excel’s “IRR” function based
on cash flow)
40

Economic Analysis (continued)
Row 77 Cumulative cash flow The sum of cash flows to-date.
(previous year’s cumulative cash flow) + (present year cash
flow)
Row 79 Simple payback (years) The years of operation required for the cumulative cash
flow to become a positive value, based on an evaluation of
values in Row 79. This parameter is used only as an
error-checking tool.
Row 82 Present value of cash flow Present value (PV) of the year’s cash flow based on
discount rate.
(cumulative cash flow) / (compounded discount rate)
Row 85 NPV The net present value (NPV) or initial monetary value that is
equivalent to the sum of the cash flows, based on the
discount rate. This value is determined from the cumulative
PV (Row 88) at the end of the project life.
Row 88 Cumulative present value The sum of the PVs of cash flow to-date.
(previous year’s cumulative PV) + (present year PV)
Row 90 Years to breakeven The years of operation that are required for the cumulative
PV to become a positive value, based on an evaluation of
values in Row 90.
Optimization for Calculating Initial Product Price Needed to Achieve Financial Goals:
Rows 94-148 These data are used to calculate the initial product price required to achieve the financial
goals of the project. The equations in rows 103-148 duplicate the structure of Rows 45-90
and are used to test various initial product prices for the purpose of converging on a net
present value of $0.
Other Economic Assumptions:

Salvage Value and Decommissioning Cost
For simplicity, LFGcost-Web does not consider the salvage value of the equipment nor the costs to recover
the site, at the end of the project life. Due to the nature of LFG energy projects, these costs are mutually
off-setting and generally result in a minimal impact to the overall economic evaluation of the typical LFG
energy project.
a
Escalation equations use a formula of [1 + ((% escalation after year 1)/100)](year of calculation – 1)
41
BUDGET-ENG: Allocation of Recip. Engine Costs for Economic Benefitsa

This worksheet assigns the typical components of a reciprocating engine project (excluding costs of gas collection
and control system infrastructure) from the ENG worksheet to one of six categories: state/local labor, labor from
outside the state, state/locally manufactured materials, materials manufactured outside the state, state/local
distributor fees or fees paid to distributors outside of the state. The list below shows how the reciprocating engine
project costs were assigned to these six categories.
Construction Phase (one-time costs)
Gas cleanup/compression unit purchase costs – 10% of overall combined engine/generator/skid costs
94% national manufacturer revenue
6% national distributor fee
Engine-generator unit purchase costs – 50% of overall combined engine/generator/skid costs

11% state-wide distributor fee
Installation costs for clean-up skid and Engine-Generator – 40% of overall combined
engine/generator/skid costs
5.4% national engineering and management labor for clean-up skid ($167/hr, loaded with benefits)
62.5% state-wide installation labor (6.1% for skid materials and 56.4% for engine/generator materials)
($140/hr, loaded with benefits)
32% state-wide installation materials (28% for engine/generator materials and 4% for skid materials)
Electrical interconnect costs

75% skid unit capital cost
64% national manufactured materials
25% installation cost
17% state-wide engineering, management, installation labor ($167/hr, loaded with benefits)
8% state-wide manufactured installation materials
Annual Operating Costs
5% national proprietary materials (skid components)

45% common O&M materials (oil filters, lubricants, wiring)
34% national manufacturer materials
11% state-wide distributor fee on materials
50% state-wide labor (tuning wellfields and O&M of project equipment), salary of $116,000 per year.
Considering benefits of 29.8%, the loaded salary is $165,000 in year 2020$. Labor is escalated using
the general inflation rate in the model.
This worksheet then assigns labor and purchased materials to the BEA 2018 RIMS II multipliers that are most
representative of the materials used in the construction of an LFG energy project. A complete list of multipliers
is shown in Appendix F.
42
BUDGET-ENG: Allocation of Recip. Engine Costs for Economic Benefits

Allocation of Recip. Engine Costs for Economic Benefits (continued)
For evaluating the state and local economic benefits of reciprocating engine projects, the multipliers were
assigned as follows:
Construction Phase
Gas clean-up skid installation materials consist of electrical connections to connect the skid to a source of
energy to power the compressor system. These are assigned to the Electrical Equipment and Appliance
Manufacturing multiplier.
Local labor is assigned to the Households multiplier.
Distributor fees are assigned to the Wholesale Trade multiplier.
Operation and Maintenance Phase

This worksheet also estimates the number of state-wide direct jobs created from the design and installation
(cell F11), or operation (cell F34) of an LFG energy project. The number of jobs, in terms of full-time
equivalents (FTE), is estimated using loaded earnings most typical for staff used directly in LFG energy
projects. For design and installation, state-wide labor rates ranged from $95 to $167 per hour, depending on
whether the labor was for engineers, skid installation or generator installation. This analysis assumes 1,850
billable hours per year, equating to 1 job per $175,800 to $309,000 of loaded earnings in 2020$. For O&M,
the labor rate was assumed to be $116,000 per year, or $165,000 per year fully loaded in 2020$. Labor rates
were escalated using the general inflation rate supplied in cell D44 of the INP-OUT sheet.
a
The economic and job benefits for reciprocating engine projects are limited to the energy recovery
portion of the project and exclude the economic and job benefits associated with the construction and
operation of a gas collection system.
43
BUDGET-DIR: Allocation of Direct-Use Project Costs for Economic Benefitsa

Similar to the BUDGET-ENG worksheet, this worksheet assigns the typical components of a direct-use project
(excluding costs of gas collection and control system infrastructure) from the DIR worksheet to one of seven
categories: state/local labor, labor from outside the state, state/locally manufactured materials, materials
manufactured outside the state, state/local distributor fees, fees paid to distributors outside of the state and
electric utilities. The list below shows how the direct-use project costs were assigned to these seven categories.

Gas cleanup/compression unit costs
75% skid unit capital cost
69% nationally manufactured materials
6% national distributor fee

8% state-wide manufactured materials
8% national engineering and management labor ($167/hr, loaded with benefits)
9% state-wide installation labor ($95/hr, loaded with benefits)
Pipeline costs
25% pipeline capital cost
4% state-wide distributor fee for materials
11% national engineering and management labor
57% state-wide installation labor ($97/hr, loaded with benefits)
Materials and Labor

5% national proprietary manufactured materials (skid components)
45% common O&M materials (oil filters, lubricants, wiring)
50% state-wide labor (tuning wellfields and O&M of project equipment, $55,000/year). Considering
benefits of 29.8%, the loaded salary is $78,300 in year 2020$. Labor is escalated using the general
inflation rate in the model.
Utilities (electricity to operate compression skid)

100% purchased state-wide electricity
representative of the materials used in an LFG energy project. A complete list of multipliers is shown in
Appendix F.
44
BUDGET-DIR: Allocation of Direct-Use Project Costs for Economic Benefitsa

Allocation of Direct-Use Project Costs for Economic Benefits (continued)
For evaluating the state and local economic benefits of direct-use projects, the multipliers were assigned as
follows:
Construction Phase
Gas clean-up skid installation materials consist of electrical connections to connect the skid to a source of
energy to power the compressor system. These are assigned to the Electrical Equipment and Appliance
Manufacturing multiplier.
Pipeline installation materials include soil aggregate materials needed to properly line and re-surface the
trench. These are assigned to the Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying multiplier.

Electricity purchased is assigned to the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution multiplier.
This worksheet also estimates the number of state-wide direct jobs created from the design and installation
(cell F16), or operation (cell F31) of an LFG energy project. The number of jobs, in terms of FTE, is estimated
using loaded earnings most typical for staff used directly in LFG energy projects. For design and installation,
state-wide labor rates ranged from $95 to $97 per hour, depending on whether the labor was for engineers, site
operators or equipment installation. This analysis assumes 1,850 billable hours per year, equating to 1 job per
$175,800 to $179,600 of loaded earnings in 2020$. For O&M, the labor rate was assumed to be $55,000 per
year, or $78,300 per year fully loaded in 2020$. Labor rates were escalated using the general inflation rate
supplied in cell D44 of the INP-OUT sheet.
a
The economic and job benefits for direct-use projects are limited to the energy recovery portion of the
project and exclude the economic and job benefits associated with the construction and operation of a
gas collection system.
45
BUDGET-RNG: Allocation of RNG Costs for Economic Benefitsa

This worksheet assigns the typical components of an RNG project (excluding costs of gas collection and control
system infrastructure) from the RNG worksheet to one of eight categories: state/local labor, labor from outside
the state, state/locally manufactured materials, materials manufactured outside the state, state/local distributor
fees, electric utilities, gas utilities and insurance. The list below shows how the RNG project costs were assigned
to these eight categories.
Gas processing equipment – 60% of overall capital equipment costs
Installation costs for gas processing equipment – 40% of overall capital equipment costs
14% state installation labor (half of which is assumed to be trade labor, $95/hr, loaded with benefits and
the other half engineering/management labor, $167/hr, loaded with benefits)
13% national engineering and management labor ($167/hr, loaded with benefits)
13% state purchased materials
Pipeline/Interconnection
Interconnection costs
60% interconnection capital cost
40% state installation labor cost (half of which is assumed to be trade labor, $97/hr, loaded with
benefits and the other half engineering/management labor, $167/hr, loaded with benefits)
Pipeline installation costs
25% pipeline capital cost
11% national engineering and management labor
57% state-wide installation trade labor ($97/hr, loaded with benefits)
Utilities
100% of pipeline interconnection fee (if entered by user), this is an optional user input
Materials, Labor and Insurance
For projects with design flow rates of 1,000 scfm but less than 4,000 scfm, the labor is estimated at two
FTE positions, each with a starting salary of $55,000. Considering benefits of 29.8%, the loaded salary
for these two positions is $156,700 in year 2020$. Labor is escalated using the general inflation rate in
the model.
For projects with design flow rates of 4,000 scfm up to the maximum size suggested by the model of
6,000 scfm, the labor is estimated at three FTE positions, each with a starting salary of $55,000.
Considering benefits of 29.8%, the loaded salary for these three positions is $235,000. Labor is
escalated using the general inflation rate in the model.
46

Allocation of RNG Project Costs for Economic Benefits (continued)
Additional labor may be needed if RNG projects also incorporate full-time wellfield operators as part of
the project operation, but that labor is not included in the economic impact analysis of this model.
After labor has been subtracted from the total estimated O&M costs, the remainder of the O&M costs
for a given project size are assigned as follows:
10% national proprietary manufactured materials (skid components or media that may need to be
replaced)
20% state purchased O&M materials (oil filters, lubricants, wiring)
30% national labor for professional services labor ($167/hr, loaded with benefits), certification/audit
services for environmental credits, legal, laboratory testing fees to ensure RNG meets pipeline
specifications)
40% insurance premiums (assumed to be state-level payments given state regulation of insurance
markets)
Utilities
100% of the electricity cost is purchased state-wide electricity for electricity to operate gas processing
equipment and pipeline injection
100% of the annual pipeline injection tariff is purchased state-wide natural gas distribution fees
representative of the materials used in the construction of an LFG energy project. A complete list of multipliers
is shown in Appendix F.
For evaluating the state and local economic benefits of RNG projects, the multipliers were assigned as follows:
Construction Phase
− Gas processing equipment skid installation materials consist of electrical connections to connect the skid to
a source of energy to power the compressor system. These are assigned to the Electrical Equipment and
Appliance Manufacturing multiplier.
− Distributor fees are assigned to the Wholesale Trade multiplier.
− Local labor is assigned to the Households multiplier.
− Pipeline installation materials include soil aggregate materials needed to properly line and re-surface the
trench. These are assigned to the Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Quarrying multiplier.
− RNG pipeline interconnection fee if entered by the user is assigned to the Natural Gas Distribution multiplier.
Electricity purchased is assigned to the Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution multiplier.
RNG pipeline injection fee is assigned to the Natural Gas Distribution multiplier.
47

Allocation of RNG Project Costs for Economic Benefits (continued)
This worksheet also estimates the number of state-wide direct jobs created from the design and installation (cells
F17 and F24), or operation (cell F43) of an LFG energy project. The number of jobs, in terms of FTE, is estimated
using loaded earnings most typical for staff used directly in LFG energy projects. State-wide labor rates ranged
from $89 to $167 per hour, depending on whether the labor was for engineers, site operators or equipment
installation.
For design and installation, as well as national specialty labor during O&M that is expected to be contracted out,
this analysis assumes 1,850 billable hours per year, equating to 1 job per $175,800 to $309,000 of loaded earnings
in 2020$. For local O&M, the labor rate was assumed to be $55,000 per year, or $78,300 per year fully loaded
in 2020$. These are full-time positions and the number of people depends on the size of the project. Labor rates
were escalated using the general inflation rate supplied in cell D44 of the INP-OUT sheet.
a
The economic and job benefits for RNG projects are limited to the energy recovery portion of the
project and exclude the economic and job benefits associated with the construction and operation of a
gas collection system.
48
ECON-BEN SUMMARY: Economic Benefits and Job Creation Summarya

This worksheet summarizes the jobs, earnings and expenditures that result from a direct-use, reciprocating
engine or RNG LFG energy project.
The first set of tables (rows 7-15) summarize the total economic benefits resulting from a direct-use,
reciprocating engine or RNG project (depending upon which type of project the user is evaluating), excluding
any benefits from the construction and operation of the gas collection and control system infrastructure). The
left table presents benefits during the project construction phase (a one-time economic benefit) and the right
table presents annual benefits from the O&M of a project.
Total economic benefits have three components: direct, indirect and induced.
• Direct effects result from onsite jobs and new purchases from state and local businesses that are required
to build and operate the project.
• Indirect effects occur as those state and local businesses spend their new revenue on supplies or to pay
their employees.
• Induced effects result when employees spend their paychecks and, for larger projects, when people
migrate to the area.
Each layer of spending generates new income to firms and families in the region and to the overall national
economy. The first set of tables show the benefits for a specific state in which the project was constructed, if
the user selected a state on the BUDGET-DIR, BUDGET-ENG or BUDGET-RNG sheet. It also shows the
benefits for states representing a low, median and high range of output and job creation.
The second set of tables (rows 20-30) provide a detailed summary of the relative contributions of direct
economic benefits compared to economic “ripple effects” benefits.
Estimates are based on BEA 2018 RIMS II multipliers that are most representative of the materials used in an
LFG energy project. BEA does not endorse any resulting estimates and/or conclusions about the economic
impact of a proposed change on an area.
a
The economic and job benefits for direct-use, reciprocating engine and RNG projects are limited to the
energy recovery portion of the project and exclude the economic and job benefits associated with the
construction and operation of a gas collection system.
49
Appendix A:
Default Value Documentation
Appendix A: Default Value Documentation

Loan Lifetime
The loan lifetime is assumed to begin during the year of project design and construction. It is
common for project loan periods to be limited to half or two-thirds of the equipment lifetime to
assure that the loan is repaid before the project ends. Since much of the equipment used in LFG
energy projects has a projected lifetime of 15 years, the default loan lifetime is set to 10 years.
See Table D-1 of Appendix D (Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects) for recommended
default assumptions for municipalities using budgeted funds or public bonds to finance projects.
Interest Rate
Interest rates fluctuate with economic conditions and many unforeseen factors, making them very
difficult to forecast. The default interest rate is based on the 5-year average value of the Moody
Corporate AAA and BAA bond rates published by the Federal Reserve. The 5-year average rate
of 5.6% for 2008-2012 is rounded to 6% for the default rate.
For projects owned by municipalities, the recommended interest rate is based on the 5-year average
value of the State & Local Bond Rates published by the Federal Reserve. The 5-year average rate
of 4.4% for 2008-2012 is rounded to 5% for the recommended rate shown in Table D-1 of
Appendix D (Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects).
Users can obtain up-to-date interest rates from the Federal Reserve at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/.
General Inflation Rate
The general inflation rate fluctuates with economic conditions and many unforeseen factors,
making it very difficult to forecast. The default inflation rate is based on the 5-year average annual
increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The 5-year average annual CPI rate increase of 2.1%
for 2008-2012 is rounded to 2.5% for the default rate. Users can obtain up-to-date CPI rates from
the U.S. Department of Labor at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/.
Equipment Inflation Rate
The Chemical Engineering (CE) Plant Cost Index was used to determine the default equipment
inflation rate. The average annual cost increase for the 5-year period of 2008-2012 was 2.4%. This
rate was rounded to 2% for the LFGcost-Web default equipment inflation rate. Users can obtain
up-to-date CE plant cost indices from the Chemical Engineering magazine published by Chemical
Week Publishing, LLC at http://www.chemengonline.com/.
Marginal Tax Rate, Discount Rate and Down Payment
The default parameters for corporate tax rate, discount rate and down payment of 35%, 8% and
20%, respectively, are based on recent LFG energy project experience with commercial projects.
Corporate discount rates are commonly 2% to 3% higher than interest rates and 7% to 8% higher
than inflation rates.
Projects owned by municipalities will generally experience different values for these parameters.
Municipal tax rates are generally zero percent and municipalities may use a discount rate of zero
percent for municipal projects. Municipalities tend to fund a project from municipal revenue,
resulting in a down payment of 100%. See Table D-1 of Appendix D (Evaluating Local
A-1
Government-Owned Projects) for recommended default assumptions for municipalities using

budgeted funds or public bonds to finance projects.
Landfill Gas Production Prices
LMOP reviewed the EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2020, which forecasted a 2021-2022 average
Henry Hub natural gas price of $2.49 per million Btu. The current natural gas price is depressed
as a result of abundant domestic supply and efficient methods of production. Based on Smith
Gardner’s experience with LFG energy contracts, LFG pricing can be discounted between 15 and
30 percent, or more, from the Henry Hub natural gas delivery price (or other appropriate index
based on the location of the project), with a defined price floor and ceiling. The default value for
LFG is estimated to be $1.74 per million Btu. Users can obtain current Annual Energy Outlook
prices at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/.
Electricity Generation Prices
The Annual Energy Outlook 2020 forecasted electricity generation prices to be 5.7 cents per kWh
in 2021. This default price represents the base electricity price, excluding any incentives. A list of
regional generation prices from Annual Energy Outlook 2020 by electricity market module, is
available in the REGIONAL PRICING worksheet. The forecasted regional prices for 2021 range
from 2.8 to 8.8 cents per kWh, should users want to select a regional generation price instead of
the national average default value. Users may also have more precise pricing estimates from their
local grid operators.
CHP Hot Water/Steam Production Prices
The average market price for hot water/steam sold by LFG energy CHP projects is estimated to be
$3.11 per million Btu. This price is estimated from the $2.49 per million Btu natural gas price
divided by a boiler efficiency of 80%.
Renewable Natural Gas Production Prices
LMOP based the RNG price on the Annual Energy Outlook 2020. As stated above, the report
forecasts a 2021-2022 average natural gas price of $2.49 per million Btu. Based on Energy
Vision’s experience with LFG energy contracts, LFG pricing of RNG injected into the pipeline is
typically pegged to 70-85% of natural gas spot prices in the region of the project. The default value
is set at a value of $1.74 per million Btu for compressed and conditioned LFG.
CNG Production Prices (for onsite CNG fueling stations)
According to the U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center, the average CNG price between 2015
and April 2020 was $2.14 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). LFGcost-Web uses a default price
of $2.14 per GGE, which represents the base CNG purchase price, excluding any incentives. Users
can obtain up-to-date CNG prices from U.S. DOE at
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html.
A-2
Electricity Purchase Prices

The default price paid by landfills for electricity, when they do not produce their own electricity,
is assumed to be 8.8 cents per kWh. The 2021 average national electricity price paid by industrial
and commercial consumers as forecasted in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020, is 6.8 and 10.7 cents
per kWh, respectively. The average of these two prices is 8.8 cents per kWh. A list of average
regional purchase prices, by electricity market module, is available in the REGIONAL PRICING
worksheet should users want to select a regional purchase price instead of the national average
default value. Users may also have more precise pricing estimates from their current electricity
bills.
Annual Product and Electricity Purchase Price Escalation Rates
In the Annual Energy Outlook 2020, EIA predicted prices for electricity generation will decrease
by 2.2% in years 2021-2023. The average escalation rate of real energy prices for electricity
products sold by landfills was assumed to be -1.2%.
For direct-use, boiler retrofit and RNG projects, EIA predicted that commercial natural gas prices
will rise by an average rate of 1.0% in years 2020-2023, which was used as the basis for the
escalation rate for these project types.
EIA predicted that natural gas for transportation prices will decrease by 2.2% in years 2021-2023,
which was used as the basis for a -2.4% escalation rate for CNG product prices.
For electricity purchased by landfills, the EIA predicted commercial electricity prices will rise by
2.0% and industrial electricity prices will rise by 1.0% in years 2021-2023. The average increase
of these products is 1.5%, which was used as the basis for the escalation rate for purchased
electricity.
EIA projections show that during the 15-year period from 2019 through 2034, electricity prices
are relatively flat with some years showing a negative rate of change compared to the preceding
year while others show a slightly positive rate of change. 1
EIA predicted in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 that natural gas will experience increases in
production in most cases over the projection period, which will support increasing domestic
consumption and exports. 2 EIA projections show that during the 15-year period from 2019 through
2034, natural gas delivery prices for gas used in the transportation sector will decline. 3
1
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020. Electric Power Projections by Electricity
Market Module Region. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=62-
AEO2020&region=5-0&cases=ref2020&start=2019&end=2034&f=A&linechart=ref2020-d112119a.5-62-
AEO2020.5-0&sourcekey=0.
2
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020. January 29, 2020. Page 43.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2020.pdf.
3
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2020. Natural Gas Supply, Disposition, and
Prices. Accessed July 10, 2020. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=13-
AEO2020&sourcekey=0.
A-3
Appendix B:
Common Abbreviations
Appendix B: Common Abbreviations

AP-42 EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
AEO Annual Energy Outlook
Btu British thermal units
CE Chemical Engineering
CHP combined heat and power
CNG compressed natural gas
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPI Consumer Price Index
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ft feet
ft3 cubic foot / cubic feet
gal gallon
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HDPE high density polyethylene
HHV higher heating value
hr hour
IRR internal rate of return
k methane generation rate constant
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt-hour
Lo potential methane generation capacity of waste
lb pound
LFG landfill gas
LMOP Landfill Methane Outreach Program
MHz megahertz
mi mile
min minute
MMBtu million British thermal units
MTCO2E metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
MMTCO2E million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
B-1
MSW municipal solid waste

MT metric ton
MW megawatt
NPV net present value
NSPS/EG New Source Performance Standards/Emission Guidelines for MSW
Landfills
O&M operation and maintenance
PV present value
RNG renewable natural gas
TRCs tradable renewable certificates
yr year
B-2
Appendix C:
Evaluating Projects with
Multiple Equipment and/or Start Dates
Appendix C: Evaluating Projects with Multiple Equipment and/or Start

Dates
LFG energy projects with multiple equipment and/or start dates can also be evaluated using
LFGcost-Web. These complex LFG energy projects may include: dual projects (i.e., combining
an engine with a direct-use project), staggered projects (e.g., installing an engine early in the life
of the landfill and adding additional engines as the gas volume increases) and back-to-back
projects (e.g., replacing an engine at the end of its 15-year life with a new engine). The general
approach to evaluating these types of complex LFG energy projects is to evaluate each project
component individually. If each project component, such as one engine, has a positive NPV then
the overall project will also have a positive NPV. The following discussion addresses how to set
up the individual component evaluations in LFGcost-Web and how to interpret the results
produced by LFGcost-Web.
Required User Inputs − When entering landfill information into the Required User Inputs table,
enter the standard landfill information that applies to the entire landfill. For the project information
inputs (e.g., LFG energy project type, Year LFG energy project begins operation), enter the
information that applies only to the specific project component that is being evaluated. For
example, staggered and back-to-back project components will each have a different project start
year. Model users should generally decline the required input to “include collection and flaring
costs” in the evaluation. If users want to include the collection and flaring costs, this option should
be selected only for the first project component to be installed. The evaluations of all subsequent
components should decline to include the collection and flaring costs.
Optional User Inputs − All inputs in this section should be specific to the project component being
evaluated. When entering the LFG energy project size, users must select the user-defined option,
“Defined by user”. On the next line, users must enter the Design flow rate for the project
component being evaluated. The optional input data relating to the landfill itself (e.g., Average
depth of landfill waste and Landfill gas collection efficiency) should apply to the overall landfill,
and therefore should remain the same for each project component. All other information entered
in this data input section should apply only to the project component being evaluated.
Outputs − After completing the required and optional user inputs, the economic evaluation of the
project component appears in the Outputs table. The output values Total lifetime amount of
methane collected and destroyed and Average annual amount of methane collected and destroyed
apply to the entire landfill. All other output values, such as GHG value of total lifetime amount of
methane utilized in energy project or Internal rate of return, apply only to the project component
being evaluated. It is important to note that Total installed capital cost for year of construction and
Net present value at year of construction are presented in terms of the construction year’s actual
dollars and Annual costs for initial year of operation are presented in terms of actual dollars for
the year the LFG energy project begins operation. Therefore, the NPV of multiple project
components will be in terms of different years’ dollars and cannot be summed to obtain an accurate
total project NPV.
Checking the integrity of the complex project component evaluation − After an LFGcost-Web
evaluation has been conducted for each project component, a check must be made to ensure that
the net capacity for the project components does not exceed the capacity of the landfill. This
C-1
integrity check can be conducted easily using LFGcost-Web’s graphical output in the CURVE
worksheet. Model users should compile the graphs generated by LFGcost-Web for each
component to confirm that the net gas use in any given year does not exceed the gas output of the
landfill. Figure C-1 illustrates how graphs from three LFG energy project components can be
manually compiled by users to confirm that the components do not exceed the LFG generation
capacity. Figures C-1A, C-1B and C-1C are the curves generated by LFGcost-Web for each
individual project component – A, B and C, respectively – compiled in Figure C-1. In this example,
the size of project components B and/or C might be increased by as much as 50 percent and not
exceed the gas generation potential of the landfill.
450
Average Annual Landfill Gas Flow Rate (ft3/min)
400
350
300
250
200
C
150
100
A B
50
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year
Figure C-1. Example of a project with multiple equipment and start dates
C-2
Landfill Gas Generation, Collection, and Utilization Curve
450
400
Average Annual Landfill Gas Flow Rate (ft /min)
350
3
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031
Year
Gas Generation Gas Collection Gas Utilization
Figure C-1A. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for
project component A
C-3
450
400
Average Annual Landfill Gas Flow Rate (ft /min)
350
3
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure C-1B. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for
project component B
C-4
450
400
Average Annual Landfill Gas Flow Rate (ft 3 /min)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036
Year
Figure C-1C. Example of an LFG generation, collection and utilization curve for
project component C
C-5
Appendix D:
Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects
Appendix D: Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects

Projects owned by local governments and other public entities should be evaluated under a
different set of economic assumptions than the default values recommended in the LFGcost-Web
model. These entities are normally exempt from taxes, are subject to lower discount rates and use
different approaches than private corporations to finance projects. They may finance smaller
projects directly from budgeted funds and choose to fund larger projects through the use of
low-interest public bonds. Table D-1 presents default assumptions for use with two types of local
government-owned projects.
Table D-1. Recommended Default Assumptions for Local Government-Owned

Projects
Parameter Budget Financed Bond Financed
Loan lifetime (yrs) 0 10-15 [varies by project
lifetime]
Interest rate (%) 0 5
Marginal tax rate (%) 0 0
Discount rate (%) 5 5
Down payment (%) 100 0
D-1
Appendix E:
Evaluating Boiler Retrofit Projects

Appendix E: Evaluating Boiler Retrofit Projects

For boiler retrofit projects, there is a required input for users to indicate whether the boiler retrofit
costs will be standalone (i.e., evaluated from the perspective of the end user) or combined with
direct-use project costs (i.e., evaluated from the perspective of a developer that is responsible for
all costs). The outputs of the economic analysis will vary depending on which perspective is used
to evaluate the boiler retrofit costs. Specifically, IRR, NPV and Years to breakeven will vary based
on the appropriate prices (in $/million Btu) entered for the LFG product price and royalty payment
in the Optional User Inputs table. The following discussion addresses how to set up boiler retrofit
scenarios in LFGcost-Web and how to interpret the results produced by LFGcost-Web.
Boiler retrofit costs kept separate from direct-use project costs – For evaluating the cost of only
the boiler retrofit from the perspective of the end user, the following optional inputs are used:
 Initial year product price: Landfill gas production ($/million Btu) should be set to the price
that the end user is currently paying for natural gas.
 Royalty payment for landfill gas utilization ($/million Btu) should be set to the price that
the end user will pay the pipeline owner for delivery of LFG to the end user’s property
boundary.
 Economic parameters such as Loan lifetime, Interest rate, Discount rate, Marginal tax rate
and Down payment should be the parameters used by the end user.
The difference between the royalty payment and the LFG production price is the revenue used to
justify the cost of the boiler retrofit. All economic outputs for this scenario such as IRR, NPV and
Years to breakeven are for the end user paying for the boiler retrofit, not the developer of the
overall project.
Boiler retrofit costs combined with direct-use project costs – For evaluating projects from the
perspective of a developer that will pay for LFG treatment (skid-mounted filter, compressor and
dehydration unit), pipeline delivery from the landfill to the end user’s boiler and conversion of the
boiler, the following optional inputs are used:
 Initial year product price: Landfill gas production ($/million Btu) should be set to the price
that the developer will sell LFG to the end user.
 Royalty payment for landfill gas utilization ($/million Btu) should be set to the price that
the developer will pay the landfill owner for raw LFG.
 Economic parameters such as Loan lifetime, Interest rate, Discount rate, Marginal tax rate
and Down payment should be the parameters applying to the developer.
The difference between the royalty payment and the LFG production price is the revenue used to
justify the cost of LFG treatment, the pipeline and the boiler retrofit. All economic outputs for this
scenario such as IRR, NPV and Years to breakeven are for the developer paying for the overall
project.
E-1
Appendix F:
Economic Multipliers for
Economic Benefits and Job Creation Analysis
Appendix F: Economic Multipliers for Economic Benefits and Job Creation Analysis
Series: 2012 U.S. Benchmark I-O data and 2018 Regional Data (Type II Multipliers: Direct + Indirect + Induced)
Air and Gas Compressor Manufacturing

Households (64) Wholesale Trade (420000) (333912)
All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry All-industry

(total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final- (total) final-
demand demand demand demand demand demand demand demand demand
multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for multiplier for
State output earnings employment output earnings employment output earnings employment
Alabama 1.0409 0.3157 8.9042 1.7568 0.4883 9.8722 1.9436 0.3954 7.6834
Alaska 0.8572 0.2665 6.5900 1.5486 0.4284 7.7734 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Arizona 1.2432 0.3832 9.8718 1.9225 0.5496 10.1478 1.7116 0.3601 7.4098
Arkansas 0.9218 0.2799 7.7051 1.6933 0.4681 9.0135 1.7806 0.3443 6.7102
California 1.2342 0.3699 8.2003 1.9905 0.5710 9.2707 1.7796 0.3768 6.2246
Colorado 1.3081 0.4009 9.9043 2.0182 0.5839 10.1908 1.7903 0.3841 6.7327
Connecticut 0.9938 0.2996 7.0958 1.7953 0.4778 7.7756 1.8030 0.3525 6.1649
Delaware 0.9185 0.2385 6.1760 1.6039 0.3320 5.9032 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Florida 1.2362 0.3857 10.5368 1.9377 0.5594 10.8660 1.6656 0.3512 6.7440
Georgia 1.3495 0.4054 11.0939 2.1010 0.5977 11.4686 1.8865 0.3963 7.3791
Hawaii 1.0662 0.3207 7.9723 1.7053 0.4787 8.9621 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Idaho 0.9425 0.2909 8.4187 1.6446 0.4558 9.2157 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Illinois 1.4293 0.4170 9.2373 2.1296 0.5891 9.7449 2.2433 0.4683 7.6078
Indiana 1.1713 0.3420 8.6220 1.8453 0.5028 9.3066 2.0954 0.4226 7.7771
Iowa 0.9031 0.2726 7.6044 1.6507 0.4453 8.5765 1.7939 0.3446 7.0947
Kansas 1.0765 0.2984 7.9123 1.8065 0.4459 8.3287 1.7855 0.3364 6.4262
Kentucky 1.0804 0.3040 8.1473 1.7733 0.4507 8.9235 1.9012 0.3573 7.3648
Louisiana 1.0240 0.3200 8.6396 1.7306 0.4847 9.2536 1.6960 0.3416 5.9953
Maine 1.0076 0.3245 9.0088 1.7344 0.4974 9.9651 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Maryland 1.1242 0.3211 7.5056 1.8211 0.4684 7.8540 1.5273 0.2775 4.6241
Massachusetts 1.0965 0.3238 7.2260 1.8439 0.4895 7.7634 1.6652 0.3202 4.9496
Michigan 1.1334 0.3500 9.0461 1.8945 0.5421 9.6810 2.0889 0.4449 8.0289
Minnesota 1.1675 0.3506 8.4671 1.9001 0.5298 8.8870 1.9587 0.4063 7.1413
Mississippi 0.9596 0.2877 8.0630 1.6564 0.4442 8.8865 1.7095 0.3237 6.8158
Missouri 1.1928 0.3354 9.1211 1.8930 0.4879 9.1661 1.8901 0.3651 6.7169
Montana 0.8893 0.2834 8.2499 1.5733 0.4407 8.8379 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Nebraska 0.9548 0.2908 7.9623 1.7394 0.4740 8.7019 1.6260 0.3216 6.5805
Nevada 0.9735 0.2990 8.1323 1.7607 0.4910 9.3295 1.5583 0.3108 6.2030
New Hampshire 1.0085 0.2972 7.0828 1.7516 0.4585 7.5761 1.7534 0.3284 5.6112
New Jersey 1.2586 0.3543 8.0220 1.9791 0.5032 8.2745 1.7441 0.3313 5.2392
New Mexico 0.9197 0.2815 8.1819 1.5711 0.4270 8.5041 1.4210 0.2726 5.8256
New York 1.0381 0.2899 6.5213 1.7861 0.4519 7.0995 1.6216 0.3039 4.7041
North Carolina 1.2266 0.3707 9.7171 1.9561 0.5467 10.2745 1.9961 0.4172 7.4621
North Dakota 0.8548 0.2484 6.3518 1.5529 0.3903 6.7365 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Ohio 1.2715 0.3769 9.9593 1.9707 0.5461 10.2836 2.1823 0.4548 8.0868
Oklahoma 1.0624 0.3275 9.0501 1.7766 0.5023 10.1297 1.7957 0.3706 6.9026
Oregon 1.0544 0.3154 8.1324 1.8011 0.4854 8.9032 1.7678 0.3532 6.9663
Pennsylvania 1.2689 0.3733 8.8957 1.9668 0.5341 9.1748 2.1223 0.4365 7.3442
Rhode Island 1.0029 0.2763 7.4161 1.6899 0.4062 7.1450 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
South Carolina 1.1821 0.3528 10.0496 1.8686 0.5104 10.4929 1.9265 0.3882 8.0490
South Dakota 0.8481 0.2671 7.2636 1.5801 0.4293 8.2126 1.5589 0.3029 5.8881
Tennessee 1.3609 0.3972 9.4752 2.0258 0.5457 10.0081 2.1043 0.4318 8.5847
Texas 1.5319 0.4603 11.1011 2.1694 0.6203 11.1750 2.1134 0.4605 7.9855
Utah 1.2611 0.3753 10.1313 1.9799 0.5611 10.7103 1.8676 0.3959 8.3433
Vermont 0.8894 0.2710 7.6326 1.5598 0.4059 7.9698 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Virginia 1.1182 0.3236 8.3666 1.8869 0.5115 8.9174 1.6798 0.3265 6.4469
Washington 1.0677 0.3102 7.1901 1.7714 0.4867 7.9858 1.5855 0.3179 6.0562
West Virginia 0.8065 0.2372 6.6998 1.5399 0.3998 7.7047 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Wisconsin 1.0746 0.3322 8.5624 1.8025 0.5015 9.3589 1.9500 0.4032 7.4298
Wyoming 0.7375 0.2270 6.5296 1.4732 0.3996 7.6806 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Estimates are based on BEA 2018 RIMS II multipliers that are most representative of the materials used in an LFG energy project. BEA does not endorse any
resulting estimates and/or conclusions about the economic impact of a proposed change on an area.
F-1
Plastics Pipe, Pipe Fitting, and
Unlaminated Profile Shape Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining and Electrical Equipment and Appliance
Manufacturing (326120) Quarrying (2123A0) Manufacturing (14)

Alabama 2.2995 0.4712 9.5800 1.8239 0.4103 8.9172 1.9953 0.4204 8.4694
Alaska 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6015 0.3464 8.5711 1.3154 0.2892 6.6807
Arizona 1.5684 0.3441 7.0304 1.7499 0.4059 7.5157 1.8047 0.4438 8.3220
Arkansas 1.9883 0.3944 7.8754 1.7534 0.3799 9.3819 1.8127 0.3853 7.7631
California 1.6625 0.3624 6.5873 1.8399 0.4295 8.0440 1.8176 0.4360 7.2350
Colorado 1.6207 0.3601 7.0035 1.9354 0.4635 11.0326 1.7784 0.4330 8.7169
Connecticut 1.7237 0.3400 6.1423 1.6993 0.3794 7.7307 1.8549 0.4014 6.7422
Delaware 1.9017 0.2687 4.5349 1.6403 0.3293 7.2345 1.3766 0.2292 3.9548
Florida 1.5816 0.3460 7.0556 1.7655 0.4159 9.4845 1.7027 0.4121 8.7531
Georgia 1.9805 0.4240 8.8790 1.9237 0.4527 8.3125 1.9448 0.4477 8.6996
Hawaii 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6562 0.3753 6.5580 1.4313 0.3379 7.7832
Idaho 1.4780 0.3044 7.1083 1.5981 0.3434 8.2464 1.5550 0.3671 7.9784
Illinois 2.4343 0.5082 8.6721 2.0848 0.4753 7.6663 2.1840 0.5070 8.4213
Indiana 2.2736 0.4617 8.9355 1.8782 0.4044 7.9807 2.0503 0.4780 9.2194
Iowa 1.9478 0.3823 7.8130 1.6611 0.3561 7.3846 1.7151 0.3467 7.1201
Kansas 1.7272 0.3374 7.4290 1.8737 0.3946 8.6521 1.6559 0.3453 6.3578
Kentucky 2.2005 0.4138 8.7269 1.8428 0.3849 8.6950 1.9644 0.3756 7.0353
Louisiana 2.3470 0.4865 9.6138 1.8480 0.4087 10.1104 1.7029 0.4115 7.8646
Maine 1.5505 0.3346 7.6915 1.6254 0.3785 8.5763 1.6375 0.4069 8.2484
Maryland 1.4863 0.2894 5.0703 1.6466 0.3229 5.9737 1.5328 0.3151 5.6642
Massachusetts 1.9087 0.3772 6.4015 1.7087 0.3765 7.5338 1.8373 0.4086 6.6149
Michigan 2.1583 0.4618 8.8931 1.8548 0.4328 9.0523 2.0099 0.4472 8.1651
Minnesota 1.9230 0.4031 7.1219 1.8830 0.4256 7.9738 1.8571 0.4412 7.8083
Mississippi 2.0347 0.3963 7.8684 1.7378 0.3696 9.5439 1.8032 0.4039 8.4334
Missouri 1.9106 0.3717 7.2591 1.8167 0.3838 9.6242 1.8199 0.3912 7.6669
Montana 1.3914 0.2938 6.8697 1.6655 0.3599 7.5737 1.4588 0.3313 7.3830
Nebraska 1.7557 0.3514 7.1170 1.7050 0.3768 8.8908 1.6767 0.3827 7.2426
Nevada 1.4567 0.3078 6.4881 1.6327 0.3700 7.1511 1.6699 0.3332 6.3367
New Hampshire 1.5654 0.2997 5.5495 1.6721 0.3725 9.2087 1.9360 0.3851 6.6999
New Jersey 1.9482 0.3726 6.2602 1.8694 0.4086 6.5405 1.8995 0.4141 6.9877
New Mexico 1.3866 0.2762 6.4449 1.6435 0.3516 7.0358 1.5312 0.3439 7.4671
New York 1.5804 0.2944 4.8760 1.6575 0.3506 6.6808 1.6780 0.3807 6.5910
North Carolina 2.1323 0.4493 8.8797 1.8219 0.4172 8.9397 2.0068 0.4521 8.5670
North Dakota 1.4264 0.2609 4.9023 1.6632 0.3064 5.7383 1.5054 0.2886 6.1722
Ohio 2.3873 0.4979 9.5995 1.9821 0.4426 7.8510 2.1453 0.4912 9.4659
Oklahoma 1.6147 0.3441 7.2678 1.8375 0.4180 7.6135 1.6668 0.3678 7.8679
Oregon 1.6394 0.3352 6.9339 1.7306 0.3846 9.5800 1.7588 0.4083 7.5839
Pennsylvania 2.2584 0.4642 8.3517 2.0049 0.4417 10.1658 2.1015 0.4945 8.7856
Rhode Island 1.8740 0.3265 5.9947 1.6455 0.3484 9.0425 1.7133 0.3251 6.0473
South Carolina 2.3320 0.4703 8.9613 1.8113 0.3986 8.9971 2.0611 0.4490 8.9506
South Dakota 1.4692 0.2877 6.2618 1.5751 0.3321 6.8036 1.5407 0.4096 8.4676
Tennessee 2.3154 0.4728 9.2424 1.9447 0.4298 7.9067 2.0696 0.4478 8.6474
Texas 2.6770 0.5854 10.2614 2.1793 0.5134 10.9689 2.1806 0.5202 9.4060
Utah 1.6257 0.3543 7.6226 1.9259 0.4463 11.3184 1.8487 0.4011 7.7847
Vermont 1.4841 0.2926 5.9933 1.5061 0.3042 7.6566 1.6067 0.3362 6.8207
Virginia 1.6830 0.3404 6.9750 1.7164 0.3623 7.9294 1.6582 0.3834 7.3405
Washington 1.6783 0.3489 6.7121 1.7247 0.3878 6.2345 1.7034 0.4381 7.5778
West Virginia 2.0920 0.3661 7.5404 1.6746 0.3335 6.1644 1.6795 0.3161 6.1117
Wisconsin 1.8154 0.3829 7.6468 1.7709 0.3974 7.8926 1.9006 0.4722 8.5651
Wyoming 1.3543 0.2733 6.2888 1.5876 0.3289 5.6766 1.4095 0.2862 5.6108
F-2
Electric Power Generation, Trans, and Other Motor Vehicle Parts Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Dist (2211AO) Manufacturing (336390) Services (50)

Alabama 1.6657 0.3436 5.8224 2.3318 0.4858 10.5750 1.9002 0.7629 14.8638
Alaska 1.6191 0.3276 4.7535 1.3337 0.2507 5.5445 1.6705 0.6763 12.4428
Arizona 1.6417 0.3487 5.6323 1.7950 0.3881 8.2785 2.0979 0.8351 16.7709
Arkansas 1.5486 0.3076 5.1064 2.0204 0.3981 8.8467 1.7519 0.7094 14.8482
California 1.6572 0.3517 4.9582 1.8535 0.4019 7.7908 2.1586 0.8403 13.3391
Colorado 1.8111 0.3959 6.2682 1.8554 0.4076 7.8574 2.1835 0.8608 15.2177
Connecticut 1.4578 0.2790 3.7972 1.8986 0.3788 6.7507 1.8730 0.7139 11.4664
Delaware 1.4596 0.2349 3.3176 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.6713 0.5271 8.7628
Florida 1.5753 0.3331 5.5337 1.7362 0.3746 8.0060 2.1140 0.8521 17.3360
Georgia 1.6252 0.3406 5.8531 2.2195 0.4759 9.9349 2.2330 0.8672 16.7798
Hawaii 1.5230 0.3092 4.6966 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8866 0.7555 14.7182
Idaho 1.4762 0.2950 5.0674 1.6106 0.3270 7.6713 1.7735 0.6983 14.7779
Illinois 1.7791 0.3656 5.3478 2.6157 0.5565 10.1614 2.2712 0.8498 13.8495
Indiana 1.6535 0.3285 5.3071 2.4504 0.5031 9.9803 1.9716 0.7748 14.8296
Iowa 1.4167 0.2578 4.1710 2.0826 0.4071 8.2973 1.7293 0.6994 14.2558
Kansas 1.6410 0.3167 5.1385 1.8118 0.3484 7.2935 1.8730 0.6632 12.9295
Kentucky 1.6826 0.3255 5.5193 2.3325 0.4484 9.2897 1.8700 0.7123 14.7675
Louisiana 1.7522 0.3691 5.9742 1.7972 0.3728 8.2420 1.8784 0.7681 14.8388
Maine 1.4669 0.2977 5.0015 1.6057 0.3357 7.1684 1.8263 0.7587 15.6555
Maryland 1.4891 0.2768 3.9250 1.5816 0.2956 5.7218 1.9519 0.7098 11.5502
Massachusetts 1.4722 0.2808 3.8149 1.7728 0.3502 6.1748 2.0042 0.7389 11.2715
Michigan 1.5476 0.3211 5.0530 2.4423 0.5300 10.1369 2.0232 0.7906 14.3937
Minnesota 1.6054 0.3241 4.9132 2.0122 0.4270 8.0299 2.0262 0.7835 13.4214
Mississippi 1.6230 0.3248 5.5758 2.0365 0.3927 8.3765 1.7614 0.7097 15.0329
Missouri 1.6103 0.3045 5.0725 2.0762 0.4095 8.6553 1.9360 0.6682 12.3599
Montana 1.6446 0.3369 5.4781 1.4707 0.2960 6.9507 1.7211 0.7328 16.0008
Nebraska 1.4789 0.2873 4.3514 1.8938 0.3817 7.4074 1.8131 0.7194 14.0218
Nevada 1.4456 0.2878 4.5730 1.5901 0.3224 6.3470 1.8472 0.7470 15.0784
New Hampshire 1.4257 0.2626 3.7749 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.8632 0.7156 12.1657
New Jersey 1.6160 0.3102 4.3986 1.9045 0.3719 6.6128 2.1121 0.7512 12.1274
New Mexico 1.6691 0.3395 5.6819 1.4352 0.2813 6.6192 1.7336 0.6560 12.5681
New York 1.4671 0.2702 3.5970 1.6790 0.3211 5.5905 1.8816 0.6504 10.1217
North Carolina 1.5537 0.3141 5.1655 2.1166 0.4493 8.9430 2.1056 0.8183 15.4965
North Dakota 1.6538 0.3116 4.6309 1.5195 0.2743 5.8385 1.6534 0.6395 12.0478
Ohio 1.6975 0.3455 5.6837 2.5564 0.5413 10.7439 2.0845 0.8041 15.5084
Oklahoma 1.7557 0.3778 6.5124 1.7987 0.3799 8.0474 1.9026 0.7850 16.5929
Oregon 1.5237 0.2968 4.5727 1.9116 0.3914 7.8995 1.9113 0.7431 14.4397
Pennsylvania 1.8089 0.3709 5.5617 2.2870 0.4805 8.8449 2.0819 0.7721 12.9366
Rhode Island 1.4076 0.2476 3.8613 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7757 0.6331 12.1307
South Carolina 1.5748 0.3115 5.6166 2.3674 0.4886 10.1598 2.0294 0.7831 16.3280
South Dakota 1.4260 0.2770 4.3031 1.6268 0.3215 6.9998 1.6697 0.6919 14.4778
Tennessee 1.6542 0.3317 5.5038 2.4614 0.5125 10.3581 2.1672 0.8286 15.6426
Texas 1.9987 0.4447 7.0030 2.2312 0.4957 9.6563 2.3815 0.9202 16.2254
Utah 1.7838 0.3804 6.4783 2.0241 0.4382 8.9192 2.1222 0.8205 17.0328
Vermont 1.3758 0.2315 3.6657 1.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.7215 0.7149 14.5322
Virginia 1.6153 0.3178 4.8100 1.7470 0.3454 6.5239 1.9572 0.7179 12.0488
Washington 1.5676 0.3130 4.6167 1.6812 0.3452 6.7089 1.9289 0.7564 12.3300
West Virginia 1.6287 0.3037 4.9642 1.8486 0.3166 6.9777 1.6385 0.6508 12.1810
Wisconsin 1.5174 0.3063 4.7698 2.1103 0.4449 8.8805 1.9132 0.7691 14.7537
Wyoming 1.5807 0.3098 4.8452 1.4168 0.2677 6.1337 1.5706 0.6644 13.6895
F-3
Natural Gas Distribution (221200) Insurance Carriers, Except Direct Life Insurance (5241XX)
All-industry (total) All-industry (total) All-industry (total) All-industry (total)

All-industry (total) final-demand final-demand All-industry (total) final-demand final-demand
final-demand multiplier for multiplier for final-demand multiplier for multiplier for
State multiplier for output earnings employment multiplier for output earnings employment
Alabama 1.5301 0.3249 5.8971 1.9864 0.4981 9.6090
Alaska 1.6488 0.3556 4.7867 1.4331 0.3560 6.3645
Arizona 1.5308 0.3257 5.7652 2.1346 0.5445 10.5956
Arkansas 1.4957 0.3072 5.4129 1.5849 0.3910 7.8937
California 1.6129 0.3491 4.8817 1.9999 0.5124 8.1763
Colorado 1.9160 0.4458 6.5724 2.0124 0.5205 9.4770
Connecticut 1.4240 0.2764 3.9934 1.9962 0.4457 6.9579
Delaware 1.3516 0.2165 3.1878 1.6673 0.3055 5.0932
Florida 1.5068 0.3184 5.5599 2.1774 0.5612 11.0686
Georgia 1.5757 0.3343 5.6382 2.2122 0.5576 10.9856
Hawaii 1.4029 0.2820 4.6163 1.6561 0.4148 7.9162
Idaho 1.3776 0.2730 4.6973 1.6168 0.3992 8.3480
Illinois 1.6214 0.3387 5.2491 2.2774 0.5720 8.9745
Indiana 1.4692 0.2950 4.9867 1.9163 0.4716 8.7002
Iowa 1.3713 0.2548 4.1355 1.9207 0.4692 8.8576
Kansas 1.6827 0.3419 6.0106 1.9622 0.4320 8.0232
Kentucky 1.5197 0.3019 5.1898 1.9569 0.4428 7.8573
Louisiana 1.7722 0.3926 6.2786 1.9822 0.5006 9.5471
Maine 1.4038 0.2874 5.0531 1.9471 0.4915 9.1760
Maryland 1.4365 0.2695 4.0430 1.9445 0.4488 7.2016
Massachusetts 1.4593 0.2831 3.8049 1.9745 0.4802 7.3269
Michigan 1.5312 0.3270 5.2469 1.8029 0.4586 8.4338
Minnesota 1.5192 0.3133 4.9407 2.0976 0.5245 8.5168
Mississippi 1.5470 0.3221 5.8547 1.6856 0.4160 8.4946
Missouri 1.4880 0.2816 4.6199 2.0630 0.4697 8.6808
Montana 1.6779 0.3670 6.1522 1.9044 0.4801 10.1192
Nebraska 1.4117 0.2759 4.0517 1.9510 0.4700 8.8004
Nevada 1.3752 0.2717 4.3429 1.7734 0.4422 8.4830
New Hampshire 1.3905 0.2576 3.9844 1.9748 0.4283 6.9901
New Jersey 1.5358 0.2974 4.2411 2.1437 0.4815 7.5461
New Mexico 1.6644 0.3578 6.2566 1.5087 0.3765 7.7686
New York 1.4264 0.2626 3.5139 1.9284 0.3930 5.9068
North Carolina 1.4918 0.3019 5.2774 1.9925 0.4948 9.3408
North Dakota 1.6508 0.3268 4.7032 1.8299 0.4160 8.2167
Ohio 1.5900 0.3335 5.5014 2.0664 0.5089 9.3469
Oklahoma 1.7942 0.4062 6.6267 1.7759 0.4513 9.3784
Oregon 1.4181 0.2735 4.2101 1.9006 0.4611 8.0646
Pennsylvania 1.7699 0.3805 5.8278 2.1308 0.5150 8.6724
Rhode Island 1.3837 0.2441 4.1857 1.9384 0.3729 6.5248
South Carolina 1.4493 0.2820 5.2262 1.9026 0.4661 9.8078
South Dakota 1.3657 0.2706 4.2981 1.8612 0.4542 9.2629
Tennessee 1.5512 0.3138 5.4257 2.1667 0.5312 9.6469
Texas 2.0478 0.4785 7.2576 2.3100 0.5948 10.8734
Utah 1.7189 0.3778 6.4542 2.1432 0.5435 11.2429
Vermont 1.3113 0.2207 3.7189 1.6472 0.4019 7.5466
Virginia 1.4741 0.2915 4.2507 1.8908 0.4493 8.2009
Washington 1.4304 0.2860 4.4322 1.7236 0.4255 7.2128
West Virginia 1.6271 0.3224 5.8773 1.5460 0.3597 7.2113
Wisconsin 1.4256 0.2876 4.5238 2.0148 0.5070 9.4065
Wyoming 1.5959 0.3332 5.6464 1.4172 0.3412 6.8311
F-4
Appendix G:
Ranking Analysis for
Economic Multipliers
Appendix G: Ranking Analysis for Economic Multipliers
Output Ranking Table
Electrical Insurance
Other Nonmetallic Equipment and Carriers, Except
Mineral Mining Appliance Electric Power Natural Gas Direct Life
Wholesale Trade and Quarrying Manufacturing Generation, Trans, Distribution Insurance
State Households (64) (420000) (2123A0) (14) and Dist (2211AO) (221200) (5241XX) Average Std Dev Range Overall Rank
Texas 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
Illinois 2 2 2 1 5 13 2 4 4 12 2
Pennsylvania 7 10 3 4 3 5 9 6 3 7 3
Tennessee 3 4 5 5 13 18 5 8 6 15 4
Ohio 6 9 4 3 8 16 11 8 4 13 5
Utah 8 7 7 18 4 6 7 8 5 14 5
Colorado 5 5 6 25 2 2 14 8 8 23 7
Georgia 4 3 8 12 20 17 3 10 7 17 8
New Jersey 9 8 12 15 23 20 6 13 6 17 9
California 12 6 16 21 12 14 15 14 5 15 10
Minnesota 17 14 9 16 26 25 10 17 7 17 11
Arizona 10 13 25 23 17 22 8 17 7 17 12
Indiana 16 19 10 7 15 31 30 18 9 24 13
North Carolina 13 11 19 9 31 28 17 18 8 22 13
Kentucky 22 28 15 11 9 24 23 19 7 19 15
Florida 11 12 23 31 28 26 4 19 10 27 16
Missouri 14 16 20 20 25 29 12 19 6 17 17
Alabama 29 31 18 10 11 23 18 20 8 21 18
Louisiana 31 35 14 30 7 4 19 20 12 31 18
Kansas 23 22 11 38 18 7 22 20 10 31 20
Michigan 18 15 13 8 33 21 37 21 11 29 21
South Carolina 15 18 21 6 29 33 32 22 10 27 22
Oklahoma 27 27 17 36 6 3 38 22 14 35 22
Wisconsin 24 23 22 14 36 37 13 24 9 24 24
Massachusetts 21 20 30 19 40 32 21 26 8 21 25
Virginia 20 17 29 37 24 30 34 27 7 20 26
Connecticut 35 25 32 17 44 38 16 30 11 28 27
Mississippi 37 39 26 24 21 19 41 30 9 22 27
Oregon 28 24 27 26 34 39 33 30 5 15 29
Washington 25 29 28 29 30 35 40 31 5 15 30
Maryland 19 21 40 43 37 34 26 31 9 24 31
New Hampshire 32 32 34 13 47 43 20 32 12 34 32
Montana 45 44 35 46 16 8 31 32 15 38 33
Arkansas 40 37 24 22 32 27 46 33 9 24 34
New York 30 26 38 33 41 36 28 33 5 15 35
North Dakota 47 47 36 45 14 10 36 34 16 37 36
Nebraska 38 33 31 34 38 40 24 34 5 16 37
New Mexico 41 45 42 44 10 9 48 34 17 39 38
West Virginia 49 49 33 32 19 12 47 34 15 37 39
Maine 33 34 45 39 42 41 25 37 7 20 40
Rhode Island 34 38 41 28 49 44 27 37 8 22 41
Hawaii 26 36 39 47 35 42 43 38 7 21 42
Iowa 43 40 37 27 48 47 29 39 8 21 43
Alaska 46 48 46 50 22 11 49 39 16 39 44
Nevada 36 30 44 35 45 46 39 39 6 16 45
Wyoming 50 50 48 48 27 15 50 41 14 35 46
Estimates are based on BEA 2018 RIMS II multipliers that are most representative of the materials used in an LFG energy project. BEA does not endorse any resulting estimates and/or conclusions about the economic impact of a proposed change on an area.
G-1
Output Ranking Table
Idaho 39 41 47 41 39 45 45 42 3 8 47
Delaware 42 42 43 49 43 49 42 44 3 7 48
South Dakota 48 43 49 42 46 48 35 44 5 14 49
Vermont 44 46 50 40 50 50 44 46 4 10 50
High Arizona Notes on Ranking Analysis:

Median Wisconsin
Low West Virginia
Analysis included only the seven sets of multipliers that were assigned to within the state. Multipliers assigned only to the national level were
excluded from the analysis.
High Multiplier: 25th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 9 and 15 for both employment and output after averaging the rank
of the seven regional multipliers. Arizona output rank = 12, employment rank = 13 (yellow highlight) was selected. North Carolina is the only other
state in yellow for this grouping; output rank = 13, employment rank = 11 (however, we used Arizona because the average rank of 12.5 is closer to
the 25th percentile (12.5) than the average rank of 12 for North Carolina).
Median Multiplier: 50th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 22 and 29 for both employment and output after averaging the
rank of the seven regional multipliers (blue highlight). Wisconsin is the only state in the middle for both output and employment.
Low Multiplier: 75th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 36 and 43 for both employment and output after averaging the
rank of the seven regional multipliers (pink highlight). West Virginia output rank = 39, employment rank = 38 (pink highlight) was selected. Rhode
Island is the only other state in pink for this grouping; output rank = 41, employment rank = 42 (however, we used West Virginia because the
average rank of 38.5 is closer to the 75th percentile (37.5) than the average rank of 41.5 for Rhode Island).
G-2
Employment Ranking Table
Texas 1 2 3 2 1 1 4 2 1 3 1
Utah 4 4 1 23 3 4 1 6 8 22 2
Colorado 7 8 2 7 4 3 11 6 3 9 3
Florida 3 3 9 6 14 16 2 8 6 14 4
Georgia 2 1 22 8 6 15 3 8 8 21 5
South Carolina 5 5 14 4 11 23 7 10 7 19 6
Ohio 6 6 30 1 8 17 14 12 10 29 7
Alabama 16 13 16 12 7 9 9 12 4 9 7
Louisiana 18 20 5 21 5 5 10 12 7 16 9
Oklahoma 13 10 34 20 2 2 13 13 11 32 10
North Carolina 9 7 15 10 20 20 15 14 5 13 11
Pennsylvania 17 22 4 5 13 12 23 14 8 19 11
Arizona 8 9 37 16 10 13 5 14 11 32 13
Tennessee 10 11 28 9 16 18 8 14 7 20 14
Illinois 11 14 32 15 18 21 18 18 7 21 15
Mississippi 30 30 8 14 12 11 25 19 9 22 16
Indiana 19 18 25 3 19 26 21 19 8 23 17
Maine 15 12 20 17 26 25 17 19 5 14 18
Michigan 14 15 12 18 25 22 27 19 6 15 19
Missouri 12 23 6 26 23 32 22 21 9 26 20
Montana 24 31 35 30 17 7 6 21 12 29 21
Wisconsin 20 16 29 11 32 34 12 22 10 23 22
Idaho 22 21 23 19 24 31 28 24 4 12 23
Arkansas 35 24 10 25 22 19 35 24 9 25 24
Minnesota 21 29 26 22 29 27 24 25 3 8 25
Kentucky 27 26 18 35 15 24 36 26 8 21 26
New Mexico 26 34 41 29 9 6 37 26 14 35 27
California 25 19 24 33 28 28 31 27 5 14 28
Kansas 34 35 19 43 21 8 33 28 12 35 29
Oregon 28 28 7 27 38 40 32 29 11 33 30
Virginia 23 27 27 31 31 38 30 30 5 15 31
Nebraska 33 32 17 32 40 43 20 31 10 26 32
South Dakota 40 37 42 13 41 37 16 32 12 29 33
Hawaii 32 25 44 24 34 33 34 32 7 20 33
Nevada 29 17 40 44 37 36 26 33 9 27 35
Iowa 37 33 38 34 42 42 19 35 8 23 36
Alaska 46 42 21 40 33 29 48 37 10 27 37
West Virginia 45 44 47 46 27 10 42 37 14 37 38
New Jersey 31 36 45 36 39 39 39 38 4 14 39
Washington 42 38 46 28 36 35 41 38 6 18 40
New Hampshire 44 46 11 39 47 46 44 40 13 36 41
Rhode Island 39 47 13 47 44 41 47 40 12 34 42
Vermont 36 39 33 37 48 48 38 40 6 15 43
Wyoming 47 45 50 49 30 14 46 40 13 36 44
North Dakota 49 49 49 45 35 30 29 41 9 20 45
Connecticut 43 41 31 38 46 45 45 41 5 15 46
G-3
Employment Ranking Table
Massachusetts 41 43 36 41 45 47 40 42 4 11 47
Maryland 38 40 48 48 43 44 43 43 4 10 48
New York 48 48 43 42 49 49 49 47 3 7 49
Delaware 50 50 39 50 50 50 50 48 4 11 50
High Pennsylvania Notes on Ranking Analysis:

Median Arkansas
Low New Jersey Analysis included only the seven sets of multipliers that were assigned to within the state. Multipliers assigned only to the national level were
excluded from the analysis.
High Multiplier: 25th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 9 and 15 for both employment and output after averaging the rank
of the seven regional multipliers. Arizona output rank = 12, employment rank = 13 (yellow highlight) was selected. North Carolina is the only other
state in yellow for this grouping; output rank = 13, employment rank = 11 (however, we used Arizona because the average rank of 12.5 is closer to
the 25th percentile (12.5) than the average rank of 12 for North Carolina).
Median Multiplier: 50th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 22 and 29 for both employment and output after averaging the
rank of the seven regional multipliers (blue highlight). Wisconsin is the only state in the middle for both output and employment.
Low Multiplier: 75th percentile. Looked for states with an overall rank between 36 and 43 for both employment and output after averaging the
rank of the seven regional multipliers (pink highlight). West Virginia output rank = 39, employment rank = 38 (pink highlight) was selected. Rhode
Island is the only other state in pink for this grouping; output rank = 41, employment rank = 42 (however, we used West Virginia because the
average rank of 38.5 is closer to the 75th percentile (37.5) than the average rank of 41.5 for Rhode Island).
G-4

Lfgcost Web v3.5 Usersmanual Mar2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lfgcost Web v3.5 Usersmanual Mar2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lfgcost Web v3.5 Usersmanual Mar2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

User’s Manual

Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP)

Appendix D: Evaluating Local Government-Owned Projects................................................... D-1

Table 1. Worksheet Names and Functions in LFGcost-Web ......................................................... 9

Background on the Model

 Permits, right-of-ways and fees; and

Gas Collection and Control System Components and Cost Factors

Electricity-Generating Project Components and Cost Factors

Direct-Use Project Components and Cost Factors

Pipeline-Injection RNG Project Components and Cost Factors

Evaluating Economic Benefits and Job Creation

Technical Basis of LFGcost-Web

Table 1. Worksheet Names and Functions in LFGcost-Web

Worksheet Name Function

INST: General Instructions and Guidelines

Table 2. LFG Energy Project Types and Recommended Sizes

LFG Energy Project Type Recommended Project Size

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

INP-OUT: Inputs / Outputs

WASTE: Waste Calculator / Disposal History

REGIONAL PRICING: Regional Electricity Pricing

CURVE: Landfill Gas Curve

Figure 1. Example of LFG generation, collection and utilization curve in LFGcost-

AVOIDED CO2 - ELEC: Regional Grid Carbon Dioxide Avoided Emission

ENV: Environmental Benefits

 Methane collected   Annual gas 

 Direct methane   Methane collected 

ENV: Environmental Benefits

Direct-use and boiler retrofit projects:

 Direct - use avoided 

RNG projects with direct thermal product use:

ENV: Environmental Benefits

Non-CHP electricity generation projects:

CHP electricity generation projects:

FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations

First-Order Decay Equation for Average Annual Waste Acceptance Rate:

Qt = (1/(CH4/100)) * Lo * R * [e(-kc) – e(-kt)]

FLOW: Landfill Gas Flow Rate Calculations

C&F: Collection and Flaring System

DIR: Direct-Use System

For pipeline distances where

BLR: Boiler Retrofit

RNG: Renewable Natural Gas Processing Plant

CNG: Onsite CNG Production and Fueling Station

TUR: Standard Turbine-Generator Set

ENG: Standard Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set

MTUR: Microturbine–Generator Set

SENG: Small Reciprocating Engine–Generator Set

CHPE: CHP Reciprocating Engine-Generator Set

CHPT: CHP Turbine-Generator Set

CHPM: CHP Microturbine-Generator Set

ECN: Economic Analysis

ECN: Economic Analysis

ECN: Economic Analysis