The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12.a. (Additional Information) 12 . a . (add'i Info) i - �' COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE Board Workshop - Part A -� Treatment Plant Master Plan Update Additional Information Packet June 16, 2016 AMNA (*� ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (NOT INCLUDED IN PRESENTATION) 06/10/16 ABBREVIATION A/B Adsorption/Sio-oxidation CEC Constituents of Emerging Concern AD Anaerobic Digesters CEPT Chemically Enhanced Primary Treatment ADC Aftemate Daily Cover CHP Combined Heat and Power ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow CIP Capital Improvement Project RAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District CWMP Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan SACT Best Available Control Technology DAF Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener BACWA Bay Regional Clean Water Agency DPR Dict Potable Reuse RAF Biological Aerated Filter DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control SNR Biological Nitrogen Removal FBI Fluidized Bed Incinerator CaRRB Centmte and RAS Reaeration Basin FOG Fat,Oil and Grease CAS Conventional Activated Sludge GHG Greenhouse Gas CCT Chlorine Contact Tank GMF Granular Media Filter ABBREVIATION IFAS Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge MOST Model for Optimization of Storage and Treatment IPR Indirect Potable Reuse MW Mega Watt LG Landfill Gas N/OeN Nitritation and Denitritation LOS Level of Service NAS New Activated Sludge MACT Maximum-achievable control technology NG Natural Gas NRritafion-Denitntat ion through Modulating MBBR Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor NiDeMa Aeration MBR Membrane Bio Reactor NPOES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MF Microfiltration(Tertiary Membranes) ORC Organic Rankine Cycle Cogeneration System MHF Multiple Hearth Furnace PICS Program for 1/1 Continuous Simulation MLE Modified Ludzack-Etnnger Activated PPA Power Purchase Agreement Sludge MMBTU Million British Thermal Units PSL Private Sewer Late ra3 MMWWF Maximum Month Wet Weather Flow PST Primary Sedimentation Tank 2 06/10/16 ABBREVIATION R&R Repair and Replacement VFD Variable Frequency Drive RO Reverse Osmosis WWHBA Wet Weather Holding Basin A SC Secondary Clarifier SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute SRT Solids Retention Time S51 Sewage Sludge Incinerators $50 Sanitary Sewer Overflow TBACT Toxic Bert Available Control Technology TBL Triple Bottom Line THPThermal Hydrolyse TN Total Nitrogen TP Treatment Plant KEY" FINDINGS 1 - AGING INFRASTRUCTURE 1. 1 A R 06/10/16 A. ON-SITE 'CONSOLIDATION On-Site Consolidation Element Cost Consolidation Cost Estimate from Geosyntec Report $6,900,000 Subtotal A $6,900,000 Contingency 25 % $1,725,000 Subtotal B $8,625,000 General Conditions 10 °% $862,500 Overhead and Profit 10 % $862,500 Sales Tax(Applied to 50%of Subtotal A) 8.5 % $366,563 Subtotal C $10,716,563 Bid Market Allowance 10 % $1,071,656 Subtotal D $11,788,219 Project Cost Factor 30 % $3,536,466 Reserve for Change Orders 5 % $589,411 Total Project Cost $15,900,000 B. OFF-HAUL CONTAMINATED SOILS Offhaul Element Cost Off haul Soil Cost Estimate from Geosyntec Report $27,200,000 Subtotal A $27,200,000 Contingency 25 % $6,800,000 Subtotal B $34,ODO,000 General Conditions 10 % $3,400,000 Overhead and Profit 10 % $3,400,000 Sales Tax(Applied to 501Y.of Subtotal A) 8.5 % $1,445,000 Subtotal C $42,245,ODO Bid Market Allowance 10 % $4,224,500 Subtotal D $46,469,SW Project Cost Factor 30 % $13,940,850 Reserve for Change Orders 5 % $2,323,475 Total Project Cost $62,700,000 � F 06/10/16 C. RELOCATE PLANT EXPANSION TO KIEWIT LOCATION Kiewit Location Element Cost Site&Security Improvements $1,000,000 Cc ncrete Cove rs ove r Basi ns/Clarifiers $1,900,000 Bridge Across Creek{250') $2,800,000 Primary Effluent Pipe $2,200,000 Primary Effluent Pump Station{37mgd) $3,256,000 Mixed Liquor Pipe $2,400,000 RAS Pipe $2,400,000 Secondary Effluent Pipe $2,200,000 Electrical&Instrumentation Improvements $3,000,000 Subtotal A $21,156,000 Contingency 30 % $6,346,800 Subtotal B $27,502,800 General Conditions 10 % $2,750,284 Overhead and Profit 10 % $2,750,280 Safes Tax(Applied to 50%of Subtotal A) 8.5 % $1,168,869 Subtotal $34,172,229 Bid Market Allowance 10 % $3,417,223 Subtotal D $37,589,452 Project Cost Factor 40 % $15,035,781 Reserve for Change Orders 5 % $1,879,473 Total Project Cost $59,300,000 D. CCCSD WEST CAMPUS LOCATION West Carnious Location Element Cost Site&Security Improvements S2.000.000 Concrete Covers over Basins/Clarifiers $1.900, Relocation of HHWCF $4,000,DDO Relocation of Other Buildings $11,300.000 Primary Effluent Pipe $1,0D0,000 Primary Effl uent Pump Station(37 mgd) $3,256, Mixed Liquor Pipe $700, RAS Pipe $8W,001 Secondary Effluent Pipe S1.0D0,01 Electrical&Instrumentation Improvements $3.000.ODC Subtotal A Sn,9%,ODC Contingency 30 % $8,686, Subtotal B $37,672, General Conditions 10 % $3,764,2 Overhead and Profit 10 % $3,764,2 Sales Tax(Applied to SO%of Subtotal A) 8.5 % 51,599,81 Subtotal C $46;771,1 Bid Market Allowance 10 % S,677,11 Subtotal D $578, 1,4 Project Cost Factor 40 % $20,579,31 Reserve for Change Orders S % $2,572,41 Total Pro"ect Cost $74,600, 6 06/10/16 KEY FINDINGS 3 - UQUID STREAM CAPACITY LIMITATIONS 19800 DESIGN CRITERIA MEMOS • Technical Memorandum on Design Flow Criteria-June 25, 1987 • PICS(Program for 1/1 Continuous Simulation)MOST(Model for Optimization of Storage/Treatment),using 35 years of hourly rainfall data, 1951 to 1986. • PICS MOST was used for EBMUD wet weather facilities planning just prior to it being adapted for use at the District in 1987. • 3"d largest storm during that period was Jan 4, 1982,considered to represent approx. a 20 year overflow return frequency. • PICS MOST simulated peak flows under ultimate build-out(year 2035)conditions assuming a(healthy)level of pipe deterioration(RDI/1)was 400MGD. 7 06/10/16 WET WEATHER HOLDING BASINS (WWHBS) Deficiencies Proposed Solutions volume limited Raise weir between by overflow elevation "B"and'C" between"B"and"C" , Estimated volume of Increase secondary 122.7 MG is fixed. treatment capacity for _ a peak wet weather flow. Drain-back flow New drain back pump —---" constrained by station(40 mgd `` w_ hydraulics—Martinez capacity)and Line and gravity, dedicated pipeline. bN KEY FINDINGS 4 - IMPACT OF 'FUTURE REGULATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE MASTER PLAN 8 06/10/16 SSI PERMIT LIMITS FOR MHFS • 2012 District Memo on Furnace Costs • $69M Original Construction Cost • $34M Worth of Capital Improvements Allowed • $31M Currently Remaining Based on Previous Expenditures i Estimated Capital Cost i 0 4714 1=I-TT.Kdf*7-1 I SCB Seismic $7,150,000 $4,766,667 MHF Seismic $5,000,000-$15,000,000 $5,000,000-$15,000,000 Ash Handling Improvements $1,500,000 $1,500,000 ORC Project $15,000,000 $5,000,000 Cake Feed Pumps $2,500,000 $2,500,000 TOTAL(2016$) $40M $19M-$29M REMAINING AVAILABLE $12M-$2M EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS BEGINNING MARCH 21 , 2016 units(11 Existing MHF New MHF New FBI mg/dscm 0.095 0.0024 0.0011 ppmvd 3,800 52 27 Hydrogen iChloricle ppmvd 1.2 1.2 0.24 mg/dscm 0.28 0.15 0.0010 • ppmvd 220 210 30 mg/d5cm 0.30 0.0035 0.00062 .•• . • ng/dscm 0.32 0.045 0.013 .. . ng/dscm 5.0 0.0022 0.0044 Particulate Matter mg/dscm $0 60 9.6 . . ppmvd 26 26 5.3 ug/m' 0.01 0.01 0.01 ppmv 100 100 100 microgram,m3:cubic meter,and ppmv:partsper million by volume. (2) Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins .. Dibenzofurans(PCDF),and Toxic Equivalency (TEQ). (3) Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxins(IRCIDD),Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans(PCDF),and Total Mass Basis (4) Emission-limits are according to i CFR 503. I 9 06/10/15 STATEWIDE GHG TARGET LEVELS WILL LOWER AS "BUSINESS AS USUAL" EMISSIONS INCREASE Historical and BAU Emissions 1,000 900 i B00 a p 700 u g 600 500 �Energy emissions ^ 400 Non-energy emissions N E . 2020 Target w 300 0 _ _-_ 20311 Target S 200 �. 2050 Target 100 0 — 1 1 'BAU: Business 1990 2005 2020 2050 as usual Historical BAU GOVERNOR'S "FIVE PILLARS" FOR ACHIEVING THE 2030 TARGET INCLUDE. . . Y • 50% renewable energy • Reduce short-lived climate pollutants (methane) • 50% reduction in petroleum use in vehicles • Double energy efficiency in existing buildings • Increase carbon sequestration on farms, rangelands, forests, and wetlands _ y} _i 10 06/10/16 GHG EMISSIONS ARE AT THE EXISTING CA CAP AND TRADE THRESHOLD 30,000 EXIStin� E 25,000 0 w n 20,000 o w EE 15,000 � U � C9 L 10,000 5,000 0 MHF I GHG CALCULATION Calculated by CH4, N20 and CO2 Composition • NG: 0.0531 MT CO2e / MMBtu • LFG: 0.000261 MT CO2e / MMBtu • Biosolids: 0.051 MT CO2e / Dry Short Ton • Diesel: 0.0742 MT CO2e / MMBtu (0.138 MMBtu/gal Fuel Oil) 11 06/10/16 KEY FINDINGS 5 - NUTRIENT REMOVAL POTENTIAL REGULATIONS & RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS NEXUS NUTRIENT LIMITS ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON BACWA NUTRIENT WORK Entl of Planning PeHatl Watershed P-0 lae-d • BACWA OplimimtlpnlUpgrade Study Watershed Permit Re-lse—d wits • Optimization Raq,irem—or Load Cape Watemhetl Permit Leval t Upgrotles _ _. Implementation Watershed Permit Re-Issued wlm • NWlent Limits CCCSO NPOES Perrrxi Re-leaved with • NutheM Llmae Nutrient Removal Upgrades Impl•mentadory - _' — Phase 1 NWient Removal Upgrades lmpfementmion - - Phase 2� CCCSU NPOES Permit CyNee Wet•rahatl Pennit Cyd.. (t7 0.tthls Sma,the WeterahM PermS.mHe antl liming h•ve rept pear•.1apA.hed. TM•numw PFa•a t—ltl inWtl•upgrapa.tp meal LeWI z or Lml3 va brgab—edan 2015 BACWA Nutdem optlmi»en/UpgrWa POTENTIAL SCENARIO— Spppnq antl Evlu•pen Ren.Th•pmvulpnel'nutrient limib et.•a Mlpwa_ Levi x:IN.,,2- IL,TN,15,hu&TP 1rgVW IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE fatal a,4—n 12mglL,TN<e mqa.TP 1 0 m2fL) FOR NUTRIENT REMOVAL rzi 1-0 2 wwle be npuirea n tn•nutH.m Smits v inuw In..pha.•.- Untlas etia I—,—1 routs W b meat Leval I I—;Phase 2 weWd PIQURE 11.1 W le meet—It 2 times. cPtRM�CONTM C0 TAS TA p5tatcT COMPREI#[NslVE WARYEwq IER MM1STER RAN 12 06/10/15 Potential Refinery Water Quality Requirements Conductivity(PS1cm; 450 7oW DissolvlM Solids 280 <550 Total Natdnfti 100 40-12S 170.180 (rt VL as COM) _ _ vN 81 6.5_-60 7_2-_8 Total ANM*ft so 31-200 80-220 (mgt_as CaCA_L _ SIOca( SiM_)_ 10 c25 14-15 Chiaridt(C1',myL) 3045 - 120-140 Sulgit(SO.,mgt 45 - _ 22-160 NW;K- (NO7,mg1_as, Ammonia 05 <0.5 <OS (NMJWM4'm1Lt_aa N} _— Phosvhatt <p,3 <4 OS•12 (n�a5 P0.) Total hun(Ft,mgt) 0.3 <0.5 10.1 Total AAmittart("yL) Unknorm <0.2 UrYmwn Zme(ngt) Ufthr~ <0.4 <0.03 Total MAW(mglL) 0 Frit Chk"i-Rtsldual 0 0.1-0.5 <0.5 (mryl) Total Su"ndtd 4 '10 c d Solids(TSS W.) _ Total Organic Carbon 10 ,3 Unknavn ma'L r C 1 So.rne7:ria 1t7F x;hiilq 9u.j;ar!ka Cannn Cwla Coavr,-.1�nv78x.:rfel��rr Pr ieu ltilC JOI.1j ALTERNATIVES SELECTION PROCESS LIQUID HANDLING 13 06/10/16 EXISTING PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC Wet-Weather Wet-W.Whcn Pumps Storage /�Reeum Plent Primary 3A,Bae P-p, Aeratek Prmary Eflluerrt Aeration Secondary UV Screens Pwgs Gre Tanks ClanMs Pumps Selector Tanks ClarRers Oesinfeoteon T. RnsI ON 1107 snl.an Screenings Grtt BaY Fdws Duis Ftleeea WAS To Di.]N cean and tsflSde Rause Backwash Sludge Storage Sllos i Add +Lcn DAFT. J Ash SWdae Cerr dh ges MHFs Blen m9 Tank UNIVERSE OF Li%>:m ALT ERNAT IVES Grit Pnmary Tertiary Removai Treatment 1--T-7-1-7—yl Disinfection Filtration 14 06/10/16 UNIVERSE OF LIQUID ALTERNATIVES Nutrient Removal Side stream Nutrient Removal (for Digestion Alternatives) Fes with.See Proven/ScaEable., MODIFIED LUDZACK-ETTINGER (MLE) CONVENTIONAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL 3-40 NO,-N ii-ii Anox Q NO,-N NO,-N Clarifier N%-'Na NH,—NO, RAS NO�-N 15 06/10/16 ALTERNATIVE L1 -- MLE PROCESS Grit PST MLE SC IN Bay Recycled >_♦Water GMF UV ALTERNATIVE L1 (MLE ONLY) PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC r � I I� ♦«ir �� =�~1 aer � REFINERY RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION PHASES Phase i-5mgd Phew 2.15 myd L-�nvn �.rream. .w�rww. -7 1� 16 06/10/16 MBR TECHNOLOGY Disinfection Grit/Primary Screens Basins MBR Clean Wastewater Water LEGEND L Solids to Treatment —. Liquid Return Waste (Onsite or Remote) — Solid wn ALTERNATIVE L2 - MLE + MBR Grit PST MLI SC Bay UV tttttt.trtN*��► Recycled Water MBR UV 17 06/10/16 ALTERNATIVE L2 (MLE + MBR) PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC gym• — C ar: —1- w fieNi`Pr gyp® > a"� era.rr�..wrw • �arrr•nod.�n.r..pr REFINERY RECYCLED WATER PRODUCTION PHASES ,�,.•„„•. rra.tirr Phase 1-5 mad Phase 2-15 mad SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE L1 : MLE + MF + RO + UV ComponentsDescription Refurbish Existing Filters for Title 22 • New Media&Underdrains 1 Demands('S MGD)+Naval • New Mechanical&Electrical Eqpmt $18.2 Weapons Station(`5 MGD) • Expanded Support Equipment Produce 5 MGD Recycled Water For • Split-Stream Nitrifying MLE 2 Refineries(Year-Round,Canal Water Microfiltration(MF) • UV Disinfection $88'7 Quality) Split-Stream Reverse Osmosis(RO) Peak Wet Weather Flow Additional 2 Secondary Clarifiers 3 Improvements(100->127 MGD) Alleviate Bottlenecks $23.4 Produce Additional 15 MGD Expand Previous Facilities for 5 4 Recycled Water For Refineries(Year- MGD Refinery Project(Split-Stream $188.5 Round,Canal Water Quality) MLE,MF,UV,Split-Stream RO) 5 Site Work for Contaminated Soils On-Site Consolidation to Basin A South $16.0 6 Meet BACWA Level 2 Nutrient Modify&Expand Existing MLE Discharge Limits For Bay Discharge System $46.9 Total $382 18 06/10/16 MLE IS OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVE FOR MEETING LEVEL 2 IF FUTURE RECYCLED WATER DEMANDS ARE NOT REQUIRED Preliminary Description Components Refurbish Existing Fitters for Title 22 • New Media&Underdrains 1 Demands(-5 MGD)+Naval • New Mechanical&Electrical Eqpmt $18.2 Weapons Station(~5 MGD) • Expanded Support Equipment 2 Peak Wet Weather Flow • Additional 2 Secondary Clarifiers $23.4 Improvements(100->127 MGD) • Alleviate Bottlenecks 3 Site Work for Contaminated Soils • On-Site Consolidation to Basin A $16.0 South 4 Meet BACWA Level 2 Nutrient • Modify&Expand Existing MLE $123.1 Discharge Limits For Bay Discharge System Total $181 t . i SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR ALTERNATIVE L2: MLE + MBR + RO + UV ComponentsPreliminary Description Refurbish Existing Filters for Title 22 • New Media&Underdrains 1 Demands(-5 MGD)+Naval • New Mechanical&Electrical Eqpmt $18.2 Weapons Station(-S MGD) • Expanded Support Equipment Produce 5 MGD Recycled Water For • Split-Stream Membrane Bioreactor 2 Refineries(Year-Round,Canal Water (MBR) $110.7 Quality) • Split-Stream Reverse Osmosis(RO) • UV Disinfection 3 Peak Wet Weather Flow Additional 1 Secondary Clarifier $12.7 Improvements(100->127 MGD) Alleviate Bottlenecks Produce Additional 15 MGD Expand Previous Facilities for 5 4 Recycled Water For Refineries(Year- MGD Refinery Project(Split-Stream $168.8 Round,Canal Water Quality) MBR,Split-Stream RO,UV) 5 Site Work for Contaminated Soils • On-Site Consolidation to Basin A $16.0 South 6 Meet BACWA Level 2 Nutrient Modify&Expand Existing MLE $69.3 Discharge Limits For Bay Discharge System Total $396 19 06/10/16 KEY FINDINGS 6 - NEED FOR DEVELOPING A PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT OF MHF EXISTING SOLIDS HANDLING Lime&Polymer Addition M Primary Sludge (from Primary Clarifiers) DAR Steam WAS Thickening Blend Tank Dewatering Centrifuges )from Secondary --w Clarifiers) Ash(Recycled) Multiple Hearth Furnaces. Thickener tlnderfloW Centrate Landfill Gas and Natural Gas 20 06/10/16 SOLIDS PROCESS ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS UNIVERSE OF ALTERNATIVES Legend 21 06/10/16 POTENTIAL SOLIDS HANDLING SCENARIOS 1. Keep Existing MHFs & Replace Ash System & Air Pollution Control Devices 2. Replace MHFs with Fluidized Bed Incinerators 3. Add Digesters Upstream of Incineration 4. Replace MHFs w/ Digestion & Biosolids Disposal Program 5. Consider Alternative Thermal Processes Y Gasification Y Pyrolysis Others FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION Dewaieretl Cake E.t—t Gas Cake Feeder CNBtNead 6umer a 000 Male Flurdumg Air w+neon„ I 22 06/10/16 ALTERNATIVE 1 — FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC e.�.e .aw �ae�o seal �-- xr �wows. mwr �/�� 1�1 NnEwaraib. ANAEROBIC DIGESTION rte. cim Ia 1 23 05/10/16 BENEFIT OF DIGESTION IS HIGHLY USEFUL COMMODITY - BIOGAS - Fuel Biomethane Biogas Heat Power Engines,Turbines, Fuel Cells ALTERNATIVE 2 - DIGESTION/ FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC mei. 24 06/10/16 ALTERNATIVE 3 - DIGESTION PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC �o Q Ew6 as w. o r.m e KEY FINDINGS 7 - ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS ON UV DISINFECTION AND STEAM SYSTEMS 25 06/10/16 BUSINESS CASE EVALUATION: OPERATION OF STEAM BLOWERS VERSUS REPLACEMENT WITH ELECTRIC BLOWERS Alternative 132 Alternative B3 Alternative B1 New Steam-Driven ' multiple Small Blowers Total Project Cost $19,650,000 $17,900,000 $14,300,000 Annual O&M Costs($/year) $4,300,000 $3,800,000 $3,100,000 GHG Cap Exceeclance($/year) >$300,000 Not Applicable Not Applicable Net Present Value $82M $70M $57M KEY FINDINGS 8 NET ZERO ENERGY GOALS REQUIRES IMPORT OF CARBON AND ALTERNATIVE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES A � 26 06/10/16 ELECTRIC BLOWER REPLACEMENT CONCEPT 4- ALTERNATIVE STEAM GENERATION Air Scrubber evaporator turbine current generatoi _heat recovery ----------1__---_-� regenerator r- , condense ------------ -------�-- Incinerator diathennic oii circuit ORC group Thermal Users �I 27 06/10/16 ALTERNATIVE THERMAL PROCESSES Technologies Gasification Pyrolysis 1,400—2,500°F 750— 1,650°F Limited supply of oxygen In absence of free oxygen Ash with some char Biochar and Bio-oil "Typical" Gasification Process Flow Diagram Biosolids drying Facility Air/OZ Exhaust gases Gasification Facility Ash/Slag (1,400°F-2,500T) g Steam Generation Air Emissions Control System System Syngas Cleanup Facility Electric Power Generation Facility Electricity for Beneficial Use - 28 06/10/16 Biosolids Pyrolysis - Biochar/Biogas r H, sinew 5lgesr,:rY arcs Cryil� &tea _. � yNG W L'+PE1me or ��y tti4�y.. RAKIt.F Yf Prima Stud e I HeaS so digesers ttirsgas it iraetmarn Thickened WAS Upgrading to Recupevati- ' 17iFrkemr Blomethane � '� � �� :.} Fiu. a ra Iwunaens aeeusary Ifgh Strength Food Paocessing Waste,FOG or Wet Fraction horn '�Sw Nlg 5o sAD Dsware�mo Pyro C"and pw' G..rn Fleat frvin tiHP L V 1 1 1 1'' o F4iusolidr Biochar Low Temp runaecm Pomncrr Ory^r Pyrolysh F4rtilixer Frcxery I LFG USE DATA INDICATE DECLINING AVAILABILITY OF LFG FOR FURNACES Landfill Gas Projection 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -202008 2020 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024'•• 2026 -40 -+— Data ..... ...Linear(Daat r 29 06/10/16 MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CCCSD'S TREATMENT PLANT OF THE FUTURE PLANT OF THE FUTURE - AGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS (0-5 YEARS) 1. r r� DRAFT AGING!NFRASTRUCTURE 0.6 YEARS 30 06/10/16 PLANT OF THE FUTURE - AGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS (5-10 YEARS) r rim w rP �- T' rwcc AGING INFRASTRUCTURE SAD G YEAYEARS PLANT OF THE FUTURE - AGING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS (10-20 YEARS) f - EV DRAFT AGING INFRA%RNCT4IRE 0.20 YEARS 31 06/10/16 PLANT OF THE FUTURE - CAPACITY NEEDS (5-10 YEARS) i �y DRAFT GAPALITY I - 6-10 YEARS PLANT OF THE FUTURE -- REGULATORY NEEDS (0-5 YEARS) _ 1 AL Ate' I t DRAFT REGULATORY 0-6 YEARS 32 06/10/16 PLANT OF THE FUTURE - REGULATORY NEEDS (5-10 YEARS G. 1 jo i. l: iptiw �`� he.a�kasiuw ...1 T.L._ 77 DRAFT REGULATORY 610 YEARS PLANT OF THE FUTURE �-- REGULATORY NEEDS (10-20 YEARS) I 1W A, 0 BRAFT REG ULA TORY 10.20 YEARS MERL 33 06/10/16 PLANT OF THE FUTURE - REGULATORY NEEDS (>20 YEARS) a Www DRAFT — - _ REGULATORY FUTURE PLANT OF THE FUTURE - SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS (0-5 YEARS) e s ? r S...p DRAFT SU STAIRAEILETY 1 t 0•6 YEAR$ � 34 06/10/16 PLANT OF THE FUTURE -- SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS (5-10 YEARS) .-� SwnerN[n s meor/ �j t DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY 5.TO YEARS 1 I PLANT OF THE FUTURE - SUSTAINABILITY NEEDS (10-20 YEARS) I �.J DRAFT SUSTAINABILITY ` -- may= �• 10-30 YEARS I 1 35