November 12, 2018

Sam Rockwell
Towerside Partnership
2828 University Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414

Sam,

We are in receipt of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services’ (MCES) presentation that they will discuss
with the Met Council Environment committee on Tuesday this week. This presentation includes an update on
the Towerside sewage thermal energy recovery (STER) district energy system. We feel it is important to note
several points in response to statements within the presentation. Please find those points below.

 MCES Presentation - MCES must retain ownership of facilities that interface with the wastewater
stream.
o Reponse: Our design and operations strategy can easily integrate this requirement.
 MCES Presentation: EGE cost estimate is approximately $1 million.
o Response: The construction cost estimate comparison is not apples to apples. They have not
taken all EGE model costs into consideration. We have a total cost estimate of over $20 million,
and many of the costs they mention are covered in other line items. EGE has not been given the
opportunity to go through the details of our cost models to clarify this misinterpretation.
 MCES Presentation: Compares this interface to Lift Station L-04.
o Response: MCES staff is comparing this interface to a Lift Station that is essential to managing
wastewater flow. The purpose of our pumping station is different. We will have redundant
energy sources in the event that the STER energy transfer is disrupted. As such, we do not need
to include the same level of redundancy and reliability in our energy transfer station that is
needed in a typical Lift Station. MCES staff has not engaged with us to have a more detailed
discussion on this topic.
 MCES Presentation: MCES staff notes a number of differences in design on slide 23.
o Response: These statements are not accurate. We have most of these considerations
incorporated in our design. The correct information has been provided to staff on several
occasions. We have asked staff for a detailed design review to assure that all of their concerns
are addressed, but that meeting has not occurred.
 MCES Presentation: References to other challenged systems.
o Response: The systems referenced may be challenged, but they are not accurate comparisons to
the proposed system, which incorporates a different design approach.
 MCES Presentation: Questions the payback of our system.
o Response: We have already received third-party validation of our financial model. We also
explained to MCES staff that the Motley growth to the south of our proposed interface point can
have a significant beneficial effect on our financial model, and this is something that can offset
any additional capital costs required out of MCES staff design review.
 MCES Presentation: Challenges with influent temperature.
o Response: The temperature differential we are contemplating for the limited amount of flow
relative to the Metro Plant’s overall inflow is insignificant. We have previously been told by
MCES operations staff that they would not even see a change in their influent temps as a result
 of this project. We can integrate system controls to manage any temperature differential to
address any concerns.
 MCES Presentation: Ambiguous Point of Handoff.
o Response: The point of handoff is very clear. It should be the heat exchanger between the
wastewater and district energy system
 MCES Presentation: Financial analysis.
o Response: Our financial model includes all needed system costs and is based on over 35 years of
experience operating district energy systems. This model has also been validated by an
independent third party.
 MCES Presentation: Operational costs are not included in our model.
o Response: Operational costs are in the model. This has been communicated in previous
discussions.
 MCES Presentation: Lack of successful energy system examples.
o Response: We have taken lessons learned from several systems to design a more robust STER.
As an example, the Southeast False Creek system in Vancouver has recently implemented the
design that we are contemplating for Towerside. There is a system successfully operating at
Borders College in Scotland with a design that is nearly identical to our proposed design.

We hope that we can continue discussing this opportunity with MCES so that we can address the concerns they
have and finalize our system implementation strategy. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,
Ever-Green Energy, LLC

Michael Ahern
SVP, System Development