### Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368 4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409 Cover Letter

### Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368 4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

EMISSION TEST REPORT

Title Initial Compliance Test Report for Landfill Gas Fue led

Reciprocating Engine Generator Sets

Report Date January 12, 2007

Test Date(s) December 6-7, 2006

Facility Information

Name Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. Street Address Salt Lake Valley Landfill

6030 W. California Avenue City, County Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County

Facility Permit Information

Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05 Site ID : 13104-B4

Testing Contractor

Company Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Mailing Address 39395 Schoolcraft Road

Livonia, MI 48150

Phone (734) 464-3880
Project No. 0609011Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.................................................. ................................................ 1

2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

.................................................. ................................. 2

3.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTON

.................................................. .................................... 3 3.1 General Process Description .................

................................................... ......... 3 3.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Ma terials Used .......................... 3 3.3 Emission Control System Description .........

................................................... .. 3 3.4 Process Operating Conditions During the Compli ance Testing ....................... 4

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES .......................................... 4 4.1 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1) .......... ................................................ 4 4.2 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Meth od 2) ............................... 4 4.3 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (US EPA Methods 3 and 4) .... 5 4.4 Pollutant Concentration Measurements (USEPA Me thods 7E and 10) ........... 5 4.5 Instrument Analyzer Quality Assurance Verifica tion ....................................... 6

4.5.1 Instrument Calibrations and System Bias Checks ................................ 6

4.5.2 NO 2 – NO Converter Test

.................................................. ................... 6

4.5.3 Sampling System Response Time Determination .................................. 7

4.5.4 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification ....................................... 7

5.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

.................................................. ............... 8 5.1 Operating Conditions During the Compliance Te st .......................................... 8 5.2 Air Pollutant Sampling Results ..............

................................................... ........ 8 5.3 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or Operating Conditions ....... 9Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

ii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Summary of measured NO X emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems ...... ............. 2

2.2 Summary of measured CO emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems ..................... 2

5.1 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air polluta nt emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 1 (CAT® G3 516) ........................................ 10

5.2 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air polluta nt emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 2 (CAT® G3 516) ........................................ 11

5.3 Measured exhaust gas conditions and air polluta nt emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems Engine No. 3 (CAT® G3 520) ........................................ 12

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A TEST PLAN APPROVAL LETTER

APPENDIX B OPERATING RECORDS FOR THE LFG-FUELED ENGINES

APPENDIX C SAMPLING LOCATION DRAWINGS

APPENDIX D TEST PROCEDURES AND SAMPLING TRAIN DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX E SAMPLING EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDS

APPENDIX F FIELD DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR EACH IC ENGINE

APPENDIX G RAW INSTRUMENT RESPONSE DATA

### Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Environmental Consultants

39395 Schoolcraft Road • Livonia, MI 48150 • (734) 464-3880 • FAX (734) 464-4368 4970 Northwind, Suite 213 • East Lansing, MI 48823 • (517) 324-1880 • FAX (517) 324-5409

INITIAL COMPLIANCE TEST REPORT

FOR

LANDFILL GAS FUELED RECIPROCATING

ENGINE GENERATOR SETS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. (Salt Lake Energy) operates three (3) reciprocating internal combustion engine (RICE) generator sets that are fu eled with landfill gas (LFG) collected from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill located at 6030 W. Ca lifornia Ave in Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah.

Initial compliance testing was performed to measure nitrogen oxide (NO X ) and carbon monoxide (CO) emission rates from each engine pursuant to th e testing requirements specified in Section 11 B, Testing Status of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, D ivision of Air Quality (DAQ) Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05 issued to the Salt Lake Energy facility.

The compliance testing was performed by Derenzo and Associates, Inc. (Derenzo and Associates), an environmental consulting and testin g company founded in 1989. Derenzo and Associates representatives Michael Brack and Robert Harvey performed the field sampling and measurements December 4 through December 7, 2006.

The exhaust gas sampling and analysis was performed using procedures specified in the Test Plan dated October 24, 2006 and approved by the Uta h DAQ in its letter dated November 24,

2006.

Appendix A provides a copy of the test plan approva l letter.

Questions regarding this emission test report shoul d be directed to:

Mr. Michael Brack Field Services Manager Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

39395 Schoolcraft Road Livonia, MI 48150 (734) 464-3880 Mr. Michael Laframboise Manager, Salt Lake Energy Systems Landfill Energy Systems.

29261 Wall Street Wixom, MI 48393 (248) 380-3920Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 2

2.0 SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS

Performance testing for the three (3) RICE that are used to generate electricity from LFG recovered from the Salt Lake Valley Landfill verifi ed that the units operate in compliance with the emission limits specified in Approval Order No. DAQE-AN3104001-05.

The exhaust from each LFG-fueled RICE was monitored for three (3) one-hour test periods during which the NO X , CO, oxygen (O 2 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) exhaust gas concentrations were measured using instrumental analyzers. Exhaus t gas moisture content was determined by gravimetric weight gain in chilled impingers. Velo city pressure measurements were performed near the beginning and ending of each test using a pitot tube for exhaust gas velocity determination. The testing was performed while the engines were operated at normal baseload conditions (100% generating capacity).

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 present a summary of the measure d NO X and CO emission rates for the Salt Lake Energy LFG-fueled engine generators.

Table 2.1 Summary of measured NO X emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems

Engine

Output Generator

Output Measured NO X

Emission Rates Allowable NO X Emission Rates Engine ID, Model (bhp) (kW) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/ hr) (g/bhp-hr)

ICE1 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 2.49 0.991 2.51 1.000 ICE2 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 1.55 0.618 2.51 1.000 ICE3 CAT® G3520 2,233 1,600 2.61 0.531 2.95 0.600 Total Facility 4,509 3,200 6.65 0.669 7.97 0.802

Table 2.2 Summary of measured CO emission rates for Salt Lake Energy Systems

Engine

Output Generator

Output Measured CO

Emission Rates Allowable CO

Emission Rates Engine ID, Model (bhp) (kW) (lb/hr) (g/bhp-hr) (lb/ hr) (g/bhp-hr)

ICE1 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 5.30 2.11 7.53 3.00 ICE2 CAT® G3516 1,138 800 5.02 2.00 7.53 3.00 ICE3 CAT® G3520 2,233 1,600 15.4 3.13 17.7 3.60 Total Facility 4,509 3,200 25.7 2.59 32.8 3.30Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 3

3.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTION

3.1 General Process Description

Methane-rich LFG is produced in the Salt Lake Valle y Landfill from the anaerobic decomposition of disposed waste materials. The met hane-rich LFG is collected from both active and capped landfill cells using a system of wells t hat are connected to a central header (gas collection system). The collected LFG is directed to the Salt Lake Energy facility where it is

treated and used as fuel for the internal combustio n engine generators that produce electricity for transfer to the local utility.

The Salt Lake Energy facility primarily consists of two (2) Caterpillar (CAT®) Model G3516 IC engines and one (1) CAT® Model G3520 IC engine that are connected to individual generators.

3.2 Rated Capacities, Type and Quantity of Raw Mate rials Used

Each CAT ® G3516 (16 cylinder) gas IC engine has a power gene ration rating of 1,138 bhp and a maximum fuel operating requirement of approximately 8.6 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr). At a nominal LFG heating value of 500 Btu/scf, each en gine has a fuel consumption rate of approximately 300 scfm. Each engine is connected t o an 800 kilowatt (kW) electricity generator.

The CAT® Model G3520 (20 cylinder) gas IC engine ha s a power generation rating of 2,233 bhp and a maximum fuel operating requirement of approxi mately 13.8 million Btu per hour (MMBtu/hr). At a nominal LFG heating value of 500 Btu/scf, the engine has a fuel consumption rate of approximately 460 scfm.

3.3 Emission Control System Description

Air pollutant emissions from the combustion of LFG fuel in the CAT® G3516 engine are minimized by maintaining a consistent air-to-fuel r atio to the turbocharger. Fuel and combustion air are mixed in a fuel pressure regulator, which m echanically regulates fuel pressure according to intake air pressure. The mixed fuel is directed to a turbocharger and then cooled in an aftercooler prior to being introduced to the combus tion cylinders.

The CAT ® G3520 engine is equipped with an air-to-fuel ratio controller that monitors engine performance parameters and automatically adjusts th e air-to-fuel ratio and ignition timing to maintain efficient fuel combustion, which minimizes air pollutant emission rates.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 4

3.4 Process Operating Conditions During the Complia nce Testing

The engine generators were operated at baseload (10 0% capacity) generating conditions during the compliance test. At baseload conditions, each CAT® G3516 engine produces 800 kW of electricity, the CAT® G3520 engine produces 1,600 k W of electricity.

Appendix B provides operating records for the Salt Lake Energy engine generators.

4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

A test plan for the initial compliance testing was prepared by Salt Lake Energy and Derenzo and Associates and reviewed by the Utah DAQ. On Novembe r 24, 2006 the Utah DAQ provided Salt Lake Energy with a test plan approval letter. This section provides a summary of the sampling and analytical procedures that were used d uring the test and presented in the test plan.

4.1 Sampling Locations (USEPA Method 1)

The exhaust stack for two of the IC engines did not meet the USEPA Method 1 criteria for a representative sample location. Therefore, a tempo rary stack extension was used for the compliance testing. The inner diameter of the stac k extension was identical to the engine exhaust stacks (14.0 inches diameter) and measured 40 in ov erall length. The stack extension was equipped with two (2) three-inch diameter sample po rts, opposed 90°, that provided a sampling location 30 inches (2.1 duct diameters) downstream and 10 inches (0.7 duct diameters) upstream from any flow disturbance.

Velocity pressure traverse locations for the sampli ng points were determined in accordance with

USEPA Method 1.

Appendix C provides diagrams of the performance tes t sampling locations.

4.2 Exhaust Gas Velocity Determination (USEPA Metho d 2)

Exhaust gas velocity pressure and temperature were measured at each sampling location near the beginning and ending of each one-hour sampling peri od in accordance with USEPA Method 2. An S-type pitot tube connected to a red-oil manomet er was used to determine velocity pressure. Gas temperature was measured using a K-type thermoc ouple mounted to the pitot tube. The pitot tube and connective tubing were periodically leak-c hecked to verify the integrity of the
measurement system.

The absence of cyclonic flow for each sampling loca tion was verified using the S-type pitot tube and oil manometer. The pitot tube was positioned a t several representative velocity traverse points with the planes of the face openings of the pitot tube perpendicular to the stack cross-Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 5

sectional plane. The pitot tube was then rotated t o determine the null angle (rotational angle as measured from the perpendicular, or reference, posi tion at which the differential pressure is equal to zero).

4.3 Exhaust Gas Molecular Weight Determination (USE PA Methods 3A and 4)

CO 2 and O 2 content in the IC engine exhaust gas stream was me asured in accordance with USEPA Method 3A. A California Instruments, Inc. (C AI) Model 200 instrumental analyzer that incorporates a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) techn ology for the measurement of CO 2 concentrations and paramagnetic sensor for the meas urement of O 2 concentrations was used for diluent gas measurements.

During each one-hour pollutant sampling period, a c ontinuous sample of the IC engine exhaust gas stream was extracted from the stack using a sta inless steel probe connected to a Teflon® heated sample line. The sampled gas was conditione d by removing moisture prior to being introduced to the analyzer; therefore, measurement of O 2 and CO 2 concentrations correspond to standard dry gas conditions. The instrument was ca librated using appropriate calibration gases to determine accuracy and system bias (described in Se ction 4.4.1 of this document).

Moisture content of the IC engine exhaust gas was d etermined in accordance with the USEPA Method 4 chilled impinger method. During each poll utant sampling period, a gas sample was extracted at a constant rate from the source using a heated, glass-line sample probe followed by chilled impingers containing DI water, where moistu re was removed from the sample stream. At the conclusion of each sampling period the moisture gain in the impingers was determined gravimetrically.

Appendix D presents gas sampling procedures and dia grams for the USEPA Method 3A and USEPA Method 4 sampling trains.

4.4 Pollutant Concentration Measurements (USEPA Met hod 7E and 10)

NO X and CO pollutant concentrations in the exhaust fro m each IC engine exhaust were determined using a Thermo Environmental Instruments , Inc. (TEI) Model 42CHL

chemiluminescence NO X analyzer and TEI Model 48C NDIR CO analyzer.

Three (3) one-hour sampling periods were performed for each IC engine exhaust. Throughout each one-hour test period, a continuous sample of t he engine exhaust gas was extracted from the stack using the Teflon® heated sample line and gas conditioning system described in Section 4.3 and Appendix D of this document, and delivered to t he instrumental analyzers. Instrument response for each analyzer was recorded on an ESC M odel 8816 data logging system that monitored the analog output of the instrumental ana lyzers continuously and logged data as oneminute averages. Prior to, and at the conclusion o f each test, the instruments were calibratedDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 6

using appropriate upscale calibration and zero gas to determine calibration error and system bias (described in Section 4.4.1 of this document).

Sampling times were recorded on field data sheets.

Since the static pressure within the stack was slig htly less than atmospheric pressure, the sample port openings were covered, as much as possible, us ing a piece of aluminum flashing clamped to the sample port flange to minimize the introduction of ambient air and the sample probe was placed in the stack away from the sample port openi ngs.

Appendix D presents gas sampling procedures and dia grams for the USEPA Method 7E and USEPA Method 10 sampling trains.

4.5 Instrumental Analyzer Quality Assurance Verific ation

4.5.1 Instrument Calibration and System Bias Checks

At the beginning of each day, initial three-point i nstrument calibrations were performed by injecting calibration gas directly into the inlet s ample port for each instrument. System bias checks were preformed prior to and at the conclusio n of each sampling period by introducing the appropriate upscale calibration gas and zero gas in to the sampling system (at the base of the stainless steel sampling probe prior to the particu late filter and Teflon® heated sample line) and verifying the instrument response against the initi al instrument calibration readings.

The instruments were calibrated with USEPA Protocol 1 certified concentrations of CO 2 , O 2 , NO X , and CO in nitrogen and zeroed using nitrogen. A STEC Model SGD-SC-5L five-step gas

divider was used to obtain intermediate calibration gas concentrations as needed.

4.5.2 NO 2 – NO Converter Test

Following initial instrument setup and calibration error test, the NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency of the Model 42CHL analyzer was verified prior to t he testing program. A mixture of NO calibration gas and ambient air gas was added to a tedlar bag. The bag was attached to the inlet of the analyzer and the instrument response was mon itored as the bag emptied. As the conversion efficiency test progressed the NO reacts with O 2 to form NO 2 . The analyzer’s NO 2 – NO converter uses a catalyst at high temperatures to convert the NO 2 to NO for measurement. The conversion efficiency of the analyzer is deemed acceptable if the total NO

x concentration decreases no more than 2% of the highest observed c oncentration over a 30-minute time period.

An initial NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency test was performed prio r to the engine testing (December 6, 2006) that verified proper operation o f the converter unit. However, the duration of the test was less than the required 30 minutes ( the sample in the tedlar bag was depleted at 24Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 7

minutes). A second NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency test was performed at t he conclusion of the testing (December 7, 2006) that satisfied the USEPA Method 7E criteria (measured NO X concentration decreased by less than 2% over a 30-m inute time period).

4.5.3 Sampling System Response Time Determination

The response time of the sampling system was determ ined prior to the compliance test program by introducing upscale gas and zero gas, in series, into the sampling system using a tee connection at the base of the sample probe. The el apsed time for the analyzer to display a reading of 95% of the expected concentration was de termined using a stopwatch.

The TEI Model 48C CO analyzer exhibited the longest system response time at 93 seconds. Results of the response time determinations were re corded on field data sheets.

4.5.4 Determination of Exhaust Gas Stratification

A stratification test for each IC engine exhaust st ack was performed prior to the performance test sampling periods. The stainless steel sample probe was positioned at sample points correlating to 16.7, 50.0 (centroid) and 83.3% of the stack dia meter (2.3, 7.0, and 11.7 inches from stack wall along one diameter of the exhaust stack). Pol lutant concentration data were recorded at each sample point for a minimum of twice the maximu m system response time.

The recorded data for each IC engine exhaust stack indicate that the measured CO and NO X concentrations did not vary by more than 5% of the mean. Therefore, the stack gas was considered to be unstratified and the compliance te st sampling was performed at a single sampling location.

Appendix E presents test equipment quality assuranc e data (NO 2 – NO conversion efficiency test data, stratification test data, instrument calibrat ion and system bias check records, calibration gas and gas divider certifications, and meter box calib ration records).Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 8

5.0 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1 Operating Conditions During the Compliance Test

The three (3) LFG-fueled IC engines were operated a t baseload (100% capacity) conditions during the compliance testing, which corresponds to an electricity generation rate of:

• 800 kW at an engine output of 1,138 horsepower for the CAT® G3516 engine generator sets (Engine Nos. 1 and 2); and

• 1,600 kW at an engine output of 2,233 horsepower fo r the CAT® G3520 engine generator set (Engine No. 3).

5.2 Air Pollutant Sampling Results

The gas stream exhausted from each LFG-fueled IC en gine was sampled for three (3) one-hour test periods during the initial compliance testing performed December 6 through 7, 2006. Instrumental analyzers were used to measure concent rations of NO X , CO, O 2 and CO 2 in the IC engine exhaust. Moisture content was determined by gravimetric weight gain in chilled impingers and velocity pressure measurements were p erformed near the beginning and ending of each sampling period using a pitot tube for exhaust gas velocity determination.

The average measured NO X and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 1 exhaust g as were 143.9 and 504.0 parts per million by volume, dry basis (p pmvd), respectively. This results in calculated emission rates of 2.49 pounds per hour ( lb/hr) NO X and 5.30 lb/hr CO based on the measured exhaust gas volumetric flowrate of 2,412 d ry standard cubic feet per minute (dscfm). The calculated emission rates per engine output are equivalent to 0.991 grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr) NO X and 2.11 g/bhp-hr CO.

The average measured NO X and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 2 exhaust g as were 88.2 and 468.5 ppmvd, respectively. This results in cal culated emission rates of 1.55 lb/hr NO X and 5.02 lb/hr CO based on the measured exhaust gas vol umetric flowrate of 2,457 dscfm. The calculated emission rates per engine output are equ ivalent to 0.618 g/bhp-hr NO X and 2.00 g/bhphr CO.

The average measured NO X and CO concentrations in the Engine No. 3 exhaust g as were 77.3 and 749.7 ppmvd, respectively. This results in cal culated emission rates of 2.61 lb/hr NO X and 15.4 lb/hr CO based on the measured exhaust gas vol umetric flowrate of 4,714 dscfm. The calculated emission rates per engine output are equ ivalent to 0.531 g/bhp-hr NO X and 3.13 g/bhphr CO.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 9

Tables 5.1 through 5.3 present measured gas conditi ons and pollutant emission rates for each of the LFG-fueled IC engines.

Appendix E provides field data and calculations for each IC engine.

Appendix F provides raw instrumental analyzer respo nse data for each test period.

5.3 Variations from Normal Sampling Procedures or O perating Conditions

The testing was performed in accordance with the Te st Plan dated October 24, 2006 and specified USEPA test methods with one minor excepti on relating to the USEPA Method 3A instrument (CAI Model 200). Upon processing the in strumental analyzer calibration data, it was discovered that the system bias check (SB) between test periods 1 and 2 for Engine No. 3

indicates a drift of 3.3% for the measured CO 2 value. This was most likely caused by a slight fluctuation in sample delivery pressure during the test No. 1 pretest system bias check, during which the recorded zero gas response was 0.5% CO 2 . Subsequent system bias checks resulted in

calculated drift values less than 3%. The measured CO 2 content is used to determine exhaust gas molecular weight for the volumetric flowrate calcul ation. A review of the test results for these sampling periods indicate that this exception resul ted in negligible adjustment to the measured

CO 2 concentration and did not affect the calculated ai rflow rate or NO X and CO emission rates.

A similar issue occurred for Engine No. 2 sampling periods 2 and 3. Upon review of the data,

the measured CO 2 content was lower than expected (8% compared to 12 %). The CAI Model 200

NDIR CO 2 analyzer proved to be particularly sensitive to pr essure and sample delivery fluctuations and these results most likely indicate a slight change in the sample delivery pressure to this instrument. Pre and post-test system bias checks satisfied Method 3A requirements; therefore, the measured CO 2 content was used for airflow rate determination. This produces a slightly higher calculated airflow rate (the reduce d CO 2 content decreased the calculated gas density by approximately 2%), which ultimately incr eases the reported air pollutant emission

rate.

All other instrument calibrations and sampling peri od results satisfied the quality assurance verifications required by USEPA Methods 3A, 7E, and 10.

Report Prepared By: Reviewed By:

Robert L. Harvey Michael J. Brack Engineering Services Manager Field Services Mana gerDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 10

Table 5.1. Measured exhaust gas conditions and ai r pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake

Energy Systems Engine No. 1 (CAT® G3516)

Test No. 1 2 3

Test date 12/7/2006 12/7/2006 12/7/2006 Three-Test
Test period (24-hr clock) 0910-1010 1030-1130 1235-1335 Average

Generator output (kW) 800 800 800 800
Engine Horsepower (Hp) 1138 1138 1138 1138

Exhaust gas composition

CO 2 content (% vol) 12.9 12.9 12.8 12.9

O 2 content (% vol) 6.89 7.21 6.99 7.03
Moisture (% vol) 11.5 11.9 11.7 11.7

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 2,449 2,401 2,387 2,412

Nitrogen oxides emission rates

NO X conc. (ppmvd) 130.5 151.0 150.2 143.9

NO X emissions (lb/hr) 2.29 2.60 2.57 2.49

NO X emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.913 1.036 1.024 0.991

Carbon monoxide emission rates CO conc. (ppmvd) 494.1 509.5 508.3 504.0
CO emissions (lb/hr) 5.28 5.34 5.29 5.30
CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 2.10 2.13 2.11 2.11

† The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NO X and CO are 1.0 g/bhp-hr and 3.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 11

Table 5.2. Measured exhaust gas conditions and ai r pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake

Energy Systems Engine No. 2 (CAT® G3516)

Test No. 1 2 3

Test date 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 Three-Test
Test period (24-hr clock) 1744-1844 1900-2000 2014-2114 Average

Generator output (kW) 800 800 800 800
Engine Horsepower (Hp) 1138 1138 1138 1138

Exhaust gas composition

CO 2 content (% vol) 12.4 8.5 8.4 9.8

O 2 content (% vol) 6.92 7.31 7.49 7.24
Moisture (% vol) 11.2 11.0 10.7 11.0

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 2,412 2,453 2,506 2,457

Nitrogen oxides emission rates

NO X conc. (ppmvd) 110.0 82.7 71.8 88.2

NO X emissions (lb/hr) 1.90 1.46 1.29 1.55

NO X emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.758 0.580 0.514 0.618

Carbon monoxide emission rates CO conc. (ppmvd) 493.3 461.7 450.4 468.5
CO emissions (lb/hr) 5.19 4.94 4.92 5.02
CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 2.07 1.97 1.96 2.00

† The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NO X and CO are 1.0 g/bhp-hr and 3.0 g/bhp-hr, respectively.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

Salt Lake Energy Systems, L.L.C. January 12, 2007 Initial Compliance Test Report Page 12

Table 5.3. Measured exhaust gas conditions and ai r pollutant emission rates for Salt Lake

Energy Systems Engine No. 3 (CAT® G3520)

Test No. 1 2 3

Test date 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 12/6/2006 Three-Test
Test period (24-hr clock) 1205-1305 1341-1441 1508-1608 Average

Generator output (kW) 1600 1600 1600 1600
Engine Horsepower (Hp) 2233 2233 2233 2233

Exhaust gas composition

CO 2 content (% vol) 11.6 11.3 11.5 11.5

O 2 content (% vol) 8.19 8.19 8.19 8.19
Moisture (% vol) 10.6 10.9 10.6 10.7

Exhaust gas flowrate (dscfm) 4,672 4,721 4,751 4,714

Nitrogen oxides emission rates

NO X conc. (ppmvd) 78.2 77.0 76.7 77.3

NO X emissions (lb/hr) 2.62 2.61 2.61 2.61

NO X emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 0.532 0.529 0.531 0.531

Carbon monoxide emission rates CO conc. (ppmvd) 745.5 752.1 751.6 749.7
CO emissions (lb/hr) 15.20 15.49 15.58 15.4
CO emissions (g/bhp-hr) † 3.09 3.15 3.16 3.13

† The allowable emission rates specified in Approval Order DAQE-AN3104001-05 for NO X and CO are 0.6 g/bhp-hr and 3.6 g/bhp-hr, respectively.Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A

TEST PLAN APPROVAL LETTERDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX B

OPERATING RECORDS FOR THE LFG-FUELED IC ENGINESDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C

SAMPLING LOCATION DRAWINGSDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX D

TEST PROCEDURES AND

SAMPLING TRAIN DIAGRAMSDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX E

SAMPLING EQUIPMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE RECORDSDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F

FIELD DATA AND CALCULATIONS FOR EACH IC ENGINEDerenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-1

ENGINE NO. 1 (CAT® G3516)Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-2

ENGINE NO. 2 (CAT® G3516)Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX F-3

ENGINE NO. 3 (CAT® G3520)Derenzo and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX G

RAW INSTRUMENT RESPONSE DATA