Pitkin County to monitor Colorado methane rulemaking; staff to explore grants for potential landfill capture systems

Pitkin County commissioners on Aug. 12 discussed draft Colorado rulemaking aimed at reducing methane emissions from municipal solid‑waste landfills and directed county staff to monitor the rule and explore state grant opportunities to offset the cost of any required gas‑capture systems.

Management analyst Levi Borsch and Solid‑Waste Manager Tyler Carvel briefed the commissioners on Regulation 31, a draft state rule that would lower the thresholds at which landfills must begin quarterly surface‑emissions monitoring and, if monitoring shows elevated levels, install and operate a gas collection and control system.

Tyler Carvel told the board the county’s most recent internal test (a “tier‑2” measurement) measured non‑methane organics at 6.4 megagrams per year; under current EPA regulation the threshold that triggers a full collection system requirement is substantially higher (the EPA metric cited at the session was 34 megagrams per year). Carvel said the county’s method and the new state rule differ: Colorado’s draft would rely on quarterly surface monitoring; any exceedance in a surface emissions test could put the county on an accelerated schedule to file design plans and then install a system.

Staff presented estimated costs for compliance: near‑term routine surface monitoring and related intermediate operations were estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, while a full gas collection and control system (design, installation, commissioning) could have a capital cost staff estimated at roughly $3.5 million and annual operating costs near $1 million. The figures were presented as preliminary estimates tied to draft rule language and would be refined if staff were directed to pursue grant funding or conceptual design.

Commission discussion and direction: Commissioners raised questions about the feasibility and the timing of a gas collection system, technical constraints with unlined portions of the historic landfill footprint, and options to minimize methane generation in the near term. Carvel said newer lined cells will be simpler to integrate into any future collection system, whereas earlier unlined waste cells would be harder to retrofit. He added that some mitigations — such as biocovers that use organics to oxidize escaping methane — have been used elsewhere but can be water‑intensive and are more common in wetter climates.

County staff said a state clean‑air grant program has allocated funding for methane capture projects and that grants could cover part of a collection system’s capital cost (the state grant program often requires matching funds). They warned that some grant programs prioritize projects that are proactive rather than strictly reactive; if the county waits until a state rule forces an action, it may be a harder match for certain grants.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners expressed no immediate position for or against the draft AQCC rule; instead they directed staff to monitor the rulemaking, to investigate available state grant programs and to return with an analysis showing likely costs, eligibility and a timeline. Commissioners also said they opposed any state legislation that would block AQCC authority to regulate landfill greenhouse gases; several commissioners said they would resist attempts to convert the issue into an unfunded local mandate.

Why this matters: State rulemaking could require Pitkin County to change operational practice and add capital equipment at the landfill. The county’s finance and capital plans do not currently include the full capital and operating costs staff tentatively outlined; staff said grant funding could cover part of the expense but warned timing and match requirements may complicate eligibility.

What commissioners said: Commissioners asked staff to return quickly should any provider face imminent service interruption or if grant windows open that could help fund earlier mitigation.