monterey peninsula water supply project cpuc workshop presentation july 2012

7/31/2019 Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project CPUC Workshop Presentation July 2012

1/25

Technical Workshops onMonterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

A.12-04-019

July 26 & 27, 2012


2/25

Disclaimer

This presentation contains material that are for discussionpurposes.

Various graphics contains numerous estimates which are

beyond our control and subject to change.

These graphics are for illustration purposes only.

2


3/25

3

Topics for July 26-27, 2012 Technical Workshop1. Demand Projections

2. Available Water Supply

3. Project sizing, costs and ratepayer impacts

4. Project governance

5. Contingency planning in light of possible impediments toproject completion and to meeting the December 2016deadline


4/25

4

Demand Projections What are the current, short-term and long-term demand projections

for the Monterey District?

How do the demand projections compare with various filings at theCommission?

What assumptions concerning growth, conservation, infrastructureimprovements and better management of non-revenue producingwater underlie the demand projections?

How might changes in demand projections affect the sizing of the

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project?


5/25

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Normal Year Dry Year 2011 Max Month 2007 Max Month 5 Yr Avg. Max Month

AF

System Demand Max Month

5

NewSupply751 AF

ASR325 AF

18,100 AFY

1,533 AF 1,388 AF1,255AF

NewSupply751 AF

Seaside491 AF

Seaside325 AF

Sand City25 AF

Carmel R70 AF


6/25

System Demand - Annual

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

MPWSP Pre 1995 Demand 2011 Demand 5 Year Average

Demand

AFY

4,944AFY(Firm)

10,306AFYNew

Supply9,006

Carmel R3,376

Seaside1,474

ASR 1,300

Sand CityDesal

94

TotalSupplyC

apacity=15,250AFY

18,100

12,200

13,290

6


7/257

Long Term Demands

Lots of Record (LOR) = 1181 AFA

General Plan Build Out (GPBO) = 4545 AFA

Seaside Basin Replenishment = TBD by Water Master

For Demand Scenarios : Uses 5 year Avg. Demand as Starting Point. Uses 25 year and 50 year payback of Seaside Basin Uses 7 year and 20 year development of LOR Assumes Sand City growth occurs over 25 years Assumes no ASR for initial 5 years. Assumes GPBO starts at 100 AFA after LOR


8/25

Demand Scenarios

8

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

Scenario 1 - 25 SB Payback, No Growth(except Sand City)

Customer (5yr avg) Lots of Record General Plan Buildout Seaside Basin Payback Total Supply


9/25

Demand Scenarios

9

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

Scenario 2 - 7yr LOR, 25 SB Payback



10/25

Demand Scenarios

10

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

15000

16000

17000

18000

Scenario 3 - 20yr LOR, 50 SB Payback



11/25

Maximum Month in Scenarios

11

70-

1,388

1,610 1,600

Seaside369 Seaside

369

ASR433 ASR

433

NewSupply

751

New

Supply751

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

Normal Year Dry Year Scenario 1 Scenario 2 - 2026 Scenario 3 - 2041

AF


12/25

Demand Comparison to Previous Filings

12

TOTAL ESTIMATED MONTEREY MAIN SYSTEM PRODUCTION

(Acre Feet AF)

2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2023 2033

FEIR 15,250

2008 CPS 14,798 14,798 16,500 18,203

2005 UWMP 15,285 18,242 18,242 18,242

2008 GRC Application 14,000 14,012

2010 GRC Application 12,821 12,821 12,321

2010 GRC Decision 11,938


13/2513

Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Main System

12 Mo. Period Production Consumption NRW

Oct 07 Sep 08 13,989 12,093 1,840 (13.2%)

Oct 08 Sep 09 12,917 11,641 1,303 (10.1%)

Oct 09 Sep 10 12,609 11,295 1,275 (10.6%)

Oct 10 Sep 11 12,381 11,239 1,445 (12.3%)

Jul 11 June 12 11,533 10,503 1,030 (8.9%)

All values in acre-feet


14/2514

Non-Revenue Water (NRW) Opportunity

12 Mo. Period Production Consumption NRW

Jul 11 June 12 11,533 10,503 1,030 (8.9%)

Main System Unavoidable Annual Real Losses = 770 AF

Current NRW UARL = 260 AF

Infrastructure Leakage Index = 1.08

* UARL is estimated using the AWWA Audit Software


15/25

Main Breaks

15

1.01

0.31

0.19

0.17

0.10

0.10

0.07

0.04

0.02

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

DUARTE, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

MONTEREY DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER

SAN MARINO, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

BALDWIN HILLS, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

LARKFIELD, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

VENTURA, CALIFORNIA (CAW)

Main Leaks per Mile of Pipeline Comparison - CAW


16/25

$ Conservation Spend Per Customer

16

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

$35.00

$40.00

4-Year (2008 - 20011)Average Annual Spend

2012 2013 2014

$ Conservation Spend Per Customer

Conservation Spend, Cal-Am+MPWMD Budgeted Spend Average Monthly Customer Bill


17/25

17

Available Water Supply What possible impediments lie in the path of receiving water, on

a dependable basis, from the following sources:

Recycled water

Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Replenishment

Sand City Desalination Plant

Slant Wells

California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) ownedDesalination plant facilities


18/25

System Production with and without GWR

EIR Demand (AFY) 15,250

Seaside Wells (AFY) 1,474

Sand City Desal (AFY) 94

Carmel RiverLegal Right (AFY)

3,376

ASR Recovery (AFY) 1,300

Desal to CAW (AFY) 9,006

Required Plant Size* (MGD) 9.0

*By Comparison, North Marina Project proposed an 11 MGD (12,300 AFY) and the RDP proposed a 10 MGD Plant (11,200 AFY)

EIR Demand (AFY) 15,250

Seaside Wells (AFY) 1,474

Sand City Desal (AFY) 94

Carmel RiverLegal Right (AFY)

3,376

ASR Recovery (AFY) 1,300

GWR Recovery (AFY) 3,500

Desal to CAW (AFY) 5,506

Required Plant Size* (MGD) 5.4

WITH GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT WITHOUT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT

18


19/25

19


20/25

20

Project Sizing, Costs and Ratepayer Impacts Based on the net demand and available supply, what is the optimal

size of the project and estimated cost of the total project and Cal-Am only facilities?

Normal practice would be to size Facilities to meet a 19,795 AFA demand andinitially operate them at less than 50% of capacity.

Connection Fee should be collected to supply water over 15,250 AFA

Estimated Cost of facilities are as follows:

9.0 MGD Plant = $260M5.4 MGD Plant = $213M

Cal-Am Facilities = $107M

Total Cost range: $320M - $367M


21/25

Project Sizing, Costs and Ratepayer Impacts (continued)

What is the cumulative impact on ratepayers if all current Cal-Am requested rate increases were approved by theCommission?

21


22/25

Assumptions:

Usage = 1ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons Proposed 2017 bill includes multiple estimates Reflects data from May 2011 22

Projected Impact to Monterey Water Bills

Project Usage (ccf)2012 CurrentMonthly Bill

2017 ProjectedMonthly Bill

Range

$ Increase

Related toWater Supply

Project

25th Percentile Bill 3 $21.12 $40 - $59 $17 - $26


Average Bill 6 $34.09 $64 - $97 $29 - $43



Average Commercial Bill 62 $348.97 $709 - $774 $288 - $356


23/25

23

Project Governance What are Cal-Ams plans for governance-related issues on the

project?

How will project oversight and governance ensure participationby ratepayers?

What possible impediments face Cal-Ams proposed governancestructure?


24/25

24

Contingency Planning in Light of Possible Impediments to

Project Completion and to Meeting December 2016 Deadline

What are potential issues that could delay or derail the project?

What are Cal-Ams contigency plans, and related cost and schedulingimplications, if:o State Revolving Funds are not available or are significantly limited or

delayed?o ASR replenishment water is significantly limited or not available?o Grey water is not available for recycling?o Slant wells do not meet project technical criteria?o Environmental issues require relocation of desalination facilities or slant

wells?

o Capacity or availability of outfall is insufficient?o Amended Ocean Plan sets brine disposal standards that are

incompatible with the project as proposed?o Dynamics of sea water intrusion change in unexpected manner?o Project delays occur due to water rights-related issues; ownership-

related issues; permitting; acquisition of land for desalination facilities


25/25

Questions?

25

monterey peninsula water supply project cpuc workshop presentation july 2012

Documents