a.12-04-019 public appendices to mpwsp report.pdf

7/28/2019 A.12-04-019 PUBLIC Appendices to MPWSP Report.pdf

1/71

115

APPENDIX A1

2

QUALIFICATIONS3

4

California-American Water Company5

MPWSP A.12-04-01967


2/71

116

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF RYNINTA1ANATRYA2

Q.1. Please state your name, business address, and position with the California3

Public Utilities Commission (Commission).4

A1. My name is Ryninta Anatrya and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue,5

San Francisco, California 94102. I am a Utilities Engineer in the Water Branch of6

the Division of Ratepayer Advocates.7

Q2. Please summarize your educational background and professional experience.8

A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering9

from the University of California, Berkeley as well as my Engineer-in-Training10

certificate in 2011. Prior to joining DRA in March 2012, I was employed as a11

Staff Engineer at Cornerstone Environmental Group, where I was involved with12

designs of landfill gas collection and control system. My experience in the water13

industry includes an internship position in the area of water quality engineering at14

the Menlo Park Department of Public Works and a position with Generation15

Water, a non-profit water conservation organization.16

Q4. What is your responsibility in this proceeding?17

A4. I am responsible for the Intake Facilities section of Chapter 3 Capital Costs of18

Desalination Plant Facilities and the following two sections of Chapter 5 Cost19

Recommendations for Cal Am Only Facilities:20

1. Transfer Pipeline, Seaside Pipeline, Monterey Pipeline, and Terminal21

Reservoir22

2. Escalation Factor and Cost Markups23

I also serve as one of the two DRA project coordinators in this proceeding.24

Q5. Does this conclude your prepared direct testimony?25

A5. Yes, it does.26

27


3/71

117

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF TERENCE SHIA1

2



A1. My name is Terence Shia and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue, San5

Francisco, CA. 94102. I am a Senior Utilities Engineer in the Water Branch of the6

Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA).7


A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the9

University of California, Davis in 2007. I received my Professional Engineer10License in Mechanical Engineering in the State of California in 2011, License #11

M35352. In March of 2008, I joined the Commission, where I worked as a12

Utilities Engineer on a variety of assignments ranging from assisting13

Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) on General Rate Case (GRC) proceedings,14

conservation rate proceedings, small water company GRC filings, updating15

General Order 103, and Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism/Modified Cost16

Balancing Account (WRAM/MCBA) filings. In June of 2012, I joined DRA as a17

Senior Utilities Engineer and assisted our consultant, Overland, on the Direct Joint18

Testimony for the Monterey Rate Design and WRAM/MCBA in A.10-07-007. I19

also testified on the proposed Sacramento WRAM in this same proceeding.20


A4. I am responsible for Chapter 2 Cost Markups and co-sponsor for Chapter 7 -22

Ratemaking. I also serve as one of the two DRA project coordinators in this23proceeding.24


A5. Yes, it does.26

27


4/71

118

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF J USTIN MENDA1

2

Q1. Please state your name, business address, and position with the California Public3

Utilities Commission (Commission).4

A1. My name is Justin Menda and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue, San5

Francisco, California 94102. I am a Utilities Engineer in the Water Branch of the6

Division of Ratepayer Advocates.7


A2. I received my Bachelors of Science and Masters of Science in Civil Engineering9

with a concentration in water resources from the University of California Irvine. I10have passed the Fundamentals of Engineering exam (E.I.T) in 2009. I joined the11

Division of Ratepayer Advocates - Water Branch as a Utilities Engineer in June12

2012. Since that time, I worked on testimony for California Water Service13

Companys 2012 GRC regarding the plant in service and water quality chapters14

for the Chico, Marysville, Oroville, Redwood Valley, and Willows districts.15


A3. I am responsible for Chapter 3, Section XVI regarding the Desalination Return17

Facilities and Chapter 4 Operations and Maintenance.18


A4. Yes, it does.20

21


5/71

119

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF SUZIE ROSE1

2

Q1. Please state your name, business address, and position with the California Public3

Utilities Commission (Commission).4

A1. My name is Suzie Rose and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue, San5

Francisco, CA. 94102. I am a Public Utilities Regulatory Analyst IV in the Water6

Branch of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA).7


A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering9

from the Duke University in 1995. I joined the Division of Ratepayer Advocates -10Water Branch as a Utilities Engineer in July 2012. My previous relevant11

professional experience includes working as an Assistant Engineer at East Bay12

Municipal Utilities District in Oakland, CA where I worked from 2001 to 2003 in13

the Division of Water Recycling and Wastewater Planning, and working as a14

Consulting Engineer for OBrien & Gere Engineers in Landover Maryland where I15

worked from 1995 to 1997 in water treatment and distribution.16


A3. I am responsible for Chapter 1 Plant Sizing and GWR. I am co-sponsor of18

Chapter 3 Capital Costs of Desalination Plant Facilities, and of Chapter 5 Cal19

Am Only Facilities.20


A4. Yes, it does.22

23


6/71

120

QUALIFICATIONS AND PREPARED TESTIMONY OF INDERDEEP S.1ATWAL2

3



A1. My name is Inderdeep S. Atwal and my business address is 505 Van Ness Avenue,6

San Francisco, CA. 94102. I am a Public Utilities Regulatory Analyst II in the7

Water Branch of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA).8


A2. I received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Microbiology, Immunology, and10

Molecular Genetics from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2004, a11

Juris Doctorate from the University of Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, a Master12

of Business Administration and a Master of Arts in Biological Science from13

California State University, Sacramento. In November 2010, I joined the14

Commission, where I worked as a Graduate Student Intern in the Consumer15

Services and Information Division. In September 2011, I joined Commission staff16

as an Associate Governmental Program Analyst. In May 2012, I joined the DRA17as a Public Utility Regulatory Analyst II where I have worked on California-18

Americans application for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply19

Project and the California Water Company 2012 GRC analyzing rate design and20

sales and forecasting issues.21


A4. I am responsible for Chapter 6 Financing and co-sponsor for Chapter 7 -23

Ratemaking.24


A5. Yes, it does.26

27


7/71

121

APPENDIX B1

2

ATTACHMENTS3

4


MPWSP A.12-04-0196

7


8/71

122

Appendix B-1: DRAs Plant Capacity Analysis1

2

Plant Capacity Analysis Based on RBF Technical Memorandum(MPWSP) Desalination Plant"Recommended Capacity for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project"

(A.12-04-019 Supplemental Testimony of Richard Svindland, Attachment 1)

acre-ft

conversion

factor MGD Source

SystemDemand 15296 1,120 13.66 Supplemental Testimony of Richard Svindland, p. 5

Salinas Valley Recharge 8% Supplemental Testimony of Richard Svindland, Attachment 1, p. 5

Other Supply 5544 1,120 4.95 Supplemental Testimony of Richard Svindland, Attachment 1, p. 5

GWR Purchased Water 3500 1,120 3.13 Supplemental Testimony of Richard Svindland, Attachment 1, p. 5

Unmet Demand without GWR 10532 1,120 9.40

Unmet Demand with GWR 7032 1,120 6.28

Plant

Capacity

(MGD)

Unmet

Demand

(MGD)

Running

Capacity

9.0 MGD plant size 9.0 9.40 104%

9.6 MGD plant size 9.6 9.40 98%

5.4 MGD plant size (with GWR) 5.4 6.28 116%

6.4 MGD plant size (with GWR) 6.4 6.28 98% 3

4


9/71

123

Appendix B-2: Cal Ams Slant Well Details*1

2

Description Unit Price Cost

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Slant Test Well Installation,

Slant Test Well Installation, 1 EA 700 LF 12-inch Slant Well 2,000,000$ $2,000,000

Slant Well Vaults with Manifolding 1 EA Concrete Vault 200,000$ $200,000

Slant Well Equipping 1 EA Pump & Motor 300,000$ $300,000

Well Electrical and I&C 1 LS Combination Buried and OH Service 100,000$ $100,000

Pump-to Waste Pipeline HDD 2,400 LF 16-inch diam HDPE HDD (See Note 1) 600$ $1,440,000

Pump-to Waste Pipeline 1,200 LF 16-inch diam HDPE Open Trench (See Note 250$ $300,000

Brine Connection to Outfall (Temp MH at Cemex) 1 LS Metering Structure & Outfall Connection 100,000$ $100,000

Engineering, Permitting, Misc 1 LS Cost to Implement Test Well 600,000$ $600,000

Subtotal Test Well (Rounded) $5,000,000

Description Unit Price Cost

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Slant Test Well Installation,

Slant Test Well Installation, 1 EA 800 LF 20-inch Slant Well 3,000,000$ $3,000,000

Slant Well Vaults with Manifolding 1 EA Concrete Vault 200,000$ $200,000

Slant Well Equipping 1 EA Pump & Motor 300,000$ $300,000

Well Electrical and I&C 1 LS Combination Buried and OH Service 100,000$ $100,000

Below Grade Diffuser 100 LF 16-inch diffuser located on beach 1,000$ $100,000

Disposal Pipe 200 LF 16-inch diam. HDPE Trenched 250$ $50,000

Engineering, Permitting, Misc 1 LS Cost to Implement Test Well 700,000$ $700,000

Subtotal Test Well (Rounded) $4,500,000

Notes:

1. This pipes will be reused for the permanent slant well, but may be configured differently.

2. Cost for Monitoring wells are included in Engineering, Permitting, Misc. category.

3. Slant Test Wells costs differ due to length and diameter.

Size/Quantity

Slant Test Well

Option 1 - Estimate

Size/Quantity

Slant Test Well

Option 2 - Estimate

3

*As detailed in Cal Ams Response to Data Request DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 002,4attached hereto as Exhibit 8.5

6


10/71

124

Appendix B-3: Slant Well L ayout (DRAs estimate of temporary sheet piling1area for the 6.4 MGD plant)*2

3

*Original figure is taken from Attachment 11 of the Supplemental Testimony of Richard4

C. Svindland, Figure 6.5


11/71

125

Appendix B-4: ASR Well Details*1

Phase 2 ASR - Estimated Budget Summary for Wells #3 and #4Seaside M iddle School Site

Budgeted Item Budgeted $ Comments

ASR Well #3 Construction $2,166,628 completed, used all $ except contingency

ASR Well #4 Construction $2,429,091

currently under construction, expected to be on

budget w/o contingency

General Site Improvements $1,531,836

partially completed, expected to be higher than

budgeted but still within total including

contingency

Total without Contingency (Base

Construction Cost) $6,127,555

ASR Well #3 Construction Contingency $216,663 10%

ASR Well #4 Construction Contingency $220,826 10%

General Site Improvements Contingency $255,306 20%

Total Contingency $692,795

Average Contingency % 11% Total Contingency/Base Construction Cost

Comparable Construction Costs for Wells #5 and #6 based on Phase 2

Item Amount Comments

Base Construction Costs of Wells #3 & #4 $6,127,555

Backflush percolation pit $240,250

Listed as a separate line itemin CAW Only Cost

Estimates for 12-09-019; not necessary for

Wells #5 & #6

Comparable Construction Cost of ASR

Wells #3 & #4 $5,887,305

Subtracted Backflush line itemfromBase

Construction Costs

Phase 1 ASR - Construction Costs for Wells #1 and #2Santa Margarita Site

Total Comparable Construction Cost of ASR

Wells #1 and #2 in 2009 $ $5,722,625 Per MPWMD completed construction costs

Escalation rate for 2009 - 2012 3.0%

Comparable Construction Cost in 2012 $ $6,253,267

Comparable Construction Costs for Wells #5 and #6 based on Wells #1 - #4Fitch Park Site

Average Comparable Construction Costs for

Wells #1 - #4 $6,070,286

Avg of Phase 1 ASR and Phase 2 ASR

Comparable Costs

Contingency for Wells #5 & #6 $667,731 11%

Total with Contingency $6,738,017

Costs recovered by Cal-Amfor Wells #5 &

#6 $1,538,601 AL 895, AL 932, AL 944

Remaining Budget for Wells #5 & #6 $5,199,416 Total DRA with Contingency - Costs Recovered

DRA Estimate for ASR Wells #5 & #6Based on Costs for ASR Wells #1 - #4; Budgets and Costs supplied by MPWMD

2

*Budget and Costs for this Appendix were sourced from MPWMDs response to Data3RequestDRA-A.12-04-019-MPWMD 001.4

5


12/71

126

APPENDIX C1

2

MODEL SNAPSHOTS3

4


MPWSP A.12-04-0196

7


13/71

127

Summary of Tables in Appendix C1

All scenarios use DRA recommended capital costs, operating and maintenance2

estimates, and DRA financing assumptions as shown. SRF scenarios assume the SRF3

loan is not part of the Cal Am capital structure and are reflected in the model as Public4

Agency Debt as a workaround to the model which hardcodes SRF financing into the Cal5

Am capital structure, increasing costs to ratepayers.6

Appendix DRA Scenarios 1st Year AnnualRevenueRequirement

9.6 MGD Model Scenarios: Financing Options

Appendix C-1 Proposed 9.6 MGD Plant UsingSRF andSurcharge 2Financing. $13 million

Appendix C-2 Proposed 9.6 MGD Plant UsingSRF andNo Surcharge 2Financing.

$23.5 million

Appendix C-3 Proposed 9.6 MGD Plant UsingNo SRFandSurcharge 2Financing.

$21.1 million

Appendix C-4 Proposed 9.6 MGD Plant UsingNo SRF

andNo Surcharge 2Financing.

$32 million

6.4 MGD Model Scenarios: Financing Option

Appendix C-5 Proposed 6.4 MGD Plant UsingSRF andSurcharge 2Financing.

$16.3 million

Appendix C-6 Proposed 6.4 MGD Plant UsingSRF andNo Surcharge 2Financing.

$26.7 million

Appendix C-7 Proposed 6.4 MGD Plant UsingNo SRFandSurcharge 2Financing.

$24.2 million

Appendix C-8 Proposed 6.4 MGD Plant UsingNo SRFandNo Surcharge 2Financing.

$35.1 million


14/71

128

Appendix DRA Scenarios 1st Year AnnualRevenueRequirement

Cal Am Only Facilities Financing ScenarioAppendix C-9 Cal Am Only Facilities First Year

Revenue Requirement Using DRAsRecommendations

$10.2 million

Surcharge 2 Detail

Appendix C-10

Detail for Effect of Surcharge 2 on theCost of the Project to Ratepayers

Appendix Desalination Plant and Cal Am Only

Facilities

DRA Recommended

Costs

Capital Plant Costs (used in above financing Scenarios)

Appendix C-11 DRA Recommendations on9.6 MGDDesalination Plant Capital Costs

Most probable cost(Capital Cost Cap):$173.3 million

Absolute Capital CostCeiling: $216.6 million

Appendix C-12 DRA Recommendations on6.4 MGDDesalination Plant Capital Costs

Most probable cost(Capital Cost Cap):$146.2 million

Absolute Capital CostCeiling: $182.7 million

Appendix C-13 DRA Recommendations on Cal Am OnlyFacilities Capital Costs

Capital Cost Cap:$58.8 million

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Annual Cost Estimates

Appendix C-14 DRA Recommendations on O&M Costsfor 9.6 MGD Plant

$8.82 million

Appendix C-15 DRA Recommendations on O&M Costsfor 6.4 MGD Plant

$7.19 million

1


15/71

129

DRA Proposed Financing Scenarios1

2

The following Appendices C-1 through C-9 detail the various scenarios regarding3

financing of the MPWSP. The results used in this Appendix are the product of the 20134Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public (Model) submitted by Cal-Am in a filing to5

this proceeding. This model was developed by Cal-Am with input from DRA and6

MPWMD and is used to project the Revenue Requirement resulting from various inputs7

and scenarios. DRA modified the capital costs for the MPWSP excluding the Cal Am8

Only Facilities and financing assumptions to reflect its recommendations as detailed in9

its report to run this model and present various scenarios in this Appendix C.10

The model as constructed by Cal Am assumes that SRF should be treated as a11

long-term debt substitute. DRA disagrees with this treatment. As a result, under the12

DRA proposals where SRF would be available, the model was run with SRF equaling13

$100 Million and inputted into the Public Contribution tab of the model which reflects14

DRAs proposal for how SRF loan money should be used in the financing of the project.15

Additionally, the model was limited in its ability to modify the ratemaking treatment of16

the Cal Am Only Facilities for this reason DRA has created an additional calculation to17

approximate the First Year Revenue Requirement impact of these facilities which is18

detailed in Appendix C-9. Also, DRA ran the model excluding the test slant well19

because costs for this portion of the project are currently being tracked in the Surcharge 120

Memorandum Account, but DRA does not oppose including the test slant well with the21

entirety of the MPWSP if this portion of the project is found to be used and useful after22

a reasonableness review.23

DRA proposes using SRF Loans as a public contribution consistent with past24

Commission Decisions. For this reason, the estimated $100 Million (based on the25

amount Cal Am estimates getting in SRF debt) is added to the Public Agency field in the26

Public Contribution Tab in the Financial Model. If this is not done, then the model treats27

SRF debt as if it were Cal Ams debt for purposes of the debt/equity ratio. This results in28


16/71

130

Cal Am investing a disproportionate amount of equity in the project, increasing the cost1

to ratepayers. See Chapter 6 for further discussion on this. Therefore, DRAs proposed2

scenarios for SRF/Public Agency financing scenarios would yield the same result.3

4

5


17/71

131

Appendix C-1: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6

7


18/71

132

Appendix C-1 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


19/71

133


4

5

6


20/71

134

Appendix C-1 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING*3

4

5* DRA proposes using SRF Loans as a public contribution consistent with past6Commission Decisions. For this reason, the estimated $100 Million (based on the7amount Cal Am estimates getting in SRF debt) is added to the Public Agency field in the8Financial Model.9

10


21/71

135

Appendix C-2: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6

7

8

9


22/71

136

Appendix C-2 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6

7

8


23/71

137

Appendix C-2 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING SRF AND NO1SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING2

3

4

5


24/71

138

Appendix C-2 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING*3

4

5*DRA proposes using SRF Loans as a public contribution consistent with past6Commission Decisions. For this reason, the estimated $100 Million (based on the7amount Cal Am estimates getting in SRF debt) is added to the Public Agency field in the8Financial Model.9

10

11


25/71

139

Appendix C-3: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF BUT2INCLUDING SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


26/71

140

Appendix C-3 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF BUT2INCLUDING SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


27/71

141


4

5

6


28/71

142


4

56


29/71

143

Appendix C-4: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD USING DRAs RECOMMENDED1CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF AND NO SURCHARGE22 FINANCING3

4

5

6

7

8

9


30/71

144

Appendix C-4 cont: PROPOSED 9.6 MGD USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF AND2NO SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


31/71

145


4

5

6


32/71

146


4

56

7

8


33/71

147

Appendix C-5: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


34/71

148


4

5

6


35/71

149


4

5

67


36/71

150

Appendix C-5 cont: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING*3

4


10


37/71

151

Appendix C-6: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


38/71

152

Appendix C-6 cont: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


39/71

153

Appendix C-6 cont: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


40/71

154

Appendix C-6 cont: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH SRF AND NO2SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING*3

4


10


41/71

155

Appendix C-7: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF BUT2INCLUDING SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


42/71

156


4

5

6


43/71

157


4

5

6


44/71

158


4

56


45/71

159

Appendix C-8: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF AND2NO SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


46/71

160

Appendix C-8 cont: PROPOSED 6.4 MGD PL ANT USING DRAs1RECOMMENDED CAPITAL COST ASSUMPTIONS WITH NO SRF AND2NO SURCHARGE 2 FINANCING3

4

5

6


47/71

161


4

5

6


48/71

162


4

56


49/71

163

Appendix C-9: Cal Am Only Facilities First Year Revenue Requirement1Using DRAs Recommendations2

3

4

DRA Recommendations

Cal Am Only Facilities $58,800,000

Capitalized Interest Approximation* $4,000,000

Cal Am Only Facilities IncludingCapitalized Interest

$62,800,000

Cal Am Currently Authorized Rate of

Return (ROR)

8.04%

ROR on Facilities $5,049,120

Depreciation @ 2.5% $1,570,000

Net to Gross Multiplier @ 1.7 $8,583,504

First Year Revenue Requirement Impact $10,153,504

5

*Capitalized Interest assumes 4% annual carrying cost.6

7


50/71

164

Appendix C-10: Detail for the Effect of Surcharge 2 on the Cost of the Project1to Ratepayers2

3

The following numbers were generated using the 2013 Monterey Desalination Model4v6.2-Public (The model is generated using no SRF funding and including DRAs5assumptions about financing similar to Appendix C-3 and C-7, recommended capital cost6caps, O&M estimates, and without Cal Am Only Facilities).7

8

a. DRAs Proposed Schedule for Collection of Surcharge 29

10

11

b. First Year Annual Revenue Requirement for Projects with and without Surcharge 212

13

No Surcharge 2 Surcharge 2 Savings fromSurcharge 2 in termsof Year 1 RevenueRequirement

6.4 MGD Plant $35.1 Million $24.2 Million $10.9 Million

9.6 MGD Plant $32.0 Million $21.1 Million $10.9 Million

14

15


51/71

165

Appendix C-11: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on 9.6 MGD Plant Capital Costs2

3

4

5

6

7

8


52/71

166


3

4

5

6

7


53/71

167


3

4

56


54/71

168


3

4

5

6


55/71

169


3

4


56/71

170

Appendix C-13: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on CAW Only Facilities Capital Costs2

3

4

5

6

7

8


57/71

171

Appendix C-13: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on CAW Only Facilities Capital Costs2

3

4

5

6


58/71

172

Appendix C-14: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on O&M Costs for 9.6 MGD Plant2

3

4

5

6

7

8


59/71

173


3

4

5

6

7

8

9


60/71

174


3

4

5

6

7

8

910

11

12

13

14


61/71

175


3

4

5

6

7

8


62/71

176


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12


63/71

177


2012

Power $2,890,000

Chemicals $730,000Membrane/MediaReplacement $480,000

R&R $1,650,000

Purchased Recharge Water $0

Labor&Misc $3,070,000Total $8,820,000 3

4

5


64/71

178


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


65/71

179


3

4

5

6

7

8

9


66/71

180


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12


67/71

181


3

4

5

6

7

8

9


68/71

182


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11


69/71

183

Appendix C-15: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on O&M Costs for 6.4 MGD Plant excluding Purchased2Recharge Water*3

TOTAL O & M COSTS $5,860,000

REPAIR & REPLACEMENT (R & R) COSTS = MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, I&C, ETC.

Intake Wells Base Constr uction Costs $14,960,400 1.5% $224,406

Desalination Plant Base Construction Costs $57,346,138 1.5% $860,192

Southern Non-Pipeline Facilities $16,349,435 1.5% $245,242

TOTAL R & R COSTS $1,330,000

$0

$0

TOTAL ANNUAL (with GWR @ $2,500/AF) $7,190,000

TOTAL ANNUAL (with GWR @ $3,000/AF) $7,190,000

Purchase Recharge Water From MRWPCA ($2,500/AF)

Purchase Recharge Water From MRWPCA ($3,000/AF)

4

2012 Costs

Power $2,270,000

Chemicals $530,000

Membrane/MediaReplacement $350,000R&R $1,330,000

Purchased Recharge Water $0Labor&Misc $2,710,000

Total $7,190,000

* These cost estimates do not include the cost of purchased recharged water from the5

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. DRA has captured the price of the6

purchased recharge water in the calculation of the revenue requirement, rather than O&M7

costs.8

9


70/71

184

Appendix C-15: 2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6.2-Public DRA1Recommendations on O&M Costs for 6.4 MGD Plant with Cal Ams2Proposal Including Purchased Recharge Water*3

4

2012 Costs

Power $2,270,000

Chemicals $530,000

Membrane/Media Replacement $350,000R&R $1,330,000

Purchased Recharge Water $6,630,000

Labor&Misc $2,710,000Total $13,820,000 5

6*Assuming $3,000 per acre foot for purchase recharge water, the model gives an output7

of $13.8 million for the total O&M costs.8

9


71/71

APPENDIX D1

(omitted from the public version of DRA report)2

3

CONFIDENTIAL OUTFALL AGREEMENT4

5


MPWSP A.12-04-01978

910

11

a.12-04-019 public appendices to mpwsp report.pdf

Documents