planning assumptions the following slides were presented ......1 access to excess cap water, 2010 &...
Post on 27-Jan-2021
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
1
Access to Excess CAP Access to Excess CAP Water, 2010 & beyondWater, 2010 & beyond
Customer/Stakeholder WorkshopCustomer/Stakeholder WorkshopApril 1, 2009April 1, 2009
Planning AssumptionsPlanning Assumptions
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
2
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
AA22E AssumptionsE Assumptions
Ag Settlement Pool is fully satisfied
Five to ten year planning period2017 is a key date
AWBA 4-cent funding has endedAg Pool drops from 400 KAF to 300 KAF
Excess supply generally diminishes over timeTied to long-term CAP contract use, and On-River use
Normal supply conditions on Colorado RiverShortage greatly reduces or eliminates this category of excess, so different guidelines apply
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
AA22E AssumptionsE Assumptions
There is a single rate for all excess (except Ag Pool)
AWBA is constrained by water availability and money4-cent revenue and carryover is primary fundingInterstate banking is excluded
Replenishment Reserve partially satisfied with excessBlock of long-term storage credits is statutory requirement for CAGRDReserve shares priority with AWBA
In theory, AWBA and CAGRD RR could take most or all of the available excess for 5 to 10 years
In practice, there are many competing priorities and pressures on the excess pool…
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
3
AA22E ProposalE ProposalA 5-step Process that Divides, Scores and Allocates Excess Water Orders
Step 1:Step 1:
Set Aside WaterSet Aside Waterfor Bankingfor Banking
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
4
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
AWBA & CAGRD RRAWBA & CAGRD RR
CAWCD will make an annual decision regarding excess water for banking purposes (i.e., both AWBA & RR)
Will include consultation with AWBA staff and Commissioners
CAP staff will develop a recommendation for CAWCD Board consideration in June/July
Based on multiple considerations, including total projected supply, progress on AWBA and CAGRD RR goals, and preliminary Excess orders
Step 2:Step 2:
Apply Min & MaxApply Min & Max
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
5
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Min & MaxMin & Max
Small orders have little effect on the total excess supplyThe number of customers is modestStaff recommendation will include a de minimis
Set as a volume (e.g., 2,500 AF)
Large orders have a large effectA cap would set an upper limit on any one customer’s accessStaff recommendation will include a cap
Set as a percentage of the total “Other Excess” supply available in a particular year (e.g., 15%)
Staff will recommend that Min and Max take precedenceSmall orders are exempted from the A2E guidelinesLarge orders are capped, regardless of A2E guidelines
Step 3:Step 3:
Fill NonFill Non--Credit Credit OrdersOrders
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
6
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
NonNon--Credit OrdersCredit Orders
Current de facto priority between excess used to earn a long-term storage credit, and non-credit uses
i.e., Full Cost has had priority over Incentive Recharge
Staff recommends that non-credit orders be filled firstIncludes direct delivery, annual storage & recovery, and replenishmentNot subject to reduction, other than MaxLikely implemented as a separate pool, with condition that no LTSCscan be earned
Step 4:Step 4:
Score Remaining Score Remaining OrdersOrders
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
7
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
ScoringScoring
Each order has multiple attributes that are relevant in determining “priority” or “merit”
Staff is proposing that orders be “scored” based on a few key attributes
Allows balancing of competing objectivesPoints awarded for each attributeNumber of points reflects relative importance of the attribute
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: Location of UseScoring: Location of Use
CAWCD’s elected representation and defined service area is limited to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties
Staff will recommend that orders be scored based on their relationship to CAP’s service area
Large number of points for delivery inside SANo points for delivery outside SA
Staff does not recommend differentiation within CAP’s service area
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
8
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: Facility TypeScoring: Facility Type
Credits are for future use, but storage at a GSF has an immediate benefit for the partner (facility operator)
Staff will recommend that orders earning a long-term storage credit be differentiated by facility type
Orders at GSFs awarded more points than at USFs
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: Customer TypeScoring: Customer Type
Excess has been used by a wide variety of customers
CAWCD has not traditionally made eligibility distinctions among its non-agricultural excess users
The ability to transfer and sell recharge credits muddles the determination of intended use and “speculation”
SRP’s use of excess adds more complexity
Staff does not recommend differentiating based on customer type
Address speculation concerns with other meansMonitor activity, and reconsider if necessary
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
9
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: Use HistoryScoring: Use History
New and significantly increased orders have impacted the overall excess pool
Some customers have been on a long-term plan, and do not believe it is fair to be reduced by newcomers
Some new customers argue that existing customers want to exclude their beneficial activity
Establishing a baseline can be subjective
The further out in time, the less relevant
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: Use HistoryScoring: Use History
Staff proposes that orders be scored on use history At or below ’06—’08 max, many pointsA modest step above max (e.g., 120%), some pointsA large step or new customer, no points
History would be used as a relative, not absolute factor
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
10
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring: OtherScoring: Other
The scoring approach allows both specific and broad policy objectives to be preferenced
Factors can be added or adjusted as circumstances change
Other factors are under considerationStaff may recommend awarding points for storage at facilities that are CAP recovery partners
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring SummaryScoring SummaryPoints
________AllCustomer Type
SSSSS"""Small increase
SSSSSSSSNew, or large increase
SSS"""""Less or equal to past
Use History
SSSSSSS"AllOther Policy
SSSS¡"""Credit @ USF
SSS"""""Credit @ GSFFacility Type
"""""""" Inside SALocation
SSSSSSSSOutside SA
AttributeType
Note, min & max apply to all orders
Point values not yet
determined!
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
11
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Scoring ExamplesScoring ExamplesPoints
________AllCustomer Type
SSSSS"""Small increase
SSSSSSSSNew, or large increase
SSS"""""Less or equal to past
Use History
SSSSSSS"AllOther Policy
SSSS¡"""Credit @ USF
SSS"""""Credit @ GSFFacility Type
"""""""" Inside SALocation
SSSSSSSSOutside SA
AttributeType Points
________AllCustomer Type
SSSSS"""Small increase
SSSSSSSSNew, or large increase
SSS"""""Less or equal to past
Use History
SSSSSSS"AllOther Policy
SSSS¡"""Credit @ USF
SSS"""""Credit @ GSFFacility Type
"""""""" Inside SALocation
SSSSSSSSOutside SA
AttributeType
Example #1. Existing customer orders same as past, to earn credits at a USF in Pima County
History: """""
Facility: """
Location: """"""""
Note, min & max apply to all ordersNote, min & max apply to all orders
Example #3. Existing customer orders same as past, to earn credits at a USF in La Paz County
History: """""
Location: SFacility: """"
Point values not yet
determined!
Example #2. New customer, to earn credits at a GSF in Pinal County
History: S
Location: """"""""
Facility: """""
Step 5:Step 5:
Reduce Orders Reduce Orders Based on ScoreBased on Score
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
12
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Reduction ApproachesReduction Approaches
Fully fill higher scoring orders; lower scored orders receive de minimis
Cutbacks are concentrated on lower-scored orders
Or…
Reduce based on score; lower scored orders reduced at a higher rate
Cutbacks are shared, but lower-scored orders reduced at greater rate
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Reduction ExamplesReduction Examples
Fully fill higher scored orders
9
8
3
7
2
1
6
54
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
13
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Reduction ExamplesReduction Examples
Reduce based on score
High Score Middle Score Low Score
SummarySummary
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
14
Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009
Pool ComparisonPool Comparison
Ag SettlementPool
400,000 af
Full Cost
IncentiveRecharge
AWBA & CAGRD RR
Current
AWBA & CAGRD RR
Credit-EarningPoolNon-Credit
Pool
Ag SettlementPool
400,000 af
Proposed
Set Annually
Fully Filled
Reduced-to-fit based on scoring
DiscussionDiscussion
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
-
15
Send comments & questions to
Ken Seasholes (kseasholes@cap-az.com)
kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09
top related