| FINAL for 10/16/06 Meeting | MPWMD Comparative Matrix -- Part I-A, Desalination Projects | ||||
| DECISION ELEMENT | COASTAL WATER PROJECT | NORTH MONTEREY COUNTY DESALINATION PROJECT | LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (Sand City Desal) | ||
| PROPONENT/SPONSOR | California American Water | Pajaro/Sunny Mesa CSD | MPWMD | ||
| PROJECT DESCRIPTION | Moss Landing desal plant assumes use of Duke Energy site and intake/outfall. Includes desal conveyance system comprised of transmission main, terminal reservoir, and pump stations; and ASR facilities to store CR (or desalinated) water in Seaside Basin. PEA analyzes Proposed Project and five alternatives (see Line 60). Proposed Project yield is 11,730 AFY. | Desal plant at National Refractories site; prefer use of Duke Energy wastewater as source (existing intake as backup) with existing outfall. Includes energy recovery; possible 30-ac solar energy. Current focus on regional plant, including P/SM service area; willing to expand to serve other areas. No ASR is planned, but could be combined with MPWMD ASR project. | Desal plant at Sand City with potential intake and outfall locations from Seaside State Beach to coastal Fort Ord. HDD well technology needed to achieve 8,409 AF yield goal; brine disposal via MRWPCA outfall likely needed. Could be combined with MPWMD ASR project. | ||
| Pilot Project | Approvals expected by end of 2006; install early 2007; operate for one year via agreement with LS Power. | Approvals expected iby end of 2006 based on approved Encina plant design; plan to operate 4 yrs.; managed by Kennedy/Jenks expert | None planned currently, but will be required by DHS | ||
| PROJECT YIELD | Actual yield based on commitments of purveyor customers | Actual yield based on commitments of purveyor customers | 8,409 AFY yield goal; possibly 11,000 AFY (uncertain) | ||
| Comply with Order 95-10? Water for Seaside Basin? | Yes, 10,730 AFY assumed for Project and alternatives. 1,000 AFY slated to replace Cal-Am use in Seaside Basin. | Yes, 10,730 AFY assumed. Up to 2,700 AF to address gap between current production and sustainable yield estimate in Seaside Basin. | Yield falls short of 10,730 AFY unless expanded or combined with another project. No yield to address Seaside Basin. | ||
| Future Mont. Penin. Needs? | Regional Alt includes 3,572 AFY for jurisdictions within CAW service area as previously identified by MPWMD and jurisdictions. | Water for growth not currently contemplated. | Current project goal is legalizing existing use (11,285 AFY from CR and 3,500 AFY from Seaside assumed). Water for growth not contemplated. | ||
| Future Non-MP Needs | Regional Alternative lists 4,970 AFY for MCWD/NorCo as amended by particpants. North Marina Alt could also be sized to meet regional needs. | Up to 11,230 AF to address known overdraft in areas now within P/SM service area | None | ||
| TOTAL YIELD | 11,730 AFY for Proposed Project; 20,272 AFY for Regional Alternative (or North Marina Alt). | 20,000-22,400 AFY (20 MGD project, capable of producing up to 22,400 AFY - 20,930 AFY demand identified) | 8,409 AFY. Project could potentially be expanded to 11,000 AFY - permitting and feasibility are uncertain. | ||
| Yield Phasing to Mont Penin | 11,730 AFY is Proposed Project amount. Oversized Pipeline Alt or Regional Alt could facilitate incremental future supply above 11,730 AFY. | Phasing based on demand; assume 10,730 AF plus amound needed for Seaside first | No phasing | ||
| PROJECT COST | 2005 Costs for Proposed Project (11,730 AFY) Indexed to 2004 through 2008 | Costs in 2005 dollars for 20 MGD project provided to B-E/GEI Consultants by Poseidon Resources | Varies with site; see Dec 2003 Board Review Draft EIR | ||
| Capital - see lines 77-106 | $191,090,000 for proposed project (11,730 AFY) Based on 10% contingencies - B-E/GEI Consultants recommend 25% contingencies. B-E/GEI evaluated only the desalination component of the project, and not the ASR component. | $132,000,000 for 20 MGD project $169,030,000 (B-E/GEI Consultants, based on increasing contingencies by 10-15% to 25%) | $176,200,000 - $193,000,000 | ||
| Amortized Cap. Cost ($/yr) | $15,000,000/yr | Information not provided | $14,200,000 - $15,600,000/yr | ||
| O&M - see lines 108-112 | $6,372,000 (net amount; see basis of cost info) B-E/GEI evaluated only the desalination component of the project, and not the ASR component. | '$16,900,000/yr | $8,740,000 - $ 9,090,000/yr $6,740,000 - $7,090,000/yr (B-E/GEI Consultants) | ||
| Assumed energy cost ($/kwh) | $0.07/kwh | Information not provided | $0.12/kwh | ||
| Total Annual Cost | $21,372,000/yr | Information not provided | $22,99,000 - $24,690,000/yr $20,990,000 - $22,690,000/yr (B-E/GEI Consultants) | ||
| Time frame for estimates | Capital cost escalated through end of construction in 2008 with 4% inflation | 2005 | December 2002 | ||
| COST TO PENINSULA | |||||
| Share of total project cost | 100% of Proposed Project costs are for CAW Peninsula customers; Regional Alt would rely on prorata share of participation. | Cost of water based on contract volume (capacity+annual usage charges); separate charge for pipelines and pumping facilities. | Entire cost to be paid by Peninsula consumers. | ||
| How share determined | See line 23 | See line 23 | N/A | ||
| Cost sharing of existing vs. future Cal-Am ratepayers | See CPCN application; David Stephenson testimony | Future capacity cost based on construction and transmission | New users pay connection fee similar to current system | ||
| Cost of Water ($/AF) | Proposed Project is $1,725/AF delivered to Peninsula customers ($1,000/AF for desal plant, pumps, pipes and storage; $150/AF for ASR; $550/AF for O&M). Includes lease of desal site. Regional Alternative would be $1,600/AF for CAW customers. Based on 10% contingencies - B-E/GEI Consultants recommend 25% contingencies. B-E/GEI evaluated only the desalination component of the project, and not the ASR component. | Information not provided by project proponent $1,434/AF (B-E/GEI ConsultantsI) | $2,737 - $2,939/AF based on 7.5 MGD (8,409 AFY) project. Includes site acquisition and other R)W costs. $2,491-$2,693/AF if energy costs reduced by 33% as recommended by B-E/GEI Consultants. Need to add conveyance and related costs to obtain cost of delivered water. | ||
| Impact to Cal-Am Bill | Increase of $2.20/ccf in 2007 to $5.73/ccf in 2011 | No information provided | No information provided | ||
| FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS | See CPCN application amended 7/14/05 | Revenue bonds or COPs; possible Poseidon funding | pursuant to District Law | ||
| Interest rate (%) | 7% | Information not provided | 7% | ||
| Term (yrs) | 30 | Information not provided | 30 years | ||
| Public vote required? | No public vote required; possible if public financing. CPUC makes CPCN decision. | Not required of P/SM unless Prop 218 | Depends on type of funding or if part of JPA etc. | ||
| Grants (describe) | None anticipated at this time. | On DWR eligible list, but no grant to date. Will pursue funds for pilot and envtl studies with MLML. | None currently | ||
| TIMELINE | See CWP charts | N/A -- Board tabled action in Oct 04 | |||
| Draft EIR (and/or EIS) | PEA submitted 7/14/05 forms basis of DEIR, anticipated to be published by CPUC Spring 2007. NEPA requirement uncertain. | See Line 37 | unknown; minimum 7 mos to evaluate onshore HDD, and DEIR; assume NEPA tiers on EIR. | ||
| Certify FEIR (EIS ROD) | FEIR anticipated Summer 2007; NEPA depends on timing of ARMY/FORA land transfer | June 2008 ("Environmental Review and Permitting") | unknown; assume 6 mos to FEIR | ||
| Obtain key permits | Pilot plant permits: Monterey County - Aug 2006, but appealed to CCC; RWQCB - Sep 2006; CCC - to be considered late 2006. Full-Scale Project: CPUC issuance of CPCN - Sep 2007; CCC Coastal Development Permit anticipated March 2008 | Pilot plant permits: Monterey County - Mar 2006, but appealed to CCC; RWQCB - Sep 2006; CCC - anticipated to be considered late 2006. See Line 37 for full-scale project permits | Assume 6-12 mos from FEIR | ||
| Secure financing | Upon CPUC approval of CPCN (Sep 2007) | Information not provided | Assume 6 months after approval/vote | ||
| Secure ROW/property access | After FEIR certified by CPUC | Information not provided | Assume 3-6 months after financing | ||
| Start construction | Winter/Spring 2008 to 2010 | Information not provided | Assume 3-6 mo after ROW/access | ||
| Commence water delivery | 2010 | July 2010 | assume 24-month construction | ||
| Total time to water delivery | 3 1/2 - 4 years from Sep 06 | 4 years from Sep 06 | unknown; 4-5 years from Day 1 | ||
| PERMITS/REGS | |||||
| Federal Agencies | USEPA, MBNMS, USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, USACOE, USCG | Same as CWP except no ASR permits needed; fewer stream crossings/avoidance lessen federal permits | Similar to CWP; no pipeline under sloughs and streams lessens some federal permits | ||
| EIS needed? | NEPA review required; EIS possible based on pipeline alignment through federal lands if not already transferred to local jurisdictions | NEPA review may be needed by Army for pipes; EIS unlikely if demonstrate avoidance, reduced impact | NEPA review assumed; EIS is possible | ||
| Fed lead agency? | Army Corps likely | to be determined, if needed | TBD (US Army?) | ||
| Sanctuary approval? | Permit to construct; review NPDES application | Yes, related to NPDES/outfall; need to confirm outfall capacity | Yes, related to intake and discharge | ||
| State Agencies | CPUC, SWRCB, RWQCB, SLC, CDFG, CCC, CEC, CDPR, CDHS, SHPO (CDTS?) | Same as CWP, except no CPUC or CEC; no SWRCB for ASR | Same as CWP except no CPUC, CEC | ||
| CPUC approval? | Needed for Cal-Am rates; CPCN submitted for CWP Sept 20, 2004 and amended July 14, 2005. | N/A | N/A | ||
| EIR lead agency | CPUC | Pajaro/Sunny Mesa CSD | MPWMD | ||
| SWRCB/Water Rights | Needed for ASR or any other new Carmel River diversions | N/A, no ASR planned | N/A | ||
| Regional Agencies | MBUAPCD, MPWMD, TAMC, FORA | Same as CWP | Same as CWP | ||
| Monterey County | MCWRA, MCPBI, MCEH, MCPW | MCEH, construction and use permits | MCEH, MCPBI (?) | ||
| Local Agencies | All affected cities and jurisdictions for encroachment and construction permits; includes MLHD | Similar to CWP; jurisdictions may vary; MLHD (?) | Construction and use permits within affected jurisdictions | ||
| SITE CONTROL | |||||
| Confirmed site? | Moss Landing Power Plant planned for pilot plant. "Duke East" site evaluated in PEA as preferred site. | Confirmed site for pilot project. Lease agreement signed with owner of Natl Refractory site. Potential use of LS Power discharge rather than own intake; will use own outfall. | Sites and alternatives identified; agreements with owners are needed, including MRWPCA for use of regional outfall. | ||
| Alternative sites and projects? | Moss Landing scenario in PEA evaluates Granite Rock and Natl Refractories sites. Five project alternatives in PEA include: (1) Regional Alt with 20,272 AFY yield; (2) Over-sized Pipeline Alt with larger source and transmission pipelines to enable future supply increases; (3) HDD Intake Alt using HDD intake wells near MLPP as feedwater supply rather than Duke intake; (4) North Marina Alt, which locates plant in Armstrong Ranch area with HDD intake and MLPP outfall for brine; and (5) No Project Alt, comprised of existing conservation efforts. | No alternative to National Refractories site needed. EIR will identify project alternatives. | Several locations for desalination plant, seawater collectors and brine disposal via HDD and MRWPCA outfall evaluated in BRDEIR, along with other project alternatives. | ||
| OPERATIONS/OTHER | |||||
| Technical, Managerial and Financial Capabilities (TMF) to meet DHS standards | Cal-Am has extensive TMF capabilities and current certifications to own/operate water systems. Over 39,000 customers in Monterey County | P/SM has current TMF certification by DHS. Planned enhancement for desal project includes expanded board and staff; plan to outsource engineering (K/J), legal, development, contract, admin, construction, management; Poseidon is "Exclusive Management Agent" in current agreerment. | Assume certified entity would operate plant in coordination with Cal-Am system, with MPWMD oversight. | ||
| Back-up; water production interruptions (e.g., power or intake water) | CWP design is consistent w/ Duke operations; forebay, storage tanks and ASR as backup; also other Cal-Am sources in Seaside and CR. | Own inake is backup supply if MLPP discharge water not available; refurbishing seawater tanks with 11-day supply; generators and onsite solar, if feasible. Notes County Ordinance requires back-up supply. | Redundant plant design; back-up generators; ASR source | ||
| PROJECT PARTICIPANTS | |||||
| Overview | CAW willing to participate in public/private partnerships and regional governance formation. Proposed project is geared toward existing CAW customers. Regional Alternative includes cities and areas within MPWMD, MoCo, MCWD, Castroville WD and Moss Landing; pending further study and action by entities. | Focus on regional plant, including P/SM needs; willing to expand plant to meet needs of others such as FORA, MCWD and Monterey Peninsula. | Funded by MPWMD via methods allowed by MPWMD Law; possible public-private partnership or JPA. | ||
| MPWMD participation | MPWMD and CAW executed April 2006 Management and Operations Agreement regarding ASR component. No approvals to date. | P/SM Board authorized JPA with MPWMD in 2004; MPWMD declined offer at that time. | MPWMD currently envisioned as sole sponsor. | ||
| Other entities participation | Other water purveyors are wholesale water customers. | Ongoing discussions with FORA and MCWD. Met met with Cal-Am in Nov 2004; sent letter in Feb 05. | None specified; partnerships possible. | ||
| PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT | |||||
| Outreach programs | Formal outreach program with 52 town hall meetings; presentations to jurisdictions. Website. Direct mail communication to CAW customers and stakeholders. CPUC staff to facilitate DEIR public involvement. | Presentations to MPWMD, City of Monterey, MCWD, FORA, DHS, Monterey County, MoCo Planning; Castroville WD as requested | Monthly written updates and quarterly public workshops 2002-early 2004. | ||
| INFORMATION SOURCES | Year 2005 and 2006: PEA and Amended Application to CPUC on CWP dated July 14, 2005, including technical memoranda on engineering and cost estimates; amended CPCN application for CWP July 2005. Handout materials from CAW consultant (RBF); matrix input data from RBF July-August 2005, including detailed basis of cost documents. August 25, 2005 Town Hall Meeting presentation by Steve Leonard of CAW and responses to questions. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | Year 2006: Application by P/SM to California Department of Water Resources for Proposition 50 Grant for Pilot Demonstration Project, March 24, 2006. Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project Conceptual Design Report, P/SM in cooperation with Poseidon Resources Corp., April 2006. Information provided in 2006 by Poseidon Resources to B-E/GEI Consultants for preparation of desalination projects evaluation. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | Board Review Draft EIR, MPWMD Water Supply Project, December 2003. Regulatory agency worksheets prepared by Jones & Stokes Sept 2004. See line 115 for technical reports with cost information. MPWMD consultant estimates (CDM). Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | ||
| CAPITAL COST DETAIL | Year 2005 costs indexed to 2004 through 2008 | Year 2005 costs | Year 2004 information - December 2002 costs | ||
| DESALINATION | |||||
| Intake | included in plant cost | Information not provided | $21,600,000 | ||
| Pre-treatment | included in plant cost | Information not provided | included in plant cost | ||
| Desal Plant | $93,531,000 | Information not provided | $28,250,000 | ||
| Post-treatment | included in plant cost | Information not provided | included in plant cost | ||
| Brine discharge | included in intake cost | Information not provided | $18,560,000 - $27,130,000 | ||
| Storage | $5,981,000 includes term reser, pump station | Information not provided | included in transmission pipeline | ||
| Transmission Pipelines | $25,024,000 | Information not provided | $12,692,000 | ||
| Pump stations | included in storage costs | Information not provided | included in transmission pipeline | ||
| Energy facilities | none identified | Information not provided | $1,000,000 | ||
| DESAL SUBTOTAL | $124,536,000 | Information not provided | $82,100,000 - $90,670,000 | ||
| ASR COSTS | $15,578,000 | N/A | N/A | ||
| RECYCLED WATER COSTS | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| OTHER WATER SOURCES | N/A | N/A | N/A | ||
| ADDL CAPITAL COSTS | |||||
| Pilot Plant | $2,585,000 | $2,970,000 | none identified | ||
| Distribution system improvements | included in desal and ASR costs | none identified | none identified | ||
| Right-of-way | $2,000,000 (desal plant site to be leased) | none identified (desal plant site to be leased) | $5,900,000 - $9,100,000 (includes site acquisition) | ||
| Envtl review, permits, etc. | $30,456,000 | Information not provided | $61,700,000 - $67,850,000 | ||
| Engineering | included in envt/permits | Information not provided | included in envt/permits | ||
| Construction Management | included in envt/permits | Information not provided | included in envt/permits | ||
| Admin/legal | included in envt/permits | Information not provided | included in envt/permits | ||
| Mitigation measures | to be determined | None identified | to be determined | ||
| Contingencies | $15,935,000 | Information not provided | $25,800,000 | ||
| SUBTOTAL | $50,976,000 | Information not provided | $94,002,000 | ||
| TOTAL CAPITAL COST | $191,090,000 for proposed project (11,730 AFY) Based on 10% contingencies - B-E/GEI recommends 25% contingencies. B-E/GEI evaluated only the desalination component of the project, and not the ASR component. | $132,000,000 for 20 MGD project $169,030,000 (B-E/GEI Consultants, based on increasing contingencies by 10-15% to 25%) | $176,200,000 - $193,000,000 | ||
| ANNUAL O&M COST DETAIL | |||||
| Energy | included in total O&M | Information not provided | $7,200,000 - $7,550,000 $5,200,000 - $5,550,000 (B-E/GEI Consultants) | ||
| Facilities O&M | included in total O&M | Information not provided | $1,540,000 | ||
| Mitigation O&M | to be determined | None identified | to be determined | ||
| TOTAL O&M ($/yr) | $6,372,000 | $13,360,000 | $8,740,000 - $ 9,090,000/yr $6,740,000 - $7,090,000/yr (B-E/GEI Consultants) | ||
| SOURCES FOR COSTS | Costs presented in Amended CPCN Application, July 14, 2005, including detailed Basis of Cost documents and tables. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | Total capital and O&M costs were provided by Poseidon Resources. Cost breakdowns were provided to B-E/GEI Consultants under condition of confidentiality. Pilot plant capital costs are provided in application by P/SM to California Department of Water Resources for Proposition 50 grant, March 24, 2006. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, Phase 2 Technical Memorandum, Project Facilities Alternatives for the Sand City Desalination Project, June 23, 2004, CDM, p 6-2. Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, June 26, 2006 | ||
| ACRONYMS | |||||
| $/AF | cost per acre-foot | ||||
| $/kwh- | cost per killowatt-hour | ||||
| ac | acre | ||||
| AFY | acre-feet per year | ||||
| ARB | Air Resources Board | ||||
| ASR | aquifer storge and recovery | ||||
| B-E/GEI | Bookman-Edmonston/GEI Consultants | ||||
| BRAC | Base Realignment and Closure Office (US Army) | ||||
| BRDEIR | Board Review Draft EIR on MPWMD Water Supply Project (interim draft, Dec 2003) | ||||
| Cal-Am | California American Water | ||||
| CalTrans | Cal. Dept. of Transportation | ||||
| CAW | California American Water | ||||
| CCC | California Coastal Commission | ||||
| CDFG | Cal. Dept. Fish & Game | ||||
| CDM | Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc | ||||
| CDTS | Cal. Dept. of Toxic Substances | ||||
| CEC | California Energy Commission | ||||
| CEQA | California Environmental Quality Act | ||||
| COP | Certificate of Participation | ||||
| CPCN | Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity | ||||
| CPUC | Cal. Public Utilities Commission | ||||
| CR | Carmel River | ||||
| CSD | Community Services District | ||||
| CWP | Coastal Water Project | ||||
| DBO | design-build-operate | ||||
| DEIR | Draft EIR | ||||
| DHS | Cal. Dept. of Health Services | ||||
| DPR | Cal. Dept. of Parks & Recreation | ||||
| Duke | Duke Energy Corporation | ||||
| DWR | Cal. Dept. of Water Resources | ||||
| EIR | Environmental Impact Report | ||||
| EIS | Environmental Impact Statement | ||||
| FEIR | Final EIR | ||||
| FORA | Fort Ord Reuse Authority | ||||
| HDD | horizontal directional drilling | ||||
| IS | Initial Study | ||||
| JPA | Joint Powers Authority | ||||
| K/J | Kennedy Jenks Engineers, Inc. | ||||
| MBNMS | Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary | ||||
| MBUAPCD | Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District | ||||
| MCEH | Monterey County Environmental Health | ||||
| MCPBI | Monterey County Dept. Planning & Building Inspection | ||||
| MCPW | Monterey County Public Works | ||||
| MCWD | Marina Coast Water District | ||||
| MCWRA | Monterey County Water Resources Agency | ||||
| MLHD | Moss Landing Harbor District | ||||
| MLML | Moss Landing Marine Laboratory | ||||
| MLPP | Moss Landing Power Plant | ||||
| MoCo | Monterey County | ||||
| MP | Monterey Peninsula | ||||
| MPWMD | Monterey Peninsula Water Management District | ||||
| MRWPCA | Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency | ||||
| N/A | not applicable | ||||
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act | ||||
| NMCDP | North Monterey County Desalination Project | ||||
| NOAA Fish | National Marine Fisheries Service (part of Natl Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) | ||||
| NOP | Notice of Preparation | ||||
| NorCo | North Monterey County | ||||
| O&M | operations and maintenance | ||||
| PEA | Proponent's Environmental Assessment | ||||
| P/SM | Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District | ||||
| RBF | RBF Consulting, Inc | ||||
| ROD | Record of Decision | ||||
| ROW | right-of-way | ||||
| RWQCB | Regional Water Quality Control Board | ||||
| SHPO | State Historic Preservation Office | ||||
| SLC | State Lands Commission | ||||
| SRF | State Revolving Fund, a loan administered by SWRCB | ||||
| SWRCB | State Water Resources Control Board | ||||
| TAMC | Transportation Agency of Monterey County | ||||
| TBD | to be determined | ||||
| USACOE | US Army Corps of Engineers | ||||
| USBLM | US Bureau of Land Management | ||||
| USBR | US Bureau of Reclamation | ||||
| USCG | US Coast Guard | ||||
| ESEPA | US Environmental Protection Agency | ||||
| USFWS | US Fish & Wildlife Service | ||||