DRAFT #1		MPWMD Comparative Matrix -- Part I, Desalination Projects
DECISION ELEMENT	COASTAL WATER PROJECT	NORTH MONTEREY COUNTY DESALINATION PROJECT	MPWMD 95-10 DESALINATION PROJECT
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	Permits from Monterey County and California Coastal Commission received in 2006; installed 2007-2008; ready to begin testing; operate for one year via agreement with LS Power.	Permit from Monterey County received in 2006; California Coastal Commission permit pending; 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	To be determined
Comply with Order 95-10? Water for Seaside Basin?	Yes, 10,730 AFY for compliance with Order 95-10.  1,000 AFY to replace Cal-Am use in Seaside Basin.	Yes, 10,730 AFY for compliance with Order 95-10.  3,000 AF to address gap between current production and sustainable yield estimate in Seaside Basin.	To be determined
Future Monterey Peninsula 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.	Water for growth not currently contemplated.
Future Non-Monterey Peninsula Needs	Regional Alternative lists 4,970 AFY for MCWD/North Mo.Co. 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 outside Monterey Peninsula	None
TOTAL YIELD	11,730 AFY for Proposed Project (or North Marina Alternative); 20,272 AFY for Regional Alternative	20,000-22,400 AFY (20 MGD project, capable of producing up to 22,400 AFY - 20,930 AFY demand identified)	To be determined
Yield Phasing to Monterey Peninsula	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	To be determined
Capital - see lines 77-106	$178,000,000 for proposed project (11,730 AFY), based on 10% contingencies.                                                        B-E/GEI: $209,720,000 based on recommended 25% contingencies.	$132,000,000 for 20 MGD project                                       B-E/GEI:  $211,970,000, based on increasing contingencies by 10-15% to 25%)	To be determined
Amortized Cap. Cost ($/yr)	Information not provided                                                       B-E/GEI:  $16,900,000/yr	Information not provided                                                              B-E/GEI:  $20,080,000/yr	To be determined
O&M - see lines 108-112	$8,440,000/yr.                                                                         B-E/GEI:  $8,840,000/yr	'$16,900,000/yr                                                                        B-E/GEI:  $16,900,000/yr	To be determined
Assumed energy cost ($/kwh)	$0.07 - $0.12/kwh	Information not provided	To be determined
Total Annual Cost	Information not provided  B-E/GEI:  $25,740,000	Information not provided    B-E/GEI:  $33,980,000/yr	To be determined
Time frame for estimates	Capital cost escalated through end of construction in 2008 with 4% inflation  B-E/GEI: 2007	2005                                                                              B-E/GEI: 2007	N/A
COST TO PENINSULA
Share of total project cost	100% of Proposed Project costs are for CAW Peninsula customers; Regional Alt would rely on prorata share of participation.	Cost of water based on contract volume (capacity+annual usage charges); separate charge for pipelines and pumping facilities.	Entire cost to be paid by Peninsula consumers.
How share determined	See line 23	See line 23	N/A
Cost sharing of existing vs. future Cal-Am ratepayers	See CPCN application; David Stephenson testimony	Future capacity cost based on construction and transmission	New users pay connection fee similar to current system
Cost of Water ($/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.  B-E/GEI:  $2,190/AF for Proposed Project, $1,640/AF for Regional Project	Information not provided by project proponent.                 B-E/GEI :  $1,520/AF	To be determined
Impact to Cal-Am Bill	Increase of $2.20/ccf in 2007 to $5.73/ccf in 2011	No information provided	To be determined
FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS	See CPCN application amended 7/14/05	Revenue bonds or COPs; possible Poseidon funding	Pursuant to District Law
Interest rate (%)	7%         B-E/GEI:  7%	Information not provided.    B-E/GEI:  7%	To be determined
Term (yrs)	30 year.  B-E/GEI:  30 years	Information not provided.    B-E/GEI:  30 years	To be determined
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
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	To be determined
Certify FEIR (EIS ROD)	FEIR anticipated Summer 2007; NEPA depends on timing of ARMY/FORA land transfer	June 2008 ("Environmental Review and Permitting")	To be determined
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	To be determined
Secure financing	Upon CPUC approval of CPCN (Sep 2007)	Information not provided	To be determined
Secure ROW/property access	After FEIR certified by CPUC	Information not provided	To be determined
Start construction	Winter/Spring 2008 to 2010	Information not provided	To be determined
Commence water delivery	2010	July 2010	To be determined
Total time to water delivery	3 1/2 - 4 years from Sep 06	4 years from Sep 06	To be determined
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
Federal lead agency?	US Army likely	To be determined, if needed	To be determined (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, CDPH, CDPR, SHPO (CDTS?)	Same as CWP, except no CPUC, CEC, or SWRCB	Same as CWP, except no CPUC, CEC, or SWRCB
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.	Alternatives identified; agreement(s) with owner(s) 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	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, February 20, 2008	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, February 20, 2008	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 studies (CDM).  Seawater Desalination Projects Evaluation, B-E/GEI Consultants, February 20, 2008
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	$27,120,000  B-E/GEI:  $52,370,000 - $63,5400,000 including brine discharge
Pre-treatment	Included in plant cost	Information not provided	Included in plant cost
Desal Plant	$84,680,000  B-E/GEI:  $90,290,000	Information not provided                                               B-E/GEI:  $108,470,000 including intake, brine discharge, storage, & pumping facilities	$35,470,000                                                                     B-E/GEI:  $36,840,000
Post-treatment	Included in plant cost	Information not provided	Included in plant cost
Brine discharge	Included in intake cost	Information not provided	$23,300,000 - $34,060,000
Storage	$5,400,000 includes term reser, pump station	Information not provided	Included in transmission pipeline
Transmission Pipelines	$22,700,000  B-E/GEI:  $24,200,000	Information not provided  B-E/GEI:  $28,280,000	$15,940,000  B-E/GEI:  $16,550,000
Pump stations	Included in storage costs	Information not provided	Included in transmission pipeline
Energy facilities	None identified	Information not provided	$1,260,000  B-E/GEI:  $1,300,000
DESAL SUBTOTAL	$112,780,000                                                                          B-E/GEI:  $120,250,000	Information not provided                                                                         B-E/GEI:  $136,750,000	$103,070,000 - $113,840,000                                          B-E/GEI:  $107,050,000 - $118,230,000
ASR COSTS	$14,120,000  B-E/GEI:  $15,060,000	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  B-E/GEI:  $32,470,000 for Engineering, Overhead, & Legal	Information not provided  B-E/GEI:  $32,820,000 for Engineering, Overhead, & Legal	$38,650,000 - $42,690,000  B-E/GEI:  $40,140,000 - $44,340,000 for Engineering, Overhead, & Legal
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                                                                           B-E/GEI:  $41,940,000	Information not provided                                                  B-E/GEI:  $42,390,000	$25,770,000 - $28,460,000                                               B-E/GEI:  $26,760,000 - $29,560,000
SUBTOTAL	$50,976,000	Information not provided	$75,530,000 - $79,160,000                                              B-E/GEI:  $66,910,0000 - $73,890,000
TOTAL CAPITAL COST	$178,000,000 for proposed project (11,730 AFY), based on 10% contingencies. B-E/GEI: $209,720,000 based on recommended 25% contingencies.	$132,000,000 for 20 MGD project                                      B-E/GEI:  $169,030,000, based on increasing contingencies by 10-15% to 25%)	$176,200,000 - $193,000,000                                       B-E/GEI:  $173,960,000 - $192,120,000
ANNUAL O&M COST DETAIL
Energy	Included in total O&M	Information not provided	$7,200,000 - $7,550,000                                                B-E/GEI:  $5,200,000 - $5,550,000
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)	$8,440,000/yr.                                                                       B-E/GEI:  $8,840,000/yr	$16,900,000/yr                                                                         B-E/GEI:  $16,900,000/yr	$8,740,000 - $ 9,090,000/yr                                            B-E/GEI:  $6,740,000 - $7,090,000/yr
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, February 20, 2008	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, February 20, 2008	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, February 20, 2008
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 (Dec 2003)
Cal-Am	California American Water
CalTrans	California Dept. of Transportation
CAW	California American Water
CCC	California Coastal Commission
CDFG	California Dept. Fish & Game
CDM	Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
CDPH	California Dept. of Public Health
CDTS	California 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	California Public Utilities Commission
CR	Carmel River
CSD	Community Services District
CWP	Coastal Water Project
DBO	design-build-operate
DEIR	Draft EIR
DPR	California Dept. of Parks & Recreation
Duke	Duke Energy Corporation
DWR	California Dept. of Water Resources
EIR	Environmental Impact Report
EIS	Environmental Impact Statement
FEIR	Final EIR
FORA	Fort Ord Reuse Authority
HDD	horizontal directionally-drilled
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
USEPA	US Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS	US Fish & Wildlife Service