Important excerpts from the MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY’S AND COUNTY OF MONTEREY’S COMPLIANCE FILING RE PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION response document, as follows:
The Authority notes to the Commission that the Authority has not yet determined whether it will support Cal-Am’s proposed Project, or one of two proposed alternative desalination projects: the People’s Moss Landing Water Desal Project and DeepWater Desal’s Moss Landing Project. The Authority has retained the consulting engineering firm, Separation Processes, Inc. (“SPI”), to review the proposed Project in comparison to the alternative projects to determine which project is most likely to be completed in a timely and cost-effective manner.
Once SPI issues its final report to the Authority, which is expected by the end of this month, the Authority will then determine which of the three projects it intends to support within this CPUC proceeding. The Authority intends to present evidence to the Commission derived from SPI’s report in the context of this proceeding. If the Commission determines that a CPCN should be granted for the Cal-Am proposed Project, then the Authority intends to request that the CPCN include provisions pertaining to Project governance and financing that are consistent with the proposals set forth in the attached letter.
Important excerpts from Attachment 1 (“Exhibit A”) as follows:
The function of the Governance Committee shall be to: (i) in consultation with and assistance from Cal-Am and the design-build firm selected for the Project, provide a means to coordinate the design, permitting, construction, operations, maintenance, repairs, and replacements of the components of the Project; (ii) serve as the entity which Cal-Am regularly updates as to Project status and issues; and (iii) consult with and provide advice to Cal-am in connection with the Project. The members of the Governance Committee shall diligently consider all matters and cause the Governance Committee to timely and promptly make decisions before it.
Three categories of issues/decision/topics have been
identified that may be addressed by the Governance Committee in the following
manner:
Category A: The three public-entity members of the
Governance Committee make the decision after receipt of a written
recommendation from Cal-Am.
Category B: The three public-entity members of the
Governance Committee share the decision-making role with Cal-Am (equal votes of
each of the three public entities and Cal-Am).
However, Cal-Am may exercise a veto right and override the Governance
Committee’s Recommendation, provided that it first provides a detailed written explanation
of its intent to exercise it s veto right and provides for a ten (10)-day
review and comment period to receive comments from the Governance Committee.
Category C: Cal-Am makes the decision after receiving advice
from the Governance Committee. Cal-Am
need not issue a written explanation for its decision, although should Cal-Am
not follow the advice of the Governance Committee, then it may need to answer
to the CPUC at Cal-Am’s next rate case.
No comments:
Post a Comment