Water agencies united on conditions for Cal Am desal project
Officials to testify before PUC
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/13/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
"Area officials are poised to present a united front on
California American Water's proposed water supply project in testimony to the
state Public Utilities Commission next week, agreeing on demands for public
oversight and other conditions."
"During a special meeting late Tuesday, the Monterey
Peninsula Water Management District board of directors became the third local
agency to unanimously back a call by Peninsula
mayors for Cal Am's desal plant to meet certain conditions before earning the
PUC's approval."
"Cal Am's board of directors agreed to the governance
committee's proposal early Wednesday."
"Testimony is due Feb. 22 from participants in the PUC
project review process. Evidentiary hearings are set for April 2-5 and April
8-11 at PUC headquarters in San
Francisco ."
Board to consider making 'general statement;' may revisit controversial desal proposals
By JIM JOHNSON Herald Staff Writer, 02/08/2013
Excerpts Highlights:
“According to a staff report, district General Manager Dave
Stoldt is recommending the board offer conditional support for Cal Am's project
based solely on its previously approved conditions.”
“The special meeting agenda also calls for revisiting a pair
of proposals by Cal Am that some consider controversial: an increase in the
size of the company's proposed desal plant and implementation of a $99 million
surcharge on Peninsula water customers' bills
to help fund the project.”
“The district board on Tuesday is also set to consider a
report on projected demand for legal lots of record.”
“District staff is planning for an alternative desal project
in case Cal Am's proposal falls through.”
Note: MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Live webcast at www.ampmedia.org on
the Monterey Channel Live
MONTEREY PENINSULA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
Special Meeting
Board of Directors
Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District
******************
Tuesday, February 12,
2013, 6:00 PM
Conference Room,
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
Staff notes for the 6
PM agenda items will be available on the District web site at http://www.mpwmd.dst.ca.us/asd/board/boardpacket/2013/2013.htm
by 5 PM on
Friday, February 8, 2013.
Board of Directors
David Pendergrass,
Chair – Mayoral Representative
Brenda Lewis, Vice
Chair – Division 1
Judi Lehman –
Division 2
Kristi Markey –
Division 3
Jeanne Byrne –
Division 4
Robert S. Brower, Sr.
– Division 5
David Potter – Monterey County
Board of Supervisors
General Manager
David J. Stoldt
ACTION ITEMS -- Public comment will be received on
each of these items. Please limit your comment to three (3) minutes
per item.
Action: The Board will receive public comment and
then determine if it would like to adopt a formal position of support,
disagreement, or neutrality, and direct staff to include in District testimony
to the California Public Utilities Commission.
ITEM:
|
ACTION ITEM
|
||||
3.
| RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT AND CONSIDER CHANGES TO PROJECT SIZING BY CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER |
||||
Meeting
Date:
|
February
12, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
||
General
Manager
|
Line Item:
|
||||
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost
Estimate:
|
None
|
||
General Counsel Review: N/A
|
|||||
Committee
Recommendation: N/A
|
|||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: At the January 30, 2013 Board meeting, the
Board directed staff to include several positions in the District testimony due
February 22, 2013 in the proceeding of A.12-04-012 at the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC.) The Board, however, desired greater
public input with respect to the sizing of the desalination plant capacity.
Cal-Am indicated that it was increasing the size of the
proposed desalination facilities to incorporate replenishment of the Seaside Basin
Estimated Demand –Mid Range
(AFY)
|
15,296
|
5yr Average (AFY)
|
13,290
|
325
|
|
Tourism Bounce Back (AFY)
|
500
|
Lots of Record (AFY)
|
1,181
|
The resulting revised facility size is 6,252 AF with GWR, or
9,752 without GWR.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should discuss and
determine if it would like to adopt a formal position of support, disagreement,
or neutrality. Such position will be incorporated into District
testimony to be filed in February.
BACKGROUND: As part of its application, Cal-Am
indicated it needed new supplies of 9,006 acre foot per year (AFY) in order to
meet an annual estimated demand of 15,250 AFY. This estimated demand was
derived from the last Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and was the amount
agreed upon by the parties in the settlement adopted in decision D.10-12-016.
Since Cal-Am filed its application, a couple of items have
been brought to their attention that merits an adjustment to the estimated
annual demand. These changes are as follows:
- A payback schedule for
the
- The tourism industry pointed to recent reductions in their occupancy rates that will come back and since they are existing customers, the use of a 5-year historical average may not reflect their true demand. Cal-Am reviewed past water use by commercial class users and has allocated 500 AFY for this updated demand return. MPWMD staff analysis of this amount indicates that it may overstate the water demand that might result from economic recovery. The analysis is attached as Exhibit 3-B.
- Cal-Am has included an additional 325 AFY of potable
water demand that needs to be included for the recently approved
- Cal-Am provided the estimated demands for the Lots of Records (LOR) of 1,181 AFY. This number is derived from the October 2009 Coastal Water Project Final Environmental Impact Report and cites Cal-Am’s 2006 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) referencing a 2001 District analysis as the source. The District does not certify that the 1,181 AFY value is valid. In fact, it was cited from an interim period between the Land Systems Group Phase II reports of August 2000 and June 2002 discussed under “2000 Land Systems Group Report” in Exhibit 3-A attached. The District does not recommend continued use of this number. Instead, the District will examine the results of the “2004-06 Future Water Needs Study” background data and attempt to break out legal lots of record and present those results at the February 12, 2013 Board meeting.
As part of their supplemental testimony, Cal-Am has
re-evaluated the plant size to accommodate the above listed supply and demand
changes with the assumption that current demands remain equal to the 5-year
historical average which is approximately 13,290 AFY.
Summed up, the revised demands are 15,296 AFY, however, due
to the reduction in the Seaside
Basin
The resulting revised facility size is 6,252 AF with GWR, or
9,752 without GWR.
EXHIBITS
3-A Overview
of Legal Lots of Record Documentation
3-B MPWMD
Analysis of Hospitality Bounce-Back
3-C Plant
Sizing Memorandum
4. Additional
Discussion of Proposed Surcharge 2 – Collection of Project Costs During
Construction Period
Action: The Board will receive public comment,
discuss the issue and determine if action is needed.
Action: The Board will receive public comment and
then determine if it will state a position in its testimony on the application
by California American Water.
ITEM:
|
ACTION ITEM
|
||||
5.
|
CONSIDER GENERAL STATEMENT
OF DISTRICT
POSITION ON APPLICATION NO.12-04-019 TO CONSTRUCT THE |
||||
Meeting
Date:
|
February
12, 2013
|
Budgeted:
|
N/A
|
||
From:
|
David J.
Stoldt,
|
Program/
|
N/A
|
||
General
Manager
|
Line Item:
|
||||
Prepared
By:
|
David J.
Stoldt
|
Cost
Estimate:
|
None
|
||
General Counsel Review: N/A
|
|||||
Committee
Recommendation: N/A
|
|||||
CEQA Compliance: N/A
|
|||||
SUMMARY: At the January 30, 2013 Board meeting,
the Board directed staff to include several positions in the District testimony
due February 22, 2013 in the proceeding of A.12-04-012 at the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC.) The Board, however, desired greater
public input with respect to the sizing of the desalination plant capacity
(Item 3 on this Agenda) as well as a general statement on the District’s
position on the application - support, not support, conditional support, or
neutrality.
RECOMMENDATION: The Board should determine if the
District supports, does not support, conditionally supports, or is neutral with
respect to Cal-Am’s application. The General Manager recommends
qualified or conditional support based on Cal-Am’s incorporation of the
governance and financial proposals the District made in its October 1 Public
Participation filing and reaffirmed at the January 30, 2013 Board meeting
(see Exhibits
5-B and 5-C). The
Board may wish to include other items in a manner similar to the position
statement approved January 31, 2013 by the Mayor’s Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority and attached hereto as Exhibit
5-A.
EXHIBITS
5-A Position
Paper Adopted by MPRWA January 31, 2013
5-B Draft
Governance Committee Agreement
5-C Public
Contribution of Funds Proposal
No comments:
Post a Comment