MPRWA Agenda Packet 08-14-14

Agenda Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, August 14, 2014 Council Chamber 580 Pacific Street

Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Approve July 10, 2014 Joint Special Meeting Minutes - <name_author>

2. Approve July 10, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes - <name_author>

3. Adoption of a Resolution to Approving the Revised Member Allocation (%) Distributions to

Include the County of Monterey and Downward Revisions to the Annual Member Contributions for Fiscal Year 2014-15 - Milton

4. Approval of Checks from May to July 2014 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the

Final Budget Reconciliation for Fiscal Year 2013-14 - Milton

AGENDA ITEMS

5. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to expected changes to the

California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) - Cullem

6. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to the current status of source

water negotiations for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Project - Stoldt

7. Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General Manager, or District

Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as a member of the Authority Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey

Thursday, August 14, 2014

2

Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group - Burnett/Cullem

8. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the Value Engineering (VE) Final Report

for the Cal Am Desal facility, authorize forwarding of the VE report to the Governance Committee for its action, and authorize payment to the consultant (VMS) from funding provided by Cal Am, not to-exceed the contract price of $109,035.70 - Cullem/Crooks

9. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the power purchase agreement between

Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) - Cullem/Crooks

10. Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the City of Marina test slant well Coastal

Development Permit (CDP) and the current schedule for Coastal Commission CDP - Crooks

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerk’s Office, the Principal Office of the Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerk’s Office at 580 Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MINUTES MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)

Joint Special Meeting 7:00 PM, Thursday, July 10, 2014

COUNCIL CHAMBER 580 PACIFIC STREET

MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL The Joint Special Meeting with the Governance Committee was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala,

Directors Absent: None Governance Committee Members Present:

Jason Burnett, Chair Rich Svinland, California American Water Dave Potter, County of Monterey

Governance Committee Members Absent:

Jeanie Byrns, MRWPCA

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk of the Authority, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENTS

• Tom Rowley thanked the Monterey County representative for attending the Authority meeting and urged him to attend regularly to represent the County Cal Am rate payers.

• Nelson Vega also thanked Mr. Potter for attending but then spoke to Mr. Della Sala's efforts as President of the Authority as exemplary and commendable.

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Receive Report from Value Management Strategies, Inc., Discuss, and Provide Direction on the Draft Preliminary Value Engineering Study of CDM's 30% Design of the California American Water Company Desalination Project. Executive Director Cullem introduced Mark Watson from Value Management Strategies, spokesperson for the Value Engineering study for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). He presented a preliminary presentation noting a final presentation would be made on July 15, 2014 to the Governance Committee. Mr. Cullem spoke to the opportunities the public had to participate in the process including the TAC Meeting on July 7, 2014 and that the final report would be released in 30 days.

Mr. Watson presented the preliminary results of the Value Engineering "VE" study of the desalination plant, invited public comment and discussed next steps for the path forward for the VE results. He spoke to the purpose of the study to identify a series of value enhancing options to the current design of the project through an objective, not an independent review. Mr. Watson further explained that the workshop consisted of a multi-discipline and stakeholder attendees that helped develop the proposed options. The process included the following

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, July 10, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Joint Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2014

2

elements; preparation information, functional analysis, speculation, evaluation, development presentation and post study implementation. He reiterated that VE is not a cost reducing exercise but an intersection of performance, cost, risk and time, all appropriately weighed that increase the value of the project. He spoke to the 15 identified priorities and indicated if implemented, could potentially decrease the total project cost by 9 million dollars and improve the value of the project by up to 29 percent over the life of the project. Mr. Watson answered questions from the Boards.

Director Rubio questioned if future expansion options were considered within the analysis, Director Edelen questioned the environmental impacts and Director Kampe questioned if pre-treatment and pathogen removal was addressed and asked if the provided bore hole data was sufficient to determine if we could do a better job at a cheaper cost. Mr. Watson indicated that the highest risk identified is the raw water data. The report will indicate that there is a lack of data on the water and assumptions were made according to different speculated results. That is a key aspect to overall cost to the project.

Vice President Burnett requested clarification of the key drivers for the significant cost savings to which Mr. Watson explained the largest savings would be related to the recovery rate process. The current project assumes a 40% recovery in first pass and 90% in the second and VMS believes that there is a possibility for a higher recovery rate which would impact the RO membranes positively.

Director Pendergrass questioned if any energy savings were identified to which Mr. Watson explained there were 33 suggestions as the group was very focused on the life cycle cost savings and total carbon footprint for the alternatives. He identified that it was assessed as a risk to obtain power from the Monterey Regional Waste Management District due to uncertainties.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the presentation.

• Nelson Vega questioned the potential impacts to the cost per acre foot of the project and supported the larger facility size

• Rick Riedl requested renegotiation with CDM Smith to recoup some of the cost savings and questioned if there was an incentive to reduce costs within the contract.

• Dale Heikaus requested clarification of the definitions of value comparison.

• George Riley, questioned if the suggestions were implemented, would the quality or components of the source water change.

• David Lifland questioned the RO schematic expressing concern that the building was not large enough and questioned if the public would be able to comment on the final process.

• Michael Warburton questioned how drought regulations would be enforced and spoke to pending legislation as it relates to this project.

Mr. Watson answered questions posed during public comments.

MPRWA Minutes Thursday, July 10, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Joint Special Meeting Minutes - Thursday, July 10, 2014

3

Rich Svinland, Cal Am noted that many of the options submitted were already discussed and will be recommended for implementation to CDM. He noted they may not get dollar for dollar recovery, but will negotiate to get a decreased cost to the ratepayers. He explained that some systems are not yet fully designed because of the outstanding results of the test wells. The pipeline design is ready for the VE process, which will be included in the Environmental Impact Report.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the additional needed study for this project and expressed caution that the proposed $9 million in savings may change as modifying one aspect may impact other factors. He reported the public will be able to comment on the study during the Governance Committee meeting when the final report is received.

ADJOURNMENT Having no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 8:13 PM.

ATTEST: Lesley Milton, Clerk Chuck Della Sala, President

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Agenda Report

Date: August 14, 2014

Item No: 3.

№06/12

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution to Approving the Revised Member Allocation (%)

Distributions to Include the County of Monterey and Downward Revisions to the Annual Member Contributions for Fiscal Year 2014-15

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Authority adopt the attached resolution revising the member city contribution percentages for Fiscal Year 2014-15 due to the budgeted funding allocation by the County of Monterey. DISCUSSION: When the authority was initially formed, it was anticipated that all Cal Am Rate payers affected by the Cease and Desist order would be represented by the Authority. Due to a challenge placed on certain supervisorial representatives, The County of Monterey has never formally been seated as a member. However, through the participation of the County of Monterey as a member of the Governance Committee and the fact that the Authority has continued to work to provide a water supply regardless of membership of all rate payers, it has been requested that that the County of Monterey, being represented on the Governance Committee participate in the financial contributions for the Authority budget.

The Authority has submitted requests for membership funding for Fiscal years, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Contributions were budgeted for 2012-13 and 2014-15. The County of Monterey payment for fair share contribution for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 was received and a fair-share contribution request for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 have been made. Staff attended the Budget Committee meeting on June 10, 2014 to answer questions about the current and next fiscal year fair-share contribution requests and subsequently the contribution for Fiscal year 2014-15 has been included within the County of Monterey budget and staff is confident that it can be incorporated into our budgeted membership fees for FY 14-15.

Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Authority adopt the attached resolution outlining the revised member city contribution percentages based on Cal Am rate payers. The County of Monterey represents 34% of the rate payers and the resolution adjusts the other members accordingly splitting the budget according to those percentages. EXHIBITS:

A- Draft Resolution Including Proposed Member City Distribution Percentatges for FY 2014-15



Item No: 4.

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approval of Checks from May to July 2014 and Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Final Budget Reconciliation for Fiscal Year 2013-14

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Authority approve and file the accounts payable payments made during the period of June 12, 2014 through August 14, 2014 with total payments for the above referenced period of $17,835.82. It is also recommended that the Authority Adopt a resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget and authorizing the remaining unspent funds to remain in fund balance for use during Fiscal year 2014-15.

DISCUSSION:

At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff recommendation to provide the Directors a listing of general checks issued since the last report so that it can inspect and confirm these checks. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and approved by the Executive Director and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure that it conforms to the approved budget.

The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and confirmation.

• $ 412.50 to Access Monterey Peninsula for Video Production Services

• $ 1,558.33 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach Services

• $ 5,497.75 to Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for Special Legal Counsel

• $ 5,000.00 to Perry and Freeman for Legal Services/Attorney of Record

• $5,367.24 to City of Monterey for Reimbursement of Executive Director Services.

The bank balance as of August 14th, 2014 is sufficient cover the above checks and the remaining fiscal years encumbrances therefore, staff is recommending approval of the above checks.

Fiscal Year 2013-14 Revenues:

Revenues for the final balance of the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget appear to be off due to the approval of a contract for Value Engineering services, approved to be fully

reimbursable by Cal Am. Per the agreement, Cal Am was responsible to provide the Authority up to $200,000 for the Value Engineering Study prior to the execution of the contract. The funds were received after the close of the Fiscal Year and as previously authorized, will be carried over into the Fiscal year 2014-15 Budget. Also, the reimbursement from the County of Monterey for a portion of the SPI contract is still outstanding to which the Executive Director attended and presented to the Monterey County Budget Committee explaining the request for funds. The County of Monterey has requested copies of the invoice on several occasions but the payment has not materialized. It is anticipated that the funds will be received during the FY 14-15.

The County of Monterey payment for fair share contribution for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 was received and a fair-share contribution request for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 have been made. Staff attended the Budget Committee meeting on June 10, 2014 to answer questions about the current and next fiscal year fair-share contribution requests and subsequently the contribution for Fiscal year 2014-15 has been included within the County of Monterey budget and staff is confident that it can be incorporated into our budgeted membership fees for FY 14-15.

Expenses:

Staff and the Board remained fiscally conservative throughout the year and ended with residual balances in all of the expenditure categories. Any remaining funding will be left in fund balance for use as necessary during the next fiscal year and may work to offset future member funding requests. A detailed report of the financial accounting will be available once the Financial Audit is completed by October 2014.

Staff is recommending that the Authority approve and file the above checks and adopt the attached resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget and authorizing the remaining unspent funds to remain in fund balance for use during Fiscal year 2014-15.

ATTACHMENTS:

• Budget to Actual Report through June 30, 2014

• Resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget and authorizing unspent funds to stay in Fund Balance.

11:34 AM 08/05/14 Accrual Basis

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual

July 2013 through June 2014

Budget Acutal Difference

Ordinary Income/Expense

Income

47200 · Program Income

47230 · Membership Dues 424,562.00 424,562.00 0.00

47250 · Reimbursement SPI Contract 18,562.00 9,281.00 -9,281.00

47260 · Reimburesment VE Contract 200,000.00 0.00 -200,000.00

Total 47200 · Program Income 643,124.00 433,843.00 -209,281.00

Total Income 643,124.00 433,843.00 -209,281.00

Expense

60900 · Administration and Clerical

60901 · Clerk of the Board 35,000.00 35,000.00 0.00

60902 · Executive Director 90,680.00 59,141.16 -31,538.84

Total 60900 · Administration and Clerical 125,680.00 94,141.16 -31,538.84

62100 · Legal Fees

62110 · Board Counsel 59,000.00 27,000.00 -32,000.00

62140 · Special Counsel 186,000.00 142,184.75 -43,815.25

Total 62100 · Legal Fees 245,000.00 169,184.75 -75,815.25

62800 · Contract Services

60801 · Public Outreach 15,000.00 8,509.19 -6,490.81

60806 · Contract VE 200,000.00 0.00 -200,000.00

62802 · Audit Services 6,700.00 6,700.00 0.00

62803 · Televised Meeting 10,000.00 5,100.00 -4,900.00

62804 · Contract Services & Studies 3,000.00 0.00 -3,000.00

62805 · Contract SPI 35,000.00 27,843.43 -7,156.5762805 · Contract SPI 35,000.00 27,843.43 -7,156.57

Total 62800 · Contract Services 269,700.00 48,152.62 -221,547.38

65000 · Insurance 7,000.00 6,701.88 -298.12

65100 · Travel Expenses 1,000.00 828.74 -171.26

68300 · Contingency 2,000.00 734.78 -1,265.22

Total Expense 650,380.00 319,743.93 -330,636.07

Net Ordinary Income -7,256.00 114,099.07 121,355.07

Net Income -7,256.00 114,099.07 121,355.07

Page 4 of 4

Table 1

Budget FY 2013-14 Adopted Budget 13-14

Amended Budget 13-14

Legal Counsel $63,000 $59,000Attorney of Record $100,000 $186,000Staff $35,000 $35,000Executive Director $94,680 $90,680

$10,000 $3,000$20,000 $35,000

Contract Assistance $15,000 $200,000Travel $5,000 $1,000Public Outreach $49,000 $25,000

$7,000 $7,000$5,000 $6,700

$20,000 $2,000Total Budget FY 13-14 $423,680 $650,380

Contingency

Professional Services

StudiesProject Evaluation

InsuranceAudit

Table 2

Statement of Net Position 2013-14 Amended Funds Funds 2014-15Budgeted Budget Received Outstanding DRAFT

OPERATING EXPENSESCarryover from FY 2012-2013 $7,268 $7,268 $0County Contrib from FY 2012-2013 $83,300 $0 $83,300 $0Membership Fees $341,263 $341,263 $341,263 $458,680Reimbursments for SPI Contract $18,562 $0 $18,562 $0Reimbursement for VE Contract $200,000 $200,000 $0

Total Operating Revenue $341,263 $650,393 $348,531 $301,862 $458,680

OPERATING REVENUES BudgetedAmendedBudget

Expended/Encumbered thru 6/30/14

BudgetRemaining

Draft Budget2014‐2015

Administration and ClericalPrincipal Office of the Authority $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000

Clerk of the Board $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $0 $24,000Financial Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000Executive Director $94,680 $90,680 $90,044 $636 $94,680

Misc Admin Expenses $0 $0 $0 $500Legal Services

Board Counsel $63,000 $59,000 $27,000 $32,000 $63,000Special Counsel $100,000 $186,000 $186,000 $0 $152,000

Contract ServicesPublic Outreach $35,000 $15,000 $15,000 $0 $35,000

Audit Services $5,000 $6,700 $6,700 $0 $6,000Televised Meetings $14,000 $10,000 $4,663 $5,338 $10,000

Contract Services & Studies $25,000 $3,000 $0 $3,000 $30,000Contract SPI $20,000 $35,000 $34,610 $390 $0Contract VE $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0

Insurance $7,000 $7,000 $6,702 $298 $7,500Travel Expenses $5,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $5,000Contingency $20,000 $2,000 $1,657 $343 $20,000

TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $423,680 $650,380 $607,376 $43,005 $458,680

Table 3

Member CityApproved % Distribution

TotalContributions FY 2014-15

TotalContributions FY 2013-14

Carmel By the Sea 9.30% $42,657 $31,771Sand City 1.30% $5,963 $4,441City of Pacific Grove 18.80% $86,232 $64,225City of Seaside 22.00% $100,910 $75,157City of Monterey 46.50% $213,286 $158,855City of Del Rey Oaks 2.10% $9,632 $7,174Total Income 100.00% $458,680 $341,263

* Contributions were lower in FY 13-14 due to carry over balance of $82,417

Member City Contributions



Item No: 5.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to expected

changes to the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC) schedule for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on expected changes in the CPUC schedule resulting from delays in the completion of the draft EIR (DEIR), determine if any action is required at this time, and provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: The latest CPUC schedule as revised July 3, 2014 is attached. That schedule indicated that a number of legal filings and DEIR comments were to be completed between the DEIR circulation in 3rd quarter 2014 (not later than Sept 30) and the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings in December 2014. However, on August 8, we received a telephonic notification from the CPUC consultant preparing the EIR that the DEIR has been delayed several months and the ALJ hearing in December is likely to be delayed as well, possibly as long a 3 months. As of August 11, we have not received official notice of a hearing delay. None-the-less, staff recommends the Authority Board accept the likelihood of a delay, consider its implications, and provide staff direction accordingly. EXHIBIT: A-CPUC schedule as revised on July 3, 2014



Item No: 6.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction with regards to the current

status of the source water negotiations for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) Project.

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on the current status of negotiations on source water for the MRWPCA Pure Water Monterey (PWM) / Ground Water Replenishment (GWR )project, determine if any action is required at this time, and provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: The latest GWR schedule as revised June 12, 2014 by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) is attached. A MOU for GWR source water was to have been completed by June 30, 2014. On July 10th, the Water Authority Board extended the deadline to July 31 to allow more time for negotiations between the MRWPCA and Salinas Valley agricultural representatives. Unfortunately, as of August 8th, an MOU on source water has not been reached. As shown on the attached schedule, the completion date of the draft water purchase agreement (WPA) is critical, and is dependent on the MOU. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) will need enough time to complete follow-on studies required by the settlement agreements prior to the CPUC hearings that had been scheduled for December 2014. Although the deadline for the draft WPA is currently August 2014, as discussed in an earlier agenda item the CPUC hearing scheduled for December 2014 is likely to be delayed as a result of problems by the CPUC consultant in completing the EIR. Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the MPWMD, will present the latest information on that subject at today's meeting. Depending on information provided, some of the options available to the Water Authority include: 1. Determine that GWR will not be available in time for inclusion in the Peninsula

supply portfolio and decide in favor of the 9.6 mgd desal facility.

2. Agendize a decision on removal or retention of GWR for the September 11 meeting, or at a special meeting to be announced.

3. Authorize an extension of the deadlines for the GWR MOU and WPA on the assumption that the December 2014 CPUC hearing will be delayed.

4. Request the source water issue go to arbitration immediately as is permitted by current agreements.

5. Take no action. EXHIBIT: A-GWR schedule as revised on June12, 2014

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

“Revised” Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 12 JUNE 2014)

Italics are changes. Red are actions past due. Yellow are near term.

CPUC Calendar Dates

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes Comments on

Settlement Agreements Due

August 30, 2013 Complete

Reply Comments on Settlement Agreements

Due

September 13, 2013 Complete

Prehearing Conference: Status of Settlement Motion (if any), of CEQA work

& other matters

September 16, 2013 Complete

Quarterly Check-in Call with Settling Parties

October 2013 MPRWA In Progress

Informational Hearing on Settlement Agreements

December 2-3, 2013


January 2014 MPRWA

DEIR circulated for Comment

3rd Qtr 2014 DEIR out in June 2014


April 2014 MPRWA

Cal-Am to file and serve a common outline for legal and policy briefs, after consulting with

parties

15 days after issuance of DEIR

Comments on DEIR Due


DEIR to be published 1st Qtr 2015

Common Outline Opening Briefs filed and

served on legal and policy issues

60 Days after Issuance of DEIR

15 days after Issuance DEIR- Cal Am to

file/serve common outline for legal & policy

briefs Reply Briefs filed and served on legal and

policy issues


FEIR published 1st Qtr 2015

Proposed Decision addressing

certification of FEIR and issuance of CPCN

1st Qtr 2015


July 2014 MPRWA

Target for Commission Action on Phase I

1st Qtr 2015

Quarterly Check-in Call October 2014 MPRWA

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes with Settling Parties


January 2015 MPRWA

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

GWR

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes File Motion for

Bifurcation of the GWR Decision

August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted

Board Actions to Approve Revised

Governance Committee Agreement

October 2013 August/Sept 2013

MPWMD, MPRWA, County, & Cal-Am

To be Completed in October

Executed Agreements for GWR Source Water

and/or Declaratory Relief

June 23, 2014

MRWPCA Meet & Confer in Progress

Draft WPA Mar 2014

MPWMD & MRWPCA

Obtain Representations from DPH re Use of

Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA

Obtain Representations from RWQCB re Use of Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA

Storage Agreement with Seaside Basin

Watermaster

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

GWR Basis of Design Complete with At Least

10% Design

Jul 2014

MRWPCA

GWR Financing Plan Sufficient for SRF

Funding

Aug 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Agreement on Terms of WPA

May 2014

Cal-Am, MRWPCA, &MPWMD

Perform Revenue Requirement Analysis

Including Any Debt Equivalency Effect

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

Perform Assessment of GWR Positive and

Negative Externalities for Any Premium

Showing

June 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD

DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCA Dilution Water Requirements

July-October 2014 MRWPCA

Project Approved and FEIR

October 2014 MRWPCA

All Permits for GWR Construction Obtained

???

MRWPCA

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

January 2015

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

Source Wells

Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes Drill Exploratory

Boreholes Sept. 2013 – February

2014 Cal-Am PENDING

Commence Hydrogeologic Study and Technical Report

August 2013 Cal-Am / SVWC Draft completed. ?

Permits for CEMEX Site Test Well

January 2014 Aug 2014

Cal-Am MND circulated in May 2014

Drill CEMEX Site Test Well

February 2014 Nov 2014

Cal-Am DELAYED

Results of Test Well Operation Obtained

February 2014 – February 2016

Cal-Am DELAYED

Hydrogeologic Study and Technical Report Complete and Results

Filed with CPUC

June 2015

Cal-Am DELAYED

Necessary Agreements from CEMEX for

Source Wells

Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?

All Necessary Permits for Construction of

Source Wells Obtained

Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

Securitization

Initial Revision and Redline of Legislation

Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

Obtain Cal-Am Input on Draft Legislation

Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, & Cal-Am

Complete

Retain Necessary Additional

Financial/Legal Consultants (Charles

Atkins)

October 2013

MPWMD In Progress

Revise Financial Comparison of

Securitization v. Cal-Am Financing

October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In Progress

Meeting with Community/Interest Groups and Cities

October-December 2013

MPWMD & MPRWA In Progress

Further Revise Legislation as

Necessary

October-November 2013

In Progress

Draft Summary of Legislation

December 2013 MPWMD Complete

Introduce Legislation January 2014 Complete

Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, & Cal-Am

In Progress

Legislation Adopted April-May 2014

?

Passed Senate Unanimously; Referred

to Assembly

Initial Draft of Motion for Financing Order

April 2014

?

MPWMD

Perform Analysis to Demonstrate Annual

Customer Benefits Exceed 1.0% of Total

Annual Revenue

Requirement

April 2014

?

MPWMD & Cal-Am

Motion for Financing Order

May 2014

?

MPWMD

Obtain CPUC Financing Order on securitization

October 7, 2013

015621\0002\11340073.1 8/11/14

Order ? financing on satisfaction of remaining criteria from Settlement K

Preliminary Discussions with Bond Underwriters

September-December 2014

MPWMD

Drafting of documentation for bond

requests

September 2014-April 2015

MPWMD & Cal-Am

Preliminary Discussions with Rating Agencies

February-April 2015 MPWMD



Item No: 7.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and vote on staff proposal to add the General

Manager, or District Engineer, of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) as a member of the Authority Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and to add a MCWD hydrologist to the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Hydrogeologic Working Group.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Water Authority invite Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) participation on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and on the test slant well Hydrogeologic Working Group (HWG). DISCUSSION: During January and July 2014, the City of Marina has been heavily involved in the permitting of the bore hole construction and in consideration of a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and coastal development permit (DP) for Cal Am's test slant well at the CEMEX site. During public hearings, the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) raised a number of concerns that suggest a lack of communication between MCWD and Cal Am, and with the Water Authority as well. This situation has not only delayed progress on the desal plant approval and construction, but has raised serious concerns on the part of the MCWD and City of Marina that its water needs may be placed at risk as a result of the desal plant slant wells. To initiate a dialog on these issues, several informal MCWD/MPRWA management level meetings were held during the week of August 4. Amongst other things, it was concluded that participation by MCWD representatives in the TAC and in the HWG would provide early MCWD input on technical issues related to the Desal facility and the slant wells, facilitate MCWD environmental review of the MPWSP EIR, insure the concerns of Marina residents get timely consideration, and improve communication between and amongst MCWD, Cal Am, and the Water Authority. It should be noted that the TAC already has a member from the agricultural community to articulate ag interests prior to Water Authority decisions and deliberations. Thus, the Executive Director recommends the Authority extend an invitation to the MCWD District Engineer (Interim General Manager) to join the TAC for the same purpose.



Item No: 8.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the Value Engineering

(VE) Final Report for the Cal Am Desal facility, authorize forwarding of the VE report to the Governance Committee for its action, and authorize payment to the consultant (VMS) from funding provided by Cal Am, not to-exceed the contract price of $109,035.70

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority receive a report on the Final Value Engineering ( VE) Study of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP), make recommendations, forward the report to the Governance Committee for its action, and authorize contract closure and payment to the consultant (VMS).

DISCUSSION:

The draft preliminary Value Engineering (VE) Study for 30% design of the desal facility was briefed to a joint meeting of the Governance Committee and the MPRWA at a special meeting on July 10 and to the TAC on Aug 4. The Final report is now complete and the full text is available on the Water Authority web site http://www.mprwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MPWSP-Final-VE-Report.pdf and on the Cal Am MPWSP project web site www.watersupplyproject.org .

It should be noted that the VE study focuses on value improvements, in particular potential cost savings. Requirements mandated by the settlement agreements, as well as directions from the Governance Committee on environmental and aesthetic issues, should still be incorporated into the design.

Following review and comment by the MPRWA, the Final Report will be forwarded to the Governance Committee for action in accordance with the Governance Agreement.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:

The Water Authority awarded the VE contract on behalf of the Governance Committee to VMS on June 12, 2014 at a price not-to-exceed $109,35.70. It also approved a contingency of not-to-exceed $11,000.00. The contract was fully paid for by Cal Am. The contract work is now complete and it has not been necessary to utilize the

http://www.watersupplyproject.org/

contingency funds. Thus, the contractor can be paid and the contract closed. Any unused funds remaining in the deposit account will be returned to Cal Am.

EXHIBITS:

A-Executive Summary of the VE Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project – Desalination Plant Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FINAL REPORT

A Value Engineering (VE) study, sponsored by the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority and facilitated by Value Management Strategies, Inc., was conducted for the Desalination Plant portion of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. The study was conducted at the offices of California American Water in Monterey, California July 7 through 11, 2014. This Executive Summary provides an overview of the subject project, summary results of the VE team’s analysis, and the alternatives developed by the VE team.

PROJECT SUMMARY

Led by California American Water Company (CAW), the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) is a complex, multi‐component program that is necessary to replace a large percentage of the local drinking water supply that currently originates from the Carmel River. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order 95‐10 requires CAW to reduce diversions from the Carmel River by approximately 70% no later than December 31, 2016.

In order to meet the cutback requirements and provide adequate water to the Monterey Peninsula communities, CAW plans include three projects to address this regional water crisis:

Desalination of seawater from wells drawing water from Monterey Bay

Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) with advanced treatment of wastewater by the MontereyRegional Water Pollution Control Authority Plant

Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)

This VE study focused solely on the desalination plant portion of the water supply project.

Treatment at the desalination plant will consist of oxidation with sodium hypochlorite, granular media filtration, dechlorination, pH adjustment with sulfuric acid, cartridge filtration, a first pass of seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO), a partial second pass of brackish water reverse osmosis (BWRO), disinfection with ultraviolet light, post‐stabilization treatment with carbon dioxide and hydrated lime, pH adjustment with sodium hydroxide, addition of an orthophosphate corrosion inhibitor and post‐chlorination with sodium hypochlorite.

CDM Smith was selected as the consultant for the desalination plant design‐build project. Their work will include the design, construction and commissioning of the proposed seawater desalination plant. The planned facilities include the treatment plant, treated water storage and pumping, and concentrate storage and disposal facilities.

Construction costs for all elements of the desalination plant are currently estimated at $74,029,943.

PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED

The primary purpose of the overall MPWSP is to replace existing water supplies that have been constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water

- 1 -


resources. The purpose of the desalination plant portion of the MPWSP is to treat the water supplied by the seawater intake wells sufficient to meet the applicable water quality standards.

VE STUDY BASIS

The VE study was based on the 30% Design Submittal documents prepared by the project’s design‐build contractor, CDM Smith, dated June, 2014.

VE STUDY OBJECTIVES

The VE team was tasked with exploring ideas to improve project value by:

Reducing project cost without sacrificing functionality

Identifying opportunities to improve the desalination plant’s operations and reliability

Identifying recommendations for reducing long‐term operational costs

Improving the overall maintainability of the facility

EVALUATION OF BASELINE CONCEPT

The first day of the VE study included meetings with CDM Smith and other project stakeholder representatives. During the VE team’s analysis of the baseline concept, a number of analytical tools and techniques were used to develop a thorough understanding of the functional requirements of the project and how well the baseline concept was performing the functions. A major component of this analysis was the use of Value Metrics, which seeks to assess the elements of cost, performance, time, and risk as they relate to project value. These elements required a deeper level of analysis, the results of which are detailed in the Project Analysis section of this report. The key performance attributes identified for the project are listed in the table on the right, “Performance Attributes.”

Below is a summary of the major observations and conclusions identified during the VE team’s initial analysis of the baseline concept which led the VE team to identify the alternatives resulting from this study and presented herein.

Buildings are located on the area of the site most prone to settlement during a seismic event.The project is assuming deep dynamic soil compaction to address collapsible soils.

UV treatment appears to be included to address temporary uncertainty regarding treatmentprocess and concerns with obtaining sufficient log removal for pathogen removal.

The current design includes direct feed from intakes to pressure filters which could result insand and deposits clogging the system.

The baseline concept assumes a portion of the intake water must be returned after treatmentto agriculture properties.

Performance Attributes

Maintainability

Plant Operations

Future Flexibility

Environmental Impacts

Sustainability

Aesthetics

- 2 -


The project will use granular pressure filters for pre‐treatment of seawater prior to the ROmembranes to remove iron and manganese.

The current design is providing storage tanks for filtered water in order to maintain constantpump head through the RO process.

The project assumes a brine disposal basin will be necessary when wastewater treatmentplant (WWTP) discharge outfall is not available.

The desalination plant may have an issue removing large equipment for maintenance relativeto access and equipment transport.

The current design shows pumps in chemical storage sumps. It is not fully understood wherethe pumps discharge.

The project is currently planning for rigorous acceptance test procedures and requirements.

The installation of pre‐engineered metal buildings will require treatment to prevent corrosionand will require maintenance over the life of the facility.

The current process design is recapturing 45% of the first pass treatment water and 90% ofthe second pass treatment water (average of 43% total recovery for the plant).

Additionally, sustainability evaluations were conducted to assess the baseline concept against the sustainability requirements of both the U.S. Green Building Council (LEED) and the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (Envision). The resulting sustainability assessment is included in the Project Analysis section of this report.

RISK ANALYSIS

A qualitative risk analysis was performed in conjunction with the VE study to identify risks related to project cost, time (schedule), and ability to perform its required functions. The VE team also discussed and identified possible risk mitigation strategies in an effort to reduce the overall risk profile of the project. Risk Registers were developed for the project and are provided in the Project Analysis section of this report. These Risk Registers provide all of the information for each risk including descriptions, probabilities, impacts and potential risk response strategies.

The following are the key lessons learned identified as a result of the risk analysis exercise:

There is currently no raw water quality data available. Water quality may impact theassumptions relative to the plant’s treatment processes and capacities.

Plant capacity requirements are dependent on the implementation and success of thegroundwater replenishment project which is currently being developed.

Approval of the environmental documents and regulatory permits may require revisions tothe project design.

- 3 -


A majority of the risks identified are being actively monitored and managed by the project design team and project management teams. Key risk mitigation strategies identified by the VE team included membrane pretreatment to mitigate the risk associated with unknown source water quality, and revising the construction schedule to allow the respective features time to be revised when information becomes available.

VE STUDY RESULTS

The VE team identified 33 VE Alternatives and 13 Design Comments to support overall project value. The VE Alternatives are organized by the primary topic or project aspect to which they refer:

Building Design and Site Alternatives

Water Treatment Equipment and Equipment Layout Alternatives

Maintainability Alternatives

Risk Mitigation and Schedule Alternatives

Treatment Process Alternatives

Of these alternatives, 16 were selected and recommended by the VE team as a cumulatively‐implementable alternative strategy focused on enhancing overall value potential for the project. The alternatives have been summarized in the following section of this report. The total net potential cost savings of the VE Strategy is approximately $9 million in initial cost savings and $23 million in life‐cycle cost savings. It should be noted that a number of these alternatives would increase the initial project costs; however, they in turn provide benefits to project performance or in the reduction of maintenance and energy usage.

To evaluate the performance of the VE Strategy, the VE team considered the combined effect of all VE alternatives. The total performance scores reflect the performance rating for each attribute multiplied by its overall priority (weight) expressed using a ratio scale. The following chart compares the total performance scores for the baseline concept and the “Enhanced Value” VE Strategy.

Comparison of Performance

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Enhanced Value Combination

Baseline Concept

Maintainability Plant Operations Future Flexibility

Environmental Impacts Sustainability Aesthetics

- 4 -


The table below summarizes the savings associated with the Enhanced Value Strategy. The performance scores were divided by the total cost scores for the strategy to derive a value index. The value index for the VE Strategy was then compared against the value index of the baseline concept and the difference is expressed as a percent change.

Summary of VE Strategy

Strategy Description Initial Cost Savings LCC

Savings Performance

Change Value Change

Enhanced Value Combination $9,161,000 $23,204,000 +13 % +29 %

The Comparison of Value chart below summarizes the total impact to project value resulting from the VE Study. The blue bars represent total project performance and the green bars represent total cost. Details and additional analysis of the baseline concept and VE Strategy performance ratings are included in the Project Analysis section of this report.

Comparison of Value – Baseline Concept and VE Strategy

VE ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION

VE studies are working sessions with the purpose of identifying and developing alternative approaches to a given project, then presenting them to all project stakeholders for consideration. During the VE Study, a Special Joint Meeting of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Governance Committee and Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority was held to present and discuss the preliminary results of the VE Study. The meeting was open to the public and attendees had the opportunity to question and comment on the VE study results.

0%

29%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Baseline Enhanced Value

Chan

ge in

Value

Relative Scores

Performance Cost/Time Rating Change in Value

- 5 -


Detailed feasibility assessment, determination of the VE alternatives’ implementation, and final design development will be made following submittal of this Final VE Study Report.

VE TEAM

Participants on the VE team included independent technical experts from HDR Engineering, Inc. and Water Globe representing Architecture, Plant Operations/Maintenance, Sustainability (LEED and Envision), Civil/Structural Engineering, Electrical/Instrumentation & Controls, and Water Treatment Processes. Representatives from California American Water also participated to provide insight into their Plant Operations and Maintenance procedures as well as their engineering standards and requirements for the project. The public interests were represented by Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. A full list of participants in the VE study is included following the Value Engineering Process section of this report.

- 6 -



Item No: 9.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the power purchase

agreement between Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD).

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Water Authority Board receive a report on the status of negotiations between Cal Am and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) for renewable electrical power for the Desalination (Desal) facility. DISCUSSION: With support from the Water Authority, Cal Am and the staff of the MRWMD have diligently worked on a term sheet and power purchase agreement to allow Cal Am to acquire between 3.5 and 4.5 megawatts of renewable electrical power for the Desal facility from the landfill. An electrical power study, funded by Cal Am, determined how best to provide power "over the fence" and what equipment would be required. The power purchase agreement that the MRWMD currently has with PG&E expires his fall, and the District needs to obtain new customers for that power now. Unfortunately, the current schedule for a CPCN decision by the CPUC prevents Cal Am from entering into a purchase agreement at this time. However, an agreement was reached by which MRWMD will seek short-term (3-5 year) customers for its power allowing Cal Am to be considered as a longer term customer in the 2017-2019 time frame. That will provide sufficient time for the Desal permitting process to be completed, the CPCN issued, and for construction to advance far enough along for Cal Am to be able to enter into a power purchase agreement and actually utilize the renewable power. The attached staff report to the MRWMD board seeking approval to advertise for power sales provides a good summary of the situation. EXHIBIT: A-MRWMD Staff Report on RFP for Renewable Power dated July 11, 2014

neral Manager

Memorandum

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Reviewed by: July 11, 2014

General Manager

Assistant General Manager

Issuance of a Request for Proposals for the Sale of Renewable Power

RECOMMENDATION: That the Board authorize issuance of a Request for Proposals for the sale of 8.2 megawatts of Renewable Power generated from the Landfill Gas to Energy Facility.

BACKGROUND

The District presently produces bundled renewable electricity and renewable energy credits (RECs) from the 5- megawatt (MW) Landfill Gas (LFG) Power Plant located on site in Marina, CA. The current Power Sales Agreement (PSA) for this is set to expire on February 28, 2015. In a parallel effort, the District is the process of obtaining a new interconnection agreement with local utility PG&E for the ability to produce an additional up to 3.2 MWs of LFG power in subsequent years. This would bring the District's total LFG power production up to 8.2 MWs in future years. In order to finalize this new interconnection agreement, the District must make a decision regarding anticipated power sale strategy for this new generation by September 2014.

DISCUSSION

District consultant Brennen Jensen has been working with staff to explore options for sale of the District's renewable power produced from LFG, to include the existing 5 MWs (minus what the District uses on-site) plus an additional 3.2 MW of new power to be produced from LFG. The District's current PSA (for 5 MWs) expires early in 2015. The additional 3.2 MWs is anticipated to be phased in over time in two subsequent phases, based on actual availability of LFG following the full installation of the permanent flare already underway. The first phase anticipates the installation of 1.6 MWs within 18-24 months. The second phase anticipates an additional 1.6 MW within five years. At this time, the District is exploring options for a multi-year agreement for the sale of this power, associated Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), and associated green attributes as summarized below:

1. Marina LFG Facility (Up to 5 MWs, available beginning March 1, 2015) o Bundled Renewable Electricity and Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) o Associated Green Attributes

2. Marina LFG Facility (Additional up to 3.2 MWs; installed in two phases, planned availability beginning in 2016) o Bundled Renewable Electricity and Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) o Associated Green Attributes

14201 DEL MONTE BLVD k BOX 1670 MARINA, CA 93933-1670 831/384-5313, FAX 831/384-3567 * www.mrwmd.org PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER USING SOY-BASED INK

12

Issuance of RFP for Sale of LFG Renewable Energy July 11, 2014 Page 2

One of the options for selling the District's power in the future, is to sell 5 MWs (more or less) "over the fence" to the proposed CalAm Desalination Plant. On June 23', staff met with CalAm representative Ian Crooks, and with Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority Executive Director Jim Cullem to allow each to provide a status update. CalAm has continued interest to purchase the District's renewable power. Mr. Crooks reported that their draft EIR will be released in August 2014, and final EIR approval is anticipated for February 2015. CalAm would consider discussing a PPA in November or so of 2014 and could possibly finalize a PPA by March 2015, if there are no delays in the EIR approval process. CalAm would not be prepared to accept power from the District for at least three to five years, or more. This timing does not integrate well with the District's need to respond to ongoing PG&E requirements to add additional generating capacity and to replace the soon to expire PPA. The CalAm representative has indicated that CalAm is supportive of this approach by the District and they plan to attend the Board meeting to voice that support.

Issuance of a RFP for the sale of 8.2 MWs of renewable power generated from the LFG to Energy Facility will help to ascertain what opportunities are currently present within the marketplace for the existing and anticipated LFG to energy power production, following the expiration of the current PSA.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no financial impact to this request. Following the completion of the RFP process, staff will recommend actions based on the responses provided. The RFP does not commit the District to entering into any agreement with any responding party.

STRATEGIC PLAN

This item is in line with the Renewable Energy Production Policy within the strategic plan.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Board authorize the issuance of a RFP for the sale of 8.2 MWs of renewable power generated from the LFG to Energy Facility. Proposals will be due on August 15, 2014 and a staff report and recommendation is anticipated for the August or September Board meeting.

o: \ If\ Ifg\ Ifg rfp board memo 714.docx

LFG PSA REP DRAFT

Monterey Regional Waste Management District

Request for Proposals for the Purchase of Renewable Electricity, Renewable Energy Credits and Related Green Attributes at

Monterey Regional Waste Management District (Marina, CA)

BACKGROUND

The Monterey Regional Waste Management District (District) is an award -winning 62-year-old Special District and Joint Powers Authority (JPA), covering 853 square miles, representing eight member agencies and comprising seventeen communities on the Monterey Peninsula from Moss Landing to Big Sur. The District provides services to populations across the four counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito and Santa Clara. The District's mission is to provide the highest quality, cost-efficient, integrated waste management services to the greater Monterey Peninsula, while preserving the environment and protecting the public health through the reduction, reuse, recycling, and safe disposal of the region's waste stream. The award winning agency has adopted and implemented a multitude of innovative and integrated programs and policies over its extensive history, resulting in such prestigious recognitions as:

A Best Solid Waste System in North America by Solid Waste Association of North America (SVVANA), 1998 Gold Excellence Award for Landfill Gas Utilization by SWANA, 2007

A pioneer in Landfill Gas (LFG) to Renewable Energy, the District established one of the first such plants in the nation in 1983. For over 30 years, the District has practiced continued innovation in LFG capture and beneficial utilization. The District currently generates 5MW of LFG renewable energy, and is in the process of expanding the current plant to increase generation an additional 3.2 MW over the next several years. The District further has a long-standing Renewable Energy Production Policy as a core objective within their current strategic plan. As part of this continued commitment, the District also launched the first in California dry fermentation anaerobic digester (AD) in 2013, using SmartFerm technology to convert food scrap organics into Renewable Energy and high-quality soil amendment.

The District presently produces bundled renewable electricity and renewable energy credits (RECs) from the 5MW LFG Power Plant located on site in Marina, CA. The current Power Sales Agreement for this set to expire on February 28, 2015. The District is exploring options for a multi-year agreement for the sale of the following products:

1. Marina LFG Facility (Up to 5MW, available beginning March 1, 2015) o Bundled Renewable Electricity and Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) o Associated Green Attributes

Marina LFG Facility (Additional up to 3.2MW; installed in two phases, planned availability beginning in 2016

o Bundled Renewable Electricity and Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) o Associated Green Attributes

The District is seeking Proposals for the purchase of any or all of these products for any duration of time. Interested parties should express their interest including additional buyer requirements in their response.

Version: 7/11/14

LFG PSA RFP DRAFT

Responses that include creative options to maximize District revenue will also be considered. Reponses to this Request for Proposals shall be used as the basis to enter into negotiations with selected respondents.

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE:

Supply Available:

Term of Agreement:

Product Available:

RFP Release Date

Proposals Due

Complete Proposal Review, Select Best Candidate(s), Begin Interviews and/or Negotiations

Finalize Agreement(s) for Renewable Power Sales with selected Candidate(s)

New PSA brought before MRWMD Board for final approval Jan 2015

Existing PSA Expires

New PSA Effective Date

LFG Renewable Energy

Monterey Regional Waste Management District

Reliable supplier of LFG renewable energy for over 30 years

Up to 8.2 MW-

5 MW, available immediately upon start date March 1, 2015;

Additional up to 3.2 MW available shortly thereafter in two phases: (1.6 MW by 2016 + 1.6 MW anticipated circa 2020).

3-5 year term desirable, with option to extend (March 1-2015 to February 28, 2018/2020); Proposers may submit terms of any length as terms of shorter or longer duration will be considered based on responses received.

Bundled Renewable Power & Renewable Energy Credits (Bucket 1) and Associated Green Attributes

July 18, 2014

August 15, 2014

September 12, 2015

December 22, 2014

January 16(23), 2015

February 28, 2015

March 1, 2015

SUMMARY OF REQUEST:

Power:

Supplier:

Agreement Start Date: March 1, 2015

INTERESTED PARTIES

Interested parties should respond to this notice with a brief proposal providing the following minimum information, including any additional buyer requirements:

1. Company Name and Primary Contact Information including: Name, Address, Phone, and Email. 2. Company Qualifications 3. Products of Interest 4. Desired Term 5. Breakdown Price Offering 6. Identify All Other Terms requested in PSA (Especially those which may affect Price Paid)

Version: 7111/14

LFG PSA REP DRAFT

7. Other Considerations, or Creative Offerings

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS:

Proposals are due Friday August 15, 2014 @ 4pm PST. Proposals can be mailed, emailed or hand-delivered.

Submit proposals to:

Mail Delivery:

Email Delivery:

Hand-Delivery:

Monterey Regional Waste Management District Attn: Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor PO Box 1670 Marina, CA 93933

Please email submissions to both: Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor [email protected] Tim Flanagan, Assistant General Manager [email protected]

Monterey Regional Waste Management District Attn: Becky Aguilar, Administrative Support Supervisor 14201 Del Monte Blvd Marina, CA 93933 [Note, site gates close at 4pm; proposals due by 4pm]

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

Additional facility information is available upon request. Please contact Brennen Jensen at bjensen emergingecologies.com or (831) 917-3720. Site visits can be arranged if requested.

Version: 7/1 1 /14



Item No: 10.

№06/12

FROM: Executive Director Cullem SUBJECT: Receive report, discuss, and provide direction on the City of Marina test

slant well Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and the current schedule for Coastal Commission CDP.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Cal Am on the Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Test Slant Well and discuss the approval process and schedule to be followed in obtaining a City of Marina CDP and a Coastal Commission CDP. The Authority should also receive an update on the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Environmental Assessment (EA). DISCUSSION: The City of Marina Planning Commission considered the MND and Marina CDP at its meeting of July 10, 2014 but was unable to come to a decision. Accordingly, Cal Am appealed the failure to act to the Marina City Council. The Council is scheduled to hear the appeal at a special meeting on August 26. In parallel with the Marina processing, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) has circulated its draft federal Environmental Assessment (EA). The Executive Director commented to the MBNMS in favor of the EA on behalf of the Water Authority. To keep the schedule on track and to conduct as much work as possible concurrently, Cal Am brought the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the test slant well construction to the Governance Committee on July 16, 2014. The current Marina schedule for approval and construction of the test well and for the hearing at the Coastal Commission is at Exhibit A. Cal Am has been requested to brief the Water Authority on the status of the schedule. EXHIBITS: A- Cal Am schedule for approval and construction of the test slant well

FULL SCALE EIR & CCC/LCP SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]

Exported on July 6, 2014 8:34:55 PM MST

CEMEX TEST WELL SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]


FULL SCALE PLANT & PIPELINES SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]


POTRERO CONTINGENCY PERMITTING SCHEDULE - [WORKING PRODUCT & SUBJECT TO CHANGE]


MPRWA Agenda Packet 08-14-14

Documents

Transcript of MPRWA Agenda Packet 08-14-14