A.12-04-019 Exhibits 17-32 MPWSP Report PDF

Exhibit 17
California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

APPLICATION NO. A.12-04-019 DATA REQUEST RESPONSE
Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION: 2.
Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004 MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002 07/30/2012 08/08/2012 Accounting
Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities that comprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of the associated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of: The work completed to date on any facilities included in the Cal-Am Only Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wells located at Fitch Park.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Work to date on the California American Water-only facilities consists of four main areas: ASR Monitoring Well Construction at Fitch Park: Work on the monitoring well has resulted in the design, drilling, construction, and development of the Fitch Park Monitoring Well No. 1. Prior to work beginning on well construction, California American Water gained a Right of Entry from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), and acquired all necessary permits. Work on the Right of Entry for the Monterey Pipeline crossing at the Presidio of Monterey: In order to gain a right-of-way for the Monterey Pipeline through the Presidio of Monterey, California American Water has been working with the Army to gain a Right of Entry. To date California American Water has completed the Environmental Assessment. Appraisal of the TAMC Right of Way for construction of the Monterey Pipeline: The appraisal has been completed. No negotiations with TAMC have occurred.

Coordination with the former project partners on the NEPA environmental effort, and the consolidated coastal commission permit: The coastal development application for the Regional Desalination Project has been completed.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004 MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(i) 07/30/2012 08/08/2012 Accounting
Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities that comprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of the associated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of: The costs incurred to date for facilities included in the Cal-Am Only Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wells. Please indicate: i. Costs incurred before 1/17/2012 and approved for recovery thru Advice Letters. Please reference the Advice Letter and the amount the Commission approved for recovery.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The following advice letter for costs incurred prior to 1/17/2012 was submitted and approved for recovery: AL # AL895 Project Costs $404,468 AFUDC Total Project Total Revenue Costs w/ Requirement AFUDC $2,479 $406,947 $62,938

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004 MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(ii) 07/30/2012 08/08/2012 Accounting
Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities that comprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of the associated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of: The costs incurred to date for facilities included in the Cal-Am Only Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wells. Please indicate: ii. Costs incurred before 1/17/2012 and filed for recovery in Advice Letters that are still being processed. Please reference the Advice Letter(s) and the amount sought in each.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The following advice letters for costs incurred prior to 1/17/2012 were submitted and are being processed: AL # AL932 AL944 TOTAL Project Costs $716,621 $526,144 $1,242,765 AFUDC Total Project Total Revenue Costs w/ Requirement AFUDC $12,163 $728,784 $92,202 $7,094 $533,238 $67,462 $19,257 $1,262,022 $159,664

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004 MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(iii) 07/30/2012 08/08/2012 Accounting
Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities that comprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of the associated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of: The costs incurred to date for facilities included in the Cal-Am Only Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wells. Please indicate: iii. Costs incurred after 1/17/2012 and filed for recovery in Advice Letters that will be withdrawn in compliance with D.12-06-040. Please reference the Advice Letter(s) and the amount incurred after 1/17/2012 in each.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water objects to this question as it is irrelevant to this proceeding. D.12-06-040 the decision authorizing California American Water to implement the Carmel River re-route and San Clemente Dam removal project does not require California American Water to withdraw any Advice Letters.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004 MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(iv) 07/30/2012 08/08/2012 Accounting
Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities that comprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of the associated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of: The costs incurred to date for facilities included in the Cal-Am Only Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wells. Please indicate: iv. Costs incurred after 1/17/2012 for which recovery will not be sought through the former Advice Letters process approved in D.10-12-016, but through some other mechanism. In regards to these costs, please answer the following questions: What is the total for costs in this category? How are these costs being tracked now? When and where will recovery be sought?
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water objects to this question to the extent it calls for information relating to the decision issued on the Regional Desalination Project. Notwithstanding this objection, California American Water responds as follows. In D.12-07-008, the Commission explicitly stated that Nothing herein is intended to prevent CaliforniaAmerican Water Company from incurring reasonable costs related to its current application A.12-04-019. The California American Water-only facilities are already part of the new project in A.12-04-019 and those costs will be addressed in this proceeding. The California American Water-only facilities costs are currently tracked in project IP0540-305 as described in the Advice Letter filings. California American Water has

ceased incurring costs on the California American Water Company-only Facilities, and will only resume activities pending Commission approval.
Exhibit 18
California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

F Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Ave, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 013 MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (a) 08/15/2012 08/22/2012 ASR Facilities
ASR Facilities. a. What documents were relied upon to provide design details and cost estimates for the ASR Facilities for A.12-04-019?
COMPANY RESPONSE: The original basis of the estimated capital costs for the ASR Facilities is derived from a report prepared by JR Conkey & Associates, entitled Estimate of Probable Construction Costs California American Water Coastal Water Project Regional Project 2004 (Conkey Report (2004)). The Conkey Report (2004) provided a preliminary starting point or basis for the capital cost estimates. In addition, the Capital Cost Estimate Summary of the Coastal Water Project (RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005)), prepared by RBF Consulting, provided cost estimates in more detail as support for A.04-09-019. An updated version of the RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005), entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Project (CWP 2009 Capital Cost Update), was prepared by RBF Consulting in May 2009. The estimated costs are based on conceptual numbers. Therefore, no design details were prepared for the ASR facilities at this preliminary stage. Rather, it should be understood that the estimated capital costs were based upon a very preliminary design prepared for the Coastal Water Project in conjunction with information received from American Water Pridesa and various other potential subcontractors.

F Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Ave, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 013 MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (b) 08/15/2012 08/22/2012 ASR Facilities
ASR Facilities. b. Please provide all documents listed in your answer for 1(a).
COMPANY RESPONSE: Electronic versions of the Conkey Report (2004), the RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005), and the CWP 2009 Capital Cost Update can be found at the following link: https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/. Additionally, California American Water included an updated 2009 capital cost estimate table (2009 Capital Cost_Update Table 1), which can also be found at the previously mentioned link. https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/ Upon request, California American Water can provide a hardcopy of these reports.

F Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Ave, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 013 MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (c) 08/15/2012 08/22/2012 ASR Facilities
ASR Facilities. c. If not included in response to questions 1a and 1b, please provide a copy of the CAW Facilities Basis of Design Report issued in January 2011.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The requested draft report was updated February 14, 2011. The updated draft version, entitled Monterey Regional Water Supply Project, CAW Facilities Basis of Design Report (Draft CAW Facilities BODR 02.14.11), can be found at the following link: https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/. Upon request, California American Water can provide a hardcopy of this report.

F Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Ave, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 013 MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (d) 08/15/2012 08/22/2012 ASR Facilities
ASR Facilities. d. If not addressed by the documents provided in response to question 1b, please provide details on drilling method, site geology, screening, filter pack, sanitary seal, pipeline materials, and other relevant issues.
COMPANY RESPONSE: In May 2009, ASR Systems (a sub-consultant) prepared an updated version of a February 2007 technical memorandum, entitled Aquifer Storage Recovery Coastal Water Project, Task 2 Technical Memorandum, Test Well Site Development Plan (ASR Systems Technical Memorandum (2009)). The updated technical memorandum discusses the ASR Wells component in more detail. The ASR Systems Technical Memorandum (2009) can be found at the following link: https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/. Upon request, California American Water can provide a hardcopy of this technical memorandum.

Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station a. What documents were relied upon to provide design details and cost estimates for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station for A.12-04019?
COMPANY RESPONSE: The original basis of the estimated capital costs for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station is derived from a report prepared by JR Conkey & Associates, entitled Estimate of Probable Construction Costs California American Water Coastal Water Project Regional Project 2004 (Conkey Report (2004)). The Conkey Report (2004) provided a preliminary starting point or basis for the capital cost estimates. Additionally, the Capital Cost Estimate Summary of the Coastal Water Project (RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005)), prepared by RBF Consulting, provided cost estimates in more detail as support for A.04-09-019. In May 2009, RBF Consulting prepared an updated version of the RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005) entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Project (CWP 2009 Capital Cost Update). The estimated costs are based on conceptual numbers. Therefore, no design details were prepared for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station at this preliminary stage. Rather, it should be understood that the estimated capital costs were based upon a very preliminary design prepared for the Coastal Water Project in conjunction

with information received from American Water Pridesa and various other potential subcontractors.

Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station b. Please provide all documents listed in your answer to 2a.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water provided the cited documents in its response to MPWSPCAW-012 Q001 (b). These documents can be found at the following link: https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/. Upon request, California American Water can provide a hardcopy of these documents.

F Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Ave, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 013 MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 002 (c) 08/15/2012 08/22/2012 ASR Facilities
Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station c. If not addressed by the documents provided in response to question 2b, please provide justification for the necessity of the Terminal Reservoirs and the ASR Pump Station.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The Terminal Reservoir is designed to primarily receive water from the desalination plant throughout the wet season and at times during the summer through use of a flow control valve upstream of intersection of the Seaside Pipeline and the Monterey Pipeline. The ASR Pump Station is also located at the Terminal Reservoir site to provide water from the Terminal Reservoir to the ASR Facilities when required. During the ASR injection period, Carmel River water flowing directly from the Crest Reservoir to the ASR wells would bypass the Terminal Reservoir. During the ASR recovery period, the ASR wells would pump water to the Terminal Reservoir for distribution to the system. Additional information and justification for the Terminal Reservoir and the ASR Pump Station was provided in F. Mark Schubert, P.E.s direct testimony, dated May 22, 2009, on Phase 2 Issues in A.04-09-019. One example of this specific information can be found at Question/Answer 35 of the above-referenced direct testimony, beginning on page 26, line 4 and continuing through page 27, line 22. Finally, these facilities were discussed in detail within the Proponents Environmental Assessment (completed in 2005) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (certified by the Commission in 2010).

Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, Monterey Pipeline, and Valley Greens Pump Station. a. What documents were relied upon to provide design details and cost estimates for the Transfer, Seaside, and Monterey Pipelines, and the Valley Greens Pump Station for A.12-04-019?
COMPANY RESPONSE: The original basis of the estimated capital costs for the Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, the Monterey Pipeline, and the Valley Greens Pump Station is derived from a report prepared by JR Conkey & Associates, entitled Estimate of Probable Construction Costs California American Water Coastal Water Project Regional Project 2004. In addition, the Capital Cost Estimate Summary of the Coastal Water Project, prepared by RBF Consulting in 2005, provided cost estimates in more detail as support for A.04-09-019. This same document, entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Project was prepared by RBF Consulting in May 2009. All of these documents were included with California American Waters response to MPWSPCAW 012 Q 001 (b). The estimated costs are based on conceptual numbers. Therefore, no design details were prepared for the Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, the Monterey Pipeline and the Valley Greens Pump Station at this preliminary stage. Rather, it should be understood that the estimated capital costs were based upon a very preliminary design prepared for the Coastal Water Project in conjunction with information received from American Water Pridesa and various other potential subcontractors.

Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, Monterey Pipeline, and Valley Greens Pump Station. b. Please provide all documents listed in your answer to 3a.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please reference California American Waters response to MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 003 (a). These documents were provided in California American Waters response to MPWSP-CAW-012 Q001 (b).
Exhibit 19

Richard Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 001 (a) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
Configuration and Alignment Used for Cost Estimates a. Data request response #5 included a spreadsheet titled 2012 Monterey Desalination Model. The tabs named Capital 9.0 MGD and Capital 5.4 MGD included line items for Pump-to-Waste Pipeline HDD to South Well Field and Pump-to-Waste Pipeline HDD to North Well Field. Please explain the difference and illustrate the locations of the two well fields. The 2012 Monterey Desalination Model spreadsheet is attached for reference.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The north and south well fields are described in California American Waters Application for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, dated April 23, 2012 in Appendix H. The section entitled Intake Wells, located on Page 5 of the appendix, presents the alternative North and South Well Field configurations. Figures 2 through 7 illustrate both well field configurations along with the conceptual pipe routes.

Slant Wells Cost Line Items a. The Slant Well Equipping line item on cost spreadsheet titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 assumes a higher horsepower with the same pumping capacity (2,400 gpm) than the same line item on cost spreadsheet titled 2012 Monterey Desalination Model. This discrepancy seems to cause the unit cost of this line item on the former spreadsheet to be more expensive. Please justify this change in the assumed horsepower and provide all documents related to this change.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The presented horsepower requirements are preliminary at this stage of the project. California American Water will determine the actual horsepower requirement for the well pumps during the final design of the MPWSP facilities. The current targeted flow rate for slant wells are 2,200 gpm per well for the 9.0 MGD desalination plant and 1,840 gpm per well for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant. The actual flow rate from each well will be determined after completion of the slant test well studies. Once the slant test well studies are concluded, operational parameters such as maximum flow rate and drawdown at wells would be determined. In addition, the pipeline alignments, sizes and exact location and elevation of treatment and storage facilities would be determined during the final design phase. With all the above

mentioned design parameters in hand, the final power requirement can be calculated by using the flow rate, the static lift requirement and the headloss requirements.

Richard Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 002 (b) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
Slant Wells Cost Line Items b. In response to data request #7, Cal Am states:
The MPWSP desalination plant alternatives are sized according to the following criteria 6 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 1840 gpm per well, for the 5.4 mgd desalination plant alternative. 8 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 2200 gpm per well, for the 9.0 mgd desalination plant alternative
Spreadsheets titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 and 2012 Monterey Desalination Model estimate slant well equipping for 2,400 gpm pumping capacity for both plant options. Please justify the selection of 2,400 gpm pumping capacity instead of 2,200 gpm for 9.0 mgd wells and 1,840 gpm for 5.4 mgd wells. COMPANY RESPONSE: As stated in the response to Question 2 (a) of this Data Request, the current targeted flow rate for the intake slant wells are 2,200 gpm per well for the 9.0 MGD desalination plant and 1,840 gpm per well for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant. The actual flow rate out of slant intake wells would be determined once the slant test well studies are completed.

Richard Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 002 (c) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
Slant Wells Cost Line Items c. Based on the assumptions noted in data request #7 (quoted in question 2b of this data request), please explain Cal Ams justification for having different pumping capacities for different sizes of plants. What is Cal Ams position on designing wells with 2200 gpm pump capacity, instead of 1840 gpm, for a 5.4 mgd plant? Would having a greater pump capacity allow Cal Am to construct fewer wells for the 5.4 mgd plant? Please provide all necessary reasoning and explanation.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water objects to this request as it is unclear what DRA means by all necessary reasoning. Regardless of this objection, the total well capacity required for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant is 9,200 gpm (at 41% desalination plant recovery), which can be met by five wells at 1,840 gpm per well. If a 2,200 gpm capacity well pump was selected for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant, the number of wells required would still be five as four wells would only supply 8,800 gpm. A smaller well pump for the fifth well would have provided an additional 400 gpm to cover the deficit. However, the majority of the costs associated with the wells are the drilling costs, not the pump equipment. Therefore the cost saving would not be significant.

Additionally, having a well field with different well pump capacities is operationally not preferred. All five wells would be utilized at the same design capacity when sized at 1,840 gpm. By utilizing the same well pump capacity, rotation amongst wells would be automated and all wells could be exercised at the same rate.

Richard Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 002 (d) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
Slant Wells Cost Line Items d. If Cal Am estimated its slant well equipping for a 2,400 gpm pump capacity would this impact the number of wells that are needed for the MPWSP? More specifically, has Cal Am estimated the number of wells needed assuming a 2400 gpm pumping capacity? If so, please provide all necessary reasoning and explanation.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water objects to this request as it is unclear what DRA means by all necessary reasoning. However, as previously mentioned in responses to Question 2 (a), (b) and (c) of this Data Request, the current targeted flow rate for the intake slant wells are 2,200 gpm per well for the 9.0 MGD desalination plant and 1,840 gpm per well for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant. Therefore, the number of wells needed is eight (seven duty and one stand-by) for the 9.0 MGD desalination plant and six (five duty and one stand-by) for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant.

Richard Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 003 (a) 8/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
Clearwell Reservoirs Cost Line Item a. Please provide a justification for having the same size of clearwell reservoirs for the 5.4 and the 9.0 mgd desalination plants. This item is described in spreadsheets titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 and 2012 Monterey Desalination Model as two 1-MG steel tanks.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The clearwells are sized considering the existing water distribution system requirements such as the emergency storage, diurnal demand variations, storage for fire protection in addition to the required water quality treatment goals. Therefore, based on where the projects current design status, California American Water believes that the size of the clearwells is independent of the desalination plant capacity and both the 5.4 MGD and the 9.0 MGD desalination plants have the same size clearwells.

Product Water Pipeline Cost Line Item a. Please provide a justification for the higher unit price of the product water trenched pipeline included in the Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 compared to the unit price included in the 2012 Monterey Desalination Model. What was the basis of this change? Please provide all documents regarding the higher estimate.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The pipeline cost estimation was performed on a cost per diameter inch. The assumed cost per diameter inch for 36-inch MLCSP is estimated at approximately $10 per diameter inch, which would correspond to a unit cost of $360/LF for the 36-inch product water trenched pipeline. The estimate is based on California American Waters and RBFs recent experience with procurement and installation of similar size pipelines. As these are all estimates based on our teams experience there have been different values ranging between $340 and $360 per foot depending on the location of the pipeline segments.

Product Water Pipeline Cost Line Item b. In response to data request #7 question 5, Cal Am explains and provides a spreadsheet from the Coastal Water Project in 2005 for Desalinated Water Conveyance (spreadsheet attached) to justify the unit cost for Product Water Pipeline. However, this spreadsheet does not contain formulas, assumptions or modifications that show how Cal Am arrived at the $340/LF unit cost. Moreover, this spreadsheet only contains information about a 30 diameter pipeline installation, not a 36 pipeline installation. Please provide a more complete spreadsheet, that reflects the calculations relied upon by Cal Am to arrive at the unit cost of $340/LF for Cal Ams product water pipeline.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water objects to DRAs request to the extent that it asks for creation of a new spreadsheet that would be unnecessary and burdensome. As mentioned in the response to Question 4 (a) of this Data Request, the unit costs were estimated on a cost-per-diameter-inch basis. The project has evolved and changed since 2005 and California American Water upgraded the pipeline size from 30 to 36 to better accommodate future flow rates and to optimize operations.

ROW Easement and Land Acquisition Cost Line Items: a. The Row Easement and Land Acquisition section in the spreadsheet titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 quantifies the purchase and easement of Desalination Plant Intakes and Pipelines at the proposed site as 1 EA for $1,000,000. Please clarify the relation between this line item and the 376-acre parcel of land proposed for the site of the slant wells system that Cal Am proposed in its application. Furthermore, please provide Cal Ams justification for identifying the quantity of this item as 1 each and its description as purchase and easement.
COMPANY RESPONSE: As described in Appendix H, MPWSP Project Description, of California American Waters Application for Approval of the MPWSP, the slant well clusters would be on either the south or the north shoreline of the CEMEX property. The 376-acre CEMEX parcel would not be acquired as a whole. Easements for well clusters, interconnecting piping, raw water pipelines, and pump-to-waste pipelines would be acquired from CEMEX. Additionally, as this acquisition would be a one-time agreement with a single property owner, the item unit price is quantified as 1 each.

ROW Easement and Land Acquisition Cost Line Items: b. Please explain the calculation and unit cost of line item Pipelines in TAMC ROW for Product Water Pipeline in the spreadsheet titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4. More specifically, please explain the correlation between the description of this line item and the items quantity listed as 725,000 SF. In addition, please explain the multiplier of 16.2 in the calculation of the total cost of this item.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The permanent pipeline easement is assumed to be 25 feet wide and the temporary construction easement is assumed to be an additional 25 feet (total 50 ft wide). The items quantity (725,000 square feet (sf)) is the 25-foot width multiplied by the length (29,000 feet) of the pipeline. The net area for the permanent pipeline easement would be equal to the two-year construction easement as they have the same width. The estimate assumes a 50-year rental of permanent pipeline easement at $0.10/sf/yr and a temporary rental of additional construction easement for two years at $0.25/sf/yr. The multiplier of 16.2 in the calculation of the total cost represents the Present Worth Factor for the pipeline easement. The total cost includes the present worth value of the pipeline easement [Present Worth Factor (16.2) x Pipeline Area (725,000 sf) x Annual Pipeline Easement Unit Cost

($0.10/sf)] and the construction easement [Time (2 years) x Pipeline Area (725,000 sf) x Annual Construction Easement Unit Cost ($0.25/sf)].

F. Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager, Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 006 (a) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
CAW Only Facilities Capital Costs a. Please provide details for the special construction required for the So. Transfer Pipeline, Seaside Pipeline and Monterey Pipeline listed in the spreadsheet titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q1.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The Special Construction cost item associated with the three pipeline facilities includes highway crossings, heavy traffic intersection crossings, slough/river crossings, and other challenging construction zones that would not be suitable for open-trench construction. It was assumed that trenchless technologies such as jack-and-bore or horizontal directional drilling would be utilized in these special construction zones. The Special Construction cost item listed for the South Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline and the Monterey Pipeline covers the estimated cost of installing the specific pipeline using one of these trenchless technologies (most likely jack-and-bore) to cross major state and local highways, heavily traveled intersections, or other unique situations. This type of special construction is usually determined and/or required by the appropriate municipality, county, or state agency. There is no Special Construction Cost item associated with the South Transfer Pipeline. The Seaside Pipeline has approximately 1,000 feet of this Special Construction Cost item, in order to address the pipeline crossing Del Monte Boulevard and Fremont Street. The jack-and-bore component of the Seaside Pipeline was estimated to increase the

average unit cost by approximately $670 per lineal foot. The Monterey Pipeline has approximately 750 feet of this Special Construction Cost item in order to address the pipeline crossing Del Monte Boulevard, the intersection of Canyon Del Rey/Highway 18, and the Laguna Grande Bridge. The jack-and-bore component of the Monterey Pipeline was estimated to increase the average unit cost by approximately $450 per lineal foot. California American Water provided a detailed description and supporting documentation in the technical memorandum, prepared by RBF Consulting in May 2009, entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Project in its response to MPWSP-CAW 012 Q001 (b).

F. Mark Schubert, P.E. Manager, Capital Assets and Planning 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 017 MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 006 (b) 08/23/2012 09/04/2012 Cost Estimates
CAW Only Facilities Capital Costs b. The Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q1 spreadsheet lists an easement cost for Pipelines through Presidio of $50,000. However, Direct Testimony of Mr. Mark Schubert states that the Monterey Pipeline alignment crosses the Presidio property in an existing pipeline easement (Direct Testimony of F. Mark Schubert, P.E., at p. 7:1-2). Please clarify the need for the Pipelines through Presidio line item on the referenced spreadsheet.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The alignment of the Presidio portion of the Monterey Pipeline has been changed due to environmental and cultural concerns recently raised by the Presidio of Monterey. The original pipeline alignment did follow an existing California American Water easement in an area called the lower Presidio, as described in the direct testimony of F. Mark Schubert, P.E. However, this area is very sensitive with respect to cultural resources, and the easement is also not wide enough for construction of the proposed Monterey Pipeline. Therefore, California American Water moved the pipeline alignment to the upper Presidio (through Stillwell Avenue and Fitch Avenue), which in turn would require California American Water to obtain a new easement from the Presidio of Monterey. Unfortunately, the direct testimony of F. Mark Schubert, P.E. did not reflect this recent change in the pipeline alignment through the Presidio of Monterey. The need for the Pipelines through Presidio easement cost is necessary in order to recognize the estimated cost of a pipeline route through the Presidio property, since

going through the Presidio property is the most direct route for the Monterey Pipeline to follow in its route to the Eardley Booster Station in Pacific Grove (and ultimately the Forest Lake Tanks).

CAW Only Facilities O&M Costs a. Please identify expenses that are expected to fall under Water Treatment Misc. Expenses listed in the spreadsheet titled O&M Cost for Response A1204019 Q5. DRA is aware that there is a sub-item identified as Contract Services, Disposal, Security, etc. Therefore, please elaborate on this subitem in your response. In addition, please provide a justification for why the quantity of this item is AF.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The miscellaneous expenses covered include: Waste disposal Materials & Supply Contract Services (temp, legal, etc.) Transportation Misc. Operations Grounds Keeping Heat - oil/gas Janitorial Office & Admin supplies Shipping Security Telephone

Cell Phones Trash Removal Uniforms
The cost is acquired from miscellaneous costs associated with existing California American Water treatment plants. The existing costs were normalized per the total production of the existing plants to create a scalable unit cost. The normalized $/AF was used for estimation of future costs.
Exhibit 20

APPLICATION NO. 12-04-019 DATA REQUEST RESPONSE
Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION: 1. Land Acquisition
Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 001 (a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Land Acquisition
a. Please provide more details on Cal Ams estimate of the land purchase and easement for the desalination plant intakes and pipelines. This item was estimated to be $1,000,000 for the 9.0 and 5.4 MGD plant options and $1,100,000 for the 9.6 and 6.4 MGD plant options. In its response, Cal Am should provide the basis of the higher estimate. COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water included an additional $100,000 for purchase of a site for the intake pump station. California American Water estimates that the additional requested amount should be adequate to purchase an estimated 1 to 2 acre site for this facility. The intake pump station was mentioned as a possibility in the previous project descriptions, but is now assumed to be a required element.

Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION: 2. CAW-Only Facilities
Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 002(a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 CAWOnly Facilities
a. Please provide updates regarding the status of CAW Only Facilities terminal reservoirs design. If Cal Am was able to come to an agreement with the City of Seaside to have the reservoirs partially buried, please include the agreement and the updated costs. COMPANY RESPONSE: Detailed design of the terminal reservoir will begin after the California Public Utilities Commission approves the above-captioned application. At this point no written agreement is in place between California American Water and the City of Seaside with respect to the burial of the reservoirs. It is anticipated that mitigation measures for the visual impacts of the reservoir (for example, partially buried or use of berms) will be specified in the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California Coastal Commission and the Use Permit issued by the City of Seaside.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 003 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Slant test Well
Previously, unit costs for slant test well installation, slant well vaults with manifolding, and slant well equipping were confirmed by Layne Christensen, a slant well designer and driller. Please describe which items in the capital costs of 9.6 MGD and 6.4 MGD plants are confirmed by Layne Christensen. In your response, please include any correspondence between the well designer and Cal Am. If costs under the Desalination Plant Supply and Return Facilities section of the capital cost spreadsheet are not yet confirmed by the well designer/driller, please provide the basis of the cost estimate of these items.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water met with Layne Christensen in late October of 2012 to confirm revised approach and budgetary estimates; however, Layne Christensen has not provided California American Water any new or revised cost estimates, in writing, on the capital costs for the gravity slant wells that are now a part of the 9.6 MGD and 6.4 MGD plant sizes. Rather, the existing Layne Christensen confirmation was used to validate our Consultants original cost estimates which have now been updated to reflect the recent changes in scope and configuration.

In the new model supplied by Cal Am (2013 Monterey Desalination Model v6 1), the test slant well is described as 790 LF, 29-deg, 12-inch diam., 1000 gpm while the slant production well installation is described as 580 LF, 22-deg, 12inch diam., and 1880 gpm for the 9.6 MGD plant size and 580 LF, 22-deg, 12inch diam., and 1600 gpm for the 6.4 MGD plant size. Please describe how Cal Am is going to account for the smaller angle and the larger pumping rate of the slant production wells. It is important that the test slant well results represent the most accurate conditions of the final slant wells.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The final angles and depths of wells are initial estimates based on existing limited information. The final well angles and lengths will not be confirmed until monitoring wells are drilled and geologic stratigraphy at each site is confirmed. That being said, the test well will be designed to penetrate both the Shallow or Sand Dunes Aquifer and the 180-foot Aquifer so that both can be tested to determine their hydraulic properties and production capabilities. The test well will have screens in both formations that can be independently pumped to determine the productivity of each aquifer. The steeper angle is required in order to allow full penetration to the bottom of the 180-foot Aquifer without exceeding a targeted maximum drill length of 800 LF. Hopefully, the testing will demonstrate that the Sand Dunes Aquifer alone will be sufficiently productive, and the lower portions of the well in the 180-foot Aquifer can be blocked off.

The results obtained from the test well are used in calculations and modeling that can then predict the productivity of other wells in the same formation that are drilled at shallower angles. The steeper angle of the test well means that it will have less well screen length in the targeted Sand Dunes Aquifer than future wells that are drilled at a shallower angle through the same formation. The productivity of the wells is roughly proportional to screen length, particularly since all of the wells will eventually operate as gravity wells and will have essentially the same driving head. The estimates of 1,000 gpm for the 29 degree test well and 1,600-1,880 gpm for the other 22 degree wells are roughly proportional to the estimated well screen lengths for the two well angles in the Sand Dunes Aquifer.

Please explain the 50% mark-up for site and schedule conditions added to the unit cost of slant production well installation in the capital cost estimates of the 9.6 and the 6.4 MGD plants.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The previously submitted estimates for the slant wells were based on construction of the slant wells above the water line on the beach, with construction access and delivery of materials coming from the land. The proposed slant well sites are to be constructed within a temporary coffer dam structure in the swash zone, with three or four wells being drilled at the same time so that the construction for each well cluster can be finished in a single 5-month construction season. Construction access for equipment, material, from the land side will be limited, and it is anticipated that a significant portion of the equipment and material will be delivered to the sites by barge. RBF could not identify any comparable project having this combination of difficult site conditions. The 50 percent increase to the previously estimated slant well costs is intended to cover the following conditions of the project that will likely increase costs: Requirement for two or three labor shifts during construction. Labor costs will increase to cover over-time charges, additional crew, and additional per-diem. It is believed that this factor alone will increase total costs by 20 to 30 percent. Increases in mobilization costs as equipment and materials are mobilized to the beach sites via travel along shoreline routes or via barge.

Unavoidable inefficiencies and associated increases in labor costs as a result of operating three or four drilling rigs in close quarters. Costly delivery and haul-out of materials and equipment via barges. Management and scheduling of deliveries of material and equipment in and out of the coffer-dam areas will also interrupt drilling activities, with resulting impacts on productivity and associated increase in labor costs. Limited availability of specialized drilling equipment. This will have an effect upon the number of bidders, and an unknown effect on price. Increases in project risk and bid cost associated with construction in near-shore marine environment with increased potential for storm and wave damage. Possible costs of environmental monitoring during construction and increased risk that construction would be interrupted by the environmental monitors.

Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION: 6. Monitoring Well
Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 006(a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Slant test Well
a. Please explain the basis of $80,000 estimated for a monitoring well. This was added to the estimate of slant well caissons with manifolding. COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water assumed a monitoring well would be needed at each well site that would monitor both the Shallow or Sand Dunes and the 180-foot aquifer. Based on a recent (2011) RBF project in southern California for the San Diego County Water Authority, California American Water used a unit cost plus an additional $10,000 for difficult mobilization, demobilization and site conditions.

Please explain the basis of the extra $250,000 per barrier added to the estimate of temporary sheet piling and wave protection. Please include the sources of this estimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The estimate for the wave protection barrier is based on RBFs experience and based on installing a 10 to 15 foot high barrier that is 150 feet long by 30 feet wide using 80 concrete tetrapod units at $2,000 each, plus $90,000 for crane, barge and labor costs to place and remove the tetrapod units.

Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate of the slant well caissons with manifolding. Please include the sources for this estimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The question appears to be in reference to the cost estimate for the intake pump station, not for the slant well caissons which is the next row down on the cost estimate. The formula is for estimating the mechanical and electrical system components of a pump station. The formula is: Base Construction Cost = ($2,000 x installed HP) + ($100 x pump station capacity in gpm) This formula is an empirical formula developed by RBF based on experience with numerous pump stations of this type.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 009(a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Clear well and Pump Station
Clearwell and Pump Station a. Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate of clearwell pump station equipment. Please include the sources of this estimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please see California American Waters response to Question No. 8.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 009(b) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Clear well and Pump Station
Clearwell and Pump Station b. Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate of desalinated water pump station equipment. Please include the sources of this estimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please see California American Waters response to Question No. 8.

Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area:
Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 010(a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline
DRA QUESTION: 10. Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline a. Please explain the difference between the trenchless technology planned for the feedwater pipeline between well clusters and the feedwater pipeline under Highway 1. COMPANY RESPONSE: The basis of the estimate for both situations is a technique called jack-and-bore. This technique involves jacking a casing from an entrance portal on one end to an exit portal on the other end, and then installing a second carrier pipe inside the casing. The construction under Highway 1 is assumed to be a 42-inch diameter carrier pipe installed inside a 60-inch diameter casing. The construction in the beach is assumed to be a 36inch diameter carrier pipe installed inside a 54-inch diameter casing. The actual design and techniques used will be determined during design and bidding of the project, and may be different for the two situations.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 010(b) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline
DRA QUESTION: 10. Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline b. Please explain the basis of the unit costs ($/LF) of these pipelines. Feedwater pipeline between well clusters is estimated at $1,140/LF and feedwater pipeline under Highway 1 is at $1,000/LF. If these estimates are based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project. COMPANY RESPONSE: The estimated unit costs for the two situations include different items. The unit cost of $1,000/ LF under Highway 1 includes the casing and the portals at either end, but does not include the carrier pipe, which is accounted for in the feedwater pipeline cost line item above it in the estimate. The unit cost of $1,140/LF for the feedwater pipelines between the clusters includes the casing and the carrier pipe, but does not include the portals at either end. These portals are included in the Tunnel Caissons and Slant Test Well Installation line items. These unit costs were developed by RBFs in-house tunneling experts in consultation with tunneling contractors.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 011 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Test Well
DRA QUESTION: 11. Please describe the test well pipeline tunnel included in Figures 4 and 5 in Attachment 11 of Richard Svindlands MPWSP Supplemental Testimony. In your response, please also describe the cost impact of this item on the overall capital cost estimate.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The test well pipeline tunnel is a 24-inch diameter conduit that will be installed under the coastal dunes using trenchless technology. This conduit will be equipped with two interior conduits: 1) a 4-inch diameter electrical conduit and; 2) a 12-inch diameter recirculation pipe. The electrical conduit will be used to supply power to the test well pump. The recirculation pipe will be used to convey pumped flow from the test well to a site east of the dunes where the flow will be measured and sampled. The flow will then be returned to the test well site for disposal using the annular space in the 24-inch diameter conduit. The separate cost estimate for the test well pipeline tunnel has not been developed, but it has been assumed that it will be covered under the $5,000,000 Slant Test Well Installation line item.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 024 MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 012 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Test Well
DRA QUESTION: 12. Please explain the basis of the unit cost ($/LF) of the tunnel under the dunes (Beach Access Tunnel). This item is estimated at $2,000/LF. If these estimates are based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.
COMPANY RESPONSE: This estimate is based on constructing a 72-inch diameter concrete-lined tunnel using a tunnel-boring machine (TBM). Flow would be conveyed through the tunnel without use of an interior carrier pipe. The unit costs include the entrance portal at the east end, but do not include the exit portal at the west end, since this has already been included in the estimate under Tunnel Caissons. The unit costs were developed by RBFs in-house tunneling experts in consultation with tunneling contractors.
Exhibit 21

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (a) (i) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (a) On DRAs site visit to Monterey, it was mentioned that dechlorination facilities may be needed to dechlorinate the ASR water prior to injection into the Seaside Basin. (i) What facilities would be necessary to dechlorinate the ASR water prior to injection into the Seaside Basin? Where would these facilities be located?
COMPANY RESPONSE: If required, dechlorination would most likely be accomplished by injecting a small dosage of sodium bisulfite. Required facilities would include sodium bisulfite storage tanks, chemical feed pumps, and small diameter piping. These facilities would be located at the recently constructed chemical building at the site of Monterey Peninsula Water Management Districts (MPWMD) Santa Margarita ASR Wells 1 and 2. The chemical building has been constructed with space available for the addition of dechlorination facilities if needed.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (a) (ii) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (a) On DRAs site visit to Monterey, it was mentioned that dechlorination facilities may be needed to dechlorinate the ASR water prior to injection into the Seaside Basin. (ii) What factors will be considered to determine whether or not dechlorination is necessary? When will the decision be made as to the necessity of dechlorination?
COMPANY RESPONSE: At the current time, dechlorination is not required for the water that the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and California American Water inject in the aquifer. California American Water believes it may be prudent to dechlorinate injection water to eliminate concerns about possible formation of disinfection by-products caused by chlorinated water reacting with aquifer substrate. However, the facilities may not be installed immediately, and a decision time line has not been established.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (a) (iii) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (a) On DRAs site visit to Monterey, it was mentioned that dechlorination facilities may be needed to dechlorinate the ASR water prior to injection into the Seaside Basin. (iii) What is the estimated capital cost of these dechlorination facilities? What is the estimated O&M cost? Are these facilities included in the cost estimates provided in this application? Please provide a specific breakdown of the cost of these dechlorination facilities, preferably in the form of an electronic spreadsheet.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Because the timing of these facilities is not yet determined and because the facilities would potentially be constructed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, California American Water did not prepare a capital cost estimate for the dechlorination facilities. The annual costs for chemicals (only) have been included in the cost estimates for the Application. These costs are approximately $103,000/year for the MPWSP with Ground Water Replenishment (GWR), and approximately $39,000/year for the MPWSP without GWR. The annual chemical costs are higher for GWR, because the assumed annual amount of injected water is higher. These O&M costs are calculated in electronic spreadsheets that have been previously provided.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (b) (i) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (b) Regarding the estimated construction cost of the ASR Wells #5 and #6: (i) Please provide a detailed account of the final construction cost of each of the existing three ASR wells: ASR Well #1; ASR Well #2; and, ASR Well #3.
COMPANY RESPONSE: ASR Wells #1 and #2 were constructed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Therefore, California American Water does not have a detailed account of construction costs. California American Water is currently constructing ASR wells #3 and #4 at the Seaside Middle School Site. Please reference the attached spreadsheet, which includes the costs breakdown, entitled DR No. 011 Q1bi.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (b) (ii) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (b) Regarding the estimated construction cost of the ASR Wells #5 and #6: (ii) Are the estimated construction costs for the two proposed wells, ASR Well #5 and ASR Well #6, expected to be at the same level as the construction costs incurred for Wells #1-3? If the costs are expected to differ, please detail the specific reasons for these differences.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Wells #5 and #6 along with the finished site will be similar in construction to Wells #3 and #4.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (b) (iii) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities: (b) Regarding the estimated construction cost of the ASR Wells #5 and #6: (iii) Please provide the following information for ASR Wells #1-6: drilling method, site geology, screening, filter pack, sanitary seal, and other relevant issues that would account for similarities or differences in cost.
COMPANY RESPONSE As described in California American Waters response to 1(b)(i), California American Water does not have detailed cost information on Wells #1 and #2 at the Santa Margarita site as it is owned by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. However, Wells #3 and #4 at the Seaside Middle School site will be similar in construction to Wells #5 and #6 at the Fitch Park site. Items that differ in costs would primarily be the construction of the finished water pipeline, recirculation pipeline, and backflush pipelines approximately 5,000 feet to the Fitch Park site. In response to the specifics of the well construction, attached as DR No. 11 Q2biii 060026_SMSTW_SOR_20120315 is the Summary of Operations, Well Construction and Testing report for Well #3 at Seaside Middle School. Wells #4, #5, and #6 will be similar in construction.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 011 MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 002 (a) 08/08/2012 08/14/2012 Facilities
Unit Prices Used for Cost Estimates:: (a) If not already included in the cost spreadsheets requested in pending data requests, please provide sources for all unit prices used for estimating costs for A.12-04-019, preferably by including a column for unit price sources in the cost spreadsheets previously requested.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The unit costs used for estimating O&M and capital are included in electronic spreadsheets that California American Water previously provided (for unit capital costs, unhide columns I through P.).
Exhibit 22

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 001 (a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 O & M Cost
In response to Data Request #4, question #3, Cal Am provided capital costs associated with the dilution facilities potentially necessary for the dilution of Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) water for the plant size options that include GWR. However, no O&M costs were provided associated with the dilution facilities. a. Please detail the additional O&M costs that would be associated with the GWR dilution facilities.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Based on the limited preliminary design performed to date, the O&M costs in terms of power costs for the dilution facilities could be between $0 and $25,000 per year. The lower estimate is based on the ability of water to flow by gravity from the Crest Reservoir, which is at an elevation of 550 feet, directly into the dilution wells. The higher cost is based on using a 60 horsepower pump at the Terminal Reservoir in order to pump water up to the dilution wells. Final costs will not be determined until detail design is complete.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 001 (b) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
In response to Data Request #4, question #3, Cal Am provided capital costs associated with the dilution facilities potentially necessary for the dilution of Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) water for the plant size options that include GWR. However, no O&M costs were provided associated with the dilution facilities. b. If there are no additional O&M costs associated with the dilution facilities, please explain why this is the case.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please see California American Waters response to question 1(a).

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 002 (a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
In response to Data Request #4, question #1, Cal Am provided an excel spreadsheet with a detailed breakdown of the capital costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities. In this spreadsheet, there is a line item under Land Acquisition for ASR Well Sites, with two leases listed at $400,000 each, for a total of $800,000. a. Please provide details of this lease agreement. From whom is Cal Am leasing the land? What are the terms of the agreement (including lease cost, length of the lease, etc.)?
COMPANY RESPONSE: The land identified as the site of the Fitch Park ASR well site is owned by the U.S. Army. California American Water has a temporary Right of Entry on that land which was used to construct the monitoring well. A lease agreement will be required to construct the permanent facilities. The Army is now conducting an appraisal of the land to determine the value. Upon completion and issuance of the appraisal, it is anticipated that California American Water will negotiate the lease terms with the Army. As of yet, no lease agreement is in place, and terms of the agreement have not been discussed.

In response to Data Request #4, question #1, Cal Am provided an excel spreadsheet with a detailed breakdown of the capital costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities. In this spreadsheet, there is a line item under Land Acquisition for ASR Well Sites, with two leases listed at $400,000 each, for a total of $800,000. b. If there is already an agreement in place, please provide a copy of that agreement. If there is not a formal agreement in place, what is the basis for the cost estimate provided?
COMPANY RESPONSE: As described above in 2(a), there is no existing lease agreement. The cost estimate provided is a planning level market value estimate for the Fitch Park ASR well sites.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 002 (c) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
In response to Data Request #4, question #1, Cal Am provided an excel spreadsheet with a detailed breakdown of the capital costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities. In this spreadsheet, there is a line item under Land Acquisition for ASR Well Sites, with two leases listed at $400,000 each, for a total of $800,000. c. Why are there two leases necessary for the Fitch Park ASR Wells, which will both be located on the same site?
COMPANY RESPONSE: The Fitch Park ASR wells are proposed to encompass two non-contiguous parcels owned by the U.S. Army located along General Jim Moore Boulevard.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 003 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
Provide a detailed justification for the ASR Pipelines and Backflush Facilities (including the ASR Pipeline, the Recirculation Pipeline, the Backflush Piping, and the Backflush Reclamation Basin) that discusses the necessity for the facilities, the basis for the pipeline lengths, the type of analysis performed, alternatives considered, and whether lower cost options were evaluated.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The spreadsheet provided in response to Data Request #4, Question 1, provides a breakdown of capital costs of the ASR facilities included in the Cal Am Only Facilities. The pipelines include an ASR Pipeline, a Recirculation Pipeline, and a Backflush Pipeline. Currently California American Water has similar infrastructure that serves the Santa Margarita ASR facility and the Seaside Middle School ASR facility. The existing pipelines are stubbed out near the corner of Coe Ave. and General Jim Moore Blvd. in Seaside. Completion of the Fitch Park ASR facility will require that the existing ASR Pipeline, Recirculation Pipeline, and Backflush Pipeline, be extended approximately 5,000 LF north along General Jim Moore Blvd. from the stubbed out pipelines at Coe Ave. The purpose of each pipeline is as follows: ASR Pipeline This pipeline conveys potable water to the ASR well for injection into the groundwater aquifer, and conveys water from the ASR well to the distribution system during extraction from the groundwater aquifer.

Recirculation Pipeline This pipeline allows water to circulate to prevent it from becoming stagnant when the ASR wells are neither injecting nor extracting water from the groundwater basin. Without the recirculation pipeline, when the wells are not in use, the 5,000 LF ASR pipeline would be a dead-end pipeline that would allow water to stagnate for months at a time. Backflush Pipeline When the ASR wells are in active use for injecting water into the groundwater basin, it is necessary to backflush the wells on a weekly basis to prevent plugging and fouling of the well screens. The backflush water is not suitable for use in the distribution system and is pumped to waste. The disposal site for the backflush water is the Backflush Reclamation Basin. Water is conveyed from the wells to the Backflush Reclamation Basin via the Backflush Pipeline. When backflushed water is discharged into the reclamation basin, it percolates to the groundwater.
Pipeline sizes used in the cost estimates are based on the anticipated flows that they will convey. Upon authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission to proceed with the project, California American Water will perform a detailed design of the facilities and optimize the size and materials used for construction of the facilities.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 004 (a) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
Based on the Capital Cost for Cal Am Only Facilities Excel spreadsheet that was sent in response to Data Request #4, and the documents sent in response to Data Request #12, it appears that the Capital Costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities were developed by taking the detailed cost estimates from the Conkey Report, which were further updated by a Technical Memorandum 2009, and escalating these 2009 costs to 2012 dollars. However, Rich Svindland gave a presentation during the cost workshops (Presentation 2, Part 1) which contains an Appendix with some details regarding the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates. The presentation infers that more recent detailed cost estimates have been developed (e.g. for the ASR Pump Station, the presentation says Quantity estimates and unit prices per recent similar project estimate). a. Please clarify whether the capital cost estimates for Cal Am Only Facilities have been updated with recent quantity estimates, unit prices, vendor quotes, etc., or whether the costs are simply escalated from the 2009 cost estimates.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water has not changed, updated or escalated the California American Water-only facilities cost which the Commission approved in D.10-12-016.

Based on the Capital Cost for Cal Am Only Facilities Excel spreadsheet that was sent in response to Data Request #4, and the documents sent in response to Data Request #12, it appears that the Capital Costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities were developed by taking the detailed cost estimates from the Conkey Report, which were further updated by a Technical Memorandum 2009, and escalating these 2009 costs to 2012 dollars. However, Rich Svindland gave a presentation during the cost workshops (Presentation 2, Part 1) which contains an Appendix with some details regarding the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates. The presentation infers that more recent detailed cost estimates have been developed (e.g. for the ASR Pump Station, the presentation says Quantity estimates and unit prices per recent similar project estimate). b. If there have been more recent updates or assumptions for the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates: Please provide a detailed breakdown of the updates, including updated vender quotes, recent similar project estimates, and any other updates, including the basis for unit costs, labor, overhead, etc
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water does not have more up to date cost estimates.

Richard Svindland Vice President of Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, Ca 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 025 MPWSP-CAW 025 Q 004 (c) 01/16/2013 01/28/2013 Cost
Based on the Capital Cost for Cal Am Only Facilities Excel spreadsheet that was sent in response to Data Request #4, and the documents sent in response to Data Request #12, it appears that the Capital Costs for the Cal Am Only Facilities were developed by taking the detailed cost estimates from the Conkey Report, which were further updated by a Technical Memorandum 2009, and escalating these 2009 costs to 2012 dollars. However, Rich Svindland gave a presentation during the cost workshops (Presentation 2, Part 1) which contains an Appendix with some details regarding the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates. The presentation infers that more recent detailed cost estimates have been developed (e.g. for the ASR Pump Station, the presentation says Quantity estimates and unit prices per recent similar project estimate). c. If the costs are still based off of the Conkey Report, updated in 2009, and then escalated to 2012 dollars: The 2009 Capital Cost Update Table 1 provided in response to Data Request #12 does not provide much detail as to how the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates were updated in 2009 from the Conkey Report cost estimates to the values presented in the Technical Memorandum. The 2009 Technical Memorandum indicates that the updated costs are a result of both design updates, and escalating the Conkey Report cost estimates to 2009 dollars. Please provide a detailed spreadsheet that shows exactly how the Cal Am Only Facilities cost estimates were updated in 2009. Please include the escalation factor used, and a breakdown of all other cost updates.

COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water did not update the cost estimates for the California American Water-only facilities using the Conkey Report.
Exhibit 23
Exhibit 24
COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019
Response provided by: F. Mark Schubert Title: Address: Vice President Engineering 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado CA 92118
Company Response Number: DRA Data Request CWP #50
Q1. A1.
Please provide a cost estimate for building the terminal reservoir above ground. Include supporting documentation for the estimate. The construction cost for an above-ground terminal reservoir is estimated to be $4,200,000 (2009 dollars basis), which is approximately $2,200,000 less than the construction cost estimate of $6,600,000 for the buried reservoir provided in the August 14, 2009 Joint Cost Comparison Exhibit Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update technical memorandum (TM). The construction costs for earthwork, site work, and yard piping associated with the terminal reservoir are assumed to be the same for both the buried and above-ground configurations, and are not included in the cost estimates for either configuration shown above. California American Water developed the construction cost estimate for an above-ground tank by assuming a tank unit cost of $0.70 per gallon, which is identical to the unit cost used for the above-ground clear well tank for the Moss Landing desalination plant. This unit cost is $0.40 per gallon less than the buried reservoir unit cost used for the buried reservoir (see pages 4 and 9 of the August 14, 2009 TM).
Q2.
Please provide a detailed explanation for why the transmission line for desalinated water was enlarged from 30 in the PEA to 36 in the FEIR and JCE. Provide an estimate for what a 30 transmission line would cost. The Final EIR states that the desalinated water transmission pipeline could be up to 36 inches. (Ch. 3, p. 3-18.) The CPUC Energy Division staff made that change in their independent judgment and not at the request of California American Water. The estimate for a 36-inch pipeline in the joint cost estimate is consistent with Mark Schuberts May 22, 2009 testimony, which was intended be a conservative cost estimate of the project described in the Draft EIR. A conservative estimate would estimate the largest pipeline allowed by a project description, here the 36-inch maximum size described in the Draft EIR.
A2.
300034122.1
-1-
COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019 The cost estimate for a 30-inch transmission line assumes construction costs only and excludes O&M costs. Specifically, the estimate does not include changes in energy use for the smaller 30 pipeline. Assuming that cement mortar-lined and coated (CMC&L) steel pipe is used for cost estimating purposes, the difference in material costs between a 36 inch and 30 inch CMC&L pipe is estimated to be approximately $24 per lineal foot. Installation costs are assumed to be the same for both sizes. For the Moss Landing Project, the 36inch diameter, 91,000 lineal foot pipeline from the desalination plant to the terminal reservoir has an estimated base construction cost of $41,400,000 (see Cost Comparison Exhibit, page 2: Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline at $32,700,000, and page 6, Seaside Pipeline to Terminal at $8,700,000.) Reducing the diameter to 30 inches would reduce the construction cost of this pipeline to approximately $39,200,000: $41,400,000 (91,000ft)($24/ft) = $39,200,000 Q3. On page 63 his May 22, 2009 testimony, Mr. Schubert states: The cost of the ASR wells increased by $3,000,000 from the 2005 estimate and this is attributed to better knowledge due to MPWMDs successful drilling and testing of two ASR wells at the Santa Margarita site and changed locations of the wells requiring deeper well depth, resulting in longer screen length, and larger motors. Please provide detailed documentation including workpapers to support the $3,000,000 increase. Include an explanation for why Cal Ams ASR wells will require deeper depth, longer screen length, and larger motors. A3. Please refer to page 13, page 16 (A19- A25), page 21 (A30 and A31) of Mr. Schuberts testimony, as well as Attachments C and D: TM 1 -Existing Data Review December 2006; and TM 2-Test Well Site Development Plan, updated May 20, 2009. Mr. Schubert refers to a cost estimate that was prepared in 2005 as part of the Conceptual Design Report. That estimate included $3,370,000 (2005 dollars) for two new ASR wells at two sites along General Jim Moore Boulevard south of the sites that are now proposed at Fitch Park. The 2005 cost estimate was erroneously based on a well depth of 690 feet (it should have been based on 800 feet depth), and the cost of installing the well was estimated at approximately $1,100 per foot. Corrected to an 800 foot depth, the 2005 estimate would have been approximately $3,600,000.
300034122.1
-2-
COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019 The 2005 estimate included approximately $90,000 for a monitoring well ($200,000 in 2009 dollars). The 2005 estimate did not include a core hole ($550,000 in 2009 dollars), which is now included in the 2009 estimate of $6,600,000. TM2 provides the following description of the cost increases: Well MW-1 is planned for construction as soon as a Right of Entry is obtained from the U.S. Army. An estimate of the construction cost for this 6inch PVC monitor well is $200,000, based upon a recent bid. If the continuous wire line core hole is required, the total cost will increase substantially, possibly as high as $500,000 to $600,000, depending upon coring depths. For planning purposes a $550,000 total cost is assumed. (TM2, p. 4.) The current estimates are based on well depth of 1050 feet, and the cost of installing the well is now estimated at approximately $1700 per foot. The increase in unit costs (54%) is explained by generally high inflation of drilling costs over the last four years as well as rapid escalation of stainless steel prices during the same period. Page 6 of TM2 comments on this cost escalation: Well construction costs have increased dramatically nationwide during the past five years, approximately doubling during that period. The increase in depth of the wells is explained by Mr. Schubert on page 13 of his May 22, 2009 testimony: While the PEA identified three possible sites to locate the ASR wells, including the MPWMD Santa Margarita well site, California American Water has made significant progress on locating the other two sites, as discussed in my testimony. Because of the new locations of the wells, the well depths are now anticipated to be 1,000 feet, as opposed to the 800-foot well depth described in the PEA. The new Fitch Park sites are several thousand feet north of the previously assumed sites, and it is known that the Santa Margarita Sandstone deepens and grades into the less productive Purisima Formation in a northerly direction. This deepening of the targeted formation, combined with an increase of approximately 30 feet in ground elevation, explains the new estimate of well depth. However, the final determination of well depth will not be made until the monitoring well and (possibly) the core well is completed. Refer to TM 2, which provides the design criteria for the currently proposed CWP monitoring well and ASR wells.
300034122.1
-3-
COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019 Q4. Please provide a detailed explanation of the status of permit approvals for Cal Ams proposed ASR site. Does Cal Am have an alternate site selected should its preferred site not receive a permit from the US Army? On April 17, 2009, California American Water submitted an application to the U.S. Army for a Right-of-Entry and lease to the Fitch Park sites, in order to install the monitoring well and test well facilities. The Army reviewed the application and sent a letter on November 20, 2009 requesting that California American Water prepare and submit additional documentation in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). California American Water has since met with Army representatives and is now preparing the requested NEPA documentation. California American Water anticipates that it will take a minimum of four to five months to complete the NEPA process outlined by the Army. In the event that California American Water does not secure the Fitch Park sites, potential alternative sites at Fitch School have been identified. Q5. Please provide a detailed estimate including work papers for the $2.2 million estimate for ASR wellhead facilities. Does the wellhead facilities estimate include treatment? The $2.2 million estimate for ASR wellhead facilities, referenced at page 63 of Mr. Schuberts testimony, is a planning-level estimate and thus no workpapers were created. This figure is based on information provided by California American Waters ASR consultant (ASR Systems). As described in A(3) above, California American Waters implementation plan for its ASR program includes completion of a monitoring well to obtain the information required to design the ASR wells. Detailed cost estimates of ASR Wells 3 and 4 will be prepared after the monitoring well is complete. Treatment is not currently planned at either of the two proposed CWP ASR well sites. Therefore, the cost estimate for wellhead facilities does not include capital costs for treatment. The chemical costs for sodium hypochlorite and sodium bisulfite usage for the ASR system (at an assumed chlorination facility at the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) Santa Margarita ASR well site) have been included (see Page 8 of Cost Comparison Exhibit). Q6. A6. If yes, specify the amount of treatment cost. If no, explain where treatment will take place and whether it will require additional costs. As stated on line 12 on page 25 of Mr. Schuberts testimony, California American Water is currently planning to utilize a centralized disinfection facility that will be located at the MPWMD wells site. The chemical costs at that facility have been estimated at $18,000 per year. -4-
A4.
A5.
300034122.1
COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY DISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019
Q7.
Please provide documentation including workpapers to support the other components of Cal Ams ASR estimate. These components are: a. ASR pipeline b. Recirculation pipeline c. Backflush facilities
A7.
Please refer to the attached Excel file which are the work papers that support the cost estimates for these pipelines and backflush facilities described on page 61 of Mr. Schuberts testimony.
300034122.1
-5-
Exhibit 25
California-American Water Company Coastal Water Project- 2012- AL

APPLICATION NO. AL 944 DATA REQUEST RESPONSE
Stacey Fulter Financial Analyst II 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q001 July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 5-5 line #21 identified a composite net to gross rate of 1.4005 with a reference to workpaper 8-2. On workpaper 8-2 the composite net to gross rate is listed as 1.74952. Provide an explanation accounting for the difference.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please reference the attached calculation, attached hereto as Attachment 4 -- AL 944 CAW Reply to DRA Protest.

Stacey Fulter Financial Analyst II 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, CA 92118 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q002 July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 5-6 referenced workpaper 4-2 in calculating deferred taxes. There is no workpaper 4-2. Provide a copy of workpaper 4-2.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please see the workpaper, attached hereto as Attachment 5 -- AL 944 CAW Reply to DRA Protest.

Monica Na Senior Manager of Rates 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q003 July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Pages 6-2 through 6-7 in the upper right hand corner identified a % of total cost attributed to each project. a. For each project, provide justification for how the % was calculated.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The breakdown of the project cost items, as shown in Advice Letter 944-A and below, originated from the Decision Approving the Regional Project. Project Cost Seaside Pipeline Monterey Pipeline Terminal Reservoir ASR facilities Total % of total cost 18% 30% 20% 32% 100%
16,875,000 28,125,000 19,125,000 30,375,000 94,500,000
Decision (D.) 10-12-016 on page 130 shows the following table of the facilities and provide a "Low Scenario", "Median Scenario", and "High Scenario". The $94.5M shown above is the result of the mid-point of the Median and High Scenario (or the average of these two) minus the Transfer Pipeline. The Transfer Pipeline was the only portion that would not be used and useful until the Desal Plant was constructed; therefore it was not planned for construction until near the end of the project. Below I provide a summary of the table on pages 131 and 132 and include a column showing the mid-point of the Median and High Scenario:


John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q004(a) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $11,501.98 and the referenced invoice is on Pages 7-1 through 7-3. This invoice is dated April 13, 2011 for consultant services performed from September 1, 2010 to February 28, 2011. a. Provide explanation for why this cost was not requested in AL 932.
COMPANY RESPONSE The invoice from ASR systems, in the amount $11,501.98, was delayed within California American Waters processing system and payment was not made until November 10, 2011, which was after the filing for AL 932.

Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $10,074.31. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated this bill was shortpaid in the amount of $17,680.50: i. Provide a copy of payment receipt.
RESPONSE: Please see the payment receipt, attached hereto as Attachment DR AL 944 CAW 001 Q005a from California American Waters accounting software showing payment in the amount of $17,680.50.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q005(b) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $10,074.31. b. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $26,694 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project i. Show how this amount was calculated.
RESPONSE: California American Water directed RBF to provide a spreadsheet listing of invoices detailing the amounts that were for work not related to the RDP. The spreadsheet showed the following breakdown of invoices, with the referenced $26,694 value highlighted.

Invoice Number Invoice Date WorkPerformed Invoice Total 11060463 11070106 11080420 11090143 11100228 11110247 11120562 12010301 12020299 7/29/11 8/26/11 9/23/11 10/28/11 11/25/11 12/24/11 1/27/12 2/24/12 3/23/12 Jun11 Jul 11 Aug11 Sep11 Oct11 Nov11 Dec 11 Jan12 Feb12 Mar12 $ 68,119.97 $ 35,960.59 $ 54,448.81 $ 55,604.83 $ 45,497.94 $ 24,679.51 $ 14,246.29 $ 9,653.83 $ 31,047.60 $ 75,590.84
RDPWork $ 43,488.47 $ 33,935.59 $ 27,754.81 $ 19,824.83 $ 14,992.44 $ 16,423.51 $ 4,381.79 $ 2,239.33 $ 1,363.60 $ 1,230.34
NonRDPWork $ 24,631.50 $ 2,025.00 $ 26,694.00 $ 35,780.00 $ 30,505.50 $ 8,256.00 $ 9,864.50 $ 7,414.50 $ 29,684.00 $ 74,360.50

Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION: 6
John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q006 July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $19,824.83. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $35,780 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project i. Show how this amount was calculate.
RESPONSE: California American Water directed RBF to provide a spreadsheet listing of invoices detailing the amounts that were for work not related to the RDP. The spreadsheet showed the following breakdown of invoices, with the referenced $35,780 value highlighted.

Invoice Number Invoice Date WorkPerformed Invoice Total 11060463 11070106 11080420 11090143 11100228 11110247 11120562 12010301 12020299 7/29/11 8/26/11 9/23/11 10/28/11 11/25/11 12/24/11 1/27/12 2/24/12 3/23/12 Jun11 Jul 11 Aug11 Sep11 Oct 11 Nov11 Dec 11 Jan12 Feb12 Mar12 $ 68,119.97 $ 35,960.59 $ 54,448.81 $ 55,604.83 $ 45,497.94 $ 24,679.51 $ 14,246.29 $ 9,653.83 $ 31,047.60 $ 75,590.84
RDPWork $ 43,488.47 $ 33,935.59 $ 27,754.81 $ 19,824.83 $ 14,992.44 $ 16,423.51 $ 4,381.79 $ 2,239.33 $ 1,363.60 $ 1,230.34
NonRDPWork $ 24,631.50 $ 2,025.00 $ 26,694.00 $ 35,780.00 $ 30,505.50 $ 8,256.00 $ 9,864.50 $ 7,414.50 $ 29,684.00 $ 74,360.50

Page 6-4 calculates project overhead for the authorized projects. a. For each overhead rate used show where the % was authorized.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water does not have an approved overhead rate; rather it receives a portion of actual overheads which are allocated among all CPUC-approved capital projects. Overhead allocations to capital projects, including the Regional Desalination Project, are generated based on actual overhead balances and the overall level of capital expenditures. Overhead rates are generally around 10%, but will fluctuate along with the fluctuation of total capital expenditures.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q008 (a) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 6-5 identified labor occurring on 10/23/11 and 10/30/11 a. Provide explanation for why the labor cost occurring on the dates above was not requested in AL 932.
COMPANY RESPONSE: As the labor charges in question occurred at the end of the period for AL 932, it is likely that they had not hit the accounting system and were therefore not included in the filing for AL 932.

Page 6-7 identified labor overhead for the authorized projects. a. For each overhead amount, show how the amount was calculated and provide justification for the overhead % used.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water does not have an approved overhead rate; rather it receives a portion of actual overheads which are allocated among all CPUC-approved capital projects. Overhead allocations to capital projects, including the Regional Desalination Project, are generated based on actual overhead balances and the overall level of capital expenditures. Overhead rates are generally around 10%, but will fluctuate along with the fluctuation of total capital expenditures.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q010(a)(i) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Pages 7-44 and 7-63 are for payments to RBF Consulting. a. Cal-Am is seeking to recover the amount for task 00002 found on pages 7-45 and 7-64 for Inter-Agency Permitting and Coordination. i. Identify any permits that were applied for or acquired during 2011 by RBF. Include the location and authorized project for each permit.
RESPONSE: The following permits were either applied, acquired, or were in process from August 2011 through February 2012: ASR Monitoring Well Construction at Fitch Park o Monterey County Health Department Well Construction Permit (Applied and acquired) o Marina Coast Water District Temporary Water Service Application (Applied and acquired) o City of Marina site access coordination and traffic control plan check (Completed) o Construction staff Presidio of Monterey Safety Training (Applied and Acquired) Monterey Pipeline crossing at Presidio of Monterey

o SHPO Section 106 and pipeline crossing coordination with DD&A and Presidio of Monterey (Ongoing from August 2011 through February 2012). o Preparation of the Environmental Assessment for acquiring a FONSI document (Ongoing from August 2011 through February 2012) Coordination Regional Desalination Project NEPA effort with RMC and Denise Duffy & Associates, Inc. for integrating the California American Wateronly facilities into the overall project application (ongoing from August 2011 through February 2012).

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q010(a(ii)) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Pages 7-44 and 7-63 are for payments to RBF Consulting. a. Cal-Am is seeking to recover the amount for task 00002 found on pages 7-45 and 7-64 for Inter-Agency Permitting and Coordination. ii. For all non-permitting activities requested to be recovered in this AL, identify all services provided and explain how each service benefits each authorized project.
RESPONSE: The tasks, described below, were performed for non-permitting work from August 2011 through February 2012. The below described ASR tasks directly benefit the ASR facilities described by the California American Water-only facilities. ASR Monitoring Well Construction at Fitch Park o Monitoring well construction contract preparation. o Implementation of environmental conditions and supporting biological surveys prior to construction. o Contract administration and engineering services during construction. o Technical oversight and coordination with ASR Systems.
The tasks described below benefit all California American Water-only facilities.

The Regional Desalination Project o Coordination on integrating California American Water-only facilities implementation schedule into the Regional Desalination Project overall schedule. o Cost estimating analysis of the Regional Desalination Project.

Page 7-54 is an invoice from Bradley and Sons Inc. a. Identify what specific work is being recovered in this invoice.
RESPONSE The referenced invoice from Bradley and Sons Inc. is for the drilling and development of a test well at the Fitch Park ASR site. The site is located off General Jim Moore Blvd, near the intersection with Ardennes Circle in Seaside, CA.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q012(a) & (b) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
Page 7-107 is a task summary invoice ((#09-133-15) from ASR for the period November 26, 2011 to February 29, 2012. a. Provide a copy of the invoice (#09-133-15) referring to page 7-107 and showing the invoice date, project ID, project description, and payment due date. This documentation should be similar to such provided on page 7-55. b. Provide documentation showing Summary of Associated Labor Charges and Summary of Associated Expenses. This documentation should be similar to such provided on page 7-56 and 7-61.
RESPONSE: In response to questions 12 (a) and (b), please find a copy, attached hereto as AL944_CAW001-Q12, of invoice #09-133-15 from ASR Systems in the amount of $26,008.27.

In AL 932, Page 7-19 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $2,016 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #3, further confirms that that the amount $2,016 was not requested. Page 7-34 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $1,728 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #12, further confirms that that the amount $1,728 was not requested. Page 7-68 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11080420) identified $17,680.50 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were requested. a. Provide justification for excluding the $2,016 on RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224 and $1,728 on RBF Consulting Invoice # 11030224.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Hours under this task were excluded from the Advice Letter Filing as they were related to tasks not associated with the RDP. Such tasks included work on developing technical memoranda on the 11 alternatives, which was work done that eventually supported the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project currently under review by the Commission.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q013(b) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
In AL 932, Page 7-19 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $2,016 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #3, further confirms that that the amount $2,016 was not requested. Page 7-34 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $1,728 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #12, further confirms that that the amount $1,728 was not requested. Page 7-68 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11080420) identified $17,680.50 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were requested. b. Provide justification for NOT excluding the $17,680.50 on RBF Consulting Invoice #11080420.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Items under the RBF task of ASR Program Management Support generally relate to permitting, design, and construction of the ASR wells that are included in the California American Water-only facilities.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager - Project Delivery 511 forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q013(c) July 30, 2012 August 7, 2012 Financial
In AL 932, Page 7-19 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $2,016 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #3, further confirms that that the amount $2,016 was not requested. Page 7-34 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11030224) identified $1,728 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were excluded from the Regional Desalination Project. Appendix 1-B, line item #12, further confirms that that the amount $1,728 was not requested. Page 7-68 (RBF Consulting Invoice #11080420) identified $17,680.50 in ASR Program Management Support costs which were requested c. Provide documentation authorizing cost recovery for Task 00009 ASR Program Management Support. Identify which CAL-AM projects benefited from this task.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Decision 10-12-016 provided authorization for the Regional Desalination Projects California American Water-only facilities. Excerpts from that decision are included in Workpapers 2-1 and 3-1 for AL 944.
Exhibit 26

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q001 (a) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Pages 7-1 through 7-3 is an invoice from ASR Systems. a. Provide a copy of the ASR contracts there were effective during the recovery period.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Please find attached a copy of the contract.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q001 (b) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Pages 7-1 through 7-3 is an invoice from ASR Systems. b. Identify the timeframe for which the ASR contracts provided above are effective.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The contract with ASR systems has been effective since August 29th, 2006.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q001 (c) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Pages 7-1 through 7-3 is an invoice from ASR Systems. c. The invoice is to install test and monitoring wells. i. Identify every well that ASR installed during the recovery period. Include each wells location. ii. Identify every well that ASR tested during the recovery period. Include each wells location. iii. Identify every well that ASR monitored during the recovery period. Include each wells location.
COMPANY RESPONSE: During the recovery period, ASR systems installed, tested, and monitored only one well. That is the ASR monitoring well located at the Fitch Park ASR site.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q002 (a) (i) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $10,074.31. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $26,694 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project. i. Provide an exact breakdown and any supporting documentation which shows how the $26,694 was calculated.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water directed RBF to provide a spreadsheet listing of invoices detailing the amounts that were for work not related to the RDP. The following spreadsheet shows the breakdown of invoices, with the referenced $26,694 value highlighted.
Invoice Number 11060463 11070106 11080420 11090143 11100228 11110247 11120562 12010301 12020299 Invoice Date 7/29/11 8/26/11 9/23/11 10/28/11 11/25/11 12/24/11 1/27/12 2/24/12 3/23/12 WorkPerformed Jun11 Jul 11 Aug11 Sep11 Oct11 Nov11 Dec11 Jan12 Feb12 Mar12 Invoice Total $ 68,119.97 $ 35,960.59 $ 54,448.81 $ 55,604.83 $ 45,497.94 $ 24,679.51 $ 14,246.29 $ 9,653.83 $ 31,047.60 $ 75,590.84 RDPWork $ 43,488.47 $ 33,935.59 $ 27,754.81 $ 19,824.83 $ 14,992.44 $ 16,423.51 $ 4,381.79 $ 2,239.33 $ 1,363.60 $ 1,230.34 NonRDPWork $ 24,631.50 $ 2,025.00 $ 26,694.00 $ 35,780.00 $ 30,505.50 $ 8,256.00 $ 9,864.50 $ 7,414.50 $ 29,684.00 $ 74,360.50

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q002 (a) (ii) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $10,074.31. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $26,694 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project. ii. Per invoice workpapers numbered 7-4 through 7-17 identify which task(s) the $26,694 is allocated to.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The $26,694 that was excluded from the invoice was allocated to task 0015B, Ongoing Support Activities. The work that was excluded was work RBF performed on evaluating alternative water supply proposals.

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q003 (a) (i) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $19,824.83. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $35,780 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project i. Provide an exact breakdown and any supporting documentation which shows how the $35,780 was calculated.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water directed RBF to provide a spreadsheet listing of invoices detailing the amounts that were for work not related to the RDP. The following spreadsheet shows the breakdown of invoices, with the referenced $35,780 value highlighted.
Invoice Number 11060463 11070106 11080420 11090143 11100228 11110247 11120562 12010301 12020299 Invoice Date 7/29/11 8/26/11 9/23/11 10/28/11 11/25/11 12/24/11 1/27/12 2/24/12 3/23/12 WorkPerformed Jun11 Jul 11 Aug11 Sep11 Oct11 Nov11 Dec11 Jan12 Feb12 Mar12 Invoice Total $ 68,119.97 $ 35,960.59 $ 54,448.81 $ 55,604.83 $ 45,497.94 $ 24,679.51 $ 14,246.29 $ 9,653.83 $ 31,047.60 $ 75,590.84 RDPWork $ 43,488.47 $ 33,935.59 $ 27,754.81 $ 19,824.83 $ 14,992.44 $ 16,423.51 $ 4,381.79 $ 2,239.33 $ 1,363.60 $ 1,230.34 NonRDPWork $ 24,631.50 $ 2,025.00 $ 26,694.00 $ 35,780.00 $ 30,505.50 $ 8,256.00 $ 9,864.50 $ 7,414.50 $ 29,684.00 $ 74,360.50

John Kilpatrick Engineering Manager Project Delivery 511 Forest Lodge Rd, Suite 100 Pacific Grove, CA 93950 DRA-AL 944 DRA-AL-944 CAW-002 Q003 (a) (ii) August 10, 2012 August 15, 2012 Contracts
Page 6-2 identified Project Direct Costs for FP# IP-0540-305 for Regional Desal Project- CAW Fac. The amount was for $19,824.83. a. Under the column titled Related Task it is stated $35,780 was excluded from the bill because it did not relate to RDP project ii. Per invoice workpapers numbered 7-18 through 7-43 identify which task(s) the $35,780 is allocated to.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The $35,780 that was excluded from the invoice was allocated to Task 00009, ASR Program Management Support. The work that was excluded was related to RBFs analysis of alternate water supply proposals, including a proposal to increase supply from ASR.
Exhibit 27

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (a) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
Please provide justifications for the percentage values (shown in bold below) used to calculate the following items in Cal Ams cost estimates: a) Implementation costs (20% of base construction cost);
COMPANY RESPONSE: Implementation costs for the intake, desalination plant and product water pipeline were estimated at 20% of the base construction costs for these items. Estimates prepared by California American Water in 2009 have used a more complex formula for estimating implementation costs that used 15% of the base construction cost for the desalination plant, assuming that it would be built using a design-build delivery method, and 30% of the base construction cost for the intake system assuming that it would be built using a design-bid-build project delivery method. Using that combined approach for estimating, the 2009 estimate prepared for Mark Shuberts testimony developed an estimate of $20,070,000 of implementation costs for implementation of the intake system and desalination components of the North Marina Alternative, or approximately 20% of the estimated construction costs for those facilities. Recognizing that in order to fast-track implementation of the project, design-build project delivery may also be used for all or a portion of the intake system and product water pipeline, California American Water decided to use a single value of 20% for the purposes of estimating implementation costs for the intake system, desalination plant, and product water pipeline components of the MPWSP.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (b) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
Please provide justifications for the percentage values (shown in bold below) used to calculate the following items in Cal Ams cost estimates: b) Contingencies (25% of base construction cost + implementation cost + ROW/Land/Outfall cost);
COMPANY RESPONSE: The percentages used to estimate Contingencies and Mitigation Costs are consistent with the percentages that were used for the RDP since 2009, as documented on April 15, 2010 in the Joint Response to Data Request CWP #53 and CWP Project Cost Comparison.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 001 (c) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
Please provide justifications for the percentage values (shown in bold below) used to calculate the following items in Cal Ams cost estimates: c) Mitigation Costs (1% of base construction cost + implementation cost + ROW/Land/Outfall cost).
COMPANY RESPONSE: See response to question 1(b).

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 002 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
Please provide all items included in Cal Ams calculation of Implementation Costs for the MPWSP as reflected in Table 3 of Appendix E (Pg. 6).
COMPANY RESPONSE: Implementation costs shown on Table 3 of Appendix E are for future engineering, legal, permitting, and day-to-day administrative and management work required to implement the MPWSP project components are described in Table 2 of Appendix E (Pg. 4).

In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 6), RBF Consulting provided a cost breakdown for the Intake Wells/Supply/Return Facilities line item under Base Construction Costs of both plant options (5.4 and 9.0 mgd). For each line item on the cost breakdown, please identify and provide a justification for all unit costs. Additionally, please include a breakdown of activities and costs for line items under Base Construction Costs in the Intake Wells and Supply/Return Facilities section. If the detailed cost breakdown spreadsheet, as requested above, is part of an overall cost worksheet, please provide that worksheet in your response.
COMPANY RESPONSE: See attached spreadsheet entitled Base Construction Cost Breakdown DRA#7 Q3.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (a) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBF Consulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) are higher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons for the difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP. RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding the following items: (a) Capacity of each well; Please list and provide detailed explanations for these assumptions. How are these assumptions different than the assumptions used for the RDP?
COMPANY RESPONSE: According to August 2009 cost estimates, prepared by RMC, for the Regional Desalination Project (RDP), the RDP included the following: 6 wells at approximately 2600 gpm each. Desalination plant capacity of 10 mgd (6,940 gpm). Estimated overall desalination plant recovery of 43.2 percent. No standby well capacity ( i.e., all 6 wells required for the desalination plant to produce 10 mgd). The MPWSP desalination plant alternatives are sized according to the following criteria: 6 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 1840 gpm per well, for the 5.4 mgd desalination plant alternative.

8 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 2200 gpm per well, for the 9.0 mgd desalination plant alternative. Estimated overall desalination plant recovery of 40.6 percent.
The assumed well capacity is subject to confirmation by the test well program. Standby well capacity is consistent with accepted reliability and redundancy criteria (n+1) for water production facilities and allows full production from the desalination plant in the event that one of the well pumps needs to be maintained or repaired. During normal operation with all wells available and the desalination plant at full production, the standby status would be rotated among the pumps, with each one of the wells placed in standby mode (rested) for a few hours per day. The desalination plant recovery is calculated using a series of process calculations and involves engineering assumptions and judgment as well as computerized RO process models. Since these calculations and assumptions were done by different engineers, with slightly different process trains and loading rates, and different RO process models, slightly different results would be expected. In this case, the predicted plant recovery for the MPWSP is less than 3 percentage points different than the higher recovery rate calculated for the RDP.

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (b) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBF Consulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) are higher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons for the difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP. RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding the following items: (b) Recovery percentage of desalination plant Please list and provide detailed explanations for these assumptions. How are these assumptions different than the assumptions used for the RDP?
COMPANY RESPONSE: See response to question 4(a).

Richard C. Svindland Vice President Engineering 4701 Beloit Drive Sacramento, CA 95838 DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 007 MPWSP-CAW 007 Q 004 (c) 08/02/2012 08/12/2012 Cost Estimates
In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 7), the analysis prepared by RBF Consulting shows that intake facility costs in the new project (MPWSP) are higher than the intake facility costs for the RDP. One of the proffered reasons for the difference in cost is the number of required intake wells for the MPWSP. RBF Consulting then explains that there are different assumptions regarding the following items: (c) Addition of standby well capacity Please list and provide detailed explanations for these assumptions. How are these assumptions different than the assumptions used for the RDP?
COMPANY RESPONSE: See response to question 4(a).

In Cal Ams application (Appendix E, Pg. 8), RBF Consulting provided a cost breakdown for the product water pipeline for both plant options (5.4 and 9.0 mgd). Please provide a detailed cost breakdown that lists all items included in the base construction cost of the product water pipeline. For each item on the cost breakdown, please provide justifications for all unit costs. If the detailed cost breakdown spreadsheet, as requested above, is part of an overall cost worksheet, please provide that worksheet in your response.
COMPANY RESPONSE: The base construction cost estimate for the Product Water Pipeline is based on a simple calculation of 32,000 LF of pipeline at approximately $340/LF. The unit cost of $340/ LF is based on our judgment and experience and based on the Coastal Water Project cost estimating information that was developed in 2005 for constructing a 30inch diameter pipeline in the TAMC right-of way (please refer to attached spreadsheet entitled Base Construction Cost Breakdown for DRA#7 Q5 which incorporates appropriate productivity assumptions and surface repair assumptions for this section of pipeline). When the 2005 estimate is adjusted for escalation (to October 2012) and diameter (from 30 inches to 36 inches) and jack and bore costs are removed, the result is a unit cost of $340/LF.

If Cal Am has undertaken groundwater modeling specifically for the MPWSP, please provide results and assumptions for this modeling. In addition, please submit any reports that have been compiled for any such groundwater modeling.
COMPANY RESPONSE: California American Water has not performed any groundwater modeling specifically for the MPWSP. We have relied on modeling work performed and included the prior FEIR for the North Marina Alternative which investigated a series of slant wells located approximately 2000 to 2500 feet to the south of our currently proposed site. Furthermore, California American Water was informed by the Commissions CEQA staff that they will be conducting the groundwater modeling for the MPWSP as part of their environmental review of the project.

Answer 64 in the direct testimony of Mr. Richard Svindland discusses potential offsets to the cost of additional wells and pipeline for the GWR project. Please list and explain all potential modifications to the number and size of the Terminal Reservoirs and the sizing of other pipelines.
COMPANY RESPONSE: It is premature to speculate on the following: 1) how California American Water would accommodate a dilution pipeline and injections wells without knowing the final CDPH requirements for dilution water; and 2) how certain project components are being delivered in terms of costs. However, California American Water is attempting to deliver all the needed project components for the same overall capital costs that the Commission already approved. As an example, California American Water may choose to install only one Terminal Reservoir if GWR is implemented because the Company would have redundancy stored in the ground. Likewise, California American Water could also explore two 1.5 MG reservoirs in lieu of the two 3 MG reservoirs which are currently a part of the California American Water-only facilities, because again the Company would have redundant storage in the ground. In terms of pipeline sizing, once California American Water is in the design phase, the Company would re-investigate pipeline sizing to determine if segments could be changed to provide a way to fund any needed dilution wells or pipes.
Exhibit 28
Application No. A.12-04-019 Data Request Response Response Provided By: David Stoldt, General Manager Monterey Peninsula Water Management District DRA-A.12-04-019-MPWMD 001 02/04/13 02/11/13
DRA Request: Date Received: Date of Response:
Responses for each portion of the Data Request: 1. As a part of A.12-04-019, California American Water (Cal-Am) proposes to construct two additional ASR Wells and associated facilities at a site at Fitch Park. a. Please describe the role of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) in the construction of existing ASR Wells #1-#3 and the in-progress ASR Well #4 and the associated ASR Facilities. District Response: MPWMD is the owner and developer of the Santa Margarita ASR site which contains wells 1 and 2, a treatment and electrical building, and a backflush pit, among other ancillary facilities such as transportation access ways, sound barriers, and landscaping. MPWMD serves as the general contractor for the Seaside Middle School site for facilities owned by Cal-Am, which includes wells 3 and 4, and will contain a small electrical building and other ancillary facilities, but will likely not include a backflush pit on-site. b. Regarding ASR Wells #1 and #2 at the Santa Margarita Site: i. Which facilities constructed at this site would be comparable to the facilities proposed as a part of the CAW Only Facilities in A.12-04-019? District Response: The wells, electrical, and on-site piping will be similar to the CAW-Only facilities. There were initial project feasibility and testing developmental expenses for the Santa Margarita site, as well as the treatment works that Santa Margarita has that the CAW-Only facilities will not. Although the Fitch Park site cannot accommodate a backflush pit, the budget should carry costs for that purpose to be undertaken elsewhere. ii. What was the final construction cost of these facilities? If possible, please provide both the total construction cost, and a breakdown of this total. District Response: Please see attached appendix, page 1. The total cost is $8,714,651, however, this includes $1,755,478 of feasibility and testing phase costs, resulting in $6,959,173 of project costs. Of
5 Harris Court, Building G, Monterey, CA 93940 P.O. Box 85, Monterey, CA 93942-0085 831-658-5600 Fax 831-644-9560 http://www.mpwmd.net
DRA-A.12-04-019-MPWMD 001 Page 2 of 3 2-11-13 these, $1,604,130 are estimated costs to complete the project, which may vary over the next 12-24 months. Further, if you were to remove the cost of the facility building ($1,236,548) a feature that would not be a component of Fitch Park or the Seaside Middle School sites, although small electrical works buildings will be required at both then the net cost is $5,722,625. c. Regarding ASR Wells #3 and #4 at the Seaside Middle School Site: i. Which facilities constructed at this site would be comparable to the facilities proposed as a part of the ASR Facilities in A.12-04-019? District Response: The Seaside Middle School Site is very similar to the Fitch Park site. However, the Fitch Park site might entail two separate locations if the wells are separated. Our understanding is that there are no common facilities such as a backflush pit or treatment works. The wells, electrical, and onsite piping will be similar to the CAW-Only facilities. Although the Fitch Park site cannot accommodate a backflush pit, the budget should carry costs for that purpose to be undertaken elsewhere.
ii. Please provide the budgeted and final construction costs of ASR Well #3 and other facilities that have been completed thus far. Please provide both the total costs, and a breakdown of this total. District Response: Please see attached appendix, page 3. The total cost is $6,344,217. The attached estimate includes a breakdown. Please note that MPWMD believes that the expenditures denoted ASR-3 Well Construction and ASR-4 Well Construction to date are on-budget without making use of the contingency line items. However, it is expected that these amounts will be transferred to and required for completion of the General Site Improvements Supporting both Wells category. iii. Please provide the budgeted and projected construction cost of ASR Well #4 and other facilities that have not yet been completed? Please also provide a breakdown of these construction costs. District Response: Almost all items shown under the sections titled ASR-3 Well Construction and ASR-4 Well Construction on page 3 of the attached appendix have been expended or are under contract. Most of the items listed under General Site Improvements Supporting both Wells remain to be completed. 2. In A.12-04-019, as a component of the ASR Facilities, Cal-Am proposes to construct an offsite backflush pit for the proposed ASR Wells. A backflush storage basin was approved as a part of the construction of ASR Well #4, for which $4.7 million was approved in D.12-06-020. a. Please confirm that a backflush storage basin is accounted for in the budget for ASR Well #4. District Response: The budget for ASR wells 3 and 4 contains budgeted monies for a backflush pit. However, due to changing regulations and site constraints, the backflush pit will likely not be built at the Seaside Middle School site. Instead, an expanded backflush pit is being pursued at or near the Santa Margarita site, for which budgeted funds will be transferred or MPWMD will absorb the direct costs itself.
DRA-A.12-04-019-MPWMD 001 Page 3 of 3 2-11-13 b. Based on MPWMDs experience, would an additional backflush storage basin be necessary for the proposed ASR wells, or would the basin that has already been funded and is due to be constructed adequately serve the proposed ASR wells? District Response: The backflush pit that has already been funded will not adequately serve the Santa Margarita, the Seaside Middle School, and the Fitch Park wells. As discussed above, MPWMD is actively seeking to develop an expansion or replacement site. The goal is to have sufficient capacity for all 6 wells, but that has not been proven conclusively as several site alternatives are under preliminary review. 3. Regarding the cost of leasing the existing ASR well sites: a. What is the current cost of leasing the Santa Margarita site for ASR Wells #1 and #2? If there is no current cost, what is the anticipated future cost or cost range for leasing this site? District Response: We do not use leasing for the first two phases of ASR. The Santa Margarita site has not been transferred from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority to the City of Seaside, hence it is unclear if MPWMD will obtain ownership or be subject to a long-term easement. MPWMD is carrying a budget amount of $364,000 for eventual purchase or easement cost of this site. That amount is based on the easement cost of the Seaside Middle School site (see response below.) b. What is the current cost of leasing the Seaside Middle School site for ASR Wells #3 and #4? District Response: The cost of a long-term easement for the 1.0 acre Seaside Middle School site was $272,000.
APPENDIX
Exhibit 29

Response Provided By: Title: Address: DRA Request: Company Number: Date Received: Date Response Due: Subject Area: DRA QUESTION:
David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 001(a) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
1) With regard to the use of California American Water Short Term Debt to fund the proposed project: a). Provide information regarding the terms and conditions of the short-term debt. Specifically, what index is used to determine the rate of this source of funds?
COMPANY RESPONSE: Cal-Am is charged the 90-day commercial paper rate for A2/P2 nonfinancial corporations on its short-term borrowings. For the last three years, this rate has averaged between 0..33% and 0..55%. Attachment 1 shows the rates posted to the Federal Reserves web site for that time period. To maintain some degree of conservatism, our financial model utilized a short-term rate of 1.00%, as we assumed the artificially low current rates may not remain in place when construction finally begins several years into the future. Please note that this is still a historically low rate, and any forecasting of interest rates into the future carries a great deal of uncertainty

David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 001(b) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
1) With regard to the use of California American Water Short Term Debt to fund the proposed project: b). Provide the amount of short-term debt that is available to California American Water and what metric or process is used to determine the amount of short-term debt available to the company?
COMPANY RESPONSE: A credit line is determined by Cal-Ams parent company, American Water Capital Corp. (AWCC), based upon the percentage of Cal-Ams long-term debt compared against American Waters total long-term debt. This allocation percentage has typically been between 4.085% and 5.202% (last 7 years), and is applied to an overall available short-term credit line available to the parent company, which is typically between $550M and $690M. Currently, Cal-Ams shortterm debt credit line strictly by this calculation is $35.9M (5.202% = proportion of Cal-Am debtto-total American Water debt, multiplied by $690M American Water credit line total). Cal-Am typically utilizes approximately $30M of that amount annually. The actual authorized credit line from American Water is $50M, which seeks to capture an allowance for the $20M in excess of that total to allow for the MPWSP.

David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 001(c) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
2) With regard to the use of California American Water Short Term Debt to fund the proposed project: c). Provide information with regard to how California American Water uses short-term debt and what projects will require the use of short-term debt during the construction of the proposed desalination plant.
COMPANY RESPONSE: Cal-Am routinely utilizes between $20M and $30M in short term debt to fund all capital projects and other working capital needs, i.e. normal daily business activity.

David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 002 (a) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
2). With regard to the use of SRF Loan to fund the debt portion of the proposed project:: a). Provide information with specific information regarding SRF monies (i.e. agency evaluating the application, criteria the agency will be using to evaluate the application and limits on funding).
COMPANY RESPONSE: The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) evaluates the application. Funding is limited to $50M annually to any one entity, but this limit may be waived with a review made directly by the Board, i.e. regular staff is not qualified to approve more than $50M. In terms of criteria, the goal of the fund is to help the state achieve the goal of clean water. To this end, the program provides financing for 1) construction of publicly owned wastewater infrastructure 2) addressing non-point sources (NPS) of pollution, and 3) development and implementation of plans to protect important estuaries. The Board analyzes each applicants financial capabilities, and if required, imposes special conditions to lower default risk. This is done on a case-by-case basis. Recipients may be required to provide ongoing financial information after loan closing or to complete public outreach if there was significant disapproval during the rate setting process.

David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 002 (b) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
2). With regard to the use of SRF Loan to fund the debt portion of the proposed project:: b). Provide information with regard to how SRF debt will affect California American Waters balance sheet and financials.
COMPANY RESPONSE: It is assumed that since SRF funding is a legal obligation to Cal-Am, that rating agencies would view it as a liability, and that GAAP would similarly hold it in the same view, Cal-Am should maintain SRF funding as a long-term liability on its books.

David Sousa Financial Analyst 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado, Ca 92118 DRA-A.12-04-021-CAL AM 021 MPWSP-CAW 021 Q 002 (c) 10/15/2012 10/24/2012 Financing
2). With regard to the use of SRF Loan to fund the debt portion of the proposed project:: c). Provide information with regard to the terms i.e. the limit on total amount of debt, draw periods and interest rates for SRF debt.
COMPANY RESPONSE: As mentioned above, $50M is the annual amount allowed to any one entity this amount can be increased with Board approval. As for rates, the rate charged is normally the most recent General Obligation (GO) Bond Rate at time of Preliminary Funding Commitment. Repayment begins one year after completion of construction. During the past 5 years, this rate has varied from 1.8% to 2.9%. Attachment 2 contains information on the SWRCB site with the most recent historical rates.
Exhibit 30
FRB: Commercial Paper Rates
Page 1 of 2
What's New What's Next Site Map A-Z Index Careers RSS All Videos Current FAQs
Advanced Search
About the Fed
News & Events
Monetary Policy
Banking Information & Regulation
Payment Systems
Economic Research & Data
Consumer Information
Community Development
Reporting Forms
Publications
Home > Economic Research & Data > Statistical Releases and Historical Data
Commercial Paper
Summary Rates Volume Statistics Outstanding Year-end Maturity Distribution About Announcements
DDP
Print
Commercial Paper Rates Derived from data supplied by The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
Data as of October 23, 2012 Posted October 24, 2012
Daily rates for commercial paper are provided for the AA nonfinancial, A2/P2 nonfinancial, AA financial, and AA asset-backed categories. The criteria that determine which issues are included in the rate categories are detailed in the Rate Calculations section of the About page of this release.
Period
AA nonfinancial 1-day 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 1-day 7-day
A2/P2 nonfinancial 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day
Annual average 2010 2011 2012* 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.17 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.19 0.33 0.31 0.38 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.35 0.42 0.36 0.37 0.46 0.40 0.41 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.55
Monthly average 2012-May June July Aug. Sept. Oct.* 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.39 0.39 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.49 0.50 0.58 0.57 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51
Weekly (Friday) average Sept. 28 Oct. 5 Oct. 12 Oct. 19 Oct. 26* Daily Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 22 Oct. 23 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.19 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.35 0.46 0.48 0.47 0.48 0.42 0.42 0.55 0.53 0.49 0.48 0.37 0.62 n.a. n.a. 0.41 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.52 0.52 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.57 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.41
* Data through October 23. Note: n.a. indicates that trade data was insufficient to support calculation of the particular rate.
AA financial Period 1-day 7-day 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day 1-day 7-day
AA asset-backed 15-day 30-day 60-day 90-day
Annual average 2010 2011 2012* 0.17 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.13 0.11 0.24 0.17 0.15 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.30 0.25 0.33 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.27 0.29 0.35 0.29 0.31
Monthly average 2012-May 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.20 0.22 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.29 0.31
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/cp/rates.htm
10/24/2012
FRB: Commercial Paper Rates
Page 2 of 2
AA financial Period June July Aug. Sept. Oct.* 1-day 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 7-day 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.12 15-day 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.12 30-day 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.12 60-day 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 90-day 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.18 1-day 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.23 7-day 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.27 0.27
AA asset-backed 15-day 0.30 0.29 0.26 0.26 0.24 30-day 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.25 60-day 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.27 90-day 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.30 0.29
Weekly (Friday) average Sept. 28 Oct. 5 Oct. 12 Oct. 19 Oct. 26* Daily Oct. 17 Oct. 18 Oct. 19 Oct. 22 Oct. 23 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.11 0.11 n.a. n.a. 0.15 0.12 0.12 n.a. 0.12 n.a. 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.12 n.a. 0.13 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.22 0.19 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.27 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.29 0.30
* Data through October 23. Note: n.a. indicates that trade data was insufficient to support calculation of the particular rate.
Return to top
Last update: October 24, 2012
Home | Economic research and data

Accessibility Contact us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA PDF Reader
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/cp/rates.htm
10/24/2012
Exhibit 31
Calculation of True Interest Cost (TIC) for Current Bond Sale TIC divided in Current Bond Sale Date half Interest Rate* TIC 14-Feb-07 4.444110% 2.22206% 2.3% 15-Feb-07 5.084361% 2.54218% 2.6% 28-Mar-07 4.456342% 2.22817% 2.3% 20-Jun-07 4.782954% 2.39148% 2.4% 18-Oct-07 4.655676% 2.32784% 2.4% 29-Nov-07 4.747152% 2.37358% 2.4% 4-Mar-08 5.219000% 2.60950% 2.7% 10-Apr-08 4.718650% 2.35933% 2.4% 29-Apr-08 4.183000% 2.09150% 2.1% 24-Jun-08 5.083851% 2.54193% 2.6% 10-Mar-09 4.182700% 2.09135% 2.1% 24-Mar-09 5.832910% 2.91646% 3.0% 22-Apr-09 4.926535% 2.46327% 2.5% 8-Oct-09 4.959170% 2.47959% 2.5% 4-Nov-09 5.780000% 2.89000% 2.9% 11-Mar-10 5.327610% 2.66381% 2.7% 22-Nov-10 5.083324% 2.54166% 2.6% 20-Sep-11 3.998000% 1.99900% 2.0% 19-Oct-11 4.371000% 2.18550% 2.2% 1-Mar-12 3.557407% 1.77870% 1.8% 12-Apr-12 4.250394% 2.12520% 2.2% 0.00000% 0.00000% 0.00000%
10/3/2012
Exhibit 32
Technical Memorandum Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update for the Coastal Water Project August 14, 2009
OBJECTIVE The objective of this technical memorandum (TM) is discuss the updates that have been completed to the CWP capital and O&M costs, per the outcome of cost workshops held in July 2009, and per ALJ Minkins July 21, 2009 ruling.
BACKGROUND At the July 7-8, 2009 costs workshops held in San Francisco, ALJ Minkin asked the parties CAW and the MCWD to coordinate on cost estimating assumptions made for the CWP and its alternatives, and reconcile as many differences in assumptions as possible so that an apples and apples comparison of the costs could be presented. ALJ Minkin asked the parties to prepare and submit a cost comparison exhibit once the costs differences have all been vetted. Per ALJ Minkins July 21st ruling, the cost comparison exhibit is due August 14, 2009. This TM provides a line item breakdown of the changes that have been made as a result of this process to the capital and O&M costs that were presented in the Direct Testimony of Mark Schubert, submitted to the Commission on May 22, 2009 and in the Direct Testimony of Lyndel W. Melton, submitted to the Commission on June 24, 2009.
SUMMARY OF UPDATED CAPITAL ESTIMATES
INTAKE FACILITIES (OFF-SITE FEEDWATER AND BRINE DISPOSAL FACILITIES) Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $1,800,000 North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $20,300,000 Regional Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $11,500,000 Moss Landing Project The cost for this line item has been reduced from $2,800,000 to $1,800,000 because the cost of the Return Flow Pipeline has been moved to the Desalination Plant line item for presentation in the Cost Comparison memo. North Marina Project Test Well, Production Wells, Well-Head Facilities, Well Electrical and I&C No net change. Source Water Pipeline
Exhibit Capital and O&M Cost Estimate Update for the Coastal Water Project August 14, 2009
Page 2
The Source Water Pipeline length was increased from 16,000 lineal feet (LF) to 19,000 LF and resulted in an increase of construction cost from $3,400,000 to $4,000,000. The pipeline length increased because the proposed location of the North Marina desalination plant was relocated to the preferred site identified by MCWD for the Regional Desalination Plant. Exhibit LWM-6 of Meltons June 24, 2009 Testimony displays the proposed location of the Regional desalination plant. Return Flow (Brine) Pipeline The cost of the Return Flow Pipeline has been moved to the Desalination Plant line item for presentation in the Cost Comparison Exhibit. See Desalination Plant below for further details. Regional Project The cost for Intake Facilities has increased from $10,700,000 to $11,500,000 because the costs now include contractors overhead and profit, which was previously shown as a separate line item. There were no other changes in cost for this item. DESALINATION PLANT Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $105,400,000 North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $80,800,000 Regional Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $75,700,000 Moss Landing Desalination Plant (MLDP) Return Flow (Brine) Pipeline The Return Flow Pipeline is now included in the Desalination Plant line item for presentation purposes in the Cost Comparison Exhibit. The estimated construction cost of the pipeline is unchanged at $1,000,000. Plant Inlet Facilities No change. Pretreatment Facilities The May 22, 2009 capital cost estimate inadvertently did not include the capital cost of cartridge filters. The Regional Desalination Plant cost estimate did include this cost of $600,000 for 8 5-micron filters. The estimate obtained by MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10) was applied to the MLDP estimate and an additional 18.5% was added for contractor overhead and profit (OH&P). The estimated construction cost is $700,000. Reverse Osmosis Facilities Process Equipment: The RO system cost was revised and is based on a vendor quote for the RO equipment, including filtrate forwarding pumps, energy recovery devices, and a partial second pass. The RO equipment estimate is based on 6 first pass arrays sized for
Page 3
2.1 mgd (5 duty and 1 standby) and a single second pass array to produce 10 mgd of desalinated water. The RO system cost estimate of $31,000,000 was developed through coordination of the CAW and MCWD technical team. The assumed recovery of the first pass is 45%. The second pass is sized for a feedwater flow equal to 40% of the first pass RO permeate flow, and would produce approximately 3.8 mgd. The assumed second pass recovery is 90%. This design criteria is consistent with Lyndel Meltons June 24, 2009 Direct Testimony for the Regional Desalination Plant. The RO facilities cost estimate described in Schuberts Attachment K did assume a 45% recovery on a single pass RO system, but did not include a partial second pass. CAW and MCWD agreed that the desalination facilities would each assume a partial second pass in order to ensure that boron levels in the desalinated water would be less than 0.5 mg/l in order to meet recycled water and irrigation water quality objectives to minimize toxicity risk to plant foliage. Refer to the Direct Testimony of Dr. R. Rhodes Trussel, Ph.D, P.E, dated June 24, 2009 for further discussion of the potential risks associated with boron and why a partial second pass was incorporated into the concept design of the Regional Desalination Plant. Tthe MLDP also requires low head forwarding pumps to pressurize the energize recovery devices, which are estimated at $300,000 and were not included in the MLDP RO facilities cost estimate in Schuberts Attachment K. Because of the revised design criteria, addition of the partial second pass, and addition of the energy recovery forwarding pumps, the MLDP RO facilities cost estimate increased from $24,000,000 to $31,300,000. The total RO construction includes taxes, installation, 10% contractor OH&P on the equipment cost only, and 18.5% contractor OH&P on installation. Structures, Building and Miscellaneous Piping and Equipment: No change. Post-Treatment Facilities: The parties agreed to add a facility for sodium hydroxide for post treatment pH adjustment due to revised post treatment assumptions that are premised on the Sand City Desalination Plant post treatment design criteria. Refer to the Post Treatment discussion in the MLDP O&M section of this TM for further details. The construction cost of $70,000 was added and includes installation and contractor OH&P. Residuals Handling and Treatment Facilities: No change Product Water Facilities The product water facilities at the MLDP include the clearwell pump station, clearwell reservoirs and the desalinated water pump station. Clearwell Pump Station: The MLDP clearwell pump station construction cost was reduced from $500,000 to $300,000 and includes a reduction of $120,000 to furnish and install the pumps, $40,000 reduction for the concrete sump, and $40,000
Page 4
reduction for the building, realizing economies of scale savings could be obtained from the contractor. Clearwell: The constructed unit cost of the 3-MG clearwell was reduced from $1.50/gal to $0.70/gal, which resulted in a reduction of cost from $4,500,000 to $2,100,000. The May 22, 2009 estimate of $1.50/gal included costs for major construction and site work, however site work is accounted for under a separate line item Site Work and Yard Piping, thus the unit cost was reduced. Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS). No change. Plant Infrastructure Administration/Operations/Laboratory Building, Site Work and Yard Piping: No change Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls: No change in methodology Engineering, Construction, and Startup Services: No change in methodology
North Marina Desalination Plant (NMDP) The NMDP was relocated to the preferred location currently proposed by the MCWD for the Regional Desalination Facility, shown in Exhibit LWM-6 of the Direct Testimony of Lyndel W. Melton, dated June 24, 2009. The site is still assumed to be 10 acres. Return Flow (Brine) Pipeline The Return Flow Pipeline is now included in the Desalination Plant line item for presentation in the Cost Comparison Exhibit. The pipeline length was increased from 2,000 LF to 2,500 LF and resulted in an increase of construction cost from $300,000 to $380,000. The length of pipe was revised due to the new proposed location of the North Marina Desalination plant site. Plant Inlet Facilities: No change. Pretreatment Facilities
Page 5
Granular Media Pressure Filters: The NMDP pretreatment facilities consist of horizontal multi-media pressure filters that will receive flow directly from the inlet pipeline, at a pressure supplied by the slant well intake pumps. The design assumptions, and thus the cost estimate, were updated based on a new vendor quote. The estimate contained in Schuberts Attachment K was developed from a vendor quote for greensand pressure filters, and greensand filtration is no longer proposed at the NMDP. The current estimate now include costs for eight 12-foot diameter 37-foot long pressure filters he pressure filters will be designed to filter up to 25 mgd of feedwater at a filtration rate of 5 gpm/sq ft with one filter off-line for backwashing. Periodically, the filters will be individually backwashed at approximately 4000 gpm using backwash pumps located at the filtered water storage sump. The estimate is reduced from $7,800,000 to $4,600,000 and consists of $2,900,000 for equipment and $1,700,000 for taxes, installation and contractor OH&P. Because of the larger production capacity of the NMDP, the estimate for the NMDP pretreatment facility is about 10% higher than the agreed upon base estimate of $4,200,000 applied to the Regional Desalination Facility. Cartridge Filters: The May 22, 2009 capital cost estimate inadvertently did not include the capital cost of cartridge filters. The Regional Desalination Plant cost estimate did include this cost of $600,000 for 8 5-micron filters. The estimate obtained by MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10) was applied to the NMDP estimate and an additional 18.5% was added for contractor overhead and profit (OH&P). The estimated construction cost is $700,000.
Automatic Cleaning Fine Screens: Because of the pressure filtration process and the addition of cartridge filters to the NMDP treatment process, automatic cleaning fine screens are not anticipated to be required. The automatic cleaning fine screens estimated at $600,000 were removed from the estimate. Structures, Building and Misc Piping and Equipment: The pressure filters typically dont require a building, thus the 10,500 square foot fiIter building estimated at $1,200,000 was removed from the estimate. RO Process Facilities: The NMDP RO process facilities would be similar to the MLDP RO facilities, except that each first pass array would be designed to produce 2.3 mgd of permeate instead of 2.1 mgd, in order to provide the NMDP with a production capacity of 11 mgd. The construction cost of the NMDP RO facilities increased from $26,400,000 to $34,100,000. The estimated cost ($34.1 M) was developed by subtracting $300,000 for the low-head energy recovery feed pumps that are not required at the NMDP and multiplying the remainder of $31,000,000 estimate by a factor of 1.10. Post-Treatment Facilities: The parties agreed to add a facility for sodium hydroxide to each of the projects, as previously described. The construction cost of $70,000 was added and includes installation and contractor OH&P. Residuals Handling and Treatment Facilities:
Page 6
No change. Product Water Facilities: The product water facilities at the NMDP include the clearwell reservoirs and the desalinated water pump station. A pump station is required to deliver desalinated water to the CSIP system. Clearwell: The constructed unit cost of the 3-MG clearwell was reduced from $1.75/gal to $1.00/gal, which resulted in a reduction of cost from $5,200,000 to $3,000,000. The estimate contained in Schuberts Attachment K, dated May 22, 2009 of $1.75/gal included costs for major construction and site work, however site work is accounted for under a separate line item Site Work and Yard Piping, thus the unit cost was reduced. Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS). Because the new proposed location of the NMDP is located at higher elevation, the power requirement of the DWPS is reduced. The horsepower required is reduced from four 250 hp (1,000 hp installed) to four 200 hp (800 hp installed). The total estimated construction cost for this item is reduced from $2,500,000 to $2,400,000. CSIP Delivery Pump Station: See CSIP Delivery System below. Plant Infrastructure Administration/Operations/Laboratory Building: No change. Site Work and Yard Piping: Per Schuberts Attachment K, dated May 22, 2009, this item was estimated on a rule-of-thumb basis, using $5 per sq foot of site area. This estimate was updated to account for 10-acres of site work, or 435,600 sf, verses the previous estimate of 11.5 acres, or 500,000 sf. The estimate reduced from $2,500,000 to $2,300,000. Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls: No change in methodology
Engineering, Construction, and Startup Services: No change in methodology
Regional Project (RP)
Page 7
The cost of the Desalination Plant has decreased from $81,100,000 to $75,700,000 as explained in the following text. Site work: The size of the site has been increased to 10 acres to match the North Marina Project. The site work cost has increased from $1,100,000 to $2,200,000 Structures: The process structures have been revised to match the sizing criteria and unit costs used for the NMDP. The size of the RO building has decreased from 32,000 sf to 19,000 sf at a unit cost of $137/sf; the post treatment building has been removed; a 15,000 sf Admin/O&M/Lab building has been added at a unit cost of $200/sf, and a 6,000 sf chemical storage facility has been added at a unit cost of $1,000,000 per facility. The net result of the changes in sizing and unit costs is that the total cost for structures is still $6.6 million. Pretreatment Facilities: The pretreatment for the Regional Project has been changed to match the process used for the NMDP. The cost of the pretreatment facilities has increased from $600,000 to $4,800,000. Residuals Handling and Treatment Facilities: Residuals handling facilities including wash water treatment/recovery/pump station, solids dewatering, dried solids storage, and CIP effluent treatment have been added to match the process used in the NMDP. The process sizing and unit costs are based on the NMDP. This is a new category of costs that were not included in the Melton June 24, 2009 testimony and are necessitated because of the change in pretreatment process to match that of the NMDP. The estimated cost of the residuals handling facilities is $580,000. RO Process Facilities: The cost of the RO process facilities has increased from $30,600,000 to $31,000,000 to match the unit costs used in the Moss Landing and North Marina projects. Chemical Handling: The disinfection and post-treatment processes and unit costs have been changed to match that of the NMDP. This includes elimination of UV disinfection and addition of sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment. The cost of chemical handling facilities has decreased from $1,520,000 to $1,150,000 Clearwells and Pump Station: The size of the clearwell has been reduced from 5 MG to 3 MG to match the sizing criteria used in the NMDP. The constructed unit cost of the clearwell was reduced from $1.75/gal to $1.00/gal as discussed in the NMDP. These changes resulted in a reduction of the clearwell cost from $7,500,000 to $3,000,000. The cost of the Product Water Pump Station was reduced from $2,500,000 to $2,400,000 match the unit cost used in the NMDP. Contractors Overhead and Profit. The unit costs used by both parties for the Desalination Plant include contractors overhead and profit so this was deleted as a separate cost in the Desalination costs since it is already included in the unit costs for each item.
DESALINATED WATER TRANSFER PIPELINES Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $32,700,000 North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $17,280,000
Page 8
Regional Project Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $17,000,000 Pipelines Note that the unit cost of the pipelines has not changed; however the nomenclature and organization of the estimate has changed. Conveyance pipelines are included in three separate line items on the Cost Summary as follows: The pipelines for conveyance from the desalination plant to the border of the MCWD and CAW Service Areas, i.e. the area north of the CAW Service Area, are included in the line item labeled Desalinated Water Transfer Pipelines The line item labeled MCWD/CSP Delivery includes the pipeline associated with the Regional Project for conveyance of desalinated water to MCWD from the MCWD tiein, and the pipeline associated with the North Marina Alternative for the CSDIP Delivery Pipeline. The Seaside Pipeline Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP), Monterey Pipeline, and the Valley Greens Pump Station are all included in the line item labeled CAW facilities. Moss Landing Project- Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline: The Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline delivers water from the desalination plant to the service boundary of CAWs service area in Seaside. This pipeline essentially consolidates the desalinated water conveyance pipeline segments North of Reservation Road and From Reservation Road to Seaside/ Monterey Pipeline. The estimated construction cost of the Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline is $32,700,000 for an assumed length is 78,000 LF. The pipeline length and the cost estimate did not change. North Marina Project- Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline: The Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline delivers water from the NMDP to the service boundary of CAWs service area in Seaside. This pipeline essentially consolidates the desalinated water conveyance pipeline segments North of Reservation Road and From Reservation Road to Seaside/ Monterey Pipeline. The estimated construction cost of the Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline is $17,000,000 for an assumed length of 46,000 LF. The estimate increased from $16,000,000 to 17,000,000 due to pipeline length increase of 2,700 LF attributed to the new proposed location of the NMDP previously described. Regional Project - Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline: The North Marina Project has been relocated to the same site proposed for the Regional Project. Therefore, the configuration and the cost of the desalinated water transfer pipeline are identical for both the NM and RP projects. North Marina Alternative Only- CSIP Delivery System: This category of capital costs includes the CSIP Delivery Pump Station estimated at $200,000 and the Delivery Pipeline to the CSIP storage lagoon, estimated at $80,000. Because the NMDP was relocated, the CSIP Delivery pipeline length was reduced from 6,000 LF to 1,000 LF, and thus the cost estimate reduced by $420,000.
Page 9
The CSIP Delivery Pump Station estimated construction cost is reduced from $400,000 to $200,000, which includes a $200,000 reduction in assumed costs to construct the concrete wet well and miscellaneous piping, valves, and meters, realizing economies of scale savings from the contractor.
MCWD-ONLY FACILITIES This is a new category of costs and includes $4,500,000 for 12,500 LF of 24-inch pipeline to convey desalinated water from the MCWD tie-in at the Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline to existing MCWD Reservoir C. The cost includes $3,600,000 for the pipeline itself and $900,000 for a bore and jack under Highway 1. CAW-ONLY FACILITIES All Projects: Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $42,500,000 All Projects- Seaside Pipeline Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP): No change. All Projects- Monterey Pipeline: No change. All Projects- Valley Greens Pump Station: No change. All Projects Terminal Reservoir and ASR Pump Station Estimated 2009 Construction Cost of $10,700,000 The unit cost was reduced from $1, 75/gal to $1.10 per gallon because a line item for major construction and site work was developed separate of the tank costs. The estimated construction cost is reduced from $10,500,000 to $6,600,000. The estimates for the ASR Pump Station at $1,500,000 and Earthwork, Sitework and Yard Piping at $2,600,000 remain unchanged. All Projects ASR System No change.
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Cost of $26,350,000 North Marina Alternative Estimated 2009 Cost of $28,450,000 Regional Project Estimated 2009 Cost of $19,900,000 MCWD-Only Facilities Estimated 2009 Cost of $1,300,000 CAW Facilities Estimated 2009 Cost of $12,800,000
Page 10
No change in methodology except that the implementation costs for the MCWD-Only and CAW-Only Facilities are now shown as a separate line item and are not included in the implementation costs for the ML, NM, or Regional Projects. MRWPCA OUTFALL CAPACITY CHARGE North Marina and Regional Project Only - Estimated 2009 Cost of $9,400,000 This is a new line item not included in either the North Marina or Regional Project estimates, and is based on a preliminary draft cost for purchase of outfall capacity for brine disposal. It was developed by the MRWPCA in a Draft Preliminary Technical and Financial Evaluation for Brine Disposal through Existing Ocean Outfall, prepared by Brown and Caldwell, February 6, 2009 RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENTS AND LAND ACQUISITION COSTS Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Cost of $3,100,000 North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Cost of $2,200,000 Regional Project Estimated 2009 Cost of $1,200,000 CAW Facilities Estimated 2009 Cost of $2,730,000 The cost for land and right-of-way for the Moss Landing Project is unchanged, except that the costs associated with the CAW Facilities have been moved to a separate line item. The estimate for the NM Project decreased from $4,900,000 to $2,200,000 because the CAW Facilities cost was moved to a separate line item. The Regional Project costs increased from $0 to $1,200,000 to account for right-of-way costs associated with the portion of the Desalinated Water Transfer Pipeline within the TAMC right-of-way from Beach Road to the CAW service area. PROJECT CONTINGENCY ALLOWANCE Recommended Allowance of $42,300,000 in 2009 Dollars for the Moss Landing Project Recommended Allowance of $39,600,000 in 2009 Dollars for the North Marina Project Recommended Allowance of $33,700,000 in 2009 Dollars for the Regional Project Recommended Allowance of $1,500,000 in 2009 Dollars for the MCWD-Only Facilities Recommended Allowance of $14,500,000 in 2009 Dollars for the CAW-Only Facilities The Contingency is increased from 20 percent of the base capital cost estimate for each of the projects to 25% based on consensus amongst CAW and MCWD.
PROJECT MITIGATION ALLOWANCE Recommended Allowance of $2,100,000 in 2009 Dollars for the Moss Landing Project Recommended Allowance of $2,000,000 in 2009 Dollars for the North Marina Alternative Recommended Allowance of $1, 7800,000 in 2009 Dollars for the Regional Project Recommended Allowance of $100,000 in 2009 Dollars for the MCWD-Only Facilities Recommended Allowance of $700,000 in 2009 Dollars for the CAW-Only Facilities A new line item representing a Mitigation allowance of 1% of the capital cost, including contingency, was added to all of the project components. This allowance is not meant to be inclusive or exclusive of any particular mitigation measures that may be incorporated with
Page 11
the projects. Mitigation costs will be defined after the FEIR is released and the mitigation costs workshop is held among the parties.
Page 12
SUMMARY OF UPDATED O&M ESTIMATES The basis for estimating annual O&M costs for the projects was coordinated between CAW and MCWD. Where applicable, uniform unit costs were applied to energy, chemicals, labor, membrane and filter replacement, and general repairs and replacements (R&R). Please refer to Attachment L of the Direct Testimony of Mark Schubert for the detailed discussion of the O&M cost approach for the Moss Landing Proposed Project and the North Marina Alternative; and Exhibit LWM-10 of the Direct Testimony of Lyndel W. Melton for the Regional Project The following text specifically describes the revisions made to the O&M estimates for each of the projects. The revisions resulted in an increase in total O&M costs for the: Moss Landing Project from $9,760,000 (does not include O&M costs for CAW-only facilities) to $10,950,000; North Marina project from $9,540,000 (does not O&M costs for CAW-only facilities) to $11,380,000; and the Regional Project from $11,300,000 to $12,080,000. The estimated O&M cost of $560,000 associated with the CAW facilities and the estimated O&M avoided costs of $2,010,000 associated with reduced operations of existing CAW facilities have not been changed. For purposes of presentation in the Cost Comparison Exhibit, these two items are shown included with the CAW-Only Facilities estimate of costs. There are no O&M costs associated with the MCWD-Only Facilities. Moss Landing Desalination Plant Pretreatment Process Antiscalant dosage of 1 mg/l at unit cost of $1.45/lb is added to the estimate. The design criteria were obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10). Cartridge filter replacement estimate of $85,000/year is added the estimate, obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10).
Reverse Osmosis Process The Schubert Testimony dated May 22, 2009 assumed the MLDP operated as a single pass RO system; RO feed pressure of 950 psi, with filtrate forwarding pumps providing 50 psi and the high pressure RO feed pumps providing 900 psi. The estimate remains unchanged. The following summarizes revisions applied to the MLDP RO Process. The estimates includes energy recovery, however the May 22 estimate inadvertently did not include the pumping costs associated pressurizing the energy recovery system. Thus the estimate now includes the energy cost of low pressure filtrate forwarding pumps to pressurize the energy recovery devices to 20 psi. Mass balance calculations were performed to adjust the flows accordingly to the filtrate forwarding pumps and RO high pressure feed pumps, and the energy recovery pressurization pumps. Added second pass booster pumps with assumed pressure of 280 psi. The second pass is designed to process 40% of the first-pass permeate flow and the assumed
Page 13
recovery is 90%. Second pass concentrate is recycled to the first pass feed flow. Design criteria obtained from MCWD. Membrane replacement adjusted to include second pass RO membranes.
Post Treatment Process Post treatment chemical dosages were revised to reflect Sand City desalination plant post treatment design criteria. Refer to detailed O&M estimate for dosages. The Sand City desalination plant design criteria also proposes sodium hydroxide addition at a dosage of 2.4 mg/l for ph adjustment and it is now included in the estimate. A unit cost of $0.20/lb was obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10). Mitigation Monitoring Programs A new line item placeholder estimate of $250,000 is included in the cost for Moss Landing Harbor and ocean monitoring programs. This estimate will be defined after the FEIR is released and discussed at the mitigation costs workshop currently scheduled in October 2009. The estimate may be further refined as information becomes available from permitting agencies. North Marina Desalination Plant As previously discussed, the NMDP was relocated to the preferred site identified by MCWD for the Regional Desalination Plant. The elevation increased by approximately 20 feet thus resulted in higher pumping requirements for the slant wells to deliver source water to the NMDP and reduced pumping requirements to deliver desalinated water to the Terminal Reservoir. The NMDP now has the same over the fence opportunities to obtain power generated by the proposed MRWMD landfill gas power expansion project. The onsite energy rates assumed for the Regional Plant have been applied to the NMDP. Additional details will be provided in the appropriate sections below. Pretreatment Process Revised slant well pump lift from 220 ft to 240 ft Antiscalant dosage of 1 mg/l at unit cost of $1.45/lb is included in the estimate. The design criteria were obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10). Cartridge filter replacement estimate of $85,000/year was included in the estimate, obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10).
Reverse Osmosis Process The Schubert Testimony, dated May 22, 2009 assumed the NMDP operated as a single pass RO system; RO feed pressure of 900 psi, with filtrate forwarding pumps providing 50 psi and the high pressure RO feed pumps providing 850 psi. A recovery of 50% was assumed. The estimate has been revised. The following summarizes revisions applied to the NMDP RO Process.
Page 14
Unlike the MLDP, the intake wells are assumed to pressurize the energy recovery devices. Thus the NMDP does not require energy recovery filtrate forwarding pumps. No change to the NMDP estimate. The residual pressure out of the pretreatment system is 20 psi. The filtrate forwarding pumps boost the inlet pressure of the RO high pressure feed pumps to 50 psi. The high pressure RO feed pumps boost the first pass RO feed pressure to 950 psi. The assumed first pass recovery is 45%. Recalculated the energy recovery pressure boost to be 95 psi per above adjustments. Added second pass booster pumps with assumed pressure of 280 psi. The second pass is designed to process 40% of the first-pass permeate flow and the assumed recovery is 90%. Second pass concentrate is recycled to the first pass feed flow. Design criteria obtained from MCWD. Membrane replacement adjusted to include second pass RO membranes for 11 mgd capacity desalination plant. Added miscellaneous chemicals dosage of 3 mg/l at a cost of $1.00/lb to be consistent with MLDP and Regional Plant estimates.
Post Treatment Process See MLDP Post Treatment Discussion. Labor and Miscellaneous The Water Treatment Misc. Expenses unit cost is reduced to from $25/AF to $20/AF to be consistent with MLDP estimate. Mitigation Monitoring Programs A new line item placeholder estimate of $500,000 is included in the cost for groundwater monitoring programs. This estimate will be defined after the FEIR is released and discussed at the mitigation costs workshop currently scheduled in October 2009. The estimate may be further refined as information becomes available from permitting agencies. In addition, a preliminary estimate of $20,000 is included for MRWPCA outfall inspection charges and $260,000 for MRWPCA blending and aeration facilities. MRWPCA annual charges were derived from MRWPCAs Draft Preliminary Technical and Financial Evaluation for Brine Disposal through Existing Ocean Outfall. Desalinated Water Pump Station The design pumping lift required to deliver desalinated water from the clearwell to the Terminal Reservoir is reduced from 285 feet to 240 feet due to the higher elevation of the NMDP site. Desalinated Water Return Pump Station The design pumping lift required to deliver desalinated water from the clearwell to the CSIP storage pond is reduced from 50 feet to 25 feet due to the higher elevation of the NMDP site and closer proximity to the pond.
Page 15
Regional Project Pretreatment Process Chlorine dosage of 2 mg/l at unit cost of $0.20/lb is included in the estimate. The design criteria were obtained from CAW. Dechlorination dosage of 2 mg/l at unit cost of $2.40/lb is included in the estimate. The design criteria were obtained from CAW. Antiscalant dosage of 1 mg/l at unit cost of $1.45/lb is included in the estimate. The design criteria were obtained from MCWD. Media filter replacement estimate of $3,000/year was included in the estimate, obtained from CAW.
Reverse Osmosis Process Adjusted the operating pressures to match criteria used in North Marina. Revised operating pressures are 30 psi for the filtrate forwarding pump, 900 psi for the First Pass pump, and 95 psi for the Energy Recovery Booster pump. Added $445,000 per year allowance for membrane replacement. Criteria from CAW.
Post-Treatment Process Lime dosage has been changed to 56 mg/l at unit cost of $0.15/lb is to match CAW criteria for NM. CO2 dosage has been changed to 27 mg/l at unit cost of $0.20/lb to match CAW criteria for NM. Chlorine gas has been replaced with sodium hypochlorite at dosage of 2.3 mg/l and unit cost of $0.2/lb. The design criteria were obtained from CAW. UV disinfection has been removed from the estimate to match CAW criteria for CAW. Wash water treatment/recovery and Treated Wash Water Pump Station have been added to estimate to match CAW criteria for NM. Labor and Miscellaneous The Water Treatment Misc. Expenses unit cost is reduced to $20/AF to be consistent with MLDP estimate. Mitigation Monitoring Programs See North Marina Project discussion. Desalinated Water Pump Station The design pumping lift required to deliver desalinated water from the clearwell to the Terminal Reservoir is reduced from 285 feet to 240 feet to match CAW criteria.
Page 16
Energy Costs The Schubert Testimony, dated May 22, 2009, assumed that PGE would supply power to the NMDP at a cost of $0.093 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and $0.136/kWh for winter and summer power usage, respectively. The energy cost assumed for the NMDP was revised to $0.080 per and $0.120/ kWh for winter and summer power usage, respectively, for power derived from the MRWMD landfill gas power expansion project. The revised unit cost was obtained from MCWD (Exhibit LWM-10). No other energy unit cost assumptions have been changed. Chemical Costs As previously discussed, antiscalant and sodium hydroxide costs are included in the estimates. Labor Costs No change in methodology. Membrane Replacement Costs The membrane replacement costs now include costs to replace the second pass RO membrane elements. In addition, the unit cost of membranes was revised per vendor input. A uniform replacement cycle of 15% per year is applied to each desalination plant, with replacement beginning in the sixth year of operations. Membrane replacement associated with a 10 mgd RO facility is calculated below: 4,560 elements * 15% = 684 elements *$650/element = approximately $445,000 Membrane replacement associated with an 11 mgd RO facility is calculated below: 5,400 elements * 15% = 810 elements *$650/element = approximately $526,000 General Repairs and Replacement Sinking Fund The General R&R fund is created by annually saving an assumed percentage of the listed components capital cost. The cost methodology did not change, however due to revised capital cost estimates, the estimate for this category of costs did change. O&M Costs Avoided There is no change in methodology or costs. As previously discussed, for purposes of the Cost Comparison Exhibit, the O&M Costs avoided are presented with the costs associated with CAW-Only Facilities CAW-Only Facilities
Page 17
There is no change in methodology or costs. As previously discussed, tor purposes of the Cost Comparison Exhibit, the estimated annual O&M cost for CAWs facilities are presented with the costs associated with the CAW-Only Facilities. Seaside ASR Wells The pumping lift was revised from 330 ft to 500 ft to be consistent with current ASR well design criteria. No other changes were made to CAW Facilities.
Page 18
CALCULATION OF ANNUALIZED COSTS An estimate of the annualized cost in terms of $/AF was developed to evaluate the estimated differences in the cost of the water produced among the three desalination plant alternatives. The basis for estimating the annualized costs for the projects was coordinated between CAW and MCWD and is described in this section. Net Capital Cost. The Net Capital Cost is the sum of the Base Construction Cost, the Implementation Costs, the MRWPCA Outfall Capacity Charge, the ROW Easements and Land Acquisition, Project Contingency, and Mitigation Measures. Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Net Capital Cost of $213,750,000 North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Net Capital Cost of $200,000,000 Regional Project Estimated 2009 Net Capital Cost of $170,100,000 MCWD-Only Facilities Estimated 2009 Net Capital Cost of $7,400.000 CAW-Only Facilities Estimated 2009 Net Capital Cost of $73,200.000
Cost of Issuance: An allowance of 2.5% of the capital cost of the Regional Project and the MCWD-Only Facilities was included to incorporate the cost of issuing bonds/financing for the Regional Project. The cost of issuance for the ML and NMA is 0% because the interest rate used to annualize the capital costs already includes the cost of issuance. Annualized Capital Costs: The interest rate used for annualizing the capital cost for the Regional Project and MCWD-Only Facilities is 5.10% over 30 years as described in the June 24, 2009 Direct Testimony of Thomas E. Gaffney. The interest rate used for annualizing the capital cost for the Moss Landing, North Marina, and CAW-Only Facilities is 8.55% over 30 years as described in the May 22, 2009 Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson. Total Annualized Cost: The annualized capital costs were added to the Annual O&M costs to determine the total annualized cost for each alternative. Annual Production to Customers: The Moss Landing and North Marina project will deliver an average annual of 8,800 AFY to CAW customers. The North Marina project will produce an additional 800 AFY for delivery to the CSIP program to offset the portion of the product water that originated as seawater intruded groundwater from the Salinas Basin. The Regional Project will produce and deliver 8,800 AFY to CAW and 1,700 AFY to MCWD for a total of 10,500 AFY. The MCWD-Only Facilities will deliver 1,700 AFY to MCWD. The CAW-Only Facilities include infrastructure used by both the desalination water deliveries of 8,800 AFY and the ASR deliveries of 1,300 AFY for a total of 10,100 AFY to CAW. Cost of Project Component: The Total Annualized Cost was divided by the annual production to customers (as described above) to determine the cost of water in $/AFY for each of the project components. Cost of Water Adjustments: The cost of water to CAW includes the following two cost adjustments to account for the need to offset the portion of product water that originated as seawater intruded groundwater from the Salinas Basin.
Page 19
As a groundwater offset, the North Marina Project delivers 800 AFY to the CSIP ponds in addition to the 8,800 AFY delivered to CAW. The Cost of Water Adjustment assumes that the 800 AFY delivered to CAW would have a value of $300/AF which is based on the approximate cost for MRWPCA to produce recycled water to CSIP. 800 AFY at $300/AF results in an annual value of $240,000. The value of $240,000 divided by the 8,800 AFY delivered to CAW results in a credit of $30/AF for the water delivered to CAW. The Regional Project includes 1,700 AFY to MCWD, but the desalination product water wont be needed by MCWD until approximately 10 + years after initiation of operations. However, delivery of 8,800 FY to CAW will still require delivery of 1,700 AFY to MCWD in the initial ~10 years to accommodate the Salinas Basin groundwater offset. The current cost of groundwater pumping at MCWD is $500/AF. Replacing the groundwater with desalination water results in a differential cost of water of $1,7590/AF (Cost of desalinated water at $2,250/AF minus the cost of groundwater at $500/AF). The annual differential in cost of the desalination versus groundwater is 1,700 AFY times $1,790/AF for a total annual cost of $2.97 million. The cost of $2.97 million divided by the 8,800 AFY delivered to CAW results in a rounded cost of $340/AF for the water delivered to CAW.
Cost of CAW Water: The cost of CAW water for the initial 10 + years includes the following items: Cost of Desal Water Cost of Water Adjustments Cost of CAW-Only Facilities After the initial ~10 + years, when MCWD needs its share of the desalinated water for its own uses the cost of water adjustment for the Regional Project is eliminated. The resulting estimated total cost of CAW water for the initial ~10 + years is as follows: Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $4,050/AF North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $3,920/AF Regional Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $3,120/AF The estimated total cost of CAW water after the initial ~10 + years is as follows: Moss Landing Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $4,050/AF North Marina Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $3,920/AF Regional Project Estimated 2009 Cost of Water of $2,780/AF
CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS The parties have also coordinated in a preliminary consideration of the potential effects of different funding options on the cost of water. The financing options shown are speculative and are only used to show the potential impacts to the project costs. Moss Landing and North Marina Projects It was assumed that 40% of the capital costs would be funded through a surcharge (May 22, 2009 Direct Testimony of David P. Stephenson regarding Commissions previously authorized Special Request 2 Surcharge). The remaining portion of the capital cost would be financed at 8.55% over 30 years per the previous discussion. With this funding option
Page 20
the cost of water for Moss Landing was reduced from $4,050/AF to $2,870/AF and the cost of water for North Marina (after adjustments) was reduced from $3,920/AF to $2,800/AF Regional Project The first funding option assumed that the project would receive $40 million in grants from the US Bureau of Reclamation Title XVI program and that the remainder would be financed through the California State Revolving Fund (SRF) at 2.5% over 20 years. The cost of water after adjustment was reduced from $2,780/AF to $2,490/AF The second option was developed to be illustrative of the potential cost reduction resulting from a public/private partnership. The assumption was that the project would receive $40 million in USBR Title XVI grant funding, $80 million in surcharge funding, and the remaining capital would be financed through the SRF at 2.5% over 20 years. The cost of water after adjustment for this example was reduced to $1,720/AF.

A.12-04-019 Exhibits 17-32 MPWSP Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.12-04-019 Exhibits 17-32 MPWSP Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exhibit 17

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

Cell Phones Trash Removal Uniforms

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

California-American Water Company Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project