Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
Regular Meeting
10:30 AM, Monday, December 5, 2016
Council Chambers
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA TAC and which is not on the agenda. Any
person or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Committee may do so by
addressing the Committee during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to:
MPRWA TAC, Attn: Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate
staff person will contact the sender concerning the details.

CONSENT AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA consists of those items which are routine and for which a staff
recommendation has been prepared. A member of the public or TAC Member may request that an
item be placed on the regular agenda for further discussion

1.

Approve Minutes from September 19, 2016 - Romero

2.

Receive Update on a Technical Review of the Pending Re-circulated DEIR/DEIS for the
MPWSP - Cullem
***End of Consent Agenda***
AGENDA ITEMS

3.

Receive Report, and Approve Final Draft to the Water Authority Policy Position Statement Cullem/Sciuto/Riley

4.

Receive Report on Updated MPWSP Frequently Asked Questions and Provide

Recommendations for Authority Board Consideration - Stedman

5.

Receive Report and Discuss the Detailed MPWSP Schedule Including Upcoming Permit
Requirements and the Status of the Test Slant Well in Light of the Recent CPUC Schedule
Delay on the CPCN - Crooks
ADJOURNMENT

Created date 12/01/2016 1:44 PM

Monday, December 5, 2016

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to including the disabled in all
of its services, programs and activities. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act,
if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Monterey City
Clerks Office at (831) 646-3935. Notification 30 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR 35.10235.104 ADA Title II]. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. For
communication-related assistance, dial 711 to use the California Relay Service (CRS) to speak to
City offices. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services 24
hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a meeting, dial
711 to use CRS to talk to the Monterey City Clerk's Office at (831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a
device.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MINUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
Regular Meeting
10:30 AM, Monday, September 19, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA
Members Present:

Member Narigi, Member Peake, Member Riedl, Member Riley,

Member Sciuto, Member Stoldt, Member Van Der Maaten, Chair
Cullem

Members Absent:

Member Huss

Staff Present:

Legal Counsel Freeman, Clerk Romero

CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cullem called the meeting to order at 10:32am.
ROLL CALL
Member Narigi arrived at 10:34am. Member Riley arrived at 10:37am.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
REPORTS FROM TAC MEMBERS

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

Chair Cullem reported that he and Members Riley and Sciuto are working on the revised policy
statement and the draft will be available at a future meeting. He added that since the last TAC
meeting in June, the Cease and Desist Order on the Carmel River (CDO) has been extended
another 5 years, however 2 motions by Public Trust Alliance and Water Plus have been filed
contesting the extension and have the possibility of being heard at a future State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) meeting. He continued that the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) has approved the Water Purchase Agreement (WPA) with California
American Water (Cal Am) for the Ground Water Replenishment (GWR) project and the
Monterey pipeline, and the governance committee will be discussing the cost of the pipeline
next Wednesday. Chair Cullem introduced the newest TAC Member, Bill Peake.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

CONSENT AGENDA
1.

Approve Minutes from June 20, 2016 Romero

Action: Approved
Members Narigi, Peake and Riedl abstained from voting on approval of the minutes.
On a motion by Committee Member Riedl, seconded by Committee Member Stoldt, and carried
by the following vote, the MPRWA Technical Advisory Committee Approved the Minutes from
June 20, 2016:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
RECUSED:

5
0
0
3
0

MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:
MEMBERS:

Riedl, Riley, Stoldt, Van Der Maaten, Cullem

None
None
Narigi, Peake, Sciuto
None
***End of Consent Agenda***

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

AGENDA ITEMS
2.

Receive Update on GWR Status and Financing -Stoldt/Sciuto

Action: Received update; Discussed
Member Sciuto, General Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
(MRWPCA), gave an update on the GWR project, stating that milestones have been reached to
show a revenue source to secure a loan and possibly grant to fund the project. He added that
discussions with the SWRCB are going well on the finance end, and they are working together
on with Federal and States agencies on the environmental side to get a letter of concurrence.
He stated a preliminary funding agreement should be ready by November, and they will have
an opportunity to get reimbursement for past project expenses. Member Sciuto added they will
be going to the Regional Water Resources Board in December regarding permitting for GWR.
He also said that all 18 comments from the August 22nd GWR Hearing with the Division of
Drinking Water, including concerns about the Blanco drain have been addressed, and now they
are waiting for final approval of the engineering report.
Member Narigi asked about the publics health concerns about the Blanco drain water. Member
Sciuto responded that the Blanco drain represents about 7% of the flow to GWR, and the
sampling from Blanco drain did not find DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, a pesticide). He
added that the reverse osmosis system would remove all particulates from the water, so there
is no health issue with Blanco drain. He added that more outreach will be done to educate the
public, because they are not getting accurate information. Member Riley agreed that if more
public outreach is done, people will let go of the Blanco drain safety concerns.
Member Narigi requested a future agenda item to discuss the cost of GWR production for
various acre foot amounts of water because the TAC should understand what production costs
mean for the public.
Member Riedl asked if state funding is contingent upon the quality of the Blanco drain reject
water. Member Sciuto responded that the reject water has been studied, and they are
addressing the discharge requirements for the Blanco drain waste water.

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

Member Riedl asked if there are contingency plans in place if the Blanco drain does not get
approval from the State, and Member Sciuto replied that the GWR agreement is tied to the
Blanco drain but since any particle amount found in that water is negligible it doesn't warrant
concern.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

No action was taken on this item.

3.

Receive Report and Discuss the Detailed MPWSP Schedule Including Status of Upcoming
Permit Requirements and the Status of the Test Slant Well - Crooks
Action: Received Report; Discussed
Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager at California American Water, gave a brief update on the
Monterey pipeline:

Seaside, Monterey, and Pacific Grove, are all ready to start construction in November
with encroachment permits pending.

Finalization of traffic control plans are in the works.

The stormwater pollution prevention program has been approved.

Pot holing has begun, looking for any conflicts with underground utilities (ie: water
lines).

The pipeline is on target for completion by November 2017.

The desal plant is waiting on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and preprocessing is already underway with the County.

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

Mr. Crooks showed a schedule of all the permits required for the Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project, which are dependent on approval from the Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity (CPCN) and the California Coastal Commission.
Member Vandermaaten, Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) General Manager, said they
sent a letter to Cal Am regarding Cal Ams shared use of MCWDs pipeline requesting a sit
down to discuss a shared use agreement. Mr. Crooks responded that Cal Am will be using the
shared pipeline to deliver water.
Member Riedl questioned if the land acquisition timeline needs to be adjusted, and Mr. Crooks
responded that there are items on the schedule that need to be updated. Member Peake asked
why the test slant well ends where it ends on the schedule, and how its connected to the permit
project. Mr. Crooks answered that test slant wells have a different permit and process, and if
the whole project is approved will be converted to a production well.
Member Peake asked for clarification if the test slant well production has any bearing on the
CPCN approval, and Mr. Crooks answered that its data is being included in the EIR, so it is
interconnected.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
No action was taken on this item.
4.

Receive Report and Discuss the Construction of the Production Slant Wells - Cullem/Crooks
Action: Received report; Discussed
Ian Crooks, California American Water, gave an update on the construction and production of
the test slant wells. He gave a presentation explaining that the only feasible location for the
slant wells would be 900 feet away from the shoreline, behind the dunes. He added that the
wells will be 1,000 feet long at a 14 degree angle, however it means the vertical tips will be
about where the aquatard is.

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

Member Riedl voiced concerns about the hydrology of the slant well system and the ability to
increase salinity. Member Riley asked if the water rights will be added to Cal Ams schedule,
and questioned if the intake streams are under land or under the bay if there will be a land use
issue.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

5.

Receive Report and Discuss the Water Supply Needs of the Marina Coast Water District - Van
Der Maaten
Action: Received report; Discussed
Member Van Der Maaten gave a presentation on the Marina Coast Water District's (MCWD)
water supply, and explained that the MCWD service area isn't just Marina, it includes most of
the Ford Ord area, Cal State University of Monterey Bay (CSUMB), and more. He added that
the Marina area is experiencing lots of development and growth and over the next 20 years the
population will double. He continued that ground water is going to be a big part of the water
supply, and over the years there will be other sources such as recycled water. He described
some of the other proposed water supply sources, including:
v

Ocean desalination

Increased conservation

Expansion of recycled water use

Brackish groundwater desalination

Surface water

MPRWA TAC Minutes

Monday, September 19, 2016

Member Van Der Maaten outlined MCWDs current key efforts to secure a sustainable water
supply for the Marina area:
v

Sustainable groundwater management

Fort Ord augmentation 3 party memorandum of understanding (MOU)

Customer service and outreach programs planning for future water demand

Member Van Der Maaten showed a map of MCWDs Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(GSA), Map of the Seaside Area Subbasin and the Corral de Tierra Subbasin. He answered
questions of the board, explaining that:
o

The Fort Ord open space area is included in the GSA

6,600 acre feet of groundwater is available to MCWD, from a 1996 annexation from the
County

MCWD service area is primarily municipal and industrial, and only agriculture water use
is on Armstrong ranch

MCWD is looking for a diversified portfolio for water sources

The 3 party MOU includes: MCWD, Fort Ord Reuse Athority (FORA) and MRWPCA

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None

Member Riley left the meeting at 12:08pm.

No action was taken on this item.

MPRWA TAC Minutes

6.

Monday, September 19, 2016

Discuss Alternate Meeting Times for the TAC Cullem

Action: Continued to a future meeting
The Board decided to continue item to a future meeting.

Executive Director Cullem said that the Water Authority will be discussing what issues they
want the TAC to address, the composition of the TAC, and other changes in the near future.

ADJOURNMENT
Executive Director Cullem adjourned the meeting at 12:10pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Approved,

Nova Romero, Authority Clerk, Committee Clerk

President MPRWA

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

Date: December 05, 2016

Item No: 2.

FROM:

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT:

Receive Update on a Technical Review of the Pending

Re-circulated EIR/EIS for the MPWSP

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority TAC receive an update on
technical reviews of the soon-to-be-released re-circulated DEIR/DEIS.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting of Nov 7, 2016, the TAC approved a recommendation to
conduct additional technical reviews of the soon-to-be-released
re-circulated DEIR/DEIS. The recommendation was to issue a change
order to SPI and its sub-consultant Geosyntec under an existing contract.
Water Authority approval for the contract extension will be requested on
December 10. It will include an initial change order, within the existing
$10,000 budget, to evaluate the re-circulated documents. After the Water
Authority Board, the TAC, our Authority Counsel, Special Counsel, and
members of the public get a chance to review the documents, those
comments will be included with the Geosyntec analyses to determine if any
additional consultant work is required.
The Executive Director has already established that SPI and Geosyntec
are prepared to work on the documents as soon as they are released by
the CPUC.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The Authority FY 16-17 budget includes $10,000 for contract studies. Any
significant technical reviews of the re-circulated EIR/EIS will probably
require a transfer of an additional $20,000 from Reserve Funds.

06/12

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: December 05, 2016

Item No: 3.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report, and Approve Final Draft to the Water Authority Policy
Position Statement
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Water Authority TAC discuss and approve the final draft
Revised Policy Position Statement for Water Authority Board consideration.
DISCUSSION:
The Water the Authority Policy Position Statement, initially adopted on July 11, 2013,
addressed a "Portfolio Approach" to new water supplies. Further, it identified four (4)
requirements that any competing water project would have to satisfy, as well as eight
(8) additional requirements that Cal Am must satisfy, in order to gain Water Authority
support (Attachment A).
At its meeting of March 7, 2016, the TAC formed a sub-committee of Jim Cullem,
George Riley, and Paul Sciuto to draft the revision. The TAC reviewed the subcommittee draft revision at its meeting of November 7, 2016, and changes have been
incorporated therein. Black-line and red-line versions of the Position Statement are
attached (Attachment B).
The TAC is requested to review and approve the final draft revision to the Policy
Position Statement and forward to the Water Authority for consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Red-lined Revision to the Water Authority Policy Position Statement of July 11, 2013.
B- Black-lined Final Draft Revised Policy Position Statement

06/12

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Updated POLICY POSITION STATEMENT-Nov 2016

The Authority considered and adopted this position statement as direction to our staff and
consultants in preparing California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) testimony due
February 22nd, 2013. This position was adopted, in advance of a completed EIR and in
recognition that more information will be forthcoming, because the PUC decision process is
underway and the Authority seeks to have a voice in that process. This document was adopted
at the January 31, 2013 Special Meeting and amended at the June 13July 11, 2013 Regular
meeting.
The Policy Position Statement is intended to further clarify the mission and goals of the Water
Authority and highlight the Board's intent to:
1. Provide community-wide political leadership and unified community voice in acquiring a
new water supply
2. Serve as a mechanism for policy input and public participation
3. Assure transparency and follow up to local decisions
3. Pursue a portfolio approach for new water supplies
4. Provide local input to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Coastal
Commission (CCC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Cal Am
procedures in the public interest
5. Develop a proactive strategy to deal with the SWRCB CDO in order to avoid community
hardship from rationing (complete as of 19 July 2016)
6. Participate in local, state, and federal proceedings in order to expedite decision making,
insure the shortest schedule, and promote the most affordable, resilient, new water supply.
POLICY ON NEW WATER SOURCE
POSITION STATEMENT
Reiterate our support forThe Water Authority supports a portfolio approach. This includes
Ground Water Replenishment (GWR), Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), and Pacific
Grove Small Projects, all of which have public ownership, in addition to a desal project
described herethat may or may not be publically owned. Benefits of a portfolio approach allow
each individual element (PG small projects, GWR, ASR, desal, or other options that may
develop) ability to move on its own track and schedule such that a delay in one doesn't
necessarily delay others. As such, the Authority supports efforts to move forward with any
individual element on its own, especially if one element of the portfolio can move faster than
the rest. For example, we support ASR (and the associated pipeline infrastructure) moving
forward even if desal is delayed." The Authoritys position is consistent with the powers
afforded to the Governance Committee and as set forth in the Authoritys direct PUC testimony
submitted on February 22, 2013.
Any project that the Authority will consider supporting must meet four basic criteria:
1. Project economics must be competitive based on Net Present Value (NPV).
2. Project must have suitable public governance, public accountability and public

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

transparency.
3. Project must have clear path to permitting and constructing the facility as near to the
CDO deadline as feasible.soon as possible and satisfy milestones approved by the
SWRCB on July 2016.
4. Project must have contingency plans to address significant technical, permitting and
legal risks.
None ofAs of November 2016, of the three projects (Cal Am, Deepwater Desal or DWD, or
Peoples Moss Landing or PML), Cal Am's as proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP) appears to be the only one that currently meetsmeet these four criteria.
Therefore, none of the three projects as proposed warrant Authority support. However, at
this time Cal Ams proposed project appears to be closest to meeting these four criteria. Cal
Ams Project would earn our support if Cal Am makes certain modifications. Consequently,
the Authoritys support for the Cal Am Project is subject to the following conditions:Cal Am
also satisfied, or has made substantial progress on, eight (8) specific conditions required
by the Authority. These eight conditions can be found in earlier versions of the Policy
Statement and cover financial considerations, governance, permitting, anmd contingency.
Should DWD or PML, or any other water supply project become viable before the new Cease
and Desist (CDO) deadline of December 31, 2021, they can obtain Water Authority support if
they can meet the four basic criteria above, if they satisfy the intent of the 8 specific conditions
required of Cal Am, and if they prove to better serve the public interest.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Cal Am must accept a significant contribution of public funds consistent with the
parameters set forth within the Authoritys direct testimony submitted to the PUC on
February 22, 2013. Without the interest rate advantages afforded by such approach,
the costs of water from the Cal Am Project will be materially higher, and likely
substantially in excess of the cost of water from the alternative projects. A significant

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

contribution of public funds will avoid such an unwarranted expense to Cal Ams rate
payers. At the May 23, 2013 meeting, the Authority approved the refinement of the
previously adopted position to define significant contribution of public funds to mean
that Cal Am must accept the contribution of public funds of approximately 50% of the
cost of the project to include both surcharge two and the rate reduction bonds to count
toward the public contribution of 50%. Cal Am's traditional financing entails a blend of
53% equity and 47% debt. A significant public contribution (combined with Surcharge
2) should be of sufficient size to reduce Cal Am's equity to approximately half that much
(26 to 27%).
2. Cal Am must diligently seek to secure lower electricity rates for the project (e.g., $0.08$0.09 cents/kWh as most recently estimated by Cal Am) including agreement to
purchasing power through a municipal electrical utility, generation of on-site power if
necessary, other public entity or other source of low-cost power.
3. Cal Am must agree to limit the use of revenue from Cal Ams Surcharge 2 to reduce risk
to Cal Am ratepayers in the event the Cal Am project does not move forward. For
example, Cal Am could agree only to use Surcharge 2 to fund lower risk parts and
phases of the project (such as only the construction phase after the issuance of a
Coastal Development Permit from the Coastal Commission) or could provide other
mechanisms of reducing the risk to Cal Am ratepayers.
4. Cal Am must show something in writing from the State demonstrating its ability to secure
SRF financing. Absent such a document, the Authority will work with the Water
Management District to secure SRF financing as public agencies. Cal Am must accept a
public agency partner for SRF purposes if necessary, even if doing so results in a
reduction in Cal Ams equity position.
GOVERNANCE
5. Cal Am must agree, upon mutually-acceptable terms, to form a Governance Committee
to provide publicly-accountable oversight of the project.
PERMITTING & CONTINGENCY PLANS
6. To promptly address concerns pertaining to Cal Ams proposed intake wells, Cal Am
must:
a. Address or cause to be address all issues raised in the December 2012 Tim
Durbin testimony;
b. Proceed with the planned test wells and any other advanced geotechnical work
to support the proposed intake wells as soon as practically feasible;
c. Collaborate with local public agencies to advance permitting efforts with other
responsible agencies, including the California Coastal Commission;
d. Seek to clarify whether the installation of Cal Ams intake wells will require
approval from any federal agency, which would, in turn, require NEPA
compliance; and

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

7. Continue to explore and advance alternative intake strategies as a contingency if Cal
Am's proposed intake wells prove legally or technically infeasible.
a. Cal Am must fully develop a contingency plan or plans and implement that plan
or those plans for source water that do not involve wells in the Salinas Basin.
This must be done concurrently along with Cal Am planning and testing of slant
wells.
8. Cal Am must address questions about sea level rise and coastal erosion with respect to
the placement and longevity of their proposed slant wells. Coastal sands are also prone
to liquefaction in seismic events and coastal facilities are susceptible to damage from
tsunami events as well.

If Cal Am meets the above conditions, the Authority conditionally supports the Cal Am Project
because:
1. Cal Ams desal project size (9.6 desal only or 6.4 desal with GWR) appears to be
consistent with the Authoritys position of focusing on water for replacement and
replenishment including lots of record, pebble beach, allocation entitlement, and
economic rebound and accommodates the policy desire to pursue a portfolio of projects to
meet the needs of our communities, thereby reducing the risk associated with any project
failing or being delayed. The Coastal Commission identifies proposed projects with a
defined service area with a known level of build-out as involving an easier review while
projects with an unknown or extensive service area as involving a more difficult review.
Cal Ams project would involve this easier review while DWD would involve a more
difficult review.
2. Cal Ams project, DWD project and PML project are all in the planning stage although Cal
Ams project is the most advanced according to both SPI and the TAC.
3. Permitting agencies will require the least environmentally harmful feasible alternative for
source water intake. The Coastal Commission states that a subsurface intake (such as Cal
Ams proposed slant wells) involve an easier review while an open-water intake involves a
more difficult review. State Water Board staff likely will recommend that subsurface is
preferred. If subsurface is not feasible, consider Track 2 (infiltration galleries or open
water intake). It is unlikely that open water intake will be permitted unless test slant wells
have shown subsurface intake to be infeasible. Any project must therefore include a test
slant well. Only Cal Ams project proposes to do so.
4. Only Cal Am has demonstrated ability to finance a project. Their financing plan is
comprised of four different sources of capital; short-term construction financing, Surcharge
2, SRF, and equity. Neither of the other two projects have a detailed financing plan and
neither would likely have access to short-term construction financing, Surcharge 2 or SRF,
all advantageous forms of financing (Cal Am offers the short-term construction financing
but only for their project. Surcharge 2 is only permitted for a Cal Am facility. SRF is unlikely
to be available for open water intake.) We propose to include a significant public

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

contribution as a fifth source of capital. Doing so would significantly lower the Net Present
Value (NPV) cost of the project.
5. Cal Am has the capital necessary to complete the permitting of its project. Neither of the
other projects have demonstrated this ability.
6. Cal Am has indicated the potential for securing electricity at $0.087 per kwh and could
possibly purchase electricity at a lower rate through a municipal electrical utility formed by
a local public agency. DWDs proposed municipal electrical utility involves the City of
Salinas and its success is therefore outside of the direct control of the Authority.
7. The ultimate unit cost of water from the Cal Am Project in comparison to the cost of water
from the DWD and PML projects are close in amount presuming a significant public
contribution is made to lower the financing costs of the Cal Am Project and that Cal Am
secures electricity in the $0.08-0.09 per kwh range.
a. SPI estimates that Cal Ams production cost would be $2,310/$3,015 per acre foot
for the larger/smaller desal projects respectively if the cost of financing is brought
down to 4% and the cost of electricity is reduced to $0.087 per kwh. This is within
about 10% of the unit production costs of DWD ($2,100/$2,670) and is largely due to
the increased cost of slant wells.
b. The range of these estimates is minus 30% to plus 50%. The TAC recommends the
Authority focus its attention on the ranges.
c. For the larger plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal Ams project with
Authority conditions is $1617 to $3465. The corresponding range for DWD is $1470
to $3150.
d. For the smaller plant, the range of the cost per acre foot of Cal Ams project with
Authority conditions is $2110 to $4522. The corresponding range for DWD is $1870
to $4005.
8. The DWD project involves a complex relationship of various entities, including a
municipal electrical utility, a data center, the formation of a regional JPA, a water purchase
agreement with Cal Am. The Authority is not aware that any of these relationships have
been established. This unresolved complexity leaves more room for possible delay or
failure. In contrast, Cal Ams organization structure is described as good by SPI.
9. Both DWD and PML will likely face questions from permitting agencies regarding the
placement of the desalination plant in relationship to the 100 year flood plain and sea level
rise. It is unclear how either project will respond to such questions.
10. The CEQA review for Cal Ams project is well underway and is being handled by the
Public Utility Commission as the lead agency. Any court challenge to the CPUCs EIR
must be made by a petition directly to the State Supreme Court (very few petition are
granted), reducing the legal risk of a challenge and also reducing the likelihood of project
delay in comparison to a CEQA challenge to a project involving a local lead agency.
Moreover, the Authority reiterates its request that both alternatives be reviewed at a
project level such that no further environmental review would be required if the Cal Am
project fails in whole or part.
11. The draft Governance Committee agreement strikes the right balance of ensuring that the
most important decisions are either made by public agencies or are fully informed by

ATTACHMENT A

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

recommendations from public agencies. The draft Governance Committee agreement
avoids inserting the public agencies into decisions that are judged to be better made by a
private entity.

ADDITIVE CONSIDERATIONS

Water Allocation. The proposed project MPWSP is sized based on an estimate of the water
needed for replacement, replenishment, economic rebound, Pebble Beach allocation
entitlement, and lots of record. The estimate has been established for project design,
engineering, and financial planning purposes. The Authority supports this size for this purpose.
Allocation decisions about the use of the water should not be made by the PUC but instead
should be made locally. The Authority supports the MPWMDs proposal to initiate a process, in
collaboration with the Authority and other public agencies, to develop proposed amendments
to MPWMDs water allocation ordinances to address the allocation of water obtained from the
Project.

While the Project MPWSP is not sized for General Plan build-out within Peninsula
jurisdictions, the Authority has requested that the EIR/EIS evaluate a full range of plant sizes
up to and including the size necessary for full General Plan build-out. Further, the MPWMD, in
collaboration with other public agencies, should seek to update the estimate of the added
capacity necessary to meet the General Plan build-out projections for the Peninsula
jurisdictions. The Authority recognizes that future circumstances may trigger a need for review
of future water supply needs for the Peninsula to either expand or develop a new water supply
to avoid future pending shortage situations. The Authority will request Cal Am to initiate a
process to address the adequacy of the water supply to meet the future service obligations of
Cal Am customers as defined by the California Public Utilities Commission. Following the
MPWMD allocation of water to the jurisdictions, the Authority requests that MPWMD in conjunction with
Cal Am initiate a process to address the adequacy of the water supply to meet the future service
customer demand.

Pacific G rove Non-Potable Water Projects. The Authority supports Cal Ams inclusion in its
next general rate case application proposals for Cal Am to collaborate with Pacific Grove in the
development of its projects to generate as much as 500 acre-feet of recycled, non-potable
water per year.

Pr oject Cost Control. The Authority is working to reduce the Projects ratepayer impacts
throu gh a significant public contribution, appropriate use of Surcharge 2, the Governance
C ommittees review of the RFP process, and the Governance Committees value engineer ing
process. Any cost cap imposed on the Project should be reasonably calculated to avo id
frustrating project financing or causing project delay.

Contingency Planning. As described in condition #6 above, the Authoritys primary concern

regarding contingency planning involves contingencies for the source water intake. We also
recognize the need to do contingency planning for certain other aspects of the Project,
including brine discharge.

Water Connection Fee. At the May 23, 2013 regular meeting the Authority approved support of
the concept of a new water service connection fee with the reservation of seeing further
information and study to refund the connection fee costs for possible integration.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.32", Space

Before: 0 pt, No bullets or numbering

ATTACHMENT B

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Updated POLICY POSITION STATEMENT-Nov 2016

The Authority considered and adopted this position statement as direction to our staff and
consultants in preparing California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) testimony due
February 22nd, 2013. This position was adopted, in advance of a completed EIR and in
recognition that more information will be forthcoming, because the PUC decision process is
underway and the Authority seeks to have a voice in that process. This document was adopted at
the January 31, 2013 Special Meeting and amended at the July 11, 2013 Regular meeting.
The Policy Position Statement is intended to further clarify the mission and goals of the Water
Authority and highlight the Board's intent to:
1. Provide community-wide political leadership and unified community voice in acquiring a
new water supply
2. Serve as a mechanism for policy input and public participation
3. Assure transparency and follow up to local decisions
4. Pursue a portfolio approach for new water supplies
5. Provide local input to California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Coastal
Commission (CCC), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Cal Am
procedures in the public interest
6. Develop a proactive strategy to deal with the SWRCB CDO in order to avoid community
hardship from rationing (complete as of 19 July 2016)
7. Participate in local, state, and federal proceedings in order to expedite decision making,
insure the shortest schedule, and promote the most affordable, resilient, new water supply.
POLICY ON NEW WATER SOURCE
The Water Authority supports a portfolio approach. This includes Ground Water Replenishment
(GWR), Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), and Pacific Grove Small Projects, all of which have
public ownership, in addition to a desal project that may or may not be publically owned. Benefits
of a portfolio approach allow each individual element (PG small projects, GWR, ASR, desal, or
other options that may develop) ability to move on its own track and schedule such that a delay in
one doesn't necessarily delay others.
Any project that the Authority will consider supporting must meet four basic criteria:
1. Project economics must be competitive based on Net Present Value (NPV).
2. Project must have suitable public governance, public accountability and public
transparency.
3. Project must have clear path to permitting and constructing the facility as soon as
possible and satisfy milestones approved by the SWRCB on July 2016.
4. Project must have contingency plans to address significant technical, permitting and
legal risks.
As of November 2016, of the three projects (Cal Am, Deepwater Desal or DWD, or Peoples
Moss Landing or PML), Cal Am's proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)
appears to be the only one that currently meets these four criteria. Cal Am also satisfied, or has
made substantial progress on, eight (8) specific conditions required by the Authority. These
eight conditions can be found in earlier versions of the Policy Statement and cover financial
considerations, governance, permitting, and contingency.

ATTACHMENT B

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Should DWD or PML, or any other water supply project become viable before the new Cease and
Desist (CDO) deadline of December 31, 2021, they can obtain Water Authority support if they can
meet the four basic criteria above, if they satisfy the intent of the 8 specific conditions required of
Cal Am, and if they prove to better serve the public interest.
ADDITIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Water Allocation. The MPWSP is sized based on an estimate of the water needed for
replacement, replenishment, economic rebound, Pebble Beach allocation entitlement, and lots of
record. The estimate has been established for project design, engineering, and financial planning
purposes. The Authority supports this size for this purpose. Allocation decisions about the use of
the water should not be made by the PUC but instead should be made locally. The Authority
supports the MPWMDs proposal to initiate a process, in collaboration with the Authority and other
public agencies, to develop proposed amendments to MPWMDs water allocation ordinances to
address the allocation of water obtained from the Project.
While the MPWSP is not sized for General Plan build-out within Peninsula jurisdictions, the
Authority has requested that the EIR/EIS evaluate a full range of plant sizes up to and including
the size necessary for full General Plan build-out. Further, the MPWMD, in collaboration with other
public agencies, should seek to update the estimate of the added capacity necessary to meet the
General Plan build-out projections for the Peninsula jurisdictions. The Authority recognizes that
future circumstances may trigger a need for review of future water supply needs for the Peninsula
to either expand or develop a new water supply to avoid future pending shortage situations.
Following the MPWMD allocation of water to the jurisdictions, the Authority requests that MPWMD in
conjunction with Cal Am initiate a process to address the adequacy of the water supply to meet the future
service customer demand.

Pacific Grove Non-Potable Water Projects. The Authority supports Cal Ams inclusion in its next
general rate case application proposals for Cal Am to collaborate with Pacific Grove in the
development of its projects to generate as much as 500 acre-feet of recycled, non-potable water
per year.
Project Cost Control. The Authority is working to reduce the Projects ratepayer impacts throu gh a
significant public contribution, appropriate use of Surcharge 2, the Governance C ommittees
review of the RFP process, and the Governance Committees value engineer ing process. Any
cost cap imposed on the Project should be reasonably calculated to avoid frustrating project
financing or causing project delay.
Contingency Planning. As described in condition #4 above, the Authoritys primary concern
regarding contingency planning involves contingencies for the source water intake. We also
recognize the need to do contingency planning for certain other aspects of the Project,
including brine discharge.
Water Connection Fee. At the May 23, 2013 regular meeting the Authority approved support of the
concept of a new water service connection fee with the reservation of seeing further information
and study to refund the connection fee costs for possible integration.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: July 14, 2016

Item No: 5

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report on Updated MPWSP Frequently Asked Questions and

Provide Recommendations for Authority Board Consideration
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority TAC review the attached draft update to the
MPRWA section on frequently asked questions (FAQs).
DISCUSSION:
At the request of Board President Kampe, Cal Am prepared responses to a series of
frequently asked questions (Attachment A). Following review and comment by the TAC,
any suggestions will be presented orally at the Water Authority meeting on December 8.
Once accepted by the Water Authority Board, the FAQs will be added to those
suggested by former Mayor Sue McCloud which are currently posted on the MPRWA
web site.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Cal Am Responses to FAQs

06/12

ATTACHMENT A

MPRWA FAQs
1. Where have slant wells been used successfully to extract source water for water systems?
In October of 2015, California American Water commissioned a study by the engineering
consulting firm MWH, a global leader of the water infrastructure sector. The study found 27
source water slant wells operating in several different water systems across the United States.
The results of the study were presented at a MPRWA meeting. The study itself is available on
the MPWSP website using the link below:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tlk2csq56cz7tkg/20151029%20California%20American%20Water%
20-%20Final%20Slant%20Well%20Study.pdf?dl=0
2. Why have Dana Point (aka Doheny Beach) and the Poseidon project (aka Carlsbad) chosen
open ocean intake instead of subsurface wells for their systems?
The California Coastal Commission requires all desalination project applicants to study the use of
subsurface intakes and only if proven infeasible can other intake options be pursued. The State
Water Resources Control Board also will not permit open water intake facilities under the Clean
Water Act unless other intake options (e.g., subsurface) have been deemed infeasible.
The Doheny Beach desalination project by the Municipal Water District of Orange County is
planning to use subsurface slant wells for its project. The Carlsbad and Huntington Beach
desalination projects are using open ocean intakes; but only after conducting an extensive
process that determined other intake methods were infeasible. The alternative source water
intakes examined included vertical intake wells, horizontal beach wells and beach and seabed
infiltration galleries. The studies eliminated these options because they had significant
environmental impacts, including to visual, land, recreation, and biological resources.
The Huntington Beach Desalination Project initial phase was designed to produce 50 MGD of
product water, which requires nearly six times the amount of source water than required for the
MPWSP 6.4 MGD plant. The sheer size differences between the MPWSP and these projects
affects the analysis of suitable intake types because of the greater land area required for larger
facilities.
3. What is causing the rise in salinity at Monitoring Well #4 and what does it mean for potential
harm to the basin?
Changes in salinity at the various monitoring well sites occur regularly and are proven to be
unrelated to the operation of the test slant well. The increase recorded was found by scientists
studying the groundwater basin to be indicative of normal trends related to nearby ongoing
groundwater well use and the decades long seawater intrusion in the Salinas River Groundwater
Basin. During the period in which the test well was shut off, the salinity trend at MW4 remained
the same.
The test slant well has proven to be a success. Monitoring results confirm that the test well is
pumping mostly seawater and is not negatively impacting groundwater in the area. The data

ATTACHMENT A

gathered by the test well will inform and support design and construction of the future
production slant wells for the MPWSP.
4. Why does the test slant well not extend fully out beyond the surf line?
In 2013, Congressman Sam Farr convened a meeting with agencies concerned with the test slant
well location including the National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA Fisheries, US Fish and Wildlife,
Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, State Water Resources Control Board,
State Lands Commission, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Monterey Peninsula
Regional Water Authority and the City of Marina. Direction from these agencies and subsequent
environmental review by the City of Marina determined the location of the well, which is
situated to avoid potential impacts to coastal erosion, the snowy plover and other biological
habitat. The test well insertion point is about 650 from ocean mean high tide line. Beginning at
this point and drilled at a 19-degree angle, the vertical depth at the end of the slant well is about
230 feet, which is close to the bottom of the 180 aquifer and the top of aquitard for the 400
aquifer. Extending the well beyond this point would mean intrusion into the 400 aquifer, which
we wish to avoid.
5. How well have the hydrological models matched the results to date from the test well?
The data from the test slant well has further informed and improved the groundwater model
that is being completed as part of the MPWSP EIR process. Modeling is an iterative process,
which involves building the model, gathering data and continual refinement. The test well data
shows that previous modeling work conducted also accurately reflected the hydrological
conditions expected with full scale operations.
6. What additional steps are being taken to ensure an adequate understanding of the effects of
the proposed wells at the Cemex site? (e.g. the CPUC Lawrence-Livermore Lab review.)
The groundwater model that is being studied by the California Public Utilities Commission has
been created, evaluated, critiqued and improved by some of the foremost hydrogeological
experts in groundwater modeling who also have experience with the Salinas Groundwater Basin.
At the direction of the CPUC, the previous groundwater model was peer reviewed by Lawrence
Livermore Labs, which upheld the models findings. The peer review also made several
recommendations that were similarly identified by the CPUCs current modeling experts and
which are being incorporated into a revised groundwater model that will be included in the
MPWSP EIR, which is scheduled to be released in draft form this December.
7. How can we be confident that the wells at Cemex can sustain target intake volumes, when a
Dana Point test well dropped from 90+% of intake goal to ~54% of goal over time?
The test slant well performance has been excellent. With over 350 days of pumping complete,
there has been no decline in the wells efficiency or intake volumes. The drop in efficiency at
Dana Point was evaluated by the owner and its experts and is documented in reports available
through its website. Lessoned learned from Dana Point were applied to our test slant well,
which, again, has shown outstanding performance.

ATTACHMENT A

8. How can MPWSP legally take water from the Salinas Basin for use on the Peninsula?
Groundwater modeling indicates that the percentage of seawater capture drawn by the MPWSP
wells will vary. An average of 96% salinity is expected over the life of this project.
The groundwater that will be drawn into the wells is from seawater-intruded areas of the basin
close to the coast that has for decades been unusable for irrigation and other beneficial
purposes. State law encourages all waters of the state, including saline and brackish
groundwater, to be put to maximum beneficial use to the fullest extent practicable. In this
manner the MPWSP will salvage and make beneficial use of highly saline groundwater that is
otherwise unusable, and will do so without impacting other users of basin groundwater.
The State Water Board concluded in 2013 that absent evidence of an adverse impact to other
legal users of SRGB groundwater or the SRGB itself, the MPWSP was not only consistent with
State water rights law, but was also encouraged as a means to maximize the beneficial use of
State waters.
Separate from the water rights issue, The Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, or
Agency Act, authorizes the Agency to prevent the export of groundwater from the SRGB to
any area outside the Basin if such export would interfere with Agency projects designed to
protect the Basin.
At the very outset of the MPWSP Cal Am agreed, as part of its proposed action and to avoid
conflicts with the Agency and Salinas Valley agricultural interests and to return to the Basin the
volume of water that originates from the SRGB and not the Pacific Ocean, irrespective of the
quality of the Basin water.
In fulfillment of this commitment, Cal-Am has recently entered into an agreement with the
Agency, Salinas Valley agricultural interests, environmental groups, and the Castroville
Community Services District (CCSD) to supply CCSD with high quality Return Water to satisfy
applicable requirements of the Agency Act. The Return Water Agreement obligates Cal-Am to
deliver to the CCSD, or to the Agency if CCSD cannot take the Return Water, an annual volume
equivalent to the percentage of MPWSP source water that originates from the Basin.
This arrangement not only ensures compliance with the Agency Act, but also a high quality
drinking water supply to the town of Castroville and reduces CCSDs reliance on groundwater
wells that have been impacted by seawater intrusion.
9. What is the incremental cost for using slant wells compared to open ocean intake?
The question assumes the cost of slant wells is higher than that of open ocean intakes. If an
open ocean intake were feasible or allowable, the scope of environmental studies, permitting,
design/construction requirements, and potential marine life mitigation requirements would be
formidable and are at this point unknown. In addition, the Coastal Commission, State Water
Board and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary would require substantial studies of other
subsurface intake options, besides slant wells, before considering an open ocean intake. We
believe slant wells are cost competitive with other intake options in this area for a project of the

ATTACHMENT A

MPWSPs scope, and when considering the potential costs identified above, are the least
expensive option for the MPWSP.
10. What is the cost premium we will expect to pay on our water bills for the environmentally
preferred subsurface intake?
The assumption that an open ocean intake would be less expensive than subsurface intakes
does not take into account the policies of the Coastal Commission, State Water Board and other
agencies that require subsurface intakes be studied first and disproven before open ocean
intakes can be pursued. The permitting work and study required to choose an environmentally
less-preferable technology such as open ocean intake located in, not only a Marine Sanctuary,
but an area where subsurface intakes have already been proven feasible, would be considerable
if not prohibitive.
11. Some of the source water for GWR will come from agricultural sources. How will Pure Water
Monterey treat for nitrates and other contaminants?
Pure Water Monterey will utilize a four-step Advanced Water Treatment (AWT) purification
process of Ozone (O3) Pre-Treatment, Membrane Filtration (MF), Reverse Osmosis (RO), and
Oxidation with Ultra Violet Light (UV) and Hydrogen Peroxide (H2O2). These methods are
commonly used in processing strictly regulated food items for public consumption, such as baby
food and bottled water. The purified water is near distilled quality and exceeds all applicable
drinking water standards.

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority

Agenda Report

FROM:

Date: December 05, 2016

Item No: 5.

Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Report and Discuss the Detailed MPWSP Schedule

Including Upcoming Permit Requirements and the Status of the
Test Slant Well in Light of the Recent CPUC Schedule Delay on
the CPCN
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority TAC receive a report from Cal
Am on the latest "Detailed" MPWSP schedule including upcoming permit
requirements and receive a report on the test well operation and results in
light of the recent schedule delay by the CPUC.
DISCUSSION:
Cal Am will present the most recent "Detailed" MPWSP schedule and the
status of test slant well operations. Unfortunately, on November 21, the
CPUC delayed consideration of the CPCN from November 8, 2017 to June
30, 2018.
This situation needs to be addressed with respect to the detailed schedule
for the MPWSP.
ATTACHMENTS:
None

06/12

ATTACHMENT A

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FILED
11-21-16
10:54 AM

Application of California-American Water

Company (U210W) for Approval of the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and
Authorization to Recover All Present and Future
Costs in Rates.

Application 12-04-019
(Filed April 23, 2012)

THIRD AMENDED SCOPING MEMO AND RULING

OF THE ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER EXTENDING DEADLINE
TO JUNE 30, 2018
SUMMARY
The statutory deadline to complete this proceeding is extended to
June 30, 2018.
1.

BACKGROUND
This proceeding involves a proposal by California-American Water

Company (Cal-Am or applicant), in response to a State Water Resources Control

Board Cease and Decease Order, to construct and operate water production and
storage facilities in lieu of pumping Carmel River water unlawfully. The
proposal is called the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). The
MPWSP consists of three components: aquifer storage and recovery project,
groundwater replenishment project (GWR), and a desalination plant.
The proceeding is bifurcated into two phases. Phase 1 addresses whether
or not the Commission should grant applicant a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for a desalination plant and related facilities.
Phase 2 deals with the GWR and, in particular, whether applicant should be
authorized by the Commission to enter into a water purchase agreement for

ATTACHMENT A

169870506

-1-

A.12-04-019 CJS/sf3

GWR water. Phase 2 was resolved by Decision 16-09-021 in September 2016.

Phase 1 issues remain.
The statutorily required completion date for this proceeding initially was
December 28, 2013.1 For reasons stated in the Amended Scoping Memo and
Assigned Commissioner Ruling filed on September 25, 2013, the proceeding
deadline was extended to September 28, 2015.2 For reasons stated in the Second
Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling of the Assigned Commissioner filed on
August 19, 2015, the proceeding deadline was further extended to December 31,
2016.
The two deadline extensions were required for several reasons including
necessary delays in preparation of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The draft EIR was
circulated for comment on April 30, 2015.
The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) must also
complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the MPWSP, as required
under the National Environmental Policy Act. In September 2015, the
Commission decided to revise and recirculate the draft EIR as a joint draft
EIR/EIS in collaboration with the Sanctuary. On March 14, 2016, Cal-Am filed
an amended application with a revised project description. The joint draft
EIR/EIS will be based on the project as revised in March 2016.

This proceeding is categorized as ratesetting. Public Utilities Code Section 1701.5(a) requires
ratesetting proceedings to be completed within 18 months of the date of the Scoping Memo. The date of
the Scoping Memo was June 28, 2012.
2

Public Utilities Code 1701.5.

-2-

A.12-04-019 CJS/sf3

2.

EXTENSION OF STATUTORY DEADLINE

On March 17, 2016 (three days after applicant filed its amended

application), the Commissions Energy Division served notice on all parties in

this proceeding of the following revised schedule for the environmental work:
TASK
Draft EIR/EIS issued for public comment
End of 45 day public review/comment period
Final EIR/EIS published
30 day federal review period
EIR/EIS certification plus Notice of
Determination and Record of Decision

DATE
December 21, 2016
February 4, 2017
September 25, 2017
October 25, 2017
November 8, 2017

It is clear that this work will not be completed by the current proceeding
deadline of December 31, 2016. A further extension in the statutory deadline is
necessary.
Moreover, additional work remains in other parts of Phase 1. Phase 1 of
this proceeding addresses all issues necessary for Commission consideration of
whether or not to issue applicant a CPCN for construction and operation of a
desalination plant and related facilities. These issues include whether the
proposed MPWSP is a reasonable and prudent means of securing an adequate,
reliable, safe, and cost-effective water supply that meets Cal-Ams legal
requirements for the Monterey District; required for the public convenience and
necessity; and in the public interest (including consideration of community
values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and
environmental influences).3
See September 25, 2013 Amended Scoping Memo and Assigned Commissioner Ruling at page 3, and
Pub. Util. Code 1002(a).
3

-3-

A.12-04-019 CJS/sf3

Evidentiary hearings were completed on Phase 1 issues in May 2016.

Further process necessary to complete the CPCN portion of this proceeding will
be considered when the final EIR/EIS is published, including setting a schedule
for parties to file opening and reply legal briefs. A proposed decision must then
be prepared and filed on all Phase 1 issues, including consideration of
environmental impacts, followed by a period for parties comments. The matter,
along with alternate decisions if any, will then be considered by the full
Commission.
While every reasonable effort is being made to meet the environmental
review schedule, the final EIR/EIS may or may not be published as planned by
September 25, 2017. Nonetheless, if published by September 25, 2017, a briefing
schedule will be set with briefing perhaps completed and the matter submitted
for Commission decision by early November 2017. The proposed decision must
be filed within 90 days, or by early February 2018. The Commission may or may
not adopt the proposed decision, or an alternate decision, at its first opportunity
to consider the matter in early March 2018 (i.e., no sooner than 30 days after the
filing of the proposed decision). It is possible that the proposed decision will be
held and additional time will be required before the Commission reaches its final
decision.
Therefore, an extension to June 30, 2018 will allow time for the currently
planned completion of the environmental work, briefing, preparation of a
proposed decision, and consideration of the matter by the Commission as early
as March 2018. It also provides three months as a reasonable amount of

-4-

A.12-04-019 CJS/sf3

additional time for other possible limited contingencies.

IT IS RULED that the statutory deadline for this proceeding is June 30,
2018.
Dated November 21, 2016, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ CATHERINE J. K. SANDOVAL

Catherine J. K. Sandoval
Assigned Commissioner

-5-