a.12-04-019 exhibits 17-32 mpwsp report.pdf

7/28/2019 A.12-04-019 Exhibits 17-32 MPWSP Report.pdf

1/177

Exhibit 17


2/177

California-American Water Company

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

APPLICATION NO. A.12-04-019DATA REQUEST RESPONSE

Response Provided By: Richard C. Svindland

Title: Vice President Engineering

Address: 4701 Beloit DriveSacramento, CA 95838

DRA Request: DRA-A.12-04-019-CAL AM 004

Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002

Date Received: 07/30/2012

Date Response Due: 08/08/2012

Subject Area: Accounting

DRA QUESTION:

2. Cal-Am has already begun permitting and construction for the ASR Facilities thatcomprise a portion of the Cal-Am Only Facilities, and recovered some of theassociated costs through Advice Letters. Please provide a detailed account of:

The work completed to date on any facilities included in the Cal-AmOnly Facilities, including but not limited to the ASR production wellslocated at Fitch Park.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Work to date on the California American Water-only facilities consists of four mainareas:

ASR Monitoring Well Construction at Fitch Park: Work on the monitoring wellhas resulted in the design, drilling, construction, and development of the FitchPark Monitoring Well No. 1. Prior to work beginning on well construction,California American Water gained a Right of Entry from the Army Corps ofEngineers (ACOE), and acquired all necessary permits.

Work on the Right of Entry for the Monterey Pipeline crossing at the Presidioof Monterey: In order to gain a right-of-way for the Monterey Pipeline throughthe Presidio of Monterey, California American Water has been working withthe Army to gain a Right of Entry. To date California American Water hascompleted the Environmental Assessment.

Appraisal of the TAMC Right of Way for construction of the MontereyPipeline: The appraisal has been completed. No negotiations with TAMChave occurred.


3/177




Coordination with the former project partners on the NEPA environmentaleffort, and the consolidated coastal commission permit: The coastaldevelopment application for the Regional Desalination Project has beencompleted.


4/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(i)




DRA QUESTION:


The costs incurred to date for facilities included in the Cal-Am OnlyFacilities, 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 theamount the Commission approved for recovery.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The following advice letter for costs incurred prior to 1/17/2012 was submitted andapproved for recovery:

AL # Project Costs AFUDC Total Project

Costs w/AFUDC

Total Revenue

Requirement

AL895 $404,468 $2,479 $406,947 $62,938


5/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(ii)




DRA QUESTION:



indicate:ii. Costs incurred before 1/17/2012 and filed for recovery in Advice

Letters that are still being processed. Please reference theAdvice 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 arebeing processed:

AL # Project Costs AFUDC Total Project

Costs w/AFUDC

Total Revenue

Requirement

AL932 $716,621 $12,163 $728,784 $92,202AL944 $526,144 $7,094 $533,238 $67,462TOTAL $1,242,765 $19,257 $1,262,022 $159,664


6/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(iii)




DRA QUESTION:



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 incurredafter 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 theCarmel River re-route and San Clemente Dam removal project does not require

California American Water to withdraw any Advice Letters.


7/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 004 Q 002(iv)




DRA QUESTION:



indicate:iv. Costs incurred after 1/17/2012 for which recovery will not be

sought through the former Advice Letters process approved inD.10-12-016, but through some other mechanism. In regards tothese costs, please answer the following questions: What is thetotal for costs in this category? How are these costs beingtracked 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. Notwithstandingthis objection, California American Water responds as follows. In D.12-07-008, theCommission explicitly stated that Nothing herein is intended to prevent California-

American Water Company from incurring reasonable costs related to its currentapplication A.12-04-019. The California American Water-only facilities are already partof 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 IP-0540-305 as described in the Advice Letter filings. California American Water has


8/177




ceased incurring costs on the California American Water Company-only Facilities, andwill only resume activities pending Commission approval.


9/177

Exhibit 18


10/177


Monterey Peninsula Water supply Project


Response Provided By: F Mark Schubert, P.E.

Title: Manager Capital Assets and Planning

Address: 1033 B Ave, Suite 200

Coronado, CA 92118


Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (a)


Date Response Due: 08/22/2012Subject Area: ASR Facilities

DRA QUESTION:

1. 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 areport prepared by JR Conkey & Associates, entitled Estimate of Probable ConstructionCosts California American Water Coastal Water Project Regional Project 2004(Conkey Report (2004)). The Conkey Report (2004) provided a preliminary startingpoint or basis for the capital cost estimates.

In addition, the Capital Cost Estimate Summary of the Coastal Water Project (RBFCapital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005)), prepared by RBF Consulting, providedcost estimates in more detail as support for A.04-09-019. An updated version of theRBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005), entitled Updated Capital CostEstimate 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 detailswere prepared for the ASR facilities at this preliminary stage. Rather, it should beunderstood that the estimated capital costs were based upon a very preliminary designprepared for the Coastal Water Project in conjunction with information received from

American Water Pridesa and various other potential subcontractors.


11/177







Coronado, CA 92118


Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (b)



DRA QUESTION:

1. 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), andthe CWP 2009 Capital Cost Update can be found at the followinglink: https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/.

Additionally, California American Water included an updated 2009 capital cost estimatetable (2009 Capital Cost_Update Table 1), which can also be found at the previouslymentioned link.https://eftp.mbakercorp.com/?wtcQID=Rk1OWkhYUUtKTjpNV1o0bGZvVQ==/

Upon request, California American Water can provide a hardcopy of these reports.


12/177







Coronado, CA 92118


Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (c)



DRA QUESTION:

1. 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 DesignReport(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.


13/177







Coronado, CA 92118


Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 012 Q 001 (d)



DRA QUESTION:

1. 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 aFebruary 2007 technical memorandum, entitledAquifer Storage Recovery CoastalWater Project, Task 2 Technical Memorandum, Test Well Site Development Plan (ASRSystems Technical Memorandum (2009)). The updated technical memorandumdiscusses the ASR Wells component in more detail. TheASR Systems TechnicalMemorandum (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 technicalmemorandum.


14/177







Coronado, CA 92118





DRA QUESTION:

2. Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Stationa. What documents were relied upon to provide design details and cost

estimates for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station for A.12-04-019?

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The original basis of the estimated capital costs for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASRPump Station is derived from a report prepared by JR Conkey & Associates, entitledEstimate of Probable Construction Costs California American Water Coastal WaterProject 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 (RBFCapital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005)), prepared by RBF Consulting, providedcost estimates in more detail as support for A.04-09-019. In May 2009, RBF Consultingprepared an updated version of the RBF Capital Cost Estimate Basis Summary (2005)

entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Project(CWP 2009Capital Cost Update).

The estimated costs are based on conceptual numbers. Therefore, no design detailswere prepared for the Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Station at this preliminarystage. Rather, it should be understood that the estimated capital costs were basedupon a very preliminary design prepared for the Coastal Water Project in conjunction


15/177




with information received from American Water Pridesa and various other potentialsubcontractors.


16/177







Coronado, CA 92118





DRA QUESTION:

2. Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Stationb. Please provide all documents listed in your answer to 2a.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

California American Water provided the cited documents in its response to MPWSP-

CAW-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.


17/177







Coronado, CA 92118





DRA QUESTION:

2. Terminal Reservoirs and ASR Pump Stationc. If not addressed by the documents provided in response to question 2b,

please provide justification for the necessity of the Terminal Reservoirs andthe ASR Pump Station.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The Terminal Reservoir is designed to primarily receive water from the desalinationplant throughout the wet season and at times during the summer through use of a flowcontrol valve upstream of intersection of the Seaside Pipeline and the MontereyPipeline. The ASR Pump Station is also located at the Terminal Reservoir site toprovide water from the Terminal Reservoir to the ASR Facilities when required. Duringthe ASR injection period, Carmel River water flowing directly from the Crest Reservoir tothe 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 thesystem.

Additional information and justification for the Terminal Reservoir and the ASR PumpStation 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 befound at Question/Answer 35 of the above-referenced direct testimony, beginning onpage 26, line 4 and continuing through page 27, line 22. Finally, these facilities werediscussed in detail within the Proponents Environmental Assessment (completed in2005) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (certified by the Commission in 2010).


18/177


19/177







Coronado, CA 92118





DRA QUESTION:

3. Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, Monterey Pipeline, and Valley GreensPump 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 toMPWSP-CAW-012 Q001 (b).


20/177


21/177




Response Provided By: Richard Svindland


Address: 4701 Beloit Drive

Sacramento, CA 95838




Date Response Due: 09/04/2012Subject Area: Cost Estimates

DRA QUESTION:

1. Configuration and Alignment Used for Cost Estimates

a. Data request response #5 included a spreadsheet titled 2012 MontereyDesalination Model. The tabs named Capital 9.0 MGD and Capital 5.4MGD included line items for Pump-to-Waste Pipeline HDD to South WellField and Pump-to-Waste Pipeline HDD to North Well Field. Please explain

the difference and illustrate the locations of the two well fields. The 2012Monterey Desalination Model spreadsheet is attached for reference.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The north and south well fields are described in California American Waters Applicationfor 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 7illustrate both well field configurations along with the conceptual pipe routes.


22/177












DRA QUESTION:

2. Slant Wells Cost Line Items

a. The Slant Well Equipping line item on cost spreadsheet titled Capital Costfor Response A1204019 Q 4 assumes a higher horsepower with the samepumping capacity (2,400 gpm) than the same line item on cost spreadsheettitled 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 alldocuments 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 wellpumps 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 MGDdesalination plant and 1,840 gpm per well for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant. Theactual flow rate from each well will be determined after completion of the slant test wellstudies.

Once the slant test well studies are concluded, operational parameters such asmaximum flow rate and drawdown at wells would be determined. In addition, thepipeline alignments, sizes and exact location and elevation of treatment and storagefacilities would be determined during the final design phase. With all the above


23/177




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


24/177












DRA QUESTION:


b. In response to data request #7, Cal Am states:

The MPWSP desalination plant alternatives are sized according to the followingcriteria

6 slant wells, including one standby well, at approximately 1840 gpmper 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 2012Monterey Desalination Model estimate slant well equipping for2,400 gpmpumping capacity for both plant options. Please justify the selection of 2,400gpm pumping capacity instead of 2,200 gpm for 9.0 mgd wells and 1,840 gpmfor 5.4 mgd wells.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

As stated in the response to Question 2 (a) of this Data Request, the current targetedflow rate for the intake slant wells are 2,200 gpm per well for the 9.0 MGD desalinationplant and 1,840 gpm per well for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant. The actual flow rateout of slant intake wells would be determined once the slant test well studies arecompleted.


25/177












Subject Area: Cost Estimates

DRA QUESTION:


c. Based on the assumptions noted in data request #7 (quoted in question 2b ofthis data request), please explain Cal Ams justification for having differentpumping 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 5.4mgd plant? Would having a greater pump capacity allow Cal Am to constructfewer wells for the 5.4 mgd plant? Please provide all necessary reasoningand explanation.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

California American Water objects to this request as it is unclear what DRA means byall necessary reasoning.

Regardless of this objection, the total well capacity required for the 5.4 MGDdesalination 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 forthe 5.4 MGD desalination plant, the number of wells required would still be five as fourwells would only supply 8,800 gpm. A smaller well pump for the fifth well would haveprovided an additional 400 gpm to cover the deficit. However, the majority of the costsassociated with the wells are the drilling costs, not the pump equipment. Therefore thecost saving would not be significant.


26/177




Additionally, having a well field with different well pump capacities is operationally notpreferred. All five wells would be utilized at the same design capacity when sized at1,840 gpm. By utilizing the same well pump capacity, rotation amongst wells would beautomated and all wells could be exercised at the same rate.


27/177









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 017 Q 002 (d)



DRA QUESTION:


d. If Cal Am estimated its slant well equipping for a 2,400 gpm pump capacitywould this impact the number of wells that are needed for the MPWSP? Morespecifically, has Cal Am estimated the number of wells needed assuming a2400 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 byall necessary reasoning. However, as previously mentioned in responses to Question2 (a), (b) and (c) of this Data Request, the current targeted flow rate for the intake slantwells are 2,200 gpm per well for the 9.0 MGD desalination plant and 1,840 gpm per wellfor 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 andone stand-by) for the 5.4 MGD desalination plant.


28/177







Sacramento, Ca 95838





DRA QUESTION:

3. Clearwell Reservoirs Cost Line Item

a. Please provide a justification for having the same size of clearwell reservoirsfor the 5.4 and the 9.0 mgd desalination plants. This item is described inspreadsheets titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 and 2012Monterey Desalination Model as two 1-MG steel tanks.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The clearwells are sized considering the existing water distribution system requirementssuch as the emergency storage, diurnal demand variations, storage for fire protection inaddition to the required water quality treatment goals. Therefore, based on where theprojects current design status, California American Water believes that the size of theclearwells is independent of the desalination plant capacity and both the 5.4 MGD andthe 9.0 MGD desalination plants have the same size clearwells.


29/177












DRA QUESTION:

4. Product Water Pipeline Cost Line Item

a. Please provide a justification for the higher unit price of the product watertrenched pipeline included in the Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4compared to the unit price included in the 2012 Monterey DesalinationModel. 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 assumedcost per diameter inch for 36-inch MLCSP is estimated at approximately $10 perdiameter inch, which would correspond to a unit cost of $360/LF for the 36-inch productwater trenched pipeline. The estimate is based on California American Waters andRBFs recent experience with procurement and installation of similar size pipelines. Asthese are all estimates based on our teams experience there have been differentvalues ranging between $340 and $360 per foot depending on the location of thepipeline segments.


30/177












DRA QUESTION:

4. Product Water Pipeline Cost Line Item

b. In response to data request #7 question 5, Cal Am explains and provides aspreadsheet from the Coastal Water Project in 2005 for Desalinated WaterConveyance (spreadsheet attached) to justify the unit cost for Product WaterPipeline. 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 diameterpipeline installation, not a 36 pipeline installation. Please provide a morecomplete spreadsheet, that reflects the calculations relied upon by Cal Am toarrive 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 forcreation of a new spreadsheet that would be unnecessary and burdensome. Asmentioned in the response to Question 4 (a) of this Data Request, the unit costs wereestimated on a cost-per-diameter-inch basis.

The project has evolved and changed since 2005 and California American Waterupgraded the pipeline size from 30 to 36 to better accommodate future flow rates andto optimize operations.


31/177












DRA QUESTION:

5. ROW Easement and Land Acquisition Cost Line Items:

a. The Row Easement and Land Acquisition section in the spreadsheet titledCapital Cost for Response A1204019 Q 4 quantifies the purchase andeasement of Desalination Plant Intakes and Pipelines at the proposed siteas 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 systemthat Cal Am proposed in its application. Furthermore, please provide Cal

Ams justification for identifying the quantity of this item as 1 each and itsdescription as purchase and easement.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

As described in Appendix H, MPWSP Project Description, of California AmericanWaters Application for Approval of the MPWSP, the slant well clusters would be oneither the south or the north shoreline of the CEMEX property. The 376-acre CEMEXparcel would not be acquired as a whole. Easements for well clusters, interconnectingpiping, raw water pipelines, and pump-to-waste pipelines would be acquired fromCEMEX.

Additionally, as this acquisition would be a one-time agreement with a single propertyowner, the item unit price is quantified as 1 each.


32/177


33/177




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


34/177




Response Provided By: F. Mark Schubert, P.E.

Title: Manager, Capital Assets and Planning

Address: 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200

Coronado, CA 92118





Subject Area: Cost Estimates

DRA QUESTION:

6. 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 thespreadsheet titled Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q1.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The Special Construction cost item associated with the three pipeline facilities includeshighway crossings, heavy traffic intersection crossings, slough/river crossings, andother challenging construction zones that would not be suitable for open-trenchconstruction. It was assumed that trenchless technologies such as jack-and-bore orhorizontal directional drilling would be utilized in these special construction zones. TheSpecial Construction cost item listed for the South Transfer Pipeline, the SeasidePipeline and the Monterey Pipeline covers the estimated cost of installing the specificpipeline using one of these trenchless technologies (most likely jack-and-bore) to crossmajor state and local highways, heavily traveled intersections, or other uniquesituations. This type of special construction is usually determined and/or required bythe 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 Costitem, 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


35/177




average unit cost by approximately $670 per lineal foot. The Monterey Pipeline hasapproximately 750 feet of this Special Construction Cost item in order to address thepipeline 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 Pipelinewas estimated to increase the average unit cost by approximately $450 per lineal foot.

California American Water provided a detailed description and supportingdocumentation in the technical memorandum, prepared by RBF Consulting in May2009, entitled Updated Capital Cost Estimate for the Coastal Water Projectin itsresponse to MPWSP-CAW 012 Q001 (b).


36/177




Response Provided By: F. Mark Schubert, P.E.

Title: Manager, Capital Assets and Planning


Coronado, CA 92118





DRA QUESTION:

6. CAW Only Facilities Capital Costs

b. The Capital Cost for Response A1204019 Q1 spreadsheet lists aneasement cost for Pipelines through Presidio of $50,000. However, DirectTestimony of Mr. Mark Schubert states that the Monterey Pipeline alignmentcrosses 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 forthe 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 toenvironmental and cultural concerns recently raised by the Presidio of Monterey. Theoriginal pipeline alignment did follow an existing California American Water easement inan area called the lower Presidio, as described in the direct testimony of F. MarkSchubert, 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 MontereyPipeline. Therefore, California American Water moved the pipeline alignment to theupper Presidio (through Stillwell Avenue and Fitch Avenue), which in turn would requireCalifornia 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 recentchange in the pipeline alignment through the Presidio of Monterey.

The need for the Pipelines through Presidio easement cost is necessary in order torecognize the estimated cost of a pipeline route through the Presidio property, since


37/177




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


38/177


39/177




Cell Phones Trash Removal Uniforms

The cost is acquired from miscellaneous costs associated with existing CaliforniaAmerican Water treatment plants. The existing costs were normalized per the totalproduction of the existing plants to create a scalable unit cost. The normalized $/AFwas used for estimation of future costs.


40/177

Exhibit 20


41/177


42/177



APPLICATION NO. 12-04-019DATA REQUEST RESPONSE


Title: Vice President of Engineering




Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 002(a)



Subject Area: CAWOnly Facilities

DRA QUESTION:

2. CAW-Only Facilities

a. Please provide updates regarding the status of CAW Only Facilities terminalreservoirs design. If Cal Am was able to come to an agreement with the Cityof Seaside to have the reservoirs partially buried, please include theagreement and the updated costs.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Detailed design of the terminal reservoir will begin after the California Public UtilitiesCommission approves the above-captioned application. At this point no writtenagreement is in place between California American Water and the City of Seaside withrespect to the burial of the reservoirs. It is anticipated that mitigation measures for thevisual impacts of the reservoir (for example, partially buried or use of berms) will bespecified in the Coastal Development Permit issued by the California CoastalCommission and the Use Permit issued by the City of Seaside.


43/177


44/177












Subject Area: Slant test Well

DRA QUESTION:

4. 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 gpmwhile the slant production well installation is described as 580 LF, 22-deg, 12-inch diam., and 1880 gpm for the 9.6 MGD plant size and 580 LF, 22-deg, 12-inch 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 theslant production wells. It is important that the test slant well results represent themost accurate conditions of the final slant wells.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The final angles and depths of wells are initial estimates based on existing limitedinformation. The final well angles and lengths will not be confirmed until monitoringwells 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 andthe 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 canbe independently pumped to determine the productivity of each aquifer. The steeperangle is required in order to allow full penetration to the bottom of the 180-foot Aquiferwithout exceeding a targeted maximum drill length of 800 LF. Hopefully, the testing willdemonstrate that the Sand Dunes Aquifer alone will be sufficiently productive, and thelower portions of the well in the 180-foot Aquifer can be blocked off.


45/177


46/177













DRA QUESTION:

5. Please explain the 50% mark-up for site and schedule conditions added to theunit cost of slant production well installation in the capital cost estimates of the9.6 and the 6.4 MGD plants.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The previously submitted estimates for the slant wells were based on construction of theslant wells above the water line on the beach, with construction access and delivery ofmaterials coming from the land. The proposed slant well sites are to be constructedwithin a temporary coffer dam structure in the swash zone, with three or four wells beingdrilled at the same time so that the construction for each well cluster can be finished in asingle 5-month construction season. Construction access for equipment, material, fromthe land side will be limited, and it is anticipated that a significant portion of theequipment and material will be delivered to the sites by barge. RBF could not identifyany comparable project having this combination of difficult site conditions. The 50percent 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 willincrease to cover over-time charges, additional crew, and additional per-diem. Itis 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 thebeach sites via travel along shoreline routes or via barge.


47/177


48/177


49/177


50/177













DRA QUESTION:

8. Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate of theslant well caissons with manifolding. Please include the sources for thisestimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similarproject, 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 pumpstation, 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 apump station. The formula is:

Base Construction Cost = ($2,000 x installed HP) + ($100 x pump station capacity ingpm)

This formula is an empirical formula developed by RBF based on experience with

numerous pump stations of this type.


51/177












Subject Area: Clear well and Pump Station

DRA QUESTION:

9. Clearwell and Pump Station

a. Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate ofclearwell pump station equipment. Please include the sources of thisestimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in asimilar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Please see California American Waters response to Question No. 8.


52/177









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 009(b)



Subject Area: Clear well and Pump Station

DRA QUESTION:

9. Clearwell and Pump Station

b. Please explain the basis of the extra $100 per gpm added to the estimate ofdesalinated water pump station equipment. Please include the sources ofthis estimate. If this estimate is based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in asimilar project, please include an example or an estimate of said project.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Please see California American Waters response to Question No. 8.


53/177












Subject Area: Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline

DRA QUESTION:

10. Trenchless Technology for Feedwater Pipeline

a. Please explain the difference between the trenchless technology planned forthe feedwater pipeline between well clusters and the feedwater pipeline underHighway 1.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The basis of the estimate for both situations is a technique called jack-and-bore. Thistechnique involves jacking a casing from an entrance portal on one end to an exit portalon the other end, and then installing a second carrier pipe inside the casing. Theconstruction under Highway 1 is assumed to be a 42-inch diameter carrier pipe installedinside a 60-inch diameter casing. The construction in the beach is assumed to be a 36-inch diameter carrier pipe installed inside a 54-inch diameter casing. The actual designand techniques used will be determined during design and bidding of the project, and

may be different for the two situations.


54/177









Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 024 Q 010(b)



Subject Area: 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 andfeedwater pipeline under Highway 1 is at $1,000/LF. If these estimates arebased on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please include anexample 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 doesnot include the carrier pipe, which is accounted for in the feedwater pipeline cost lineitem above it in the estimate. The unit cost of $1,140/LF for the feedwater pipelinesbetween 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 TestWell Installation line items.

These unit costs were developed by RBFs in-house tunneling experts in consultationwith tunneling contractors.


55/177












Subject Area: Test Well

DRA QUESTION:

11. Please describe the test well pipeline tunnel included in Figures 4 and 5 inAttachment 11 of Richard Svindlands MPWSP Supplemental Testimony. In yourresponse, please also describe the cost impact of this item on the overall capitalcost estimate.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The test well pipeline tunnel is a 24-inch diameter conduit that will be installed under thecoastal dunes using trenchless technology. This conduit will be equipped with twointerior conduits: 1) a 4-inch diameter electrical conduit and; 2) a 12-inch diameterrecirculation pipe. The electrical conduit will be used to supply power to the test wellpump. The recirculation pipe will be used to convey pumped flow from the test well to asite east of the dunes where the flow will be measured and sampled. The flow will thenbe returned to the test well site for disposal using the annular space in the 24-inchdiameter 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 $5,000,000Slant Test Well Installation line item.


56/177












Subject Area: 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 estimatesare based on Cal Ams or RBFs experience in a similar project, please includean example or an estimate of said project.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

This estimate is based on constructing a 72-inch diameter concrete-lined tunnel using atunnel-boring machine (TBM). Flow would be conveyed through the tunnel without useof an interior carrier pipe. The unit costs include the entrance portal at the east end, butdo not include the exit portal at the west end, since this has already been included in theestimate under Tunnel Caissons. The unit costs were developed by RBFs in-housetunneling experts in consultation with tunneling contractors.


57/177

Exhibit 21


58/177


59/177


60/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (a) (iii)



Subject Area: Facilities

DRA QUESTION:

1. Proposed Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities:

(a) On DRAs site visit to Monterey, it was mentioned that dechlorination facilitiesmay be needed to dechlorinate the ASR water prior to injection into theSeaside Basin.

(iii) What is the estimated capital cost of these dechlorination facilities? Whatis the estimated O&M cost? Are these facilities included in the costestimates provided in this application? Please provide a specificbreakdown of the cost of these dechlorination facilities, preferably in theform of an electronic spreadsheet.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

Because the timing of these facilities is not yet determined and because the facilitieswould potentially be constructed by the Monterey Peninsula Water ManagementDistrict, California American Water did not prepare a capital cost estimate for the

dechlorination facilities. The annual costs for chemicals (only) have been included inthe cost estimates for the Application. These costs are approximately $103,000/year forthe MPWSP with Ground Water Replenishment (GWR), and approximately$39,000/year for the MPWSP without GWR. The annual chemical costs are higher forGWR, because the assumed annual amount of injected water is higher. These O&Mcosts are calculated in electronic spreadsheets that have been previously provided.


61/177


62/177


63/177








Company Number: MPWSP-CAW 011 Q 001 (b) (iii)




DRA QUESTION:

1. 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: drillingmethod, 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 AmericanWater does not have detailed cost information on Wells #1 and #2 at the SantaMargarita 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 inconstruction to Wells #5 and #6 at the Fitch Park site. Items that differ in costs wouldprimarily 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 06-0026_SMSTW_SOR_20120315is the Summary of Operations, Well Construction andTesting report for Well #3 at Seaside Middle School. Wells #4, #5, and #6 will be similarin construction.


64/177












DRA QUESTION:

2. Unit Prices Used for Cost Estimates::

(a) If not already included in the cost spreadsheets requested in pending datarequests, please provide sources for all unit prices used for estimating costsfor A.12-04-019, preferably by including a column for unit price sources in thecost spreadsheets previously requested.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The unit costs used for estimating O&M and capital are included in electronicspreadsheets that California American Water previously provided (for unit capital costs,unhide columns I through P.).


65/177


66/177


67/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:

1. In response to Data Request #4, question #3, Cal Am provided capital costsassociated with the dilution facilities potentially necessary for the dilution ofGround Water Replenishment (GWR) water for the plant size options that includeGWR. However, no O&M costs were provided associated with the dilutionfacilities.

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).


68/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:

2. In response to Data Request #4, question #1, Cal Am provided an excelspreadsheet with a detailed breakdown of the capital costs for the Cal Am OnlyFacilities. In this spreadsheet, there is a line item under Land Acquisition forASR 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 Amleasing 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 whichwas used to construct the monitoring well. A lease agreement will be required toconstruct the permanent facilities. The Army is now conducting an appraisal of the landto 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.


69/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:


b. If there is already an agreement in place, please provide a copy of thatagreement. If there is not a formal agreement in place, what is the basis forthe cost estimate provided?

COMPANY RESPONSE:

As described above in 2(a), there is no existing lease agreement. The cost estimateprovided is a planning level market value estimate for the Fitch Park ASR well sites.


70/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:


c. Why are there two leases necessary for the Fitch Park ASR Wells, which willboth be located on the same site?

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The Fitch Park ASR wells are proposed to encompass two non-contiguous parcelsowned by the U.S. Army located along General Jim Moore Boulevard.


71/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:

3. Provide a detailed justification for the ASR Pipelines and Backflush Facilities(including the ASR Pipeline, the Recirculation Pipeline, the Backflush Piping, andthe Backflush Reclamation Basin) that discusses the necessity for the facilities,the basis for the pipeline lengths, the type of analysis performed, alternativesconsidered, and whether lower cost options were evaluated.

COMPANY RESPONSE:

The spreadsheet provided in response to Data Request #4, Question 1, provides abreakdown 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 BackflushPipeline. Currently California American Water has similar infrastructure that serves theSanta Margarita ASR facility and the Seaside Middle School ASR facility. The existingpipelines are stubbed out near the corner of Coe Ave. and General Jim Moore Blvd. inSeaside. Completion of the Fitch Park ASR facility will require that the existing ASRPipeline, Recirculation Pipeline, and Backflush Pipeline, be extended approximately

5,000 LF north along General Jim Moore Blvd. from the stubbed out pipelines at CoeAve. The purpose of each pipeline is as follows:

ASR Pipeline This pipeline conveys potable water to the ASR well for injectioninto the groundwater aquifer, and conveys water from the ASR well to thedistribution system during extraction from the groundwater aquifer.


72/177




Recirculation Pipeline This pipeline allows water to circulate to prevent it frombecoming stagnant when the ASR wells are neither injecting nor extracting waterfrom the groundwater basin. Without the recirculation pipeline, when the wellsare not in use, the 5,000 LF ASR pipeline would be a dead-end pipeline thatwould allow water to stagnate for months at a time.

Backflush Pipeline When the ASR wells are in active use for injecting water intothe groundwater basin, it is necessary to backflush the wells on a weekly basis toprevent plugging and fouling of the well screens. The backflush water is notsuitable for use in the distribution system and is pumped to waste. The disposal

site for the backflush water is the Backflush Reclamation Basin. Water isconveyed from the wells to the Backflush Reclamation Basin via the BackflushPipeline. When backflushed water is discharged into the reclamation basin, itpercolates to the groundwater.

Pipeline sizes used in the cost estimates are based on the anticipated flows that theywill convey. Upon authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission toproceed with the project, California American Water will perform a detailed design of thefacilities and optimize the size and materials used for construction of the facilities.


73/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:

4. Based on the Capital Cost for Cal Am Only Facilities Excel spreadsheet thatwas sent in response to Data Request #4, and the documents sent in responseto Data Request #12, it appears that the Capital Costs for the Cal Am OnlyFacilities were developed by taking the detailed cost estimates from the ConkeyReport, which were further updated by a Technical Memorandum 2009, andescalating these 2009 costs to 2012 dollars. However, Rich Svindland gave apresentation during the cost workshops (Presentation 2, Part 1) which containsan Appendix with some details regarding the Cal Am Only Facilities costestimates. The presentation infers that more recent detailed cost estimates havebeen developed (e.g. for the ASR Pump Station, the presentation says Quantityestimates and unit prices per recent similar project estimate).

a. Please clarify whether the capital cost estimates for Cal Am Only Facilitieshave 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 CaliforniaAmerican Water-only facilities cost which the Commission approved in D.10-12-016.


74/177












Subject Area: Cost

DRA QUESTION:

4. Based on the Capital Cost for Cal Am Only Facilities Excel spreadsheet thatwas sent in response to Data Request #4, and the documents sent in responseto Data Request #12, it appears that the Capital Costs for the Cal Am OnlyFacilities were developed by taking the detailed cost estimates from the ConkeyReport, which were further updated by a Technical Memorandum 2009, andescalating these 2009 costs to 2012 dollars. However, Rich Svindland gave apresentation during the cost workshops (Presentation 2, Part 1) which containsan Appendix with some details regarding the Cal Am Only Facilities costestimates. The presentation infers that more recent detailed cost estimates havebeen developed (e.g. for the ASR Pump Station, the presentation says Quantityestimates and unit prices per recent similar project estimate).

b. If there have been more recent updates or assumptions for the Cal Am OnlyFacilities cost estimates: Please provide a detailed breakdown of theupdates, 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.


75/177


76/177




COMPANY RESPONSE:

California American Water did not update the cost estimates for the California AmericanWater-only facilities using the Conkey Report.


77/177

Exhibit 23


78/177


79/177


80/177


81/177


82/177

Exhibit 24


83/177

COMPANY: CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANYDISTRICT(S): COASTAL WATER PROJECT

APPLICATION NO: 04-09-019

300034122.1 -1-

Response provided by: F. Mark Schubert


Address: 1033 B Avenue, Suite 200 Coronado CA 92118

Company Response Number: DRA Data Request CWP #50

Q1. Please provide a cost estimate for building the terminal reservoir aboveground. Include supporting documentation for the estimate.

A1. 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 theconstruction cost estimate of $6,600,000 for the buried reservoir provided in theAugust 14, 2009 Joint Cost Comparison Exhibit Capital and O&M Cost EstimateUpdate technical memorandum (TM). The construction costs for earthwork, sitework, and yard piping associated with the terminal reservoir are assumed to bethe same for both the buried and above-ground configurations, and are notincluded in the cost estimates for either configuration shown above.

California American Water developed the construction cost estimate for anabove-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 MossLanding desalination plant. This unit cost is $0.40 per gallon less than the buriedreservoir unit cost used for the buried reservoir (see pages 4 and 9 of the August14, 2009 TM).

Q2. Please provide a detailed explanation for why the transmission line fordesalinated water was enlarged from 30 in the PEA to 36 in the FEIR andJCE. Provide an estimate for what a 30 transmission line would cost.

A2. 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 thatchange in their independent judgment and not at the request of CaliforniaAmerican Water. The estimate for a 36-inch pipeline in the joint cost estimate isconsistent with Mark Schuberts May 22, 2009 testimony, which was intended bea conservative cost estimate of the project described in the Draft EIR. Aconservative estimate would estimate the largest pipeline allowed by a projectdescription, here the 36-inch maximum size described in the Draft EIR.


84/177


85/177



300034122.1 -3-

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 isobtained from the U.S. Army. An estimate of the construction cost for this 6-inch PVC monitor well is $200,000, based upon a recent bid. If thecontinuous wire line core hole is required, the total cost will increasesubstantially, possibly as high as $500,000 to $600,000, depending uponcoring 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 ofinstalling the well is now estimated at approximately $1700 per foot. Theincrease in unit costs (54%) is explained by generally high inflation of drillingcosts over the last four years as well as rapid escalation of stainless steel pricesduring the same period. Page 6 of TM2 comments on this cost escalation:

Well construction costs have increased dramatically nationwide during thepast five years, approximately doubling during that period.

The increase in depth of the wells is explained by Mr. Schubert on page 13 of hisMay 22, 2009 testimony:

While the PEA identified three possible sites to locate the ASR wells,

including the MPWMD Santa Margarita well site, California American Waterhas made significant progress on locating the other two sites, as discussed inmy testimony. Because of the new locations of the wells, the well depths arenow anticipated to be 1,000 feet, as opposed to the 800-foot well depthdescribed in the PEA.

The new Fitch Park sites are several thousand feet north of the previouslyassumed sites, and it is known that the Santa Margarita Sandstone deepens andgrades into the less productive Purisima Formation in a northerly direction. Thisdeepening of the targeted formation, combined with an increase of approximately30 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 designcriteria for the currently proposed CWP monitoring well and ASR wells.


86/177



300034122.1 -4-

Q4. Please provide a detailed explanation of the status of permit approvals forCal Ams proposed ASR site. Does Cal Am have an alternate site selectedshould its preferred site not receive a permit from the US Army?

A4. On April 17, 2009, California American Water submitted an application to theU.S. Army for a Right-of-Entry and lease to the Fitch Park sites, in order to installthe monitoring well and test well facilities. The Army reviewed the applicationand sent a letter on November 20, 2009 requesting that California AmericanWater prepare and submit additional documentation in compliance with theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). California American Water has sincemet with Army representatives and is now preparing the requested NEPAdocumentation. California American Water anticipates that it will take a minimumof 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 $2.2million estimate for ASR wellhead facilities. Does the wellhead facilitiesestimate include treatment?

A5. The $2.2 million estimate for ASR wellhead facilities, referenced at page 63 ofMr. Schuberts testimony, is a planning-level estimate and thus no workpaperswere created. This figure is based on information provided by CaliforniaAmerican Waters ASR consultant (ASR Systems). As described in A(3) above,California American Waters implementation plan for its ASR program includescompletion of a monitoring well to obtain the information required to design theASR wells. Detailed cost estimates of ASR Wells 3 and 4 will be prepared afterthe monitoring well is complete.

Treatment is not currently planned at either of the two proposed CWP ASR wellsites. Therefore, the cost estimate for wellhead facilities does not include capitalcosts for treatment. The chemical costs for sodium hypochlorite and sodium bi-sulfite usage for the ASR system (at an assumed chlorination facility at theMonterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) Santa Margarita ASRwell site) have been included (see Page 8 of Cost Comparison Exhibit).

Q6. If yes, specify the amount of treatment cost. If no, explain where treatmentwill take place and whether it will require additional costs.

A6. As stated on line 12 on page 25 of Mr. Schuberts testimony, California AmericanWater is currently planning to utilize a centralized disinfection facility that will belocated at the MPWMD wells site. The chemical costs at that facility have beenestimated at $18,000 per year.


87/177



300034122.1 -5-

Q7. Please provide documentation including workpapers to support the othercomponents of Cal Ams ASR estimate. These components are:

a. ASR pipelineb. Recirculation pipelinec. Backflush facilities

A7. Please refer to the attached Excel file which are the work papers that support thecost estimates for these pipelines and backflush facilities described on page 61of Mr. Schuberts testimony.


88/177

Exhibit 25


89/177


Coastal Water Project- 2012- AL

APPLICATION NO. AL 944DATA REQUEST RESPONSE

Response Provided By: Stacey Fulter

Title: Financial Analyst II


Coronado, CA 92118

DRA Request: DRA-AL 944

Company Number: DRA-AL-944 CAW-001 Q001

Date Received: July 30, 2012

Date Response Due: August 7, 2012

Subject Area: Financial

DRA QUESTION:

1. Page 5-5 line #21 identified a composite net to gross rate of 1.4005 with areference to workpaper 8-2. On workpaper 8-2 the composite net to gross r

a.12-04-019 exhibits 17-32 mpwsp report.pdf

Documents