California WaterFix Benefit Cost Analysis

Similar documents
Appendix 5D Water Transfer Analysis Methodology and Results

Metropolitan Water District s 2010/11 Proposed Rates and Charges. Imported Water Committee January 28, 2010

Consideration of Support of DWR s Approval of California WaterFix Project. ACWD Board Meeting October 12, Month, Day, Year

Finance and Insurance Committee Item 6a January 7, 2019

SITES Project Overview

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

TEN YEAR FINANCIAL FORECAST

Analysis of the Cost of a Bay-Delta Conveyance Structure: Rate Impacts to Los Angeles

Metropolitan s Water Supply Allocation Plan (WSAP)

Drought Allocation Plan for the Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County. Updated May 2015

DCA BOARD MEETING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT May 17, 2018

2004/05 Long Range Finance Plan

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

DAEN SUBJECT: South San Francisco Bay Shoreline, Santa Clara County, California

Metropolitan Water District of So. California

Executive Financial Report Table of Contents For the Six Months Ended December 31, 2011

STATE OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

SACRAMENTO WATER ALLOCATION MODEL (SACWAM) DEMAND PRIORITIES AND SUPPLY PREFERENCES

INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY RESERVE POLICY Updated as of May 2014 Policy Statement. Purpose of Fund Reserve Policy

Proposed Calendar Year 2018 Rates and Charges

Collecting Allowed Revenues When Demand is Declining

RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MOJAVE WATER AGENCY ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO AGENCY RESERVES

FINANCIAL PLANNING AND RISK ASSESSMENT. October 27, 2015

IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT. for the BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN. by and among THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ZONE 7

Butte County Board of Supervisors Agenda Transmittal

Engineering and Operations Committee April 23, Frank Belock

7/25/2012. July 25, Rate Refinement Workgroup Page 1 July 25, 2012

Contract Between the State of California Department of Water Resources and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California for a Water Supply

Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager May 23, 2013

FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS FOR REVENUES FROM IID/SDCWA AGREEMENT

Water Shortage Contingency Plan During the California Drought and the Use of Allocation Based Tiered Rates

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 7C4

MWD Emergency Water Supply Agreement with LADWP: NOTICE OF OBJECTION AND INTENT TO RECOVER ILLEGAL RATES AND CHARGES

Department of Water and Power City of Los Angeles. City of Los Angeles 4th Regional Investors Conference March 19, 2018

SUBJECT: California WaterFix Cost Repayment Proposal Request

ACTUARIES CLIMATE INDEX

Administrative and Finance Committee June 23, 2011

BOARD MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2

LINKAGE TO STRATEGIC PLAN, POLICY, STATUTE OR GUIDING PRINCIPLE:

AND VENTURA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

Doheny Desalination Project Value-for-Money Analysis. March

Rate Structure Administrative Procedures Handbook FY 2018/19

Integrating climate risk assessment/management/drr into national policies, programmes and sectoral planning. G Midgley, South Africa

VENTURA COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICTS Representing: Ventura County Waterworks Districts No. 1, 16, 17 & 19

DRAFT for Typesetter Legal Text of Local Ballot Measures for November 6, 2018, Consolidated General Election

WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER. Independent Auditor s Report and Financial Statements. Year Ended December 31, 2015

July 13, Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority Board of Directors. Members of the Board,

Market Mechanisms for Clean Energy

Monitoring and Mitigation in Alberta s Capacity Market

Third Appropriation Funding Recommendation

FITCH RATES METRO WATER DIST OF SOUTHERN CA SUB LIEN REVS 'AA+' & SIFMA INDEX BONDS 'AA+/F1+'

FINANCING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Economic Development Programs. What Is Economic Development Financing? Presented by Pat Thomson

Situation: the need for non-structural flood risk reduction measures

JANUARY Lorem ipsum. Water Use Report

DELTA CONVEYANCE FINANCE AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING REGULAR MEETING. Thursday, July 19, :00 a.m.

MISO Competitive Retail Solution: Analysis of Reliability Implications

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE

VISITOR CENTER/AIR SLOTS LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM

Mitigation Success Publications

BANK OF CHINA (CANADA) BASEL III DISCLOSURES AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2013

Third Quarter Financial Report Fiscal Year and. Mid-Term Budget Update - Fiscal Year June 15, 2015

Rate Structure Administrative Procedures Handbook FY 2017/18

July 1, Tier Percent of Allocation Cost per ccf $0.91 $1.27 $2.86 $4.80 $ % % % % 201+%

ESM 121. Water Science and Management. Spring Exercise 8: Risk Analysis. and. Expected Monetary Value

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER. Independent Auditor s Report and Financial Statements. Year Ended December 31, 2016

California s Flood Future Recommendations for Managing the State s Flood Risk. BAFPAA Briefing February 21, 2013

Fiscal Analysis November 14, Fiscal Analysis Fiscal Conditions Project Background

Report of Independent Auditors and Financial Statements for. Imperial Irrigation District

Long Beach Water Department Fiscal Year 2014 Annual Budget Summary

California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)

Southern California Metropolitan Water District; General Obligation; Water/Sewer

FRIENDS OF THE RIVER. Independent Auditor s Report and Financial Statements. Year Ended December 31, 2017

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS. Table 1: Project Outputs Output Subcomponents Type of Analysis Enshi Wastewater Enshi Hongmiao WWTP Enshi Dashaba WWTP

Agenda Item B.8 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: May 19, 2015

Introduction P O L I C Y D O C U M E N T P A R T 1

AGENDA DATE: June 21, 2017 ITEM NO: 13. Zone 7 adopted its first two-year budget for fiscal years FY in June of 2016.

Final COST OF SERVICE STUDY SEPTEMBER City of San Clemente

Water Rates Adjustments Phase 2

PRELIMINARY DRAFT -- FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

Understanding CAP s Strategic Reserves

March 7, 2019 OFFICERS COMMISSIONERS

BIENNIAL BUDGET SUMMARY FY 2016/17 & 2017/18

Summary of the FERC White Papers on Compliance and Enforcement

Alameda County Water District Community Meetings Proposed 2019 Rates & Charges

City of Stockton Community Development Department 345 N. El Dorado Street Stockton, CA 95202

Climate Change : Adaptation is Urgent

General Manager s Recommended Budget for Fiscal Years 2018 & Maureen A. Stapleton, General Manager

The Economic Impact of Population Growth in Great Falls, Montana

September 14, Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Authority Board of Directors. Members of the Board,

Financing adaptation in Copenhagen

Agenda Item No. 7. SACRAMENTO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1112 I Street, Suite #100 Sacramento, California (916)

CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM

Impacts of Marginal Loss Implementation in ERCOT

4.12 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT

Glasgow City centre (Potentially Vulnerable Area 11/16) Local Plan District Local authority Main catchment Clyde and Loch Lomond Glasgow City Council

Proposed Rule 350 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Program Fees. SMAQMD April 29, 2010

HARPETH YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC. (A Tennessee Not-For-Profit Organization)

Transcription:

California WaterFix Benefit Cost Analysis PRESENTED TO Metropolitan Water District PRESENTED BY David L. Sunding, Ph.D. Professor, UC Berkeley October 23, 2018 Copyright 2018 The Brattle Group, Inc.

WaterFix Investment Analysis Basic Participation Structure Analyzed 6,000-cfs of capacity paid for by SWP contractors MWD will pay for an additional 3,000-cfs of capacity If other agencies use MWD s capacity, assume they will pay a wheeling rate equal to variable cost plus an equal share of capital repayment costs Applies to both CVP and other SWP contractors No wheeling rate paid in years when facilities are not used WaterFix Water Supply Transfers Analysis assumes that 50,000 af of project benefits are transferred from SWP agricultural contractors to SWP urban contractors brattle.com 2

California WaterFix Cost Assumptions Capital Costs by Year Incurred (2017 $) Cost Year Program Management Engineering Management Construction Contingency Land Acquisition Section 7 Mitigation 2018 $ 14,658,802 $ 21,656,901 $ 436,299 $ 4,190,179 $ 1,639,091 $ - $ 42,581,270 2019 $ 71,893,866 $ 158,926,043 $ 4,242,805 $ 87,865,033 $ 49,601,017 $ 31,345,011 $ 403,873,774 2020 $ 31,656,733 $ 176,725,831 $ 29,761,633 $ 166,530,400 $ 70,735,768 $ 31,465,109 $ 506,875,475 2021 $ 31,778,023 $ 170,927,266 $ 269,419,239 $ 244,058,480 $ 37,671,540 $ 31,345,014 $ 785,199,562 2022 $ 31,656,733 $ 102,158,848 $ 523,624,063 $ 346,102,402 $ - $ 31,224,918 $ 1,034,766,964 2023 $ 31,535,443 $ 87,397,969 $ 842,585,134 $ 401,972,738 $ - $ 31,224,918 $ 1,394,716,202 2024 $ 31,535,443 $ 96,983,340 $ 888,134,113 $ 364,041,236 $ - $ 31,465,109 $ 1,412,159,241 2025 $ 31,778,023 $ 81,196,609 $ 803,325,988 $ 366,841,552 $ - $ 31,345,014 $ 1,314,487,186 2026 $ 31,598,970 $ 93,168,589 $ 909,798,406 $ 365,441,395 $ - $ 31,345,014 $ 1,431,352,373 2027 $ 29,832,936 $ 98,904,394 $ 976,543,911 $ 345,065,536 $ - $ 31,345,014 $ 1,481,691,791 2028 $ 29,002,208 $ 104,508,378 $ 1,067,424,676 $ 265,099,903 $ - $ 31,224,918 $ 1,497,260,083 2029 $ 28,891,088 $ 99,153,057 $ 954,993,842 $ 264,084,195 $ - $ 31,345,014 $ 1,378,467,196 2030 $ 29,002,208 $ 105,105,741 $ 1,075,870,196 $ 265,099,903 $ - $ 31,345,014 $ 1,506,423,063 2031 $ 28,529,858 $ 106,762,514 $ 1,133,900,810 $ 202,328,152 $ - $ 24,979,934 $ 1,496,501,268 2032 $ 25,321,501 $ 73,454,331 $ 745,884,008 $ 851,078 $ - $ - $ 845,510,918 2033 $ 7,317,626 $ 19,518,205 $ 139,815,863 $ 854,339 $ - $ - $ 167,506,034 2034 $ 1,032,121 $ 10,150,633 $ 14,105,253 $ 847,817 $ - $ - $ 26,135,824 2035 $ - $ 4,217,996 $ - $ 394,561 $ - $ - $ 4,612,557 $ 487,021,583 $ 1,610,916,644 $ 10,379,866,239 $ 3,691,668,897 $ 159,647,415 $ 401,000,000 $ 16,730,120,778 Source: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and ICF California. Total brattle.com 3

State Water Project Deliveries- Probability of Exceedance brattle.com 4

Average Annual Yields for the SWP and CVP with and without the WaterFix Average Annual Yields (Acre-Feet) for State Water Project and CVP South of Delta Water Service Contractors in the 9,000-cfs SWP/CVP Scenario Urban SWP Agencies Agricultural CVP Agencies Proposed Project 1,992,232 719,733 950,923 No Tunnels 1,547,885 479,000 634,822 Incremental Yield 444,348 240,733 316,101 Source: California Department of Water Resources. brattle.com 5

Average Annual Yields for the SWP Only with and without the WaterFix Average Annual Yields (Acre-Feet) for State Water Project Contractors in the 9,000-cfs SWP Only Scenario Urban SWP Agencies Agricultural Proposed Project 2,091,829 771,619 No Tunnels 1,547,885 479,000 Incremental Yield 543,945 292,618 Source: California Department of Water Resources. brattle.com 6

Benefits Modeling Four Benefit Categories Water supply 1 Water quality Reduced seismic risk Sea level rise mitigation Sea Level Rise Mitigation Quantified for the first time in the latest report Benefits analysis relies on modeling by DWR More recent modeling released during the recent California Climate Summit suggests our results are conservative 1 The term supply is used to refer to State Water Project s purpose to deliver water supply to its contractors, which includes the functions of conserving and transporting water to those contractors. Other SWP purposes include recreation and flood control. brattle.com 7

Benefits to Participating Agencies Exceed Project Costs in All Scenarios Benefits and Costs in the Base Case Scenario SWP Urban SWP Ag CVP Benefits $13,275,882,162 $2,405,260,992 $3,367,416,939 Costs $10,164,260,463 $2,005,809,457 $2,618,411,930 Ratio 1.31 1.20 1.29 Source: The Brattle Group. brattle.com 8

Benefits to Participating Agencies Exceed Project Costs in All Scenarios (cont.) Benefits and Costs for the 9,000-cfs SWP/CVP Scenario, Assuming No Transfers and No Federal Low-Interest Loan Program SWP Urban SWP Ag CVP Benefits $12,595,260,401 $2,856,058,668 $3,367,416,939 Costs $9,361,936,680 $2,808,133,239 $2,618,411,930 Ratio 1.35 1.02 1.29 Source: The Brattle Group. brattle.com 9

Benefits to Participating Agencies Exceed Project Costs in All Scenarios (cont.) Costs and Benefits for the 9,000 SWP Only Scenarios, Assuming Trading and No Federal Low-Interest Loan Program SWP Urban SWP Ag Benefits $15,730,723,367 $2,980,134,343 Costs $12,268,307,718 $2,520,174,132 Ratio 1.28 1.18 Source: The Brattle Group. brattle.com 10

Benefits to Participating Agencies Exceed Project Costs in All Scenarios (cont.) Costs and Benefits for the 9,000 NOD SWP/CVP Scenario, Assuming Trading and 50% Federal Low-Interest Loan Program SWP Urban SWP Ag CVP Benefits $13,275,882,162 $2,405,260,992 $3,367,416,939 Costs $8,477,574,383 $1,747,366,605 $2,618,411,930 Ratio 1.57 1.38 1.29 Source: The Brattle Group. brattle.com 11

Conclusions Consider Four Types of Benefits Benefits exceed costs in the base case scenario for all categories of project participants Allowing transfers of WaterFix water supplies increases overall benefits Project passes a benefit-cost test even without CVP participation Mitigating the impacts of sea level rise is a significant component of benefits brattle.com 12

THE POWER OF ECONOMICS brattle.com