The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Access to Excess CAP Access to Excess CAP Water, 2010 & beyond Water, 2010 & beyond Customer/Stakeholder Workshop Customer/Stakeholder Workshop April 1, 2009 April 1, 2009 Planning Assumptions Planning Assumptions 1
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 A 2 E Assumptions A 2 E Assumptions � Ag S ettlement Pool is fully satisfied � Five to ten year planning period 2017 is a key date � � AWBA 4-cent funding has ended � Ag Pool drops from 400 KAF to 300 KAF � Excess supply generally diminishes over time Tied to long-term CAP contract use, and On-River use � � Normal supply conditions on Colorado River S hortage greatly reduces or eliminates this category of excess, so � different guidelines apply Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 A 2 E Assumptions A 2 E Assumptions � There is a single rate for all excess (except Ag Pool) � AWBA is constrained by water availability and money � 4-cent revenue and carryover is primary funding � Interstate banking is excluded � Replenishment Reserve part ially satisfied with excess � Block of long-term storage credits is statutory requirement for CAGRD � Reserve shares priority with AWBA � In theory, AWBA and CAGRD RR could take most or all of the available excess for 5 to 10 years � In practice, there are many competing priorities and pressures on the excess pool… Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 2
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 A 2 E Proposal A 2 E Proposal A 5-step Process that Divides, S cores and Allocates Excess Water Orders Step 1: Step 1: Set Aside Water Set Aside Water for Banking for Banking 3
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 AWBA & CAGRD RR AWBA & CAGRD RR � CAWCD will make an annual decision regarding excess water for banking purposes (i.e., both AWBA & RR) � Will include consultation with AWBA staff and Commissioners � CAP staff will develop a recommendation for CAWCD Board consideration in June/ July � Based on multiple considerations, including total proj ected supply, progress on AWBA and CAGRD RR goals, and preliminary Excess orders Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Step 2: Step 2: Apply Min & Max Apply Min & Max 4
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Min & Max Min & Max � S mall orders have little effect on the total excess supply The number of customers is modest � � S taff recommendation will include a de minimis � S et as a volume (e.g., 2,500 AF) � Large orders have a large effect A cap would set an upper limit on any one customer’ s access � � S taff recommendation will include a cap � S et as a percentage of the total “ Other Excess” supply available in a particular year (e.g., 15% ) � S taff will recommend that Min and Max take precedence S mall orders are exempted from the A 2 E guidelines � Large orders are capped, regardless of A 2 E guidelines � Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Step 3: Step 3: Fill Non- -Credit Credit Fill Non Orders Orders 5
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Non- -Credit Orders Credit Orders Non � Current de facto priority between excess used to earn a long-term storage credit, and non-credit uses � i.e., Full Cost has had priority over Incentive Recharge � S taff recommends that non-credit orders be filled first Includes direct delivery, annual storage & recovery, and � replenishment � Not subj ect to reduction, other than Max Likely implemented as a separate pool, with condition that no LTS Cs � can be earned Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Step 4: Step 4: Score Remaining Score Remaining Orders Orders 6
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Scoring Scoring � Each order has multiple attributes that are relevant in determining “ priority” or “ merit” � S taff is proposing that orders be “ scored” based on a few key attributes Allows balancing of competing obj ectives � � Points awarded for each attribute � Number of points reflects relative importance of the attribute Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Scoring: Location of Use Scoring: Location of Use � CAWCD’ s elected representation and defined service area is limited to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties � S taff will recommend that orders be scored based on their relationship to CAP’ s service area � Large number of points for delivery inside S A No points for delivery outside S A � � S taff does not recommend differentiation within CAP’ s service area Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 7
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Scoring: Facility Type Scoring: Facility Type � Credits are for future use, but storage at a GS F has an immediate benefit for the partner (facility operator) � S taff will recommend that orders earning a long-term storage credit be differentiated by facility type � Orders at GS Fs awarded more points than at US Fs Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Scoring: Customer Type Scoring: Customer Type � Excess has been used by a wide variety of customers � CAWCD has not traditionally made eligibility distinctions among its non-agricultural excess users � The ability t o transfer and sell recharge credits muddles the determination of intended use and “ speculation” � S RP’ s use of excess adds more complexity � S taff does not recommend differentiating based on customer type � Address speculation concerns with other means � Monitor activity, and reconsider if necessary Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 8
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Scoring: Use History Scoring: Use History � New and significantly increased orders have impacted the overall excess pool � S ome customers have been on a long-term plan, and do not believe it is fair to be reduced by newcomers � S ome new customers argue that existing customers want to exclude their beneficial activity � Establishing a baseline can be subj ective � The further out in time, the less relevant Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Scoring: Use History Scoring: Use History � S taff proposes that orders be scored on use history � At or below ’ 06— ’ 08 max, many points A modest step above max (e.g., 120% ), some points � A large step or new customer, no points � � History would be used as a relative, not absolute factor Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 9
The following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09 Scoring: Other Scoring: Other � The scoring approach allows both specific and broad policy obj ectives to be preferenced � Factors can be added or adj usted as circumstances change � Other factors are under consideration � S taff may recommend awarding points for storage at facilities that are CAP recovery partners Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 Point values Scoring Summary Scoring Summary not yet determined! Type Attribute Points """""""" Inside S A Location SSSSSSSS Outside S A SSS """"" Credit @ GS F Facility Type SSSS¡ """ Credit @ US F SSS """"" Less or equal to past Use History SSSSS """ S mall increase SSSSSSSS New, or large increase SSSSSSS " Other Policy All ________ Customer Type All Note, min & max apply to all orders Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009 10
Recommend
More recommend
