planning assumptions the following slides were presented ......1 access to excess cap water, 2010 &...

1

Access to Excess CAP Access to Excess CAP Water, 2010 & beyondWater, 2010 & beyond

Customer/Stakeholder WorkshopCustomer/Stakeholder WorkshopApril 1, 2009April 1, 2009

Planning AssumptionsPlanning Assumptions

kseasholesText BoxThe following slides were presented as concepts for discussion on 4/1/09

2

Customer/Stakeholder Workshop, April 1, 2009

AA22E AssumptionsE Assumptions

Ag Settlement Pool is fully satisfied

Five to ten year planning period2017 is a key date

AWBA 4-cent funding has endedAg Pool drops from 400 KAF to 300 KAF

Excess supply generally diminishes over timeTied to long-term CAP contract use, and On-River use

Normal supply conditions on Colorado RiverShortage greatly reduces or eliminates this category of excess, so different guidelines apply


AA22E AssumptionsE Assumptions

There is a single rate for all excess (except Ag Pool)

AWBA is constrained by water availability and money4-cent revenue and carryover is primary fundingInterstate banking is excluded

Replenishment Reserve partially satisfied with excessBlock of long-term storage credits is statutory requirement for CAGRDReserve 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…


3

AA22E ProposalE ProposalA 5-step Process that Divides, Scores and Allocates Excess Water Orders

Step 1:Step 1:

Set Aside WaterSet Aside Waterfor Bankingfor Banking


4


AWBA & CAGRD RRAWBA & 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 projected supply, progress on AWBA and CAGRD RR goals, and preliminary Excess orders

Step 2:Step 2:

Apply Min & MaxApply Min & Max


5


Min & MaxMin & Max

Small orders have little effect on the total excess supplyThe number of customers is modestStaff recommendation will include a de minimis

Set as a volume (e.g., 2,500 AF)

Large orders have a large effectA cap would set an upper limit on any one customer’s accessStaff recommendation will include a cap

Set as a percentage of the total “Other Excess” supply available in a particular year (e.g., 15%)

Staff will recommend that Min and Max take precedenceSmall orders are exempted from the A2E guidelinesLarge orders are capped, regardless of A2E guidelines

Step 3:Step 3:

Fill NonFill Non--Credit Credit OrdersOrders


6


NonNon--Credit OrdersCredit Orders

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

Staff recommends that non-credit orders be filled firstIncludes direct delivery, annual storage & recovery, and replenishmentNot subject to reduction, other than MaxLikely implemented as a separate pool, with condition that no LTSCscan be earned

Step 4:Step 4:

Score Remaining Score Remaining OrdersOrders


7


ScoringScoring

Each order has multiple attributes that are relevant in determining “priority” or “merit”

Staff is proposing that orders be “scored” based on a few key attributes

Allows balancing of competing objectivesPoints awarded for each attributeNumber of points reflects relative importance of the attribute


Scoring: Location of UseScoring: Location of Use

CAWCD’s elected representation and defined service area is limited to Maricopa, Pinal and Pima Counties

Staff will recommend that orders be scored based on their relationship to CAP’s service area

Large number of points for delivery inside SANo points for delivery outside SA

Staff does not recommend differentiation within CAP’s service area


8


Scoring: Facility TypeScoring: Facility Type

Credits are for future use, but storage at a GSF has an immediate benefit for the partner (facility operator)

Staff will recommend that orders earning a long-term storage credit be differentiated by facility type

Orders at GSFs awarded more points than at USFs


Scoring: Customer TypeScoring: 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 to transfer and sell recharge credits muddles the determination of intended use and “speculation”

SRP’s use of excess adds more complexity

Staff does not recommend differentiating based on customer type

Address speculation concerns with other meansMonitor activity, and reconsider if necessary


9


Scoring: Use HistoryScoring: Use History

New and significantly increased orders have impacted the overall excess pool

Some customers have been on a long-term plan, and do not believe it is fair to be reduced by newcomers

Some new customers argue that existing customers want to exclude their beneficial activity

Establishing a baseline can be subjective

The further out in time, the less relevant


Scoring: Use HistoryScoring: Use History

Staff proposes that orders be scored on use history At or below ’06—’08 max, many pointsA modest step above max (e.g., 120%), some pointsA large step or new customer, no points

History would be used as a relative, not absolute factor


10


Scoring: OtherScoring: Other

The scoring approach allows both specific and broad policy objectives to be preferenced

Factors can be added or adjusted as circumstances change

Other factors are under considerationStaff may recommend awarding points for storage at facilities that are CAP recovery partners


Scoring SummaryScoring SummaryPoints

________AllCustomer Type

SSSSS"""Small increase

SSSSSSSSNew, or large increase

SSS"""""Less or equal to past

Use History

SSSSSSS"AllOther Policy

SSSS¡"""Credit @ USF

SSS"""""Credit @ GSFFacility Type

"""""""" Inside SALocation

SSSSSSSSOutside SA

AttributeType

Note, min & max apply to all orders

Point values not yet

determined!


11


Scoring ExamplesScoring ExamplesPoints





Use History





SSSSSSSSOutside SA

AttributeType Points





Use History





SSSSSSSSOutside SA

AttributeType

Example #1. Existing customer orders same as past, to earn credits at a USF in Pima County

History: """""

Facility: """

Location: """"""""

Note, min & max apply to all ordersNote, min & max apply to all orders

Example #3. Existing customer orders same as past, to earn credits at a USF in La Paz County

History: """""

Location: SFacility: """"

Point values not yet

determined!

Example #2. New customer, to earn credits at a GSF in Pinal County

History: S

Location: """"""""

Facility: """""

Step 5:Step 5:

Reduce Orders Reduce Orders Based on ScoreBased on Score


12


Reduction ApproachesReduction Approaches

Fully fill higher scoring orders; lower scored orders receive de minimis

Cutbacks are concentrated on lower-scored orders

Or…

Reduce based on score; lower scored orders reduced at a higher rate

Cutbacks are shared, but lower-scored orders reduced at greater rate


Reduction ExamplesReduction Examples

Fully fill higher scored orders

9

8

3

7

2

1

6

54


13


Reduction ExamplesReduction Examples

Reduce based on score

High Score Middle Score Low Score

SummarySummary


14


Pool ComparisonPool Comparison

Ag SettlementPool

400,000 af

Full Cost

IncentiveRecharge

AWBA & CAGRD RR

Current

AWBA & CAGRD RR

Credit-EarningPoolNon-Credit

Pool

Ag SettlementPool

400,000 af

Proposed

Set Annually

Fully Filled

Reduced-to-fit based on scoring

DiscussionDiscussion


15

Send comments & questions to

Ken Seasholes ([email protected])


planning assumptions the following slides were presented ......1 access to excess cap water, 2010 &...

Documents