Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-04 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda PacketAMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2550 (Voice) 24 hours in advance. NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956 I.ROLL CALL II.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Members of the public are invited to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. State law generally precludes the UAC from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication. III.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting held on August 7, 2019 IV.AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS V.REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS VI.GENERAL MANAGER OF UTILITIES REPORT VII.COMMISSIONER COMMENTS VIII.UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None IX.NEW BUSINESS 1.Discussion of Proposed Upcoming Resiliency Work Shop Discussion 2.Discussion of Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan Discussion 3.Discussion of Updates to Customer Programs to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption Discussion 4.Discussion of Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Discussion Treated Wastewater Transfer 5.Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Action NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: October 2, 2019 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - The materials below are provided for informational purposes, not for action or discussion during UAC Meetings (Govt. Code Section 54954.2(a)(2)). Informational Reports 12-Month Rolling Calendar Public Letter(s) to the UAC UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION – REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 – 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Palo Alto City Hall – 250 Hamilton Avenue Chairman: Michael Danaher  Vice Chair: Lisa Forssell  Commissioners: Donald Jackson, A.C. Johnston, Greg Scharff, Lauren Segal, and Loren Smith  Council Liaison: Tom DuBois Presentation Presentation Presentation Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 1 of 9 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Danaher called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Segal, and Smith Absent: Commissioner Scharff ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Smith remarked that a follow-up discussion regarding the use of out-of-state Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) is needed. Commissioner Johnston moved to approve the minutes of the August 7, 2019 meeting as presented. Commissioner Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Segal, and Smith voting yes and Commissioner Scharff absent. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS None. GENERAL MANAGER OF UTILITIES REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, delivered the General Manager’s Report. State Proposes $33M in New Funding for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure – Tonight on your agenda is an update on the City’s electric vehicle programs. One of the items we highlight is a new potential funding source, announced just last month, from the California Energy Commission (CEC) for electric vehicle charging equipment. The CEC is partnering with local energy agencies in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, including the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU), to help accelerate installation of workplace and public charging stations. This project, which is expected to launch in spring 2020, is an initiative of the California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP), which aims to develop and implement regional incentives to support statewide adoption of EVs. CEC is proposing $33M in matching funds to these local agencies, pending approval by their respective governing boards or city councils. By leveraging local investment, CALeVIP funds will further expand EV charging accessibility in the region. Special Nissan Leaf Rebates for Palo Alto Utilities Customers – The American Public Power Association (APPA) is partnering with Nissan and public power utilities to offer rebates on Nissan Leaf electric vehicles. FINAL Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 2 of 9 For a limited time only, through September 30, public power utility customers and utility employees are eligible for rebates on the 2019 Nissan Leaf Standard and 2019 Nissan Leaf ePlus. This offer cannot be combined with the discounts on EVs offered through the Bay Area SunShares program. Try an Induction Cooktop For Free – CPAU is offering a new program in partnership with Acterra that allows customers to test out an induction cooktop. Customers can request a cooktop loaner kit for free by emailing greenathome@acterra.org or calling our Utilities team at (650) 329-2241. The 2018 Mayor’s Green Business Leader Awards - On August 19, the City and Mayor Filseth honored 13 companies with the Mayor’s Green Business Leader Award. This award honors the exceptional efforts of Palo Alto businesses that have earned a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Energy Star Certification, a U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Certification, or both in 2018. This year, we honored 13 companies with a total of 34 buildings, representing over two million square feet of very efficient commercial floor space in Palo Alto. Upcoming Events – please visit cityofpaloalto.org/workshops for details and registration on all our events. • Free SunShares Workshop – September 21, 10 am-noon at the Palo Alto Art Center - Attend a free workshop to learn about the benefits of the Bay Area SunShares program, which offers discounts on rooftop solar and electric vehicles. At the workshop, we will share tools and resources to help you install solar and/or start driving emissions free. • Bay Area Home Electrification Expo - Palo Alto is partnering with cities and energy agencies in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties to host the first ever Bay Area Home Electrification Expo. The Expo will give residents and business in the area an opportunity to learn about switching from fossil fuels to clean electricity for transportation, cooking, water heating, space heating and clothes drying. There will be two events for attendees to choose from; one in the evening in Palo Alto at the Mitchell Park Community Center on October 10 or one during the day on October 12 at the Tech Interactive Museum in San Jose. Fiber to the Home Request for Proposals (RFP) – Commissioner Smith assisted staff with revising the RFP, which has been submitted to the City Attorney for review. Hopefully, the RFP will be released within the next two weeks. Underground Utilities in the Green Acres Neighborhood – Staff will present a report to the City Council on September 16. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Proposed Upcoming Resiliency Workshop. Debra Lloyd, Acting Assistant Director of Utilities Engineering, reported the second workshop will focus on developing action items. The workshop will likely be scheduled for the UAC meeting in either November or December. Guest speakers could be local experts. Potential topics are microgrids, a second transmission line, public communications as part of emergency preparedness and during widespread outages. Commissioner Segal felt the use of small breakout groups was productive in the first workshop. Action items should be clearly defined and include tradeoffs if the goal of the workshop is to develop projects and priorities. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 3 of 9 Vice Chair Forssell suggested staff from the appropriate departments would have the most relevant and specific knowledge to share with participants. The workshop should be weighted toward obtaining participants' feedback rather than speaker presentations. Commissioner Johnston concurred with using the workshop to develop a prioritized list of projects, and staff should prepare a finite list of projects that address the issues raised in the first workshop. Staff can provide more useful information than outside experts. Perhaps staff can share best practices or useful solutions learned through real-life disasters. Chair Danaher recommended materials clearly state whether the workshop will focus on acute, near-term disasters or mid and long-term issues. Following the workshop, staff may wish to share with the UAC the actionable and useful takeaways from the workshop. Commissioner Smith commented that preparations for an acute disaster often apply to long-term issues. A logical goal for the workshop is developing a list of five to ten key projects that would increase the resiliency of the City of Palo Alto. ACTION: None ITEM 2: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan. Tom Ting, Electric Engineering Manager, reported the risk factors for wildfire include rising temperatures, vegetation density, terrain, and drought conditions. The primary focus of the Wildfire Mitigation Plan (Plan) is to prevent overhead electric lines from causing wildfires. In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) initiated development of a statewide Fire Threat Map. Publicly owned utilities received a copy of the draft map and assessed their service territories for accuracy. In 2018, the City's consultant classified all areas within the city limits west of Highway 280 as Tier 2-elevated risk. The classifications are Tier 1-moderate risk, Tier 2-elevated risk, and Tier 3-extreme risk. The CPUC updated General Order 95 with more stringent construction, inspection, and maintenance requirements for areas with a high fire threat. Staff presented the information to the Council, and the Council determined that the area within the City's jurisdiction had a high fire threat. Section (12) of Senate Bill (SB) 901 requires all utilities to prepare a Plan that must be reviewed by a qualified, independent evaluator and presented to utilities' governing bodies at public meetings. Staff has revised the Foothills Fire Mitigation Plan prepared by the Fire Department and Urban Forestry Division to address utility-related issues. Staff has informed the Urban Forestry Division of the more stringent requirements and increased the frequency of inspections and maintenance. Staff is exploring methods to de- energize the one electric circuit that extends into the Foothills and to communicate information to customers. Staff is reviewing construction practices to replace, rebuild, or reinforce the Foothills electric line, two-thirds of which is located overhead on wood poles. In addition, staff is drafting metrics to ensure the Plan is effective. In response to Commissioner Johnston's inquiries regarding a timeframe for developing processes and procedures, Ting advised that work on processes and procedures will follow completion of the Plan, which is scheduled for the end of the year. In reply to Chair Danaher's query about additional UAC review, Ting indicated staff will present the Plan to the Council without further review by the UAC. In answer to Vice Chair Forssell's question of whether a timeline for implementation of Plan processes is required, Ting related that the Plan must be completed and presented to governing bodies before January 2020. There is not a requirement to prepare a timeline, but the Plan contains a timeline for activities that staff wants to complete. ACTION: None Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 4 of 9 ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Updates to Customer Programs to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption. Hiromi Kelty, Utility Marketing Program Administrator, reported the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). LCFS was designed to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels through a goal of reducing carbon emissions from transportation by 10 percent by 2020. Electric utilities that provide electricity to charge electric vehicles (EV), such as CPAU, are eligible for LCFS credits based on the number of EVs in the utility's territory. The utility is required to monetize the credits and use the funds to benefit current and future EV drivers in California. CARB approved CPAU's participation in LCFS in 2014 and has been allocating credits to CPAU since that time. In 2015, the value of credits was approximately $250,000. In 2018, the credits were valued at $1.5 million. After obtaining stakeholder feedback, staff launched the EV charger rebate program for schools, nonprofits, and multiunit dwellings in 2017. Funds are also utilized to host ride-and-drive events and workshops. CPAU has installed 14 Level 2 EV chargers and launched an online EVPV calculator and a residential transformer upgrade rebate program. Staff has spent approximately $150,000 of LCFS funds, and $3.5 million is available for future programs. Fifty-three public ports have been installed, and the City's fleet includes four all-electric vehicles. Customer surveys conducted over the past few years found 15 percent of Palo Alto households own or drive an EV; one in three new vehicles in Palo Alto was an EV in 2017; 73 percent of EV owners charge them at home; 26 percent of solar customers own an EV; seven out of ten current EV drivers indicated they were likely to obtain a second EV; and 82 percent of these customers said they drive an EV because it is better for the environment. Of the 85 percent of Palo Alto residents who do not own or drive an EV, 37 percent are considering an EV, but 35 percent of the 37 percent do not feel they will have access to charging at home. Seventy percent are very interested in their next vehicle being an EV if EV charging is readily available. Forty- five percent would be more likely to lease or purchase an EV if a rebate is available. Ten thousand Palo Alto households or 42 percent of households live in multiunit dwellings. The lack of home charging is a major barrier to residents who live in multiunit dwellings adopting EVs. Staff prefers to fund EV chargers that are shared and used by multiple people throughout the day. Based on customer feedback, staff will focus on programs for vehicle rebates and expansion of EV charging infrastructure in order to accelerate EV penetration. Proposed expenditures include $5.1 million in rebates for EV chargers installed at multiunit dwellings, low-income housing, nonprofits, and mixed-use properties; $1 million as matching funds for the CALeVIP grant; $1 million for point-of-purchase EV rebates; $1.3 million for single-family home utility connection fee rebates, all-electric home rebates, and education and outreach expenses; and $0.3 million to explore EV rebates for low-income households. The City Manager approved changes to the EV charger rebate program in August. Over the next three years, staff hopes to install at least 250 new ports, increase the number of EVs registered at multiunit dwellings, and reduce transportation-related emissions by 1,000 metric tons per year. The strategy for engaging stakeholders includes a meeting with community members on August 29; emails to residents regarding the UAC discussion; outreach through the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce; commercial customer newsletters and meetings; and one-on-one contact through existing programs. In November, staff will present the CALeVIP grant to the Council. The update of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) in 2020 will provide an opportunity for evaluation and public discussion of additional programs. In response to Commissioner Segal's inquiry regarding the loss of parking spaces at multiunit dwellings when charging infrastructure is installed, Kelty explained that multiunit dwellings are not subject to ADA requirements; therefore, the loss of parking spaces is not a barrier to installation of charging infrastructure. Owners of multiunit dwellings did not participate in the August 29 meeting. Staff and the consultant will contact owners of multiunit dwellings about future workshops. Arthur Keller commented that the point-of-purchase rebate program will generate revenue for CPAU. Time- of-use metering should be considered a method for promoting EV charging. Vehicle-to-grid concepts will be the next phase. Staff should update EV infrastructure policies. Commissioner Segal suggested staff also focus on increasing daytime charging. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 5 of 9 Vice Chair Forssell supported the focus on multiunit dwellings and public charging stations. In many cases, Level 1 chargers will be sufficient for multiunit dwellings. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's question regarding the rationale for requiring approval of Level 1 chargers, Kelty explained that Level 1 chargers charge EVs too slowly to allow the turnover of vehicles. Vice Chair Forssell hoped staff would embrace a variety of charging options for multiunit dwellings. She expressed concern about funding the installation of DC fast chargers as they may not be broadly applicable to the community. Kelty advised that EVs coming onto the market typically have DC fast-charging capabilities as a standard feature. Vice Chair Forssell cautioned staff not to overestimate the need for DC fast chargers. The rebate for low-income purchasers could be utilized for used EVs, in which case DC fast chargers may not be applicable to them. Kelty related that the CALeVIP program will support shared Level 2 chargers and Level 3 chargers accessible to the public 24 hours per day. In answer to Commissioner Jackson's query regarding the likelihood of rebates incentivizing multiunit dwelling owners to install charging stations, Kelty related that property owners have reported increasing demand for charging stations and expressed interest in the rebate program. In response to Commissioner Jackson's inquiry about developing a rebate program for single-family rental homes, Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, indicated the percentage of single-family rental homes is significantly lower than the overall percentage, perhaps 20-25 percent. Kelty added that staff is not planning a program for renters of single-family homes at the current time. Commissioner Johnston was delighted for the City of Palo Alto to be a leader and a model for EV adoption. The ability of residents in multiunit dwellings to charge EVs is critical. In many multiunit developments, parking spaces are assigned. Installing a charger for each unit can be prohibitively expensive. Shared chargers require shared parking spaces. He questioned whether there was a method to address these issues. Kelty explained that many owners of multiunit dwellings are willing to consider reconfiguring parking or removing some designated parking in exchange for rebates and once they realize the cost of installing one charger is not that much less than installing 20 chargers. Most owners are installing chargers in guest parking spaces. Commissioner Johnston wanted staff to place more emphasis on installing charger infrastructure at workplaces. Kelty stated commercial and industrial customers will be eligible for the CALeVIP grant. DC fast chargers placed in certain locations could be beneficial for commuters, residents of multiunit dwellings, and Uber and Lyft drivers. Abendschein added that facility owners are more concerned about the priority of improvements than funding. Staff will increase advocacy with key accounts and explore ways to reduce barriers to installing chargers. In addition, staff will review rate structures to encourage workplace charging. In response to Commissioner Smith's questions regarding LCFS funds, Kelty reported the balance of LCFS funds is currently $3.5 million. The $8 million balance is the total of all funding from 2015 to 2021. With funds from the point-of-purchase program, the grand total will be approximately $9 million. One of the challenges of spending LCFS funds is educating property owners about installation of EV chargers. Hopefully, the technical assistance program will increase the number of EV charger projects. Another challenge is the number of parking spaces required for each development. Staff is exploring rebates for panel upgrades at single-family homes and for all-electric homes that include EV chargers. Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, advised that large vehicles in the City's fleet cannot be electric. Over time, cars and small pickup trucks in the City fleet will be replaced with EVs. As the number of City EVs increase, the number of chargers will have to increase. Alan suggested a program offer rebates for panel replacement that involves an intelligent feeder to the house. Kelty reported she has not seen an intelligent panel on the market and asked anyone with information about available smart panels to share it with her. In reply to Chair Danaher's request for information about the Genie program for commercial and multifamily buildings, Kelty clarified that the technical assistance program will be available to multiunit dwellings, nonprofits, mixed-use buildings and small to medium businesses. Chair Danaher suggested staff implement Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 6 of 9 a technical assistance program for large commercial buildings. Kelty indicated the installation of 10-20 chargers simultaneously could reduce the cost per port. Shiva Swaminathan, Senior Resource Planner, added that companies are blanketing parking lots with chargers and utilizing adaptive charging. Kelty explained the fees associated with network chargers. The high fees can discourage the adoption of EVs. Abendschein advised that the question about network chargers is whether the charger or the EV will respond to demand response signals. Swaminathan indicated network charging companies are no longer providing chargers at no cost to municipalities. Staff is not developing incentives for network charging companies but looking for grant programs that are accessible to private companies. Chair Danaher requested an update in three to four months ACTION: None ITEM 4: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer. Herb Borock remarked that the agenda description should have indicated an action item. The executive summary in the staff report refers to future water shortages, but they were not mentioned when the City gave a portion of its water supply to the City of East Palo Alto. The Measure E site is not an appropriate location for a recharging facility. Selling the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP)is not a good idea. Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner, recalled presenting the UAC with a Business Plan for the Phase III pipeline project, which is an extension of the existing non-potable water distribution system to Stanford Research Park. In November 2018, staff presented the Phase III project and other potential water reuse projects identified in the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) to the Council. In April 2019, staff held a public meeting to provide more details and gather public input about the potential options. Palo Alto's potable water is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), approximately 85 percent of which is taken from the Tuolumne River. The City utilizes approximately 10 million gallons of water per day at a cost of approximately $2,000 an acre foot. Local water reuse from the RWQCP could provide about 50 percent of Palo Alto's water demand, but significant investment is needed for water treatment and conveyance. Purple pipe is a non-potable water distribution system, and the water can be used for landscape irrigation, industrial processes, and toilet flushing. Indirect potable reuse (IPR) involves injecting purified water into an aquifer and withdrawing it as groundwater and consuming it as potable water. Direct potable reuse (DPR) involves injecting purified water into a distribution system. The State has not developed regulations for DPR. Approximately 5 percent of wastewater is used to produce non- potable recycled water. Protecting the Bay is one of the Council's top priorities. The Bay benefits from water reuse. The Strategic Plan addresses the exploration of water reuse within the service territory. Water reuse can be categorized as non-potable reuse (NPR), satellite non-potable reuse, IPR, and DPR. Satellite non- potable reuse has been eliminated as a potential City project because it is cost prohibitive. However, private companies may consider satellite non-potable reuse projects. Staff estimates the cost of both SFPUC water and groundwater extraction at $3,000 per acre foot in 2030 Phil Bobel, Public Works Assistant Director, advised that the first part of a potential agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) involves Valley Water funding a small salt removal plant at the RWQCP to enhance the quality of recycled water produced at the RWQCP. The second part of a potential agreement involves the transfer of approximately half of the RWQCP's effluent to Valley Water for reuse in the South County. Valley Water would likely utilize effluent for IPR first and DPR second. Under the potential agreement, the amount of water reuse would increase from 1,000 acre feet to 14,000 acre feet. The parties to the agreement would be the Cities of Palo Alto and Mountain View and Valley Water. The minimum flow delivery would be 9 million gallons of water per day (MGD) or 10,000 acre feet per year. The contract term would be 76 years. The salt removal plant would be owned and operated by Palo Alto and located on the RWQCP site. Valley Water would contribute $16 million of the $20 million projected capital cost. Valley Water would fund and own a purification facility. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 7 of 9 In reply to Chair Danaher's question regarding the rationale for the water supply option, Bobel explained that the option would require Valley Water to make water available to Palo Alto or Mountain View at cost. In answer to Vice Chair Forssell's query regarding the amount of water provided and requested under the agreement, Bobel clarified that the 10,000 acre feet of effluent transferred to Valley Water would be provided by the RWQCP. Palo Alto's portion of the 10,000 acre feet of effluent is almost the same as the 3,500 acre feet Palo Alto could request under the water supply option. Staff will negotiate terms with the smaller RWQCP partners in 2020. The RWQCP would transfer effluent, while Palo Alto would receive potable water under the water supply option. In response to Chair Danaher's request for projections of water demand, Dailey indicated the projections indicate demand will decrease slightly. SFPUC has a contractual obligation to provide 184 MGD to all wholesale customers in perpetuity. If SFPUC cannot obtain sufficient supply from the Tuolumne River, it would have to purchase water and pass the cost to wholesale customers. The future cost of water and pressures on the source are unknown. Valley Water has not made plans for the use of the effluent; therefore, the effluent could possibly be returned to the RWQCP. Base water supply for drought years and normal years are different, and staff needs to analyze options for both. The potential agreement with Valley Water is unique in that Valley Water does not contract with individual agencies for water. The water supply option is a tool for Palo Alto to address the unknown future of water supply. Valley Water participates in many water supply projects, which could provide water to Palo Alto under the water supply option. If Valley Water constructs a purification plant in Palo Alto, it could provide water to Palo Alto under the water supply option. Bobel added that If Valley Water wheeled water supply through another entity, such as SFPUC, the wheeling costs would be part of the cost to Palo Alto. The water supply option allows Valley Water and Palo Alto to keep their options open. Bobel further reported a number of people at the public meeting wanted to ensure strong environmental benefits are associated with the potential agreement. The only real constraint to the potential agreement is the City relinquishing control of half of the RWQCP effluent for 76 years. The water supply option was negotiated in response to that constraint. Garth Hall, Valley Water, remarked that the concept of desalinating recycled water is compelling. Valley Water has operated a plant similar to the one contemplated under the agreement since 2014. Reducing the salinity of recycled water has contributed to the increased usage of recycled water. Effluent from the RWQCP will advance Valley Water toward its goal for water reuse, avoid Valley Water's use of imported water, and decrease the salinity of groundwater. Gary Kremen, Valley Water Board Member, commented that Palo Alto would receive $1 million per year and the opportunity to participate in Valley Water's diverse water supply. If the Bay Delta Plan is approved, the Tuolumne River water supply will be reduced. In reply to Chair Danaher's query regarding the contract terms, Mr. Kremen indicated Palo Alto would pay the same cost as other agencies in North County under the water supply option. Chair Danaher preferred Palo Alto's cost to be the average water cost of Valley Water projects. Mr. Kremen felt the assurance of future water supply is more important than cost. Dailey clarified that Palo Alto could purchase groundwater from Valley Water at the same rates other agencies pay for groundwater. The City would not utilize the water supply option as the first alternative supply. Valley Water manages the groundwater basin quite well. In preparing the Strategic Plan, staff identified sustainable yield numbers for groundwater that met approximately half of Palo Alto's needs without causing adverse effects. Arthur Keller, speaking as an individual, noted the cost for NPR could be $6-$85 million. IPR is not as feasible as NPR for Palo Alto because the closest recharge location is in Cupertino. Palo Alto residents may object to hard water obtained through IPR or DPR. The City does not need 3 MGD of non-potable water. The City should Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 8 of 9 clearly indicate its desire for 3 MGD of potable water. The City will need 3 MGD of potable water in the event of a major supply break from the SFPUC. Dave Warner did not understand how water reuse would reduce the amount of water taken from the Tuolumne River. Dailey explained that Palo Alto's and Mountain View's use of recycled water would increase if its salinity is reduced, which would reduce the use of Tuolumne River water. In addition, the amount of imported water would be reduced. Mr. Warner felt that reduction would be a small amount of water. From a reliability perspective, the benefit of transferring effluent to Valley Water is not immediately obvious. Chair Danaher suggested a discussion of the tentative agreement return to the UAC in October or early November and Commissioners identify areas of concern in the time remaining. Abendschein clarified that a Council study session on the agreement is scheduled for September 23. Dailey added that the staff presentation for the study session would be the same as that presented to the UAC. In January, the UAC will review the Strategic Plan and make a recommendation to the Council. The potential agreement is following a different track because staff wants to apply for State funding, and the deadline to apply is December 31. Depending on Council feedback during the study session, staff could present the potential agreement to the Council in November for approval. In answer to Chair Danaher's inquiry about the UAC providing input regarding the potential agreement, Councilmember DuBois expressed interest in having UAC feedback and the UAC providing feedback to individual Councilmembers. Dailey noted the Council packet is released two weeks prior to the date of the Council meeting, which would be around the time of the UAC's November meeting. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's query regarding the Strategic Plan, Dailey advised that staff will not seek UAC input regarding specific concept options in the next three months. In response to Commissioner Johnston's question about the City's rights to water, Bobel reported the agreement will not affect the City's existing rights to obtain water from SFPUC or to pump groundwater. Commissioner Johnston felt some of the local water reuse projects are quite interesting, and DPR should be explored further. Bobel explained that the 50 percent of retained effluent will accommodate a pilot project for DPR. Large-scale DPR is not infeasible because the City can exercise the water supply option to get the same amount of water back from Valley Water. In answer to Chair Danaher's question of the amount of potable water obtained from the effluent transferred to Valley Water, Bobel indicated approximately 3 MGD. The City would transfer 3 MGD of effluent to Valley Water and in 16 years could request Valley Water provide 3 MGD of potable water. In reply to Commissioner Smith's queries of whether Strategic Plan concepts concern primarily piping and of whether the capital cost could exceed $20 million, Dailey clarified that it is development of the concept options, which include treatment and conveyance. Bobel indicated the $20 million was a best estimate and included a small amount for escalation of construction costs. Valley Water would pay Palo Alto $1 million per year for each year it receives the effluent. Under the agreement, Valley Water would not take the effluent for the first 13 years of the agreement. Dailey added that Valley Water would pay $200,000 a year until it takes the effluent. Valley Water will pay $16 million towards the local plant, which will reduce the salinity level of recycled water that is used in Palo Alto and Mountain View. Mountain View is currently using potable water for irrigation. With a decrease in the salinity of recycled water, Mountain View will increase its use of recycled water for irrigation. Under the water supply option, Valley Water would obtain the lowest cost water to provide to Palo Alto, and Palo Alto would pay the cost of the water. In answer to Chair Danaher's question of whether Valley Water's payment of $1 million is indexed, Bobel replied yes. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: October 2, 2019 Page 9 of 9 Vice Chair Forssell expressed support for the agreement. She inquired about energy use during water purification and the effect of sea level rise on groundwater. Mr. Hall reported Valley Water did not believe sea level rise would encroach into the groundwater basin in the 21st century. Dailey added that sea level rise could result in artesian wells. Bobel advised that some Bay experts are concerned that sea level rise could cause saltwater intrusion into the groundwater basin. The Strategic Plan states there will be an impact but did not quantify the impact well. The purification process is energy intensive, but energy usage could be adjusted to time of day. Batchelor advised that a continued discussion can be scheduled for the UAC's October meeting. Chair Danaher suggested Councilmember DuBois advise the UAC whether the Council wants input following the study session. Chair Danaher suspected the cost of water under the water supply option would be based on a particular project rather than a blended rate. Nina Hawk, Valley Water Chief Operating Officer, explained that Valley Water distributes its costs evenly. Valley Water does not provide an assured water supply to retailers. The water supply option is unique as is the partnership and the receipt of effluent. The water supply option provides a unique guaranty for Palo Alto. ACTION: None ITEM 5: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting. Vice Chair Forssell expressed interest in visiting CPAU facilities at some point, and wondered if other Commissioners shared her interest. Batchelor offered to notify Commissioners if there were future opportunities to join a tour. ACTION: None NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: October 2, 2019 Meeting adjourned at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 10 UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 2019 REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chair Danaher called the meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Scharff (arrived at 7:30 p.m.), Segal, and Smith Absent: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Commissioner Johnston moved to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2019 meeting as amended. Commissioner Segal seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 with Chair Danaher, Vice Chair Forssell, and Commissioners Jackson, Johnston, Segal, and Smith voting yes and Commissioner Scharff absent. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS None. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS None. GENERAL MANAGER OF UTILITIES REPORT Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, delivered the General Manager’s Report. The Home Efficiency Genie is Now an Award Winning Program – CPAU is proud to announce that we have received a National Energy Innovator Award for our Home Efficiency Genie program. I was honored to accept the award in June at the American Public Power Association (APPA) conference. The Genie program, which began in July 2015, has been recognized for its application of creative, energy-efficient techniques, technologies and successful simplicity. The program optimizes home efficiency by providing individually tailored energy and water efficiency recommendations to residents. By providing free advice over the phone, the Genie has become a trusted and reliable resource for our customers. The House Call assessment costs a resident $149, but that cost will be reimbursed when the homeowner completes one of the efficiency projects recommended by the Genie. Learn more at efficiencygenie.com. SunShares Solar and EV Group Buy Program Now Available - For the fifth year in a row, Palo Alto is participating in Bay Area SunShares, a solar group-buy program that allows residents in the Bay Area to pool their buying power and benefit from discounts on rooftop solar and electric vehicles. Learn more and register for the program at BayAreaSunShares.org from August 1 through November 15. DRAFT Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 10 Rebates for 2019 Nissan Leaf - Through September 30, CPAU customers and employees can receive rebates on the Nissan Leaf. The APPA has partnered with Nissan to offer rebates to public power utilities for purchasing a 2019 Nissan Leaf. The rebate cannot be combined with the SunShares program. Utility Meter Audits Beginning this Month - CPAU has contracted with Professional Meters, Inc. (PMI) to perform a field audit of all utility meters in the City. This audit is intended to help us prepare for the implementation of new business information systems and modernized metering infrastructure to improve the level of service we deliver to our utility customers. Contractors will be in residential and business areas beginning in early August. Customers will receive a notification in the mail prior to the audit with a date of when contractors will be in their area. CPAU contractors will be carrying ID badges, wearing shirts with their company logo, and driving vehicles identifiable as CPAU contractors. If there are any questions or concerns, people may contact Utilities Customer Service at (650) 329-2161. Preparing for Seismic Hazards & Other Emergencies – Communications staff worked with the City’s Office of Emergency Services on public outreach about earthquake safety and emergency preparedness following recent earthquakes in Southern California. Unfortunate incidents like these natural disasters remind us of the importance to be prepared for emergencies at any time. The City offers many resources at cityofpaloalto.org/preparedness to help people stay informed and ready. Municipal Service Center Open House – On July 5, the City hosted an Open House at the Municipal Services Center to showcase some of the “behind the scenes” work that we do for the Palo Alto community. The event included special project demonstrations from Utilities and other City departments along with games, prizes, music, food, and a dunk tank for City management. More than 400 attendees were able to visit with staff and learn about City services in a fun environment. Utilities Rate Changes - On June 17, City Council approved rate changes for the electric, gas, wastewater and water utilities, which became effective on July 1. CPAU provided public outreach during the rate proposal phase and after rates were adopted, including a Utility Bill Insert delivered to customers in July. We thank the UAC for their advisement on the financial plans and rate proposals this year. Walking and Mobile Gas Leak Surveys in Progress - This routine inspection of our gas distribution system is conducted every year to ensure the safety of all who live and work in Palo Alto. You can view a map of this year’s survey areas on the Utilities website at cityofpaloalto.org/utilities Utility Work at Churchill – In conjunction with the Caltrain electrification project, electric lines will need to be raised along the rail line. At Churchill, new holes for power poles were bored, and streets and sidewalks are being restored. Construction is scheduled for completion on Friday. Update of Utilities Strategic Plan – An update for the period January-June 2019 is available. At an all-hands meeting, CPAU employees received power packs and encouragement to join an internal working group. Fiber to the Node - On June 24, 2019, the City Council authorized staff to change the scope of work for the Fiber Request for Proposals (RFP) and to sunset the Community Advisory Committee. Hopefully, the RFP will be issued by the end of August. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 10 NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Renewable Portfolio Standard Compliance Strategy Options for the City's Electric Supply Portfolio. Jim Stack, Senior Resource Planner, reported in May and June staff presented a comparison of annual and hourly carbon accounting. The UAC seemed to agree that the hourly approach to carbon accounting is appropriate for CPAU because it is more granular and accurate. With UAC approval, staff will present an amendment to the Carbon Neutral Plan that the UAC may recommend the Council approve. Chair Danaher confirmed the UAC's consensus for an hourly carbon accounting methodology. Stack continued the presentation, stating in June staff presented a list of options for complying with Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements. Because load has been dropping in recent years, CPAU has a surplus of overall resources. Staff has suggested CPAU sell excess resources, which would result in an average savings of $1.2 million annually over the next 12 years. In reply to Commissioner Johnston's inquiry regarding the actions necessary to sell excess resources, Stack advised that staff would sell the output of the contracts to other utilities on a short-term basis. Once staff is aware of hydroelectric conditions and certain that excess resources will be available, staff will sell excess resources on a monthly or quarterly basis. Under existing policy, staff can implement the strategy upon approval. Commissioner Smith remarked that timing of the sale of resources is important. Chair Danaher confirmed the UAC's consensus for selling excess resources. Stack further stated the strategy of "carbon neutral every hour" would involve selling probably all solar resources, replacing them with baseload renewable resources, and changing the dispatching of hydroelectric resources. This strategy will be cost in the range of $7 million annually \. This strategy would likely not have a net impact on carbon emissions and could increase emissions. Staff recommends the UAC not consider this approach further. Chair Danaher confirmed the UAC's consensus for eliminating the "carbon neutral every hour" approach from consideration. Stack further recalled that staff presented a strategy of minimal compliance, which would result in significant cost savings. The strategy involves maximizing the replacement of in-state renewable resources with out-of- state resources and using banked Renewable Energy Certificates (REC). Given the potential public perception that CPAU's portfolio is dirtier than allowed under State requirements, staff recommends no further discussion of utilizing banked RECs. Commissioner Johnston noted his skepticism of using banked RECs and his agreement with selling resources in excess of load. In answer to Commissioner Johnston's question about the use of banked RECs, Stack explained that if staff sells only the resources in excess of load, CPAU would remain well above the compliance requirement, and the number of banked RECs would continue to increase. Commissioner Johnston suggested the UAC discuss selling some of the RECs. In reply to Chair Danaher's request for the number and market value of banked RECs, Stack indicated the number of banked RECs is 1.2 million. Their market value is roughly $25 million. To monetize banked RECs, staff would apply older banked RECs to requirements in 2020, for example, and sell RECs generated in 2020 to other utilities. CPAU would comply with its RPS requirement, but its Power Content Label (PCL) would reflect zero renewables for 2020 because RECs are not reflected in the PCL. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Utilities Resource Management, explained that CPAU cannot sell banked RECs directly. CPAU Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 10 could sell more of its in-state renewables or trade them for out-of-state renewables. Stack added that the State does not recognize the value of out-of-state RECs in the PCL. In answer to Commissioner Smith's query regarding the use of banked RECs in a programmed manner, Stack noted in June staff suggested using the RECs over 12 years. Each year, CPAU would appear to fall short of the compliance requirement, but in actuality CPAU would be in compliance through use of the previous year's RECs. Abendschein suggested the UAC hear the next component of staff's proposal and return to a discussion of banked RECs with that information in mind. Chair Danaher concurred. Stack continued the presentation, stating in 2003 CPAU began adding renewable energy supplies to its portfolio. For 2019, more than 60 percent of the portfolio is composed of renewables. Renewable energy supplies exceed the State's requirement by about a 2:1 margin. Because of the large amount of hydroelectric supply in its portfolio, CPAU qualifies for a State exemption such that the portfolio may contain less renewable supply than other utilities' portfolios. Vice Chair Forssell noted the amount of wind power and landfill gas power shown in the graph is diminishing and requested the reason for that. Stack advised that the decreasing amounts reflect the expiration of CPAU's contracts for those resources. Stack further reported staff does not recommend continuing the current compliance strategy, which generates on average a 10 percent surplus each year. One option is to sell a portion of excess supply to serve load or to comply with the Carbon Neutral Plan. Under this option, CPAU would retain 4.5 percent of the total surplus in order to maintain its carbon neutral status under the hourly accounting approach. Another option is to sell all renewables and exceed the RPS requirement levels and purchase bucket 3 resources or out-of- state renewables. Under this option, renewable resources or hydroelectric resources would equal 100 percent of load, but 25 percent of resources would be out-of-state renewables. The PCL would depict the out-of-state renewables as unspecified resources. If business as usual continues, supply costs would not change, and the RPS level would average about 60 percent over the next 12 years. The current portfolio would have negative emissions under the annual and hourly carbon accounting methodologies. Under the option to sell a portion of excess supply, CPAU would realize about $1.2 million in cost savings annually; the surplus would decrease from 10 percent to 4.5 percent; the rate impact would be approximately 0.7 percent; and the RPS level would decrease to 51 percent. An hourly carbon accounting methodology would result in no emissions, and the PCL would reflect negative emissions. The option to sell all renewables above the RPS requirement would generate an additional $1.9 million in savings for a total savings of $3.1 million. This option would have an approximate 2 percent rate impact, but the RPS level would decrease to 40 percent. Hourly accounting would result in an emissions intensity of approximately 137 pounds per MWh, but that could be offset with the purchase of additional bucket 3 RECs. The PCL would reflect 97 pounds per MWh. In reply to Commissioner Segal's inquiry regarding the use of cost savings, Stack related that the savings could be returned to customers through a rate reduction or applied to other types of decarbonization efforts. Stack continued the presentation, stating an emissions intensity of 97 pounds per MWh is much cleaner than the grid average, which is around 400 or 500 pounds per MWh. In response to Chair Danaher's query regarding adding information to the PCL, Stack indicated CPAU cannot add text to the PCL but can provide supplemental material to customers through bill inserts. Stack continued the presentation, stating a hybrid approach would allow customers to choose one of two or more rates, similar to the PaloAltoGreen program. Customers could select a premium rate based on the current portfolio or a more expensive "carbon neutral every hour" portfolio or a lower-cost rate based on the option to sell supplies that exceed the RPS requirement. Challenges to a hybrid approach are selection of Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 10 a default rate, public messaging, confusion and frustration for customers, uncertainty around supply needs; and implementation costs. Chair Danaher requested staff omit further presentation of the hybrid option as the UAC is not interested in it. Stack advised that staff will return to the UAC with a formal request for a recommendation to Council regarding an amendment of the Carbon Neutral Plan to allow an hourly carbon accounting methodology. Staff may return to the UAC with additional RPS strategies. If there is interest in pursuing an approach to sell more bucket 1 resources and purchase bucket 3 resources, staff will seek feedback from the environmental community. Staff will begin selling resources that exceed load and are not required for carbon neutrality. In 2020, staff will present longer-term decisions for the portfolio. Lena Perkins, Acting Senior Resource Planner, explained that current research indicates up to about 25 percent of trading of RECs within the western interconnect (WIC) has no net effect on total carbon emissions but does lower the costs of electricity across the interconnect. For the same impact on carbon, utilities can save $3 million a year by trading RECs. On a dollars per carbon basis, trading RECs is the most efficient option. If costs are kept low, more states and entities could potentially adopt RPS. Anecdotal and emerging research supports the theory that investors may retire nonrenewable power sources such as coal-fired plants sooner. Chair Danaher commented that if the choice is between buying in-state and out-of-state renewable energy resources, out-of-state would be cheaper. The disadvantage is the reflection of it on the PCL. Vice Chair Forssell understood the models are recommending a limit of 25 percent on bucket 3 RECs because the WIC would have flexibility to harvest financial benefits without affecting carbon emissions. Perkins clarified that California allows 15 percent of the RPS to be bucket 2 RECs, which are out-of-state RECs and RECs not scheduled in the Independent System Operator (ISO). Between buckets 2 and 3, California allows 25 percent of the RPS to be out-of-state resources. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's question regarding 25 percent of out-of-state resources, Stack believed the 25 percent number comes from the State limit on out- of-state resources rather than the research. In response to Commissioner Segal's query regarding bucket 2 and bucket 3 RECs in the pie chart, Stack indicated the pie chart assumes no bucket 2 RECs but maximizing the amount of bucket 3 RECs. Staff could present an option to sell even more bucket 1 RECs and purchase bucket 2 RECs. In reply to Commissioner Segal's request for the rationale, Perkins explained that the UAC has expressed concern that the public could view it as backtracking. Abendschein added that the full range of options presented in June are theoretically on the table. Commissioner Scharff remarked that selling a portion of excess supply is preferable to continuing the current portfolio. He suggested selling all renewables is better for the environment, but the public perception is worse. Stack clarified that selling all renewables is a better option if the cost savings are used to implement local decarbonization efforts. In answer to Commissioner Scharff's question of which option is superior from an environmental point of view if the cost savings are not used for local decarbonization, Stack reported selling a portion of excess supply and selling all renewables are probably equivalent. In response to Commissioner Scharff's question of the issue being the public's perception of Palo Alto's electricity being carbon neutral, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, concurred. In answer to Commissioner Smith's inquiry of why selling a portion of excess supply is not as good as selling all renewables if cost savings are allocated to electrification infrastructure, Perkins reported the decision comes down to the amount of cost-effective carbon savings locally and the dollars per ton avoided locally. In reply to Commissioner Smith's query regarding the sale of a portion of excess supply leading to cost savings and the elimination of coal-fired plants and dirty power, Perkins agreed that it could lead to those results, but the sale of a portion of excess supply is more expensive than the sale of all renewables if local investments Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 10 are ignored. Commissioner Smith asked if it would be more expensive for the CPAU's retail customers. Perkins responded yes, $1.9 million more expensive for CPAU's retail customers and more expensive for other ISO and WIC customers overall. Commissioner Jackson advised that his perception in June was that Commissioners were more comfortable with the strategy of selling a portion of excess supply. He was apprehensive about the strategy to sell all renewables because of concerns about CPAU power not appearing carbon neutral. He wanted to review the research materials before reaching a conclusion. Commissioner Scharff suggested CPAU move immediately to a strategy of selling a portion of excess supply while staff explores the sale of all renewables. Staff could develop messaging that is not too complicated and that CPAU would continue to be green. Commissioner Johnston commented that Palo Alto residents are proud of CPAU being carbon neutral. CPAU needs a simple and persuasive explanation for the public. He expressed interest in learning the reaction of the environmental community to the strategies. He supported the sale of excess supply while staff explores a strategy to sell all renewables and messaging to explain the strategy. Commissioner Smith understood that buying RECs from other states spreads the knowledge that buying renewables is good for the planet, but the pounds of carbon by MWh is troublesome. CPAU can offset that with RECs, but offsetting does not represent CPAU's actions. Until the State changes the PCL to reflect out- of-state renewables, advocating for their purchase is difficult. Chair Danaher did not understand the significance of the state boundary in that solar power from San Diego is no more local to Palo Alto than wind power from Wyoming, and one does not provide greater savings for the atmosphere than the other. The UAC's responsibility should be carbon neutrality at the lowest possible cost. A monthly bill insert could state Palo Alto is carbon neutral and the percentages of renewable energy, and explain that CPAU is obtaining renewables from out of state. The bill insert could also explain the PCL by saying it is an accounting methodology that ignores clean energy purchased out of state and does not reflect the actual situation. He recommended staff not allow presentational issues to prevent a savings of $2 million for ratepayers if the options are equally green. He requested staff inquire about environmental groups' opinions regarding state boundaries and obtaining renewable energy. Commissioner Segal noted CPAU could save money by selling all renewables and could have a bigger net effect in whether greenhouse gases come from Palo Alto, Wyoming, or Missouri. If CPAU can cumulatively reduce emissions by retiring coal plants earlier, the messaging can state not only is CPAU keeping Palo Alto clean but it is contributing beyond Palo Alto's borders. Vice Chair Forssell was less concerned with the community's perception because she was unsure of the number of residents who read the PCL. She was more concerned about the public perception of Palo Alto as a role model. She expressed interest in taking another look at resources procured directly and being thoughtful about the mix of things CPAU is controlling more directly. Stack advised that staff will present some options around new contracts for wind or other resources next year when discussing renewal of the Western contract. Last year, staff reviewed options such as wind power from New Mexico, which appears to be low cost and a good complement to hydroelectric resources. Chair Danaher noted the 2017 PCL states the power mix as 100 percent hydroelectric and renewable. The column labeled California power mix states 34 percent natural gas and 4 percent coal. Clearly, the UAC supports selling a portion of excess supply and exploring the sale of all renewables. Commissioner Scharff felt the ability to state CPAU power is carbon neutral and to explain how it is carbon neutral is important. Support from environmental groups will be helpful. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 10 Abendschein indicated staff will consider the use of banked RECs in the context of a strategy to sell all renewables. ACTION: None ITEM 2: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Palo Alto's Water Supply Reliability. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Resource Management, reported CPAU has some opportunities in the coming year or two to review options for improving water supply reliability through Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Authority (BAWSCA). Staff wishes to obtain some sense of the value of water supply reliability to the community. Lisa Bilir, Resource Planner, requested feedback regarding the sufficiency of Palo Alto's water supply reliability during a drought and the amount customers are willing to pay for greater water supply reliability during drought. She requested the UAC's input regarding the community's interest in supplementing the current water supply reliability during drought. CPAU receives 100 percent of its potable water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). The City uses some recycled water at City facilities. CPAU has eight emergency water wells and seven storage reservoirs. During the last drought, the State mandatory cutback level was 24 percent, and water customers conserved 31.4 percent during the cutback period. Some temporary restrictions implemented during the drought became permanent restrictions after the drought. Since the last drought, water consumption has not increased to pre-drought levels. In 2019, BAWSCA customers' consumption has been approximately 8 percent lower than in 2013. In reply to Chair Danaher's question about high rainfall amounts contributing to reduced consumption, Bilir suggested the temporary restrictions that became permanent may have contributed to reduced consumption. Bilir further reported in the first half of fiscal year 2019 Palo Alto customers reduced their consumption by almost 11 percent from 2013 consumption. CPAU implemented a drought surcharge during the drought, but it has been removed. One of SFPUC's level of service goals is not to have more than a 20-percent cutback during a drought. SFPUC plans for an 8.5-year dry period based on actual conditions from the 1987-92 and 1976-77 droughts combined. During a drought, SFPUC allocates water approximately one-third to SFPUC retail customers and two-thirds to wholesale customers through the Tier 1 Plan. Water is allocated among wholesale customers through the Tier 2 Plan. Tier 1 and 2 Plans become effective when the SFPUC declares a 20-percent shortage. SFPUC did not declare a shortage in the recent drought because the State mandated reductions. In reply to Commissioner Scharff's request for additional details regarding SFPUC not declaring a shortage in the recent drought, Bilir explained that in an unprecedented move, the State set reductions for each urban retail water supplier in the state. Under the State reductions, Palo Alto was required to reduce usage by 24 percent. Staff does not believe the State will mandate reductions in the future. Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner, added that the State has indicated it prefers not to mandate reductions in the future. The State has moved toward a regulatory framework of conservation as a way of life. Bilir continued the presentation, stating CPAU usage levels have decreased slightly in 2019. A 23-percent reduction from the levels of 2018 or 2019 may be harder to achieve in the future because it would require reducing usage to a historically low level. The historical record indicates more serious droughts have occurred in the past and have lasted for ten or more years. With climate change as a factor, future water shortages may be more frequent and more severe. In answer to Chair Danaher's question about future reductions taken from the 2013 or 2018 usage levels, Bilir advised that the reduction would be based on water usage in the most recent non-drought year. The usage from the most recent non-drought year assumes many conservation measures. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 10 In reply to Commissioner Scharff's inquiry regarding the ability to comply with future reductions because of ongoing conservation measures, Dailey concurred in part that ongoing conservation does make future reductions difficult. If all users decrease consumption in a drought, the limited amount of water available will serve more users. CPAU will be subject to State regulations and will have to comply with some conservation targets. In answer to Commissioner Scharff's query regarding additional measures residents could implement, Dailey advised that the State will provide new targets that CPAU will have to meet over a long time period. CPAU will have to continue aggressive conservation measures. Vice Chair Forssell remarked that if all communities are reducing usage, the likelihood that a cutback is triggered decreases. Abendschein added that climate change and regulatory changes could offset the impacts of decreased consumption and lead to similar or worse drought cutbacks. Chair Danaher reiterated that a 23-percent cutback will be more difficult to achieve now than in 2013. Bilir continued the presentation by requesting the UAC consider the following questions: (1) is a 23-percent water use reduction during a drought enough supply reliability; (2) can the community sustain a 23-percent reduction; and (3) if Palo Alto could participate in a project that limited water use reductions to 20 percent or less, would the community be interested in such a program and at what cost to the community. BAWSCA has determined there will be additional water needs in dry years and identified strategies of water transfers and storage to meet the additional needs. In Palo Alto, water conservation and efficiency programs continue. Staff is investigating water reuse and use of groundwater. Preliminary studies estimate about 20 percent of the potable groundwater supply could be pumped; however, the use of groundwater may be restricted during multiyear droughts. Commissioner Smith questioned whether a decrease of 23 percent to 20 percent would be a significant reduction. Dailey advised that discussions have focused on a 5 percent change, such as 23 percent to 18 percent. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan implements different measures at different levels. In response to Commissioner Johnston's inquiry regarding the source of the additional water for which CPAU pays, Dailey indicated the source may be water transfers or water storage. CPAU could contribute funds to a water storage project and receive rights to use the water. BAWSCA has been focusing on projects for dry years versus projects such as a desalinization plant. Commissioner Scharff commented that providing feedback is difficult in the absence of a project. The water purification project at the Regional Water Quality Treatment Plant is a long-term and interesting project. Having more water security would be worth an additional cost. In his experience, the out years of water protection are the most expensive, and the marginal return on that often begins to deteriorate. Perhaps CPAU could build its own water storage facility. Commissioner Segal expressed interest in a breakdown of water usage between commercial and residential and between indoor and outdoor and whether an individual ratepayer has any control over how his conservation efforts are applied. Bilir related that 72 percent of water is consumed for indoor uses. Commissioner Smith commented that the discussion concerns making the community resilient against something that might happen. In answer to his query regarding the use of graywater for irrigation, Dailey indicated CPAU offers programs to assist customers with installing graywater systems and with lawn replacement. In response to his inquiry regarding encouraging programs that create a resilient community or that store water, Dailey reported CPAU will continue to pursue conservation programs. Water consumption for outdoor uses in Palo Alto likely exceeds the amount the State will mandate. The question for the UAC concerns whether SFPUC's level of service goal is sufficient for Palo Alto or does the community want additional water supply so that it does not have to reduce as much as required. Abendschein explained that the 23-percent cutback is relative to the usage level. The 23-percent cutback applies to the amount of water Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 10 imported; therefore, alternative water resources can reduce the amount of water imported and lead to compliance with the cutback. Commissioner Smith encouraged staff to explore creating or identifying alternative water sources. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's inquiry about mandated cutbacks being gradual, Bilir explained that SFPUC's Tier 1 and 2 Plans are in place for droughts that result in a 20-percent water shortage. SFPUC level of service goal is not to require cutbacks greater than 20 percent. A cutback could be 5 percent or 10 percent. The Tier 2 plan for allocating water to wholesale customers does not apply to shortages greater than 20 percent. If a shortage is declared greater than 20 percent, the allocation of water will have to be determined. Vice Chair Forssell requested time to discuss the issues with neighbors before providing input to staff's questions. Commissioner Scharff believed Palo Alto's landscaping infrastructure, particularly the canopy, should be protected. The amount of water consumption correlates directly to the size of residents' lots. Dailey explained that communities with more outdoor irrigation reduce consumption more. The extra 5 percent could be used for irrigation. She questioned whether the community would value being able to irrigate landscape an additional day per week during a drought. Commissioner Scharff felt most customers would support a 2 percent rate increase if they knew they would have water to protect the canopy. Chair Danaher expressed interest in having a ranking of projects based on cost effectiveness. Another cutback is going to be difficult to achieve. Perhaps staff could encourage the State to utilize a base year of 2013 for future cutbacks so that communities are not punished for ongoing conservation efforts. ACTION: None ITEM 3: DISCUSSION: Discussion of Outreach and Response Required for Wildfire Safety, PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff Program, and Local Outages. Catherine Elvert, Communications Manager, reported staff has been communicating with PG&E and other stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of PG&E's Public Safety Power Shutoff Program. PG&E has been communicating its plans to de-energize powerlines when conditions pose a high risk for wildfire related to utility infrastructure. CPAU takes electricity from PG&E's major transmission lines. If PG&E shuts down a major transmission line that serves Palo Alto, there could be impacts to CPAU's power supply. In the event of a statewide incident, Palo Alto could be impacted by rolling blackouts. CPAU is working with partners and other utilities to understand the program's effects; to establish clear communication with PG&E and protocols for PG&E's notifications; and to develop local communication plans to inform customers. PG&E hopes to provide a notice 24-48 hours in advance of a shutoff, but PG&E cannot guarantee this. The Foothills area is probably most at risk for wildfire conditions. CPAU will make decisions regarding the Foothills area based on the best interests and safety of customers and on staff's knowledge of infrastructure in the area. CPAU is taking measures to mitigate the potential for wildfire. Staff is developing a Wildfire Mitigation Plan, which may be complete by the end of the year. Chair Danaher advised that backup power sources for hospitals, public safety, and the like are in place. Perhaps PG&E could provide a map of the service area for each transmission line so that staff could make its own decisions. PG&E shutting down a transmission line 100 miles away from Palo Alto may impact the amount of power that is provided to Palo Alto's grid. In response to Commissioner Scharff's question about Palo Alto receiving all or no power, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, advised that PG&E may move reduced capacity among transmission lines such that cities along the transmission lines have rolling blackouts. In answer to Commissioner Segal's question about the Foothills area, Batchelor related that the line in the Foothills area is not a transmission line. It serves the 70 customers in the Foothills area. Staff will install a switch at the base of the line so that power can be shut off and will explore relocating the line. Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 10 In reply to Commissioner Johnston's inquiry about the amount of CPAU's electric generation and whether it is dedicated to specific uses, Batchelor indicated CPAU has four units that can provide 5 MW of service. On a typical day, customers utilize 180 MW. The generators require some power in order to start. He has asked staff to develop a cost for bringing 50-60 MW of power into the City. In response to Vice Chair Forssell's inquiry regarding the percentage of load that is commercial versus residential, Elvert responded 85 percent commercial and 15 percent residential. Commercial customers will likely provide the 25-30 percent curtailment. Dedicated key account representatives communicate directly with the responsible people at large business customers; therefore, CPAU should be able to shed load quickly by communicating with the large customers. ACTION: None ITEM 4: ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) at Future UAC Meetings. Commissioner Johnston suggested a discussion of recycled water include recycled water as an alternative water resource during a drought. Commissioner Segal requested information regarding the impact of recycled water on water quality and a tutorial regarding the rights to use utility poles and placement of wireless facilities on utility poles. In reply to Vice Chair Forssell's question, Dean Batchelor, Utilities Director, reported plans for a resiliency workshop are tentative. Chair Danaher requested an update regarding networking or futureproofing electric vehicle (EV) charging and an update regarding staffing. Batchelor advised that the number of vacant positions has dropped from 44-45 to 32. Critical positions have not been filled. The majority of vacant positions are in the Electric Utility. ACTION: None NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: September 4, 2019 Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Tabatha Boatwright City of Palo Alto Utilities MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION UTILITIES DEPARTMENT SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 Proposed Upcoming Resiliency Work Shop This is a discussion to determine topics for an upcoming Resiliency Work Shop. PREPARED BY: APPROVED BY: Tabatha Boatwright, Administrative Assistant ~' &A~u/;:6=/(;::::---- DEAN BATCHELOR Utilities Director 1 MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 SUBJECT: Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan This report is provided to inform the Utilities Advisory Commission about the Utilities Wildfire Mitigation Plan (Plan). The Plan is prepared to comply with provisions of California Senate Bill 901 (SB 901), which established new policies and programs to help address the increased risk of wildfires across the state, and amended Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 8387 to add requirements for wildfire mitigation planning. . BACKGROUND Devastating wildfires throughout the State of California have prompted electric utilities throughout the state to identify areas within their jurisdiction that are susceptible to power-line ignited wildfires and to take steps to prevent their occurrence. This Plan outlines the processes and activities undertaken by the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Department (CPAU) to mitigate the threat of wildfires associated with overhead electric lines and associated equipment owned and operated by CPAU. DISCUSSION Developing this Mitigation Plan is part of larger CPAU efforts related to wildfire. In 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission ordered the development of a statewide map (Fire-Threat Map) designed to identify areas where there is an increased risk for utility associated wildfires (Attachment A). Publicly Owned Utilities, including CPAU, participated in development of the Fire-Threat Map and performed the assessment of the geographical areas under their responsibility. For Palo Alto, areas within the city limits west of Highway 280 are rated as a high fire threat area: Tier 2 – Elevated Risk1 (Attachment B). This area west of Highway 280 was officially determined a significant risk for wildfire resulting from electric lines by the City Council in 2018, as part of a mandate from 2017’s SB 1028.2 That bill required the governing body of electric utilities to make a determination of wildfire risk, and approve mitigation efforts. 1 Tier level – the CPUC State Firemap assigns Tier levels to all areas of California based on their risk of wildfires. Tier 1: Moderate Risk – any area not designated Tier 2 or 3 Tier 2: Elevated risk – A greater likelihood of utility-associated wildfire that would impact people/property; and where enhanced utility regulations could be expected to reduce utility-fire risk Tier 3: Extreme risk – The highest likelihood of utility-associated wildfire that would impact people/property; and where the most restrictive utility regulations could be necessary to reduce utility-fire risk. 2 August 20, 2018 Staff Report: “Approval of Mitigation Measures Minimizing Risk of Wildfires From Overhead Electrical Lines Within the Foothills Area West of Highway 280” (9442) 2 In September 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 901. A section of the bill, amending Public Utilities Code Section 8387, directed California's electric utilities to develop wildfire mitigation plans related to power lines and equipment. Public electric utilities such as Palo Alto must annually prepare a Wildfire Mitigation Plan; receive an independent review to assess compliance and ensure it complies with all applicable rules, regulations, and standards; and present it to their governing body at a noticed public meeting for comment. A summary of the Section 8387 requirements is shown in Attachment C. The Mitigation Plan is a collaborative effort between the City 's Utilities, Fire, Public Works -Urban Forestry, Open Space, and Office of Emergency Services departments. Each department performs a critical role in preventing wildfires from occurring and communicating information to the public and outside agencies. The Mitigation Plan concentrates primarily on wildfires associated with overhead electric utility infrastructure but many of the activities overlap with general procedures for each department. The Plan will outline: • Roles and Responsibilities • Completed Fire Mitigation Tasks • Ongoing Fire Prevention Activities • Proposed Activities • Response to Fires • Community Outreach • Metrics to Measure Success of the Plan The Plan will be presented to Council for public comment in December 2019; PUC Section 8387 requires that this be completed by January 2020 and at least annually thereafter. Attachment: Attachment A: Map of CPUC High Fire Threat areas in California Attachment B: Map of CPUC Elevated Fire Threat area in Palo Alto Attachment C: Summary of Plan requirements from PUC Section 8387 Attachment D: Completed and Ongoing Wildfire Mitigation Activities PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: TOM TING, Engineering Manager -Electric HEATHER DAULER, Senior Resource Planner DEBRA LLOYD, Assistant Director Utilities Engineering -oB~D Utilities Director Attachment A Attachment B Map of CPUC Elevated Fire Threat area in Palo Alto Attachment C WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (PUC SECTION 8387) Requirement Statutory Language Persons Responsible An accounting of the responsibilities of persons responsible for executing the plan. Objectives of the Plan The objectives of the wildfire mitigation plan. Preventive Strategies A description of the preventive strategies and programs to be adopted by the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative to minimize the risk of its electrical lines and equipment causing catastrophic wildfires, including consideration of dynamic climate change risks. Evaluation Metrics A description of the metrics the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative plans to use to evaluate the wildfire mitigation plan’s performance and the assumptions that underlie the use of those metrics. Impact of Metrics A discussion of how the application of previously identified metrics to previous wildfire mitigation plan performances has informed the wildfire mitigation plan. Deenergization Protocols Protocols for disabling reclosers and deenergizing portions of the electrical distribution system that consider the associated impacts on public safety, as well as protocols related to mitigating the public safety impacts of those protocols, including impacts on critical first responders and on health and communication infrastructure. Customer Notification Procedures Appropriate and feasible procedures for notifying a customer who may be impacted by the deenergizing of electrical lines. The procedures shall consider the need to notify, as a priority, critical first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructure. Vegetation Management Plans for vegetation management. Inspections Plans for inspections of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s electrical infrastructure. Attachment C WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (PUC SECTION 8387) Requirement Statutory Language Prioritization of Wildfire Risks A list that identifies, describes, and prioritizes all wildfire risks, and drivers for those risks, throughout the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. The list shall include, but not be limited to, both of the following: (i) Risks and risk drivers associated with design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s equipment and facilities. (ii) Particular risks and risk drivers associated with topographic and climatological risk factors throughout the different parts of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory. CPUC Fire Threat Map Adjustments Identification of any geographic area in the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s service territory that is a higher wildfire threat than is identified in a commission fire threat map, and identification of where the commission should expand a high fire threat district based on new information or changes to the environment. Enterprise wide Risks A methodology for identifying and presenting enterprise wide safety risk and wildfire-related risk. Restoration of Service A statement of how the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative will restore service after a wildfire. Monitor and Audit A description of the processes and procedures the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall use to do all of the following: (i) Monitor and audit the implementation of the wildfire mitigation plan. (ii) Identify any deficiencies in the wildfire mitigation plan or its implementation, and correct those deficiencies. (iii) Monitor and audit the effectiveness of electrical line and equipment inspections, including inspections performed by contractors, which are carried out under the plan, other applicable statutes, or commission rules. Attachment C WILDFIRE MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS (PUC SECTION 8387) Requirement Statutory Language Qualified Independent Evaluator The local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative shall contract with a qualified independent evaluator with experience in assessing the safe operation of electrical infrastructure to review and assess the comprehensiveness of its wildfire mitigation plan. The independent evaluator shall issue a report that shall be made available on the Internet Web site of the local publicly owned electric utility or electrical cooperative, and shall present the report at a public meeting of the local publicly owned electric utility’s or electrical cooperative’s governing board. Attachment D COMPLETED AND ONGOING WILDFIRE MITIGATION ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TASKS City of Palo Alto Foothills Fire Management Plan The Foothills Fire Management Plan1 addresses a broad range of integrated activities and planning documents to address and mitigate the impacts of fire hazards in the Foothills area. The Fire Management Plan Update addresses the following key items: • Fire Hazard Assessment • Regional Evacuation Routes • Wildland Fire Management Recommendations and Mitigations • Recommendations for specific high-threat areas • Management Plan • Review of Municipal Ordinances • Staffing of the fire station closest to the Foothills • Implementation Plan and Identification of Potential Funding The plan was developed by the City of Palo Alto’s Urban Forestry, Fire, and Open Space staff in collaboration with, or with input from, various stakeholders including: Arrillaga Property: 500 Los Trancos Road CAL FIRE Friends of Foothills Park Grassroots Ecology (formerly Acterra) Los Altos Hills Fire District Los Altos Hills: ARES/RACES Los Trancos Water District Los Trancos Woods Neighborhood Menlo Park Fire District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PA Protect Our Open Space Palo Alto Hills Neighborhood Association Pony Tracks Ranch Portola Pasture Stables San Mateo County FireSafe Council San Mateo County Sheriff Santa Clara County Fire Department South Skyline Association Stanford Community Residential Leaseholders (SCRL) Stanford University Town of Los Altos Hills Vista Verde Community Association Woodside Fire Protection District 1 Available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61522 and last updated in January 2017 Attachment D High Fire Threat Area Identification In 2012, the CPUC ordered the development of a statewide map (Fire-Threat Map) designed specifically for the purpose of identifying areas where there is an increased risk for utility associated wildfires (Attachment B). Publicly Owned Utilities, though not under the jurisdiction of the CPUC, participated in development of the Fire-Threat Map and performed the assessment of the geographical areas under their responsibility. CPAU worked with local fire departments, the City’s Urban Forestry staff, communications companies, and the adjoining electric utility to identify the areas within the City’s jurisdiction that are at an elevated or extreme risk of power line ignited wildfire. The High Fire Threat Area in Palo Alto was identified as all areas within the city limits west of Highway 280 (see Attachment C) and is rated as Tier 2 – Elevated Risk. High Fire Threat areas require more stringent construction, vegetation management, and inspection requirements as listed in CPUC General Order 95 – Rules for Overhead Line Construction (“GO 95”). Though not governed by these rules, CPAU follows them as a minimum industry safety standard for construction of its electric lines. Public Utilities Code Section 8387 (SB 1028 (2017)2) SB 1028 mandated that the governing boards of local publicly owned electric utilities determine wildfires risk in certain geographic areas. Specifically, governing bodies are to determine whether any portion of an area within its jurisdiction has a “significant risk of catastrophic wildfire” resulting from the utility’s electrical lines and equipment. On August 20, 2018, the Palo Alto City Council determined that the area within City limits west of Highway 280 (Foothills area) is at significant risk of catastrophic wildfire resulting from electric lines. They also approved mitigation measures that Public Works and Utilities staff will implement to reduce the risk of wildfire. ONGOING FIRE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES Vegetation Management CPAU, through the efforts of Urban Forestry, meets or exceeds the minimum industry standard vegetation management practices. Specifically, CPAU meets the standards articulated in: (1) Public Resources Code section 4292; (2) Public Resources Code section 4293; (3) GO 95 Rule 35; and (4) the GO 95 Appendix E Guidelines to Rule 35 (See table below). These standards require significantly increased clearances in the High Fire Threat Areas. The rules establish a minimum clearance and a guideline for clearance distance at the time of trimming requirement between conductors and trees. Clearance distance at the time of trimming are discretionary guidelines. Urban Forestry will use specific knowledge of growing conditions and tree species to determine 2 As subsequently amended in 2018 and 2019, this code section replaced the risk determination requirement with a requirement for the publicly owned utility to prepare and annually update a wildfire mitigation plan, as well as submit the plan to the California Wildfire Safety Advisory Board. This requirement is ongoing. Attachment D the appropriate clearance distance. Urban Forestry will also clear ground vegetation around the base of a pole to minimize the chance of fires. Within the High Fire Threat Area, Urban Forestry performs an evaluation of every tree that has the potential to have branches strike, or the entire tree fall into, the overhead facilities. Urban Forestry performs more frequent and detailed inspections of any these trees, and in severe cases will work with the land owner to remove the tree. Table 1: Minimum allowable clearances of overhead primary (12,000 Volt) electric lines from vegetation, stipulated in CPUC General Order 95. Electric System Inspection CPAU meets or exceeds the minimum inspection requirements provided in CPUC GO 165 and CPUC GO 95, Rule 18. Pursuant to these rules, CPAU inspects electric facilities in the High Fire Threat Area more frequently that the other areas of its service territory. Additionally, CPAU staff uses their knowledge of the specific environmental and geographical conditions to determine when areas outside of the High Fire Threat Area require more frequent inspections. CPAU also uses infrared scanning of our facilities to detect problems before they reach a point of failure. If staff discovers a facility in need of repair that is owned by an entity other than CPAU, we issue a notice to repair to the facility owner and works to ensure that necessary repairs are completed promptly. CPAU works to ensure that all inspections within the High Fire Threat Area are completed before the beginning of the historic fire season, typically June 1st. CPAU monitors drought conditions and other relevant factors throughout the year to determine if inspections should be completed on a shorter timeframe. Future overhead electric line inspections in the High Fire Threat Area will be coordinated between CPAU, FIRE, URBAN FORESTRY, OPEN SPACE, and OES staff, as required, to ensure all needs are met. General Order 95: Rule 35 Appendix E Type of Clearance Minimum Clearance Clearance at time of trim (allows for tree growth between tree trimming) Radial clearance of bare line conductors from tree branches or foliage 1.5 feet 4 feet Radial clearance of bare line conductors from vegetation in the Fire-Threat District 4 feet 12 feet Attachment D Electric System Maintenance Maintenance work is identified through several methods including: • Visual Inspection by CPAU Staff – staff performs an annual visual inspection of all overhead facilities in the High Fire Threat Area. • Wood pole inspection and treatment program – staff contracts out to perform inspection and treatment of all wood poles in the city on a 10-year cycle. Poles identified for replacement are done so on a priority basis depending on level of deterioration. • Notification by other City staff or outside sources – staff will act as necessary on the identification of issues by CPAU staff, other City staff, outside utility sources (PG&E, AT&T, etc.) or citizens. Work is scheduled and accomplished as needed by CPAU or contract staff based on priorities set by CPAU. Training Staff within CPAU’s Engineering and Operations Divisions have received an overview of the development of measures to reduce the risk of power line-ignited fires. As of this first iteration of the Wildfire Mitigation plan, CPAU is developing related processes and procedures as applicable. Training will commence once these are finalized and will include general readiness requirements and guidance from FIRE. CPAU is reviewing and updating as needed the procedures to prepare for and respond to load shedding requirements due to influences outside of the City, i.e. high voltage transmission line outages. Load shedding may be required if the impact of deenergization of a transmission line impacts the stability of the transmission network. The determination is made by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) who makes the call to reduce electrical demand on the system. Depending on the amount of decrease required, load shedding could result in rolling blackouts for Palo Alto customers. Electric System Design/Operation • Reclosers – there are two reclosers on the electric distribution line in the Foothills Area. Both devices will automatically open when they sense the large amount of current that flows when a fault (short circuit) occurs on the line. Both can also automatically close (i.e. reclose) after a preset time delay. To minimize the risk of causing a fire, this reclosing capability is disabled on both reclosers and the circuit breaker at the substation. Before the recloser is manually/remotely closed, CPAU staff will patrol the lines to identify the cause, repair the line as needed, or ensure that the cause of the outage is no longer present. • Fuses – the fuses used in the High Fire Threat Area are “non-expulsion” type, meaning when they blow due to a fault, any hot metal of the fuse is contained within the fuse holder and does not fall to the ground where it could ignite dry vegetation. • Protective coordination – Staff has performed protective device coordination studies to ensure that a fault on the line is isolated as quickly as possible and the impact is limited to the Attachment D smallest area possible. This also aids during troubleshooting to identify the location and cause of the outage after it has occurred. • Staff Notification – staff will be notified when pending high fire threat conditions are identified. Deenergization protocols, in development, will be implemented. Page 1 of 6 3 MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT DATE: September 4, 2019 SUBJECT: Discussion of Updates to Customer Programs to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption _____________________________________________________________________________ Request This is a report to facilitate Commission and community input and discussion. No action is required. Background CPAU receives revenues from participating in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Program managed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)1 to fund electric vehicle (EV) related customer programs. LCFS regulations by CARB contemplate a wide range of uses of these funds, provided the spending is used to benefit current and future electric vehicle drivers in California 2. Council approved a plan for the use of LCFS revenues in October 2016 (Staff Report #7301), with the primary focus of the program being to promote EV charging and to educate the community on the benefit of EV transportation. They delegated authority to the City Manager to annually make changes to LCFS programs and implementation details. This plan is part of a broader City-wide collaboration on EVs involving the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU), Development Services, the Publics Work Department, and the Sustainability Office. These departments have worked together to develop and implement a portfolio of programs to facilitate the adoption of Electric Vehicles (EV) in Palo Alto. These actions are outlined in the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) with the overarching objective of lowering the community’s greenhouse gas emissions (Attachment A). Staff presented the current version of the EV SIP to the UAC in June 2019. Revenues from the sale of LCFS credits have increased annually since 2015, up from $0.25 million in 2015 to approximately $1.5 million anticipated in year 20183. Based on experience gained though implementing CPAU’s existing EV Rebate Program over the past two years, projections for increased funding levels, customer 1 CARB’s LCFS program overview is provided here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm 2 CARB regulations require CPAU’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard revenues generated from residential EV charging to be used to benefit current and future electric vehicle drivers in California. CPAU is also required to educate the public and customers on the benefits of EV transportation, and provide rate options that encourage off-peak charging and minimize adverse grid impacts (17 CCR Sec. 95491(d)(3)(A)(2) – (4)) 3 LCFS credits are allocated by CARB based on number of EVs registered in Palo Alto. As the number of EVs in Palo Alto increases from current levels of approximately 4,000 vehicles, LCFS revenues are also expected to increase through 2030, until the end of the current LCFS regulation. The market prices of credits have also increase from $90 in 2016 to $190 per LCFS credit in 2019. Page 2 of 6 feedback, and internal and external stakeholder input, staff is recommending to the City Manager an update to EV programs as outlined in this report. Commission and community input on these customer program proposals will inform staff to finalize and implement these programs. Some of these actions may require additional approvals from the City Council. Discussion A. Community Survey Results In 2018, staff with Commission input, conducted a residential survey on overall customer needs. Highlights of survey results relevant to EVs are summarized in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Highlights of the 2018 Residential Customer Survey Results Related to EV Adoption 4 B. Programs to Meet Community Needs Survey results demonstrated customer needs for EV programs in the following categories: 1. Rebates 2. EV Charging Infrastructure 3. EV Electricity Rates 4. Education and Technical Assistance Attachment B outlines a portfolio of planned and potential programs funded by LCFS that staff intends to implement to meet these needs and regulatory requirements. EV electricity rates could be implemented upon the implementation of advanced meters and upgrading of the customer billing system in the coming years (2023-24). In the meantime, an ‘all-electric home’ electricity rate is being developed for adoption in 2020 and will help facilitate EV adoption. Additional commercial EV charging rates are also under considerations 5. 4 More details of the survey and results could be found in the Utilities Advisory Commission Report dated 10/03/2018. 5 Due to the abundance of solar photovoltaic electricity mid-day, programs to encourage EV charging during these periods and discouraging charging during late afternoon and early evening peaking periods are under considerations. Use of LCFS funds to encourage such EV charging programs minimize the adverse impacts EV charging may have on the grid. Page 3 of 6 The list of programs was developed based on project ideas provided by both internal and external stakeholders. It is intended to serve all customers in Palo Alto, though strategies for each customer segment differ. Attachment B summarizes planned and potential programs by sector. The following programs serve the customer needs identified in the surveys and meet regulatory requirements: • Promote EV adoption by providing rebates for new EV purchases: Most customers list rebates as the most important factor that can facilitate their purchase of an EV. Currently Federal tax incentives of up to ($7,500) and State rebate program (up to $4,500 for battery EVs) are available to Palo Alto consumers. Customers of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) outside of Palo Alto have also been eligible for an $800 rebate, but CPAU has not instituted such a rebate. Recent updates to CARB’s LCFS regulations require utilities receiving LCFS funds to contribute a portion of those funds to a State-run rebate program that would replace utility programs like PG&E’s. As a “medium publicly-owned utility 6”, CPAU must contribute 20% of its LCFS credits 7 or credit proceeds from residential EV charging to this program when it is launched (likely by mid-2020), at which point Palo Alto and all California residents are expected to receive an additional EV point-of-purchase rebate of approximately $1,500. • Promote EV charging infrastructure: CPAU intends to devote most LCFS funds to expanding EV charging infrastructure. Funds will be used in a variety of ways: o The funds will be used to offset the cost of utility infrastructure upgrades triggered by residential customer EV installations. Nonprofits will be eligible for this service as well. o Rebates will be provided to multi-family units 8 to install EV charger infrastructure, and they will receive technical assistance as well. Staff intends to focus most of its LCFS expenditures on this sector to broaden charger access for this customer segment. EV charger installation in multi-family buildings is technically challenging and expensive, and the owners of these facilities often have less ready cash than large commercial customers and less in-house technical expertise. Nonprofits, who face similar challenges, will also be eligible for this service. o Some funds will be used as matching funds for a grant program. The California Energy Commission intends to fund a program to expand charging infrastructure in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. CPAU is partnering with Silicon Valley Power and several regional Community Choice Aggregators to participate in this program. See Attachment E for a press release describing the program. Staff intends to promote fast charging at neighborhood commercial centers and workplace charging through this regional rebate program. o Lastly, some funds will be used to promote charging infrastructure for the City’s fleet and for workplace charging at City facilities. • EV Education and Outreach: Staff will continue to engage in customer education and outreach, such as EV ride and drives, customer outreach, and resources and tools like online calculators. Some of this outreach will be funded by LCFS funds. 6 Title 17 CCR Sec. 95481(a)(41). 7 Regulation requires 20% of credits sales proceeds in CY 2019-2022 and 25% of sales proceeds 2023 onwards. The larger utilities are required to contribute a larger percentage of credit proceeds towards this point-of-purchase rebate program 8 Multi-family or multi-unit-dwellings (MUDs) are building structures that are designed to house several different families in separate housing units such as apartments and condominiums. Palo Alto is estimated to have 10,000 such units, along with 15,000 single family residential units. Page 4 of 6 C. Estimated Low Carbon Fuel Standard Fund Expenditures: 2019-2021 Attachment C provides a detailed estimate of program expenditures over the next three years. These expenditures are summarized in Figure 2 below. The major categories of anticipated expenditures are: • $5.1 million for providing technical assistance9 and rebates to install EV chargers and multi-unit dwellings (MUD), low income, non-profits and mixed-use properties. • $1 million for providing matching funds towards the CALeVIP 10 grant to install level 2 and level 3 chargers in the City – locations to be determined. • $1 million contribution to the state mandated program (Clean Fuel Rewards (CFR) program) to provide point-of-purchase rebates for EV buyers. • $1.3 million for suite of rebates and expenditure related to: a) single family home utility connection fee rebate, b) rebates for all electric homes, and c) education outreach and administration expenses. • $0.3 million to explore and provide EV rebates for low income households, in coordination with regional programs. Figure 2: Summary of 2019-2021 EV Program Expenditures – Estimated at $8.7 9 Council approved a contract (Staff Report#10287, 05/06/2019) with consultants who could provide a range of technical assistance for customers to design and construct EV chargers on their premises and assist apply for rebates with CPAU. 10 California Energy Commission (CEC)’s CALeVIP (California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project) offers incentives for the purchase and installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure at publicly accessible sites throughout California. Staff will be recommending to Council to utilize $1M of the LCFS funds as matching funds to receive an equivalent level of funding from the $33 million CALeVIP program that has been announced by CEC for implementation in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. See Attachment E for related press release. Page 5 of 6 Attachment D provides a draft outline of the LCFS program, along with proposed rebate levels and participation eligibility rules. These documents will be refined and developed further as implementation approaches for individual program components. D. Program Success Measures Staff propose the following measures to evaluate the progress and success of the program by 202211: • Provide rebates to facilitate installation of 250 charging ports to serve Multi-family, low income, non- profits, and mixed-use properties • Increase EVs registered at Multi-Unit Dwellings by 1,000 vehicles • Lower City’s transportation related emissions by 1,000 MT/year (0.3% reduction) by dispensing electricity from these charging stations. These measures focus primarily on the Multi-Unit Dwelling programs, which is currently the most developed. Additional measures may be adopted for other programs as they become established. E. Funding Sources Palo Alto has been successful in securing grants and state funding for EV programs from the following three sources: • LCFS – CARB’s Low Carbon Fuels Standards Program provides LCFS credits for dispensing electricity to EVs in Palo Alto. This source is anticipated to provide $1.5M+ per year in the coming years. • CALeVIP - California Energy Commission (CEC)’s CALeVIP (California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project) matching grant program, is expected to provide rebate funding to expand charging infrastructure. Staff plans to recommend to Council using $1 million of LCFS funds over the next 2-years to receive matching funds from the CALeVIP grant program 12. • BAAQMD – Bay Area Air Quality Management District grants being used to partially fund network of City’s public chargers. These grants have totaled $150,000 over the past five years 13. Due to the availability of these external funding sources, minimal CPAU rate payer funds have been used to cover expenses related to EV programs. The City’s General Funds are used to purchase fleet EVs as part of the City’s regular vehicle replacement program. Resource Impact Considerable staff effort will be expended to launch and implement these programs. A full-time staff from Resource Management will be assigned to manage these programs with assistance from consultants. In 11 Over three years staff anticipates providing rebate for 180 to 360 charging ports at 60 to 90 locations. Assuming each charger is able to meet the electricity needs of 2 EVs on average and each EV would displace ~2 metric tons of CO2 per year, 250 charging ports could help lower emissions by 1,000 MT. It is also estimated that such chargers could increase EVs at MUDs by 1,000 vehicles, and substantially meet the charging needs of 500 EVs. Vehicle registration data from DMV and usage data from the chargers will be utilized to develop these program measures. 12 Though the program plans are not final, the $1M in CALeVIP funds are expected to be utilized primarily towards high power level 3 charger installations. City’s matching funds of $1M is expected to be used for medium power level 2 chargers. 13 In addition to the City receiving BAAQMD grants, a number of Palo Alto business have also received BAAQMD grants. CPAU will continue to publicize grant opportunities and vehicle rebates available for residents and businesses. addition, installation of EV chargers will increase workload at the Development Center due to increases in permitting requests. Planning will also be affected with an increase in customers needing parking requirement reviews as it pertains to EV charger installations. Utilities Engineering and Operations are also likely to see an uptick in request to upgrade utility connections to accommodate EV charger installations. Utilities Customer Service may also see an increase in call volumes from customers seeking program information. These aspects will be considered, along with the level of demand these programs will generate in the coming months, when deciding on overall staffing needs. As the funding for these customer programs is expected to be substantially covered by LCFS and grant funds, the EV programs will have minimal retail rate-payer impact. Wide adoption of EVs and the resulting increased electricity sales may generate additional electric utility revenue, potentially defraying the need for retail rate increases. Policy Implications Proposed customer programs meet Council policy on greenhouse reductions as embodied in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. The use of LCFS and grant funding to implement these programs minimizes the impact to customer retail rates. The program meets Utilities Strategic Plan Priority #3 to utilize technology to improve customer experience and Priority #4 to use resources efficiently to meet customer service priorities. Under Priority#4, Strategy 4 and Action 2 states: Establish and implement a Distributed Energy Resources plan to ensure local generation (e.g. solar), storage, electric vehicles (EVs}, and controllable loads {like heat pump water heaters) are integrated into the distribution system in a way that benefits both the customer and the broader community. Efforts will be made to integrate smart EV chargers to respond to utility signals to meet the greater community and needs of the electrical grid. Attachments Attachment A: EV Sustainability Implementation Plan Key Actions 2018-2020 Attachment B: Customer Programs: Existing, Planned and Potential EV Programs by Sector Attachment C: Draft Allocation of Funds and Estimated Program Expenditures Attachment D: Draft Outline of CPAU's Proposed LCFS Program & Participation Eligibility Rules Attachment E: CALeVIP Grant Press Release 08-14-2019 . PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: HIROMI KELTY, Utility Marketing Program Administrator SHIVA SWAMINATHAN, Senior Resource Planner JONATHAN ABENDSCHEIN, Assistant Director, Resource Management --~~~~~,''toz ~t8o~~~d~z:------ DEAN BATCHELOR Director of Utilities Page 6 of 6 Accepted by Council on Dec 11, 2017, as a summary of the City’s work program under the S/CAP for 2018-2020 Page 9 of 10 GOALS Accelerate EV penetration for both PA-based & inbound vehicles Make “Going EV” more convenient and economical than using fossil fueled vehicles STRATEGIC MOVES Build out public and private infrastructure to support rising EV penetration, including anticipated local ownership of 4-6,000 EVs by 2020 (UTL, PW, DS, S) Evaluate incentives, outreach, policies, and financing options to stimulate charging infrastructure and EV ownership/use (UTL, DS) KEY ACTIONS EV1 - Publicize streamlined permitting and CPAU-funded transformer upgrades (DS, UTL) EV2 - Consider requiring EV Readiness and charger installation in existing buildings (DS) EV3 - Evaluate programs to expand EV charger deployment on private property, including rebates and financing options (e.g. on-bill financing, etc.) (UTL, S) EV4 - Develop a plan for expanding EV charging infrastructure in the public right-of-way and on publicly-owned property. (PW, DS, UTL, S) EV5 - Expand EV deployment in City fleet (PW, S) EV6 - Support regional EV group-buy programs (UTL) EV7 - Build public awareness of EV options through communications, RideAndDrive events, etc. (UTL, DS) KPIs: GHG emissions. EV penetration. 4 4 Rapier, Robert. “U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soared In 2016”. Forbes, 5 February 2017. ELECTRIC VEHICLES Powering transportation through Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) as opposed to fossil fuel powered Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles can significantly reduce GHGs and reduce climate pollution. The electric vehicle landscape is evolving rapidly as less expensive and longer ranged vehicles come on line. Because the largest portion of Palo Alto’s GHG emissions are from road transportation, Palo Alto is actively encouraging its residents and non-resident commuters to adopt ZEVs to help reduce its carbon footprint— through policies, incentives and provision of EV charging infrastructure. (Lead departments: Sustainability, Utilities, Public Works) EV Palo Alto has one of the highest EV ownership rates in the country - estimated by staff at 3-4% of registered vehicles. In 2016 Palo Alto surpassed Saratoga, Los Altos, and Los Gatos to become the #1 city in California by percentage of new vehicles that are electric. Following a 5% decline in sales from 2014 to 2015, U.S. EV sales jumped by 37% in 20164 and “range anxiety” is softening as 200-300 mile range EVs hit the market. ATTACHMENT A: EV Sustainability Implementation Plan Key Action Items Attachment B: Portfolio of Customer Programs & Definition of Terms Page 1 of 2 Attachment C: Proposed EV Programs and Draft Funding Allocations Estimates The Utilities Department is preliminarily proposing to devote Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Funds to the following programs for CY 2019 through CY 2021. These are estimates, actual expenditure could change considerably based on the customer demand for individual programs. The total expenditure of all programs would be within budgetary limits approved by Council annually. 1. Point of Purchase EV Rebates: In accordance with Section 95483(c) of CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard regulations, 20% of funds will be provided to the State to provide point of purchase rebates to EV buyers. Palo Alto share is estimated at $1M over 3 years. 2. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Rebates: Up to $3.7 million will be devoted to providing rebates for multi-unit dwellings (MUDs), non-profits, and schools, with rebate levels as described below, and up to $600,000 for new technical assistance program to be launched in fall 2019 1 to these customers. 3. Transformer Upgrades: • MUDs, non-profits, and schools - Up to $800,000 may be used to provide rebates when the installation of EV chargers necessitates a new electrical service or transformer upgrade. • Single-family homes - Up to $230,000 may be used to reimburse customers for utility connection fees when the installation of EVSE results in the need for a utility transformer upgrade 4. CEC Grant for Workplace Charging: Up to $1 million may be used as matching funds for the California Energy Commission’s CALeVIP (California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project) program to provide rebates for EV charging infrastructure (focus on publicly available Level 3 chargers at neighborhood centers and Level 2 workplace chargers, but multi-family buildings are also eligible). 5. Pilot Programs: Up to $150,000 may be used for EV-related pilot programs, to be approved by the Utilities Director or his designee. 6. Program Administration and Marketing: Up to $400,000 total over three years may be used for program administration, education, outreach, and marketing. 7. Other Programs to be Determined: Explore use of remaining funds ($680,000) for other EV-related purposes, subject to additional Council and/or City Manager approval, including but not limited to: a. All-Electric Home Rebates: Explore using up to $400,000 to provide rebates for equipment in all- electric homes related to EV charger installation. b. Program for Low-Income Residents: Explore using up to $300,000 to provide incentives to low- income customers for purchase of a used EV. c. LEV (Light Electric Vehicle) rebate program: Explore using up to $30,000 to provide rebates for e- bikes, e-scooters, e-skateboards and other LEVs. 1 EV Solutions and Technical Assistance Program Staff Report Page 2 of 2 CY2019-2021 Draft Allocation of Projected $8+ Million in Anticipated Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Funding Sector Program CY 2019 – 2021 Funding Goal All Palo Alto residents Funding for State-mandated, State-run Point of Purchase rebate program currently in development $1,000,000* TBD, will provide additional incentives for EV buyers Multi-family, Non-profits, and Schools Charger rebates $3,700,000 Install 200-400 EV charging ports at 60-90 locations supporting 1800-2400 vehicles, 10-20% of population Consultant for Technical Assistance $600,000 Transformer Upgrades $800,000 Non-residential (multi-family and City also eligible) Matching funds for CEC’s CALeVIP grant program providing rebates for private charging infrastructure. Expected to receive $1M from CEC. $1,000,000** Install Level 3 chargers at neighborhood commercial centers, fund 200-400 additional workplace chargers Single-family All-Electric Home Incentives $400,000** Reduce costs of single-family EV adoption and building electrification Reimburse utility connection upgrade fees $230,000 Low-Income Low-income EV purchase incentives $300,000** TBD, additional incentives for low-income EV buyers in PA All Administration $300,000 Promote EV adoption, other goals TBD as new pilots and programs are developed Education, Marketing and Outreach $100,000 Pilot programs $150,000 Other programs to be determined $150,000 LCFS FUNDING TOTAL $8,730,000 *State run point of purchase EV rebate program – Palo Alto required to provide 20% of LCFS credits sales proceeds ** These three programs will be explored and require additional Council and City Manager approvals 1 Attachment D: Draft Outline of CPAU’s Proposed LCFS Program & Participation Eligibility Rules DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 2019 City of Palo Alto Utilities Electric Vehicle (EV) Charger Rebate Program MULTIFAMILY and MIXED USE PROPERTIES 1. REBATES 1.1 Rebate amounts are up to $8,000 per Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) or EV charging port installed, and up to a maximum of ten (10) ports per multifamily or mixed use residential building within City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) service territory.** 1.2 Rebates are limited to a maximum of 75% of the total EVSE project installation cost. 1.3 Funds are limited to $80,000 per service address for the life of the program. 1.4 In the event a multifamily or mixed-use property owner finds that a new electrical service is needed to install EVSEs, and CPAU at its sole discretion determines that this is feasible, the program will credit the utility costs for providing this service by up to $100,000 per service address. a. To qualify for this incentive, the location shall install 10 ports or install 10 fully wired EVSE-ready outlets. b. In the event fewer than 10 ports are installed, a prorated reduction in rebate will be made available. For example, up to $50,000 reimbursement for 5 ports. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 2.1 EVSE must be installed in a shared parking location not assigned or dedicated to particular tenants or owners. EVSE will remain available to all tenants, owners, employees or guests. 2.2 Rebates are not provided for EVSE’s that are required by the City of Palo Alto’s Building Code. *** 2.3 Multifamily buildings must have a minimum of four (4) units. 2.4 EVSE installation projects will comply with all City of Palo Alto building codes and permitting requirements and any American Disability Act (ADA) requirements if applicable. 2.5 Rebates are limited to Level 2 EVSE's or higher with a minimum of 30A circuits. EVSE must be installed with a J1772 plug. 2.6 All applicants receiving a rebate shall post information about their EVSE on the US Department of Energy Alternative Fuel Data Center website: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/station/new 3. EXCEPTIONS 3.1 Two Level 1 chargers may be substituted for one Level 2 charger, with prior written approval from CPAU. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Add physical signage for easy identification of EVSE location. * Rebate is provided for each charging port. ** Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.14.420 and 16.14.430 Ordinance 5324. 2 DRAFT ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 2019 City of Palo Alto Utilities Electric Vehicle (EV) Charger Rebate Program SCHOOLS and NON-PROFITS 1. REBATES 1.1 Rebate amounts are up to $8,000 per Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) or EV charging port installed with a maximum of ten (10) ports 10 per service address.* 1.2 Rebates may cover up to 100% of the EVSE project installation cost. 1.3 Funds are limited to $80,000 per service address for the life of the program. 1.4 In the event a school or non-profit finds that a new electrical service is needed to install EVSEs, and CPAU at its sole discretion determines that this is feasible, the program will credit the utility costs for providing this service by up to $100,000 per service address. a. To qualify for this incentive, the location shall install 10 ports or install 10 fully wired EVSE-ready outlets. b. In the event fewer than 10 ports are installed, a prorated reduction in rebate will be made available. For example, up to $50,000 reimbursement for 5 ports. 2. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 2.1 EVSE must be installed in a shared parking location not assigned or dedicated to a particular individual. EVSE will remain available to members of the public or to all employees and guests. 2.2 Rebates are not provided for EVSE’s required by the City of Palo Alto’s Building Code. ** 2.3 EVSE installation projects shall comply with all City of Palo Alto building codes and permitting requirements and any American Disability Act (ADA) requirements if applicable. 2.4 Rebates are limited to Level 2 EVSE's or higher with a minimum of 30A circuits. EVSE must be installed with a J1772 plug. 2.5 All applicants receiving a rebate shall post information about their EVSE on the US Department of Energy Alternative Fuel Data Center website: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/station/new 2.6 If networked EVSEs are installed, CPAU shall be provided access to the EVSE charging information. 3. EXCEPTIONS 3.1 Schools are exempt from publicly posting EVSE locations for security reasons. 3.2 Two Level 1 chargers may be substituted for one Level 2 charger, with prior written approval from CPAU. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Add physical signage for easy identification of EVSE location, unless safety concerns preclude them. ∗ Rebate is provided for each charging port. **Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.14.420 and 16.14.430 Ordinance 5324 1 For Immediate Release August 14, 2019 State Proposes $33M in New Funding for Electric Vehicle Charging in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties California Energy Commission to help the Peninsula and South Bay keep pace with rapid adoption of electric vehicles Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, Calif. - The California Energy Commission is partnering with five local energy agencies to launch an incentive project for the installation of public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. As more Californians choose to drive EVs and the state transitions to an electric transportation system, there is a continued need for available charging stations. This is especially the case in Silicon Valley, which has the highest rate of EV sales in the state. The project, expected to launch in spring of 2020, is an initiative of the Energy Commission’s California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP), which works with local community partners to develop and implement regional incentive projects for charging infrastructure that supports the adoption of EVs statewide. Funding will span two to four years. The Energy Commission is proposing to provide $21 million in incentives to Santa Clara County and $12 million in incentives to San Mateo County. City of Palo Alto Utilities, Peninsula Clean Energy, San José Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Silicon Valley Power are pledging to contribute millions in matching funds to this effort, pending approval by their respective governing boards or city councils. By leveraging local investment, CALeVIP funds will further expand EV charging accessibility in the region. “This project will help provide the necessary infrastructure for the shift to a clean, electric transportation system statewide,” says California Senator Bob Wieckowski. “Adding charging options in convenient locations will make electric vehicles accessible for those unable to charge at home. This in turn will support a continued increase in EV adoption, allowing our communities to meet our climate goals, and helping everyone benefit from better local air quality.” “The lack of charging stations is one of the main reasons consumers are reluctant to make the switch to electric vehicles. We can’t move the needle on EV adoption unless we aggressively expand our charging infrastructure. This state and local funding partnership would not only support the current demand in the South Bay and Peninsula, but also help meet the needs of future EV drivers,” said Assemblymember Phil Ting (D -San Francisco), whose district includes northern San Mateo County. “The Energy Commission is excited to work with all our partners on this project to increase access to convenient charging for electric vehicles in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties,” ATTACHMENT E: 2 said Commissioner Patty Monahan of the Energy Commission. “By expanding the state’s charging network, CALeVIP projects like this one help the state transition to zero-emission transportation, provide cleaner air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” CALeVIP works to address regional needs for EV charging infrastructure throughout California, while supporting the state’s goals to improve air quality, fight climate change and reduce petroleum use. The incentive project will help increase the number of fast chargers and Level 2 chargers in public, workplace and multi-family housing locations, as well as along highway corridors. Fast chargers provide at least 100 miles of range per hour of charging, and some can charge a battery up to 80 percent in 30 minutes. Level 2 chargers provide 15-35 miles of range per hour of charging, which is enough for most day-to-day driving. California’s goal is to get 5 million EVs on its roads by 2030 to reduce carbon emissions and to support those vehicles by installing 250,000 chargers statewide, including 10,000 direct current fast chargers, by 2025. Santa Clara and San Mateo counties receive clean electricity from local energy providers that is at a minimum 80 percent greenhouse-gas free. Powering cars with electricity rather than fossil fuels dramatically reduces tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change and air pollution. CALeVIP funding and the matching funds from local agencies will help Santa Clara and San Mateo counties accelerate this transition, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, the leading source of emissions in Silicon Valley. CALeVIP has several regional projects throughout the state, including projects in Fresno, Sacramento and Southern California. CALeVIP and its regional projects are implemented by the Center for Sustainable Energy and funded primarily by the Energy Commission’s Clean Transportation Program (also known as the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program). ### About the California Energy Commission The California Energy Commission is leading the state to a 100 percent clean energy future. It has seven core responsibilities: developing renewable energy, transforming transportation, increasing energy efficiency, investing in energy innovation, advancing state energy policy, certifying thermal power plants, and preparing for energy emergencies. About the Center for Sustainable Energy The Center for Sustainable Energy® (CSE) is a nonprofit offering clean energy program administration and technical advisory services. With the experience and streamlined efficiency of a for-profit operation, CSE leads with the passion and heart of a nonprofit. We work nationwide with energy policymakers, regulators, public agencies, businesses and others as an expert implementation partner and trusted resource. EnergyCenter.org About City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) The City of Palo Alto is the only municipality in California operating a full suite of utility services, including electric and fiber optics, water, wastewater, natural gas, refuse and 3 storm drain services. Since 2013, the City’s electric supply portfolio has been carbon neutral. For more about CPAU’s EV programs, visit cityofpaloalto.org/EV About Peninsula Clean Energy Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is San Mateo County’s official electricity provider. PCE (www.PeninsulaCleanEnergy.com) is a public local community choice energy program that provides electric customers in San Mateo County with cleaner electricity at lower rates than those charged by the local incumbent utility. PCE is projected to save customers more than $18 million a year. PCE, formed in March 2016, is a joint powers authority made up of the County of San Mateo and all 20 cities and towns in the County. PCE serves approximately 290,000 accounts. www.peninsulacleanenergy.com About San José Clean Energy San José Clean Energy is the new electricity generation service provider for residents and businesses in the City of San José, operated by the City’s Community Energy Department. Governed by the City Council, it provides over 328,000 residential and commer cial electricity customers with cleaner, lower carbon power options at competitive prices, from sources like solar, wind and hydropower. For more information, please visit www.SanJoseCleanEnergy.org. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram @SJCleanEnergy. About Silicon Valley Clean Energy Silicon Valley Clean Energy is a community-owned agency serving the majority of Santa Clara County communities, acquiring clean, carbon-free electricity on behalf of more than 270,000 residential and commercial customers. As a public agency, net revenues are returned to the community to keep rates competitive and promote clean energy programs. Member jurisdictions include Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Saratoga, Sunnyvale and unincorporated Santa Clara County. SVCE is guided by a Board of Directors, which is comprised of a representative from the governing body of each member community. For more information, please visit SVCleanEnergy.org. About Silicon Valley Power Silicon Valley Power (SVP) is the trademark adopted for use by the not-for-profit electric municipal utility of Santa Clara, CA, serving residents and businesses for over 120 years. SVP provides power to nearly 55,000 customers, at rates 25 to 48 percent below neighboring communities. SVP is the only full service, vertically integrated publicly owned utility in Silicon Valley owning generation, transmission and distribution assets. See more at: http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Media Contacts City of Palo Alto Utilities Peninsula Clean Energy Catherine Elvert Kirsten Andrews-Schwind Utilities Communications Manager Sr Manager, Communications and Outreach catherine.elvert@cityofpaloalto.org kandrews-schwind@peninsulacleanenergy.com (650) 329-2417 (650) 260-0096 4 General inquiries: UtilityPrograms@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2241 Silicon Valley Clean Energy San José Clean Energy, City of San José Pamela Leonard Zachary Struyk Communications Manager Deputy Director, Account Management and pamela.leonard@svcleanenergy.org Marketing (408) 721-5301 x1004 zachary.struyk@sanjoseca.gov (408) 535-4868 Silicon Valley Power Kathleen Hughes Sr. Division Manager – Customer Engagement khughes@svpower.com (408) 615-6632 California Energy Commission Melissa Jones-Ferguson Melissa.jones-ferguson@energy.ca.gov (916) 654-4989 Center for Sustainable Energy Chuck Colgan chuck.colgan@energycenter.org (858) 244-1184 MEMORANDUM TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM: UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 SUBJECT: Discussion of Recycled Water Expansion Opportunities and Potential Regional Treated Wastewater Transfer RECOMMENDATION This is an informational report to facilitate Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) discussion on water reuse opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential regional transfer of treated wastewater effluent. Staff requests strategic direction from the UAC on both initiatives. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) is a local source of drought-proof, sustainable water, only a small fraction of which is currently being used for irrigation and toilet flushing. Investments in pipeline expansions and additional treatment facilities would increase the RWQCP’s ability to be a local water source to meet future non-potable and potable demands and decrease the City of Palo Alto’s (Palo Alto’s) dependence on imported Tuolumne River water. The City of Palo Alto is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. At its August 2018 meeting the UAC discussed a business plan for expansion of Palo Alto’s non- potable reuse irrigation network. In October and November 2018, the UAC and Council, respectively, held a study session on high-level wastewater reuse expansion opportunities that included non-potable and potable water reuse opportunities in Palo Alto and a potential treated effluent transfer to Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water). Since then, staff conducted a public meeting (April 30, 2019) to garner additional community feedback and continued to explore expansion opportunities through the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan), a collaborative project between Palo Alto and Valley Water. In parallel, Palo Alto and Valley Water, together with the City of Mountain View, have continued to negotiate the terms of a potential two-part agreement. 4 This report provides: (1) a description of the potential treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View (Attachment B). Under the potential agreement, Valley Water would contribute 80% (up to $16 million) toward a salt-removal facility to improve the RWQCP’s recycled water quality. Additionally, Palo Alto, Mountain View and potentially other RWQCP partners (Partners) who agree would provide a long-term flow of treated effluent to be used south of Mountain View, most likely for groundwater recharge, a form of indirect potable reuse (Table 1); and (2) an overview of the results from the Strategic Plan including cost estimates for water reuse “Concept Options” in Palo Alto. The Concept Options address local potable and non-potable uses for the recycled water and could provide between 200- and 6,100- acre feet of water per year at a cost ranging from $2,100 to $8,900 per acre foot (AF). 1 The Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report in Attachment C contains a summary and ranking of the Concept Options based on cost and non-cost criteria. Because a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water reduces Palo Alto’s ability to fully develop some of the Concept Options for local reuse, it is appropriate to consider the treated water effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water in that context. BACKGROUND Council Policy In November 2016 Council adopted the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Framework (Staff Report #7304) including four water-specific goals, all of which have implications for water reuse: 1. Utilize the right water supply for the right use; 2. Ensure sufficient water quantity and quality; 3. Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater; and 4. Lead in sustainable water management. Two relevant strategies identified in the S/CAP are: 1. Verify ability to meet Palo Alto’s long-term water needs; and 2. Investigate all potential uses of recycled water. Palo Alto’s Current Water Supply Palo Alto receives 100% of its potable water (about 11,000 AF per year or approximately 10 million gallons per day (MGD)) from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water 1 Large volumes of water are often measured in acre-feet (one acre of water one foot deep). One acre-foot is equal to 435.6 hundred cubic feet (CCF) of water or 325,828 gallons. System (RWS), operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). About 85% of the supply on the RWS is from the Tuolumne River with the other 15% sourced from local reservoirs. On August 20, 2018, Council voted unanimously that Palo Alto “express its support for the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Bay Delta Plan to have 30% to 50% of unimpaired flow in the San Joaquin Valley enter the Delta from February to June and associated Southern Delta salinity objectives.” Adoption of the Bay Delta Plan would reduce the amount of Tuolumne River water available to RWS customers, including Palo Alto, during dry years. The decision to support the Bay Delta Plan reaffirmed Council’s commitment to reduce the City’s dependence on imported water. Water reuse is one of a limited number of water supply alternatives to imported water. Description of the RWQCP Water Resource The RWQCP treats and discharges wastewater collected from the communities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Stanford University, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. In 2018, the RWQCP treated 19,447 AF of which 96% was discharged to the Lower South San Francisco Bay and 4% was treated further to produce high-quality recycled water for non-potable reuse in Palo Alto and Mountain View. The RWQCP currently has the treatment capacity to produce 5,040 AF per year (4.5 MGD) of non-potable reuse water, or 26% of the total wastewater treated in 2018. However, this water needs to be treated to a higher quality to attract more non-potable reuse customers; irrigators have expressed concern that the salinity of current recycled water produced has negative impacts for sensitive plants such as redwood trees. As a regional plant, only a portion of the total wastewater treated is owned and available for reuse by Palo Alto; this amount equals the volume of wastewater Palo Alto sent to the RWQCP for treatment. In 2018, this was approximately 38% of the total flow or approximately 7,600 AF (2,500 million gallons). More of this wastewater could be used as a local source of sustainable water for Palo Alto but would require investment in additional treatment and transmission infrastructure. Treatment Options One of Palo Alto’s water-specific goals as outlined in the S/CAP is to utilize the right water supply for the right use. Recycled water can be used for various demands based on its level of treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires more treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay; similarly, potable reuse requires significantly more treatment than non-potable reuse to ensure public safety when ingesting the water (Figure 1, Table 1, & Attachment A). The additional treatment needed to make the water potable is expensive and unnecessary if the water was to be used to meet irrigation, toilet flushing, or industrial process demands alone. There are different types of potable reuse including indirect and direct potable reuse. Indirect potable reuse involves purifying the water and introducing it to an environmental buffer, such as a groundwater basin, before sending it to the drinking water distribution system. There are several types of direct potable reuse including connecting purified recycled water to a potable water distribution system, and adding purified water to raw water upstream of a water treatment plant. Since Palo Alto does not have a water treatment plant, direct potable reuse in Palo Alto refers to the former. Recent droughts and advances in treatment technologies have driven regulatory development and public support for potable reuse. For example, many water and municipal agencies in southern California are pursuing potable reuse. The City of Los Angeles is pursuing a $2 billion indirect potable reuse project over the next 16 years that would reduce the City’s imported water by 35% and aid in meeting the recently announced goal to recycle all of Los Angeles’ wastewater by 2035.2 Similarly, the City of San Diego is pursuing direct potable reuse projects under the Pure Water San Diego Program that could provide roughly a third of San Diego’s water supply by 2035. While potable reuse is gaining momentum, the regulatory framework currently only exists for indirect potable reuse. Regulations to permit one type of direct potable reuse, adding purified recycled water upstream of a water treatment plant, are anticipated in 2023. There is no timeline for State regulations covering the direct connection of purified recycled water to the potable water distribution system. For that reason, implementation of direct potable reuse in California is not expected for at least 10 years. 2 https://www.lamayor.org/mayor-garcetti-los-angeles-will-recycle-100-city%E2%80%99s-wastewater-2035 Figure 1: Treatment Requirements for Production of Different Types of Water Reuse Table 1: Summary of Palo Alto Water Reuse Opportunities TYPE OF WATER REUSE REGIONAL TRANSFER NON-POTABLE REUSE INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE DIRECT POTABLE REUSE BRIEF DESCRIPTION Transfer of treated effluent from the RWQCP to Valley Water for additional treatment and reuse. Enhanced recycled water used for irrigation and commercial uses. Purified water introduced into an environmental buffer, such as a groundwater basin, before being sent to the drinking water distribution system. Purified water introduced directly into the drinking water distribution system. OPPORTUNITIES • Delivery of treated effluent to South County in about 10 years • Increases use of RWQCP recycled water regionally while limiting City-funded infrastructure • No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of Palo Alto users • Reduced county-wide reliance on imported water, surface water, and/or groundwater • Delivery of non- potable reuse water in 2-5 years • Clear regulatory obligations • Slightly reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water • Unlimited uses • Utilizes the RWQCP as a larger source of water • Clear regulatory obligations • No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of users • More potential to reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water • Unlimited uses • Utilizes the RWQCP as a larger source of water independent of groundwater use • No additional enforcement & administrative oversight of users • Significantly reduce City reliance on RWS & Tuolumne River water OBSTACLES • Significant amount of water would no longer be available for City use for 76-year contract term; however opportunity to work with Valley Water to develop alternative source if needed • Limited uses per regulations • Requires significant pipeline infrastructure and additional capital funds for salt removal • Requires significant enforcement & administrative oversight of users • Delivery of potable reuse water within 10-20 years • Requires significant additional RWQCP treatment processes • Requires significant pipeline infrastructure • Requires the use of groundwater with different aesthetic properties than current sources • Delivery of potable reuse water within 20- 40 years • Requires significant additional RWQCP treatment processes • Requires significant engineered storage • Regulations not yet developed • Public acceptance Water Reuse Planning Overview In December 2016, Council approved a contract with RMC Water and Environment (now Woodard & Curran) for the development of the Strategic Plan in collaboration with Valley Water (Staff Report #7024). City staff from the Public Works and Utilities Departments have worked closely with the consulting team and Valley Water to evaluate the most effective water reuse options within Palo Alto as well as within the RWQCP service area. All of the work under the Strategic Plan evaluated how best to implement the water-related sustainability goals adopted by Palo Alto in the December 2017 Sustainability Implementation Plan (Staff Report #8487). In parallel, Valley Water is developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan. One option under consideration is a treated effluent transfer from the RWQCP to Valley Water for further treatment and reuse in other parts of the County. Key terms of that potential contract are outlined in this report. Previous UAC and Council Feedback No official action has been taken by the UAC or Council regarding strategic direction for water reuse projects nor has any action been taken regarding a treated effluent transfer. Both the UAC and Council have expressed an interest in direct potable reuse and concerns about losing access to the effluent from the RWQCP for a long period of time. However, cost estimates for the various water reuse options were not provided to the UAC and Council in previous study sessions, and negotiations with Valley Water were preliminary. Public Feedback Palo Alto hosted a community meeting on April 30, 2019 to solicit input on the preliminary Strategic Plan results. Approximately 30 members of the public attended, and many attendees asked questions and made comments. During the meeting Palo Alto staff requested feedback on whether attendees were interested in expanded non-potable reuse and potable reuse options. Community members expressed interest in reducing reliance on imported water, and enhancing water conservation and efficiency to save water for the environment. Community members also expressed concern with the use of the Measure E site for a Valley Water regional purification facility. Discussion Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Tenets The potential treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View consists of two main parts described below. (At the time of preparation of this report, the parties are still negotiating the term sheet that would be used to prepare a draft agreement in the near future.) 1. Small Salt-Removal Plant at the RWQCP The first part of the potential agreement concerns the funding of a relatively small salt- removal plant at the RWQCP to upgrade the quality of the RWQCP’s current recycled water, used principally for irrigation in Mountain View. The water is also used for irrigation at a few Palo Alto municipal facilities and would enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system or provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto. Valley Water will fund 80% of the cost of the facility up to a maximum of $16 million. Mountain View and Palo Alto will share the remaining cost at a level of 75% and 25% respectively. Assuming a total facility cost of $20 million, Palo Alto’s share will be $1 million to be funded by the water and wastewater utilities. Because the project would likely be financed with a low-interest state revolving fund loan, the rate impact is expected to be minimal (a 0.15% water rate increase assuming funding by the water utility). Palo Alto would have up to 13 years to construct and commence operation of the facility. 2. Transfer of Treated Effluent to Valley Water for Use South of Mountain View The second part of the potential agreement with Valley Water and Mountain View is a transfer of approximately half of the RWQCP’s treated effluent for reuse south of Mountain View. Valley Water will likely purify the water and use it for groundwater recharge (indirect potable reuse). Eventually, the purified water could be injected directly into Valley Water’s treated water system (direct potable reuse). There are several relevant milestones established in the draft term sheet. Including that, Valley Water has 13 years to enable the transfer of treated effluent. Once the effluent transfer commences, Valley Water will compensate the Partners $1 million per year to be divided proportionally among the Partners based on the amount of effluent committed by each Partner. Delivery of effluent to Valley Water will be for a term of 63 years, long enough to economically justify the large capital investment and meet Valley Water’s long- term water supply planning objectives. Palo Alto and Valley Water staff is assessing the feasibility of constructing a large purification facility at or near the RWQCP including the former Los Altos Treatment Plant and a portion of the Measure E site. The draft term sheet also includes a unique water supply option for Palo Alto and Mountain View. Beginning one year after execution of the agreement, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may notify Valley Water that additional water is needed. Valley Water will then have 4 years to respond with a proposal. The cost of the water to be paid by the requesting city will include facility costs, commodity costs, any wheeling fees, and the incremental costs incurred by Valley Water to develop the proposal. Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will then have one year to accept or decline the offer. If accepted, Valley Water will have 10 years to deliver the water. If declined, Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will be able to make another request for water 5 years later. The water supply may be purified water from a regional plant or water from some other project. Palo Alto is not limited to this alternative for new water supplies and is investigating other water supply projects through the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency. Groundwater, managed by Valley Water, is currently available as an alternative and in the future. Additionally, while the reliability of imported water is in question given climate change and state regulation changes, the SFPUC is required by law to secure supplemental sources of water to augment existing supplies during dry years up to SFPUC’s wholesale contract obligation of 184 million gallons per day. Lastly, some of the Concept Options identified in the Strategic Plan could be implemented in parallel with a treated effluent transfer to Valley Water. Potential Treated Effluent Transfer Agreement: Environmental Benefits Compared to both indirect and direct potable reuse in Palo Alto, expanded reuse in the county via a treated effluent transfer agreement could yield environmental benefits in the relatively near term by keeping a significant amount of RWQCP effluent out of the Bay (another Council- adopted S/CAP goal: “Protect the Bay, other surface waters, and groundwater”) and by meeting critical water supply demands in other parts of the county with a sustainable water supply source, reducing the need for imported water. Valley Water is seeking to develop recycled and purified water to provide for at least 10% of the total County water demands by 2025; to achieve this, Valley Water needs to secure 24,000 AF per year of purified water, enough water to serve 74,000 Santa Clara County households. Locally, Valley Water funding for the small salt- removal plant will enable Mountain View to connect about 60 new commercial irrigation customers to the existing non-potable distribution system. Salinity reduction will also enable Palo Alto to expand its non-potable distribution system or could provide a first step toward small-scale potable water production for direct or indirect potable reuse in Palo Alto, all of which would displace imported Tuolumne River water. Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Results Any water transfer must consider the implications for potential future water reuse projects in Palo Alto and the Partner agency service territories. The results of the Strategic Plan indicate that multiple water reuse opportunities are feasible for Palo Alto to meet both near and long term water demands. Attachment C contains the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan including figures illustrating initial transmission pipeline alignments for the Concept Options evaluated and cost estimates which are summarized in Table 2; cost estimates represent the cost for individual Concept Options and do not account for any efficiencies that may result from combining Concept Options. Near term opportunities, those that could be implemented within five years, include non- potable reuse program expansion projects and satellite treatment for non-potable reuse projects. In contrast, long term opportunities that could be implemented include indirect potable reuse within 10-20 years and direct potable reuse implementation within 20-40 years. It should be noted that the opportunities are not all explicitly distinct from each other; it is possible to pursue a combination of near and long term opportunities. For example, non- potable reuse pipeline expansion Concept Options can be constructed in the near term while subsequent phases of potable reuse Concept Options can be planned and designed for future implementation. Table 2: Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Concept Option Cost Estimatesa,b Concept Option Number Brief Description Project Yield (AFY) Capital Cost ($M) Operations & Maintenance Cost ($M/year) Unit Cost ($/AF) Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo Alto 800 $47.8 $0.3 $3,400 A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothills & Los Altos Hills 1,100 $63.0 $0.5 $3,400 A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothillls & Los Altos 1,200 $85.1 $0.7 $4,000 A4 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline 200 $6.2 $0.1 $2,100 A5 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los Altos 900 $72.6 $0.4 $4,600 A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $20.7 $0.2 $2,400 Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $129.6 $1.4 $8,900 Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Optionsc C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $92.2 $14.8d $3,300 C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $152.1 $16.9d $4,000 C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline serving Palo Alto 5,900 $198.4 $15.8d $4,400 - Palo Alto Groundwater Usage without IPR 2,500 $37.7 $5.5d $3,000 Direct Potable Reuse Concept Option D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $104.6 $8.0 $2,500 aFor comparison, SFPUC (imported water) is currently $1,948/AF and is projected to be $3,000/AF in 2030. bCost estimates are AACE Class 5 for a project definition of 0 – 2% and have an expected accuracy of -20 to 50%. Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. cProject yield for IPR Concept Options represents half purified water, half groundwater. dOperations and maintenance cost estimates include the Valley Water Groundwater Production Charge. Non-potable Reuse (NPR) Concept Options Strategic Plan non-potable reuse Concept Options evaluated extensions of the current recycled water transmission system to various locations for toilet flushing, irrigation, and industrial process water demands within the RWQCP service area, including south Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, and East Palo Alto. Concept Options specifically for Palo Alto evaluated: • The Phase 3 Pipeline that would provide approximately 800 AFY of recycled water to south Palo Alto (Concept Option A1), and • The Phase 3 Pipeline expanded to provide approximately 1,100 AFY of recycled water to south Palo Alto and additional users in the Palo Alto foothills (Concept Options A2 and A3). Expansions to users in the Palo Alto foothills included pipeline extensions to users in Los Altos Hills (Concept Option A2) and Los Altos (Concept Option A3). Capital cost estimates for the non-potable reuse Concept Options serving Palo Alto users ranged from $47.8 - 85.1 million or $3,400 - 4,000/AF accounting for operations & maintenance (O&M). Satellite Non-potable Reuse Concept Option The Strategic Plan evaluated a satellite treatment Concept Option (Concept Option B1) consisting of a new wastewater treatment facility located in south Palo Alto that would collect and treat wastewater from the surrounding community to provide approximately 900 AFY of recycled water for non-potable reuse in adjacent facilities throughout south Palo Alto and Los Altos. The capital cost estimate of $129.6 million, or $8,900/AF with O&M, suggests that satellite treatment is cost prohibitive, and it is not recommended for further consideration. Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) Concept Options The Strategic Plan evaluated three indirect potable reuse Concept Options that consist of injecting purified wastewater into the aquifer below Palo Alto, extraction of that purified water mixed with groundwater, and blending with the Palo Alto potable water supply. All three Concept Options would require a purification facility at the RWQCP, transmission pipeline, injection wells, and the routine use of groundwater. • Concept Option C1 provides 5,900 AF of water for indirect potable reuse, half of which consists of groundwater and half purified water. • Concept Options C2 and C3 combine indirect potable reuse with meeting non-potable reuse demands. The combined Concept Options would utilize the same transmission pipelines for both reuse demands and therefore provide higher quality recycled water than that needed just for non- potable reuse. Concept Option C2 evaluated an extension of the Phase 3 Pipeline that could feed the injection wells for indirect potable reuse, while Concept Option C3 meets non-potable demands near the best alignment to feed the injection wells. Concept Option C2 indicates that it is feasible to build the Phase 3 Pipeline to meet both near and long term water supply needs. Capital cost estimates for indirect potable reuse within Palo Alto ranged from $92.2 – 198.4 million or $3,300 – 4,400/AF including O&M. Cost estimates include wellhead treatment of extracted water for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids such that the quality is comparable to current SFPUC water supplies. For comparison, the Strategic Plan estimates that it would require $37.7 million to install wellhead treatment at the existing emergency groundwater wells to provide 2,500 AFY (or $3,000/AF including O&M and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge) of groundwater (not purified wastewater) for routine usage in Palo Alto’s water supply. Preliminary studies show the City’s El Camino well is capable of producing 3,000 AFY. Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Concept Option Lastly, the Strategic Plan evaluated one Concept Option (D1) for direct potable reuse within Palo Alto. Concept Option D1 consists of a purification treatment plant, engineering storage, a short transmission pipeline, and injection of purified water directly into the Palo Alto potable water supply. The capital cost estimate for direct potable reuse within Palo Alto is $104.6 million to provide 5,300 AFY, or $2,500/AF including O&M. Results from the Strategic Plan indicate that Palo Alto could reduce future reliance on imported water by more than 50% by investing in potable reuse or a combination of potable and non- potable reuse (Figure 2). As mentioned previously, it is possible for Palo Alto to combine multiple Concept Options into a water reuse portfolio that would implement both non-potable (near term) and potable (long term) reuse opportunities. More important to note for this discussion is that both indirect and direct potable reuse opportunities within Palo Alto would require the full Palo Alto wastewater allocation and would be incompatible with a regional transfer. The exception to this would be a small-scale direct or indirect potable facility where the costs per unit may vary from what is described here due to economies of scale. As shown in Figure 2, a regional effluent transfer would not reduce Palo Alto’s dependence on imported water. Regionally, however, dependence on imported water would be curtailed. Figure 2: Potential Impacts to Amount of Palo Alto Imported Water Needed Under Different Water Reuse Opportunities Evaluated Under the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (sources: Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan & Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan). Concept Option Viability with Treated Effluent Transfer While a long-term treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water would reduce the capability for some Concept Options to be fully implemented, other Concept Options could be implemented in parallel with a transfer. The table below indicates which projects are and are not mutually exclusive with an effluent transfer. Generally, a transfer would not preclude non- potable reuse expansion projects. Indirect potable reuse requires expensive pipeline construction and, therefore, a significant amount of water for economies of scale, so those Concept Options would be excluded for the proposed 76 year term of the transfer. Direct potable reuse, on the other hand, could be developed on a pilot scale. Table 3 shows the Concept Options and their viability given a treated effluent transfer agreement. Table 3: Summary of Concept Option Viability with Effluent Transfer Concept Option Number Brief Description Project Yield (AFY) Unit Cost ($/AF) Implement in Addition to Treated Effluent Transfer A1 Phase 3 Pipeline serving south Palo Alto 800 $3,400 Yes A2 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothills & Los Altos Hills 1,100 $3,400 Yes A3 Phase 3 Pipeline Extended to Foothillls & Los Altos 1,200 $4,000 Yes A4 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline 200 $2,100 Yes A5 Mountain View Long Term Expansion Pipeline Extended to Los Altos 900 $4,600 Yes A6 East Palo Alto Pipeline 500 $2,400 Yes B1 Serving south Palo Alto & Los Altos 900 $8,900 Yes C1 IPR serving Palo Alto 5,900 $3,300 No C2 IPR & NPR serving Palo Alto 6,100 $4,000 No C3 IPR & NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline serving Palo Alto 5,900 $4,400 No - Palo Alto Groundwater Usage without IPR 2,500 $3,000 Yes D1 DPR serving Palo Alto 5,300 $2,500 Small scale project possible but cost estimates may vary Strategic and Policy-level Questions for the UAC to Consider 1. Should Palo Alto enter into a treated effluent transfer agreement with Valley Water? 2. Is the UAC likely to recommend the siting of Valley Water’s purification facilities on City- owned land potentially including a ballot initiative to utilize a portion of the Measure E site? 3. Which Concept Options would the UAC recommend to Council for further development in the near future? 4. Which Concept Options would the UAC recommend to Council for further development longer term? NEXT STEPS This report, with a summary of tonight’s UAC discussion, will be presented to Council on September 23, 2019. Members of the public are encouraged to attend the meetings or submit their input through letters or emails to the project team, UAC and/or Council Members. Depending on the direction received, staff will return to the UAC and Council with a recommendation regarding further development of a subset of water reuse Concept Options which will then be included in the City’s overall water supply portfolio plan. If the UAC and Council are supportive of the proposed terms and conditions in the draft term sheet for the effluent transfer agreement, Council approval of the agreement will be sought by the end of 2019. POLICY IMPLICATIONS While there is no recommendation at this time, expanding the use of recycled water would be consistent with the Sustainability Climate Action Plan Framework {Staff Report #7304), the Sustainability Implementation Plan {Staff Report #8487), and the Council's decision to support the Bay Delta Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The UAC's review of the Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan does not require California Environmental Quality Act review, because the review does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code 21065. ATTACHMENTS A. Recycled Water Reference Sheet B. Draft Summary of Key Terms for Potential Transfer Agreement with Valley Water C. Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: Samantha Engelage, Senior Engineer, Public Works Karla Dailey, Senior Resource Planner, Utilities Karin North, Watershed Protection Manager, Public Works Phil Sobel, Assistant Director, Public Works Jon:'.7chein, ssistant Director Utilities, Resource Management Brad Eggleston Director of Public Works Dean Batchelor Director of Utilities   RECYCLED WATER REFERENCE SHEET (last updated 9/7/2016) WATER REUSE OPTIONS NONPOTABLE REUSE is the beneficial reuse of recycled water for irrigation,  industrial uses, or other non‐drinking water purposes.   POTABLE REUSE is the use of recycled water for potable uses, such as  drinking. This recycled water is purified to meet or exceed federal and state  drinking water standards.  INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (IPR) refers to the use of recycled water  that has been further treated and introduced into an environmental buffer such  as a surface water reservoir (through augmentation), or groundwater basin  (through recharge), before being used for potable purposes. IPR regulations are  specified in Title 22, Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of Regulations  (CCR).   DIRECT POTABLE REUSE (DPR) refers to the use of purified recycled  water distributed directly into the raw water supply upstream of a drinking  water treatment plant. In California, DPR regulations have not been adopted or  specified in the CCR.  STATE REGULATIONS TITLE 22 STANDARDS are requirements established by the State Water  Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water for the production,  distribution, and use of drinking water and recycled water. Recycled water  standards are covered under Chapter 3, Division 4 of the California Code of  Regulations, which outlines the different levels of treatment required for  allowable uses of recycled water.   GENERAL TREATMENT PROCESSES  STANDARD UNITS MGD – Million Gallons per Day  PPM – Parts Per Million  mg/L – Milligrams per Liter  ALLOWABLE USES  Irrigation of: o Parks, playgrounds, schools o Residential & commercial landscapes o Cemeteries o Golf courses o Food crops, orchard, vineyard, pastures o Ornamental nursery & sod farm Impoundments & fish hatcheries Flushing toilets & urinals Decorative fountains Commercial laundries Street cleaning, dust control, soil compaction Boiler feed and cooling towers Flushing sanitary sewers Other uses approved under Title 22 Standards All uses listed under Recycled Water Irrigation of salt‐sensitive species (e.g. Redwoods Trees) Sensitive industrial uses SALINITY TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS (TDS) is a measurement of salinity:  the amount of salts, ions, and dissolved minerals per volume of  water. The RWQCP aims to produce recycled water with a TDS of  600 mg/L and is moving towards developing advanced treatment in  collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City  of Mountain View to produce enhanced water with a TDS of  approximately 450 mg/L for use on salt‐sensitive species.  All uses listed under Enhanced Water Indirect potable reuse Direct potable Reuse Purified Water TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY DUAL MEDIA FILTRATION (DMF) refers to the removal of particles in  the water using two different types of filter media, usually sand and finely  granulated anthracite (a type of coal). DMF can remove turbidity and  suspended solids as small as 10‐20 microns under high filtration rate  conditions.  GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON (GAC) is a form of carbon that is  processed to be porous, with large surface area for adsorption and used to  remove dissolved contaminants. GAC can remove halogenated compounds  containing chlorine and fluorine, organic contaminants, odor, and taste.  MICROFILTRATION (MF) is an advanced treatment process that  removes contaminants from water using semi‐permeable membranes. MF  membranes can remove contaminants as small as 0.08 microns such as  bacteria. Ultrafiltration (UF) membranes have smaller pore sizes and can  remove contaminants as small as 0.005 microns such as viruses and  proteins.   REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) is an advanced treatment process that  removes dissolved salts and trace contaminants from water. High pressure  forces the water through a semi‐permeable membrane, while filtering most  contaminants. RO membranes have much smaller pore sizes than  microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes and can remove contaminants  as small as 0.0001 microns.  RO PERMEATE is the treated water that passes through the RO  membrane.  RO CONCENTRATE is the by‐product from the RO process. It contains  a high concentration of salts and other contaminants from the source  water.  ADVANCED OXIDATION PROCESS (AOP) is a chemically reactive  process that breaks down trace organic contaminants as well as pathogens  in the water by oxidation. AOPs typically use hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and  ultraviolet (UV) light.   SOIL AQUIFER TREATMENT (SAT) is the natural process that occurs  when water travels through the ground and is purified by the physical and  biological processes that naturally occur in the soil. WATER TYPES AND QUALITY EFFLUENT is the treated water leaving the wastewater treatment plant to be  discharged to the San Francisco Bay. At the RWQCP, only some of the effluent is  treated further to produce recycled water.  RECYCLED or RECLAIMED WATER is wastewater that has undergone  secondary or tertiary treatment to allow for beneficial reuse. Recycled water  produced at the RWQCP is treated to tertiary standards including disinfection.  SECONDARY TREATMENT is a process where dissolved and suspended  biological matter (including suspended solids) is removed so that the water may  be disinfected and discharged into a stream or river, or used for irrigation at  controlled locations.   TERTIARY TREATMENT is an additional treatment process beyond  secondary treatment, where water is further filtered and disinfected. It can also  include treatment processes to remove nitrogen and phosphorus in order to  allow discharge into a sensitive ecosystem.   ENHANCED RECYCLED WATER is recycled water blended with advanced  treated water to support additional uses and reduce total dissolved solids (TDS).  ADVANCED TREATED WATER is water that has undergone additional  treatment beyond tertiary treatment to reduce salts, nutrients, trace organics  and constituents of emerging concern (CECs). Common treatments include  microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and advanced oxidation.   PURIFIED WATER is recycled water that has undergone further treatment  processes and has been verified through monitoring to be safe for augmenting  drinking water supplies. Some of these processes include microfiltration, reverse  osmosis, and if needed advanced oxidation.  SURFACE WATER is water stored in a reservoir typically conveyed from  another surface water source via pipelines or aqueducts.  RAW WATER is surface or groundwater that has not gone through an  approved water treatment process.   GRAYWATER is water segregated from a domestic wastewater collection  system and reused on site for nonpotable uses, it can come from showers,  bathtubs, washing machines, and bathroom sinks, but not toilets or kitchen  sinks.  BLACKWATER  is untreated wastewater from kitchen sinks, toilets, and other polluting activities. Recycled Water Enhanced Recycled Water *Pending DDW Regulations Note: Palo Alto does not currently have a drinking water treatment plant. Current Recycled  Water Program Upgraded  Recycled Water  Program Blend  Tank Drinking Water  Distribution Wastewater  Treatment CURRENT  Enhanced  Recycled  Water Recycled Water Filtration Tertiary Treatment Chlorine Disinfection Effluent Advanced  Treated Water Purified  Water FUTURE Microfiltration (MF) Advanced Oxidation  Process (AOP) Reverse Osmosis (RO) Full  Advanced  Treatment Source  Water Drinking Water  Treatment Plant  Direct Potable Reuse*  Extraction  Wells Groundwater  Recharge Soil Aquifer  Treatment Indirect Potable Reuse GLOSSARY  ATTACHMENT A Palo Alto Recycled Water Delivery and Expansion ATTACHMENT B PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PALO ALTO, MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND VALLEY WATER TO ADVANCE RESILIENT WATER REUSE PROGRAMS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY DRAFT Summary of key terms Parties •City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto), City of Mountain View (Mountain View), and Valley Water Minimum Flow Delivery •Valley Water will receive a minimum annual average of 9 MGD of Effluent •Palo Alto and Mountain View may provide additional Effluent when it’s available. Term •Up to 76 years Local Plant •Owned and operated by Palo Alto to produce high quality non-potable recycled water •To be located within the current RWQCP site •Total project capital cost estimated to be $20M •Valley Water to contribute a capital amount of $16M* Regional Program: a regional plant or other Valley Water project •Likely a purified water facility for potable reuse managed by Valley Water •Location: To be determined •Valley Water to pay $200k/year* up to 13 years or until Startup, whichever is earlier •Valley Water to pay $1M/year* initiating at Regional Program Startup for the Effluent** Water Supply Option for PA and/or MV •Palo Alto and/or Mountain View may notify Valley Water of their need of potable and/or non-potable water •Palo Alto may request up to 3.0 MGD and Mountain View may request up to 1.3 MGD for use only within their jurisdictions •Valley Water to provide a water supply option for acceptance by Palo Alto and/or Mountain View •Water supply to be available as early as 16 years after execution of this Agreement •Palo Alto and/or Mountain View will reimburse Valley Water for requested water at cost, based on any facility, commodity, and wheeling fees •Water will be delivered within the Term of this Agreement RWQCP •If Palo Alto intends to sell the RWQCP, Valley Water has first right to purchase it at fair market value •This Agreement shall survive any sale of RWQCP to a third-party Notes: *Amounts to be escalated annually per the Agreement. **Prorated based on actual deliveries CCE Page 1 of 1 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan Interim Final Report* Prepared by: July 2019 *This report has yet to be accepted by Palo Alto City Council. ATTACHMENT C Vol 1 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 i Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1 Introduction .........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan ............................1-1 1.2 Organization of this Report ....................................................................................1-4 1.3 Study Area.............................................................................................................1-4 Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment ...............................................................2-1 2.1 Recycled Water Uses ............................................................................................2-1 2.2 Non-Potable Uses .................................................................................................2-3 2.3 Indirect Potable Uses ............................................................................................2-7 2.4 Direct Potable Uses ...............................................................................................2-8 2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area ..........................................................2-9 Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options .........................................................................3-1 3.1 Summary of Approach ...........................................................................................3-1 3.2 Concept Option Development Process ..................................................................3-1 3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP ................................................................3-5 3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location ................................................... 3-21 3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options ............................................................. 3-24 3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options ........................................................... 3-33 Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation ......................................................4-1 4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation .............................................................4-1 4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate ........................................................................4-1 4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary .....................................................4-6 4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria ........................................................4-7 4.5 Concept Option Scoring ....................................................................................... 4-18 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps ..............................................................................5-1 5.1 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................5-1 5.2 Next Steps .............................................................................................................5-4 References .............................................................................................................................5-6 Appendices Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment Methodology ................................... A Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand Estimates [Confidential – Not Included] B Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included .......................................... C Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs ..................................................................... D Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not Included] ...................... E Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District and East Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included] .................................. F Appendix G - Funding Matrix .......................................................................................... G Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 ii Figures Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse applications ......................................................................................................................... ii Figure 1-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................ 1-1 Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System ................................................................ 1-2 Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project ........................................................... 1-3 Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text)..................................................... 1-6 Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types ............................................. 2-1 Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water Strategic Plan .................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area ........................................................... 2-6 Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and Assessment ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 ................................... 3-7 Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills .. 3-9 Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos ....................................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View ...................................... 3-15 Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos ... 3-18 Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park .............. 3-20 Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant ....................... 3-23 Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR ................................ 3-26 Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR ............................... 3-29 Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3- 32 Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ............................ 3-35 Tables Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ...................................... ii Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs ...................................................................................................... iv Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................... v Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria ................................................ v Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria .............................. vi Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs...................................................... 1-8 Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests ................................................................... 2-3 Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors ....................................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary ............................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary ......................................... 2-8 Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary .......................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria .................................................................................................... 3-3 Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment ........................................................................................................................................ 3-5 Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 .... 3-6 Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ....................................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos .............................................................................. 3-11 Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View ............. 3-14 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 iii Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos ................................................................................................... 3-17 Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park .................................................................................................................... 3-19 Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant .............................................................................................................................. 3-22 Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3- 24 Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR . 3- 28 Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline ................................................................................................... 3-31 Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ...................................................................................................................................... 3-34 Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe ......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs ................................................................................... 4-5 Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 4-7 Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency .............................................. 4-8 Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance ....................................................... 4-9 Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability ................................................................ 4-10 Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination .................................... 4-11 Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination .................. 4-12 Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity ............................................... 4-13 Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity ............................................ 4-14 Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective ............................................... 4-16 Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit ................................... 4-17 Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit .............................................. 4-18 Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting ............................................................................... 4-19 Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking .............................................................................................. 4-19 Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost .................................................................. 4-20 Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria ........................ 4-21 Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score ................................. 4-21 Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse ........................................ 5-1 Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs .................... 5-1 Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity ............................................... 5-5 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 iv Abbreviations AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering AF Acre feet AFY Acre feet per year AOP Advanced oxidation process AWPF Advanced water purification facility [for potable reuse] AWTS Advanced water treatment system [for enhanced recycled water] CCI Construction cost index CIP Cast iron pipe CIPP Cured in place pipe DDW Division of Drinking Water DIP Ductile iron pipe DPR Direct potable reuse ENR Engineering News Record EPASD East Palo Alto Sanitary District ESDC Engineering services during construction FAT Full advanced treatment gpm Gallons per minute HDD Horizonal directional drill HGL Hydraulic grade line HP Horsepower ID Internal diameter IPR Indirect potable reuse LF Linear feet MF Membrane filtration MGD Million gallons per day MV Mountain View NPR Non-potable reuse OD Outside diameter O&M Operations and maintenance PHWD Purissima Hills Water District psi Pressure per square inch PTGAB Pilot tube guided auger boring RO Reverse osmosis Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Table of Contents FINAL July 2019 v RWQCP Regional Water Quality Control Plant RWMP Recycled Water Master Plan SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total dissolved solids UV Ultraviolet UWMP Urban Water Management Plan WBSD West Bay Sanitary District Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 i Executive Summary The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water, to assess drought-proof recycled water expansion opportunities throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District) including additional portions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge limitations. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner Agencies’, is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. In order to understand how to best expand the RWQCP recycled water program, a comprehensive and holistic evaluation was needed to reassess the service area needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies and governing regulations. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water Study Area through the year 2030, to identify recycled water concepts that look beyond individual agency boundaries, and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water projects with new options developed through this Strategic Plan. Types of Water Reuse Considered The Strategic Plan builds off of the work from the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) to incorporate options for new and different kinds of reuse. Recycled water can be used for various demands based on its level of treatment. Non-potable reuse, such as that for irrigation or toilet flushing, requires more treatment than wastewater that is treated for discharge to the Bay. Similarly, potable reuse requires significantly more treatment than non-potable reuse to ensure public safety when ingesting the water. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 ii Figure ES-0-1: Potential recycled water uses for both potable and non-potable reuse applications Note: City of Palo Alto does not have an existing Drinking Water Treatment Plant The potential reuse demand for the various types of water reuse considered in the Strategic Plan is summarized in Table ES 0-1. Table ES-0-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments Non-Potable Reuse 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area, not one specific concept Indirect Potable Reuse 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For City of Palo Alto only Direct Potable Reuse 5,300 AFY For City of Palo Alto only Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin and volume extracted from the groundwater basin Results of Concept Options Development and Analysis Through collaborative development with the RWQCP Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring agencies, 11 concept options (i.e., recycled water expansion opportunities) were developed for detailed analysis in the Strategic Plan. In summary, the concept options could provide between 200 and 6,100 AFY of water supplies at an annual unit cost ranging from $2,100 per AF to $8,900 per AF (see Table ES 0-2). For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 iii to cost $3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 1 To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the estimates. The concept options were selected based on cost effectiveness and applicability to solving regional water supply issues. The concept options are divided into four categories:  “A” series for centralized non-potable reuse (NPR) concept options  “B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment  “C” series for indirect potable reuse (IPR) concept options  “D” concept option for direct potable reuse (DPR) The concept options were evaluated for capital and operational costs and scored on a variety of non-cost criteria including water supply resiliency, public acceptance, adaptability, regulatory complexity, and regional perspective. Concept option ranking by cost is included in Table ES 0-3. Concept option ranking by non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-4. The summary of weighted ranking of concept options including both cost and non-cost criteria is included in Table ES 0-5. NPR concept options evaluated multiple pipeline extensions throughout the Study Area. Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers among the largest volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional benefits while requiring few agencies to implement and operate. NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A4) – Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los Altos Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is ranked higher. Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a reasonable investment compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan. Currently (July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 Recycled Water Feasibility Study focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101; this update may alter the facility needs and costs for Concept Option A4. Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto, is low cost, and the average non-cost score make it a reasonable investment compared to other concept options. The IPR concept options are attractive due to the large amount of water supplied combined with greater ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement and operate. 1 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 iv Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that regulatory agencies will permit. Even when DPR regulations are established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be more challenging compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training staff to operate the new treatment facilities. The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a compact recycled water distribution system closer to the customer locations rather than requiring an extensive pipe network extending from the RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for diverting flows from the sewer system does not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is there land available in the immediate vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility that is cost effective. Table ES-0-2: Summary of Concept Options including Yield, Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option Yield (AFY) Capital Cost O&M ($/Y) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 800 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1,100 $63.0M $0.52M $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1,200 $85.1M $0.68M $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View 200 $6.2M $0.1M $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 900 $72.6M $0.4M $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 500 $20.7M $0.15M $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 900 $129.6M $1.37M $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5,900 $92.2M $14.83M $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 6,100 $152.1M $16.92M $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 5,900 $198.4M $15.78M $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5,300 $104.6M $8.01M $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 v Table ES-0-3: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost Rank Score Concept Option 1 5 (<$3,500/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 3 (>$4,000/AF and <$4,500/AF) A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3 2 (>$4,500/AF and <$5,000/AF) A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 1 (>$5,000/AF) B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Table ES-0-4: Ranking of Concept Options by Non-Cost Criteria Rank Score (Maximum = 500) Concept Option 1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 5 285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 285 A4: NPR Mountain View 285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Executive Summary FINAL July 2019 vi Table ES-0-5: Ranking Considering Cost and Non-Cost Evaluation Criteria Rank Concept Option 1 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 4 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 5 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 6 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 7 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 8 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Next Steps Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. Next steps would include undertaking a variety of activities including:  Facilities planning  Funding and financing  Inter-agency agreements  Environmental documentation  Reuse permitting  Customer and public outreach Note that one of the options being considered by Valley Water’s Countywide Plan, currently under development, is export of water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County, where Valley Water operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required as a next step. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-1 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Purpose of the Recycled Water Strategic Plan The Northwest County Recycled Water Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) was undertaken by the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto), in collaboration with Valley Water (formerly the Santa Clara Valley Water District), to assess recycled water expansion opportunities throughout the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) service area (i.e., Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University, and East Palo Alto Sanitary District) including additional portions of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not serviced by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District. The cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, the town of Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto Sanitary District (EPASD), and Stanford University are known as the RWQCP Partner Agencies. Figure 1-1 shows the boundaries of the RWQCP service area as well as each of the RWQCP Partner Agencies. Figure 1-1: Study Area Source: City of Palo Alto, 2017 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-2 The last comprehensive recycled water planning study for the RWQCP service area was the 1992 Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP). Since the completion of the RWMP, Palo Alto and Mountain View implemented Phase 2 of the RWQCP’s Regional Recycled Water System, which replaced the deteriorated non-potable recycled water pipeline from Phase 1 and expanded non-potable recycled water service to the Shoreline area of Mountain View (see Figure 1-2). Both Palo Alto and Mountain View have completed individual planning studies looking at opportunities to expand recycled water in their respective service areas. Figure 1-2: RWQCP Existing Water Reuse System In 2008, Palo Alto completed a Recycled Water Facility Plan that recommended a Phase 3 project. The Phase 3 project would expand the non-potable recycled water system to South Palo Alto to serve landscape irrigation demands and potential dual-plumbed systems mainly within the Stanford Research Park area (see Figure 1-3). In the time that it took to certify the Program Environmental Impact Report for the Phase 3 project (2015), the recycled water setting changed. Notably, prolonged drought conditions and notable water shortages in southern California has moved forward public acceptance of potable reuse options and policy makers have begun to question the expansion of non-potable reuse (NPR) systems over long-term potable reuse options, including indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR). Spurred by the recent drought, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) adopted a final version of the Groundwater Replenishments Regulations in 2014, providing a formal pathway for permitting IPR through groundwater augmentation. Regulations for permitting surface water augmentation, another type of IPR, were adopted in 2018. With the passage of Assembly Bill 574, the SWRCB is required to develop regulations for potable reuse through raw water Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-3 augmentation, a form of DPR, by 2023. While there is not yet a timeline established for development of potable reuse through treated drinking water augmentation, another form of DPR, several California agencies have begun to investigate this option. Accordingly, this Strategic Plan considers NPR, IPR, and DPR opportunities. Figure 1-3: Proposed Phase 3 Recycled Water Project Source: Woodard & Curran, 2018, Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final Report Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-4 In 2014, Mountain View completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study that recommended near-term extension of recycled water into the NASA Ames Research Center and a longer-term extension south of US-101. These extensions would serve landscape irrigation demands and dual-plumbed systems. Currently (July 2019), Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101. To aid in future decisions regarding RWQCP recycled water expansion and commitments, Palo Alto, as the owner and operator of the RWQCP, saw a need to assess other RWQCP Partner Agencies’ interests in recycled water. The RWQCP is interested in expanding the recycled water program to help move itself towards becoming a resource recovery facility by providing a drought-proof, sustainable, local water supply, and for recycled water’s potential to help meet future regulatory actions pertaining to discharge limitations. In order to understand how to best expand the program, a comprehensive and holistic evaluation was needed to reassess the service area needs and acceptance given changes in water supplies and governing regulations. Valley Water is also interested in understanding how flows from the RWQCP can support countywide water supply planning and its goal of using recycled and purified water to meet at least 10% (24,000 AFY) of the total county water demand by 2025. Valley Water recently completed a Pure Water Program planning study that looked at opportunities to implement potable reuse projects using water from the San Jose/Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility and the Sunnyvale Water Pollution Control Plant. Valley Water is now developing a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan to understand recycled water opportunities, including NPR, IPR, and DPR, throughout Santa Clara County. The information from this Strategic Plan will support the Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan and help Valley Water identify wastewater flows that may be available for export from the RWQCP service area to other parts of the county. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to evaluate potential additional uses of recycled water within the RWQCP service area through the year 2030, to identify recycled water expansion concept options that look beyond individual agency boundaries, and to evaluate previously recommended recycled water projects with new expansion options developed through this Strategic Plan. 1.2 Organization of this Report This report is organized as follows:  Chapter 1: Background and Purpose of the Strategic Plan –Background on previous recycled water projects in the Study Area and a description of the wastewater and water agencies in the Study Area  Chapter 2: Recycled Water Demand Assessment –Description of allowable recycled water uses and the Study Area market assessment  Chapter 3: Project Concept Options –Description of the different recycled water concept options developed under this Strategic Plan  Chapter 4: Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation –Summary of the evaluation of the concept options based on cost and non-cost criteria  Chapter 5: Conclusions and Next Steps –Summary of the conclusions on the Strategic Plan concept options and next steps to be undertaken if the concept options are to move into implementation 1.3 Study Area The Study Area for the Strategic Plan encompasses the RWQCP service area, shown in Figure 1-1, as well as additional areas in the Cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park not served by EPASD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-5 EPASD, which is one of the RWQCP Partner Agencies, covers the majority of East Palo Alto and a small section of Menlo Park. The portions of these cities not served by EPASD are served by West Bay Sanitary District (WBSD), which is a tributary agency to Silicon Valley Clean Water in Redwood City. Currently recycled water infrastructure does not exist in these areas, although both WBSD and Redwood City have looked at opportunities to provide recycled water to these areas. Given the proximity of the RWQCP to East Palo Alto and Menlo Park and water supply shortfalls that existed in these communities when this project was initiated, the Study Area for this project was extended beyond the RWQCP service boundary to include the entirety of East Palo Alto and the northern portion of the Menlo Park Municipal Water’s service area. 1.3.1 Water Supply Agencies The Study Area is served by two water wholesalers and a number of retailers (Figure 1-4 and Table 1-1). The wholesalers are Valley Water and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and the retailers are Palo Alto, Mountain View, California Water Service Company (Cal Water), Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD), East Palo Alto, Stanford University, Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company, O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company, Federal Government (NASA Ames), and Menlo Park Municipal Water. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-6 Figure 1-4: Water Retailers (names indicated in black text) Valley Water distributes potable water to portions of Santa Clara County, which encompasses all but the EPASD portion of the RWQCP service area. Valley Water sells water to 13 retailers including 2 retailers in the Study Area – Mountain View and Cal Water. Valley Water is a special district that was formed to address groundwater overdraft in the county. The water delivered to retailers is a combination of local surface water, imported water from the State Water Project and Central Valley Project and water transfers. As the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Clara and Llagas subbasins, Valley Water manages the groundwater in Santa Clara County. Valley Water diverts local surface water as well as imported water to recharge facilities to augment natural groundwater recharge. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-7 SFPUC is the water retailer for San Francisco as well as wholesaler to 26 agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area including 6 retailers in the Study Area – Palo Alto, Mountain View, PHWD, East Palo Alto, Stanford University, and Menlo Park Municipal Water. SFPUC’s primary source of water is the Hetch Hetchy watershed of the Tuolumne River. The Tuolumne River is the largest tributary to the San Joaquin River, which feeds into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta. In addition to water purchased from Valley Water and SFPUC, the majority of the Study Area retailers either utilize groundwater or have plans to develop groundwater supplies to meet demand projections. Cal Water and Stanford University currently use groundwater to meet demands. Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company and the O’Connor Tract Co-operative Water Company rely solely on groundwater. Palo Alto and Mountain View maintain groundwater wells for emergency supply. East Palo Alto has plans to rehabilitate an existing well and develop an additional well for emergency and potential future water supply. Menlo Park Municipal Water has plans to develop groundwater as an emergency supply as well. Stanford University is unique among the water retailers in this area in that its water supplies include local surface water and captured stormwater, which it uses to meet non-potable demands. Groundwater is used to supplement this non-potable system. A review of retailers’ 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) identified the demand imbalances described herein. Although the planning horizon for the Strategic Plan is through 2030, the water supply shortfalls summarized here go through the UWMPs’ planning horizon of 2040. In normal years, East Palo Alto projected a shortfall by 2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP, East Palo Alto has secured additional SFPUC supplies. During a single dry year, Menlo Park Municipal Water projected shortfalls beginning in 2020, and Mountain View, Cal Water and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls by 2040; however, since completion of its 2015 UWMP and given some major changes in land use policies, Mountain View has updated their projected shortfalls in a single dry year to occurred starting in 2020. During multiple dry years, Mountain View and Menlo Park Municipal Water project shortfall in all years beginning in 2020, and East Palo Alto projected shortfalls in all years given 2040 demands and in the second and third years under 2035 demands. Palo Alto, similar to many of the other RWQCP Partner Agencies’, is subject to water supply reductions during droughts. Shortages are expected to become more frequent and more severe in the future as a result of climate change and other changes to the California water system. Both imported water and groundwater are at risk during dry periods. Table 1-1 summarizes the water supply sources for each city as well as the current uses, projected needs, and the local wastewater agency. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-8 Table 1-1: Summary of Water Supply Sources and Needs City Wholesaler Retailer(s) Current/ Planned Groundwater User (Y/N) Projected Water Supply Shortfall1 (Y/N) Current Recycled Water User (Y/N) Wastewater Agency East Palo Alto SFPUC / Self  East Palo Alto (SFPUC, groundwater)  Palo Alto Park Mutual Water Company (100% groundwater)  O’Connor Tract Co- operative Water Company (100% groundwater) Yes Yes (2040) No RWQCP Los Altos Valley Water Cal Water Yes Yes (2040) No RWQCP Los Altos Hills SFPUC PHWD No No No RWQCP Menlo Park SFPUC Menlo Park Municipal Water Yes Yes (2020) No West Bay Sanitary District Mountain View SFPUC & Valley Water Mountain View Yes Yes (2020) Yes RWQCP Palo Alto SFPUC Palo Alto No No Yes RWQCP Stanford University SFPUC Stanford University Yes No No RWQCP 1Projections for single dry year taken from retailer 2015 Urban Water Management Plans except Mountain View which is based on more updated information. 1.3.2 Wastewater Agencies & Current Recycled Water Programs Palo Alto owns and operates the RWQCP, a 39.0 MGD-dry weather capacity wastewater treatment plant for the benefit of the RWQCP Partners. The RWQCP discharges treated effluent to an outfall in Lower South San Francisco Bay and to Renzel Marsh, which ultimately drains to the Lower South San Francisco Bay via Matadero Creek. The RWQCP treats an average of 20 MGD of wastewater. In addition, a portion of RWQCP effluent is further treated at tertiary recycled water facilities located at the RWQCP. The tertiary recycled water facilities have a capacity of 4.5 MGD, though currently production averages 0.6 MGD. The RWQCP has existing agreements with its Partner agencies that provide them with the right to acquire all wastewater by-products, such as recycled water, in the proportion to their percentage of influent flow. Recycled water from the RWQCP is available to Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Stanford University and EPASD through truck-fill stations, while Palo Alto and Mountain View receive recycled water through a purple-pipe distribution system. Palo Alto and Mountain View are the only retailers in the Study Area that currently use recycled water via a purple-pipe distribution system. The RWQCP has committed a peak flow of up to 1.0 MGD to Palo Alto and 3.0 MGD to Mountain View under an agreement that extends until 2060. Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View partnered in the development of an Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report in 2017 to evaluate advanced treatment options for total dissolved solids (TDS) reduction in the RWQCP’s recycled water for use in Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 1 Introduction FINAL July 2019 1-9 irrigating salt-sensitive plants and industrial processes. The Feasibility Study recommended implementation of an Advanced Water Treatment System (AWTS) to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water, with optional future expanded production reaching 2.25 MGD. The AWTS water will be blended at a 1:1 ratio with tertiary recycled water from the RWQCP to bring salinity levels between 400-500 mg/L TDS, below the Palo Alto goal of 600 mg/L TDS. The Study Area includes a portion of WBSD’s service area. WBSD provides wastewater collection services for Menlo Park, Atherton, and Portola Valley; the portion of East Palo Alto that is not served by EPASD; and areas of Woodside, unincorporated San Mateo County, and unincorporated Santa Clara County. WBSD is currently implementing a satellite recycled water facility in the southern portion of Menlo Park Municipal Water’s service area and is investigating the potential to implement a satellite recycled water facility in the northern portion of Menlo Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-1 Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment 2.1 Recycled Water Uses 2.1.1 Types of Recycled Water There are a variety of types of recycled water, as shown in Figure 2-1, covering both non-potable and potable reuse applications. These types of recycled water can lead to various options for how to implement conceptual projects in a specific setting. The applicability of these types of recycled water in the local setting is described in further detail later in this chapter. Figure 2-1: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types Because there is no suitable reservoir or a raw water treatment facility in the RWQCP service territory, reservoir augmentation and treated water augmentation were not evaluated. Figure 2-2 is an overview of the non-potable and potable options included in this report. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-2 Figure 2-2: Overview of Non-Potable and Potable Reuse Types included in this Recycled Water Strategic Plan Currently, the RWQCP produces recycled water that is treated to disinfected tertiary treatment standards and is compliant with Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. This is defined as oxidized, filtered, and disinfected wastewater that meets a median concentration of total coliform requirements < 2.2 MPN/100mL and 5.0-log removal of viruses. This disinfected tertiary recycled water is suitable for all NPR uses considered in this study, which include landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, cooling towers, industrial process water and habitat enhancement. Further details about these non-potable uses, including associated water quality requirements requested by users and examples of potential users in the service area, are outlined in Section 2.2. The methodology used to assess NPR demands is summarized in Section 2.2.2. IPR includes groundwater augmentation, either through percolation ponds or injection wells, where the purified recycled water mixes with the local groundwater and the mixture is extracted through existing or new wells for use in the potable (i.e., drinking) distribution system. IPR also includes reservoir augmentation, which is adding purified recycled water mixed in with local supplies in a reservoir that feeds to a surface water treatment plant, but is not considered in this Strategic Plan because no suitable reservoirs or surface water treatment plants exist proximate to the Study Area. The process to model available groundwater capacity to accept purified recycled water for recharge is included in Section 2.3.2. DPR includes raw water augmentation, which would introduce purified recycled water upstream of a surface water treatment plant, and treated drinking water augmentation, which would introduce the purified recycled water directly to the drinking water distribution system. Raw water augmentation was not considered in this Strategic Plan because there are no surface water treatment plants within the service area of the one agency interested in DPR that also had sufficient information for this evaluation at the Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-3 time of this writing (i.e., Palo Alto). The methodology to estimate the amount of water available to direct towards DPR is included in Section 2.4.2. 2.1.2 Interests of the RWQCP Partner Agencies The Strategic Plan team sent out surveys to the RWQCP Partner Agencies and other interested parties to gauge their interest in using recycled water to meet their current and projected demands. These stakeholders were asked about their interest in non-potable as well as potable uses, and the information received was used to inform the development of the concepts within this study. The results of the surveys are summarized in Table 2-1. Table 2-1: Summary of Recycled Water Interests Agency Interested in use of Recycled Water from RWQCP Types of Use of Interest La n d s c a p e I r r i g a t i o n (N P R ) Du a l P l u m b e d T o i l e t F l us h i n g ( N P R ) In d u s t r i a l P r o c e s s Wa t e r ( N P R ) Co o l i n g T o w e r ( N P R ) Ha b i t a t E n h a n c e m e n t (N P R ) Gr o u n d w a t e r Au g m e n t a t i o n ( I P R ) Di r e c t P o t a b l e ( D P R ) City of Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x City of Mountain View Yes x x x City of Los Altos Yes x x x Town of Los Altos Hills Yes x East Palo Alto Sanitary District Yes x x x x Stanford University No1 x Cal Water Yes x x x City of East Palo Alto Yes x x x x x x x City of Menlo Park Yes x x x x West Bay Sanitary District Yes x x x x x Note: 1. Though Stanford University is not interested in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP, Stanford University is interested in using recycled water generated on-site for dual plumbed toilet flushing. 2.2 Non-Potable Uses 2.2.1 Potential Non-Potable Uses Landscape Irrigation Landscape irrigation sites identified for this study include parks, schools, commercial landscaping, multi- family residential landscaping, cemeteries, and golf courses. Irrigators in the Study Area have historically expressed concern with the salinity content in recycled water and its specific impacts to salt-sensitive species such as Redwood trees. To address these concerns and improve the quality of this water, Palo Alto, in collaboration with Valley Water and Mountain View, is planning to construct an AWTS facility Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-4 (see Section 1.3.2) to decrease RWQCP recycled water salinity and improve marketability for landscape irrigation purposes. Dual Plumbing Dual plumbing uses identified for this study include urinal and toilet flushing in existing dual-plumbed buildings and future developments identified in General Plans or Specific Plans where dual plumbing could be incorporated into the design of new commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings as well as multi-family residences. Existing buildings with dual-plumbing systems were included in the demand assessment; however, retrofitting existing buildings was not considered due to the cost and complexity of typical retrofits. Because the majority of the Study Area is built out, there are few opportunities to implement dual- plumbing. East Palo Alto has the greatest potential for new development and redevelopment. This includes plans to redevelop the Ravenswood area to add various commercial and industrial buildings. In addition, various multi-residential developments were considered. To promote dual-plumbing, Palo Alto has adopted an ordinance requiring buildings greater than 10,000 square feet within a designated Recycled Water Use Area to incorporate dual-plumbing (Palo Alto has yet to designate such an area), while Mountain View adopted the same guidelines for buildings greater than 25,000 square feet. Buildings in the planning phase that are anticipated to meet these thresholds were included as potential users. Many buildings currently under construction were approved prior to these ordinances and were not included in the demand assessment. As of this writing, no other dual plumbing or recycled water use ordinances exist within the RWQCP service area. Cooling Tower Cooling tower uses identified for this study include larger commercial and industrial buildings in the Study Area. Like landscape irrigation uses, cooling towers are sensitive to salinity levels in recycled water (as well as ammonia and certain metals). The AWTS (see Section 1.3.2) will make RWQCP recycled water more marketable for cooling tower purposes. Industrial Process Water Industrial process water use identified for this study was limited to one industrial customer in Palo Alto along the Phase 3 project pipeline alignment. The redevelopment in the East Palo Alto Ravenswood area has the potential to include industrial process water demands. However, given the uncertainty of future development plans, these potential industrial demands were not included. Habitat Enhancement Habitat enhancement is a potential non-potable use. While several stakeholders indicated an interest in habitat enhancement opportunities, only two specific concepts were identified:  A horizontal levee near the RWQCP; however, because this project would be served with treated effluent without a chlorine residual and using a small dedicated pipeline, this opportunity is considered a potential habitat enhancement project beyond the scope of concept options developed for this study.  Byxbee Park in Palo Alto was included in this study. Currently, through a pilot project, Byxbee Park receives recycled water to irrigate vegetated islands (Engelage, 2018). Other Non-Potable Uses Other non-potable uses in the Study Area that did not fall into the specific categories outlined above include street cleaning, car washes, and demands for Boronda Lake at Foothill Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-5 2.2.2 Non-Potable Market Assessment Site-specific water use estimates were obtained from the partner agencies, as available, including demand estimates for Palo Alto Phase 3 that were recently updated as part of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Business Plan and the Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Where site-specific information was not available from the agency, the methodologies described in Appendix A were used to estimate landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, and cooling tower demands. Estimates for other uses were developed as needed on a case by case basis. Peaking factors are summarized in Table 2-2. For potential customers with the largest demand estimates, Palo Alto coordinated with the partner agencies to reach out to these potential customers to further refine the recycled water estimates. 2.2.3 Non-Potable Demand The potential annual average recycled water demand for all non-potable users in the Study Area is 4,456 AFY or 3.98 MGD. These potential users are shown in Figure 2-3. Potential recycled water demand estimates for each non-potable customer, including a breakdown of estimated annual average, maximum day, and peak hour demands, are included in Appendix B. Appendix B includes each potential user’s location, type of use (e.g. landscape irrigation, dual plumbing, industrial process water, cooling tower, etc.), site status (e.g. existing recycled water customer, existing water customer, future customer), Partner Agency, and water retailer. Appendix C contains a discussion of potential uses considered but not included in the Strategic Plan. These appendices are excluded from the public version of this report in compliance with the California Public Records Act, which protects certain utility usage data and customer information from disclosure. The maximum day demand, defined as the average daily demand in July, for all non-potable uses in the service area is 6.84 MGD. The peaking factors used to develop the non-potable maximum day and peak hour demands are summarized in Table 2-2, and annual average and maximum day demands are summarized in Table 2-3. Peaking factors are a ratio of the maximum day or maximum hourly demand to the average day or average hourly demand. The peak maximum day flows were used to size treatment facilities and peak hour demands were used to size pump stations and pipelines. Table 2-2: Demand Peaking Factors Demand Type Peaking Factor Maximum Day Irrigation 1.7 Cooling Tower 2.7 Hourly Irrigation1 3.0 Dual Plumbing 2.0 Cooling Tower 2.0 1. Irrigation hourly peaking factor applies to irrigation users who use water on demand. There are a small number of irrigation customers in the Study Area with on-site water storage where this peaking factor does not apply. Table 2-3: Non-Potable Demand Summary Demand Type Value Annual Average 4,456 AFY (3.98 MGD) Maximum Day 6.84 MGD Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-6 Figure 2-3: Potential Non-Potable Users in Study Area Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-7 2.3 Indirect Potable Uses 2.3.1 Potential Indirect Potable Uses Indirect potable uses identified for this study focused on groundwater augmentation via injection wells. Due to the densely developed nature of the Study Area and high cost of land, groundwater augmentation via surface spreading is not viable. IPR requires full advanced treatment of recycled water. The conventional full advanced treatment train consists of membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and an ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process. These advanced water purification processes are designed to remove or inactivate a spectrum of constituents, including viruses, parasites, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, and 1,4-dioxane. Within East Palo Alto, the potential to use the city’s existing or future wells for IPR extraction was considered. However, after additional discussion regarding injection well siting and uncertainty of the benefit of groundwater augmentation in this area, IPR use in East Palo Alto was not considered further. Groundwater augmentation within the Cal Water service area in Los Altos was also discussed but eliminated from the project concept options analysis. Cal Water’s service area is within the area of the groundwater basins that is actively managed by Valley Water, and groundwater use in this area was deemed to be better addressed through the Valley Water’s countywide efforts rather than through this Strategic Plan. Results from a recently completed Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation and Implementation Strategy (IPR Feasibility Evaluation) indicated that IPR within Palo Alto was technically feasible given the current condition of the aquifers in northwestern Santa Clara County and the potential to supplement Palo Alto’s water supply with groundwater. Modeling results from the IPR Feasibility Evaluation and the scenario that was selected to be included in this study’s project concept options are discussed in the following section. 2.3.2 Indirect Potable Reuse Assessment The IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018) included a characterization of hydrogeologic conditions in Palo Alto and the surrounding areas. An initial evaluation of the feasibility of increased pumping by Palo Alto was based on historical and contemporary groundwater balances in the area. Subsequently, groundwater modeling was conducted to refine the estimate of groundwater yield available to Palo Alto with and without varying levels of IPR. From the groundwater modeling assessment, one scenario was selected for use in this Strategic Plan as it represented a technically feasible recharge and extraction scenario with no projected adverse impacts, and the volume was deemed conservative and achievable while still providing a substantial volume for use. The selected scenario, referenced as Scenario 4 in the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, includes recharge of 2,800 AFY of fully advanced treated recycled water with Palo Alto extracting 5,900 AFY of augmented groundwater (i.e., mixture of groundwater and injected recycled water) to supplement potable water supplies. 2.3.3 Indirect Potable Demand Based on Scenario 4 of the IPR Feasibility Evaluation, the annual recycled water IPR demand is 2,800 AFY. This converts to a daily demand of 2.5 MGD and is the volume of treated water that can be used for injection purposes. Once injected, the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the “Project Yield”) under this scenario is 5,900 AFY (or 5.27 MGD). These demands and yields are summarized in Table 2-4. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-8 Table 2-4: IPR Demand and Groundwater Project Yield Summary Demand Type Value Annual Recycled Water Demand (Daily Recycled Water Demand) 2,800 AFY (2.50 MGD) Annual Project Yield (Daily Project Yield) 5,900 AFY (5.27 MGD) These demand and project yield values were adjusted for IPR concept options that included NPR uses. This is further detailed in Section 3.5.3. 2.4 Direct Potable Uses 2.4.1 Potential Direct Potable Uses At the initial stages of this study, Palo Alto, the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto, and Cal Water all expressed an interest in DPR. Although DPR regulations for both raw water and treated drinking water augmentation are not yet developed, the SWRCB’s DDW released a framework for these regulations in April 2018. This framework considered recycled water used for DPR purposes to be treated by full advanced treatment standards, at a minimum. This framework also included surface water treatment as a necessary component of raw water augmentation. Because there is no dedicated surface water treatment plant in the Study Area, treated drinking water augmentation is considered the only feasible DPR option available at this time. Per anticipated DDW regulations, treated drinking water augmentation (colloquially called a “pipe-to-pipe” approach) requires water to be treated to potable standards at the advanced water treatment plant (AWTP) that would include full advanced treatment plus other treatment processes. For DPR use in Palo Alto, an AWTP would be located at the RWQCP. Meanwhile for DPR use in the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto, or the Cal Water service area, the AWTP could be located at the RWQCP or a satellite site. AWTP water would then be kept in engineered storage and delivered directly to the potable water distribution system. DPR use in Palo Alto was considered as a project concept option (D1) in this study and is further discussed in Section 3.6. 2.4.2 Direct Potable Reuse Assessment Each partner agency to the RWQCP (including Palo Alto) retains the right to reuse as much recycled water as wastewater that was sent from their agency to the RWQCP for treatment. As such, the amount of potential DPR yield was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow, which is 7.31 MGD or about 36% of the RWQCP’s average annual flow (20.3 MGD, 2010-2018 average). With 1.0 MGD assumed to be dedicated to other recycled water customers in Palo Alto, the available flow estimated to feed a DPR facility is 6.31 MGD. Finally, after accounting for a 25% rejection rate during the treatment process, the amount of produced water for potable consumption was estimated to be 4.73 MGD (average and maximum day are the same in this case such that the DPR facility operates at a constant steady rate). Similarly, this converts to an average annual demand of 5,300 AFY of 4.73 MGD. The development of this DPR demand estimate is summarized in Table 2-5. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 2 Recycled Water Demand Assessment FINAL July 2019 2-9 Table 2-5: DPR Demand Estimate Summary RWQCP Average Annual Flow (2010- 2018) Palo Alto’s Share of RWQCP Effluent Flow Flow Available as DPR Input Flow Produced as DPR Output 20.3 MGD 7.31 MGD 6.31 MGD 4.73 MGD (5,300 AFY) 2.5 Other Potential Uses Outside of Study Area In addition to the Strategic Plan, Valley Water is collaborating with local stakeholders to develop a Countywide Water Reuse Master Plan (Countywide Plan). This effort aims to integrate and expand recycled and purified water as a local and drought-proof water supply throughout Santa Clara County. The plan is projected to be completed by June 2020. Valley Water’s goal is to develop recycled water to provide for at least 10% of the total county demands by 2028 by developing up to 24,000 AFY of additional potable reuse. Valley Water is exploring sourcing water from a variety of wastewater treatment facilities in Santa Clara County. One of the options being considered by the Countywide Plan is export of water from the RWQCP for potable reuse further south in Santa Clara County, where Valley Water operates recharge ponds. Depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-1 Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options 3.1 Summary of Approach Figure 3-1 summarizes the process used to develop the Strategic Plan concept options, or expansion opportunities. The approach was to start by incorporating key findings from previous studies, and to then survey and meet with the various agencies to validate previous findings and to confirm future interests. Through a Visioning Workshop, the consultant team aided the agencies in identifying and prioritizing opportunities for recycled water within the study area and to select concept options for further analysis. The consultant team then provided technical development of the concept options and preliminary evaluations which were confirmed with the agencies at an Evaluation Workshop. After completion of the evaluation of the concept options, implementation strategies for each recycled water use type were then defined. Figure 3-1: Summary of Overall Approach to Strategic Plan Concept Option Development and Assessment 3.2 Concept Option Development Process This section summarizes the objectives, screening process, and engineering design criteria used to develop the Strategic Plan concepts considered in the study. 3.2.1 Objectives in Concept Option Development The following objectives guided the development of Strategic Plan Concept Options for the Study Area: 1) Develop Cost Effective Concept Options: To meet this objective, concept options were developed around large potential users as well as dense areas of users. Users with estimated demands greater than 50 AFY were included in at least one of the preliminary concept options presented to stakeholders for screening. The intent was that these customers would serve as anchor customers along an alignment, providing sufficient demand to justify needed infrastructure costs. However, because many of the large users are on the edge of the Study Area, the cost effectiveness of including some of these customers became less certain. While aiming to Demand Assessment •Agency Survey •Meetings with Partners •Previous Studies Visioning Workshop Develop- ment of Concept Options •Sizing Facilities •Developing Costs Evaluation of Concept Options •Non-Cost Criteria Scoring Evaluation Workshop Outreach • Utilities Advisory Committee (Sept. 2018) • Palo Alto City Council Study Session (Nov. 2018) • Pubic Meeting (Apr. 2019) Implemen -tation Strategies Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-2 meet the most demand in each concept option, the distance between customers was also considered such that concept options focused on clusters of users that could be served from a common pipeline. Extensions off the main pipeline generally were not pursued for users with less than 5 AFY of demand. 2) Pursue Regional Solutions: One of the primary goals of the Strategic Plan is to assess whether a regional approach to recycled water projects in the RWQCP service area would result in concept options that are more economically-feasible to implement and multi-beneficial. With this in mind, concept options were developed that incorporated multiple jurisdictions and water retailers to analyze whether this created beneficial outcomes in the Study Area. 3.2.2 Preliminary Concept Options Screening In March 2018, Palo Alto and Valley Water conducted a Visioning Workshop with interested RWQCP Partner Agencies, water retailers, and neighboring agencies. At the workshop, a number of preliminary concept options were presented to the stakeholder group and valuable input received. Through discussion with the stakeholders, some of the concept options were modified, while others were eliminated. Additionally, a concept option looking at satellite treatment for non-potable reuse – versus centralized treatment at the RWQCP – was added. The remainder of this chapter, beginning in Section 3.3, includes a description of each of the concept options evaluated. The concept options are divided into four categories:  “A” series for NPR concept options from RWQCP (Section 3.2)  “B” concept option for NPR from satellite treatment (Section 3.3)  “C” series for IPR concept options (Section 3.4)  “D” concept option for DPR (Section 3.5) 3.2.3 Engineering Design Criteria Hydraulic Criteria The criteria used to size the distribution infrastructure for new concept options developed as part of this study are summarized in Table 3-1. In general, the minimum pressure criterion establishes the hydraulic grade line (HGL) required, which in turn helps define pumping requirements. The maximum flow velocity criterion generally governs pipe sizing. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-3 Table 3-1: Hydraulic Criteria Description Value Pipelines Minimum Pressure at Standard Pressurized Customer Connections 40 psi Minimum Pressure at Injection Well Connections1 15 psi Minimum Pressure at Pond Storage Customer Connections 10 psi Maximum Customer Pressure2 120 psi Minimum Pipe Size 6 in Maximum Flow Velocity 5 ft/s Pump Stations Assumed Pumping Efficiency 75% Non-Overloading Horsepower Adjustment 10% Maximum Standard Motor Size, Each Pump 100 hp Notes: 1. Determined to be the minimum required pressure for injection wells, per communication with Sally McCraven, Todd Groundwater. 2. Certain customer demand nodes exceed the maximum pressure criterion at times, which is acceptable to maintain minimum service pressures elsewhere. Customers with high pressures will require a pressure regulating valve on the service line. A spreadsheet was developed to model each concept option’s pipe network and optimized backbone pipe sizes. Each alignment was divided into segments, and peak hour flows for each customer along or downstream of a given segment were aggregated to determine the minimum pipeline diameter needed to convey maximum flows. This model was utilized to check pressure at customer connections and determine each concept option’s pump station sizes. To develop conceptual costs at this planning level, hydraulic head required at the RWQCP to serve the concept options was treated as a separate pump station at the RWQCP location. The potential for integrating this hydraulic capacity to existing facilities at the RWQCP would need to be analyzed upon further development of any concept option. The results for each concept option’s hydraulic analysis, including pipeline and pump station sizing, are summarized in Sections 3.3 to 3.6. Treatment Criteria Palo Alto has committed to delivering 3.0 MGD of enhanced recycled water to Mountain View and 1.0 MGD to Palo Alto for non-potable uses. As discussed in Section 1.3.2, Palo Alto is planning to implement an AWTS to provide 1.125 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water, which will be blended at with RWQCP tertiary recycled water to produce enhanced recycled water with a target TDS level below 600 mg/L. Plans for the AWTS include potential expansion to produce 2.25 MGD of reverse osmosis treated water. In evaluating additional treatment needs for the centralized NPR concept options (“A” series) in this study, it is assumed that the 2.25 MGD AWTS facility will be constructed. If a combination of the AWTS facility and the existing 4.5 MGD granular media filters can be used to meet the total demand for a concept option including the current flow commitments for NPR in Mountain View and Palo Alto while still meeting a 600 mg/L TDS target, additional treatment is not included. As such, the 1:1 blend ratio used in the 2017 Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study and Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report is not used for this study. Rather, 2.25 MGD AWTS produced water with TDS of 50 mg/L is assumed to be combined with the balance of RWQCP tertiary recycled water needed to meet the concept option demand with TDS of 900 mg/L. Consequently, the final TDS concentration varied depending on the concept option tertiary recycled water demand, however all concept options remained below the 600 mg/L TDS goal. This approach allows the NPR concept options to be consistent with the previously Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-4 completed Feasibility Study while maintaining sufficient operational flexibility to ensure cost effective solutions to meet enhanced recycled water demands. For non-potable uses served from a satellite treatment facility, this study assumes the facility to provide disinfected tertiary treated recycled water and that saline inflow and infiltration is negligible. For IPR, recycled water would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection (membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, and an ultraviolet light -advanced oxidation process). In addition, each extraction well is planned to have wellhead treatment per Option 4 of Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. Option 4 includes treatment for iron, manganese, and TDS at each well site such that the extracted water will be comparable to SFPUC water supplies. Option 4 is the treatment option assumed for this study since this is most comparable to the existing Palo Alto supply and most likely to gain customer acceptance. For DPR, treatment standards were designed to align with guidance provided by the SWRCB in its Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California (April 2018). Also, the SWRCB’s Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for DPR indicated that DPR treatment trains should be sourced from tertiary recycled water (defined as any process employed after secondary treatment to further improve water quality). Therefore, the water quality of the influent wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the RWQCP; the RWQCP is a tertiary treatment facility that treats all of its wastewater beyond secondary treatment standards. In addition to the steps required to treat recycled water to full advanced treatment standards, the DPR train would include ozone, biologically active filtration, and free chlorine process steps. Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is included in concept options as necessary to maintain compliance with the RWQCP’s NPDES discharge permit. The 2017 Advanced Water Purification Feasibility Study identified maximum AWTS sizes to comply with the RWQCP’s permit without concentrate treatment under the following scenarios:  Scenario 1. All enhanced recycled water: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water from the AWTS is blended with tertiary-treated recycled water at a 1:1 ratio and distributed to customers.  Scenario 2. All potable reuse: This scenario assumes all of the advanced treated water from the AWTS would be used for potable reuse and no blending with tertiary-treated recycled water would occur.  Scenario 3. Enhanced recycled water with additional potable reuse: This scenario assumes implementation of a 2.25 MGD AWTS for enhanced recycled water production (4.5 MGD of total enhanced recycled water capacity) with the remaining advanced water purification facility (AWPF) capacity for potable reuse. Table 3-2 summarizes the findings from the feasibility study which were based on a conservative approach in order to meet the various maximum daily permit limits. The scenarios relevant to this planning effort are Scenarios 1 and 3. The Strategic Plan assumes that the 2.25 MGD enhanced recycled water AWTS will be constructed to meet the RWQCP’s existing commitments to Mountain View and Palo Alto. If any of the NPR concept options were to require additional AWTS treatment capacity, the threshold above which concentrate treatment would be needed is an additional 1.65 MGD of AWTS capacity (for total enhanced recycled water capacity of 7.8 MGD). For the IPR and DPR concept options (which both including reverse osmosis in their treatment trains), the threshold above which concentrate treatment would be needed is 2.5 MGD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-5 Table 3-2: Maximum AWTS Sizes Without Requiring Reverse Osmosis Concentrate Treatment Maximum AWTS Size (MGD) AWTS for Enhanced Recycled Water Size (MGD) Enhanced Recycled Water Produced (MGD) AWPF for Potable Reuse Size (MGD) Scenario 1: All Enhanced Recycled Water 3.9 -- 7.8 -- Scenario 2: All Potable Reuse 5.8 -- -- 5.8 Scenario 3: Enhanced Recycled Water AWTS of 2.25 MGD with Additional Potable Reuse 4.8 2.25 4.5 2.5 Note: The sizing is based on the RWQCP’s minimum daily flow of 12 MGD. See MNS Advanced Water Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report, December 2017, for additional details. 3.3 Concept Options A: NPR from RWQCP There are six concept options in the “A” series that contain different pipeline alignments to meet differing NPR demands throughout the Study Area:  A1: The Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018 Preliminary Design Report. This concept option was included in this study in order to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options.  A2: Extends the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills.  A3: Extends Concept Option A2 to serve additional customers in Los Altos.  A4: Extends the Mountain View Systems in accordance with the Long-Term Expansion Project from the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. This concept option was included in this study in order to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options.  A5: Extends Concept Option A4 to service customers in Los Altos.  A6: Serves existing and future customers in East Palo Alto and Palo Alto and includes sizing facilities for an extension to Menlo Park. 3.3.1 Concept Option A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Concept Option A1 is the Phase 3 Pipeline to south Palo Alto recommended in the 2008 Palo Alto Recycled Water Facility Plan and reassessed through the 2018 Phase 3 Business Plan and 2018 Preliminary Design Report. Facilities for the concept option are summarized in Table 3-3 and shown on Figure 3-2. Notable items from Concept Option A1 are:  Customers: Unlike other customers on Phase 3, the anchor customer for this Concept Option relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto.  Pipelines: Build off the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road.  Pump Stations: Two - 1) expansion of existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP; and 2) a booster pump station along the Phase 3 alignment. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-6 Table 3-3: Demand and Facility Summary for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer1 1 167 Total 110 801 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 18,500 8 9,000 10 7,200 12 23,200 Total Length (LF) 57,900 Total Length (mi) 11.0 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station Phase 3 Booster Pump Station Required Flow 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm Discharge Head 200 ft 198 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2 (duty) 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 240 hp Notes: 1. Anchor customer is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike others, this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-7 Figure 3-2: Alignment for Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-8 3.3.2 Concept Option A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Concept Option A2 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline in Concept Option A1 to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills and Los Altos Hills. The Concept Option A2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-3. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demand values and facilities are outlined in Table 3-4. Some notable items for Concept Option A2 are:  Customers: Concept Option A2 captures two additional high demand customers and benefits an additional RWQCP partner by including a branch to Los Altos Hills.  Pipelines: Build off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone in Embarcadero Road.  Pump Stations: Four - Expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and three booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment. Table 3-4: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169 Foothills Park 1 75 Los Altos Hills 3 24 Total 115 1069 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 55,100 8 8,600 10 5,900 12 1,000 16 8,000 Total Length (LF) 78,600 Total Length (mi) 14.9 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station #3 (PS3) Booster Pump Stations #4 (PS4) Required Flow 2,270 gpm 1,887 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm Discharge Head 178 ft 285 ft 174 ft 588 ft3 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1 1+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp 75 hp 20 hp2 20 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp Notes: 1. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its location to the end user (Foothills Park). 2. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump motor rating was optimal to meet pressure criteria at nearby customers. 3. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because, unlike other customers on Phase 3, this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-9 Figure 3-3: Alignment for Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-10 3.3.3 Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Concept Option A3 extends the Phase 3 Pipeline to serve additional customers in the Palo Alto Foothills, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills to capture some of the highest potential demands as well as create a more regional NPR concept option. The original intent of this concept option was to capture customers within the northern portion of Los Altos by branching off of the proposed Phase 3 pipeline on Arastradero Road, crossing Adobe Creek and ending at Hillview Community Center. However, during development of the proposed alignment, it was determined that crossing to Los Altos from the Alta Mesa Memorial Park region required too much disruption and coordination with private entities. As such, the alignment to Los Altos extends eastward to Briones Park, down El Camino Real, and southwards towards Covington Elementary School, resulting in a longer length of pipeline than initially envisioned. The Concept Option A3 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-4. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-5.  Customers: Serves customers in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills including Briones Park and Elementary School in Palo Alto.  Pipelines: Concept Option A3 would be built off of the 24-inch recycled water pipeline on East Bayshore. In order to meet the additional demands in the Palo Alto Foothills, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, some of the Phase 3 pipeline segments were upsized for additional capacity.  Pump Stations: Five – expansion of the existing recycled water pump station at the RWQCP and four booster pump stations at optimized locations throughout the alignment. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-11 Table 3-5: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Briones Park 1 14 Briones Elementary School 1 5 Anchor Customer No. 2 1 169 Foothills Park 1 75 Los Altos 8 143 Los Altos Hills 3 24 Total 125 1231 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 65,000 8 32,700 12 3,600 16 9,000 Total Length (LF) 116,200 Total Length (mi) 22.0 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station #3 (PS3) Booster Pump Station #4 (PS4) Booster Pump Station #5 (PS5) Required Flow 2,783 gpm 2,399 gpm 268 gpm 161 gpm 454 gpm Discharge Head 204 ft 271 ft 174 ft 588 ft 133 ft2 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 4+1 1+1 2+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 60 hp 20 hp 20 hp3 23d hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 300 hp 40 hp 60 hp 69 hp Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No.1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not currently receive water service from Palo Alto. 2. Required discharge head at Booster Pump Station #4 is notably larger due to the 610-foot elevation increase from its location to the end user (Foothills Park). 3. After assessing the feasibility of other hydraulic configurations (including removing Booster Pump Station #3 and upsizing other booster pump stations), it was determined that including Booster Pump Station #3 at the specified pump motor rating was optimal in order to avoid exceeding pressure criteria for customers near Booster Pump Station #5. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-12 Figure 3-4: Alignment for Concept Option A3, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-13 3.3.4 Concept Option A4: NPR Mountain View Concept Option A4 is the Mountain View Long-Term Expansion Project from the 2014 Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study (RWFS). This concept option was included in this study to evaluate its feasibility relative to other concept options. Note that the distribution system hydraulic analysis criteria used in the Mountain View RWFS differ slightly from those presented in Table 3-1 but resulting facility sizing would be similar. Also of note, Mountain View is in the process of updating the 2014 RWFS focusing on extending their existing system to Google and NASA, and across Highway 101. The Concept Option A4 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-5. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-6. Notable items from Concept Option A4 are:  Customers: Same as the customers identified in the Mountain View RWFS for the Long-Term Expansion Project continuing to build off of Mountain View’s Phase 2 pipeline.  Pump Station: Additional pumping capacity at the Charleston Pump Station and NASA Pump Station to meet peak hour demands for Concept Option A4. Pump Stations The Recommended Project presented in Mountain View RWFS Study consists of three phases: the Short- Term Expansion, the Mid-Term Expansion, and the Long-Term Expansion. The Short-Term and Mid- Term Expansions are constructed or planned to be constructed by 2020, while the construction of the Long-Term Expansion is unscheduled. The total system for all phases of the Mountain View Recommended Project requires two pump stations: one at Charleston Park and one at NASA’s Ames Research Park (NASA Pump Station). The Charleston Park Pump Station was initially sized at 450 hp to meet demands included in the Short-Term and Mid-Term Expansions. To meet the peak hour demand for the Long-Term Expansion, two additional variable frequency drive units with a combined capacity of 100 hp would need to be added to the Charleston Park Pump Station for a total installed horsepower of 550. Additional capacity would need to be installed at the 275-hp NASA Pump Station to meet Long-Term Expansion demands. This includes an additional 25-hp variable frequency drive unit for a total capacity of 300 hp. Storage Tank Sizing As part of the Mid-Term Phase, a storage tank with 1.6 MG capacity was included to meet demands included in all phases of the Recommended Project. This storage facility is sited at NASA’s Ames Research Park and is planned to be constructed. Therefore, the cost of the storage tank is included in the Mid-Term Phase construction and is not considered in the Concept Option A4 cost estimate. Pending the results of the current update to the 2014 RWFS, previous recommendations for sizing of storage and pump stations may be altered. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-14 Table 3-6: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A4, Mountain View Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216 Total 42 216 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 12,200 10 1,500 12 2,500 Total Length (LF) 16,200 Total Length (mi) 3.1 Description Additional Capacity Requirements Charleston Park Pump Station NASA Pump Station Required Flow 900 gpm 1 600 gpm2 Pump Configuration (duty only)3 24 14 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp4 25 hp4 Total Installed Motor Horsepower 100 hp (for 550 hp total system capacity)4 25 hp (for 300 hp total system capacity)4 Notes: 1. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (6,100 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-11) and the design flow for the Mid-Term Expansion (5,200 gpm; Mountain View RWFS, p. 7-9). 2. Calculated as the difference between the total design flow (4,300 gpm) and the design flow for the Mid-Term Expansion (3,700 gpm). Both values were found in the Mountain View RWFS, Table 7.4. 3. The Mountain View RWFS installed pump horsepower does not include spare pumping capacity, per the note in Table 7.4. 4. The pumps’ configuration, motor rating, and total installed horsepower are on page 7-11 of the Mountain View RWFS. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-15 Figure 3-5: Alignment for Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-16 3.3.5 Concept Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Concept Option A5 would serve customers from Concept Option A4 and includes an extension that was considered in the 2014 Mountain View RWFS “Alternative 3”. While initially considered as a long-term extension for the Mountain View system, “Alternative 3” was not included as part of Mountain View’s final Recommended Project to due financial considerations. For the purposes of this study, Concept Option A5 uses that same alignment and customer base, then extends service to Los Altos customers south of Central Expressway to El Camino Hospital and Cooper Park, including the Los Altos Golf & Country Club. The Concept Option A5 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-6. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-7. Notable items from Concept Option A5 are:  Customers: Concept Option A4 with expansion to service additional Mountain View and Los Altos customers.  Pump Stations: Two - 1) located at the NASA’s Ames Research Park that serves all users on the Long-Term Expansion alignment and 2) another located at Central Expressway that serves all other users.  Storage Tank: Operational volume of 1.2 MG to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the Long-Term Expansion demands, located at NASA Ames Research Park. Storage Tank Sizing To provide enough supply during peak hours, Concept Option A5 requires a storage tank. The Mountain View RWFS included a “NASA Storage Tank” at the connection between the Mid-Term and Long-Term Expansion alignments, located at NASA’s Ames Research Park. This tank is sized to meet demands through the Long-Term Expansion. Additional storage capacity is required to meet Mountain View and Los Altos demands beyond the Long-Term Expansion users. For planning purposes, this increased capacity requirement was sized and cost as a separate storage tank at the NASA Storage Tank location. The potential for adding this capacity to existing storage facilities at NASA’s Ames Research Park location would need to be evaluated upon further development of this concept option. The storage tank operational volume needed to serve Concept Option A5 users beyond the Long-Term Expansion demands is 1.2 MG. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-17 Table 3-7: Demand and Facilities Summary of Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Mountain View – Long-Term Expansion 42 216 Mountain View – Alternative 3 53 274 Additional Mountain View Site 1 12 Los Altos 10 370 Total 106 872 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 21,600 8 14,900 10 5,600 16 45,000 Total Length (LF) 87,100 Total Length (mi) 16.5 Storage Tank 1.2 MG Description Performance Requirements NASA Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station #2 (PS2) Required Flow 3,031 gpm 1,799 gpm Discharge Head 190 ft 187 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 75 hp 75 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp 225 hp Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-18 Figure 3-6: Alignment for Concept Option A5, NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-19 3.3.6 Concept Option A6: NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Concept Option A6 would serve customers (including yet to be constructed customers) in East Palo Alto, with facilities sized to extend to areas of developments in Menlo Park that are east of U.S. Highway 101. Menlo Park does not currently use any recycled water and does not own or operate a wastewater treatment facility. Menlo Park has expresses interest in receiving recycled water supplies from other agencies, including Redwood City, West Bay Sanitary District, and Palo Alto’s RWQCP (West Yost, 2017). The Concept Option A6 alignment and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-7. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-8. Notable items from Concept Option A6 are:  Customers: Potential demand for Menlo Park was obtained through discussions with Menlo Park and WBSD, both of which have conducted recycled water assessments for this area. Note that East Palo Alto is continuing to see increases in development such that these demand estimates may be lower than actuals.  Pipelines: Builds off of the existing 30-inch recycled water backbone along Embarcadero Road.  Pump Stations: One – expanded existing recycled water pump station at RWQCP Table 3-8: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) East Palo Alto 10 145 East Palo Alto – yet to be constructed 17 192 Palo Alto 6 114 Subtotal 33 451 Menlo Park N/A1 250 Total 701 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 14,100 8 10,200 10 10,000 Total Length (LF) 34,300 Total Length (mi) 6.5 Description Performance Requirements Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 1,000 gpm Discharge Head 250 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 50 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 150 hp Note: 1. The number of users in Menlo Park was not identified as part of the Strategic Plan. The estimated demand is based on discussions with Menlo Park and WBSD. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-20 Figure 3-7: Alignment for Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto and Menlo Park Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-21 3.4 Concept Option B: NPR from Satellite Location 3.4.1 Concept Option B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Concept Option B1 is a satellite treatment plant that would treat wastewater flows from a more proximate location to recycled water customers compared to the RWQCP. Based on a planning-level assessment of wastewater flow volumes available in the Study Area, the satellite plant would treat wastewater from Los Altos to provide NPR water to customers in Palo Alto and Los Altos. The Concept Option B1 alignment and the locations of the satellite treatment plant and customer demands are shown in Figure 3-8. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding facilities are outlined in Table 3-9. Notable items from Concept Option B1 are:  Location: The satellite plant could be located at Robles Park in Palo Alto and would treat wastewater from Los Altos.  Customers: Customers would be located nearby in Los Altos and in Palo Alto  Pump Stations: Four – 1 raw influent pump station to feed wastewater to the satellite plant and three to distribute and boost recycled water to customers  Storage: Satellite plant would include 1.4 MG of treated water storage to meet peak hour demands Treatment Facilities A potential site for the satellite facility is Robles Park in Palo Alto. Due to the urban setting of the Study Area, there are limited opportunities to site new treatment facilities. There are no vacant properties in the immediate vicinity of the sewer diversion point. Robles Park was identified as a potential site because it is a public property and has sufficient open space to accommodate the satellite facilities. Although, public use of the treatment plant site would be lost. For purposes of this study, the facilities are assumed to be above ground at Robles Park. Use of Robles Park would also require City Council adoption of a Parks Improvement Ordinance approving any substantial construction or development per Palo Alto Municipal Code 22.08.005. However, if this concept option were to be pursued further, alternative treatment facility siting may be considered, for example purchasing private property closer to the diversion point or siting facilities below ground at Robles Park. Pipelines Concept Option B1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 12.8 miles of pipeline, including 6,000 LF of pipeline to convey influent wastewater flows from the sewer diversion point to the satellite treatment facilities. Pump Stations To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option B1 includes three pump stations: one at the satellite plant site and two booster pump stations at optimized locations on the Phase 3 alignment and in Los Altos. In addition, a Satellite Influent Pump Station is required to transport raw wastewater flows from the diversion point at the end of the Los Altos sewer system to the satellite treatment facility in Palo Alto. This influent pump station is co-located at the Pump Station #3 site. Storage Tank Sizing In order to meet demands during peak hours, Concept Option B1 requires a storage tank. The storage tank is sized to store the maximum day demands for this concept option (1.4 MG) and is assumed to be sited next to the satellite treatment plant. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-22 Table 3-9: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 32 83 595 Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 2 28 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 Los Altos 5 104 Total 91 894 Treatment (MBR) 1.5 MGD Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 39,800 8 4,000 10 6,400 12 11,500 16 (influent to satellite plant) 6,000 Total Length (LF) 67,700 Total Length (mi) 12.8 Storage Tank 1.4 MG Description Performance Requirements Satellite Plant Pump Station (PS1) Booster Pump Station 2 (PS2) Booster Pump Station 3 (PS3) Satellite Influent Pump Station (PS4) Required Flow 1,676 gpm 416 gpm 329 gpm 1,979 gpm Discharge Head 252 ft 204 ft 288 ft 75 ft 3 Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1 2+1 2+1 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 40 hp 20 hp 20 hp 2 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 200 hp 60 hp 60 hp 6 hp Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto. 2. These customers represent a subset of Phase 3 alignment customers from Concept Option A1. 3. Required discharge head at the Satellite Influent Pump Station is notably smaller due to the 30-foot elevation decrease from its location to the satellite facility site. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-23 Figure 3-8: Alignment for Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-24 3.5 Concept Option C: IPR Concept Options 3.5.1 Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Concept Option C1 was developed as Scenario 4 under the IPR Feasibility Evaluation (Todd 2018). Concept Option C1 provides purified water for injection at five injection well sites in Palo Alto. The Concept Option C1 alignment and the locations of injection wells are shown in Figure 3-9. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for injection purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values are summarized in Table 3-10. Notable items from Concept Option C1 are:  Treatment: full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system.  Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers.  Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells.  Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at RWQCP Table 3-10: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Customer Location Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto - IPR Injection Wells 2,800 5,900 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 2,000 8 1,500 10 5,000 12 21,000 Total Length (LF) 29,500 Total Length (mi) 5.6 Description Performance Requirements Purified Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 1,736 gpm Discharge Head 269 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 2+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp Recycled Water Treatment Wellhead Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-25 Treatment Facilities Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. The treatment facilities would be sized to produce 2.5 MGD to meet the daily flow required to be injected into the groundwater basin to achieve 2,800 AFY. This assumes each of the five proposed injection wells is constantly operating and does not account for downtime. The treatment facilities for this concept option are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E Site. The Measure E site is a 10-acre site adjacent to the RWQCP that includes a relatively flat portion that could be suitable for treatment facilities. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Pipelines Concept Option C1’s distribution system would consist of approximately 5.6 miles of pipeline. A dedicated IPR transmission main would be needed to convey fully advanced treated recycled water from the RWQCP to the injection well field while the existing recycled water pipeline would continue to deliver disinfected tertiary recycled water to non-potable demands. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-26 Figure 3-9: Alignment for Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-27 3.5.2 Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR Concept Option C2 expands upon Concept Option C1 to include service of non-potable demands along or in close proximity to the alignment. Both uses (IPR and NPR) would share a transmission line and consequently, fully advanced treated recycled water would be served to all customers in this concept option despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR. The Concept Option C2 alignment is shown in Figure 3-10. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-11. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, the volume of fully advanced treated recycled water that can be used for NPR and injection purposes is 2,800 AFY, while the volume of water that can be sustainably extracted from the groundwater basin (or the Project Yield) is 5,900 AFY (a mixture of recycled water and groundwater). These values are summarized in Table 3-11. Notable items from Concept Option C2 are:  Treatment: Full advanced treatment is assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system.  Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers and 18 non-potable customers along the pipeline route. Both potable and non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated recycled water due to use of the same transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR customers.  Pipeline: Dedicated pipeline to bring fully advanced treated recycled water from treatment facilities at the RWQCP to the injection wells will also serve non-potable demands in close proximity (with higher quality fully advanced treated recycled water).  Pump Stations: One – dedicated pump station for purified recycled water at the RWQCP. Treatment Facilities RWQCP recycled water will be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. Because the potable and non-potable demands will be served from the same pipeline, the treatment facilities must be sized to treat the base flows to the injection wells plus the maximum day demand for the non-potable users. This translates to a total maximum day demand of 2.8 MGD. The treatment facilities for this concept option, which would include reverse osmosis concentrate treatment facilities (see Section 3.2.3), are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-28 Table 3-11: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 18 189 189 IPR Injection Wells - 2800 5900 Total 18 3,000 6,100 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 11,300 8 5,500 10 3,000 12 2,500 16 19,100 Total Length (LF) 41,400 Total Length (mi) 7.8 Description Performance Requirements Purified Recycled Water Pump Station (PS1) Required Flow 2,334 gpm Discharge Head 265 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 4+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 300 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Wellhead Treatment Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-29 Figure 3-10: Alignment for Concept Option C2, Palo Alto IPR with NPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-30 3.5.3 Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Concept Option C3 is similar to Concept Option C2 but uses an extension from the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) to serve the injection well sites. Similar to Concept Option C2, fully advanced treated recycled water would be served to all customers (NPR and IPR) in this concept option. Concept Option C3 is unique in that it assumes that the Phase 3 Pipeline for NPR has already been constructed and flows to the injection well field are limited by the excess capacity in the Phase 3 Pipeline during off-peak hours and outside of the peak irrigation season. This concept option mitigates the risk of decreasing NPR demand along the Phase 3 Pipeline and would enable phased implementation with NPR in the near term and IPR in the longer term. The Concept Option C3 alignment is shown in Figure 3-11. A summary of the customers included in this concept option and their corresponding demands are outlined in Table 3-12. The values shown assume the estimated demand for the Phase 3 Pipeline is maintained, which allows for approximately 2,280 AFY to be sent to IPR versus the 2,800 AFY in Concept Options C1 and C2. Correspondingly the project yield (total of recycled water and groundwater) was reduced to 5,000 AFY from 5,900 AFY. Notable items from Concept Option C3:  Phasing: Concept Option C3 represents a potential phased implementation with NPR in the near term and IPR in the longer term.  Treatment: Full advanced treatment facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities .AWTS Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected and mixed into the local groundwater system.  Customers: In a future phase, customers on the Phase 3 Pipeline would receive fully advanced treated recycled water through a new dedicated connection from the RWQCP. Both potable and non-potable customers would receive fully advanced treated recycled water due to use of same transmission pipeline despite the additional treatment being unnecessary for NPR customers.  Pipeline: Includes the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1) and, in a future phase, a new connection from the RWQCP full advanced treatment facilities to Phase 3 and an extension to IPR injection wells. Treatment Facilities Recycled water from the RWQCP would be treated to full advanced treatment standards for injection. Because the potable and non-potable demands would be served from the same pipeline, the treatment facilities must be sized to treat both the flows to the injection wells plus the flows to the non-potable users, or 3.3 MGD. The non-potable demands will be served by nearly potable water. This concept option includes reverse osmosis concentrate treatment (see 3.2.3) that is assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include treatment facilities. Wellhead treatment is included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations to make the groundwater quality comparable to Palo Alto’s existing SFPUC supply. Pump Stations To meet the pressure criteria, Concept Option C3 includes an additional pump station beyond the ones identified for the Phase 3 Pipeline (Concept Option A1). This additional pump station would be at the connection between the Phase 3 Pipeline and the IPR extension pipeline. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-31 Table 3-12: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Customer Location Number of Users Demand Total (AFY) Project Yield (AFY) Palo Alto – Phase 3 109 634 634 Anchor Customer No. 11 1 167 167 Palo Alto – Non-Phase 3 10 119 119 Palo Alto – IPR Injection Wells - 2,280 5,000 Total 120 3,200 5,900 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 6 20,000 8 12,500 10 9,900 12 48,300 16 900 Total Length (LF) 91,600 Total Length (mi) 17.3 Description Performance Requirements IPR Booster Pump Station (PS1) Recycled Water Pump Station Phase 3 Booster Pump Station Required Flow 2,108 gpm 1,637 gpm 1,408 gpm Discharge Head 302 ft 200 ft 198 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 2 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 100 hp 100 hp 60 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 400 hp 200 hp 240 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Wellhead Treatment Included to lower iron, manganese, and TDS concentrations Notes: 1. Anchor Customer No. 1 is distinguished from the rest of the Phase 3 customers because this customer relies on groundwater for its water supply and does not receive water from Palo Alto. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-32 Figure 3-11: Alignment for Concept Option C3, Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-33 3.6 Concept Option D: DPR Concept Options 3.6.1 Concept Option D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Concept Option D1 uses advanced treated recycled water to directly supplement the potable water supply for customers in Palo Alto. As discussed in Section 2.4, because there is no dedicated surface water treatment plant in the service area, treated drinking water augmentation is the only feasible DPR option available at this time. Treated water would be stored in a purified water tank for 8 hours and delivered to the potable water distribution system. A map showing the approximate alignment and connection points to the potable water system for Concept Option D1 is shown in Figure 3-12. As explained in Section 2.4.2, the demand for DPR (Table 3-13) was based on Palo Alto’s share of the RWQCP effluent flow. Notable items from Concept Option D1:  Treatment: Full advanced treatment plus other treatment process facilities are assumed to be constructed near the RWQCP on the Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these facilities. Fully advanced treated recycled water would be injected directly into the potable distribution system. Additional monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated to demonstrate protection of public health.  Customers: Palo Alto potable water system customers.  Pump Stations: Two pump stations: one to convey fully advanced treated recycled water to storage (Storage Pump Station) and one from the storage to the distribution system (Distribution Pump Station).  Pipeline: Connects from treatment facilities to storage and from storage to potable water system at three separate points to add in blending and to match existing potable water system hydraulics.  Storage: Engineered storage of 4.75 MG is assumed to be located beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course driving range. Treatment Facilities Consistent with the SWRCB’s Feasibility Report on Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for DPR, the water quality of the influent wastewater for DPR was assumed to be final effluent from the RWQCP (filtered and disinfected secondary effluent). Without specific regulatory requirements, the assumed Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) treatment train is the full advanced treatment train with the additions of ozone-biologically active filtration and free chlorine process steps. In order to comply with the RWQCP discharge limits, facilities to treat the reverse osmosis concentrate would also be part of the AWTP. The AWTP treatment facilities are assumed to be sited at Palo Alto’s Measure E site. Use of this site would require Palo Alto voter approval to change the designated use to include these facilities. Additional monitoring and reporting of treatment performance is anticipated for DPR to demonstrate protection of public health. Concept Option D1 includes additional annual costs to reflect this additional, but undefined by regulations, monitoring. Storage Tank Sizing It is anticipated that an engineered storage buffer will be required between the AWPF and introduction of purified water to the potable distribution system. A potential location for this tank is beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course driving range. A preliminary estimate of the storage tank operational volume needed to serve Concept Option D1 users is 4.75 MG assuming 8 hours of cycling storage (filling, testing, and distributing from three different cells within the storage tank operational volume). Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-34 Table 3-13: Demand and Facilities Summary for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Customer Location Demand Total (AFY) Palo Alto 5,300 Modeled Pipe ID (in) Approximate Length of Pipe (LF) 10 5,000 16 1,700 18 1,400 24 2,600 Total Length (LF) 10,700 Total Length (mi) 2.0 Description Performance Requirements To Storage Pump Station (PS1) Distribution Pump Station (PS2) Required Flow 4,382 gpm 3,285 gpm Discharge Head 31 ft 257 ft Pump Configuration (duty + standby) 3+1 3+1 Pump Motor Rating (each) 15 hp 100 hp Total Installed Motor Horsepower 60 hp 400 hp Recycled Water Treatment RO Concentrate Treatment Ozone, Biologically Active Filtration, Membrane Filtration, Reverse Osmosis, Advanced Oxidation Process with UV, Free Chlorine Needed due to total reuse quantity; nanofiltration assumed (MNS, 2017) Storage 4.75 million gallons Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 3 Strategic Plan Concept Options FINAL July 2019 3-35 Figure 3-12: Alignment for Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-1 Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation 4.1 Approach for Concept Options Evaluation The concept options described in Chapter 3 were evaluated for estimated costs (e.g., capital, annual, unit cost of water) and for non-cost criteria. Section 4.2 describes the basis of the preliminary cost estimates while Section 4.3 presents the cost information by concept option. Section 4.4 describes the non-cost criteria scoring. Section 4.5 provides the evaluation of concept options with weighted scores for cost and non-cost criteria. Each concept option was evaluated for implementation costs (capital, operations, maintenance) based on technical information developed by the consulting team, described in Chapter 3, and using an approach for planning-level costs development discussed in this chapter. Following the implementation cost development, the concept options were evaluated for non-cost related criteria in a collaborative approach using input from agency stakeholders on priorities for the criteria and how to weigh criteria relative to one another. 4.2 Basis of Preliminary Cost Estimate This section provides an overview of the approach and methodology used to develop a preliminary estimate of costs for each concept option developed in this study. The estimated costs represent the Engineer’s opinion based on the current state of development for the project components. Specific information on the unit costs and source for each element is identified in the unit cost spreadsheets that are part of the detailed cost estimate provided in Appendix D. 4.2.1 Cost Estimate Classification The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE International) has developed a cost estimate classification system that provides guidelines for applying the general principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates. The five estimate classes are presented in AACE International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08 (Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied for the Building and General Construction Industries). The guideline establishes a relationship between the project maturity (i.e. project definition as percent of complete definition) and the accuracy and methodology used to produce the cost estimate. Based on the level of project definition, the cost estimates developed for this report are Class 5 as defined by Publication 56R-08. The accuracy range for Class 5 estimates in the Strategic Plan is between 20% below and 50% above estimated bid cost. 4.2.2 Cost Estimating Approach Cost estimates have been developed based on preliminary facility layouts and design criteria for pipeline alignments and pump stations. Construction costs were estimated using unit costs developed from past construction projects, industry cost estimate resources (primarily RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data) as well as engineering allowances based on engineering judgement and previous project experience. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are based on estimated labor hours, consumables, significant regular O&M activities (e.g. recoating of exposed metallic surfaces) and energy costs. Raw Construction Cost Raw construction costs are estimated by major work or component line item based on a unit cost multiplied by estimated quantity. Unit costs were developed using:  RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data (RSMeans);  Manufacturer’s equipment proposals; and  Experience with prior projects and activities of similar size or configuration. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-2 Historic unit cost or out-of-area unit cost information was adjusted to June 2018 dollars for the project vicinity using Engineering News Record’s (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) and the RSMeans Location Factor. Cost Estimate Benchmark Index The concept options’ preliminary cost estimates presented herein are benchmarked to ENR CCI for San Francisco. The estimate is in June 2018 dollars, with an ENR CCI SF index of 12,015. Construction Cost Allowances and Contingencies From the raw construction cost subtotal, several construction cost factors are applied to develop an estimated total construction cost. The construction cost factors used are listed below.  9% Sales Tax on Materials. Sales tax on materials was estimated as 9.0% (local sales tax) applied to 50% of capital costs (not including General Requirement costs). The assumption is that materials and equipment represent 50% of the raw construction cost.  40% Construction Contingency. The construction contingency is defined as unknown costs due to incomplete engineering during the preliminary design phase and uncertainty about full scope of the project. The contingency is applied to the construction cost subtotal that are estimated as a percentage of defined project costs (i.e. raw construction cost subtotal). As the level of project definition and understanding increases and the level of unknown decreases, the construction contingency typically decreases. For this report, a construction contingency of 40% was applied to the raw construction cost estimates.  10% Market Adjustment Factor. To account for bidding market price increases, a Market Adjustment Factor of 10% has been applied. Capital Cost Allowances  15% Engineering Services (Design) & Administration Services. Engineering services include field investigations (e.g. surveys, geotechnical reports, hazardous materials investigations), final design, contract document development (i.e. plans and specifications), preparation of detailed cost estimates, and project scheduling. Administration costs include Palo Alto’s project management and staff time during construction. An engineering and City administrative services allowance of 15% was applied to the total construction cost.  10% Construction Management. Costs for construction management, including inspection, can vary greatly with project size and complexity and whether the Owner performs this work with in- house staff or through a consultant. A construction management factor of 10% was applied to the total construction cost.  3% Engineering Services During Construction. Engineering services during construction (ESDC) includes submittal and request for information reviews, design clarifications, and startup support services. An ESDC factor of 3% was applied to the total construction cost. Property Acquisition For facilities such as pump stations and satellite treatment located outside of the public right of way or outside the RWQCP, land would need to be purchased or leased. The market rate for the project area was assumed to be $500 per square foot. These land costs were added to a concept option’s total capital cost following the allowances and contingencies. Purchase or lease of land includes RWQCP partner-owned properties. However, in the case of Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR, which assumes the engineered storage tank is beneath the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course, acquisition of the land is not required since normal golf course operations can resume following construction. In order to account for Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-3 the potential loss of revenue due to construction of this storage facility, an allowance for loss of revenue was applied. This cost was added to total capital cost following all allowances and contingencies. Property acquisition was not included for injection wells since the impact to properties is considered minimal. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs O&M requirements and annual costs were derived from experience on similar projects, as well as input from Palo Alto. The three components used to develop annual O&M costs were:  Labor – Labor costs associated with the water treatment and pump station O&M is calculated on an hourly basis. The required labor hours are estimated based on historical data. The average hourly cost of O&M personnel, which includes all wages and benefits to the operator, is assumed to be $100 per hour. Annual inspection and maintenance for storage tanks were estimated as 1 percent of the total capital costs for that element, while conveyance O&M was based on a cost metric per linear foot of pipeline.  Energy – Energy costs for pump stations are a combination of an energy charge (per kWh) and the kWh required input for each pump station in a concept option. Energy costs for treatment are estimated as a combined cost with consumables on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD).  Consumables – Consumables are a major component of operational expenditures and include resources that are intended and expected to be used and replaced routinely. Consumable costs for treatment were estimated on a per unit of water basis (cost per MGD). Consumable costs for pump stations were estimated as a percentage of the raw construction cost. Consumable costs are not applied to the pipeline portion of each concept option. 4.2.3 Wastewater/Recycled Water Treatment Construction Costs Wastewater and recycled water treatment construction costs have been developed for each concept option, where needed, on a per MGD basis. Per MGD cost estimates for membrane bioreactor (MBR) and for the advanced treatment facilities (membrane filtration, reverse osmosis, advanced oxidation process with UV, ozone, biologically active filtration, chlorination) are based on previous project experience. 4.2.4 Pipeline Construction Pipeline construction costs have been developed for each concept option as described in the following sections. Pipeline capital costs include open-cut, special crossing elements, and pipe rehabilitation. Pipeline Construction Cost – Open Cut The pipe material for open cut installation is assumed to be high density polyethylene (HDPE). Based on the estimated pressures within the system and a surcharge allowance, a pressure rating of 200 psi was chosen as a suitable pressure rating for the pipe network. The corresponding dimension ratio resulted in DR 11. A pipeline cost estimating tool was used to generate unit costs for underground pipeline construction for HDPE ranging in size from 8- to 30-inch (nominal diameter) assuming an average of 5-foot depth of cover, in urban settings. The estimating tool uses the following to develop installed unit costs:  Historical engineering and bid price data for HDPE pipelines, appurtenances, traffic control, potholing, cathodic protection, excess soil disposal tipping fees, and urban setting production rates.  RSMeans unit costs for trench shoring, excavation, backfill, backfill compaction, pavement, grinding and milling, aggregate base, and pavement restoration including valves, haul to disposal, labor/installation, and dewatering. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-4 The tool contains various input parameters including depth of cover, type of trench backfill and source (i.e. import vs. native material), condition of soil (i.e. clean vs. contaminated), percentage of backfill to be imported, amount of traffic control needed (i.e. none, light, or heavy), percentage of alignment requiring dewatering, production rate, and valve and pothole frequency. Using these inputs, the tool estimates the construction quantities related to buried piping (i.e. excavation volume), and subsequently, the associated unit cost per length of pipe. The unit costs are summarized in Table 4-1. Table 4-1: Unit Cost of HDPE Pipe Modeled Pipe Internal Diameter (ID) (in) HDPE DR 11 ID (in) HDPE DR 11 Nominal Outer Diameter (OD) (in) Unit Cost ($/LF) 6 6.96 8 $200 8 8.68 10 $212 10 10.29 12 $254 12 12.92 16 $277 16 16.15 20 $334 18 19.37 24 $381 24 24.22 30 $462 Assumptions:  Pipeline is in an urban setting o Asphalt concrete pavement replacement would be the width of the trench plus 6-inches on each side o Heavy traffic control required o One pothole per 100 LF of pipe required  Average depth of cover of 5 feet  100% of soil excavated is hauled to a landfill or reused offsite and 100% of soil required for backfill is imported  Isolation valves and other appurtenances amount to 20% or the pipeline material costs Production rate is 150-linear feet of pipeline construction per day Note: HDPE pipe sizes are IPS (outside diameter controlled) based on AWWA C906 Pipeline Construction Cost – Special Crossings For special crossings (such as highway and creek crossings), a range of crossing methods was assessed for the preferred crossing method at each location. Following this assessment, Pilot Tube Guided Auger Boring (PTGAB) was considered the default method for all trenchless underground crossings. PTGAB is a costlier method compared to other trenchless techniques and may be required due to the concept option’s smaller pipeline diameters and certain soil conditions in the Study Area. Therefore, it is a conservative basis for the purpose of developing a planning-level cost estimate. PTGAB is favorable in conditions with little to no groundwater; therefore, if further geotechnical investigations identify high groundwater along the pipeline route, another trenchless method should be considered. Each special crossing was evaluated as a potential trenchless underground crossing, but where feasible, crossings were also evaluated for less costly construction methods. Therefore, non-trenchless installation methods were utilized where possible. This was applied when pipeline alignments crossed bridges and box culverts; it was assumed that under these specific conditions, a pipe bridge could be used rather than a trenchless method. Pipe bridges are generally lower cost and allow for reduced permitting efforts and traffic control during construction compared to trenchless methods. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-5 Under the Phase 3 Pipeline design (Woodard & Curran 2018), feasible trenchless construction methods included microtunneling and horizontal directional drilling (HDD). Open cut methods were assumed when the alignment crossed over an existing culvert and there is adequate cover over the box culvert. Table 4-2 summarizes the unit costs used for special crossings. These costs were developed based on a collection of past project experience and unit costs taken from RSMeans. Table 4-2: Special Crossing Unit Costs Element Unit Unit Cost Trenchless Microtunnel Launch Pit Lump sum $300,000 Microtunnel Receiving Pit Lump sum $150,000 Microtunnel Casing and Pipe (36-inch) Linear foot $1,728 HDD (24-inch bore diameter) Linear foot $528 PTGAB (HDPE) 6-inch Linear foot $375 8-inch Linear foot $500 10-inch Linear foot $625 12-inch Linear foot $750 16-inch Linear foot $1,000 20-inch Linear foot $1,250 PTGAB Launch Pit Lump sum $258,000 PTGAB Receiving Pit Lump sum $148,000 Pipe Bridge (DIP, Class 50, Mechanical Joint) 6-inch Linear foot $66 8-inch Linear foot $86 10-inch Linear foot $108 16-inch Linear foot $175 Pipe Bridge Support Lump sum $5,000 Pipeline Construction Cost – Pipe Rehabilitation Pipelines that serve Los Altos Hills under Concept Options A2 and A3 were assumed to convey recycled water via re-lined abandoned PHWD 6- and 8-inch cast iron pipe (CIP) water mains in Purissima Road. The 6- and 8-inch water mains were abandoned in 1995. The condition of the pipes is unknown but was assumed to be in relatively good condition. Under current recycled water demand projections, there is sufficient capacity in the existing pipes. Cured-in-Place-Pipe (CIPP) lining was assumed to be the more practical method of rehabilitation compared to pipe bursting due to the minimal pipe cover depths, which were estimated by PHWD to be approximately three to four feet. The shallow cover could present problems of ground heave and soil displacement if pipe bursting were to take place. CIPP lining costs, for both the 6- and 8-inch mains, were estimated from historical data. Unit costs include closed-circuit television inspection and minor cleaning prior to lining. Advanced cleaning Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-6 mechanisms to address instances of tuberculation and point repair to address structural deficiencies are not included in the cost. 4.2.5 Pump Station Construction Cost Pump station costs for concept options were estimated using a pump cost curve based on each pump station’s total installed motor horsepower. This cost curve is applicable to pump stations of average complexity. The pump cost curve was determined using the following equation: 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 ቆ $ 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟ቇ = 17437 ∗𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟ି.ଷ଺ Pump station costs for Concept Option A1, Phase 3 Pipeline, including costs for the Phase 3 recycled water pump station and booster pump station were taken from the Phase 3 Preliminary Design Report (Woodard & Curran 2018). Hydropneumatic and Surge Tanks Costs Concept Options with multiple pump stations would benefit from the installation of recycled water tanks, but given the challenge of acquiring land in the Study Area to construct such tanks, hydropneumatic tanks were assumed instead. Hydropneumatic tanks would regulate system pressures to meet demand while acting as a cushion for pumps in series in a closed conduit system. Since the tanks contain both water and air under pressure, they can exert or absorb pressure throughout the system when needed. Costs for surge tanks were also included for some concept options assuming the need to mitigate variations due to rapid changes in flow. A surge analysis would be required to determine the need for surge tanks. The tank costs were estimated from previous experience with projects of similar characteristics and configuration. 4.2.6 Extraction Well Treatment Construction Costs For IPR concept options, wellhead treatment was assumed to be required at all extraction wells. The wellhead treatment capital and O&M costs were developed based on calculations completed for Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. Wellhead treatment capital costs include reverse osmosis treatment for iron, manganese, and total dissolved solids (Option 4 from the 2000 Long Term Water Supply Study, updated for the 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan). These wellhead treatment capital costs do not account for land acquisition. Therefore, separate land costs were developed for the Rinconada and Peers wells, which would require additional land to be purchased to locate wellhead treatment facilities. These land costs are also sourced from Palo Alto’s 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. In addition to wellhead treatment, O&M costs for extraction wells also included the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge. This cost was based on projected Valley Water rates for groundwater pumping in the Study Area. 4.3 Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Cost Summary Table 4-3 below provides a summary of probable capital and O&M costs, as well as unit costs, for each developed concept option. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix D. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-7 Table 4-3: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option ID & Name Capital Cost O&M ($/Year) Yield (AFY) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47,800,000 $290,000 800 $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63,000,000 $520,000 1,100 $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos $85,100,000 $680,000 1,200 $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View $6,200,000 $100,000 200 $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72,600,000 $400,000 900 $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20,700,000 $150,000 500 $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129,600,000 $1,370,000 900 $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92,200,000 $14,830,000 5,900 $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR $152,100,000 $16,920,000 6,100 $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 $198,400,000 $15,780,000 5,900 $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104,600,000 $8,010,000 5,300 $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI June 2018 SF index of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (- 20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. 4.4 Concept Option Evaluation Non-Cost Criteria In evaluating concept options, Palo Alto and Valley Water solicited input from stakeholders on factors to consider in addition to cost. The stakeholders aided in developing the list of non-cost criteria and Palo Alto and Valley Water staff participated in the development of scoring rubrics to apply each non-cost criteria to the various concept options. The selected non-cost criteria are:  Water Supply Resiliency  Public Acceptance  Adaptability  Level of Agency Coordination  Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination  Regulatory Complexity  Institutional Complexity  Regional Perspective  Social and Economic Benefit  Environmental Benefit For each criterion, concept options could score up to 5 points. A description of the criteria, the scoring rubric for that criteria, and how each concept option scored with respect to those criteria are described in the following sections. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-8 4.4.1 Water Supply Resiliency This criterion evaluates concept options based on their total potential recycled water demand or amount of water supplied. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: potential demands totaling > 2,000 AFY  4 points: potential demands totaling between 1,501 and 2,000 AFY  3 points: potential demands totaling between 1,001 and 1,500 AFY  2 points: potential demands totaling between 501 and 1,000 AFY  1 point: potential demands totaling ≤ 500 AFY Table 4-4: Concept Option Scores for Water Supply Resiliency Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 800 AFY A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 1,100 AFY A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 3 1,250 AFY A4: NPR Mountain View 1 200 AFY A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 900 AFY A6: NPR East Palo Alto 1 500 AFY B1: NPR Sate Satellite Treatment Plant 2 900 AFY C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 2,800 AFY C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 3,000 AFY C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 3,200 AFY D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 5,300 AFY Note. For IPR options, the rationale is based on purified recycled water yield. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-9 4.4.2 Public Acceptance Public acceptance criterion gauges the likelihood of potential customers accepting recycled water and continuing to use it for the foreseeable future. Customer acceptance of NPR is assumed to be greater than potable reuse. Public properties, which are mainly owned by agencies that have been engaged in the recycled water planning process, are assumed to be easier to convert to recycled water usage than privately owned properties. For potable reuse options, given initial feedback from members of the Palo Alto Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council at their respective study sessions held in 2018, DPR is assumed to have greater public acceptance than IPR. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: NPR concept options serving public properties only  4 points: NPR concept options including private properties but with customers (or an anchor customer) eager to accept recycled water or where a detailed market assessment has been performed  3 points: NPR including private properties  2 points: DPR concept options  1 point: IPR concept options Table 4-5: Concept Option Scores for Public Acceptance Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Demands recently refined during pre-design A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Additional area includes strong anchor A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Additional area includes strong anchor A4: NPR Mountain View 4 Demands from Mountain View RWFS A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 Mountain View demands from RWFS. Demand in Los Altos includes a large private user. A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes numerous private properties in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 Phase 3 demands recently refined during pre-design. Demand in Los Altos is non-potable for public properties only C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-10 4.4.3 Adaptability Adaptability criterion assesses the potential to repurpose the proposed facilities in case of changes in the demand base. Concept options with the lowest risk of assets being stranded in the future scored highest. The concept options that included both NPR and IPR uses were considered most adaptable. Because the recycled water used for these concept options would be fully-advanced treated water suitable for groundwater injection, if NPR decreased, the water could be redirected to groundwater recharge. After the combined NPR and IPR concept options, the IPR-only concept option was considered the most adaptable given the ability to use the IPR treatment train within the DPR treatment train and repurpose the pipeline to the injection wells for conveyance of DPR water to the drinking water distribution system. IPR and DPR conveyance infrastructure could be repurposed to serve NPR customers if potable reuse for some reason became unacceptable to the community, but the injection wells and the advanced water purification facilities would be stranded assets. The NPR pipelines, which generally consist of smaller diameters than the IPR and DPR concept options, provide fewer repurposing opportunities than the IPR and DPR pipelines. Among the NPR concept options, those with larger diameter pipelines provide more opportunities for future uses. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: NPR/IPR  4 points: IPR only  3 points: DPR or NPR with backbone ≥ 16-inch and non-extensive branching  2 points: NPR with backbone < 16-inch and non-extensive branching  1 point: NPR with extensive branching Table 4-6: Concept Option Scores for Adaptability Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 NPR, pipeline backbone 12-inch A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 NPR, extensive pipeline branches A4: NPR Mountain View 2 NPR, pipeline ranges from 12- to 6-inch A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 NPR, pipeline backbone 6-inch with several long branches following the 16-inch segment A6: NPR East Palo Alto 2 NPR, pipeline backbone ranges from 12- to 10- inch with a few relatively short branches B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 NPR, pipeline branching begins at satellite facility C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 4 IPR only C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 3 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-11 4.4.4 Level of Agency Coordination This criterion reflects the effort required by the lead agency to implement the concept option including design, use permitting, and operating requirements. Centralized NPR concept options were considered preferable to satellite NPR, IPR and DPR, all of which require new treatment processes to operate. DPR, which requires a new classification of treatment operators, was considered the least favorable concept option in this regard. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: Project previously evaluated and supported by community  4 points: NPR serving only lead agency or RWQCP partner owned sites or Project has already gone through public reviews  3 points: NPR serving various sites  2 points: NPR with satellite treatment or IPR  1 point: DPR Table 4-7: Concept Option Scores for Level of Agency Coordination Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 Completed facilities plan and EIR A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills A4: NPR Mountain View 5 Mountain View prepared to implement project pending current update (July 2019) of RWFS A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 NPR including non-partner sites in Los Altos A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 NPR including non-partner sites in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 2 New satellite treatment facilities C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 New treatment facilities for IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 2 New treatment facilities for IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 New treatment facilities for DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-12 4.4.5 Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination Level of customer retrofits/coordination criterion is the effort and improvements required by the customer to use the recycled water. Having no retrofit requirements would be preferred, followed by changing meters for customers who already have a separate irrigation meter. Conversion of existing buildings is the least preferred due to anticipated complications with local public health approvals to verify there are no cross-connections within the retrofitted building. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: No customer retrofits  4 points: Irrigation use only with separate meters  3 points: Irrigation use only, or indoor use limited to future development  2 points: Irrigation and indoor uses within existing buildings  1 point: Indoor uses only within existing buildings Table 4-8: Concept Option Scores for Level of Customer Retrofits/Coordination Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 Includes indoor use for existing Mountain View customer A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 Includes indoor uses limited to future developments in East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 2 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 IPR does not require customer retrofits C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR limited to irrigation C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 3 Includes indoor use for existing Palo Alto customers D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 DPR does not require customer retrofits Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-13 4.4.6 Regulatory Complexity Regulatory complexity criterion is a measure of the precedence of proposed uses of recycled water and permitting required for implementation. As a well-established practice, permitting for NPR will be more streamlined than potable reuse. Permitting for IPR which has established regulations will be less complex than DPR which does not yet have established regulations. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: NPR for irrigation only  4 points: NPR including non-irrigation uses  3 points: IPR only  2 points: NPR with IPR  1 point: DPR only Table 4-9: Concept Option Scores for Regulatory Complexity Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 NPR including non-irrigation uses C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 IPR C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 2 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 2 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-14 4.4.7 Institutional Complexity Institutional complexity criterion reflects the number of local agencies that would be involved in implementation and operation of the concept option. The more favorable concept options were those with fewer agencies involved since institutional complexity increases with the number of agencies involved. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: One local agency  4 points: Two local agencies  3 points: Three local agencies  2 points: Four local agencies  1 point: Five local agencies Table 4-10: Concept Option Scores for Institutional Complexity Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Purissima Hills Water District A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 5 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District A4: NPR Mountain View 5 1 agency: Mountain View A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 3 3 agencies: Mountain View, Los Altos, Cal Water A6: NPR East Palo Alto1 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, East Palo Alto B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 3 3 agencies: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cal Water C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 5 1 agency: Palo Alto D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 5 1 agency: Palo Alto Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does not require coordination with Menlo Park. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-15 4.4.8 Regional Perspective Regional perspective criterion reflects the number of local agencies benefitting from the implementation of the concept option. In contrast to the institutional complexity criterion, the more favorable concept options were those that included multiple agencies. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: Majority of RWQCP partners, multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit  4 points: Multiple water retailers and multiple wholesalers benefit  3 points: Multiple water retailers but only one wholesaler benefit  2 points: One water retailer but multiple wholesalers benefit  1 point: One water retailer and one wholesaler benefit Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-16 Table 4-11: Concept Option Scores for Regional Perspective Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto; Retailers: Palo Alto; Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 3 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills Retailers: Palo Alto, Purissima Hills Water District Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 4 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water A4: NPR Mountain View 1 Partner Agency: Mountain View Retailers: Mountain View Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 Partner Agency: Mountain View, Los Altos Retailers: Mountain View, Cal Water Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water A6: NPR East Palo Alto1 3 Partner Agency: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Palo Alto Retailers: East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 4 Partner Agency: Palo Alto, Los Altos Retailers: Palo Alto, Cal Water Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Valley Water C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 Partner Agency: Palo Alto Retailers: Palo Alto Wholesaler: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Note: 1. Although the infrastructure for Concept Option A6 is sized for anticipated Menlo Park demands, the short-term project does not directly benefit Menlo Park . Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-17 4.4.9 Social and Economic Benefit Social and economic benefit criterion reflects the benefits of improved water supply reliability. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: Supports a disadvantaged community  4 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in normal years  3 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2020 in dry years  2 points: Supports community with projected shortfalls by 2040  1 point: No projected shortfalls Table 4-12: Concept Option Scores for Social and Economic Benefit Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 1 No projected shortfalls A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 1 No projected shortfalls A4: NPR Mountain View 2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 2 Mountain View has projected shortfall by 2040 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 5 East Palo Alto is a disadvantaged community; East Palo Alto and Menlo Park have projected shortfalls B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 1 No projected shortfalls C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 1 No projected shortfalls C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 1 No projected shortfalls C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 1 No projected shortfalls D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 No projected shortfalls Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-18 4.4.10 Environmental Benefit Environmental benefit criterion considers the improvement to the RWQCP’s discharge to the San Francisco Bay. NPR diverts more contaminants from Bay discharge, and it is assumed that IPR and DPR will involve discharge of reverse osmosis concentrate with trace organics, nutrients, and trace metals. Concept Options were scored as follows:  5 points: NPR > 999 AFY  4 points: NPR 0 to 999 AFY  3 points: NPR with IPR  2 points: IPR only  1 point: DPR only Table 4-13: Concept Option Scores for Environmental Benefit Concept Option ID Score Rationale A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 4 NPR 800 AFY A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 5 NPR 1,100 AFY A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 5 NPR 1,200 AFY A4: NPR Mountain View 4 NPR 200 AFY A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 NPR 900 AFY A6: NPR East Palo Alto 4 NPR 500 AFY B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 5 NPR 900 AFY C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 IPR only C2: Palo Alto IPR and NPR 3 NPR with IPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 3 NPR with IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 1 DPR only 4.5 Concept Option Scoring 4.5.1 Non-Cost Scoring Palo Alto, Valley Water, and Mountain View, as the Strategic Plan primary stakeholders, weighted the non-cost criteria. Table 4-14 shows the average of the provided weights. Table 4-15 presents the ranking of concept options based on the non-cost criteria alone. Considering only the non-cost criteria, the top scoring concept options are A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and the IPR concept options (Concept Options C1- C3) while the lowest scoring concept options are D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR and B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant. The previously recommended Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long term project (Concept Option A4) rank in the middle. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-19 Table 4-14: Non-Cost Criteria Weighting Criteria Percent of Non-Cost Score Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum score per Criteria being 5) Amount of water supplied 19% 95 Public acceptance 17% 85 Adaptability 10% 50 Level of agency coordination 9% 45 Level of customer retrofits/coordination 5% 25 Regulatory complexity 6% 30 Institutional complexity 9% 45 Regional perspective 8% 40 Social and economic benefit 10% 50 Environmental benefit 7% 35 Total 100% 500 Table 4-15: Non-Cost Ranking Rank Score (Maximum Score = 500) Concept Option 1 291 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 2 290 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 3 289 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 289 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 4 286 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 5 285 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 285 A4: NPR Mountain View 285 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 6 282 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 7 271 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant 8 269 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR The IPR concept options are scored well with non-cost criteria due to the large amount of water supplied combined with greater ability to repurpose the infrastructure and only one agency required to implement and operate. Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills ranks highly because it delivers among the largest volumes of the NPR concept options and strikes a balance between offering regional benefits while requiring few agencies to implement and operate. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-20 Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR delivers the greatest volume of recycled water out of all the concept options, requires only one agency to implement and operate, and does not require infrastructure changes by customers. The notable drawback of Concept Option D1 is the implementation process. Given the lack of established regulations, pursuing a DPR project at this time would require more effort by Palo Alto to establish a process that DDW will permit. Even when DPR regulations are established, the hurdles that agencies must clear to permit DPR projects will likely be more challenging compared to other recycled water projects. Another challenge will be hiring/training staff to operate the new treatment facilities. The presumed benefit of Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was the ability to create a compact recycled water distribution system rather than requiring an extensive network extending from the RWQCP. However, in this setting, the preferred location for diverting flows from the sewer system does not correspond to the areas of potential recycled water nor is there land available in the immediate vicinity of the diversion point to site a satellite treatment facility. As shown in Figure 3-8, Concept Option B1 involves a significant, branched pipe network. 4.5.2 Cost and Non-Cost Scoring Table 4-16 presents the ranking of concept options by cost using the scoring listed herein. Factoring cost in at 30% of the score, concept options were scored as follows:  5 points: < $3,500/AF  4 points: ≥ $3,500/AF and < $4,000/AF  3 points: ≥ $4,000/AF and < $4,500/AF  2 points: ≥ $4,500/AF and < $5,000/AF  1 point: ≥ $5,000/AF Factoring in cost at 30% of the total score was selected after testing for sensitivity to prevent cost from overtaking or from not having an impact on the total non-cost criteria scores. From the sensitivity analysis, weighting cost at 50% yielded similar results to weighting at 30%. Table 4-17 presents the combined weighting of the cost and non-cost criteria together. Table 4-18 presents the ranking of concept options combining the non-cost criteria and estimated costs. Table 4-16: Ranking of Concept Options by Cost Rank Score Concept Option 1 5 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills A4: NPR Mountain View A6: NPR East Palo Alto C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 2 3 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 3 2 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 4 1 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-21 Table 4-17: Combined Weighting Including both Cost and Non-Cost Criteria Criteria Percent of Non-Cost Score (Rounded) Weighted Maximum Score per Criteria (Maximum score per Criteria being 5) Amount of water supplied 13% 67 Public acceptance 12% 61 Adaptability 7% 35 Level of agency coordination 6% 30 Level of customer retrofits/coordination 4% 19 Regulatory complexity 4% 21 Institutional complexity 6% 30 Regional perspective 6% 28 Social and economic benefit 7% 36 Environmental benefit 5% 23 Cost 30% 150 Total 100% 500 Table 4-18: Combined Ranking Considering Cost at 30% of the Score Rank Score (Maximum Score = 500) Concept Option 1 354 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills 353 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR 2 350 A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 350 A4: NPR Mountain View 350 A6: NPR East Palo Alto 3 339 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR 4 323 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR 5 317 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos 6 293 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline 7 260 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos 8 220 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant Factoring in costs at 30% of the score, the top scoring concept options are NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills (Concept Option A2), Palo Alto Dedicated IPR (Concept Option C1), the previously recommended NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 (Concept Option A1) and Mountain View long-term project (Concept Option A4) and the NPR East Palo Alto concept option (Concept Option A6). Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 4 Strategic Plan Concept Options Evaluation FINAL July 2019 4-22 Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR ranks in the middle. With the greatest amount of water supplied and one of the lowest estimated unit costs, Concept Option D1 scores well for the two most highly weighted evaluation criteria. The attractive cost helps to offset the DPR implementation challenges noted above. Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant remains solidly at the bottom. As discussed previously, Concept Option B1 requires a significant investment of infrastructure to convey flows from the sewer diversion point to treatment facilities and then to customers. The cost of conveyance infrastructure plus the cost of new treatment facilities including land acquisition are significant and, when factored into the scoring, further reduces the ranking of this concept option relative to the others. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-1 Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps 5.1 Conclusions 5.1.1 Summary of Demands and Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs Table 5-1 provides a summary of potential demand by water reuse type considered in this Strategic Plan. The potential market for NPR demands includes the entire RWQCP service area, not one specific concept option. Table 5-2 summarizes the capital, O&M, and unit costs for the various concept options investigated in this Strategic Plan. Table 5-1: Summary of Demand Potential by Type of Water Reuse Type of Reuse Annual Average Demand Comments NPR 4,456 AFY Throughout RWQCP service area IPR 2,800 / 5,900 AFY For Palo Alto only DPR 5,300 AFY For Palo Alto only Note: IPR annual average demand reflects volume recharged to the groundwater basin/ volume extracted from the groundwater basin Table 5-2: Summary of Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Capital and O&M Costs Concept Option Capital Cost O&M ($/year) Unit Cost ($/AF) A1: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 $47.8M $0.29M $3,400 A2: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills $63.0M $0.52M $3,400 A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos $85.1M $0.68M $4,000 A4: NPR Mountain View $6.2M $0.1M $2,100 A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos $72.6M $0.4M $4,600 A6: NPR East Palo Alto $20.7M $0.15M $2,400 B1: NPR Satellite Treatment Plant $129.6M $1.37M $8,900 C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR $92.2M $14.83M $3,300 C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR $152.1M $16.92M $4,000 C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline $198.4M $15.78M $4,400 D1: Palo Alto Dedicated DPR $104.6M $8.01M $2,500 Note: Costs based on an ENR CCI San Francisco index for June 2018 of 12,015. Costs are consistent with a Class 5 estimate (-20% to +50%) (AACE 2008). Capital costs are amortized at 3% over 30 years. For comparison with other non-water reuse water supplies, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost $3,000 per AF in 2030, and groundwater, including wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF. 2 To provide a basis for comparison, cost estimates reflect the incremental cost of pursuing each concept option. For the NPR options, the cost estimates include distribution to the end-user. Consistent with the incremental cost methodology, this report does not estimate the total cost of providing the IPR or DPR water to end-users as Palo Alto’s existing potable water distribution system costs are not included in the estimates. 2 These are the estimated costs to the City of Palo Alto of purchasing SFPUC water or pumping groundwater and these cost estimates do not include distribution system costs. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-2 5.1.2 General Conclusions Regarding NPR Concept Options The Strategic Plan determined that there is interest throughout most of the RWQCP service area and neighboring communities in receiving recycled water from the RWQCP for NPR uses. The one Partner Agency that is not interested is Stanford University. Stanford University maintains a diverse water supply portfolio consisting of water from SFPUC, groundwater, local surface water, and captured stormwater. Stanford University does have significant non-potable water demands, but the university does not foresee a need for recycled water from the RWQCP due to the existence of its separate non-potable irrigation water system that meets over 30% of the campus’ water demands (over 80% of irrigation demands). As such the NPR concept options evaluated under this Strategic Plan did not include service to Stanford. The Strategic Plan considered NPR concept options with both centralized treatment at the RWQCP (“A” concept options) and a satellite treatment option (“B” concept option). Of the centralized treatment options, Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills scored highest both with and without the cost criteria. The unit cost for Concept Option A2 is estimated to be similar to the cost of the previously recommended Concept Option A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3. Therefore, should Palo Alto elect to move forward with an NPR project, Concept Option A2 or variants, as shown in Appendix D, should be given additional consideration. An analysis of the cost implications of removing various branches of the base concept option will inform discussions regarding cost sharing between the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills as well as support rate analyses for Palo Alto and PHWD (the two retailers that would be involved in the concept option). Concept Option A4, NPR Mountain View, was previously recommended in the 2014 Mountain View RWFS, due to its low cost and average non-cost score, was determined to be a reasonable investment compared to the other concept options explored in the Strategic Plan, and during the stakeholder evaluation process, Mountain View staff indicated their commitment to implementing this extension. Concept Option A6, NPR East Palo Alto scored similarly to the Concept Options A1, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 and A4, NPR Mountain View. Concept Option A6 is low cost, and the average non-cost score make it a reasonable investment compared to other concept options. Implementation will require coordination with EPASD, who is the Partner Agency that owns the wastewater flows from East Palo Alto to the RWQCP. Though implementation of the concept option does not require coordination with Menlo Park, if East Palo Alto chooses to move forward with the concept option, Menlo Park’s level of interest should be verified prior to sizing the infrastructure. Appendix E presents variants of Concept Option A6 and the cost implications of including or not including Menlo Park’s demands as well as the benefits of including Palo Alto’s demands. This information can inform cost sharing discussion among the relevant stakeholders in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park and support a cost of service analysis for the City of East Palo Alto, the likely recycled water retailer. NPR is challenging for Los Altos and Los Altos Hills because their customers are located furthest from the RWQCP and existing recycled water infrastructure and coordination with the Partner Agencies upstream would be needed. Between the two options to serve Los Altos – Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A1) and Concept Option A5: NPR Mountain View Extended to Los Altos (which builds off of Concept Option A4) – Concept Option A3 is preferred due to preliminary costs. Between the two options to serve Los Altos Hills - Concept Option A2, NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills Concept Option A3: NPR Palo Alto Phase 3 Extended to Foothills and Los Altos – Concept Option A2 is higher ranked. To assist Los Altos and its retailer Cal Water, and to assist Los Altos Hills and its retailer Purissima Hills Water District, in evaluating an extension from the Palo Phase 3 Pipeline, Appendix E presents variants of Concept Options A2 and A3 that can inform cost sharing discussions among the relevant stakeholders and cost of service analyses for Cal Water and Purissima Hills Water District. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-3 Satellite NPR Concept Option B1, NPR Satellite Treatment Plant was included to bridge the gap between the source of recycled water at the RWQCP and customers at the periphery of the RWQCP’s service area. However, the satellite option was found to be impractical for this setting given the mismatch between the ideal sewer diversion point and where demands are concentrated plus the limited availability of land and the cost of acquiring land to construct a new treatment facility in this area. Treatment Both distribution infrastructure and treatment facilities were considered for each of the NPR concept options. Palo Alto has committed to providing enhanced recycled water quality for NPR, meaning water delivered to non-potable customers would be a blend of advanced treated recycled water and disinfected tertiary recycled water to reduce TDS concentration to below 600 mg/L. Assuming implementation of the 2.25 MGD AWTS (which was recommended to provide a 1:1 blend of advanced and tertiary recycled water for the RWQCP’s flow commitments of 3.0 MGD for Mountain View and 1.0 MGD for Palo Alto), each of the centralized NPR concept options presented in this Strategic Plan can independently be implemented without additional treatment facilities. The enhanced recycled water provided for these NPR concept options would have a TDS concentration below the 600 mg/L target threshold based on the RWQCP’s average TDS concentration of approximately 900 mg/L and an anticipated advanced treated recycled water concentration of 50 mg/L. Note that the three highest ranked NPR options (without overlap to other options) are A2, A4 and A6; together these options could all be implemented without triggering the need for reverse osmosis concentrate treatment but would require additional advanced or tertiary treatment facilities to produce enough enhanced recycled water, particularly to meet a 1:1 blend ratio. The City has considered setting a more aggressive goal for the enhanced recycled water of maintaining TDS between 400 to 500 mg/L. Only the Mountain View concept option (Concept Option A4) would meet this goal during peak month demands without additional treatment facilities. 5.1.3 General Conclusions Regarding IPR Concept Options Several of the RWQCP Partner Agencies and Strategic Plan stakeholders expressed interest in IPR. However, Palo Alto is the only agency that is actively investigating this option and that had groundwater data to support development of IPR concept options. The IPR concept options that were considered in the Strategic Plan include a concept option dedicated to providing water to Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C1: Palo Alto Dedicated IPR), a concept option that captures non-potable uses in the vicinity of the pipeline needed to reach the Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C2: Palo Alto IPR with NPR), and a concept option that builds off of the Palo Alto Phase 3 Pipeline to convey water to the Palo Alto groundwater injection wells (Concept Option C3: Palo Alto IPR and NPR from Phase 3 Pipeline). Without considering cost, all three IPR concept options are among the top ranked concept options given the large amount of water they supply and lack of institutional complexity. With cost factored into the scoring, only Concept Option C1, Palo Alto Dedicated IPR remains a top scoring IPR concept option. Implementation of an IPR project would require Palo Alto to incorporate groundwater into its water supply, and Palo Alto is assessing its desire to pursue groundwater use. In some other communities, IPR has generally been seen as a first step towards DPR, gaining customer acceptance of the concept of potable reuse before moving to DPR. However, Palo Alto does not currently use groundwater, and during preliminary study sessions, members of the Utilities Advisory Commission and City Council expressed a preference for DPR over IPR. Given concerns regarding customer acceptance of groundwater quality compared to the existing SFPUC supply, Palo Alto is assumed to provide wellhead treatment at the groundwater extraction wells to lower Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-4 iron, manganese and TDS concentrations. Costs of this treatment were included in each IPR concept option and overall unit costs ranged from $3,300 - $4,400/AF for IPR concept options. For comparison, groundwater use with wellhead treatment and the Valley Water groundwater pumping charge but without any injection of recycled water, is projected to cost $3,000 per AF (in 2018 dollars). Treatment costs also include new full advanced treatment facilities, including reverse osmosis concentrate treatment, as needed, and associated land acquisition costs. Reverse osmosis concentrate treatment is estimated to be needed to ensure compliance with the RWQCP discharge permit for Concept Options C2 and C3 and thus included in the associated cost estimates. 5.1.4 General Conclusions Regarding DPR Concept Option Because DPR regulations are not established, developing DPR concept options and drawing conclusions about the feasibility of DPR requires interpretation of the SWRCB’s Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California. The uncertainty in regulations is reflected in the low score that the Concept Option D1, Palo Alto Dedicated DPR received when considering only the non-cost criteria. However, when factoring in the estimated unit cost of Concept Option D1, which included extensive additional treatment facilities and engineered storage, the concept option rose to the middle of the rankings. Given the significant volume of existing potable supply that could be offset through Concept Option D1, its low estimated unit cost ($2,500/AF), and the presumably greater acceptance of DPR over IPR in this setting, this concept option deserves further evaluation by Palo Alto and refinement as regulations emerge. For comparison, potable water from SFPUC is projected to cost approximately $3,000 per AF in 2030. 5.2 Next Steps Results of the Strategic Plan indicate that there are multiple water reuse expansion opportunities within the Study Area that agencies could pursue, including NPR, IPR, and DPR. The following are general next steps that should be considered for any of the concept options to move forward. Table 5-3summarizes the recommended next steps by each category of water reuse. Note that depending on the outcomes of the Countywide Plan, some of the Concept Options described in this Report may not implementable due to limited supply of recycled water; further evaluation for joint implementation may be required as a next step. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps FINAL July 2019 5-5 Table 5-3: Recommended Next Steps for Type of Opportunity NPR – Next Steps IPR- Next Steps DPR – Next Steps Facilities Planning Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare more detailed technical analysis to define facility requirements and to refine cost estimates to a Class 4 level of development (-10% to +30%). Prepare various treatment train options with cost estimates to reflect uncertainty to regulatory requirements for treatment. Funding and Financing Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Develop recycled water rates to be applied to recycled water customers. Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Apply for funding and financing options; Appendix G contains a funding and financing matrix describing a variety of options for recycled water projects. At present, these programs apply to all types of water reuse. Inter-agency Agreements If the NPR project involves more than one of the RWQCP Partners, an inter-agency agreement would be needed. New agreements could be modeled after the existing agreement between Palo Alto and Mountain View for the Phase 2 system. With Valley Water’s role as Groundwater Sustainability Agency, an agreement between Palo Alto and Valley Water is needed for an IPR project. For a DPR project serving Palo Alto only (as described in Concept Option D1), no specific inter-agency agreements are identified at this time. Environmental Documentation NPR concept options could be covered under a new environmental document or possibly an amendment to the Phase 3 Environmental Impact Report, depending on the concept option. Either document should meet the requirements of CEQA, and pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. A new environmental document covering the IPR project would be needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and, pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. A new environmental document covering the DPR project would be needed. This document should meet the requirements of CEQA; and, pending selected funding and financing options, the requirements of CEQA-Plus or NEPA. Reuse Permitting Covered under Statewide General Order for Recycled Water Use (WQ- 2014-009). Covered under SWRCB regulations, adopted by the State in 2014. There are no established regulations for DPR projects and no proposed timeline for the State to develop DPR regulations for treated drinking water augmentation. Customer and Public Outreach Outreach to specific customers to be served by the NPR project to confirm delivery location, confirm demand, discuss site retrofits, etc. For NPR projects delivering to areas that do not have a mandatory use ordinance in place, customer outreach to encourage customers to sign on to the NPR project. Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source water (i.e. blending in groundwater to the existing SFPUC supplies) should be considered. Public outreach to inform Palo Alto customers of changes to source water (i.e. blending in of DPR water to the existing SFPUC supplies) should be considered. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report References FINAL July 2019 References Anderson, Daren (Division Manager at the City of Palo Alto Open Space and Parks Department). Email to Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Foothill Park’s Boronda Lake. 2018. Association of the Advancement of Cost Engineering International (AACE), 2008. International Recommended Practice No. 56R-08:Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied for the Building and General Construction Industries. Brown and Caldwell, 1992. Water Reclamation Master Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant. April, 1992. California Building Standards Commission, 2011. 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. January, 2011. Carollo, 2014. City of Mountain View Recycled Water Feasibility Study. March, 2014. Engelage, Samantha (Senior Engineer at City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Program). Email to Emmalynne Roy providing details on habitat enhancement water use at Byxbee Park. 2018. City of Mountain View, 2017. Ordinance No. 17.16. Available: https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=21813 City of Palo Alto. 2017. Clean Bay 2017 Pollution Prevention Plan. Available: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56148 City of Palo Alto, 2008. Ordinance No. 5002. Available: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19503 City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2017. 2017 Water Integrated Resources Plan. January, 2017. City of Palo Alto Utilities, 2016. City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June, 2016. MNS, 2017. Advanced Water Purification System Preliminary/Conceptual Design Report. December, 2017. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2018. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California. April, 2018. SWRCB, 2016. Investigation on the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse. December, 2016. Todd Groundwater, 2018. Groundwater Assessment, and Indirect Potable Reuse Feasibility Evaluation and Implementation Strategy Report. November, 2018. Unites States Green Building Council, 2014. LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance, Version 4. October, 2014. Unites States Green Building Council, 2012. LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance (Version 7). July, 2012. West Yost Associates, 2017. City of Menlo Park Water Supply Master Plan, Draft. November, 2017. Woodard & Curran, 2018. Preliminary Design for Phase 3 Recycled Water Distribution System Final Report. February, 2018. Appendix A - Non-Potable Demand Assessment Methodology ATTACHMENT C Vol 2 Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Landscape Irrigation Landscape irrigation demands were the primary recycled water use identified within the study area . In developing these demands, each customer’s landscaped area was estimated using recent aerial imagery from Google Earth, as well as GIS-compatible aerial imagery. From the aerial review, the percentage of each customer’s site that is landscaped was estimated and applied this percentage to the total parcel area. In addition, recent aerial imagery was used to check that each site’s perceived irrigated space did not include artificial turf. Parcel areas that had artificial turf fields were removed from the t otal irrigated acreage. In order to calculate demand, an annual average irrigation factor of 3.4 acre -feet per year (AFY) per acre of landscaped area was applied based on: annual evapotranspiration (ET o) of 44.8 inches; total annual precipitation of 15.3 inches; and effective precipitation (Eppt) of 25% of total annual precipitation: 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝐼𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑐]= 𝐴𝑅𝑜 [�ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙]−𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙[�ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙] 12 [�ℎ𝑙 𝑐𝑙] = 44.8 �ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙−0.25 × 15.3 �ℎ𝑙 𝑦𝑙 12 �ℎ𝑙 𝑐𝑙 =3.4 𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑐 The ETo and precipitation values are taken from the climate data presented in Palo Alto’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and summarized below in Table 1. Table 1: City of Palo Alto Climate Data Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Standard Monthly Average ETo 1 1.4 1.9 3.4 4.4 5.5 6.0 6.2 5.5 4.4 3.1 1.7 1.3 44.8 Average Rainfall2 (in) 3.2 2.9 2.3 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.7 2.7 15.3 Source: City of Palo Alto 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Notes: 1. Average ETo data for closest active station (Hayward) reported by CIMIS website http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/ 2. Average rainfall data for Palo Alto reported by NOAA website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/ Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment July is the maximum demand month for landscape irrigation, with a maximum day peaking factor of 1.7. This maximum day peaking factor was applied for all landscape irrigation demands throughout the study area. The peak hour landscape irrigation demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 3.0 assuming an 8-hour irrigation window at night. These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Dual Plumbing The first step to determining dual-plumbing demands was to estimate the total building square footage. For future developments where site-specific details were not yet known, information was gathered on anticipated building density from developers and architects. If this information was not available, the likely building density was estimated using allowable floor area ratios (FARs) in the development’s respective zoning code. The estimated total building square footage was found with the following calculation: 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙] =𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙]∗𝐴𝐴𝑅∗𝐴𝐴𝑅 𝑅𝑐𝑐𝑙𝑐𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎𝑐𝑙𝑙𝑙 It was assumed that not all buildings would be calculated to the maximum FAR over the entire parcel area, so a FAR reduction factor of 0.75 was applied to find the most likely building density. Any comments from developers on likely development density were incorporated into the estimate. After determining total building square footage, the total potential daily water demand for urinal and toilet fixtures was determined using the following calculation: 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎𝑦] =𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 [𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑙𝑐∗𝑁𝑙.𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑙 + 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑙𝑐 [𝐴𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑙 [𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�]∗𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑎�ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑅𝑙𝑐∗𝑁𝑙.𝑙𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑐𝑙𝑙 𝐴𝑅𝐴𝑙 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) are defined as the occupants who spend at least 40 hours per week (8 hours per day) in the building. Transient FTEs represent occupants that do not utilize the building services on a regular basis, such as visitors, customers, or delivery persons. The number of FTEs and Transient FTEs were estimated from the total building footprint square footage and the space type metrics outlined in Table 2. Space types for existing buildings were determined based on known information about the site. Future developments were categorized as “General Office,” “Service,” “R&D or Laboratory,” “Hotel,” or “Mixed Use High” based on developer input and zoning descriptions. Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment Table 2: Space Type Default Occupancy Numbers Space Type Gross Square Feet per Occupant – FTE Gross Square Feet Per Occupant – Transient FTE General Office 250 0 Retail, general 550 130 Service (e.g. financial, auto) 600 130 Restaurant 435 95 Grocery Store 550 115 Medical Office 225 330 R&D or Laboratory 400 0 Warehouse, distribution 2500 0 Warehouse, storage 20000 0 Hotel 1500 700 Education, daycare 630 105 Educational, K–12 1300 140 Education, postsecondary 2100 150 Mixed Use Corridor1 480 90 Mixed Use High2 460 80 Source: LEED Reference for Building Operations and Maintenance, Version 4 Error! Reference source not found.. Appendix 2-Table 1. Default Occupancy Numbers. Notes: 1. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, and Grocery Store occupancy numbers. 2. Developed based on zoning description, which averages General Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant, Grocery Store, and R&D/Laboratory occupancy numbers. Water fixture metrics that were used for flow rate, duration and average daily use are summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Water Fixture Metrics Fixture Type Flow Rate1 (gallons/flush) Duration (flush) Avg Daily Use – FTE1 Avg Daily Use – Transient FTE2 Urinals 0.5 1 2 0.4 Toilet (Water Closet) 1.28 1 2 0.5 Notes: 1. Source: 2011 CalGreen Green Building Requirements. (Table 13C.5.303.2.2). 2. Source: LEED 2009 Water Use Reduction Additional Guidance (Version 7). Table 1. Non-residential Default Fixture Uses. IKEA and the Mitchell Park Library and Community Center are the two customers in the service area known to have dual plumbing. Since IKEA’s site-specific meter data was not available, its demands were estimated using the methodology outlined above. For the Mitchell Park facilities, the demand was taken Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment from the Phase 3 Business Plan in which it was assumed that 30% of the water measured by the site’s W4 meter is used for toilet flushing that could be converted to recycled water. In order to adjust each site’s total daily water demand to an annual average demand, the daily demand was multiplied by the customer’s assumed number of days of operation. The values used for days of operation for different customer types are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Days of Operation Space Type Days of Operation Retail, general 365 Hotel 365 Mixed Use High 365 General Office 260 Service (e.g. financial, auto) 260 R&D or Laboratory 260 The peak hour dual-plumbing demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the average occupancy of the buildings is 12 hours during the day. Peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Cooling Towers Demands for cooling towers included customers previously identified as having cooling towers and customers assumed to have cooling towers through review of building characteristics. In addition, certain future developments were identified as potential cooling tower users through specific conversations with developers and architects. The magnitude of cooling tower demand was determined using the following equation: 𝐴𝑙𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑐𝑙 𝐴𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑙𝑐 (𝐴𝐴𝑌)=𝑅𝑙𝑙𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑙�ℎ𝑙𝑐�ℎ𝑙𝑐 𝐴𝑙𝑐𝑎 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙] 330 [𝑅𝑙 𝐴𝑙 𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑐 𝐿𝑙𝑎𝑐]∗4.1 ∗0.02 [𝐴𝐴𝑌 𝑅𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑐 𝐿𝑙𝑎𝑐] This demand calculation was based on historical cooling tower use data from southern California, adjusted for the climate in Palo Alto. The historical data from several office buildings in Burbank, California showed about 330 square feet per ton of cooling tower load and about .02 AF of water use per ton of cooling tower load. This resulted in an average cooling tower water demand of 0.073 AF per 1,000 square feet of building area. This demand metric was then adjusted to Palo Alto’s climate using Cooling Degree Days – the number of degrees that a day’s average temperature is above 65F (which is assumed to be when air conditioning is needed), summed over an entire year. Since Burbank has approximately 4.1 times as many CDDs as Palo Alto, the Burbank cooling tower use factor was divided by 4.1 to yield a cooling tower use factor of 0.018 AF per 1,000 square feet for the Palo Alto area. This factor was applied to all developments assumed to have cooling towers in the service area. Based on the total number of cooling degree days per month in Palo Alto, August is the maximum demand month for cooling tower demands, with a maximum day peaking factor of 2.7. The peak hour cooling tower Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix A: Non-Potable Demand Assessment demands were calculated using an hourly peaking factor of 2.0, assuming the average occupancy of the buildings is 12 hours during the day. These peaking factors are summarized in Table 5. Table 5: Demand Peaking Factors Demand Type Peaking Factor Maximum Day Irrigation 1.7 Cooling Tower 2.7 Hourly Irrigation 3.0 Dual Plumbing 2.0 Cooling Tower 2.0 Appendix B - Recycled Water Customers and Demand Estimates [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix C - Potential Uses Considered but Not Included Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated Appendix A identifies potential non-potable recycled water customers throughout the Strategic Plan study area whereas this appendix identifies customers that were considered but not included in the study. The 1992 Palo Alto Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) was used as the starting point for identifying potential recycled water demands. Additional uses were then identified through review of available recycled water feasibility studies, Urban Water Management Plans, General and Specific Plans and aerials of the study area. The City and District then reached out to the Regional Water Quality Control Plan (RWQCP) Partner Agencies and other stakeholders to verify if the customers identified in their areas could realistically be expected to accept recycled water and whether additional customers should be considered. Customers from the 1992 RWMP that are not included in this Strategic Plan include: • East Palo Alto Greenhouses – In the 1990s there were a number of functioning greenhouses in East Palo Alto, but now there are not many greenhouses known to be operating in the area. Those that are still operating are not anticipated to have significant demand. • Medians and Streetscapes – The State Water Resources Control Board has proposed regulations prohibiting the irrigation of ornamental turf in publicly owned medians and streetscapes (i.e. the landscaped area between the street and sidewalk). The prohibition includes recycled water irrigation systems unless the system was installed prior to 2018. While irrigation of trees within medians and streetscapes are exempt from the proposed regulation, the default assumption for the Strategic Plan was not to include medians and streetscapes unless stakeholders provided information confirming the type of vegetation and associated water use for specific areas. Stakeholders suggested that medians along Foothill Expressway be considered. However, through field investigations, Palo Alto determined that the portion of Foothill Expressway in its service area is not irrigated and verification of irrigation of the portion within Los Altos could not be obtained. As such, Foothill Expressway was dropped from further consideration. • Gate of Heaven Cemetery – This customer, though previously identified as a potential customer in Los Altos’s service area, was found to be within Cupertino’s service area. Additional customers considered but not included: • Cooley Landing Park – Recycled water is currently being trucked to this East Palo Alto park to support the establishment period for new native landscaping. Following the establishment period there will be no irrigation demand. • East Bayshore Redevelopment - East Palo Alto staff noted that the area along East Bayshore has potential for significant multi-family residential redevelopment. However, there were no specific redevelopment plans, and the City indicated it would probably not pursue dual-plumbing for residential use. • East Palo Alto Neighborhood Gardens and Sports Fields – Through review of aerials of East Palo Alto, a number of sizeable gardens and what looked like communal sports fields in between Recycled Water Strategic Plan Report Appendix C: Users Considered but Eliminated residences were identified. East Palo Alto city staff indicated that these are temporary uses that sprung up on vacant lots. When the building moratorium in East Palo Alto is lifted, the City expects that these sites will be developed. • Edith Park – This park in Los Altos Hills was recently redone to minimize irrigation needs. • Gateway District Retail Center Redevelopment – This potential redevelopment area was in review in East Palo Alto’s General Plan, but East Palo Alto city staff noted there are no specific plans for redevelopment of this area. • Los Altos Redevelopment along El Camino – The majority of redevelopment will occur in the next few years. Because the City currently does not require installation of recycled water infrastructure for new developments, incorporating recycled water use within these buildings seems unlikely. • Ravenswood Family Health Center – This facility in East Palo Alto is dual-plumbed. However, review of the facility’s plans showed that the dual-plumbing was for on-site rain capture and not designed to have recycled water incorporated. • San Antonio Redevelopment – This redevelopment area in Mountain View received conditions of approval prior to Mountain View’s dual-plumbing ordinance and, as a result, is not dual-plumbed for recycled water. • Single Family Residences – Los Altos Hills and Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) indicated interest in working with large residential irrigators in Los Altos Hills to convert to recycled water use. Review of potential residences focused on parcels along Purissima Road and Fremont Road where PHWD identified the potential to repurpose abandoned or soon to be abandoned potable water pipelines for recycled water distribution. In these areas the residences averaged less than 1 acre-foot per year (AFY) of total water consumption. These volumes are not considered significant enough for residences to willingly undertake conversion of their irrigation systems plus the regulatory complexity involved with using recycled water at single family residences. • Sobrato Phase I – Construction for this site in East Palo Alto, which is also known as Amazon I, was already underway at the time of the demand assessment and was determined not to include purple pipe for recycled water. • Stanford Shopping Center – The General Manager of Stanford Shopping Center contacted the City at the start of the Strategic Planning process inquiring about the possibility of extending recycled water infrastructure to the shopping center. Through subsequent discussions, the shopping center indicated potential for both irrigation use as well as dual -plumbing use in future buildings. However, estimated demands were not provided. Appendix D - Opinions of Probable Costs A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,265,933 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $906,373 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 18,494 LF 200$ $3,699,008 10 Inch 9,029 LF 212$ $1,914,318 12 Inch 6,873 LF 254$ $1,747,873 16 Inch 22,301 LF 277$ $6,178,938 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $406,204 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 65 LF 139$ $9,049 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 579 EA 500$ $289,560 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $506,178 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 132 EA 15,000$ $1,980,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $25,832,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,020,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $26,852,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$2,685,000 Construction Contingency 40%$10,741,000 Construction Cost Total $40,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$4,028,000 Construction Management 10% $2,685,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$806,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $47,800,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A1 Page 1 of 22 A1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $44,942 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $0 Mechanical 1% $0 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 444,385 kWh/year 0.15$ $66,658 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 0 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$290,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $2,439,000 Annual O&M Costs $290,000 Total Annualized Cost $2,729,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 800 AFY Concept Option: A1 Page 2 of 22 A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $2,987,744 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,195,097 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 50,383 LF 200$ $10,077,166 10 Inch 8,600 LF 212$ $1,823,362 12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705 16 Inch 1,000 LF 277$ $277,070 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 7,115 LF 334$ $2,375,058 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839 8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $478,541 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 56 LF 5,000$ $280,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 431 LF 66$ $28,252 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 746 EA 500$ $372,750 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $593,614 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 137 EA 15,000$ $2,055,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839 Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505 Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 9,100 Gal 29$ $266,555 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 8,500 Gal 30$ $258,258 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $34,060,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,344,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $35,404,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,540,000 Construction Contingency 40%$14,162,000 Construction Cost Total $53,200,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,311,000 Construction Management 10% $3,540,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,062,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $63,000,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A2 Page 3 of 22 A2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $58,100 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $46,393 Mechanical 1% $46,393 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $46,393 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 794,111 kWh/year 0.15$ $119,117 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 4 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$520,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,214,000 Annual O&M Costs $520,000 Total Annualized Cost $3,734,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 1,100 AFY Concept Option: A2 Page 4 of 22 A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,033,005 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,613,202 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 60,148 LF 200$ $12,030,275 10 Inch 32,577 LF 212$ $6,906,936 12 Inch 3,550 LF 254$ $902,801 16 Inch 5,500 LF 277$ $1,523,885 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 8,115 LF 334$ $2,708,868 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 2,200 LF 55$ $120,839 8 Inch 1,850 LF 66$ $121,540 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $722,183 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")820 LF 1,728$ $1,416,960 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 236 LF 500$ $118,025 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 87 LF 5,000$ $435,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 566 LF 66$ $37,101 8 Inch 123 LF 86$ $10,631 10 Inch 50 LF 108$ $5,424 12 Inch 50 LF 139$ $6,961 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 1,122 EA 500$ $560,750 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $845,358 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 147 EA 15,000$ $2,205,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #3 40 13,288$ $531,505 Pump Station #4 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #5 69 10,920$ $753,446 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 11,200 Gal 25$ $285,278 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 10,500 Gal 27$ $280,820 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 2,900 Gal 41$ $117,657 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 700 Gal 45$ $31,202 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 1,900 Gal 42$ $80,542 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $45,976,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,815,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $47,791,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,779,000 Construction Contingency 40%$19,116,000 Construction Cost Total $71,700,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$7,169,000 Construction Management 10% $4,779,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,434,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $85,100,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A3 Page 5 of 22 A3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $87,864 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $58,338 Mechanical 1% $58,338 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $58,338 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 1,040,732 kWh/year 0.15$ $156,110 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 5 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,600 Hours 99.81$ $259,513 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$680,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,342,000 Annual O&M Costs $680,000 Total Annualized Cost $5,022,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 1,250 AFY Concept Option: A3 Page 6 of 22 A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $0 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $0 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 254$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $0 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 0 EA 500$ $0 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $0 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 1 LS 3,326,000$ $3,326,000 Subtotal $3,326,000 Sales Tax 9%$150,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $3,476,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$348,000 Construction Contingency 40%$1,390,000 Construction Cost Total $5,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$521,000 Construction Management 10% $348,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$104,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $6,200,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: A4 Page 7 of 22 A4 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $0 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $0 Mechanical 1% $0 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $0 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge - kWh/year 0.15$ $0 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 0 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 0 Hours 99.81$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 1 LS 100,000$ $100,000 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$100,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $316,000 Annual O&M Costs $100,000 Total Annualized Cost $416,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,100 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 200 AFY Concept Option: A4 Page 8 of 22 A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,443,427 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,377,371 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 21,500 LF 200$ $4,300,241 10 Inch 14,500 LF 212$ $3,074,272 12 Inch 5,500 LF 254$ $1,398,705 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 44,714 LF 334$ $14,925,980 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $710,976 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 122 LF 625$ $76,266 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 114 LF 1,250$ $142,530 Jacking Shafts 2 EA 258,000$ $516,000 Receiving Shafts 2 EA 148,000$ $296,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 61 LF 5,000$ $305,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 92 LF 66$ $6,031 8 Inch 240 LF 86$ $20,744 10 Inch 91 LF 108$ $9,871 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 172 LF 175$ $30,132 Potholing 870 EA 500$ $435,225 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $736,597 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 106 EA 15,000$ $1,590,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 225 7,135$ $1,605,408 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 12,200 Gal 24$ $288,554 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 7,200 Gal 33$ $235,789 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 1.2 1,500,000$ $1,800,000 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $39,255,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,550,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $40,805,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,081,000 Construction Contingency 40%$16,322,000 Construction Cost Total $61,300,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,121,000 Construction Management 10% $4,081,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,224,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $72,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: A5 Page 9 of 22 A5 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $68,908 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $35,354 Mechanical 1% $35,354 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $35,354 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 668,276 kWh/year 0.15$ $100,241 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 2 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $18,000 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$400,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $3,704,000 Annual O&M Costs $400,000 Total Annualized Cost $4,104,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,600 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 900 AFY Concept Option: A5 Page 10 of 22 A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $980,415 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $392,166 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 14,100 LF 200$ $2,820,158 10 Inch 10,200 LF 212$ $2,162,592 12 Inch 10,000 LF 254$ $2,543,100 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $225,775 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 343 EA 500$ $171,500 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $232,549 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 17 EA 10,000$ $170,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 16 EA 15,000$ $240,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 150 8,256$ $1,238,474 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $11,177,000 Sales Tax 9%$441,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $11,618,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$1,162,000 Construction Contingency 40%$4,647,000 Construction Cost Total $17,500,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$1,743,000 Construction Management 10% $1,162,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$349,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only)0 SQ FT 500$ $0 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $20,700,000 Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Concept Option: A6 Page 11 of 22 A6 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $27,152 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $12,385 Mechanical 1% $12,385 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $12,385 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 201,615 kWh/year 0.15$ $30,242 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$150,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $1,056,000 Annual O&M Costs $150,000 Total Annualized Cost $1,206,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 500 AFY Concept Option: A6 Page 12 of 22 B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,956,940 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,982,776 Treatment MBR 1.5 MGD 16,125,000$ $24,000,000 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0.0 MGD 1,317,000$ $0 RO System 0.0 MGD 1,586,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0.0 MGD 470,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 39,500 LF 200$ $7,900,443 10 Inch 4,000 LF 212$ $848,075 12 Inch 6,000 LF 254$ $1,525,860 16 Inch 11,500 LF 277$ $3,186,305 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 6,000 LF 334$ $2,002,860 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $463,906 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 179 LF 500$ $89,519 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 0 EA 258,000$ $0 Receiving Shafts 0 EA 148,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 14 LF 5,000$ $70,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 123 LF 66$ $8,063 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 677 EA 500$ $338,260 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $486,295 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 139 EA 15,000$ $2,085,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 200 7,444$ $1,488,839 Pump Station #2 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #3 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #4 6 26,306$ $157,836 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 6,800 Gal 33$ $227,638 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 5,500 Gal 36$ $197,127 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 1,400 Gal 43$ $60,621 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 1.5 1,500,000$ $2,250,000 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $56,509,000 Sales Tax 9%$2,231,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $58,740,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$5,874,000 Construction Contingency 40%$23,496,000 Construction Cost Total $88,200,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$8,811,000 Construction Management 10% $5,874,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,762,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only) 50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $129,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: B1 Page 13 of 22 B1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 2 MGD 540,000$ $810,000 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 0 MGD 342,000$ $0 RO System 0 MGD 574,000$ $0 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 0 MGD 73,000$ $0 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)0 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $0 Labor for MBR 2 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $104,000 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $53,279 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $30,246 Mechanical 1% $30,246 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,246 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 550,080 kWh/year 0.15$ $82,512 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 4 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 2,080 Hours 99.81$ $207,610 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $22,500 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$1,370,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $6,612,000 Annual O&M Costs $1,370,000 Total Annualized Cost $7,982,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$8,900 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 900 AFY Concept Option: B1 Page 14 of 22 C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,353,169 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,341,268 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 2.5 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,300,000 RO System 2.5 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,000,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.5 MGD 470,000$ $1,200,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.5 MGD 134,000$ $340,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.5 MGD 3,427,000$ $8,600,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 2,000 LF 200$ $400,023 10 Inch 1,500 LF 212$ $318,028 12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550 16 Inch 20,500 LF 277$ $5,679,935 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $230,086 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 458 LF 1,000$ $458,096 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 295 EA 500$ $147,290 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $250,732 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $38,226,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,509,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $39,735,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$3,974,000 Construction Contingency 40%$15,894,000 Construction Cost Total $59,700,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$5,960,000 Construction Management 10% $3,974,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,192,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only) 20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $92,200,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C1 Page 15 of 22 C1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $860,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,400,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0 MGD 226,000$ $0 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $180,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $300,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $260,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $23,320 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $19,300 Mechanical 1% $19,300 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 342,958 kWh/year 0.15$ $51,444 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$14,820,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $4,704,000 Annual O&M Costs $14,820,000 Total Annualized Cost $19,524,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$3,300 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,900 AFY Concept Option: C1 Page 16 of 22 C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $4,213,006 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,685,202 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 2.8 MGD 1,317,000$ $3,700,000 RO System 2.8 MGD 1,586,000$ $4,400,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 0.9 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,400,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 2.8 MGD 470,000$ $1,300,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 2.8 MGD 134,000$ $370,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 2.8 MGD 3,427,000$ $9,600,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 11,000 LF 200$ $2,200,124 10 Inch 5,500 LF 212$ $1,166,103 12 Inch 3,000 LF 254$ $762,930 16 Inch 2,500 LF 277$ $692,675 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 18,500 LF 334$ $6,175,485 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $329,920 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 160 LF 500$ $80,017 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 619 LF 1,250$ $773,912 Jacking Shafts 3 EA 258,000$ $774,000 Receiving Shafts 3 EA 148,000$ $444,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 19 LF 5,000$ $95,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 170 LF 66$ $11,143 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 414 EA 500$ $207,245 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $342,552 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 25 EA 15,000$ $375,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 300 6,433$ $1,929,951 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865 Rinconada 983 AFY 2,937$ $2,887,865 Peers 983 AFY 3,353$ $3,296,834 El Camino 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Eleanor 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Library 983 AFY 4,538$ $4,462,774 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $70,489,000 Sales Tax 9%$2,907,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $73,396,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$7,340,000 Construction Contingency 40%$29,358,000 Construction Cost Total $110,100,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$11,009,000 Construction Management 10% $7,340,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,202,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only) 20,000 SQ FT 500$ $10,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $152,100,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C2 Page 17 of 22 C2 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $950,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,600,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $210,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $200,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $340,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $290,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $32,816 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $19,300 Mechanical 1% $19,300 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $19,300 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 453,458 kWh/year 0.15$ $68,019 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,900 AFY 1,960$ $11,564,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 265$ $260,797 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 263$ $258,689 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 224$ $220,625 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,497 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 256$ $251,783 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 983 AFY 242$ $238,429 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$16,920,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $7,760,000 Annual O&M Costs $16,920,000 Total Annualized Cost $24,680,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,000 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 6,100 AFY Concept Option: C2 Page 18 of 22 C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $6,472,618 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $2,589,047 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 0.0 MGD 360,000$ $0 BAC 0.0 MGD 323,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3.3 MGD 1,317,000$ $4,400,000 RO System 3.3 MGD 1,586,000$ $5,300,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1.0 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,500,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3.3 MGD 470,000$ $1,600,000 Free Chlorine 0.0 MGD 271,000$ $0 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 3.3 MGD 134,000$ $440,000 Sitework/Piping/Structures 3.3 MGD 3,427,000$ $11,000,000 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 19,994 LF 200$ $3,999,025 10 Inch 12,529 LF 212$ $2,656,383 12 Inch 9,873 LF 254$ $2,510,803 16 Inch 47,801 LF 277$ $13,244,223 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 0 LF 334$ $0 24 Inch 0 LF 381$ $0 30 Inch 0 LF 462$ $0 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $672,313 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")800 LF 1,728$ $1,382,400 Jacking Shaft 3 EA 300,000$ $900,000 Receiving Shaft 3 EA 150,000$ $450,000 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 350 LF 528$ $184,800 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 160 LF 1,000$ $160,033 20 Inch 0 LF 1,250$ $0 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 8 LF 5,000$ $40,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 65 LF 175$ $11,387 Potholing 916 EA 500$ $457,860 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $785,141 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 62 EA 10,000$ $620,000 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 142 EA 15,000$ $2,130,000 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 6 CY 2,000$ $12,000 Planter Box (Installation Labor)8 Day 4,000$ $32,000 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 400 5,800$ $2,320,102 Pump Station #2 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 1,389,000$ $1,389,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 918,000$ $918,000 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 5,800 Gal 35$ $204,714 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 0.0 1,500,000$ $0 Underground Construction 0.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 5 EA 1,000,000$ $5,000,000 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343 Rinconada 833 AFY 2,937$ $2,447,343 Peers 833 AFY 3,353$ $2,793,927 El Camino 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Eleanor 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Library 833 AFY 4,538$ $3,782,012 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $92,822,000 Sales Tax 9%$3,769,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $96,591,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$9,659,000 Construction Contingency 40%$38,636,000 Construction Cost Total $144,900,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$14,489,000 Construction Management 10% $9,659,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$2,898,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only) 30,000 SQ FT 500$ $15,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 1 LS 4,500,000$ $4,500,000 Peers Land Cost 1 LS 7,000,000$ $7,000,000 On-Time Fee 0 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $198,400,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: C3 Page 19 of 22 C3 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 0 MGD 93,000$ $0 BAC 0 MGD 131,000$ $0 MF/UF system 3 MGD 342,000$ $1,100,000 RO System 3 MGD 574,000$ $1,900,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $220,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 3 MGD 73,000$ $240,000 Free Chlorine 0 MGD 32,000$ $0 Chemicals 3 MGD 121,000$ $400,000 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)3 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $350,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 0 $/year 1,000,000$ $0 Conveyance LF $0.78 $71,588 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $23,201 Mechanical 1% $23,201 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $23,201 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 466,792 kWh/year 0.15$ $70,019 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 1 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours 99.81$ $51,903 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 1 LS 96,000$ $96,000 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 1 LS 81,000$ $81,000 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $0 Injection Wells Annual O&M 5 EA 15,000$ $75,000 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 5,000 AFY 1,960$ $9,800,000 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 265$ $221,014 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 263$ $219,228 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 224$ $186,970 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,133 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 256$ $213,376 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 833 AFY 242$ $202,059 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$15,780,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $10,122,000 Annual O&M Costs $15,780,000 Total Annualized Cost $25,902,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$4,400 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,900 AFY Concept Option: C3 Page 20 of 22 D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost Capital Costs General Requirements Mobilization Applied to all capital costs 10% $3,772,451 Traffic Control Applied to all capital costs 4% $1,508,980 Treatment MBR 0.0 MGD 17,200,000$ $0 Ozone 4.7 MGD 360,000$ $1,700,000 BAC 4.7 MGD 323,000$ $1,500,000 MF/UF system 4.7 MGD 1,317,000$ $6,200,000 RO System 4.7 MGD 1,586,000$ $7,500,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1.2 MGD 1,510,000$ $1,900,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 4.7 MGD 470,000$ $2,200,000 Free Chlorine 4.7 MGD 271,000$ $1,300,000 Chemicals (Storage and Use) 0.0 MGD 134,000$ $0 Sitework/Piping/Structures 0.0 MGD 3,427,000$ $0 Conveyance High-Density Urban Pipeline, HDPE 6 Inch 0 LF 186$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 200$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 212$ $0 12 Inch 5,000 LF 254$ $1,271,550 16 Inch 0 LF 277$ $0 18 Inch 0 LF 290$ $0 20 Inch 500 LF 334$ $166,905 24 Inch 1,400 LF 381$ $533,568 30 Inch 2,600 LF 462$ $1,202,422 Repurposing Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 55$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 Sheeting and Shoring (Open Cut)3% of Open Cut Pipeline Cost 3% $59,161 Microtunneling Tunnel and Casing (36")0 LF 1,728$ $0 Jacking Shaft 0 EA 300,000$ $0 Receiving Shaft 0 EA 150,000$ $0 Horizontal Directional Drilling 24 Inch Bore Diameter 0 LF 528$ $0 PTGAB 6 Inch 0 LF 375$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 500$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 625$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 750$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 1,000$ $0 20 Inch 1,200 LF 1,250$ $1,500,313 Jacking Shafts 1 EA 258,000$ $258,000 Receiving Shafts 1 EA 148,000$ $148,000 Pipe Bridge Pipe Bridge Support 0 LF 5,000$ $0 Pipe Bridge Pipe 6 Inch 0 LF 66$ $0 8 Inch 0 LF 86$ $0 10 Inch 0 LF 108$ $0 12 Inch 0 LF 139$ $0 16 Inch 0 LF 175$ $0 Potholing 107 EA 500$ $53,500 Cathodic Protection 3% of Pipeline Installation Cost 3% $97,008 Customer Services (no meter replacement) 0 EA 10,000$ $0 Customer Services (with meter replacement) 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Planter Box (Housing Pipe on Bridge Sidewalk) 0 CY 2,000$ $0 Planter Box (Installation Labor)0 Day 4,000$ $0 Pump Stations Pump Station #1 60 11,483$ $688,978 Pump Station #2 400 5,800$ $2,320,102 Pump Station #3 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #4 0 -$ $0 Pump Station #5 0 -$ $0 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 1,389,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 918,000$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #1 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #2 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #3 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #4 0 Gal -$ $0 Hydropneumatic Tank - Pump Station #5 0 Gal -$ $0 Storage Tank Storage Tank 4.8 1,500,000$ $7,125,000 Underground Construction 1.0 LS 1,000,000$ Injection Well 0 EA 1,000,000$ $0 Extraction Wellhead Treatment Hale 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Rinconada 0 AFY 2,937$ $0 Peers 0 AFY 3,353$ $0 El Camino 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Eleanor 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Library 0 AFY 4,538$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 3,326,000$ $0 Subtotal $43,006,000 Sales Tax 9%$1,698,000 Construction Cost Subtotal $44,704,000 Market Adjustment Factor 10%$4,470,000 Construction Contingency 40%$17,882,000 Construction Cost Total $67,100,000 Engineering and Admin Services (Design)15%$6,706,000 Construction Management 10% $4,470,000 Engineering Services During Construction 3%$1,341,000 Property Acquisition (Property Only) 50,000 SQ FT 500$ $25,000,000 Property Acquisition (House on Property) 0 SQ FT 1,000$ $0 Rinconada Land Cost 0 LS 4,500,000$ $0 Peers Land Cost 0 LS 7,000,000$ $0 On-Time Fee 1 LS 75,000$ Total Capital Cost $104,600,000 Total installed HP, including standby MG Applied to half of capital costs (not including General) Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Total installed HP, including standby Concept Option: D1 Page 21 of 22 D1 Palo Alto Recycled Water Feasibility Study Last Updated:4-Feb-19 Discount Rate Project Life Updated by: K. Howes 3%30 Years CCI (SF, June 2018): 12014.72 Item Size Qty Unit Unit Cost Total Cost O&M Costs (Annual) Advanced Water Treatment MBR 0 MGD 560,000$ $0 Ozone 5 MGD 93,000$ $440,000 BAC 5 MGD 131,000$ $620,000 MF/UF system 5 MGD 342,000$ $1,600,000 RO System 5 MGD 574,000$ $2,700,000 RO Concentrate Treatment 1 MGD 226,000$ $280,000 Advanced Oxidation and Disinfection 5 MGD 73,000$ $350,000 Free Chlorine 5 MGD 32,000$ $150,000 Chemicals 0 MGD 121,000$ $0 Labor for Treatment (no MBR)5 1,040 hrs/MGD 100$ $490,000 Labor for MBR 0 1,040 hrs/year 100$ $0 Monitoring 1 $/year 1,000,000$ $1,000,000 Conveyance LF $0.78 $6,434 Pump Stations Consumables Equipment 1% $30,091 Mechanical 1% $30,091 Electrical/Instrumentation 1% $30,091 Electricity Requirement Energy Charge 718,547 kWh/year 0.15$ $107,782 Labor Costs Total No. Operators 2 No. Average Annual Operator Hours per Year 520 Hours Total Operator Hours per Year 1,040 Hours 99.81$ $103,805 Phase 3 RWQCP Pump Station Improvements 0 LS 96,000$ $0 Phase 3 Booster Pump Station 0 LS 81,000$ $0 Storage Tanks Annual O&M 1% $71,250 Injection Wells Annual O&M 0 EA 15,000$ $0 Extraction Wells Groundwater Pumping Charge 0 AFY 1,960$ $0 Hale Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 265$ $0 Rinconada Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 263$ $0 Peers Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 224$ $0 El Camino Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Eleanor Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 256$ $0 Library Extraction Well/Wellhead Treatment 0 AFY 242$ $0 Mountain View Feasibility Study Long-Term Recommended Phase 0 LS 100,000$ $0 Total O&M Costs ($/yr)$8,010,000 Annualized Costs ($ / Year) Annualized Capital Costs ($/Year)One payment per year, spread over Project Life $5,337,000 Annual O&M Costs $8,010,000 Total Annualized Cost $13,347,000 Deliveries of Recycled Water Estimated Unit Cost ($/AF)$2,500 Annual Inspection and Maintenance of Pipeline - Average Annual Operator Hours per 5,300 AFY Concept Option: D1 Page 22 of 22 Appendix E - Concept Option Variations [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix F - Cost Per Unit of Water Analyses for Palo Alto, Cal Water, Purissima Hills Water District and East Palo Alto [Confidential – Not Included] Appendix G - Funding Matrix Page 1 of 4 Summary of Potential Recycled Water Funding Opportunities – Updated March 13, 2019 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Title XVI Water Reuse & Reclamation Grant Program - Construction U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Grant CEQA and NEPA Construction of water recycling treatment and conveyance facilities. Planning, design, construction (can include prior costs) A Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to Reclamation for review and approval prior to submitting a construction application. Project must receive congressional authorization in order to receive construction grant funding. Most recent round was due in Summer 2018. Next round anticipated spring 2019 The total amount of available funds varies each year. The 2018 FOA included $34M for Title XVI. Historically, there has been a max of ~$4M per applicant, though the new administration has favored funding fewer projects with larger awards per project. Maximum grant award of 25% of the total project costs or $20 million, whichever is less. Grant funding is provided over multiple applications submitted on an annual basis until the project is complete or the total federal cost share has been provided. Typically limited to 3 years of costs per application. 75% cost share 1 Project must receive congressional approval. Website https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Subset of Title XVI U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Grant CEQA and NEPA Construction of water recycling treatment and conveyance facilities for projects that have a Title XVI Feasibility Study completed, but are not congressionally authorized. Similar to Title XVI: planning, design, construction (including prior costs) A Title XVI Feasibility Study must have already been submitted to Reclamation for review and approval and the project must have a Determination of Feasibility from Reclamation Reclamation appears to intend three rounds of funding – the first was in 2017, the second was in 2018, and a third to be released shortly after announcement of Round 2 awards – anticipated in spring 2019. $50M total has been allocated under WIIN. $10M released in first FOA, $20M released in second FOA, $20M anticipated for third FOA. Maximum grant award of 25% of the total project costs. Typically limited to 3 years of costs per application. 75% cost share 1 Competitive program, but will only get more competitive as additional agencies submit their Feasibility Studies. Better to get money early and keep going back. Website A specific funding website has not been developed. For reference, visit: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/title/index.html Page 2 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Drought Response Program – Drought Resiliency Projects Reclamation Grant CEQA and NEPA Increase the reliability of water supply; improve water management; implement systems to facilitate the voluntary sale, transfer or exchange of water; and provide benefits for fish, wildlife, and the environment to mitigate impacts caused by drought. Construction, tool development to improve water management, installation of data collecting devices, improving habitat. Proposed resiliency project should improve ability of water managers to deliver water during a drought. Based on most recent FOA, project cannot be part of a congressionally authorized Title XVI Project. Must demonstrate that project is supported by an existing drought contingency plan; quantify benefits during droughts; address urgent needs and severe drought impacts. Anticipate FOA in December 2018, with applications due February 2019 $8.3M was awarded in 2018 FY2019 budget TBD Funding Group I: up to $300,000 for projects that can be completed within 2 years Funding Group II: up to $750,000 for larger projects that can be completed within 3 years 50% cost share 4 Competitiveness would be evaluated if and when another FOA is released based on project status and scoring criteria. Status of next round is unknown. Website https://www.usbr.gov/drought/ Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant Program California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Grant CEQA Only Identify and implement projects and programs that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and manage water to concurrently achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives. Planning, design, land acquisition, legal fees, environmental documentation, environmental mitigation, construction/ implementation, construction administration Project must be included on the project list of an IRWM Region’s IRWMP. Palo Alto is within the San Francisco Bay IRWM Region and thus, the project must be in its IRWMP. Prop 1 – Round 1 is underway; local call for projects closed Nov. 16, 2018 FY20/21: Round 2 Implementation Grant Solicitation anticipated City submitted a project in Fall 2018 for Round 1; currently awaiting selection for inclusion in regional application. $58.5M for the 2 rounds of implementation funding in the SF Funding Area, which includes the entire SF Bay Area IRWM Region and a portion of the East Contra Costa IRWM Region. ($65M is allocated to SF Funding Area, $6.5M to be allocated to DAC Involvement.) $22.75M anticipated available in each round for non-DAC implementation projects 50% cost share 3 Limited funding available for competitive area. Participate in SF Bay Area IRWM process. Ultimately, up to SF Bay Area project prioritization and selection process as to which projects are included in an application Website https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/IRWM-Grant-Programs or Bay Area IRWM Program: http://bayareairwmp.org/ Page 3 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) loan program State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Loan CEQA+ (includes CEQA and select federal crosscutters, i.e., not full NEPA) Construction of publicly- owned facilities including wastewater treatment, local sewers, sewer interceptors, water reclamation and distribution, stormwater treatment, and combined sewers. Planning, design, construction, construction management, mitigation measures (can include prior planning/design costs). Construction costs incurred prior to executing funding agreement NOT eligible for reimbursement. Must either provide proof of submitted UWMP, proof of CUWCC MOU, or copy of Water Conservation Program for State Board approval. Letter of 2015 UWMP approval from DWR required prior to executing financing agreement. Applications are continuously accepted, though the State Board now implements a deadline of December 31 and a scoring system to be added to the Fundable List. Projects must first get on Fundable Project List before applications will be reviewed. May be as long as 2 years from application submittal to contract Typically, there is $200M-$300M available; Water recycling projects are given priority. Interest rate is ½ of the General Obligation Rate at the time of award (SRF i=1.9% for this year). Financing term up to 30 years. There is no maximum financing amount for a project / agency. 0% 2 Program is very popular. Application review can be up to 12 months, so financial forecast could change by the time an application is prepared, submitted, and reviewed. Highest scoring projects will be “corrective”, or address drinking water or Delta water quality; help implement a climate change action plan or address multiple water quality issues; and those with both a complete application and at least 90% design/specs Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/ Water Recycling Funding Program (WRFP) Construction Grants SWRCB Loans & Grant CEQA+ (includes CEQA and select federal crosscutters, i.e., not full NEPA) Promote beneficial use of recycled water to augment fresh water supplies in CA by supporting water recycling projects and research. Planning, design and construction, including reasonable costs to provide emergency backup water supply for a recycled water system; pilot projects for new potable reuse (can include prior planning/design costs). Construction costs incurred prior to executing funding agreement NOT eligible for reimbursement. Apply through CWSRF program. Applications are continuously accepted, though the State Board now implements a deadline of December 31 and a scoring system to be added to the Fundable List. Projects must first get on Fundable Project List before applications will be reviewed. May be as long as 2 years from application submittal to contract Prop 1 provided $625M for planning and construction of water recycling projects; however, this funding has been exhausted. Future allocations to the WRFP are possible, though currently TBD. Project could receive $15M or 35% of project costs for construction, whichever is less. Offers 1% financing for recycled water projects through CWSF N/A 2 By applying for CWSRF, the City will automatically be applying for any available grant funding under the umbrella CWSRF program. Website https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/ Page 4 of 4 Program Administering Agency Funding Type CEQA/ NEPA Required? Program Purpose Eligible Uses Eligibility Requirements Due Date & Future Rounds Funding Amounts & Terms Cost Share Priority Determination / Critical Factors Infrastructure SRF (ISRF) Loan Program California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) Loan Application does not consist of environmental portion; however, CEQA would be required prior to construction Construction and/or repair of publicly-owned wastewater collection and treatment systems. Architectural, engineering, financial and legal services, plans, specifications, admin expenses, land acquisition, construction, machinery/equipment Project complete construction within 2 years of financing approval. Must have applied for all required permits. Applications are continuously accepted. Loans typically awarded three months after application submittal ISRF Program funding is available in amounts ranging from $50,000 to $25M, with loan terms of up to 30 years. Pre-payment of loan not allowed until Year 13 of loan N/A 5 Projects must demonstrate job creation, though this is only a small piece of the application. Loan terms not as good as other programs, and there are penalties to early repayment Website http://www.ibank.ca.gov/infrastructure-state-revolving-fund-isrf-program/ Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) USEPA Loan CEQA and NEPA Construction of wastewater conveyance and treatment projects, drinking water treatment and distribution projects, desalination, and water recycling projects Planning, preliminary engineering, design, environmental review, revenue forecasting, construction, land acquisition, capitalized interest Federal assistance may not exceed 80% of project costs. Letters of Interest accepted during selection periods. FY 2018 solicited letters of interest from April-July 2018. 62 Letters of Interest applied for $9.1B; 39 projects selected to apply for $5B in loans $5B was available in 2018. Minimum project size for large communities (population > 25,000) is $20M; for small communities is $5M. Interest rate greater or equal to U.S. Treasury rate of similar maturity, based on the weighted average life of the loan. Loans for 35 years or useful life of project, whichever is less. WIFIA received a 2- year $100M reauthorization at end of 2018. 51% non- WIFIA; (up to 80% of project costs can be covered by federal funds, using a combinati on of programs) 6 Non-refundable application fees of $25,000 (small communities) or $100,000 (>25,000 people). Total fees: $250K-$500K plus possibly additional fees for administration of loan. Low funding amount available. National program. Better local/state options. Website https://www.epa.gov/wifia