9. Region II and Region III Capital Projects
The heart of the matter for most of the Region II and Region III plant projects at issue in this proceeding is whether the Commission accepts Golden State's "firm capacity" planning criteria. Golden State's "firm capacity" criteria require each system's Maximum Day Demand (MDD) be met with the largest source capacity off line. The regulations governing water supply are the Commission's General Order (GO) 103-A and the Department of Public Health (DPH) Section 64554 of Title 22. GO 103-A16 sets the water supply requirements and states:
B. Quantity of Water
(1) Source
All water supplied by the water utility shall be:
(a) Obtained from a permitted source;
(b) Obtained from a source or sources reasonably adequate to provide a reliable supply of water; or
(c) Produced from a source or sources descried in the utility's Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) that has been reviewed by the Commission in its most recent general rate case or in an amendment to such UWMP that the utility has submitted by advice letter for review by the Division of Water and Audits. (GO 103-A, § II.B(1).)
(3) Potable Water System Capacity
(a) A system's facilities shall have the capacity to meet the source capacity requirements as defined in the Waterworks Standards CCR Title 22, Section 64554, or its successor. If at any time, the system does not have this capacity, the utility shall request a service connection moratorium until such time as it can demonstrate the source capacity has been increased to meet system requirements.
(b) If a system provides potable water for fire protection service, new portions of the system shall have supply and storage facilities that are designed to meet MDD plus the required fire flow at the time of design. See, Section VI of this General Order for fire flow requirements.
DPH's 22 C.C.R. Section 64554(c) states:
Community water systems using only groundwater shall have a minimum of two approved sources before being granted an initial permit. The system shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity source off line.
It is clear that DPH regulations require systems using only groundwater to have a minimum of two approved sources before being granted an initial permit. The real issue between the parties is how to interpret and apply the second sentence in the section. Golden State asserts that the second sentence of paragraph (c) requires that all groundwater-only systems meet MDD with the highest capacity source off line at all times, not just for initial permits. To support its interpretation, Golden State offered a DPH 2008 Sanitary Survey which finds that the Apple Valley North System cannot meet MDD with its largest source of supply off line. (Golden State Ex. 79, Att. 6 at 1.) The Apple Valley North System is an existing system, not a new system seeking an initial permit.
DRA asserts that the requirement that MDD be met with the largest source off line applies only to initial groundwater-only system permits. Not withstanding the comments in the Sanitary Survey, we find the wording of § 64554(c) open to interpretation. Reading § 64554, titled New and Existing Source Capacity, in its entirety indicates that paragraph (c) applies discretely to groundwater-only systems applying for initial permits. The remainder of § 64554 applies generally to all systems and arguably, existing groundwater-only systems.
Golden State also applies its interpretation of the DPH standard to all its systems whether they are groundwater only or groundwater and produced water. That is, Golden State requires that all its systems meet MDD with the largest source capacity off line. Golden State refers to this standard as "firm capacity." The Commission has not changed its position regarding Golden State's more stringent "firm capacity" criteria since it was an issue in Golden State's prior GRC for Region III. In D.06-01-025, the Commission found that adopting Golden State's "firm capacity" criteria would have long-term and
far-reaching implications for Golden State and all others regulated by this Commission.
The increases for new plant sought by Golden State in this GRC are substantial and would significantly affect rates. Absent a showing of absolute necessity, it is highly imprudent to impose Golden State's requested level of system redundancy and its associated costs on ratepayers who may be facing personal financial challenges at this time.
In its supplemental testimony, DRA provided a letter clarifying that § 64554(c) requires only that MDD be met with the largest source off line in the case of initial groundwater-only system permits. (DRA Ex. 135.) We will deal with groundwater-only systems and the application of § 64554(c) on a project-by-project basis, taking into consideration all aspects of the projects.
9.1. Region II Central Basin East Norwalk System Wells
Golden State requests $2,639,737 in 2009 and $3,946,809 in 2010 to purchase land and drill, develop and equip two new 900 gallons per minute (gpm) wells at the Norwalk System's Imperial East site.
Golden State proposes to drill two new 900 gpm wells in the Norwalk System of the Central Basin East Customer Service Area. The Norwalk System is located in Los Angeles County and serves the City of Norwalk, parts of Downey, Santa Fe Springs and La Mirada. The Norwalk System is supplied by local groundwater and water from the Central Basin Municipal Water District.
The Norwalk System is divided into an East Side and a West Side which are connected by a 12-inch pipeline. The MDD for the East Side is 1,800 gpm. The East Side currently has only one source of supply, the CB-35 connection. Golden State bases its need for the two new wells on low water pressure and its inability to meet MDD if the CB-35 connection is off line.
Applying its "firm capacity" standard, Golden State asserts that the DPH drinking water regulation Title 22, Section 64554(c) requires that the largest source of supply be assumed off line when determining if MDD can be met.
Golden State also expresses concern about ongoing drought conditions and the Central Basin Municipal Water District's ability to continue supplying water to the Norwalk System.
DRA contends that DPH regulations do not require that MDD be met with the largest source of water supply off line. DRA further asserts that the Norwalk System water supply from CB-35 is more than adequate at 6,750 gpm to meet the Norwalk System's MDD of 1,800 gpm even if drought conditions forced it to cut back supply by 50%.
DRA also notes that there are two sources for water to the Norwalk System CB-35 connection: the Weymouth and Diemer Plants. DRA also points to Golden State's own Master Plan for the Norwalk System and its Urban Water Management Plan which states that the Central Basin Municipal Water District's water supply is 100% reliable. DRA also points out the East Side's emergency connection with the Suburban Water Company that is capable of supplying 1,300 to 1,500 gpm and is available as a backup in case a major supply source is interrupted. (DRA Ex. 105 at 13:21-24.)
DRA argues that rather than build two new wells at considerable cost to ratepayers for a perceived water supply shortfall, Golden State should consider less-costly alternatives such as aggressive conservation, or another Central Basin Municipal Water District connection.
There is no question that the Norwalk System's MDD can be met according to DPH standards. The Norwalk System's MDD is 1,800 gpm and its source of water can supply 6,750 gpm during MDD. The Norwalk System is an existing system and does not rely solely on groundwater; therefore removing the highest capacity source from the calculation of MDD is not required.
For the above reasons, Golden State's request for $2,639,737 in 2009 and $3,946,809 in 2010 to purchase land and drill, develop and equip two new 900 gpm wells at the Norwalk System's Imperial East site is not reasonable and is denied.
9.2. Region II Central Basin West Hampshire Plant Booster Station
Golden State requests $240,000 in 2009 and $1,360,390 in 2010 to design and construct a new booster pump station in the Central Basin West Hampshire Plant.
Golden State requests funds to construct a new booster pump station and circulation system at the Hampshire Plant in the Florence-Graham System. The Florence-Graham System serves the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and a portion of the City of Huntington Park. The Florence-Graham System is supplied by groundwater and water from the Central Basin Municipal Water District.
Golden State asserts that the improvements to the Florence-Graham System are needed because the system has water pressure below that which is required by the Commission's GO 103-A, Section IV, ¶6, which states:
Variations in Pressure
Each potable water distribution system shall be operated in a manner to assure that the minimum operating pressure at each service connection throughout the distribution system is not less than 40 psi17 nor more than 125 psi, except that during periods near PHD18 the pressure may not be less than 30 psi and that during periods of hourly minimum demand the pressure may not be more than 150 psi. Subject to minimum pressure requirements of 40 psi, variation in pressures under normal operation shall not exceed 50% of the average operating pressure.
DRA contends that the water pressure problems asserted by Golden State are a function of Golden State taking certain water sources off line when calculating minimum pressures. Golden State removed the CB-5 connection from its hydraulic modeling to calculate minimum pressure for Average Day Demand (ADD) and removed the CB-6 connection from the modeling to calculate its MDD.
Golden State does not dispute this claim.
As discussed above, removing a source of supply to determine adequate water supply or water pressure is not required under current GO 103-A or DPH requirements. Golden State's justification relies on the results obtained with Central Basin-5 and Central Basin-6 connections off line. As a result, Golden State's request is not reasonable. Therefore Golden State's request for $240,000 in 2009 and $1,360,390 in 2010 for new booster station construction to create a new pressure zone in the Florence-Graham System is denied.
9.3. Region II Central Basin West Hampshire Booster Station Storage Tanks/Reservoir
Golden State requests $366,895 in 2010 and $1,967,565 in 2011 to design and construct a new 2.0 million gallon reservoir at the Hampshire Plant and demolish the existing 0.25 million gallon Hampshire Tank.
Golden State asserts that a new reservoir is needed because the creation of a new pressure zone cannot take place without the construction of a new booster station and reservoir to serve the customers in the zone.
DRA objects to Golden State's request on the basis that the need for the reservoir is predicated on the need for the booster station. DRA also contends that fire flow deficiencies cited by Golden State exist only as a result of construction of the booster station.
We agree with DRA. The reservoir is only needed if the booster pump station is constructed. As the request for funds to construct the booster station has been denied, funds for the reservoir are unnecessary and therefore not reasonable. Consequently, Golden State's request for $366,895 in 2010 and $1,967,565 in 2011 to design and construct a new 2.0 million gallon reservoir is denied.
9.4. Region II Central Basin West Hampshire Plant Booster Station Chlorination System
Golden State requests $36,689 in 2010 and $248,045 in 2011 for a chlorination system for the Central Basin Hampshire Plant Booster Station reservoir requested above.
Because we deny denied Golden State's request for funds to design and construct the Central Basin West Hampshire Plant Booster Station and reservoir, the request for a chlorination system for the reservoir is moot and therefore not reasonable. For the reasons stated above, Golden State's request for $36,689 in 2010 and $248,045 in 2011 is denied.
9.5. Region III Claremont System Miramar Reservoir Liner and Cover Replacement
Golden State requests $5,301 in 2008 and $958,973 in 2009 to replace the liner and cover on the Miramar Reservoir #2 at Three Valleys Metropolitan Water District (Three Valleys MWD).
Golden State's request to replace the Miramar reservoir liner and cover is predicated on recent inspections and Golden State's contractual obligation with Three Valleys MWD to pay for maintenance. Golden State claims the recent inspection calls for replacement of the liner and cover.
DRA disputes the need for replacement citing the latest inspection report from May 2007, in which Three Valleys MWD found the reservoir in good condition. The Three Valleys MWD inspection only recommended certain repairs.
Golden State asked Three Valleys MWD to review DRA's testimony regarding the inspection report. Three Valleys MWD did not refute DRA's claims regarding the inspection report and stated that inspectors will seldom recommend replacement unless the condition of the cover reached a point completely beyond repair.
We find Three Valleys MWD's standard of recommending replacement only if the condition is "beyond repair," a reasonable standard. Absent a Golden State showing that repair is not possible or cost effective, replacement is unnecessary at this time and therefore unreasonable. Golden State's request for $5,301 in 2008 and $958,973 in 2009 to replace the liner and cover on the Miramar Reservoir #2 is denied.
9.6. Region III San Dimas System Baseline Well #4 Forebay and Pump
Golden State requests $56,308 in 2008 and $278,540 in 2009 to reconstruct the hydraulics surrounding the San Dimas System Baseline Well #4.
Golden State asserts that the hydraulics project for the Baseline Well #4 is necessary because double pumping is currently required-once into the forebay and then again from the forebay into the reservoir. Golden State asserts energy savings will be realized from reconstruction of the hydraulics since double pumping will be eliminated and the project will improve the efficiency of the system.
DRA cites Golden State's witness Gisler's testimony that it will take 18 years to recover the costs of this project through cost savings from the new hydraulics. (RT 600:6-13.) DRA objects to Golden State's request on the basis that the Baseline Well #4 is 97 years old and scheduled to be destroyed in the future. Citing the typical life of a well as 60 to 80 years, DRA asserts that making improvements on an old well scheduled for destruction is not cost effective.
Golden State states that even if Baseline Well #4 is destroyed, another well will be built on the same site and will use the existing equipment. Golden State also states that it will use the pump until it fails, which is 5 to 15 years under normal conditions. Golden State further asserts that the Baseline Well #4 is included as a mid-term project in its San Dimas Master Plan. Mid-term projects are defined as those generally needed in the next 5 to 15 years and therefore, the life of the well is expected to equal the life of the requested pump project.
DRA's primary objection is that it is not cost effective to spend money on a well that is scheduled to be destroyed. Golden State asserts that the well is not scheduled to be destroyed for 5 to 15 years, but even if the well is destroyed prior to that time frame, Golden State will continue to use the new hydraulic system. Golden State states that it intends to construct a replacement well in the same place as Baseline Well #4 because the well has very good water quality and is a reliable source of supply.
According to the record, the requested pump will last as long as the current well is projected to last. Even if Baseline Well #4 is destroyed sooner than planned, Golden State states that it will use the new hydraulic system in a replacement well on the same site. For these reasons, we find Golden State's request reasonable and grant its request for $56,308 in 2008 and $278,540 in 2009 to reconstruct the hydraulics surrounding the San Dimas System Baseline Well #4.
9.7. Region III San Dimas System Booster Station from Vinnell to Wayhill
Golden State requests $265,542 in 2011 for design and permitting costs associated with building a new booster station to move water from the Vinnell gradient to the Wayhill gradient in the San Dimas System.
Golden State asserts there is a water deficiency in the San Dimas System when planned and unplanned outages occur. Golden State states that water from the Eaglecliff zone is drawn down into the Wayhill zone when demand exceeds capacity in the Wayhill zone. Golden State proposes to build the booster station to supply water to Wayhill and counteract the supply draw from Eaglecliff. Golden State is seeking the funds for design and permitting in this GRC and will request the funds for construction in the next GRC.
DRA opposes the request because the supply deficiency is only in the Eaglecliff zone and only during planned or unplanned Three Valleys MWD outages. DRA cites to Golden State's Urban Water Master Plan which states that Three Valleys MWD's water is 100% reliable.
DRA asks the Commission to deny the request even if it finds that the project may be needed because Golden State has not yet contacted the property owner regarding the desired cite and therefore the request is premature.
Golden State's request is premised on the need for a booster station to correct a supply deficiency that could occur if the Three Valleys MWD has a planned or unplanned outage. Golden State's Urban Water Master Plan labels Three Valleys MWD as 100% reliable. If the project is approved, construction costs for the booster station will be requested in the next GRC. This request is only for design and permitting activities and fees.
Design and permitting fees are necessarily associated with a particular site. Although Golden State has preliminarily identified a site, that is the extent of progress on the project. No contact has been made with the owner and no initial negotiations have begun.
There is stated threat of outages from the Three Valleys MWD that would necessitate quick action on this project and absent a sales agreement or some other proof that this site is more than just a possibility and will actually be the construction site, the requested design and permitting fees are premature. Since the request for construction costs will be included in the next GRC, project approval, design and permitting fees may be requested there as well.
For this reason, Golden State's request for $265,542 in 2011 for design and permitting costs associated with building a new booster station in the San Dimas System to move water from the Vinnell gradient to the Wayhill gradient is denied.
9.8. Region III Apple Valley South System Land Purchase and Well Construction
Golden State requests $2,075,861 to purchase land and design, construct, drill, and equip a new well in the Apple Valley South System.
Golden State asserts that the Apple Valley South System requires a new well due to a water supply deficit. Golden State states that the Apple Valley South System cannot meet the MDD with its largest supply source off line. The Apple Valley South System is supplied by groundwater only and the supply deficit is based on Golden State's interpretation of the DPH regulations discussed above. Golden State states that because the Apple Valley South System is supplied by groundwater only, § 64554(c) requires taking the largest source supply off line when determining water supply adequacy for MDD.
DRA objects to Golden State's interpretation of § 64554(c), but asserts that even with the largest supply source off line, the Apple Valley South System's deficit is only 88 gpm. DRA argues that Golden State has not considered
less-costly alternatives to remedy the supply deficiency. DRA cites the emergency interconnection with Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company (Apple Valley Ranchos) as an alternate to meet the 88 gpm deficit. Golden State's witness Gisler did not know if Golden State had ever contacted Apple Valley Ranchos regarding purchasing water.
DRA also contends that Golden State used the Apple Valley North System's supply needs of 645 gpm in the Apple Valley South System's supply analysis, yet has not proposed connecting the two systems. DRA states that the needs of the Apple Valley North System should not be considered.
Golden State agrees that the Apple Valley South System supplies 654 gpm to the Apple Valley North System, but contends that it is irrelevant to the question of Apple Valley South System's deficit.
Applying Golden State's interpretation of § 64554(c) results in a MDD supply deficit of 88 gpm. Golden State requests $2,075,861 to remedy a possible 88 gpm deficit. It appears that the deficit is also caused by the transfer of 654 gpm from the Apple Valley South System to the Apple Valley North System. This raises the question of whether there is an alternative in the Apple Valley North System to supply the 654 gpm needed in that system. If so, the deficit in the Apple Valley South System will disappear. In addition, less-costly alternatives such as conservation should be explored to address the possible 88 gpm deficit prior to burdening ratepayers with the expense of a new well. For these reasons, Golden State's request for $2,075,861 for a new well in the Apple Valley South System is not reasonable and is therefore denied.
9.9. Region III Apple Valley North System Yucca Booster and Zone Break
Golden State requests $746,058 to relocate and enlarge the Yucca Booster Pump in the Apple Valley North System.
Golden State requests funds to relocate and enlarge the Yucca Booster Station. Applying its interpretation of § 64554(c), Golden State states that Apple Valley North System cannot meet MDD with the largest source of supply off line. The Apple Valley North System is a single source groundwater system and with the largest (in this case only) source off line, it has 0 gpm to meet MDD.
DRA again argues that MDD does not have to be met with the largest source off line and that less-costly alternatives such as conservation have not been considered. Apple Valley North System has an emergency interconnection with Apple Valley Ranchos and has purchased water in the past. DRA suggests that Golden State explore a firm contract for purchased water to meet the alleged supply deficit.
The Apple Valley North System is served by a single groundwater source. Regardless of how § 64554(c) is interpreted, if this single source is off line for any reason, there is only the emergency interconnection with Apple Valley Ranchos to supply the system. Although the MDD is only 55 gpm, any outage creates a 100% deficit. An absolute deficit cannot be remedied through conservation and would render the system completely reliant on the emergency connection with Apple Valley Ranchos.
Golden State's proposal to increase the system storage capacity will enable it to supply water to the system if the single source of supply is off line for any reason. Golden State's request is reasonable and therefore the request for $746,058 to relocate and enlarge the Yucca Booster Pump in the Apple Valley North System is granted.
9.10. Region III Placentia System Land Purchase
Golden State requests $19,284 in 2010 and $5,242,589 in 2011 to acquire land to build a new reservoir.
Golden State requests funds to purchase land to build a new reservoir addressing Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWD of Orange County) regulations that require water agencies to purchase water at a constant rate over each 24-hour period. The costs for design and construction are not at issue here as Golden State plans to build the reservoir in the next GRC cycle. (Golden State Ex. 14 at 278:6.)
DRA opposes the request because it asserts that Golden State has not identified a specific site to purchase or submitted bids to support its request. DRA also objects to the request because there is no support for the land acquisition estimate and asserts that property values have declined since Golden State estimated the purchase cost.
DRA also asks the Commission to deny the request because Golden State has not met its burden of proof that a reservoir on the site will enable it to meet the MWD of Orange County requirement that water agencies purchase water at a constant rate over each 24-hour period.
Golden State counters that the estimate was based on its previous experience purchasing the land for the Garvey Plant and land estimates for Orange County. (Golden State Ex. 14, Att. A.) Golden State also asserts that to avoid the fluctuations in its supply requirements from the MWD of Orange County, the system needs storage capacity equal to 25% of MDD, which is 3.0 million gallons. The Placentia System has a storage capacity of 1.5 million gallons. Therefore, Golden State asserts, additional storage capacity is needed. (Golden State Ex. 14 at 278:7-12.)
Golden State has met its burden of proof regarding the need to increase storage to meet the MWD of Orange County requirement that water agencies purchase water at a constant rate over each 24-hour period. The Placentia System's current storage capacity of 1.5 million gallons is insufficient to meet the storage requirements of 3.0 million gallons. Golden State proposes purchasing land for construction of a new reservoir to remedy the storage deficit. Golden State has provided an estimate for the land acquisition based on previous land acquisitions and land costs in Orange County, the site of the proposed reservoir.
DRA expresses concern about declining property values and the fact that Golden State's estimates were prepared at a time when property values were higher. However, DRA provides no information that would allow the Commission to adjust the amount of the request accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, Golden State's request for $19,284 in 2010 and $5,242,589 in 2011 to acquire land to build a new reservoir in the Placentia System is reasonable and is therefore granted.
9.11. Region III Placentia System Wells
in Yorba Linda
Golden State requests $1,865,386 to drill and equip a new 1,500 gpm well and $206,658 for design and permitting of a second well in the North Zone of the Placentia System.
Golden State requests the funds to drill and equip a new well in the Placentia System in 2008 and 2009 and to design and permit a new well in 2010. Golden State states that two new wells are needed to address the Placentia System's heavy reliance on MWD of Orange County water that may become less reliable in the future. The Placentia System receives water from two connections with MWD of Orange County and refers to information received from MWD of Orange County regarding cutbacks in supply of up to 30% and the distinct possibility of more to come. Golden State also refers to the Placentia System's only source of groundwater being taken out of service in the near future due to contamination. Golden State claims this event will increase the Placentia System's reliance on its MWD of Orange County connections which according to MWD of Orange County's own "Water Supply Alerts" are becoming less reliable.
DRA states that the wells are not needed because MWD of Orange County's water supply has been reliable for the last 20 years with no unplanned outages. DRA claims that the MWD of Orange County has always planned its outages for low demand months and gives Golden State at least a year's advance notice. DRA asserts that planned or unplanned MWD of Orange County outages can be addressed through emergency connections, conservation measures and storage.
The Placentia System's sole source of groundwater will be taken out of service soon due to contamination and the remaining two sources of water supply to the Placentia System are MWD of Orange County connections, OC-37 and OC-56. The MWD of Orange County has informed its customers that water availability is being curtailed by 30% and possibly more if drought conditions continue. The Commission cannot ignore statements from the MWD of Orange County warning of cutbacks in the water supply. The MWD of Orange County is a major source of water to Golden State's systems and the continued reliability of that supply is being threatened. The emergency connections with neighboring systems are subject to interruption and may be even less reliable if they too are served by the MWD of Orange County.
Although the MWD of Orange County water supply has been reliable for the last 20 years, it is currently warning customers of the challenges of meeting the water supply needs of the region. The threat of shortages or outages in the Placentia System is real, especially in light of the loss of the single source of groundwater due to contamination. It is unclear how much emergency conservation measures will help alleviate any water supply shortages or outages.
Golden State's plan to build two new wells to increase its groundwater sources as a means to address its reliance on decreasing MWD of Orange County supplies is reasonable. For the above stated reasons, Golden State's request for $1,865,386 to drill and equip a new 1,500 gpm well and $206,658 for design and permitting of a second well in the North Zone of the Placentia System is granted.
9.12. Region III Orangethorpe Boulevard Transmission Main Connecting the Yorba Linda and Placentia Systems
Golden State requests $290,447 in 2009 and $3,111,717 in 2010 to construct a transmission main on Orangethorpe Boulevard to connect the Yorba Linda System with the Placentia System.
Golden State requests the funds to construct a transmission main to address water supply issues in the Yorba Linda System when it takes the Concerto Well out of service. Golden State states that when the Concerto Well is taken out of service, the Yorba Linda System will be completely reliant on a single source of water supply, the MWD of Orange County connection OC-90. Golden State asserts that new wells cannot be constructed in the Yorba Linda System due to groundwater contamination and therefore a transmission main to move water from the Placentia System to the Yorba Linda System is necessary.
DRA objects to the construction of the main, contending that the emergency connection with the City of Anaheim will be sufficient to provide water to the Yorba Linda System. DRA asserts that even with the Concerto Well out of service, there is sufficient water supply in the Yorba Linda System.
Golden State again cites to the information supplied by the MWD of Orange County regarding curtailment of water availability and the challenges in meeting the water supply demands of the region. Golden State claims that warnings from the MWD of Orange County regarding cutbacks render it a less reliable source for the future than it has been in the past.
When Golden State takes the Concerto Well out of service, the Yorba Linda System will have one source of supply, the MWD of Orange County. The MWD of Orange County has informed Golden State of 30% reductions and the possibility of further cutbacks if the drought continues. Although the Yorba Linda System has emergency connections, they are interruptible. If there is a planned or unplanned MWD of Orange County outage, the Yorba Linda System would experience a 100% supply deficiency.
The Commission finds Golden State's plan to develop additional groundwater supply a reasonable step to improve system reliability. Therefore, Golden State's request for $290,447 in 2009 and $3,111,717 in 2010 to construct a transmission main on Orangethorpe Boulevard to connect the Yorba Linda System with the Placentia System is granted.
9.13. Region III Placentia System Newport Plant Boosters
Golden State requests $55,134 in 2011 for the permitting and design related to replacing two booster pumps with larger capacity pumps.
Golden State requests funds for permitting and design related to replacing two booster pumps in the Cowan Heights System at the Newport Plant to address supply deficiencies in the event of an East Orange County Water District (East Orange County WD) outage.
DRA argues that there is only a supply deficiency if there is an East Orange County WD outage, which is unlikely, and that storage should be used to overcome any deficiency.
Golden State argues that while there is water in the system to meet demands, the booster pumps at the Newport Plant are of insufficient size to deliver water to the other areas of the system. Golden State cites the possibility of East Orange County water supply becoming less reliable as a reason to provide added reliability to the system.
The continued reliability of the East Orange County WD is being threatened by possible supply reductions. Golden State's request to install two booster pumps to increase its pumping capacity at the Newport Plant to improve system reliability in the event of planned or unplanned outages is reasonable. Therefore, Golden State's request for $55,134 in 2011 for the permitting and design related to replacing two booster pumps with larger capacity pumps at the Newport Plant is granted.
16 When A.08-07-010 was filed, GO 103 was in effect. On September 10, 2009, the Commission issued GO 103-A.
17 Pressure measurement of "pounds per square inch" as registered on a gauge.
18 Peak hourly demand.
