FINAL REPORT Evaluation of Seawater Desalination Projects ...

EVALUATION OF SEAWATER DESALINATION PROJECTS
PROPOSED FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA
subject to a confidentiality agreement between WSC and B-E. The SDV fuel cost estimate is
based on receipt of a subsidized price credit on biodiesel fuel. Proponents estimate a power
cost of approximately $0.05/kWh with the price credit, and approximately double this
amount without the credit. The biodiesel without price credit is provided since price credit
may not continue indefinitely. The cost without the price credit is approximately the same as
the probable fuel alternative, bunker fuel. Costs associated with pumping water into the
regional distribution system were not included in the proponent’s cost estimate 46 . Total
O&M costs are shown in Table 9.
Table 9 – SDV 2006 Operations and Maintenance Annual Costs
Component
Cost
Power for SDV Operations & pumping to shore
Chemicals
Membrane replacement, cleaning, and other spare parts
Labor for Operation and Maintenance of SDV
Labor for Operation and Maintenance of Barges
Total O&M with Membrane Replacement $16,262,000
Financing –Identification & Adequacy
The project proponents are proposing a public/private partnership with the MPWMD and/or
with a regional entity, comprised of local water agencies. The form of the contract has not
been determined along with the terms and conditions of a potential contract. The project
proponents can obtain traditional project financing consisting of a long-term debt portion and
a project equity portion, and have proposed the concept of full private funding with a peracre-foot
contractual arrangement with water users. No other details or components have
been developed.
Quality of Cost Estimate
The scope of services for this study excludes rigorous analysis of the marine-based
components of this proposal. Thus, no representation of the reasonableness of the ship,
anchorages, shuttle barges, and seabed pipeline is presented. Costs were provided under a
non-disclosure arrangement required by the proponents and are generally summarized and
lack detail. Costs provided were for a SDV producing 20 mgd, but included only 18 mgd in
distribution capacity. No detail on how the seabed pipeline would be anchored and protected
is provided. To avoid visual aesthetic impacts, it is likely the anchoring location would
require a substantially lengthened seabed pipeline extending into significantly deeper water
which would require materials tolerant of greater pressures at significantly increased cost.
46 No docking facility or transfer works is required if the seabed pipeline alternative is implemented.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 5-18