DOCSLIB.ORG

Exhibit DWP-300 CITY of LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exhibit DWP-300 CITY of LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF Exhibit DWP-300 CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 2017 Reform of Electric Transmission DIRECT TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF Tariff and Electric Transmission Rates DEPRECIATION RATES NANCY HELLER HUGHES, ASA, CDP Director, NewGen Strategies and Solutions, LLC Witness for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Power System January 13, 2017 Exhibit DWP-300 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ........................................................................................................ 2 DEPRECIATION STUDY ..................................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 11 EXHIBITS DWP-301 Resume and Record of Testimony of Nancy Heller Hughes, ASA, CDP DWP-302 LADWP Depreciation Study Based on Electric Plant in Service at June 30, 2015 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 1 of 11 1 INTRODUCTION 2 Q. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, OCCUPATION, AND BUSINESS ADDRESS. 3 A. My name is Nancy Heller Hughes. I am a Director at NewGen Strategies and 4 Solutions, LLC (“NewGen”). My business address is 20014 Southeast 19th Street, 5 Sammamish, Washington 98075. 6 Q. PLEASE OUTLINE YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND. 7 A. I graduated from the University of Chicago with a Bachelor’s Degree in Business and 8 Statistics in 1977. I received a Master’s Degree in Business Administration at the 9 University of Chicago in 1978. 10 Q. PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. 11 A. From 1977 through 1982, I was employed by Ernst & Ernst (now Ernst & Young), working 12 primarily on telecommunications regulatory matters before the Federal Communications 13 Commission (“FCC”). From 1982 through 2012, I was employed by R. W. Beck, Inc. 14 (R. W. Beck), an engineering and consulting firm that provided services in the energy and 15 water resources utility industry. I held positions with increasing responsibilities and was 16 an owner in R. W. Beck until July 2009, when R. W. Beck was acquired by Scientific 17 Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”). In June 2012, I left SAIC to form my 18 own independent consulting firm called Heller Hughes Utility Consulting, LLC. In 19 September 2012, I became an owner and director in NewGen. 20 A substantial part of my work involves depreciation and valuation issues. I have performed 21 depreciation studies for utilities and reviewed depreciation studies filed by utilities in rate 22 proceedings. I have testified on depreciation, valuation, and other rate and regulatory 1 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 2 of 11 1 issues before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), state regulatory 2 commissions, and courts of law. A copy of my resume and record of testimony is provided 3 in Exhibit DWP-301 to this testimony. 4 Q. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS? 5 A. Yes. I am a Certified Depreciation Professional (“CDP”), certified by the Society of 6 Depreciation Professionals. I am also an Accredited Senior Appraiser (“ASA”) of public 7 utility property certified by the American Society of Appraisers. 8 Q. ON WHOSE BEHALF ARE YOU PRESENTING TESTIMONY IN THIS 9 PROCEEDING? 10 A. I am presenting testimony on behalf of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 11 (“LADWP”). 12 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 13 Q. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY IN THIS PROCEEDING? 14 A. The purpose of my testimony is to summarize and support the results of the depreciation 15 study that NewGen performed in 2016 for LADWP to determine the recommended annual 16 depreciation accrual rates based on LADWP’s plant in service as of June 30, 2015 17 (hereinafter referred to as the “2016 Depreciation Study”). A copy of the 18 2016 Depreciation Study is attached to my testimony as Exhibit DWP-302. 19 Q. WHAT WAS THE SCOPE OF THE 2016 DEPRECIATION STUDY NEWGEN 20 PERFORMED FOR LADWP? 21 A. NewGen was retained by LADWP to perform a depreciation study of all depreciable 22 electric plant in service owned by LADWP as of June 30, 2015. The scope of work for the 2 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 3 of 11 1 depreciation study included the Navajo Generating Station (“NGS”) and Palo Verde 2 Nuclear Generation Station (“PVNGS”) in which LADWP had an ownership interest. The 3 scope of work for the depreciation study also excluded the Hoover Power Plant, 4 Intermountain Power Plant, and Apex Generating Plant. Although LADWP has contracts 5 to receive energy from these power plants, LADWP does not have an ownership interest 6 in these plants; therefore, the plants were not included in the scope of the depreciation 7 study. On July 1, 2016, LADWP sold its 21 percent ownership share in NGS; therefore, 8 NGS was not included in the scope of the depreciation study. 9 Q. DID THE SCOPE OF THE 2016 DEPRECIATION STUDY INCLUDE THE 10 ESTIMATION AND RECOVERY OF FUTURE POWER PLANT 11 DISMANTLEMENT COSTS? 12 A. No. At LADWP’s direction, the scope of work for the 2016 Depreciation Study excluded 13 power plant dismantlement costs. Therefore, the recommended depreciation rates in the 14 2016 Depreciation Study do not include recovery of power plant dismantlement costs 15 through depreciation expense; however, the 2016 Depreciation Study recommends that 16 LADWP perform a dismantlement cost study in the future to estimate the cost to dismantle 17 its generating units upon retirement, net of salvage value. 18 Q. DO LADWP’S EXISTING DEPRECIATION RATES INCLUDE THE RECOVERY 19 OF POWER PLANT DISMANTLEMENT COSTS? 20 A. No. LADWP’s existing depreciation rates do not include the recovery of power plant 21 dismantlement costs through depreciation expense. Although LADWP’s last depreciation 22 study, performed in 2003 by another consulting firm, included power plant dismantlement 3 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 4 of 11 1 costs (i.e., terminal net salvage) in developing depreciation rates for production plant, 2 LADWP did not implement this recommendation of the study. As confirmed by my review 3 of LADWP fixed asset records, the existing depreciation rates for LADWP’s production 4 plant accounts do not include the recovery of power plant dismantlement costs. 5 Q. WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE IN PREPARING THE 2016 DEPRECIATION STUDY 6 FOR LADWP? 7 A. I was the project manager for the 2016 Depreciation Study, responsible for directing all 8 work on the study. I was also responsible for evaluating the analyses performed and 9 determining the recommended depreciation parameters (i.e., average service lives, life 10 spans, survivor curves, interim retirement rates, and net salvage rates) used to calculate the 11 recommended depreciation accrual rates. 12 Q. DID YOU PERFORM FIELD REVIEWS OF LADWP FACILITIES IN 13 CONNECTION WITH THE DEPRECIATION STUDY? 14 A. Yes. I conducted field reviews of the LADWP system on July 25–29, 2016. My review 15 of the facilities was limited to a visual and external observation of the facilities for the 16 purpose of the depreciation study, and was not of such depth as would be required to reveal 17 conditions with respect to safety or to conformance with codes, permits, rules, or 18 regulations. During the field review, I interviewed LADWP managers and staff 19 responsible for the operation and maintenance of the utility’s plant to get their input 20 regarding the life characteristics of the utility plant and plans, procedures, and programs of 21 the utility that may affect plant service lives and net salvage rates. This is an industry 22 accepted method to perform field reviews for depreciation studies. 4 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 5 of 11 1 2 DEPRECIATION STUDY 3 Q. PLEASE DESCRIBE THE PROCESS NEWGEN USED TO DEVELOP THE 4 RECOMMENDED ANNUAL DEPRECIATION RATES DESCRIBED IN 5 EXHIBIT DWP-302? 6 A. NewGen used industry accepted depreciation methods to perform the 2016 Depreciation 7 Study. The process NewGen used in the depreciation study to develop the recommended 8 annual depreciation accrual rates for LADWP consisted of the following steps: 9 . Conduct field review and interviews with LADWP staff; 10 . Compile plant accounting data; 11 . Perform life analyses using the forecast (or life span) method for production plant 12 and the survivor curve method for transmission, distribution, and general plant; 13 . Perform net salvage analyses; 14 . Prepare account narratives with recommended remaining life spans, interim 15 retirement rates, and net salvage rates for LADWP’s production plant and 16 recommended average service lives, survivor curves, and net salvage rates for 17 LADWP’s transmission, distribution, and general plant accounts; 18 . Calculate recommended annual depreciation rates; and 19 . Prepare written report with summary schedules. 20 The above steps are described in greater detail in Section 4 of the depreciation study 21 attached hereto as Exhibit DWP-302. 5 Exhibit DWP-300 Page 6 of 11 1 Q. WHAT METHOD OF DEPRECIATION DID YOU USE TO CALCULATE THE 2 RECOMMENDED DEPRECIATION RATES FOR LADWP? 3 A. The annual depreciation accrual rates for the majority of LADWP plant were developed 4 using the straight line method, broad group procedure, and remaining life technique, which 5 is an industry accepted method for developing depreciation rates. The remaining life 6 technique provides for the recovery of the undepreciated original cost of plant assets 7 (i.e., net plant), adjusted for net salvage, over the remaining life of the property. The 8 formula for computing the annual depreciation accrual using the remaining life technique 9 is: 1 – NS – R D = RL 10 where: D = depreciation accrual rate 11 NS = estimated net salvage ratio 12 R = depreciation reserve ratio 13 RL = average remaining life 14 The annual depreciation accrual rate is calculated as a percentage of gross plant and is 15 applied to the gross plant investment on the utility’s books. 16 Q. WERE ANY OTHER METHODS OF DEPRECIATION USED TO CALCULATE 17 THE RECOMMENDED DEPRECIATION RATES FOR LADWP? 18 A. Yes. The sinking fund method was used to calculate depreciation accrual rates for 19 depreciation groups that LADWP has historically depreciated using the sinking fund 20 method.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kern County, California
    2503 Eastbluff Dr., Suite 206 Newport Beach, California 92660 Fax: (949) 717-0069 Matt Hagemann · Tel: (949) 887-9013 Email: [email protected] August 22, 2012 Gideon Kracov Attorney at Law 801 S. Grand Ave, llu' Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Comments on the Beacon Photovoltaic Project Dear Mr. Kracov: We have reviewed the July 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR"i for the Beacon Photovoltaic Project ("Project"). The Project proposes to build a 250-megawatt solar generation facility on approximately 3.6 square miles of land four miles north of California City in Kern County, California. Project components include: • A photovoltaic (PV) solar power generation facllity containing approximately 972,000 panels; • 230 ki lovolt overhead transmission line; • Operations and maintenance building, parking lot, office, and sewer system; and • Access roads (DEIR, p. 3-9). We have reviewed the DEIR for issues associated with air quality, hydrology and water quality, and ha za rds and hazardous materials. The DEIR fails to adequately disclose potentially significa nt impacts from Project constru.ction on workers and offsite r eceptors. A revised DEIR needs to be prepared to adequately disclose and analyze these impacts and provide mitigation, if necessary.· Air Quality The Project is located in t he Eastern Kern Air Pollution Cont rol District ("EKAPCD") and the M ojave Desert Air Basin ("MOAB"). Both the EKAPCD and t he M DAB are designated non-attainment for PMlO (DEIR, pp. 4.2-3, 22). Significant emlssion.s of P:MlO and its contributing sources, such as NOx, will lead 1 to a worsening of regional air quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Storage Development Plan
    Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Energy Storage Development Plan Grid Planning and Development System Studies and Research Group September 2, 2014 This space is intentionally left blank Table of Contents: Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ............................................................................................................. 1 B. Scope and Objectives .............................................................................................. 1 C. Energy Storage Targets ........................................................................................... 1 1. Overview and Policy ....................................................................................................... 3 A. Purpose .................................................................................................................... 3 B. Background ............................................................................................................. 3 C. ES Regulation, Policy, and Legislative Impacts ..................................................... 5 2. Scope & Objectives ......................................................................................................... 5 A. Energy Storage System Development Strategy ...................................................... 6 B. Energy Storage System Target Development Schedule ......................................... 6 3. Description of Existing
    [Show full text]
  • ASSESSMENT of COASTAL WATER RESOURCES and WATERSHED CONDITIONS at CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr. Diana L.
    [Show full text]
  • Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
    March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report
    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
    [Show full text]
  • Dry Lake Valley North SEZ Analysis
    1 11.4 DRY LAKE VALLEY NORTH 2 3 4 11.4.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 11.4.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Dry Lake Valley North SEZ is located in Lincoln County in southeastern 10 Nevada (Figure 11.4.1.1-1). The SEZ has a total area of 76,874 acres (311 km2). In 2008, the 11 county population was 4,643, while adjacent Clark County to the south had a population 12 of 1,879,093. The closest population centers to the SEZ are Pioche, located about 15 mi (24 km) 13 to the east, and Caliente, located about 15 mi (24 km) to the southeast; both communities have 14 populations of about 1,000. The smaller communities of Caselton and Prince are located about 15 13 mi (21 km) to the east of the SEZ. Las Vegas is located about 110 mi (180 km) to the south. 16 17 The nearest major road to the Dry Lake Valley North SEZ is State Route 318, which is 18 about 7 mi (11 km) to the west of the SEZ, while U.S. 93 is about 8 mi (13 km) to the south. 19 Access to the interior of the SEZ is by dirt roads. The nearest railroad access is approximately 20 25 mi (40 km) away, while nearby airports include Lincoln County Airport in Panaca and Alamo 21 Landing Field in Alamo, which are located about 13 mi (21 km) south–southeast of and 35 mi 22 (56 km) southwest of the SEZ, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • De Tilla Gulch SEZ Analysis
    1 10.2 DE TILLA GULCH 2 3 4 10.2.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 10.2.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed De Tilla Gulch SEZ has a total area of 1,522 acres (6.2 km2) and is 10 located in Saguache County in south-central Colorado (Figure 10.2.1.1-1). In 2008, the county 11 population was 6,903, while the four-county region surrounding the SEZ—Alamosa, Chafee, 12 Saguache, and Rio Grande Counties—had a total population of 51,974. The largest nearby town, 13 which is located about 50 mi (80 km) to the south, is Alamosa with a 2008 population of 8,745. 14 The village of Saguache is located about 8 mi (12 km) west of the SEZ on U.S. 285, which runs 15 along the northwest side of the SEZ. The SLRG Railroad serves the area. The nearest public 16 airport is the Saguache Municipal Airport near the town of Saguache. Santa Fe, New Mexico, 17 lies about 160 mi (257 km) to the south, and Denver, Colorado, is located about 130 mi (209 km) 18 to the northeast. 19 20 An existing 115-kV transmission line is accessible to the SEZ. It is assumed that an 21 existing transmission line could potentially provide access from the SEZ to the transmission grid 22 (see Section 10.2.1.2). There were no pending solar project applications within the SEZ as of 23 February 2010. 24 25 The proposed De Tilla Gulch SEZ lies in the northwestern portion of the San Luis Valley, 26 part of the San Luis Basin, a large, high-elevation, basin within the Rocky Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Representing California's Water System With
    PyVIN Representing California’s Water System with an Open Source Model: PyVIN Mustafa Dogan Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis CWEMF 2017 March 22, 2017 CWEMF 2017 | [email protected] 1 Goals data transparency version control documentation collaboration run speed March 22, 2017 CWEMF 2017 | [email protected] 2 CALVIN HOBBES Database Ø ~1250 nodes Ø ~600 conveyance links Ø 49 surface reservoirs Ø 38 groundwater reservoirs Ø 88% of CA’s irrigated acreage Ø 92% of CA’s urban population https://cwn.casil.ucdavis.edu March 22, 2017 CWEMF 2017 | [email protected] 3 HOBBES Database Ø Online Database Classical Approach Ø Version Control 1 model Ø Data Visualization Ø Documentation Ø Collaboration HOBBES 2 data 2 data 1 data 2 model 3 model model CALVIN PyVIN Other Models March 22, 2017 CWEMF 2017 | [email protected] 4 Modeling Environment Ø Pyomo is a Python-based, open-source optimization modeling language Ø Algebraic language similar to GAMS, AMPL Ø Easy to install: ”conda install -c cachemeorg pyomo” Ø User defined solvers: • CPLEX1 • GUROBI1 • CBC2 • GLPK2 (1 free for academic purposes only, 2 open source) http://www.pyomo.org/documentation March 22, 2017 CWEMF 2017 | [email protected] 5 CALVIN v.1 PyVIN v.2 Large-scale hydroeconomic model Optimize water allocation to agricultural and urban users Minimize statewide water scarcity and operating costs HEC-PRM and VBA based Pyomo and Python based Less flexible More flexible (limited to HEC-PRM) (full LP) Solver runtime: ~16 hr Solver runtime: ~1 min (depending on initial solution) (depending on solver) Requires 32 bit Windows PC Any computer California's Water Infrastructure HEC-DSS database Network ConfigurationOpen for CALVIN source: data and source code DA 39 DA 400 DA 41 DA 46 TUOLOMNE CHERRY CREEK, RIVER ELEANOR CREEK Hetch Hetchy Res O'Shaughnessy Dam STANISLAUS SRSR-- DA 17 NFORKYUBAN.
    [Show full text]
  • Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support
    U.S. Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support Michaela D. Platzer Specialist in Industrial Organization and Business January 27, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R42509 U.S. Solar PV Manufacturing: Industry Trends, Global Competition, Federal Support Summary Every President since Richard Nixon has sought to increase U.S. energy supply diversity. Job creation and the development of a domestic renewable energy manufacturing base have joined national security and environmental concerns as reasons for promoting the manufacturing of solar power equipment in the United States. The federal government maintains a variety of tax credits and targeted research and development programs to encourage the solar manufacturing sector, and state-level mandates that utilities obtain specified percentages of their electricity from renewable sources have bolstered demand for large solar projects. The most widely used solar technology involves photovoltaic (PV) solar modules, which draw on semiconducting materials to convert sunlight into electricity. By year-end 2013, the total number of grid-connected PV systems nationwide reached more than 445,000. Domestic demand is met both by imports and by about 75 U.S. manufacturing facilities employing upwards of 30,000 U.S. workers in 2014. Production is clustered in a few states including California, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Domestic PV manufacturers operate in a dynamic, volatile, and highly competitive global market now dominated by Chinese and Taiwanese companies. China alone accounted for nearly 70% of total solar module production in 2013. Some PV manufacturers have expanded their operations beyond China to places like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Briefing Book
    2016 Briefing Book Putting Customers First 1 Introduction 2 LADWP Leadership 3 Power System Power Facts and Figures ........4 Power Supply Transformation 5 Coal Transition ................................. 6 Road to Renewables .....................7-8 Local Solar Programs ................9-10 Rebuilding Power Plants.......... 11-12 Investing in Energy Efficiency....... 13 Greenhouse Gas Reductions ...13-14 Power Reliability ...................14 Electric Transportation......... 15 Advanced Metering ............... 15 Introduction Pre-craft Trainees ................ 16 he Los Angeles Department of leaders and other stakeholders in a Electric Rates and Finance ... 16 Water and Power (LADWP) is the widespread education and outreach nation’s largest municipal utility, effort that encompassed more 17 Water System T having provided water and power than 80 presentations and briefings Water Facts and Figures ...... 18 service to Los Angeles residents and throughout the city. The new rates, Sustainability ....................... 19 businesses for over 100 years. More which were approved by the City Urban Water Management Plan ..19 than 9,400 employees serve the City of Council in March 2016, went into Water Conservation ....................... 20 Los Angeles with water and power in effect April 15, 2016. Recycled Water .............................. 21 a cost-effective and environmentally Stormwater Capture...................... 21 Groundwater Cleanup ................... 22 responsible manner. LADWP is guided Key priorities for the rates request
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment RE Cinco Gen-Tie Project
    Appendix E Cultural Resources Technical Studies Supplemental Project Statistics Report 1. Project Name. RE Cinco Gen-Tie Line Project 2. BLM State Permit Number. CA-12-22 3. Field Authorization Number. Issued on May 14, 2014 4. Dates of Field Survey. May 19-25, 2014 5. Total acreage of lands surveyed at BLM Class II level. 0 Of Item 5 above: A) Acreage of BLM lands surveyed 0 B) Acreage of other lands surveyed (Private, 0 State, Other Federal) List separately 6. Total acreage of lands surveyed at BLM Class III level. 200 Of Item 6 above: A) Acreage of BLM lands surveyed 150 B) Acreage of other lands surveyed (Private, 50 State, Other Federal) List separately 7. Total number of cultural properties in project Area (of Potential 8 Effect). Of Item 7 above: A) Total number of cultural properties for which site records were completed (newly recorded 8 cultural properties). B) Number of new cultural properties on BLM 6 lands C) Number of new cultural properties on other 1 lands (Private, State, Other Federal) 8. Of the cultural properties located within the Area (of Potential Effect): [If properties are not located on BLM, place this number in parentheses ( ) after the number of BLM properties.] A) Number of cultural properties that you are recommending as eligible for the National 0 Register. B) Number of cultural properties you are a recommending as not eligible for the National 7, (1) Register. Of Item 8A above: a) Number of cultural properties that can/will be 0 avoided. b) Number of cultural properties that will be 0 affected.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project
    Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 State of California Department of Water Resources November 22, 2019 Initial Study of the Long-Term Operation of the State Water Project State Clearinghouse No. 2019049121 Lead Agency: California Department of Water Resources Contact: Dean Messer, Division of Environmental Services, Regulatory Compliance Branch 916/376-9844 Responsible Agency: California Department of Fish and Wildlife November 22, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.1 Required Permits and Approvals ......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Document Organization ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................ 1-3 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]