Home Table of Contents

§ 6009. Scoring.

23 CA ADC § 6009Barclays Official California Code of Regulations

Barclays California Code of Regulations
Title 23. Waters
Division 7. California Water Commission
Chapter 1. Water Storage Investment Program
Article 3. Commission Methodology and Evaluation Criteria
23 CCR § 6009
§ 6009. Scoring.
Currentness
(a) Following the technical review in section 6007 and Commission Appeal Process in section 6008, projects shall be scored.
(1) Each application's expected return for public investment shall be scored based on the following criteria:
(A) Public benefit ratio and non-monetized benefit;
(B) Relative environmental value for ecosystem and water quality;
(C) Resiliency; and
(D) Implementation risk
(b) Component maximum point values are described in Table 5.
Table 5. Maximum Component Scores
Component
Maximum Component Score
Public Benefit Ratio and Non-Monetized Public Benefit
33
Relative Environmental Value
27
Resiliency
25
Implementation Risk
15
Expected Return for Public Investment Score
Total
100
(c) At the end of the evaluation and appeal process, components listed in subsection 6009(1)(A-D) are expressed in numbers dissimilar to Table 5. For example, public benefit ratios may be values such as 1, 1.2, 1.5, 2, 3, but not near the Table 5 value of 33. Staff shall apply a normalization calculation to convert dissimilar values into their corresponding scoring system values while preserving a project's relative score placement to other projects. The following process will be used to normalize initial component values for public benefit ratio, relative environmental value and implementation risk to Staff component scores:
(1) Evaluation metrics shall be normalized to the scoring scale by the following calculation:
score = scoremax * (evalnum/evalnummax)
Where:
“scoremax” is the maximum possible score for each component listed in Table 5;
“evalnum” is each component's value calculated for each project before any normalization;
“evalnummax” is the highest score for a given component amongst all applications; and
“score” is the Staff normalized component score.
(d) Public benefit ratio scores shall be determined using each application's final public benefit ratio value pursuant to section 6008. Staff shall convert each application's public benefit ratio value to a number on a scale of 0-33 by using the normalization process from subsection 6008(c). Once normalized, the public benefit ratio score will be rounded to the nearest whole number.
(e) Non-monetized public benefits will be scored based on magnitude and quality of analysis. A maximum of four points will be assigned to non-monetized public benefits. If the public benefit ratio score is less than 33, the non-monetized public benefit score shall be added to the public benefit ratio score. The sum of the public benefit ratio score and non-monetized public benefit score shall not exceed the maximum stated in section 6009, Table 5.
(f) State Water Board and CDFW shall provide a water quality and ecosystem relative environmental value, respectively, for each application pursuant to section 6007(c). Staff shall then combine the water quality and ecosystem relative environmental value scores for an application to produce an application's total relative environmental value score as follows:
(1) For projects with both ecosystem and water quality relative environmental values, the score shall consist of 70% ecosystem and 30% water quality.
(2) In cases where a water quality relative environmental value is not applicable, the score shall be based solely on ecosystem relative environmental value.
(3) Staff shall convert combined ecosystem and water quality relative environmental value scores to a scale of 0-27 using the normalization process from subsection 6009(c).
(4) The combined and converted relative environmental value score will be rounded to the nearest whole number.
(g) Staff shall develop a preliminary scoring recommendation for the commission's consideration for resiliency as follows:
(1) Staff shall assign a maximum of 10 points for integration and flexibility based on the evaluation of claims made and the quality of the analysis. Eight to 10 points will be assigned for projects that show a high quality of analysis and high level of integration and added system flexibility. Four to seven points will be assigned for projects that show a high quality of analysis and moderate levels of integration and added system flexibility or a lesser quality of analysis and a high level of integration and added system flexibility. Zero to three points will be assigned for projects with low quality of analysis or low levels of integration and added system flexibility.
(2) Staff shall assign a maximum of 15 points for the project's response to an uncertain future based on quality of analysis and effects on public benefits. Ten to 15 points will be assigned for projects that demonstrate a high quality analysis, the ability to maintain or increase public benefits, and have high levels of water stored in the system due to the project during a drought. Five to nine points will be assigned for projects that demonstrate a high-quality analysis, maintain or increase public benefits, and have moderate levels of water stored in the system due to the project during a drought or have a lesser quality analysis, maintain or increase public benefits, and have a high level of water stored in the system due to the project during a drought. Zero to five points will be assigned for projects demonstrating low quality of analysis, reduction of public benefits, or low levels of water stored in the system due to the project during a drought.
(3) An application's scores for integration/flexibility and response to uncertain future will be summed to produce the resiliency component score.
(4) This recommended score will be considered by the Commission and can be changed by the Commission pursuant to section 6011.
(h) Staff shall develop a preliminary scoring recommendation for the Commission's consideration for implementation risk as follows:
(1) A score of 1-5 points shall be assigned for each feasibility category: technical, financial, economic and environmental. One point shall be assigned if the feasibility category information indicates a high uncertainty of being able to build or operate the project or the feasibility information is not supported, and 5 points will be assigned if the feasibility category information indicates a low risk and the information is well supported. The maximum possible composite score is 20. The composite score shall be normalized to a scale of 0-15 using the normalization process in section 6009(c).
(2) This recommended score will be considered by the Commission and can be changed by the Commission pursuant to section 6011.
(i) Preliminary component scores shall be summed to produce a preliminary expected return for public investment score.

Credits

Note: Authority cited: Sections 79705, 79711, 79750, 79751, 79752, 79753, 79755, and 79757, Water Code. Reference: Sections 79705, 79711, 79750, 79751, 79752, 79753, 79755 and 79757, Water Code.
History
1. New section filed 3-7-2017; operative 3-7-2017 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(b)(3) (Register 2017, No. 10).
This database is current through 4/26/24 Register 2024, No. 17.
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 23, § 6009, 23 CA ADC § 6009
End of Document