INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN

1. INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN Proposal Presentation June 15, 2011

2. Outcome of the IRP • Transparent evaluation process • demonstrate the baseline considerations for each resource • need to follow how the weighting of criteria was applied • justification for the integrated preferred solution • Clear documentation of the integrated preferred solution • capital program tables • project tracking sheets • Revenue requirements • User-friendly tools • document should be easily referenced moving forward • support more detailed follow on analysis • hands on tool (spreadsheets) to perform sensitivity analyses as required • Foundation Document

3. IRP Document Structure • Executive Summary • Outline process and preferred solution • Background, Planning Context and Policy/Guidelines • Document foundation of decision making • Water Resource • Document independent scenarios and evaluation • Provide key inputs to integrated evaluation • Wastewater Resource • Stormwater Resource • Integrated Resource Scenarios • Document integrated evaluation process • Reference hydraulic and financial modeling • Preferred Solution • Overall description of integrated strategy • Capital program tables and mapping • Reference to tracking sheets • Separate Technical Appendices • Separate Consultation Appendix • DVD output of the IRP document and financial modeling

4. The CBCL/AECOM “Team” impact • Proven Master Planning Experience • Completed many integrated plans all with unique project requirements • Motivated to provide new and unique deliverables – we do not simply repeat previous exercises • Bring examples/perspectives from world wide Master Plans to the project team for discussion • Project Management balance • CBCL (Doug) • system knowledge • critical PM tasks • technical skills • AECOM (Chris) • visionary and strategic leadership • development and evaluation of alternatives • technical skills

5. Shared Project Management Responsibility • Doug provides local, easily accessible coordination for the project • Doug is Prime Contact for Halifax Water and has ultimate responsibility for traditional PM duties • Doug and Chris will have regular one on one points of contact • CBCL/AECOM team will maximize technology for Project Management and Delivery • Establish SharePoint File Management • Video Webex and conference call meetings

6. Project Management Methodology Project Quality Assurance • Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager review all reports/ memorandums / drawings. • All “Discipline” technical sections/reports to be reviewed by independent assigned QA Personnel – require “sign-off”. • Independent reviewer involved throughout the duration of the project. • Documented ISO Certification Requirement.

7. Project Management Methodology Project Quality Assurance

8. Proposed Study Methodology 12 MONTHS • Requirements • Forecasts • Assumptions Develop Resource Plans Final Resource Plan Baseline Review • Modelling • Analysis Draft Resource Plan Start-Up Meeting Technical Conference Technical Memo # 3 Technical Conference Technical Memo # 2 3 Presentations Halifax Water Summary Report Technical Conference Technical Memo # 4 Technical Conference Technical Memo # 5

9. Proposed Study Methodology – Deliverables 12 MONTHS • Requirements • Forecasts • Assumptions Develop Resource Plans Final Resource Plan Baseline Review • Modelling • Analysis Draft Resource Plan Start-Up Meeting PLANS: Existing Services and Service Boundaries Updated Servicing Plans including Capital/Financing Baseline Summary Report Preliminary Servicing Plans • Draft and Final Report • including: • Working Papers Report • Implementation • Program Report • Servicing Plans • Document: • Assumptions • Criteria • Considerations

10. Proposed Study Methodology

11. Proposed Study Methodology • Key Discussion and Consensus Items • Address at the outset of the project • Demonstrate preliminary sensitivity analysis – Quantrix will support further sensitivity analysis • Consensus on the weighting of criteria moving forward into the resource alternatives • Level of Service • Per capita consumption – interrelationship with water projections and dry weather/peak dry weather wastewater flows • Integrate design storm decision making from WWFP • Existing systems LOS vs. future systems • DSM, SSM • Water conservation and efficiency – lower water demand projections, defer capital spending, but lower revenues • Leak detection, I/I reduction – extend life of existing systems, integrate recapitalization program, time period impact for implementation • Source controls – policy/bylaw enforcement, development willingness • Integration • Independent review of resource scenarios • Determination of interrelationships – sensitivity of LOS in wastewater vs. stormwater

12. Recapitalization (Renewal) of Existing Assets • Document dependence of growth/compliance related upgrades on non-development program • Expect potential for new Recapitalization (Renewal) elements will be introduced in the IRP program • Can existing infrastructure be upgraded to support the IRP program • Not just presenting new infrastructure • Recapitalization will need to have unique criteria • Implementation feasibility • Unique cost estimating • Integration with built area requirements (other utilities and infrastructure) • We understand that the IRP project scope does not include development of the recapitalization program. Options included in our scope: • Incorporate currently available programs • Utilize yearly allowances

13. Quantrix Software • The AECOM Economics Group has been using Quantrix software for almost 10 years now • Spreadsheet based tool for financial modeling as well as non-financial alternative analysis • Quantrix offers a number of advantages for model building • speed of build • flexibility • logic framework • memory requirements • error checking

14. Quantrix Software Toggle Switches Cash Flow Tables Formulas Model Structure

15. Quantrix Software

16. Project Hours • The CBCL/AECOM team is best positioned to provide the most efficient delivery of this project • Strong system knowledge – lower time requirement for background information review • Active utilization of the hydraulic models – no ramp up needed, quick ability to create and run scenarios • Currently working on the Wastewater Functional Plan – efficient integration of the WWFP inputs, minimize coordination requirements • Provided a methodology based on Terms of Reference Scope of Work – “high level analysis and set up the requirements for future enhancements including more detailed data requirements” • Average 200-250person-hours a month

17. Project Hours – Level of Effort • Project Management 310 hours • Stakeholder Consultation 200 hours • Baseline Review 198 hours • Requirements, Forecasts, Assumptions 430 hours • Develop Resource Plans 466 hours • Modeling and Analysis 616 hours • Prepare IRP 292 hours

18. Potential Risks to Budget, Schedule and Hours • Data/information input from the client • Recapitalization (renewal) program • Stormwater program and data • Level of effort for coordination with UARB consultants and interveners • Focused number of resource scenarios • Mitigation of Risks • Regular contact and project tracking • In-depth discussion and consensus at outset of project • CBCL/AECOM bring depth of resources and direct management of resources – we can mobilize additional staff as required

19. Current Project Team Commitments • Current Priority Project – Wastewater Functional Plan for Halifax Water • This provides opportunity for efficiency • CBCL/AECOM team will remain focused • Provided additional resources and not simply same team from WWFP • AECOM does have ongoing Master Plans across Ontario • Other team members and other project management • 2 large Master Plans will be completed this summer • CBCL has four other significant HW projects underway • Timing will not impact IRP work • Leadership of IRP team has ability to access and direct additional resources

20. Thank You • Additional Q&A