2020 Tier 1 – Hatchery Management ❖ Respond to facility disruptions within 24 hours for issues affecting fish health and within 1 week for non-emergency issues (throughout year). Next Steps ➢ Complete a review of previously identified items and determine if they are a priority and then rank according to the Hydro Priority Matrix for Capital projects. ➢ Share hatchery corrective action priorities/schedule with internal stakeholders and complete necessary hatchery corrective actions.
2020 Tier 1 - Business Activities ❖ Hatchery Comprehensive Report/Hatchery Recalculation Issue: Grant PUD has a requirement to conduct a review every 10 years (2023, 2033, 2043, etc.) on its hatchery programs (Comprehensive Report). Based on the previous 10 years of hatchery monitoring and evaluation data and juvenile salmonid survival at the project hatchery production is adjusted (can increase or decrease). ✓ Next Steps ❑ Compile and analyze data (Q4 2019 and Q1-3 2020); ❑ Draft comprehensive report due to committee Dec 2020. ❑ Staff explore potential cost-effective and biologically sound strategies to achieve hatchery production goals in 2023.
2020 Tier 2 - Business Activities ❖ Summer Subyearling Survival standards. Current evaluations are scheduled for 2025, 2026 & 2027. Issue: Grant PUD has a requirement to achieve the survival standard for summer subyearling migrating through the Priest Rapids Project Area (86.49%); ✓ Next Steps ❑ Priest Rapids Salmon Settlement Agreement does provide flexibility to explore other alternatives to achieve No-Net-Impact for summer subyearlings; ❑ Staff continues to explore potential cost-effective and biologically sound approach to achieve No-Net-Impact for summer subyearling Chinook.
2020 Tier 2 - Business Activities ❖ Avian Predation in the Columbia River Plateau. Issue: Avian predators (Caspian Terns) have a substantial impact on juvenile steelhead migration through the Priest Rapids Project. ✓ Next Steps ❑ Implement strategy for ensuring that avian predation outside the project area is being addressed by federal entities prior to 2025-2027. ▪ FW Staff continue to encourage USBOR to preclude terns from nesting on Goose Island in Potholes Reservoir (dissuasion & plantings). ▪ Ensure that avian predation requirements and funding are included in the Biological Opinion for the Federal System (NW River Partners, NWPC, BPA, PRCC, etc.). ▪ Work to secure Caspian tern take permit via the USFWS.
2020 Tier 2 - Business Activities ❖ White River Spring Chinook Program. Issue: Grant PUD has a requirement to implement a hatchery program in the White River (Wenatchee Basin) for spring Chinook salmon. Production was put on hold in the White River until 2026. ✓ Next Steps ❑ 2013 Statement of Agreement deferred a decision on the direction of this program until 2026; ❑ Mitigation currently met via increased production in the Nason Creek spring Chinook Program; ❑ Explore biologically sound cost-effective alternatives to meet this obligation.
2020 Tier 2 - Business Activities Grant PUD implements Vegetation Management and Rare Threatened and Endangered Plant Programs (RTE) to be in compliance with local noxious weed laws, various permit conditions, and for Grant PUD’s License Articles (e.g. Wildlife Plan, RTE Plant Plan, Northern Wormwood Conservation Plan, Shoreline Management Plan, etc.).
Other 2020 Business Priorities ❖ Implementation of FERC License Articles ((401)(a)7, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 25), Water Quality Conditions, NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions, and NMFS and USFWS Conditions for anadromous and resident fishes (salmon and steelhead, bull trout, white sturgeon, Pacific lamprey, northern pikeminnow and native resident fishes). ❖ Implementation NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions, and NMFS and USFWS Conditions related to juvenile and adult salmonid, steelhead and bull trout passage at the Priest Rapids Project (fish ladders and fishways, bypass operations, turbine operations, spill regimes, etc.). ❖ Implementation of FERC License Articles ((401)(a)16, 17, 19, 20, and 21), Water Quality Conditions, NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 18 Fishway Prescriptions, and NMFS and USFWS Conditions related to fixed site monitoring, total dissolved gas, gas abatement, water temperature (shallow water and fish ladders), and aquatic invasive species. ❖ Implementation License Article 409 (Wildlife Habitat Management Plan), Article 410 (Wildlife Monitoring Information and Education Plan), Article 411 (Transmission Avian Collision Program), Article 412 (Northern Wormwood), Article 413 (Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plant Program), Article 414 (Bald Eagle Program), Avian Protection Plan and Vegetation Management Program. ❖ Implement GPUD’s safety processes and procedures. This requires the development and implement Job Hazard Analyses, perform ABC's and Job Briefs on a daily basis and participation in GPUD’s wide safety initiatives.
Other 2020 Business Priorities ❖ Implement GPUD’s contract and budget processes and procedures. FW -BU staff provides oversight and administration on ~75 separate contracts related to the implementation of GPUD’s environmental stewardship responsibilities. ❖ Facilitate and encourage sound efficient internal/external stakeholder coordination and communication. FW-BU staff are required to participate and support various required committees in support of its environmental stewardship responsibilities. These committees include the Priest Rapids Coordinating Committee, PRCC-Habitat, PRCC-Hatchery, Hanford Reach Workgroup & Priest Rapids Fish Forum. Groups operate via consensus based approach. ❖ Facilitate and encourage a sound proactive coordination and communication strategy with the Wanapum People. FW-BU staff are required to implement a myriad environmental stewardship responsibilities that may impact the Wanapum’s culture.
2019 Key Accomplishments ❖ No Reportable Incidents; ❖ ALL regulatory reporting requirements; ❖ Backfilled 2 FW Specialist and FW Specialist Foreman Positions; ❖ Returning staff (fish counters, HMA’s and Seasonal, etc.); ❖ Reduced NNI Fund contributions for subyearling summer Chinook by $105,857.94; ❖ Deferred summer subyearling evaluations to 2025-2027; ❖ Reduced M&E costs associated with the white sturgeon program by $40k (3-yrs); ❖ Held juvenile white sturgeon stocking rates at 3,250 annually; ❖ Secured NNI funding to continue avian predation M&E; ❖ Vegetation efforts on Goose Island in an effort to reduce avian predation in the future;
2019 Key Accomplishments ❖ Completed Wanapum Drawdown Mitigation Requirements; ❖ Implemented Northern Wormwood Conservation Plan; ❖ Installed 3 of 4 adult Pacific lamprey detection systems; ❖ Complete Priest Rapids Hatchery Financial Analysis; ❖ Priest Rapids Hatchery Well Field Rehab (1 of 3 completed); ❖ Carlton Acclimation Facility Intake Analysis;
Powering our way of life.
Power Production: Cultural Resources Quarter 4 Commission Update 12/10/19 Powering our way of life.
2019 Q3 Business Review Major Projects & Work Activities • We completed the Memorandum of Agreement with our stakeholder group for the Priest Rapids Right Embankment project. • Archaeology Days at the Wanapum Heritage Center: 745 participants • Wanapum Tule Mat Lodge project was completed at the Wanapum Indian Village
Cultural Resources Safety Status Quarter 3 was completed without any safety incidents or close calls. PPE Cabinets for pedestrians were introduced. Safety meeting attendance was 100% in Q4.
2019 Q4 Budget Data 2019 Budget Actuals - 10/31 Q4 - YEP CAP $90,000 ($20,619) $0 O&M $1,106,961 $1,032,312 $1,106,961 Labor $1,673,405 $1,254,898 $1,477,544 OT $36,217 $29,461 $36,217 Budget Actuals - 7/31 Q3 - YEP Regular $1,019,831 $755,869 $899,653 Other $617,357 $469,568 $577,891 OT $36,217 $29,461 $36,217
2020 Q1 Forecast • Continuation of effects mitigation plan in consultation with our Tribal, Federal and State stakeholders (Working Group meeting January 21). -Focus is on alternative mitigation (non-archaeological mitigation). -Our anticipation is that we’ll focus on language and traditional programs. In the recent past, focus has been on excavating each archaeological site. That is no longer the case and alternative forms of mitigation are now the norm. • Continuation of Priest Rapids Right Embankment work -Focus is on meeting the MOA details -minimizing direct effects such as dust, sound etc. are a key • We’re implementing the Historic Properties Management Plan emergency clause in response to the 243 Fire
2020 Forecast Use of Allocated Resources • Staffing – Johnny Buck will start working to support the Wanapum Traditional Program Interface Office.
2020 Forecast Potential Management Challenges • Continued discussions with Tribal groups, state and federal agencies regarding mitigation of project-related adverse effects to project-wide cultural resources. -We are in the information gathering stage and will have more details as we move forward in 2020. • Erosion mitigation is now off the table. The effects considered to be active erosion are no longer pertinent. This helps us realize a cost saving of around $10M.
Questions ?? 8
Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS December 2019
METHODOLOGY • October 9-13, 2019 • Live telephone survey of landline and mobile phones • Interviewed 400 residential rate payers of Grant County, WA • English and Spanish-language interviews • Margin of error is ± 4.9% for a survey of 400 interviews 2
A PROFILE: RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER DEMOGRAPHICS 3
A demographic snapshot of the representative sample of residential customers: 50% Less than 5 years in 18% Men Grant County 50% Women 30% 5 to 19 years 30% 18-34 20+ years 52% 23% 35-49 43% Fiber-optic subscribers 23% 50-64 57% Non-fiber subscribers 23% 65+ 41% Landline 48% Moses Lake 59% Cell Ephrata / Quincy / S. 27% Lake 25% All other 4
KEY FINDINGS: OVERVIEW 5
Executive Summary • High levels of customer satisfaction continue • Satisfaction metrics for overall and key performance metrics remain high • Customer opinion of affordability remain stable • However, this year’s survey showed a noticeable decrease in satisfaction for those who perceive their rates to be less affordable • Fiber subscribers report having a higher level of overall satisfaction • Misconceptions about fiber access improve, but additional work can be done 6
2019 Overall Satisfaction with Grant PUD Satisfied 82% somewhat Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied 59% very 10% 8% 7 “I’d like you to consider all your experiences to date with Grant County Public Utility District, also known as Grant P.U.D. Will you please tell me if you are very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with Grant Public Utility District? Or are you neither satisfied nor dissatisfied?”
Satisfaction Over Time 90% 88% 86% 82% Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 10% 6% 6% 5% 6% 8% 8% 5% Dissatisfied 2012 2015 2017 2019 8
Satisfied Satisfaction Intensity Over Time Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied 90% 86% 88% Dissatisfied 82% 10% 8% 6% 8% 6% 6% 5% 5% 2012 2015 2017 2019 9
KEY FINDINGS: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION 10
Key Performance Metrics Keeping power outages to a minimum Change 91% from 89% 88% 2015 +3% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor 11% 9% 9% 2015 2017 2019 11 ”Next, I’m going to read you a list of statements that might be used to describe an electric utility. For each one, please tell me if you would rate Grant P.U.D.’s performance as excellent, good, just fair, or poor on that measure of quality. Here is the first one…”
Key Performance Metrics Providing good customer service Change 86% from 83% 82% 2015 +4% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor 15% 14% 12% 2015 2017 2019 12 ”Next, I’m going to read you a list of statements that might be used to describe an electric utility. For each one, please tell me if you would rate Grant P.U.D.’s performance as excellent, good, just fair, or poor on that measure of quality. Here is the first one…”
Key Performance Metrics Communicating with you and keeping you informed Change 74% from 71% 2015 66% +8% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor 30% 24% 23% 2015 2017 2019 13 ”Next, I’m going to read you a list of statements that might be used to describe an electric utility. For each one, please tell me if you would rate Grant P.U.D.’s performance as excellent, good, just fair, or poor on that measure of quality. Here is the first one…”
Key Performance Metrics Keeping prices as low as possible Change from 70% 66% 2015 +12% 58% Excellent/Good 36% Fair/Poor 31% 28% 2015 2017 2019 14 ”Next, I’m going to read you a list of statements that might be used to describe an electric utility. For each one, please tell me if you would rate Grant P.U.D.’s performance as excellent, good, just fair, or poor on that measure of quality. Here is the first one…”
Key Performance Metrics Providing access to high-speed internet Change from 58% 54% 2015 +15% 43% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor 25% 23% 18% 2015 2017 2019 15 ”Next, I’m going to read you a list of statements that might be used to describe an electric utility. For each one, please tell me if you would rate Grant P.U.D.’s performance as excellent, good, just fair, or poor on that measure of quality. Here is the first one…”
In your own words, what is one thing that Grant PUD does well?* 36% Provides electricity / reliable service 21% Addresses power outages quickly 19% Good customer service / communication 11% Low / affordable rates 10% Billing system / paperless billing Programs for low-income customers / helps those behind on 4% bills 3% Provides internet service / Fiber-optic 3% Other 12% Not sure 16 *Asked as an open-ended question (instead of supplying response options to the respondents). Multiple responses accepted; total doesn’t add to 100%.
In your own words, what is one thing that Grant PUD could improve?* 30% Lower rates 4% Expand fiber-optic service / better internet 4% Less power outages / fixing outages quicker 4% Billing issues / online bill pay 4% Moving powerlines / powerline maintenance 3% Lower budget / waste less money / higher efficiency 4% Other 24% Nothing 26% Not sure 17 *Asked as an open-ended question (instead of supplying response options to the respondents). Multiple responses accepted; total doesn’t add to 100%.
KEY FINDINGS: RATES 18
Perceived Affordability of Utility Bill* 90% 87% 84% Affordable Not Affordable 14% 11% 4% 2015 2017 2019 19 *Perceptions of affordability measured by responses to the following question: “How would you describe your monthly electric bill?” 87% answered “very” or “somewhat” affordable, 11% answered not affordable (“not too” or “not at all” affordable).
Who are the 11% that consider their bill “not affordable”? Less likely to Fiber Long-term have a college non-subscribers residents degree (20+ years) (High school or less) 20 * See slide 16 of in-depth presentation for more information
Overall satisfaction of those who see bill as “not affordable” 2017 2019 Satisfied Change Dissatisfied from 2017 +20% 79% 49% 33% 13% 21 *Perceptions of affordability measured by responses to the following question: “How would you describe your monthly electric bill?” 87% answered “very” or “somewhat” affordable, 11% answered not affordable (“not too” or “not at all” affordable).
KEY FINDINGS: CUSTOMER PRIORITIES 22
Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Keeping power outages to a minimum 11% 25% 16% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1 71% 58% 57% 2015 2017 2019 23 “Switching gears, I’d like you to think for a moment about the priorities that you believe Grant P.U.D. should have as a provider of electric power. Please tell me on a scale of one to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“
Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Keeping prices as low as possible 13% 25% 17% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1 63% 56% 52% 2015 2017 2019 24 “Switching gears, I’d like you to think for a moment about the priorities that you believe Grant P.U.D. should have as a provider of electric power. Please tell me on a scale of one to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“
Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Providing energy saving programs for customers 35% 22% 29% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1 45% 40% 33% 2015 2017 2019 25 “Switching gears, I’d like you to think for a moment about the priorities that you believe Grant P.U.D. should have as a provider of electric power. Please tell me on a scale of one to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“
Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Developing programs and policies that promote economic growth in our area 22% 29% 23% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1 32% 24% 23% 2015 2017 2019 26 “Switching gears, I’d like you to think for a moment about the priorities that you believe Grant P.U.D. should have as a provider of electric power. Please tell me on a scale of one to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“
KEY FINDINGS: FIBER NETWORK 27
2019 Overall Customer Satisfaction in relation to Fiber Access Satisfied Dissatisfied 85 85 80 76 13 10 5 5 No access to fiber Subscribers Access to fiber Non-subscribers (perceived)* (perceived)* *Perceptions of fiber access measured by responses to the following question: “As you may know, the Grant Public Utility District, also known as Grant P.U.D., provides 28 internet access through a fiber-optic network to roughly three quarters of Grant County residents. I don’t expect you to be an expert but if you had to guess, do you think this service is available to you at your home?” 65% answered “yes,” 23% “no,” and 12% weren’t sure.
Why don’t you have fiber-optic service?* Not available in my area 33% Don't know about it / need more information 15% Don't need or want it 12% Too expensive 12% Thinking about it / haven't gotten it yet 3% I have a bundle plan 3% Heard bad things about it (generic) 0% Other 8% Not sure 21% 29 *Asked only of non-fiber subscribers (57% of the sample). “A moment ago, you mentioned you have a service other than fiber-optic internet. In your own words, please tell me briefly why you don’t have fiber-optic service.”
Why don’t you have fiber-optic service?* Not available in my area 33% Actual fiber Don't know about it / need more information 15% access** Don't need or want it 12% Too expensive 12% Yes No Thinking about it / haven't gotten it yet 3% 34% 66% I have a bundle plan 3% Heard bad things about it (generic) 0% Other 8% Not sure 21% 30 *Asked only of non-fiber subscribers (57% of the sample). **Verified based on customer address and actual fiber service boundaries.
Do you think fiber-optic service is available at your home? Change 65% from 2017 59% +6% Yes 29% No 23% 2019 2017 31 “As you may know, the Grant Public Utility District, also known as Grant P.U.D., provides internet access through a fiber-optic network to roughly three quarters of Grant County residents. I don’t expect you to be an expert but if you had to guess, do you think this service is available to you at your home?”
Do you think fiber-optic service is available at your home? Actual fiber access* 65% Yes 37% 59% No 63% Yes 29% No 23% 2019 2017 “As you may know, the Grant Public Utility District, also known as Grant P.U.D., provides internet access through a fiber-optic network to roughly three quarters of Grant County residents. I don’t expect you to be an expert but if you had to guess, do you think this service is available to you at your home?” *In similar survey from 2017, 53% of those who believed they did not have access to fiber, actually did have access to fiber. 32
NEXT STEPS 33
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS Share the Communicate message of no Highlight fiber our strategies rate increase expansion and to pay down for the second fiber availability. debt. straight year. 34
ALEX DUNN RESEARCH DIRECTOR alexd@strategies360.com JESSE SUTHERLAND SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST jesses@strategies360.com NICOLE KOZLOWSKI RESEARCH ANALYST nicoleko@strategies360.com S360 RESEARCH OFFICES Seattle, Washington | Denver, Colorado | San Diego, California
PROJECTED Zero Q3 – 2.9 Recordable Incident 0 2019 Fx – 3.0 Rate SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS
Electric S ystem Liquidit y $209 MM >= $105 MM Consolidated Return on Net 3.7% >= 3.8% Asset s MAINTAIN Consolidat ed A STRONG Debt t o Plant 59% Rat io <= 62% FINANCIAL POSITION Consolidated Debt S ervice 2.11X >= 1.80X Coverage
Ret ail Operating Ratio 109% <= 113% Adj usted "Peer Group of Excellence" Rate Index N/ A <= 100.0% <= 100.0% PROVIDE Ratio LONG TERM LOW RATES District Credit AA3 Rating >= AA3 (Moody ’ s equivalent) 2019
Average S ystem Availabilit y 99.967 % >= 99.985% Index (AS AI) Customer Average Interruption Index 181.8 min < 110 min (CAIDI) PROVIDE Ret ail Customer OUTSTANDING TBD Fall ‘ 19 S atisfaction >= 85% SERVICE TO OUR S urvey CUSTOMERS PROJECTED PRP Tot al 5/9 mos – Q3 12/ 12 mos Availabilit y 6/12 mos - Fx
Financial S t atement Audit Performance TBD Spring ‘ 20 Unmodified Audit Opinion WA S t ate Audit Of fice Compliance TBD Fall ‘ 19 Audit Performance No Audit Findings FERC / NERC / WECC Electric Reliabilit y Compliance No No Audit No Audit Findings Performance OPERATE Findings RESPONSIBLY S afet y, Health, BY ATTAINING Cult ural Resource and ENVIRONMENTAL, Yes Hazardous Material Zero Performance Violations CULTURAL RESOURCE AND REGULATORY Timeliness of All COMPLIANCE FERC and Regulatory Zero Yes Filings Late Filings
Achieve Planned Capital Build for NO 100% Current Year 2019 PROJECTED TARGET Q3 57.7% Average S ystem Take Rate >=56.5% >=56.5% 2019 Fx - YES 2019 Fx DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE BROADBAND NETWORK
2019 PROJECTED TARGETS 2019 TARGET PROJECTED Q 3 - 2.9 ate Zero R ecordable Incident R 0 2019 Fx 3.0 SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS ystem Liquidity E lectric S >=$105 MM $209 MM eturn On Net Assets MAINTAIN Consolidated R >= 3.8% 3.7% A STRONG atio Consolidated Debt To Plant R <= 62% 59% FINANCIAL POSITION ervice Coverage Consolidated Debt S 2.11X > 1.80X atio – Adjusted <= 113.0% 109% R etail Operating R PROVIDE atio <= 100.0 % N/A "Peer Group of E xcellence" R ate Index R LONG TERM LOW RATES >= AA 3 ating AA3 District Credit R (Moody's equivalent) AI) Average S ystem Availability Index (AS >= 99.985% 99.967 % Customer Average Interruption Index (CAIDI) < 110 MIN 181.8 min PROVIDE OUTSTANDING TBD urvey R etail Customer S atisfaction S >= 85% Fall 2019 SERVICE TO OUR 5/9 mos - Q3 P Total Availability 12/12 mos CUSTOMERS PR 6/ 12 mos - Fx tatement Audit Performance UNMODIFIED TBD 2020 Financial S AUDIT OPINION tate Audit Office Compliance Audit Performance NO AUDIT WA S TBD Fall ‘ 19 OPERATE FINDINGS eliability Compliance NO NO AUDIT RESPONSIBLY FE R C / NE R C / WECC E lectric R FINDINGS esource & Hazardous Material ZERO S afety, Health, Cultural R YES VIOLATIONS egulatory Filings ZERO LATE Timeliness of All FE R C and R YES FILINGS apital Build for Current Year Achieve Planned C 100% NO ate Q3 57.7% >= 56.5% Average S ystem Take R DEVELOP A 2019 Fx YES SUSTAINABLE BROADBAND NETWORK
CT Site Audits Final Report Jacob Johnson
CT Site Audits Background ● Historic Practice – Irrigation Load Checks/CT Site Audits ► Frequency – every 5-7 years ► Verify metering ► Verify horsepower ► Purpose – accuracy in metering and revenue collection ● Practice Stopped in Late 1990s ► Focus shifted to “higher priority” work ● Alternative Ways of Verifying Metering/Horsepower ► Use CIS to compare actual to expected consumption ► Check site when staff dispatched to perform other work
CT Site Audits Need • AMP contractor was unable to perform “CT Site Audits” as initially planned. • A pilot/sample group was completed in house, and it verified the need. • A project plan was developed to tackle the work with District employees.
CT Site Audits Scope 1. Complete a full site analysis (CT Audits/Load Checks) for all of the Districts transformer rated meters, both single and 3 phase, including multipliers verification. 2. Installing AMP meters at those locations 3. Identify sites with inaccurate metering or diversion/tamper 4. Verify “Installed Horsepower” for the connected load / “Capacity” charge 5. Stop revenue leakage 6. Complete deferred maintenance, identify and repair unsafe conditions 7. Maintain budget neutrality
CT Site Audits Project Team Executive Sponsors : Kevin Marshall - COO / Jeff Grizzel– MGR Director PD Project Manager: Jacob Johnson – Meter and Relay/Electronic Tech Supervisor CT Audit Crew: Roger Jensen- Foreman Meter Relay Tech(Limited Assignment) Sam Buchmann, Javier Ramirez, Steve Correll, Tristan Jones, Tyler McGhee with Mark Falstad, Randy Hovland, and John Bowkett assisting. Departments involved: Meter Relay/Electric Shop, Line Department, Customer Solutions, IT, Helpdesk, PD Engineering, PD Warehousing, Procurement, HR, Transportation
CT Site Audits Schedule & Budget Schedule was made to match that of the AMP project. 15 months. Timeline was extended due to lack of meter inventory. Mostly completed in September 2019 Remaining tasks: 4-wire conversions of “Corner grounded delta” sites Substation meters(MV-90 upgrade required) Budget was re-allocated from the AMP contractor to District resources. We used 2 current employees and hired 4 Limited Assignments to do the work.
CT Site Audits Project Cost Savings and Spending $1,200,000 $1,054,317 $1,000,000 $910,676 $756,464 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $154,212 $200,000 $- Original AMP Contract Labor Totals Tools and Equip Total CT Audit Cost Budget
CT Site Audits Project Metrics Kwh Revenue Metrics $1,800,000.00 $1,652,446.07 $1,600,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $185,643.29 $200,000.00 $109,669.14 $- 2020 Increased Metering Customer Credits Incorrect Metering/Lost Revenue Revenue(Last 20 Yrs)
CT Site Audits Project Metrics Installed Capacity Metrics(HP) $140,000.00 $120,007.48 $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 $40,367.29 $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $- 2020 HP REV increase Total HP Corrections
CT Site Audits Project Metrics Meters Installed and Audits Site Needed Work 132 1 Phase CT 2192 3 Phase CT 3569 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
CT Site Audits Outcome • Increase in 2020 estimated revenue of $226,000. • Credits totaling $109,669 went out to customers for initial CT Audit findings. Future Actions: 1. CT Site Audits will be completed on a 6 year basis. Year 1 includes those that were unable to be fully analyzed due to no/light loading. 2. Yearly Demand to “Installed Capacity” comparison.
GRANT PUD Load Growth Project Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study Commission Brief 12/10/2019 Powering our way of life.
Route Study Project Team – District Staff and Owner’s Engineer SCOTT TOMLINSON, CCM VANIR Construction Management JEFF GRIZZEL POWER DELIVERY Managing Director On Call Project Sponsor RUSS SEILER Manager of Power Delivery Projects DAVID KLINKENBERG Project Manager Stanley Consultants Owner’s Engineer BLAIR FUGLIE RANDY KONO, PE SHEILA WALD GREG CARDWELL Property Services Transmission Engineer Project Coordinator Construction Manager STANLEY CONSULTANTS
Segment Study – Red Rock 115 kV T ransmission Line Route Study SCOTT TOMLINSON, CCM VANIR Construction Management STANLEY CONSULTANTS
Study Criteria – Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study The picture can't be displayed. HDR CONSULTANTS Prime / Designer TOMMR CONSTRUCTION Civil
Route Alternatives- Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study
Point of Origination – District Evaluation • System Engineering Study • Reliability • Maintenance • Future • Transmission Planning • Additional Breaker at Frenchman Hills for point of origination
Public Workshops - Proposed Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study Schedule • Jan/Feb 2020 Location • Port of Royal Slope Purpose • Inform the District Decision • Engage the Public by Sharing the Route Alternatives • Solicit Public Input/Comment on the Alternatives • Document Issues and Concerns
Project Timeline – Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study Nov, 2018 – Owner’s Engineer selected – Stanley Consultants • June, 2019 – PRC Approval • Nov, 2019 – Finalize Screening Study • Jan / Feb, 2020 – Red Rock Route Public Meetings • Mar, 2020 - Finalize Preferred Route • April, 2020 – Commission Presentation • April, 2020 – Begin ROW Negotiations/Land Acquisitions • Mar, 2022 - Red Rock Transmission Line Completion • ~ Dates subject to Public Process ~
Recommend
More recommend
