Com ommis ission on O Overview Cha hange Order # #2, TMG - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Com

• mmis

ission

• n O

Overview Cha hange Order # #2, TMG Contr tract 1 t 130-0909 09096

Explanation of the requested change, costs and rationale December 10, 2019

Rat ationale le f for C Chan ange ge O Order

“Why i is s this di differ erent t than the e Or Original CCS CCS est estimate?”

Proposal increases TMG contract by $790,180 from $500,000 to $1,290,180

• Initial estimates of level of effort were low compared to the now completed

detailed project plan. This created additional pressure on internally constrained resources

• Multiple concurrent projects are resulting in a greater than expected short-term

resource and skill set constraints. Our strategy is to use contractors to fill these short-term constraints, paying a higher rate than for internal resources, but only for the duration needed. TMG has available skilled resources to address our needs.

• Desire to reduce project delivery risk by shifting work to more efficient resource

adds additional vendor roles/effort.

• ~$100k moved from Oracle Professional Services to TMG scope (Data Conversion)
• ~$88k moved from internal scope to TMG scope (Data Conversion)
• Test Manager moved from CCS to HCMS project (HCMS would have used external

contractor, so roughly neutral enterprise total spend across technology portfolio.)

$88,000 $100,000 $166,144 $166,144 $176,000 $304,920 $304,920 $500,000 $407,520 $28,000 $84,480 $200,000

$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 Internal Oracle TMG Old TMG New

Resource Impacts By Role

Data Conversion Lead Test Manager Project Manager Exec Sponsor OCM Manager Travel

New Adds Neutral Increase** Neutral Minimize

*

* Original TMG Scope Estimate ** Enterprise Neutral (from Technology Portfolio perspective)

Cost st C Change S e Summa ummary b by R Role

Role Change Detail iled Est stimat ate Rate te Current E nt Esti timate

Project Manager Right-Size 2264 $180.00 $407,520 Test Manager Transfer from Internal, swap with HCMS, right-size 1848 $165.00 $304,920 Data Conversion Transfer from Internal+Oracle 1000 $181.50 $181,500 OCM Manager Add 480 $176.00 $84,480 TMG Sponsor Add 140 $200.00 $28,000 Solution Architect Support Add 132 $180.00 $23,760 Travel Add (minimize) Estimate only $200,000 Analysis Pre-Project N/A N/A $60,000 Total $1,290,180

CCS S Proje ject Sp Spend Up Update

$629,114 $244,795 $133,944 $2,456,258 $1,220,350 $1,472,375 $3,235,767 $1,230,180 $1,637,746 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 Oracle TMG Grant

Project Implementation Costs by Org

Total per Contracts (and Internal) Total as Forecasted Spent to Date

The “ e “Good Ne News” ws” Roadm dmap P p Project C ct Cons nsol

• lida

dati tion

• n I

Impacts cts

Oracle CCS $5.2M 9/2020

• Significant cost reduction
• Benefits Delivered a year sooner

5 Projects ~ $10M 1 Combined Project < $5.2M

10-6 CIS Functionality Assessment $170K, 3/2019 4-1 Meter Data Management System Evaluation 138k, 4/2019 10-2 AMP Integration with CIS $427K, 10/2020

17-6 Oracle CCB-C2M Upgrade $5.25M, 10/2020 4-3 MDMS Implementation $4.1M, 11/2021

PPM P Proje

• ject Esti

stimation

• n

Project phase model and affects on estimate confidence / variance

Proje ject E Estim imat ation C Confidence

Variance i is reduced a as w we l learn more w with each p phase i iteration

Roadmap

• ROM (+/- 75%)
• Limited detail

PIF

• (+/-50%)
• More detail
• Economic

Justification

Contract

• (+/-15%)

Contracted Directs

• High Level Project

Plan

Execution

• Detailed Project

Plan

• (+/-15%) Internal

Labor Estimate

• Task Level Detail

Ideation Collect Select Plan Execute

Our estimates improve at earlier phases for each subsequent “similar” project.

Proje ject P Phas ase Var arian iance & & Confiden ence

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 1 2 3 4 5 Estimate Variance Estimate Confidence Ideation Collect Select Plan Execute

Powering our way of life.

Operate Responsibly by Attaining Environmental, Cultural Resource and Regulatory Compliance

Fish and Wildlife Quarterly Business Report

Grant PUD Commission Meeting December 10, 2019

Business Unit Purpose & Goal

The Fish and Wildlife Business Unit uses technology, innovation, strategic thinking, good stakeholder relations and skilled negotiations to ensure we are achieving compliance with our Natural Resources regulatory requirements in a safe, cost efficient and biologically sound manner while helping to maintain the long-term financial health of the District.

2019 Safety Review

➢Safety

❖ No Recordable Incidents; ❖ A total of 516 Job Briefs (as of 11/26/2019); ✓ 516 Job Briefs on 11/26/2019 ❖ A total of 111 Job Site Reviews (as of 11/26/2019); ❑ Goal = 10%. Currently at 21.5%; ❖ Overall Safety Meeting Attendance = 100%;

2019 Compliance Review

❖ File 22 annual reports and plans with various agencies;

➢ Progress & Implementation Report (8 Combined) ➢ Aquatic Invasive Species Control & Prevention ➢ Bull trout report and 10 year review ➢ White Sturgeon annual report ➢ Pacific Lamprey annual report ➢ Northern Wormwood Conservation Plan ➢ Gas Abatement Plan ➢ Transmission Line Collision Protection ➢ Bald Eagle Perching/Roosting Protection Plan ➢ Wildlife Habitat Monitoring, Info & education ➢ Native Resident Fish ➢ Fish Spill and total dissolved gas report ➢ USFWS Annual Recovery report ➢ USFWS Annual – Special Use Permit

❖ File 12 reports related to mitigation sites; ❖ File Boundary Adjustment for Nason Creek Acclimation Facility with FERC; Priest Rapids Project FERC License

NMFS 2008 Biological Opinion WADOE 401 Certification USFWS 2008 Biological Opinion Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Priest Rapids Salmon and Steelhead Settlement Agreement

2019 Budget Review

Fish & Wildlife Business Unit - Allocated Resources

❖ Fish & Wildlife Staff 15 Full-Time Regulars (FTRs) 11.06 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)

➢ Fish and Wildlife Manager (1 FTR) ▪ 0.6 FTEs ➢ Hatchery & Habitat (6 FTRs) ▪ 5.0 FTEs ➢ Anadromous & Resident Fish (5 FTRs) ▪ 3.0 FTEs ➢ Wildlife/Botanical (3 FTRs) ▪ 3.0 FTEs

❖ Budget

➢ Operation & Maintenance = $12,807,101 ➢ Capital = $ 365,000 ➢ Labor = $ 2,108,471 2019 Total Budget $15,280,572

Operations and Maintenance = 83.8% Labor = 13.8% Cap = 2.4%

2019 Budget Review – Allocated Budget

Category Budget Actuals ($) For Month Ended (10/31/2019) Year-End Projection ($) Year-End Projection (%) O&M $12,807,101 $7,095,588 $12,580,000 98.2% Capital $365,000 $262,686 $301,778 82.6% Labor $2,108,471 $1,715,414 $2,004,653 95.0% Total $15,280,572 $9,073,688 $14,849,431 97.2%

2020 Proposed Fish and Wildlife Budget

Fish & Wildlife Business Unit - Allocated Resources

❖ Fish & Wildlife Staff 17 Full-Time Regulars (FTRs) 11.0 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)

➢ Fish and Wildlife Manager (2 FTR) ▪ 1.0 FTEs ➢ Hatchery & Habitat (7 FTRs) ▪ 3.0 FTEs ➢ Anadromous & Resident Fish (5 FTRs) ▪ 7.0 FTEs ➢ Wildlife/Botanical (3 FTRs)

❖ Budget

➢ Operation & Maintenance = $12,786,218 ➢ Capital (Directs/Proposed) = $ 1,191,769 ➢ Labor (non-benefit adjusted) = $ 2,311,447 2020 Proposed Budget $15,668,028 2019 Budget $15,280,572

Operations and Maintenance = 78.5% Labor = 14.2% Cap = 7.3% * Capital Dollars Values from Portfolio Snapshot – Oct 24: https://grantnet.gcpud.org/Departments/AMOPMO/icapitalreview/CRC%20Meetings/Forms/CRC.aspx

2020 Safety Priories

❖ No Recordable Incidents; ❖ Job Site Reviews;

❑ Goal = 15%; ❑ Stretch Goal = 25%

❖ Overall Safety Meeting Attendance = 100%; ❖ Complete ALL identified 2019 safety fixes

❑ Priest Rapids Hatchery ❑ Carlton Acclimation Facility

2020 Tier 1 - Business Activities

❖Carlton Acclimation Intake Structure Issue: Methow River migrating away from water intake.

✓ Completed

➢ Draft Channel Assessment & Conceptual Alternatives Analysis.

▪ 2 In-river Alternatives - ($1.2 – $5.3Million) ▪ 2 Infiltration Gallery Alternatives – ($2.3 – $3.2 Million) ▪ Water Reuse Alternative – ($2.9 Million) ❖ Cost Estimates DO NOT include Mitigation Costs or Internal Labor

✓ Recommend Path Forward

➢ Drill an additional Production well for acclimation purposes during potential low flow events and icing (Oct-Feb).

2020 Tier 1 - Business Activities

❖Rehabilitation of Wells at Priest Rapids Hatchery.

Issue: Three of the eight wells were inoperable during a majority

• f the timeframe when the Priest Rapids Reservoir was operated

at lower elevations for Priest Rapids Spillway work/evaluation. ✓ Completed

➢ Rehabilitation and testing has been completed on 1 of 3 wells. ➢ Effort to rehabilitate the first well was successful.

✓ Next Steps

➢ Rehabilitation and testing of the 2 remaining wells in 2020.

2020 Tier 1 – Hanford Reach

❖Operational Plan for Implementation of the Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Agreement

Issue: Formal operating protocols need to be developed that would replace procedures that had been implemented through Mid-C Hourly Coordination Agreement with the Utility Parties. ✓ Next Steps

➢ Setup series of meetings with other Utility Partners to development an operating plan.

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.

❖ 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

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

• bligation.

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.).

2020 Tier 2 - Business Activities

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

• versight 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.

Quarter 4 Commission Update 12/10/19

Powering our way of life.

Power Production:

Cultural Resources

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

• f 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.

8

Questions ??

Residential Customer Satisfaction Survey OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

December 2019

2

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

3

A PROFILE: RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER DEMOGRAPHICS

4

A demographic snapshot of the representative sample of residential customers:

Men

50%

Women

50%

18-34

30%

35-49

23%

50-64

23%

65+

23%

Moses Lake

48%

Ephrata / Quincy / S. Lake

27%

All other

25%

Less than 5 years in Grant County

18%

5 to 19 years

30%

20+ years

52%

Fiber-optic subscribers

43%

Non-fiber subscribers

57%

Landline

41%

Cell

59%

5

KEY FINDINGS: OVERVIEW

6

• 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

Executive Summary

7

59% 10%

2019 Overall Satisfaction with Grant PUD

82% 8%

very somewhat “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?”

Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

8

Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied

6% 6% 5% 10% 88% 86% 90% 82%

Satisfaction Over Time

Satisfied 2012 2015 2017 2019

Dissatisfied 6% 8% 5% 8%

9

Satisfaction Intensity Over Time

2012 2015 2017 2019

88% 86% 90% 82% 6% 6% 6% 8% 5% 5% 10% 8%

Satisfied Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied Dissatisfied

10

KEY FINDINGS: CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

11

Key Performance Metrics Keeping power outages to a minimum

”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…”

88% 89% 91% 11% 9% 9% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

2015 2017 2019

Change from 2015

+3%

12

Key Performance Metrics Providing good customer service

”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…”

82% 83% 86% 15% 14% 12% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

2015 2017 2019

Change from 2015

+4%

13

Key Performance Metrics Communicating with you and keeping you informed

”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…”

66% 71% 74% 30% 24% 23% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

2015 2017 2019

Change from 2015

+8%

14

Key Performance Metrics Keeping prices as low as possible

”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…”

58% 66% 70% 36% 31% 28% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

2015 2017 2019

Change from 2015

+12%

15

Key Performance Metrics Providing access to high-speed internet

”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…”

43% 54% 58% 25% 23% 18% Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

2015 2017 2019

Change from 2015

+15%

16

12% 3% 3% 4% 10% 11% 19% 21% 36%

Not sure Other Provides internet service / Fiber-optic Programs for low-income customers / helps those behind on bills Billing system / paperless billing Low / affordable rates Good customer service / communication Addresses power outages quickly Provides electricity / reliable service

In your own words, what is one thing that Grant PUD does well?*

*Asked as an open-ended question (instead of supplying response options to the respondents). Multiple responses accepted; total doesn’t add to 100%.

17

26% 24% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 30%

Not sure Nothing Other Lower budget / waste less money / higher efficiency Moving powerlines / powerline maintenance Billing issues / online bill pay Less power outages / fixing outages quicker Expand fiber-optic service / better internet Lower rates

In your own words, what is one thing that Grant PUD could improve?*

*Asked as an open-ended question (instead of supplying response options to the respondents). Multiple responses accepted; total doesn’t add to 100%.

18

KEY FINDINGS: RATES

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).

Perceived Affordability of Utility Bill*

90% 84% 87% 4% 14% 11% Affordable Not Affordable

2015 2017 2019

20

Fiber non-subscribers Long-term residents

(20+ years)

Less likely to have a college degree

(High school or less)

* See slide 16 of in-depth presentation for more information

Who are the 11% that consider their bill “not affordable”?

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).

Overall satisfaction of those who see bill as “not affordable”

79% 13% 49% 33% 2017 2019

Satisfied Dissatisfied

Change from 2017

+20%

22

KEY FINDINGS: CUSTOMER PRIORITIES

23

Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Keeping power outages to a minimum

“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

• ne to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“

71% 58% 57% 11% 16% 25% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1

2015 2017 2019

24

Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Keeping prices as low as possible

“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

• ne to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“

63% 52% 56% 13% 17% 25% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1

2015 2017 2019

25

Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Providing energy saving programs for customers

“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

• ne to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“

45% 33% 40% 22% 29% 35% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1

2015 2017 2019

26

Highest Priorities for Grant PUD Developing programs and policies that promote economic growth in our area

“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

• ne to five how much of a priority each of the following should be for Grant P.U.D.“

32% 24% 23% 22% 23% 29% Ranked Priority #2 Ranked Priority #1

2015 2017 2019

27

KEY FINDINGS: FIBER NETWORK

28

*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 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.

85 5 80 10 85 5 76 13

2019 Overall Customer Satisfaction in relation to Fiber Access

Subscribers Non-subscribers Access to fiber

(perceived)*

No access to fiber

(perceived)*

Satisfied Dissatisfied

29

21% 8% 0% 3% 3% 12% 12% 15% 33%

Not sure Other Heard bad things about it (generic) I have a bundle plan Thinking about it / haven't gotten it yet Too expensive Don't need or want it Don't know about it / need more information Not available in my area

Why don’t you have fiber-optic service?*

*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.”

30

21% 8% 0% 3% 3% 12% 12% 15% 33%

Not sure Other Heard bad things about it (generic) I have a bundle plan Thinking about it / haven't gotten it yet Too expensive Don't need or want it Don't know about it / need more information Not available in my area

Why don’t you have fiber-optic service?*

*Asked only of non-fiber subscribers (57% of the sample). **Verified based on customer address and actual fiber service boundaries.

66% No 34% Yes Actual fiber access**

31

Do you think fiber-optic service is available at your home?

“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?”

2017 2019 59% 65% 29% 23% Yes No

Change from 2017

+6%

32

Do you think fiber-optic service is available at your home?

“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?”

2017 2019 59% 65% 29% 23% Yes No

Actual fiber access* Yes 37% No 63%

*In similar survey from 2017, 53% of those who believed they did not have access to fiber, actually did have access to fiber.

33

NEXT STEPS

34

COMMUNICATION EFFORTS

Share the message of no rate increase for the second straight year. Communicate

• ur strategies

to pay down debt. Highlight fiber expansion and fiber availability.

S360 RESEARCH OFFICES

Seattle, Washington | Denver, Colorado | San Diego, California alexd@strategies360.com RESEARCH DIRECTOR jesses@strategies360.com SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST

JESSE SUTHERLAND ALEX DUNN

nicoleko@strategies360.com RESEARCH ANALYST

NICOLE KOZLOWSKI

SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS

PROJECTED

Zero Recordable Incident Rate

Q3 – 2.9 2019 Fx – 3.0

MAINTAIN A STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION

Electric S ystem Liquidit y >= $105 MM

$209 MM

Consolidated Return on Net Asset s >= 3.8% Consolidat ed Debt t o Plant Rat io <= 62%

59%

Consolidated Debt S ervice Coverage >= 1.80X

2.11X 3.7%

PROVIDE LONG TERM LOW RATES

Ret ail Operating Ratio Adj usted <= 113%

109%

"Peer Group of Excellence" Rate Index Ratio <= 100.0% District Credit Rating <= 100.0% N/ A >= AA3

(Moody’s equivalent)

2019 AA3

PROVIDE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO OUR CUSTOMERS

Average S ystem Availabilit y Index (AS AI) >= 99.985%

99.967 %

Customer Average Interruption Index (CAIDI) < 110 min

181.8 min

Ret ail Customer S atisfaction S urvey >= 85%

TBD Fall ‘19

PROJECTED

PRP Tot al Availabilit y 12/ 12 mos

5/9 mos – Q3 6/12 mos - Fx

No Audit Findings

OPERATE RESPONSIBLY

BY ATTAINING ENVIRONMENTAL, CULTURAL RESOURCE AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE

Financial S t atement Audit Performance Unmodified Audit Opinion

TBD Spring ‘20

WA S t ate Audit Of fice Compliance Audit Performance No Audit Findings Timeliness of All FERC and Regulatory Filings Zero Late Filings

Yes

FERC / NERC / WECC Electric Reliabilit y Compliance Performance S afet y, Health, Cult ural Resource and Hazardous Material Performance Zero Violations

TBD Fall ‘19

No Audit Findings

No Yes

DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE BROADBAND NETWORK

Achieve Planned Capital Build for Current Year 100%

NO

Average S ystem Take Rate >=56.5%

2019 Fx

2019 PROJECTED TARGET

>=56.5%

Q3 57.7% 2019 Fx - YES

2019 TARGET PROJECTED

2019 PROJECTED TARGETS

SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS

Zero R ecordable Incident R ate

Q 3 - 2.9 2019 Fx 3.0

MAINTAIN A STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION

E lectric S ystem Liquidity

>=$105 MM $209 MM

Consolidated R eturn On Net Assets

>= 3.8% 3.7%

Consolidated Debt To Plant R atio

<= 62% 59%

Consolidated Debt S ervice Coverage

> 1.80X 2.11X

PROVIDE LONG TERM LOW RATES

R etail Operating R atio – Adjusted

<= 113.0% 109%

"Peer Group of E xcellence" R ate Index R atio

<= 100.0 % N/A

District Credit R ating

>= AA 3

AA3

PROVIDE OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO OUR CUSTOMERS

Average S ystem Availability Index (AS AI)

>= 99.985% 99.967 %

Customer Average Interruption Index (CAIDI)

< 110 MIN 181.8 min

R etail Customer S atisfaction S urvey

>= 85% TBD Fall 2019

PR P Total Availability

12/12 mos 5/9 mos - Q3 6/ 12 mos - Fx

DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE BROADBAND NETWORK

Achieve Planned C apital Build for Current Year

100% NO

Average S ystem Take R ate

>= 56.5% Q3 57.7% 2019 Fx YES

OPERATE RESPONSIBLY

Financial S tatement Audit Performance

UNMODIFIED AUDIT OPINION

TBD 2020

WA S tate Audit Office Compliance Audit Performance

NO AUDIT FINDINGS

TBD Fall ‘19

FE R C / NE R C / WECC E lectric R eliability Compliance

NO AUDIT FINDINGS

NO

S afety, Health, Cultural R esource & Hazardous Material

ZERO VIOLATIONS

YES

Timeliness of All FE R C and R egulatory Filings

ZERO LATE FILINGS

YES

CT Site Audits Final Report Jacob Johnson

Background

CT Site Audits

• 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

Need

CT Site Audits

• 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.

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

CT Site Audits

$1,054,317 $756,464 $154,212 $910,676 $- $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000

Original AMP Contract Budget Labor Totals Tools and Equip Total CT Audit Cost

Savings and Spending

Project Metrics

CT Site Audits

$185,643.29 $109,669.14 $1,652,446.07 $- $200,000.00 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $800,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,800,000.00

2020 Increased Metering Revenue Customer Credits Incorrect Metering/Lost Revenue(Last 20 Yrs)

Kwh Revenue Metrics

Project Metrics

CT Site Audits

$40,367.29 $120,007.48 $- $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $60,000.00 $80,000.00 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $140,000.00

2020 HP REV increase Total HP Corrections

Installed Capacity Metrics(HP)

Project Metrics

CT Site Audits

3569 2192 132 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 3 Phase CT 1 Phase CT Site Needed Work

Meters Installed and 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. CT Site Audits

Powering our way of life.

Commission Brief 12/10/2019

GRANT PUD

Load Growth Project

Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study

Route Study Project Team

– District Staff and Owner’s Engineer

SCOTT TOMLINSON, CCM

VANIR Construction Management

STANLEY CONSULTANTS

POWER DELIVERY

On Call

JEFF GRIZZEL

Managing Director Project Sponsor

DAVID KLINKENBERG

Project Manager

BLAIR FUGLIE

Property Services

GREG CARDWELL

Construction Manager

RANDY KONO, PE

Transmission Engineer

SHEILA WALD

Project Coordinator

RUSS SEILER

Manager of Power Delivery Projects

Stanley Consultants

Owner’s Engineer

Segment Study – Red Rock 115 kV Transmission Line Route Study

SCOTT TOMLINSON, CCM

VANIR Construction Management

STANLEY CONSULTANTS

HDR CONSULTANTS Prime / Designer TOMMR CONSTRUCTION Civil

Study Criteria – Red Rock 115kV Transmission Line Route Study

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 ~

Powering our way of life.

Powering our way of life.

Corrective Action Program

What It Is?

The program is a set of policies, protocols and procedures which provide employees with a methodical and consistent approach to identify, analyze and resolve problems. The Corrective Action Program (CAP) provides the following:

• A system to track corrective actions (CA’s).
• Cause evaluation (CE) training.
• Tools to identify performance trends.

Policies Policies Protocols Protocols Procedures

Why Is It Needed?

The program is needed to provide Grant PUD with the tools to identify, resolve and prevent the following problems:

• Injury to employees and contractors
• Damage to equipment
• Impacts to the environment
• Recurrence of problems

What are the results?

Corrective Action Program

Streamline Processes Improve Customer Confidence

What It Is Not:

Mission / Vision Statements

GCPUD Corrective Action Program Mission Statement: To promote the efficient and reliable generation and delivery of energy through a structured and consistent application of a corrective action program. GCPUD Corrective Action Program Vision Statement: EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP To promote the efficient, reliable generation and delivery of energy through a structured and consistent application of a corrective action program. We continually seek a deeper understanding of our experiences to improve human performance and process performance, as we strive for zero incidents. Efficiently raising the standard for reliability and stewardship of our resources.