Power Production Quarterly Commission Update 4/9/19 Powering our - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Quarterly Commission Update 4/9/19

Powering our way of life.

Power Production

Department Purpose and Goal

Purpose: Provide safe, secure, economical, reliable and compliant power generation under the Priest Rapid Project Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License Project No. 2114 while supporting the Wanapum relationship. Goal: Execute the aforementioned tasks while championing a culture of safety and operational excellence with continuous focus on the guiding values of safety, innovation, service, teamwork, respect, integrity, and heritage.

Acronym List

• PP – Power Production
• HPI – Human Performance Improvement
• AWS – Attraction Water Supply
• LB – Left Bank
• RPIW – Rapid Process Improvement Workshop
• ODSP – Owners Dam Safety Program
• PRREIP – Priest Rapids Right Embankment Improvement

Project

• JHA – Job Hazard Analysis
• FOER – Forced Outage Event Report

2019 Q1 Review

• Safety Update
• PP Performance
• Budget Review
• ODSP Final Report Out
• Maximo Update/Electronic Timekeeping
• Q2 Forecast
• LEAN update

Safety Update

65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% January February March April May June July August September October November

2019 PP Safety Meeting Attendance

Safety Update

• LB AWS work
• 2 days to install
• No negative impact to

schedule

• Gained safety and

efficiencies

• No more man basket work

for activity and associated stoppages

Safety Update

Pressurized Equipment Perform Isolation – LOTO, Pipe Blinding, etc. Depressurize, drain, purge, and vent Relieve trapped pressure Anticipate residual pressure and fluids Avoid line of fire exposure Verify Pressure is Relieved Poor Lighting/Visibility - Indoor Provide alternative lighting Flashlight Head lamp Temporary Lighting Poor Lighting/Visibility - Outdoor Provide alternative lighting Wait or defer until visibility improves. Flashlight Head lamp Temporary Lighting Confined Space (Non-Permit Required) Review Confined Space Policy Discuss confined space entry safe work practices Conduct atmospheric testing (if required) Monitor access or entry (if required) Do not locate mobile engines near confined space Provide observer (if required) I.D. Communication Radio Emergency Contact Numbers Clearance Tags/LOTO Confirm equipment energy sources are isolated Flashlight Required PPE Head Lamp Cell Phone District Phone Emergency Contact Numbers Confined Space Permit Confirm Retrieval Equipment MSDS Review (if applicable) Confined Space Hazard Assessment Form Confined Space (Hazards eliminated and atmospheric mitigated) Review Confined Space Policy MSDS Review (if applicable) Discuss confined space entry safe work practices Conduct atmospheric testing Radio Required PPE

• Hazard and Precaution

Table

• Maximo Input ongoing
• Conversion of existing

JHA’s into Job Plans

• ~1600 job plans

PP Performance

60.00% 65.00% 70.00% 75.00% 80.00% 85.00% 90.00% January February March April May June July August September October November December

2019 Availability By Month

Priest Wanapum Project Target

PP Performance

0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30% 0.35% 0.40% 0.45% 0.50% January February March April May June July August September October November December

2019 PP Forced Outage Percentage

Priest Wanapum Project Target

PP Performance 2018 recap

2019 Budget and Actuals

Capital O&M

Budget $25,609,386 Directs $23,189,755 Actual $845,665 $1,374,665 Remain $24,763,731 $21,815,090 Budget $4,226,729 Labor $21,549,431 Actual $695,454 $3,104,455 Remain $3,531,275 $18,444,976 Budget $29,836,115 Total $44,739,186 Actual $1,541,119 $4,479,121 Remain

$28,295,006 $1,106,703

ODSP Final Report

• Multiple ODSP document updates recommended
• Program roles
• Definitions and acronyms
• List of references updated to include other documents
• Renaming of sections to add clarity
• FERC specific guidance versus what we had documented
• “Program so much better than document indicated”
• “Heads and tails above others than have seen/saw”
• “Well executed dam safety program just not reflected in ODSP”
• EAP document
• DSSMP
• Program roles
• Definitions and acronyms
• List of references updated to include other documents
• Renaming of sections to add clarity

Electronic Timekeeping

• Priest Rapids Electricians live 3/8
• Facilities live on 3/22
• Priest Rapids Mechanics live on 4/5
• All of PP hourly employees by end of June
• Work on ingestion of labor report from Maximo direct in Great Plains

Q2 Forecast

• Human Performance Trainings
• Plant Manager Hirings
• Lessons Learned

P08 GCB RCA WAN W-10 Isophase Explosion WAN Spillway Gate Left Open on Clearance PR DS Gantry Crane Wire Rope Grip PR Spooling wire on drum WAN DT Slip/Fall WAN Foot and Cart Injury WAN Wicket Gate Slip Trip and Falls WAN Oil Spill in DT from left open nose cone valve WAN Powerhouse Fire PR Airborne Lead Release PR US Gantry Crane Wire Rope Failure QC Penstock Painting Clearance- Final Version PR Rotor Inspection Contractor death PR GSU XMFR Fire

LEAN Update

Powering our way of life.

Grant PUD Commission Meeting – April 9, 2019

Grant PUD Lands & Recreation 2019 Q2 Business Report

Powering our way of life.

Departm rtmental Purp rpose a and Goal

• Purpose: Fulfill certain regulatory obligations under the District’s

FERC license, provide real estate support services for the District, and manage the District’s geographic information system (GIS) program.

• Goal: Execute the aforementioned tasks and services in light of the

District’s Strategic Plan objectives related to maintaining a strong financial position, providing long-term low rates, providing excellent customer service, and attaining environmental compliance.

Q1 B 1 Business R ss Revi view

• Safety
• Non-recordable incidents = 0
• Recordable incidents = 0
• Safety meeting attendance = 100%
• Regulatory Review
• FERC filings by Grant PUD = 0
• Submitted on time = N/A
• FERC approvals/orders = 1
• Summary/listing of major filings:
• FERC approval of the Recreation Resources Management Plan

2019 2019 Q Q1 1 Review

• Projects & Work Activities
• SMP consultation and Commission approval
• Commission approval - Central Washington Management Group 3-year contract
• Recruitment for LRM Workers and Aides, LR Tech, Lands Specialist positions
• Campground reservation system overhaul – live March 25!
• Columbia Cliffs Land Use Application and Public Recreation Development Plan
• Crescent Bar Well 1B drilling
• Complete engineering turnover packages for CB water/wastewater systems
• Continued encroachment removal/prep for vegetation management activities
• Continued real estate, vegetation management, and GIS support

2019 2019 Q Q2 2 Forecast

• Safety Goals
• Non-recordable incidents = 0
• Recordable incidents = 0
• Safety meeting attendance =

100%

• Full review of JHAs
• Crew training
• Regulatory Outlook
• Anticipated FERC filings = 3
• Anticipated FERC approvals = 0
• Any regulatory threats or risks =

none known/anticipated

2019 2019 Q Q2 2 Forecast

• Projects & Work Activities
• Shoreline Management Plan submittal to FERC
• Onboard/train LRM Workers and Aides, LRM Visitors Center support position
• Prep for recreation season external stakeholder meeting
• Recruit Lands Specialist position, determine coverage for Vanessa’s tasks
• Manage Crescent Bar bio-swales and Teal Rd. crosswalk projects
• Go live with new campground reservation system
• Complete Columbia Cliffs PRDP and Encroachment Removal Plan
• Continued encroachment removal and restoration Project-wide
• Continued real estate, vegetation management, and GIS support

2019 2019 Q Q2 2 Forecast

• Potential Management Challenges
• Vantage Recreation Area
• Denial of land-use applications that lack public access
• Potential Efficiency Opportunities
• Succession planning
• Crew support for multiple areas of recreation and shoreline

responsibilities - rec site O&M, vegetation management, encroachment removals

YTD budget-to-actuals (through Feb. 28)

2018 Budget Actuals as of 2/28/2019 Budget Remaining % of Budget Spent Q4 YEP % Budget to YEP CAP $37,500 $129,498 ($91,998) 345.33% $825,080 2200.21% O&M $1,321,606 ($21,435) $1,343,041

• 1.62%

$1,846,015 139.68% Labor $1,136,019 $138,810 $997,209 12.22% $1,136,109 100.01% TOTAL $2,495,125 $246,873 $2,248,252 9.89% $3,807,204 152.59%

Questions?

GCPUD Enterprise Risk

Q2 2019 Update

Agenda

• Current Business
• Strategic Market Risk
• District Wide Risk

Assessment

• Work plan – Schedule

Adjustments

GCPUD ERM: Current Business

• 2019

Budget

KEY DETAILS The Risk Department budget is dominated by insurance premiums.

GCPUD ERM: Current Business

• Completion of Insurance brokerage RFP
• Under budget
• National firms
• Preparation of CESS Claim
• 2-year cross-disciplinary effort
• Strategy recommendation

KEY DETAILS Completion of overhanging work and reorientation of loss control and other programs.

Strategic Market Risk

California Power Demand: California Imports

KEY DETAILS 2010 data, in millions of MWH. California imported a quarter of its needs at publication. Graph source: https://www.realclearenergy.org/charticles/2012/01/30/california_must_import_one-quarter_of_its_electricity.html

• Power generally flows

north to south, east to west

• Canadian entitlement
• California import

demand is a prime mover for western power prices.

California Power Demand: Supply Dynamics

KEY DETAILS Hypothetical regional supply stack; the greater the energy demanded from the market, the higher the clearing price. Graph source: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7590

California Power Demand: 2007 CAISO Load

KEY DETAILS Regular climb to a broad, wide peak – supports higher HLH prices. Graphic Source: https://www.caiso.com/Documents/2007AnnualReportonMarketIssuesandPerformance.pdf

California Power Demand: 2007 CAISO Load

KEY DETAILS Regular climb to a broad, wide peak – supports higher HLH prices. Graphic Source: https://www.caiso.com/Documents/2007AnnualReportonMarketIssuesandPerformance.pdf

HLH Hours

California Power Demand: Load Dynamics

KEY DETAILS This load data includes DG (behind-the-meter) solar installations.

California Power Demand: Load Dynamics

KEY DETAILS This load data includes DG (behind-the-meter) solar installations.

California Power Demand: Load Dynamics

KEY DETAILS This load data includes DG (behind-the-meter) solar installations.

California Power Demand: Load Dynamics

KEY DETAILS This load data includes DG (behind-the-meter) solar installations.

California Power: Renewable Generation

KEY DETAILS This data represents solar, wind, and other wholesale renewable plants within California.

California Power: Renewable Generation

KEY DETAILS This data represents solar, wind, and other wholesale renewable plants within California.

Wind

California Power: Renewable Generation

KEY DETAILS This data represents solar, wind, and other wholesale renewable plants within California.

Wind Solar

California Power Demand: Imports

KEY DETAILS Imports are a function of the net load minus the wholesale renewable generation.

California Power Demand: Imports

KEY DETAILS Imports are a function of the net load minus the wholesale renewable generation.

California Power Demand: Imports

KEY DETAILS Energy Efficiency, DG and Wholesale solar within California are causing bulk imports to ebb, placing pressure on western HLH bulk power prices.

• California added

3-4mm people between 2007 and 2018

• >15% Increase in

GDP

• Energy Efficiency
• Seattle and

Portland reducing load and demand growth

District-Wide Risks

GCPUD Risk Profile

Enterprise Dashboard

• All Functional

Areas

• A key goal is to

inform the decision- making with boots-

• n-the-ground risk

information

• Warmer colors

prone to move

QUADRANT ANALYSIS The center of the grid is a $100,000 impact and 50% likelihood.

GCPUD Risk Profile

Enterprise Dashboard

• Functional Areas
• Warmer colors

prone to move

QUADRANT ANALYSIS The center of the grid is a $100,000 impact and 50% likelihood.

Danger Zone

GCPUD Risk Assessment

Data Gathering

• Risks are

actually causes

• 321 risks offered
• 319 chosen

across 54 functional areas

RISK CATALOG We tailored the list of risks for GCPUD through management interviews and industry-specific data supplied by Logic Manager.

GCPUD Risk Assessment

Data Gathering

• Risks are

actually causes

• 321 risks offered
• 319 chosen

across 54 functional areas

RISK CATALOG We tailored the list of risks for GCPUD through management interviews and industry-specific data supplied by Logic Manager.

GCPUD Risk Assessment

Data Gathering

• Risks are

actually causes

• 321 risks offered
• 303 chosen

across 54 functional areas

RISK CATALOG We tailored the list of risks for GCPUD through management interviews and industry-specific data supplied by Logic Manager.

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Data*

Annual Contributory Risk: $10MM Average Assurance: 6 Functional Areas: Forecasting/Planning, Bond Compliance, Accounting, Audit, HR, PMO, Records, IT, Distribution Automation, Origination/Contract Management Mitigation Requests: Data Warehouse/Lake, further leverage existing systems, broaden access, improve data culture/discipline through training

KEY DETAILS Information Silos, Lack of a Single Source System, Multiple Sources of “Truth”, Inability to Organize/Integrate Data, Lack of Historical Data

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Lack of IT Automation/Integration

Annual Contributory Risk: $8MM Average Assurance: 6 Functional Areas: All PMO, Electric Shop, HR Compensation/Benefits, Transportation, Procurement, Records, IT Mitigation Requests: Better leverage existing systems, better define what a ‘complete’ IT implementation will do for the team.

KEY DETAILS Obsolescence/lagging behind market, Integration difficulties, Lack of adequate automation, Cybersecurity

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Staffing*

Annual Contributory Risk: $7MM Average Assurance: 6 Functional Areas: Forecasting/Planning, Accounting, Network Operations, Priest Rapids, Power Production Maintenance, Electric Shop, Security Mitigation Requests: Improve automation/data management, cultivate analysis of situations rather than processing through hiring and development

KEY DETAILS Loss of institutional knowledge through attrition (+), Lack of trained backup individuals, Market salaries increasing faster than revenues, Declining employee morale, Overworked staff

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Unreliable Equipment

Annual Contributory Risk: $6MM Average Assurance: 6 Functional Areas: Electric Shop, Wanapum Operations, Priest Rapids Operations, Security, Transportation, Facilities, Distribution Automation Mitigation Requests: Continue reinvestment and better

• rganization of asset management and maintenance.

KEY DETAILS Age and condition – increases noted in Facilities and Distribution

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Business Continuity/Recovery

Annual Contributory Risk: $6MM Average Assurance: 6 Functional Areas: Distribution Automation, IT Network Operations, IT Systems & Programming, Transportation, Facilities, Telecom Engineering Mitigation Requests: Create plan with hierarchies of need and function so all participants are aligned. Consider exercises or stress tests.

KEY DETAILS Lack of planning, Cyberattack Risk, Seismic Risk, Terrorism threat. Changes noted in Security and IT.

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Retail Market Pressure

Annual Contributory Risk: $6MM Average Assurance: 5 Functional Areas: Forecasting/Planning, Power Delivery PMO, Large Customer Care, Origination, Retail Product Development Mitigation Requests: communicate company and customers’ respective positions better to key areas, trigger “Good Profit” culture

KEY DETAILS Customer needs are not understood and prioritized, Stakeholders unwilling to compromise, Competitive retail markets/customer migration

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Lack of Cooperation**

Annual Contributory Risk : $9MM Average Assurance: 5 Functional Areas: Project Management, Procurement, Transportation, Safety, Facilities, Electric Shop, Audit, Forecasting Planning/Analysis Mitigation Requests: Clarify functional area alignment with central ownership of corporate roles, Foster inter- unit cooperation and documentation.

KEY DETAILS Conflicting priorities or agendas, Ineffective Coordination, Scheduling rigidity, Plans not socialized across disciplines ahead of time, Users not involved in establishing priorities. Improvements in Finance, Safety, Meter Reading.

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Analysis Decision Support Errors*

Annual Contributory Risk: $5MM Average Assurance: 5 Functional Areas: Safety, Telecom Engineering, Accounting, Forecasting/Planning, Records, all PMO Mitigation Requests: Increase delegation of decision making and ownership, Foster culture of analysis rather than processing alone, solve data problems

KEY DETAILS Inadequate forecasting and budgeting, Inappropriate use of leading/lagging indicators, Lack of due diligence, Ineffective risk identification, Inadequate Correction for Deficiencies. Moved on improved assurance in financial functions.

GCPUD ERM: Company-Wide Risks

Regulatory Risks

Annual Contributory Risk: $6MM Average Assurance: 4 Functional Areas: Priest Rapids Operations, Power Production Maintenance, Regulatory Affairs, IT Network Operations, Bond Compliance, Audit, Origination Mitigation Requests: proactively engage governmental stakeholders, make realistic promises, steep understanding of the positions through more key areas

KEY DETAILS New and more expensive NERC/FERC regulatory requirements, new WA state requirements, changing political environment

Work Plans

Work Plan

PROGRESS Demonstrate measurable accomplishment of goals with demonstrable value to the District.

• By end of 2019:Q1
• 2018 Major risk analysis
• By end of 2019:Q2
• Risk - Middle Office functional framework
• By end of 2019:Q3
• Task-based ERM Platform
• By end of 2019
• Integration report – Audit, Capital activity

Thank you.

Devon Williams Risk Manager Dwilliams@gcpud.org 509.754.6604

grantpud.org

2018 Audit Results

April 9, 2019

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 2

Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, Washington

Board of Commissioners

Dear Commissioners: Thank you for your engagement of Moss Adams LLP. We are pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you to discuss the results of our audit of the financial statements of the District as of and for the year ended December 31, 2018. The accompanying presentation, which is intended solely for the use

• f the Board of Commissioners and Management, and not intended to

be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties, presents important information regarding the District’s financial statements and our audit that we believe will be of interest to you. We conducted our audit with the objectivity and independence that you expect. We received the full support and assistance of District

• personnel. We are pleased to serve and be associated with the

District as its independent public accountants and look forward to our continued relationship.

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 3

• 1. Audit Reports Issued
• 2. Areas of Audit Emphasis
• 3. Matters Required to be Communicated
• 4. Upcoming Accounting Pronouncements
• 5. Acknowledgements and Other Information

Agenda

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 4

Audit Reports Issued

• Unmodified opinions on financial statements of Grant County Public

Utility District, which are presented fairly and in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles

• Audit and report on internal control and compliance over financial

reporting in accordance with Governm ent Auditing Standards

• No material weaknesses noted
• No significant deficiencies identified
• No compliance findings noted

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 5

Areas of Audit Emphasis

• Capital assets & Construction in Process
• Consideration of capitalization policies and potential impairment, as well as

testing of additions, retirements, overhead application, capitalized interest and depreciation

• Bond Activity
• Tests of revenue and refunding bonds, debt repayments, discounts and

premiums, capitalized interest, and compliance with covenants

• Third-party confirmations with financial institutions
• Power Sales Transactions
• Tests of sales to power purchasers, including via third party confirmations
• Tests of wholesale power transactions to Shell Energy North America (U.S.), L.P.

and Avangrid Renewables, Inc

• Review of cash receipts and timing of revenue recognition

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 6

Areas of Audit Emphasis (continued)

• Retail Energy Sales
• Vouching of cash receipts and timing of revenue recognition
• Third-party confirmations with largest commercial power purchasers
• Net Position Classification
• Tests of classification of net investment in capital assets, restricted and

unrestricted

• Inform ation Technology (IT) General Com puter Controls
• Our IT specialists tested the IT applications and IT general computer controls that

support the various financial reporting systems

• Financial Statem ent Footnote Disclosures
• Review of the footnote disclosures for completeness and accuracy in accordance

with authoritative disclosure checklists and our knowledge of industry best practices

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 7

Communications with Those Charged with Governance

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 8

Our Responsibility Under U.S. Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards

To express our opinion on whether the financial statements prepared by management with your

• versight are fairly presented, in all material

respects, and in accordance with U.S. GAAP. However, our audit does not relieve you or management of your responsibilities. To consider internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on its effectiveness or to provide assurance concerning such internal control. To perform an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards issued by the AICPA and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and design the audit to obtain reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. To communicate findings that, in our judgment, are relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.

1 2 3 4

8

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD

• Our audit was performed according to the planned scope
• Significant accounting policies are summarized in Note 1 to the financial

statements

• There were no changes to significant accounting policies for the year ended

December 31, 2018

• Implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement
• No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other

Than Pensions

• No difficulties were encountered during the performance of our audit
• Financial statement disclosures were consistent, clear and understandable
• During the audit, there were no adjusting journal entries proposed or posted

Required Communications

9

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD

• Potential Effect on the Financial Statements of Significant Risks, Exposures &

Uncertainties

• The District is subject to potential legal proceedings and claims that arise in the
• rdinary course of business, which are disclosed in the notes to the financial

statements in Note 10

• There were no disagreements with management
• Weekly meetings were held between Moss Adams and District management and

staff throughout the audit term

• Ability to continue as a going concern (no disclosure deemed necessary)
• Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit
• We are not aware of any instances of fraud or noncompliance with laws and

regulations.

• Moss Adams is independent with respect to the District

Required Communications (continued)

10

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD

Upcoming Accounting Pronouncements

11

• Addresses accounting and financial reporting for certain asset

retirement obligations.

• Effective for 2019 financial statements

GASB 83 – Asset Retirement Obligations

• Addresses accounting and financial reporting for leases

recognizing that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset.

• Effective for 2020 financial statements

GASB 87 - Leases

• The audit progressed on time and in an orderly

fashion; requested schedules and draft financial statements were received on a timely basis.

• All District personnel across all departments were

courteous, responsive, and fulfilled all of our requests in a timely manner.

• ‘Tone at the Top’ and attitude from management was
• ne of helpfulness and openness in response to audit

requests and discussion points.

Thank you!

Acknowledgements

12

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD

Better Together: Moss Adam s & GCPUD 13

Contact Us

Reliability Compliance Program

2019 – 2020

Gene Austin Compliance Manager April 09, 2019

Overview

• RC Program Assessment
• How we Manage Risk Today
• Risk-Based Reliability Initiative
• How we Manage Risk Tomorrow
• Budget to Actual

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

2

RC Program Assessment

• Review of Policy, & Program Documentation
• Interviews with Staff, Management, Owners, SMEs
• 98% strong culture of compliance
• Registrations – WECC, NERC, Peak-RC
• Organizational Structure
• EHQ – RnC, Engineering, IT, ServiceDesk, Internal Audit
• Power Production
• Power Delivery
• NERC Reliability Programs beyond Standards

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

3

How w we e Manage R Risk T Tod

• day
• Strict Compliance Audit Approach
• 100% Review of documentation & Evidence

~650 Level 1 Requirements (~ 1,300 Total Reqmts)

• Detailed Review of 23 Self-Certification Requirements
• 80/20 Initial Review of Balance – 1st Review
• Detailed Review of Balance – 2nd Review on-going
• 5 Self-Reported PNC’s – Open Enforcement Actions

(2) new (1) Q4-2018 (2) 2017 Audit

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

4

Ri Risk-Based ed Ap Approa

• ach

ch t to Reliability ty

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

5

How w we e Manage R Risk T Tom

• morrow
• 2019 – Work Plan, Reliability Compliance
• Risk-Based Internal Compliance Program
• Policies, Tools, Train, Tech. Forums, Streamline & Simplify
• Ancillary District Programs to Reliability Compliance
• Internal Controls, Root Cause Analysis
• Close OEAs; Audit Recommendations
• 2020 - Audit Readiness
• Inherent Risk Assessment
• WECC ‘ICE’ Review
• Consistency in Documentation & Evidence
• Zero Findings of Non-Compliance – Audit and beyond

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

5

2019 Budget and Actual 3/21/2019

$998,314 $550,448 $83,600 $333,766 $30,500 $78,537 $0 $10,402 $67,410 $725 Total CAP O&M Labor Travel and Training

April 09, 2019

Reliability Compliance Program

6