Safety Report July 2019 Incidents Reported Date Injury - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Safety Report July 2019

Incidents Reported

Date Injury Description: Causes: Prevention: 6-3-19 Cut mop handle slipped out of rubber portion and metal part slid out causing a deep cut to the right hand palm between thumb and pointer finger. Condition of equipment New mops without moving parts on handle. Wear gloves. 6-5-19 Burn While heating copper pipe to temp, employee reached across hot copper pipe and his forearm made contact with the pipe resulting in a 2nd degree burn. Lack of PPE Wear leathers or long sleeves when soldering or doing hot work.

Monthly and Year to Date

2018 June YTD Total Incidents Reported 2 20 Recordable Case(s) 5 Restricted Duty Case(s) 2 Lost Workday Case(s) 3

Vehicle Incidents

Date Vehicle Driver’s Account: Prevention

6-3-15 T-156 ​Warehousemen was rotating stock, The forks on the forklift stuck through further than he thought, and caught the next transformer, causing it to tip over. Use a spotter or get off and check forks for clearance before lifting. 6-5-19 399 ​Tailgate was not secured and tool bag slid out the back of the truck while leaving the jobsite Perform 360 walkaround ensuring everything is closed up and secured. 6-19-19 428 ​428 Wind blew door open and scratched side of door. Use caution when opening doors in windy conditions 6-19-19 429 Vehicle 429 was stopped at stop sign when a semi truck was turning

• left. Semi undercut corner and came in contact with left front of

vehicle with semi trailer tires. Driver attempted to back up but couldn't do so safely fast enough. N/A 6-24-19 380 Boomed down over the cab of vehicle to hand down a power tool and the boom lowered into the cab causing two parallel dents to the cab above the driver side door. Utilize another method for handing down tools or back into alley to prevent booming over the cab.

Investigations

Release Date Description Contact

Final Voith Lead Work Tyler O'Brion Draft Voith Turbine Lift Craig, Aaron, Stuart July Voith Top-Hat Incident Craig Bressan Final Royal City Flash Event Craig Bressan Final North Sky Communications Crescent Bare Power Strike RJ Fronsman TBD Blast Operation Lead Incident Tyler O’Brion

• For more information contact the Safety Coordinator assigned to the investigation

Voith Lead Incident Investigation

Two Grant PUD employees approached two Voith contractors using a grinding wheel to remove lead containing paint on the link arms. The GCPUD employees stopped the work in response to their concerns of improper PPE and containment. PUD Safety was notified; the area was barricaded with red tape. Voith employees cleaned the 4th floor lunch room and access ways to work locations. Hancock abatement cleanup crews were contacted to conduct additional clean up the following day at the demarcated work locations and took area air (bulk) and surface wipe samples. PUD hazmat was notified and set up boot wash stations at two locations inside the plant. Employee notifications were sent to all PRD employees and posted on the safety board as a reminder of the precautions and hygiene practices to be observed when dealing with Lead. Root Cause

• 1. Deficiency in hazard communication

According to the initial report and the interviews the contractor was aware the paint contained lead and indicated that they have been doing this type of work for three plus years. PUD contract language states that the PUD representative is responsible to provide hazard assessments to the contractor for the work being performed. As it relates to lead paint, the PUD project manager had communicated verbally to contractor management that “all paint in the powerhouse should be assumed lead containing”, yet nothing had been documented. All of the contract employees interviewed reported that they had previously asked representatives of Voith Management if the paint contained lead, yet the response received “assume it does”, had been loosely applied in abatement practice.

• 2. Deficiency in PPE and Containment
• 3. Deficiency in training and documentation

Voith personnel were not trained to abate lead paint at this work location. There are inconsistent approaches with Voith procedures and how the abatement of lead paint is occurring on a day-by-day basis.

Voith Lead Incident Investigation

Corrective Actions

• 1. Develop an incident response process for these types of events in the future. Drafted
• 2. Ensure all PUD contract management personnel receive lead worker/ supervisor training annually. Inprogress
• 3. Provide enhanced Lead Awareness training to all PUD affected workers. Purchased/ awaiting rollout
• 4. Retrain Voith Contractors on lead awareness. Completed

North Sky Fiber Power Strike Investigation

On Monday May 20 approximately 1:20pm Fiber installation crews North Sky hit an unallocated primary phase while digging a trench for new fiber optic cables in the Trinidad Crescent Bar Area. Grant PUD is responsible to locate all underground utilities for NSC and had missed a primary phase that was struck during the plowing operation. According to North Sky employees there was only one power and phone locate running back to the pump house for 10045 Fine Wine Rd. North sky crews took all precautionary actions as they hand dug near exposed power and phone lines that were located. NSC crews exposed the power and phone located and about 3.ft+ off locate was the primary they hit while trying to plow in the new fiber. Root Cause

• 1. Grant PUD locater only mark one power feed as this is a busy time for them. The job locates where missed because of the work load.
• 2. Proper procedures missed while performing duties to locate underground utilities. Tuff book or field book maps of utilities buried were not use in the

process of locating the power. Corrective Actions 1. Grant PUD will dedicate locators to only perform locate jobs at this time. Other employees will be assigned to cover the TR’s and other field work that usually get assigned to locators. 2. Contractors will be supplied with information on where underground utilities are buried and before starting work in area to dig. All parties involved will have a meeting to discuss where utilities are buried and located on each work site. 3. Before digging always make sure locates are accurate and completed. If any questions about locates stop and reevaluate the situation.

Close Calls

Date Location Description

6-4-19 PRD Contractor employees observed not utilizing fall protection correctly. A single lanyard was being disconnected to be relocated. Employees were advised to utilize dual lanyards for 100% tie-off. 6-4-19 PRD ​Improper use of the lifting and hanging tags section of the Hydro Switching and Clearance Tagout

• System. Contractors were working in an area that had not yet been fully restored to a safe working condition.

6-5-19 ESC Using large shop stationary belt sander, was done with work and when they flipped the power switch to the off position it shocked them. Employee unplugged unit and noticed switch was loose in housing, put out of service sign on unit. 6-11-19 PRD ​Genie tele-handler tire rubbed electric panel box when employee was leaving work area. Employee did not notice Genie was in four-way steer and when turning the outside of tire hit electrical box cover. 6-11-19 PRD ​Employee grabbed a grinder out of the welding truck toolbox and noticed there was no guard on it. Employee could not find a guard anywhere in the tool box. The grinder was not used and it was turned into the Tool Man to get a new replacement guard put on it. 6-11-19 PRD During maintenance on Bridge Crane #1 a clearance was hung to isolate power from the motor being worked

• n. During the process of verifying the electrically safe working condition in accordance with the ESP policy, it

was identified that the over temp devices were still live.

Close Calls

Date Location Description

6-12-19 Quincy In the process of switching, we were ordered by dispatch to open WT-47 gang operated air switch, breaking loop between B-7 and WT-6 breakers. When the switch opened it did not function as intended resulting in an arc blast originating on center phase. All safety protocols were followed for this type of task, as well as a visual inspection of the switch prior to operating was conducted. Incident was reported at the ESC safety meeting on the day of incident. 6-17-19 EHQ Employee sat in chair and the back of the chair broke. Employee was not injured. Facilities was contacted regarding the broken chair and need for replacement.​ 6-18-19 Highway 243 ​Driving from HOB to Priest Rapids in wind storm and the front air dam on Truck 355 blew off of the front end of

• truck. No other damage was noted.

6-19-19 Airport St. Ephrata ​While driving toward Ephrata on Airport Street S, an on-coming vehicle in the other lane kicked up a small rock that struck and cracked the windshield of car No. 467. There was not nothing that could have been done to make this incident avoidable. 6-20-19 PRD The foot latch on the east side of the PR right bank gate was broken. While driving through the gate the wind caught the gate and began to swing it closed toward vehicle. I put the car in park, got out and caught the gate before it contacted the District vehicle. 6-26-19 EHQ ​I was carrying a plastic tote when the handle broke off and the contents fell out and almost hit my feet. We moved the contents to a canvas tote bag so it wouldn't happen again.

Level 1 – Serious Close Call Level 2 – First Aid Case(s) Level 4 –Restricted Duty Case(s) Level 5 – Lost Work Day Case(s) Level 6 – Fatality or Hospitalization

38 5 7 5 2 3

Injury/Illness INCIDENT RATES (0.0 is the Ultimate Goal!) 2018 (Year End) 2019

12 mo. Rolling AVG*

Total OSHA Recordable Case (Levels 3,4,5) Rate 2.8 2.6* Lost Time Case (Levels 4&5) Rate 1.2 1.0

Employee Safety

2019 incidents Year to Date Summary - June

2019

2018

41 10 41 4 4 11

10

Recordable Cases TTL.

19

Recordable Cases TTL.

Leading & Lagging Indicators

43 65 52 55 71 50 36 45 81 82 64 50

Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Jobsite Reviews Conducted

94% 97% 96% 93% 96% 94% 97% 96% 96% 97% 98% 92%

Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Safety Meeting Attendance

3.4 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.6

Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19

Recordable Injury Rate

12 Month Rolling – Recordable Injury Rate 2018 vs. 2019

4.1 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.2 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.6

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 12 Month Rolling - Recordable Injury Rate - 2018 vs. 2019

2018 2019 Linear (2018)

Safety Policy Status:

Completed Policies Since Oct. 2018

SA-APP-001 Accident Prevention Program SA010109-POL Personal Protective Equipment SA111103-POL Confined/Enclosed Space SA111104-POL Substation Entry SA121204-POL Minimum Approach Distance SA121213-POL Hot Work A1 SA111101-POL Lead Exposure Program SA000002-POL Agency Inspections SA111111-POL Forklifts and PITs SA000015-POL Departmental Safety Meetings SA121213-POL Hot Work A0 SA000003-POL Heat Stress

* Request from Commissioners to see more details on completed policies vs. policies in process or awaiting review. Document # Title Comments

SA111108-POL Fall Protection Program

Permission to move on without further comments from Ty Ehrman. Review completed 4-24-19. Will be released when training is complete.

SA-11107-POL Trenching and Excavation

Permission to move on without further comments from Ty Ehrman. Review completed 4-24-19. Will be released when training is complete.

Safety Policies Under Review:

Policies Under Review

Area Leads Start Date

Comments

SA000016-POL Safety Committees MSC Will Identify TBD SA000005-POL Reporting Injuries MSC Will Identify TBD SA010101-POL Fire Prevention Program MSC Will Identify TBD SA020206-POL Evacuating A Grant PUD Facility MSC Will Identify TBD SA111102-POL Hazard Communications MSC Will Identify TBD SA111100-POL Handling & Use of Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) MSC Will Identify TBD SA111111-POL Flame Resistant and Arc Rated Clothing MSC Will Identify TBD SA121200-POL Using Tape/Rope/Signage as a Safety Barricade MSC Will Identify TBD SA111123-POL Crane, Derrick, Hoist ITI 5/6/19 Under 3rd party Review SA111112-POL Hearing Conservation Program elecTrain 4/1/19 Under 3rd party Review SA111101-POL Asbestos Program elecTrain TBD Under 3rd party Review SA111120-POL Respiratory Protection Program elecTrain 5/24/19 Under 3rd party Review SA111114-POL Lead Exposure Control Program elecTrain 5/24/19 Under 3rd party Review

Powering our way of life.

Thank You

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 1: United States Electricity Generation

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 2: United States Residential Electricity Use

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 3: Washington Electricity Use

3300 3800 4300 4800 5300 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Million kWh Year

Graph 4: Grant PUD Total Electricity Use

Table 1: Quarter 2 in Summary 2019 Q2

Load Budget Load (MWh) 1,282,721 Actual Load (MWh) 1,183,065 Load Variance (MWh) (131,837) Load Variance %

• 10.3%

Revenue Budget Retail Revenue $50,463,128 Actual Retail Revenue $48,541,189 Retail Revenue Variance ($3,074,017) Retail Revenue Variance %

• 6.1%

July 23, 2019

TO: Kevin Nordt, General Manager VIA: Dave Churchman, Chief Customer Officer FROM: Clark Kaml, Sr. Manager Rates & Pricing Shaun Harrington, Data Analyst Bob Brill, Economist SUBJECT: 2019 Q2 Retail Load and Revenue Variance Purpose: To review the 2019 Q2 variance of actual retail load and revenue from the budgeted retail load and revenue. Background: This memo discusses the variance for the retail load and revenue and estimates the impact to wholesale revenue resulting from the variance in retail sales. Macroeconomic Conditions: The previous quarterly report introduced econometric modeling in an effort to provide more precise explanations of how economic and weather conditions varied from expectations and how those variances impacted electricity use. This report introduces a discussion about macroeconomics in the industry and the implications for Grant PUD. A country's economy and its energy use, particularly electricity use, are linked. Short-term changes in electricity use are often positively correlated with changes in economic output (measured by gross domestic product (GDP)). However, the underlying long-term trends in the two indicators may differ. All else equal, a growing economy leads to greater energy and electricity use. The characteristics of Grant PUD are somewhat different than those of the United States electric industry as a whole. As a result, some of the active discussions in the industry are not directly applicable to Grant PUD, but it is necessary to first consider these discussions in context of the industry as a whole. A graph of the total electricity generated in the United States demonstrates that total generation grew at a fairly consistent rate, averaging around 4.5 percent, for more than 50 years. Since 2007, total load in the U.S. has been fairly stable. The change in electric load growth is reflection of several changes including the configuration of U.S. economy and technological changes.

1

A similar pattern is seen in the total residential use in the United States (Graph 2): This pattern is not repeated in either total usage in the state of Washington or Grant PUD. Graph 3 demonstrates the electricity consumption in Washington has been fairly stable for the last 17 years. This is in spite of the fact that the population of the state has grown from 5.9 million in 2000 to 7.4 million in 2018.

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 1: United States Electricity Generation

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 2: United States Residential Electricity Use

2

The growth rate in Grant PUD’s total electricity use (Graph 4) diverges from recent national and state

• trends. This usage has been increasing, with a total increase of approximately 25 percent in the last

eight years. The graphs demonstrate that Grant PUD’s situation and the decisions facing the Commission differ from those on the national and state level on a fundamental basis. Some of the national issues currently being discussed in the industry are:

• Low load growth and a need to focus primarily on asset utilization and reliability to sustain

margins.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Billion kWh Year

Graph 3: Washington Electricity Use

3300 3800 4300 4800 5300 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Million kWh Year

Graph 4: Grant PUD Total Electricity Use

3

• Technological and competitive forces requiring electric power companies to:
• Consider new service offerings for sophisticated customers expecting high-tech digital

information.

• Improve operational efficiencies and new business models.
• A shift toward distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar (for residential, commercial,

and industrial customers), solar farms, battery storage, electric vehicles, and smart houses and appliances.

• Displacement of coal-fired generation, growth in natural gas, and growth in wind and solar

generation.

• Whether actions at the federal or state level might support generation assets under economic

stress such as coal-fired and nuclear facilities.

• Whether to reduce market exposure by focusing on regulated utility operations.

Rate and service offerings are being explored within the industry in response to factors discussed

• above. Many of these differ from the issues facing Grant PUD, and may not be immediately applicable

to the local conditions. The result is a need to consider policy decisions that address local needs while considering the industry as a whole. Summary:

• Retail Load
• Variance of (131,837) MWh was 10.3% below the projected load in Q2.
• Residential (down 12%), Irrigation (down 33%), and Ag Food Processors (down 11%)

accounted for much of the decreased load.

• Retail Revenue
• Variance of ($3,074,017) was 6.1% below the budgeted retail revenue for Q2.

Table 1: Quarter 2 in Summary 2019 Q2

Load Budget Load (MWh) 1,282,721 Actual Load (MWh) 1,183,065 Load Variance (MWh) (131,837) Load Variance %

• 10.3%

Revenue Budget Retail Revenue $50,463,128 Actual Retail Revenue $48,541,189 Retail Revenue Variance ($3,074,017) Retail Revenue Variance %

• 6.1%

4

Description:

• The 2019 Q2 budget figures for the retail load and revenue forecast included an expected 2%

retail revenue increase for 2019 beginning on April 1, 2019.

• The 2019 Q2 Actual figures are billed data.
• Retail Load
• 2019 Q2: Budget, Actual, and Variance in retail load (Table A)
• Residential (down 19,688 MWh), Commercial (down 5,911 MWh), Irrigation

(down 75,546 MWh), Street Lights (down 161 MWh), Large General (down 27,865 MWh), Industrial (down 3,023 MWh), Large Industrial (down 14,672 MWh), and Ag Food Processors (down 10,036 MWh) had loads less than expected.

• New Large Load (up 25,065 MWh) had loads greater than expected.
• Retail Revenue
• 2019 Q2: Budget, Actual, and Variance in retail revenue (Table B)
• Residential (down $743,844), Commercial (down $124,702), Irrigation (down

$1,980,322), Street Lights (down $20,852), Large Commercial (down $746,838), Large Industrial (down $412,929), and Ag Food Processors (down $96,309) had revenues less than expected.

• New Large Load (up $859,625) and Industrial (up $188,507) had revenues

greater than expected.

• Rate 17 generated $1,152,079 in revenue.

Analysis: This discussion will detail the reasons for the variances in both the retail load and revenue. See Tables A (load) and B (revenues) in the Appendix for tabulated data.

• Retail Load Variance
• Residential (1), Commercial (2), & Irrigation (3)
• Irrigation deviation accounts for 57% of the total system deviation.
• Lower than average humidity and less than normal Cooling Degree Days and

Heating Degree Days caused a lower than expected load.

• The average humidity of May and June were 6% and 9% less than a

typical year.

• April and June were fairly typical. However, in May, Cooling and Heating

Degree Days were 18% and 22% lower than a typical May.

• Our current modeling suggests an impact of a reduction equal to

1,885 MWh from the Residential rate class, 246 MWh reduction from the Commercial rate class, and a 5,019 MWh reduction from the Irrigation class.

• Large Commercial (7)
• Most cryptocurrency operations were under Rate Schedule 7 which moved to

Rate Schedule 17 starting in April.

• By including cryptocurrency mining in Large Commercial, Rate 7 load

would have been 4.8% higher than forecast. (See table below)

5

2019 Q2 Budget Load (MWh) 2019 Q2 Actual Load (MWh) 2019 Q2 Load Variance (MWh) 2019 Q2 Load Variance % Large General (7) 90,587 62,721 (27,865)

• 30.8%

Evolving Industry (17) 32,181 N/A N/A Combined 90,587 94,902 4,316 4.8%

• Large Industrial (15)
• Most of the deviation from the forecasted values resulted from one customer
• perating lower than their own projection.
• The customer indicated that decreased domestic demand for their

product has resulted in a build-up of inventory.

• Rate Schedule 94 (New Large Load) was 25,065 MWh higher than forecast.
• Ag Food Processors (16)
• Due to a 10-day shutdown, one customer operated 1.7 aMW below what was

forecast in June, accounting for 10% of the total Q2 forecasting deviation.

• The remaining deviation from the forecast was the accumulation of small

deviations from forecast of multiple companies.

• Retail Revenue Variance
• The total retail load variance was 10.3% less than budget for Q2. The total retail

revenue was 6.1% less than budget.

• The difference between load and revenue variance is related to several factors,

including

• As noted above, irrigation deviation accounts for 57% of the difference in

load, from a revenue perspective, a reduction in irrigation load accounts for 64% of the revenue deviation.

• Cryptocurrency operations moving to higher-priced Rate Schedule 17

accounted for 2% of the variance between the load and revenue deviations.

• A larger than expected Rate 94 New Large Load consumption.
• Wholesale Impact
• This is reflected in increased wholesales sales through the Shell Energy North America

Contract. Wholesale Electricity Prices

Expected Actual

Heavy-Load Hours Light-Load Hours Heavy-Load Hours Light-Load Hours

April $ 21.70 $ 13.35 $ 27.53 $ 26.14 May $ 18.70 $ 9.85 $ 16.76 $ 12.00 June $ 25.45 $ 11.25 $ 19.68 $ 12.74 6

Appendix

Table A: Retail Load Budget, Actual, & Variance for 2019 Q2

2019 Q2 Budget Load (MWh) 2019 Q2 Actual Load (MWh) 2019 Q2 Load Variance (MWh) 2019 Q2 Load Variance % Residential (1) 166,524 146,837 (19,688)

• 11.8%

Commercial (2) 113,721 107,810 (5,911)

• 5.2%

Irrigation (3) 232,550 157,004 (75,546)

• 32.5%

Streetlights (6) 1,083 922 (161)

• 14.9%

Large General (7) 90,587 62,721 (27,865)

• 30.8%

Industrial (14) 137,833 134,809 (3,023)

• 2.2%

Industrial (15) 449,636 434,964 (14,672)

• 3.3%

Ag Food (16) 90,788 80,751 (10,036)

• 11.1%

Evolving Industry (17) 32,181 N/A N/A Ag Food-Boiler (85)

• N/A

New Large Load (94)

• 25,065

25,065 N/A Totals 1,282,721 1,183,065 (131,837)

• 10.3%

Table B: Retail Revenue Budget, Actual, & Variance for 2019 Q2

2019 Q2 Budget Retail Revenue 2019 Q2 Actual Retail Revenue 2019 Q2 Retail Revenue Variance 2019 Q2 Retail Revenue Variance % Residential (1) $ 9,518,028.80 $ 8,774,185.14 $ (743,843.66)

• 7.8%

Commercial (2) $ 5,366,171.34 $ 5,241,468.86 $ (124,702.48)

• 2.3%

Irrigation (3) $ 9,215,453.21 $ 7,235,131.52 $ (1,980,321.69)

• 21.5%

Streetlights (6) $ 224,659.69 $ 203,807.45 $ (20,852.24)

• 9.3%

Large General (7) $ 2,862,341.80 $ 2,115,504.13 $ (746,837.67)

• 26.1%

Industrial (14) $ 3,871,533.91 $ 4,060,040.80 $ 188,506.89 4.9% Industrial (15) $ 16,438,779.87 $ 16,025,850.55 $ (412,929.32)

• 2.5%

Ag Food (16) $ 2,616,790.12 $ 2,520,481.52 $ (96,308.60)

• 3.7%

Evolving Industry (17) $ 1,152,078.50 N/A N/A Ag Food-Boiler (85) $ - $ 3,646.53 $ 3,646.53 N/A New Large Load (94) $ 349,369.41 $ 1,208,994.38 $ 859,624.97 246.1% Totals $ 50,463,128.16 $ 48,541,189.38 $ (3,074,017.28)

• 6.1%

7

Table C: Retail Load Budget, Actual, & Variance for 2019 YTD

2019 YTD Budget Load (MWh) 2019 YTD Actual Load (MWh) 2019 YTD Load Variance (MWh) 2019 YTD Load Variance % Residential (1) 460,498 475,763 15,264 3.3% Commercial (2) 277,327 280,069 2,741 1.0% Irrigation (3) 246,990 156,786 (90,204)

• 36.5%

Streetlights (6) 2,255 2,089 (166)

• 7.4%

Large General (7) 186,292 171,941 (14,351)

• 7.7%

Industrial (14) 272,213 254,993 (17,221)

• 6.3%

Industrial (15) 863,344 915,150 51,806 6.0% Ag Food (16) 179,302 163,858 (15,444)

• 8.6%

Evolving Industry (17) 32,181 N/A N/A Ag Food-Boiler (85)

• N/A

New Large Load (94) 5,457 41,487 36,030 660.3% Totals 2,493,679 2,494,316 (31,544)

• 1.3%

Table D: Retail Revenue Budget, Actual, & Variance for 2019 YTD

2019 YTD Budget Retail Revenue 2019 YTD Actual Retail Revenue 2019 YTD Retail Revenue Variance 2019 YTD Retail Revenue Variance % Residential (1) $ 24,756,857.93 $ 25,998,018.75 $ 1,241,160.82 5.0% Commercial (2) $ 12,835,073.37 $ 14,233,692.37 $ 1,398,619.00 10.9% Irrigation (3) $ 9,633,494.25 $ 7,229,233.30 $ (2,404,260.95)

• 25.0%

Streetlights (6) $ 467,567.71 $ 457,275.53 $ (10,292.18)

• 2.2%

Large General (7) $ 5,824,073.01 $ 5,477,284.97 $ (346,788.04)

• 6.0%

Industrial (14) $ 7,285,472.06 $ 7,638,018.38 $ 352,546.32 4.8% Industrial (15) $ 31,348,332.56 $ 32,876,430.87 $ 1,528,098.31 4.9% Ag Food (16) $ 4,990,551.33 $ 5,169,644.39 $ 179,093.06 3.6% Evolving Industry (17) $ 1,152,078.50 N/A N/A Ag Food-Boiler (85) $ - $ 7,293.06 $ 7,293.06 N/A New Large Load (94) $ 776,403.90 $ 2,377,788.69 $ 1,601,384.79 206.3% Totals $ 97,917,826.13 $ 102,616,758.81 $ 3,546,854.18 3.6% 8

Quarterly Business Report – July 23rd, 2019

Power Delivery

Outline

• Purpose and Goal
• Structure and Personnel
• Safety & Operational Performance
• Budget to Actuals
• Major Initiatives & Accomplishments
• Challenges & Opportunities

Purpose: Provide

• ur

customers with safe, reliable electric and communication services by effectively planning, designing, constructing, maintaining and operating our transmission, substation, distribution, and fiber assets and their associated control systems.

Goal: Achieve our purpose while championing a culture of safety and

• perational excellence with continual focus on our values of safety,

innovation, service, teamwork, respect, integrity and heritage.

Purpose and Goal

Managing Director Power Delivery Jeff Grizzel

Administrative Assistant Darlene Brooks

Senior Manager Construction & Maintenance Mike Tongue Manager Dispatch LeRoy Patterson Senior Manager Power Delivery Engineering Jesus Lopez Manager Control Systems Engineering Jeff Mettler

• Line Department
• Electric Shop
• Fiber & Electronics
• Systems Planning &

Standards

• Transmission,

Substation & Automation

• Customer &

Distribution Engineering

• Dispatch
• Control Systems

Structure and Personnel

Safety Performance

Safety Performance

Recent Incidents/Close Calls

• Royal City Arc Flash (incident)
• Bending Ground Rod (incident)
• Normal Open Switch missed in clearance (close call)
• Crescent Bar Underground Power Strike (close call)
• WT-47 Switch Arc Flash (close call)

Safety Performance

Level 1 – Total Recordable Injury Cases Level 3 – Fatality or Hospitalization Level 2 – Lost Work Day Injuries/Restricted Duty

April – June 2019

2 1

Operational Performance

New Goal = 99.985%

Operational Performance

New Goal = 110 Minutes

2019 Budget to Actuals Through June

CAPITAL O&M

BUDGET $19,924,282

DIRECTS

$6,490,033 ACTUAL $8,320,545 $2,048,628 % SPENT 41.8% 31.6% BUDGET $6,340,937

LABOR

$14,190,306 ACTUAL $3,117,220 $7,169,600 % SPENT 49.2% 50.5% BUDGET $26,265,219

TOTAL

$20,680,339 ACTUAL $11,437,765 $9,218,228 % SPENT 43.5% 44.6%

Major Initiatives & Accomplishments

• Dispatch & Control Systems

► Reliability coordination services transition work continues ■ from Peak to CAISO (aka RC West); date = Nov 1st ► Independent two-dam operation – Q4 completion ► Energy Accounting System (EAS) upgrade – July completion ► Dispatch Performance Audit – in progress ► LeRoy Patterson – hired as Dispatch Manager

• Engineering

► Mountain View Substation Expansion ► Wheeler Road Tap ► Quincy Transmission Expansion ► Design-Build #2

■ Project Review Committee approval obtained; RFQ issued

► Transmission & Distribution System Deficiency Studies ► Transformer End-of-Life (Risk) Assessment

Major Initiatives & Accomplishments

Transformer Risk Assessment

Likelihood of Failure Consequences of Failure

LOW MODERATE HIGH LOW MODERATE HIGH

• Construction & Maintenance

► MinMax (Substation Maintenance And Reliability Tracking) ► ARCOS Workbench (Trouble Reporting System) ► Dock Crew contract (up for review today) ► New maintenance engineer (John Kemman) ► Additional substation maintenance crew (Moses Lake)

Major Initiatives & Accomplishments

Challenges & Opportunities

• System Maintenance
• Aging Infrastructure
• Load/System Growth & Resourcing
• New Technology & Change Management
• Human Performance Application

Powering our way of life.

Wholesale Fiber Q2 2019 Business Report

Business Unit Value, Mission, Vision

We exist to provide every Grant County resident with access to a reliable and competitive fiber optic connection.

VALUE MISSION VISION

To improve the quality of life for the communities we serve through increased access to competitive fiber optic internet services. The Wholesale Fiber Optic Business Unit exists to complete and maintain a sustainable wholesale fiber optic network (Strategic Plan Objective 6).

2019 Priorities & Progress

PRIORITY 1: Expand the Network

• Outcome: Completion of construction in areas 1-9 in sequence. In progress – more detail later in presentation

PRIORITY 2: Identify updated Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) target or alternative.

• Outcome: Completed – Per the Strategic Plan, the Key Metrics are achieve the planned capital build for the current year and average system take rate,

which for 2019 is targeted at 56.5% by year end

PRIORITY 3: Technological Roadmap

• Outcome: Work with CTO to develop multiyear technological roadmap for network by end of Q1. Delayed – too many telecom engineering tasks for the

current staff levels

PRIORITY 4: Achieve Average System Uptime

• Outcome: Meet or exceed 99.98% average system uptime at the hub level. Excluding scheduled maintenance windows. After actions complete following
• utages. We are currently meeting this target

PRIORITY 5: 56.5% Take Rate

• Outcome: Achieve an overall network take-rate of 56.5% Take rate through Q2 is 56% including newly released areas
• Outcome: Ensure that every community achieves an overall take rate of at least 50% by end of 2019. (Mardon, Quincy, Wilson Creek, George)

PRIORITY 6: Service Provider Tools

• Outcome: Providers have real-time access to their customer Gateway Status as up/down. In final testing now, link on SP web page by end of July
• Outcome: Providers have ability to provision/deprovision (Activate, Deactivate) customers.

CAP-Expansion figure includes labor From SSRS 7/3/2019

2019 Expenditures

Type As of 06/30/19 TOTAL BUDGET Remaining Budget % YTD Spend Expansion CAP $4,347,431.00 $15,300,000.00 $10,952,569.00 28% Connect Cust CAP $2,381,773.00 $3,100,000.00 $718,227.00 77% O&M $418,713.00 $719,268.00 $300,555.00 58% TOTALS $7,147,917.00 $19,119,268.00 $11,971,351.00 37%

Revenue

06/30/2019 YTD Billed revenues: $4,678,801 Target: $ 4,450,242

Basic Services, $2,921,915.16, 62% Premium Services, $205,489.87, 4% Advanced Services, $219,143.11, 5% UpstreamInternet, $86,952.12, 2% Total, Port Charges, $28,962.33, 1% WirelessInternet, $43,105.22, 1% Special VLAN, $793,562.07, 17% Sum of Total Dark Fiber, $385,487.00, 8%

YTD 2019 Broadband Billed Revenue by Service

Take Rate Target: 56.5% Growth Target: 2,575 county wide

Participation

Growth By Community

(as of 6/30/19)

Area Potential Subscribers Actual Subscribers Particpation Actual Growth for Month YTD Growth Coulee City 302 155 51.32%

• 1

2 Desert Air 1117 811 72.61% 8 57 Electric City 660 404 61.21% 1 6 Ephrata 3627 2544 70.14% 25 74 Grand Coulee 663 406 61.24% 4 19 Hartline 116 70 60.34% 1 2 Hydro 46 31 67.39% 2 3 Mardon 639 317 49.61% 9 55 Mattawa 1082 886 81.89% 3 50 Moses Lake 16184 8741 54.01% 47 589 Quincy 3030 1485 49.01% 116 237 Royal City 732 438 59.84% 11 41 Soap Lake 2279 1203 52.79% 12 60 Warden 932 298 31.97% 4 46 Wilson Creek 163 77 47.24% 3 3 George-Burke 365 134 36.71% 10 75

31,937 18,000 56.36% 255 1,319

Q2 2019 Construction Activities

 Completed the City of George  Completed Crescent Bar/Trinidad area (except 5 passings – awaiting RR permit)

• Construction underway in Sunland Estates and Beverly/Schawana
• Field Engineering/Design underway for remaining areas

Moses Lake

All Build Update

23% 3% 3% 3% 18% 30% 30% 31% 52% 97% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Overall Completion (All Builds) Kittleson Base McConihe Ancient Lake Blue Lake Coulee City Beverly-Schawana Sunland Crescent Bar

Overall (Engineering & Construction) of entire project

Overall (Engineering & Construction) of entire project

Expansion Sequence (no set timeframe beyond 2019)

(continued)

Potential Construction End-Users Location Cost 465 470 Crescent Bar -Off Island + Trinidad $ 1,400,000 ~1,500,000 168 Complete Hub 226 - Beverly and Schawana $ 900,000 488 Sunland Estates $ 1,600,000 271 Complete Coulee City Area $ 1,600,000 342 Blue Lake - Park Lake - Alkali Lake $ 1,500,000 279 Ancient Lake White Trail $ 1,900,000 376 McConihe Neppel Stonecrest $ 2,100,000 346 ML - Complete Base Area $ 2,800,000 142 Kittleson/Rd N Industrial/Wheeler $ 1,000,000 312 Ephrata City Limits/Hub 106/Rocky Ford $ 2,600,000 106 Electric City - Banks Lake Hub 86 Completion? $ 700,000 145 Cave B to Beverly Burke 2SW to 2NW $ 1,300,000 285 Ephrata - South Ephrata Substation $ 2,200,000 280 Rd 9 NW and Hwy 283 $ 2,200,000 110 Gloyd to Stratford $ 1,500,000 315 Perch Point-Wilbur Ellis to I90 $ 2,500,000 142 Dodson to Winchester Wasteway N I90 $ 2,100,000 337 Royal City Surrounding Area $ 3,100,000 40 Complete Hartline Area + Rd V NE at Rd 47 NE $ 1,500,000 121 George Area Completion $ 1,200,000 22 Between Hartline and Wilson Creek $ 1,100,000 238 Mattawa Surrounding Area $ 2,300,000 66 Soap Lake - SE to fish hatchery and N to Lake Lenore $ 600,000 254 Winchester $ 2,300,000 362 Warden Area Completion $ 3,600,000 242 North, East & South of Quincy $ 1,900,000 185 NW and SW of Quincy $ 1,500,000 167 Rd A SE/Smyrna/Crab Creek $ 2,100,000 188 Jericho $ 2,500,000 53 Dodson Frenchman $ 800,000 129 Wahluke Proposed $ 1,900,000 78 Desert Aire to Rd O SW $ 1,200,000 103 I90 Rd U NE/SE $ 1,100,000 83 Hwy 281 N. of I90 to Rd 3 $ 1,000,000 78 Stratford - Summer Falls - Billy Clapp $ 1,000,000 95 White Trail Substation Area $ 1,300,000 83 Braden to George and Black Sands $ 1,900,000 133 Ruff Substation $ 2,800,000 59 Complete Hub 114 $ 1,400,000 60 Sagebrush Flats w/Hub 15 Completion $ 2,200,000 $ 70,200,000

Locations to be constructed in 2019

2019 Release Schedule

 1* Crescent Bar/Trinidad May 31 2* Beverly/Schawana August 16 4* Coulee City August 23 3* Sunland Estates August 30 5* Blue/Park/Alkali September 27 6* Ancient Lake October 31 8* Larson/Base December 6 7* McConihe Neppel December 20 9* Kittleson/Industrial December 31

Moses Lake *Original Sequence #

Grantpud.org/getfiber

Powering our way of life.

Powering our way of life.

June 25, 2019

Data Center Industry Summary

Large Power Solutions

• I. Data Center Industry Drivers & Types
• II. Grant County Attractiveness

III.Data Center Growth Forecasts IV.Levelized Cost Comparisons

• V. Transmission Impacts on Power Cost

Agenda

Data Center Types

Type Description

Colocation

Lease racks, power, cooling and security. Offers large range of services.

Wholesale Colocation

Larger scale colocation with few customers per building and limited services.

Enterprise

Facilitates for their own use, often supporting internal needs.

Enterprise Hyperscale

Very large for their own use, typically supporting sales of core services.

Large Data Centers in Grant County

Type Description

Colocation

Lease racks, power, cooling and security. Offers large range of services.

Wholesale Colocation

Larger scale colocation with few customers per building and limited services.

Enterprise

Facilitates for their own use, often supporting internal needs.

Enterprise Hyperscale Wholesale Colocation Enterprise Hyperscale

Very Large for their own use, typically supporting sales of core services.

Wholesale Colocation Enterprise Hyperscale Colocation

Large Data Centers in Grant County

Availability Costs Performance Features Services Uptime Redundancy Data Redundancy Fiber Available & Reliable Power Hazards Power Taxes Economies of Scale Climate Land Latency Bandwidth Networks Interconnectivity Security Green Efficiency Proximity Regulatory & Political Public Cloud Private Cloud Customization Technical Support Scalability

Wholesale Colocation Enterprise Hyperscale Colocation

Large Data Centers in Grant County

Transmission affects power availability, reliability and redundancy, which affects overall availability.

Grant Advantages Hyperscale Enterprise & Colocation Wholesale Big computing, cloud, storage, crypto Economies of scale Lower cost land and power Supports more competitive pricing Grant Disadvantages Enterprise & Colocation Proximity to workforce & accessibility Latency Redundancy

Dimension Consideration Grant PUD Land Availability & Suitability Siting, Costs

• Seismic and Hazard

Availability

• Climate & PUE

Costs, Features

• Water

Siting, Costs

• Sales Taxes

Costs, Features

• ↓

Property Taxes Costs

TBD

Equipment Costs Services

• Construction Costs

Siting, Costs

• Fiber Capacity & Diversity

Avail., Perform., Service

• Environmental Permitting

Availability

• Power Availability & Reliability

Availability, Costs

• ↓

Power Cost Costs

• ↓

Power Redundancy Availability, Costs

• Power Attributes (Green)

Features

• ↓

Labor, Staffing Services, Costs

• Customer Proximity

Features

• Geographic Accessability

Features, Costs

Where Do Data Centers Tend to Site?

High Service Low Cost Latency Taxes Control Power Custom Economies Of Scale Smaller Or Colocation Shared Resources

Source: Lev-Ram, Michal. “Whats the next big think in big data? Bigger data.” Fortune. 2014

Data Center Announcements 2016-2017

Location State MW Ashburn VA 753 Des Moines IA 418 Phoenix AZ 278 Columbus OH 265 Albuquerque NM 211 San Francisco CA 186 Atlanta GA 117 Dallas TX 117 Omaha NB 105 Prineville OR 105 Reno NV 79 Richmond VA 79 Chicago IL 54 Hillsboro OR 47 Las Vegas NV 40 Grand Rapids MI 26 Wall Township NJ 9 Pittsburgh PA 5 Total 2,894

• Hillsboro (Portland), OR has 3 data centers with 3 different companies.
• Prineville, OR has a Facebook owned Hyperscale data center.

Africa and Middle East fastest network traffic growth Asia has the highest level of investments in hyperscale data centers Even though US revenue growth is projected to be slower than world averages it is still very robust!

Forecasts for Growth

• Revenue Growth (Global)
• 6% CAGR* Tier 3 data centers 2018-20231
• MS Azure Q1 2018 Year on Year growth +90%2
• Amazon Web Services +40% 2017-20182
• CAGR 20% from 2018-2021 $277B public cloud revenues2
• Hyperscale data center investments (Global)
• 26.32% CAGR 2017-2025; $25.08B in 2017 to $80.65B in 20253
• 18.3% CAGR 2018-2025; $20B in 2018 to over $65B in 20254
• Internet Traffic (Global)
• 26% CAGR 2017-20225
• Asia pacific 44%, 173 Exabytes/mo by 2022
• North America 27%, 108 Exabytes/mo by 2022

*CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate

Source references can be found at the end of the presentation

CapEx Levelized Cost Estimates

• Assumptions:
• Construction year 1
• 10-year operating life
• Salvage values year

12

• Land value no

change in nominal terms

• Discount rate =

9.21%

• 4 years IT refresh
• Same IT configuration
• Scaled to 20 MW
• Grant’s advantage is not

in Capital Investment

OpEx Levelized Cost Estimates

• Grant operating costs 78%
• f “Typical”, or $5 million

per year lower

• Property taxes for Grant

based on County records; utility-collected taxes not already in rates are immaterial

• Power represents 35% of
• perating expenses at

$0.035 and 50% at $0.065

• Industry surveys indicate

that power costs are 40- 80% of operating costs.

• Economies of scale as

size of data centers increases

Regions, Data Center Types, and Power

Urban Rural

Cost & Services Performance & Features

Colocation Colocation Wholesale Colocation Wholesale Colocation Enterprise Enterprise Enterprise Hyperscale Enterprise Hyperscale WA OR NE CA WA AZ USA

U.S. Average Industrial Rate* $0.0460 $0.0598 $0.0766 $0.1273 $0.0460 $0.0645 $0.0688 PUD No. 2 of Grant County Umatilla Electric Coop Association Nebraska Public Power Distric Silicon Valley Power (City of Santa Clara) Seattle City Light Arizona Public Service EIA Utility Data 2017 $0.0359 $0.0502 $0.0522 $0.1147 $0.0762 $0.0836 Calculated @ 20 MVA with 90% Load Factor $0.0351 $0.0496 $0.0523 $0.1076 $0.0739 $0.0629

Competitor Power Cost Comparison

PUD No 2

• f Grant

County Umatilla Electric Coop Assn

Nebraska Public Power District

Salt River Project Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, NC

Cumber- land Elec Member Corp PacifiCorp, OR Northern Wasco County PUD

Montana- Dakota Utilities Co, MT

PUD No 1

• f Chelan

County

PUD No 1

• f Douglas

County

Calculated per kWh, 2019 0.0351 $ 0.0496 $ 0.0523 $ 0.0575 $ 0.0607 $ 0.0630 $ 0.0618 $ 0.0446 $ 0.0705 $ 0.0354 $ 0.0274 $ Utility & State, EIA, 2017 0.0359 $ 0.0502 $ 0.0522 $ 0.0635 $ 0.0592 $ 0.0630 $ 0.0787 $ 0.0564 $ 0.0592 $ 0.0219 $ 0.0282 $ State Average, EIA, 2017 0.0460 $ 0.0598 $ 0.0766 $ 0.0645 $ 0.0620 $ 0.0583 $ 0.0598 $ 0.0598 $ 0.0525 $ 0.0460 $ 0.0460 $ Transmission and Tax Impacts Low High Calculated per kWh, 2019 0.0351 $ 0.0351 $ Transmission Build Out 0.0037 $ 0.0066 $ Base + Transmission 0.0388 $ 0.0417 $ Grant Co. Property Taxes 0.0152 $ 0.0152 $ Total "Effective" Rate 0.0541 $ 0.0569 $ Figures based on 20 MWa load, 90% load factor, per kWh

• Grant’s power rates are competitive both before and after the

Transmission build out.

• For data centers, Grant County property tax adds equivalent to a

cent and half to power cost.

• This does not consider the cost of power and rate impacts once we
• utgrow the Priest Rapids Project, nor the effects of carbon

legislation.

Green = Near or below current rates Red = Near or below rates after transmission build out and Property Tax Impact

Powering our way of life.

References

• Slide 7
• Source: Uptime Institute Uptime Standards via https://www.netari.com/single-post/2014/02/04/What-to-Look-for-in-a-Data-Center-Understanding-Tier-Levels-

Industry-Standards

• Slide 8
• Source: Lev-Ram, Michal. “Whats the next big think in big data? Bigger data.” Fortune. June 16, 2014. Retrieved on May 28, 2019 at

http://fortune.com/2014/06/02/fortune-500-big-data/

• Slide 9
• Sources: Figures adapted from Bonlender, Brian et. Al., State of the Data Center Industry. January, 2018. pg.15. Map Image adapted from: Durairajan,

Ramakrishnan, et. al. InterTubes: A Study of the US Long-haul Fiber-optic Infrastructure. University of Wisconsin – Madison. Retrieved June 14, 2019 http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~pb/tubes_final.pdf. Reimage retrieved June 14 2019 http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/56e03df7918a0f7333e350f3-1190- 625/animated-map-reveals-the-113000-miles-of-cable-that-power-americas-internet.jpg

• Slide 10
• 1Arizton Advisory and Intelligence. Data Center Market in the Americas – Industry Outlook and Forecast 2018-2023. Abstract. Retrieved May 21, 2019, from

https://www.arizton.com/market-reports/data-center-market-americas

• 2Kannan, Hari and Thomas, Christopher. How High-Tech Suppliers are Responding to the Hyperscaler Opportunity. October 2018. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/how-high-tech-suppliers-are-responding-to-the-hyperscaler-opportunity

• 3ICT Research. Hyperscale Data Center Market by Solution, Service, End-User, Data Center Size, Industry And Region - Global Forecast to 2022. Abstract. May,
• 2017. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from https://www.reportlinker.com/p04930595/Hyperscale-Data-Center-Market-by-Solution-Service-End-User-Data-Center-Size-

Industry-and-Region-Global-Forecast-to.html

• 4Global Market Insights, Inc. Hyperscale Data Center Market to surpass $65bn by 2025. Abstract. April 16, 2019. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/04/16/1804503/0/en/Hyperscale-Data-Center-Market-to-surpass-65bn-by-2025-Global-Market-Insights- Inc.html

• 5Cisco Systems, Inc. Cisco Visual Networking Index: Forecast and Trends, 2017–2022 White Paper. February 27, 2019. Retrieved May 22, 2019, from

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white-paper-c11-741490.html

• Slide 12
• Adapted from: U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Data Centers: Jobs and Opportunities in Communities Nationwide. 2017. Retrieved June 5, 2019 from

https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/ctec_datacenterrpt_lowres.pdf