Safety Report March 2020 Incidents Reported Date Injury - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Safety Report March 2020

Incidents Reported

• rate. Employee left home for the rest of

Monthly and Year to Date

2020 February YTD Total Incidents Reported 5 6 Recordable Case(s) Restricted Duty Case(s) Lost Workday Case(s) 1 1

Vehicle Incidents

Date Vehicle Driver’s Account: Prevention

2-5-20 443 Hit beam with left front fender while backing out from the Ephrata service center loading dock Attention to surroundings 2-11-20 338 Cracked windshield NA 2-23-20 067 While opening truck door in severe wind, wind caught door and flung it open damaging driver side front fender and possibly hinges Utilize extreme caution in windy conditions 2-24-20 469 Found damage to front bumper while performing 360 walk-around NA 2-28-20 Not assigned yet Backed into one of the support pillars while parking new service truck under the canopy by the Ephrata fleet shop, watched both mirrors and back up camera but still didn’t see the pillar. Attention to surroundings

Close Calls

Date Location Description

2-5-20 PRD When testing rotation of the fish attraction water pump #4, operator turned control handle to on position and pump did not start. Operator then turned control handle to off then neutral and began to troubleshoot the position switches. During this time the motor unexpectedly started with no additional start commands from the operator. 2-6-20 WMC While lifting a generator air cooler with the forklift, spotter did not visually confirm that the forks were in the proper position to lift the cooler causing the cooler to tip when load was lifted. An overhead crane was used to stabilize the load for repositioning. 2-10-20 Quincy Noticed switch blades opening and closing at different times and found primary switch linkage bolt missing and the other two were loose. Replaced missing bolt and tightened the others, now switch blades are back in sync. 2-13-20 PRD Unleaded dispenser hose is broken and could spill fuel, tagged out of service. 2-14-20 EHQ Dispatchers were given a warning by Ephrata Police for parking on the street on the south side of EHQ during night shift. Without much security presence, having to park in dimly lighted parking lots and walk a far distance in the dark to EHQ is a safety concern. 2-18-20 USBR Employee leaned back and chair broke, employee did not fall, chair was tagged. 2-21-20 MLSC While cutting an old pole, it broke and cross arm struck employee’s hard hat on the way down.

Close Calls

Date Location Description

2-24-20 WIV Longhouse Coiling door was fallen due to high winds. 2-24-20 HW 243 Semi truck tried to pass multiple cars could not make it in time and had to cut another driver off just to make it back into their lane and avoid collision with oncoming traffic. 2-27-20 EHQ Cubicle shelf unit fell onto desk

2nd Annual Safety Days

When: June 18, 2020 Where: Grant County Fairgrounds Moses Lake, WA Time: 8am-3:30pm (Lunch provided)

Employer and Employee Responsibilities

WAC 296-800-120 Employee’s responsibility: To play an active role in creating a safe and healthy workplace and comply with all applicable safety and health rules WAC 296-800-110 Employer responsibility: To provide a safe and healthy workplace free from recognized hazards

Virus Universal Precautions

• Avoid contact with people who are sick
• Stay home if you’re sick
• Wash hands often with soap and warm

water (20 seconds)

• Cover your mouth and nose when

coughing or sneezing

• Avoid touching your eyes, nose, or mouth

with unwashed hands

• Maintain a clean environment
• Use caution when traveling

Level O - Other – Close Call Level 1 – Serious Close Call Level 2 – First Aid Case(s) Level 3 – Recordable Injury Case(s) Level 4 –Restricted Duty Case(s) Level 5 – Lost Work Day Case(s) Level 6 – Fatality or Hospitalization

19 2

Employee Safety

2020 incidents Year to Date Summary

2020

2019

67 7 11 8 5 7

1

20

Level O - Other – Close Call Level 1 – Serious Close Call Level 2 – First Aid Case(s) Level 3 – Recordable Injury Case(s) Level 4 –Restricted Duty Case(s) Level 5 – Lost Work Day Case(s) Level 6 – Fatality or Hospitalization

29 3 1

Leading & Lagging Indicators

12 Month Rolling – Recordable Injury Rate 2019 vs. 2020

Powering our way of life.

Thank You

Powering our way of life.

Safety

SHIP Update – Q1 2020

• Mike Tyson

“EVERYBODY HAS A PLAN UNTIL THEY GET PUNCHED IN THE FACE”

What Message Are We Sending?

We’re all in this together

WAC 296-800-120 Employee’s responsibility: To play an active role in creating a safe and healthy workplace and comply with all applicable safety and health rules

Safety Team

Tyler O’Brion Jessica Ziegler Abel Sabedra RJ Fronsman Ron Roth Craig Bressan John Price Mike Miland Senior Safety Coordinators Safety Support Tech Writer Data Analyst

What is the SHIP? Safety & Health Improvement Plan (SHIP)

Today’s Goal

Provide an update on our progress of the SHIP and some new initiatives we are working on:

• Administrative
• Information/Education
• Safe Work Practices
• Performance

Purpose and Goal

Purpose: Grant PUD is charting a course to safety and health excellence. This Safety & Health Improvement Plan (SHIP) describes our course and how we plan to reach

• ur destination.

Vision: Grant PUD will create and maintain an environment where all employees think, act, and behave in ways which demonstrate that safety is our paramount value Goal: Achieve a recordable incident rate of zero by the end of 2021.

What tools have been either added or modified in the last three years:

• CI 1 – 5 Team updates have been covered by the SST
• Upgrade of our Learning Management System (LMS)
• Power Production - Using Maximo for Job Hazard Analysis
• Job Site Review Program
• Both internal and external audits of critical safety programs: Clearance

Procedures, Hearing Protection Program, Lead Worker Program, Respirator Program and Crane Program.

• CAP Program and Condition Reporting System

Learning Management System (LMS)

Upgrades to our LMS include: Employees are now be able to review and track:

• Courses they have completed
• Courses they are assigned to complete

Foreman, Supervisors and Managers are able to track:

• Their assigned training
• The training status of employees that work in their cost center

We now have an extensive library of safety training materials that can be customized to meet GCPUD safety policy requirements

Utilizing Maximo for Job Hazard Analysis

Job Site Review Program

Internal and External Audits

• Clearance Procedures – Internal Audit(s)
• Hearing Protection Program – External Audit
• Lead Worker Program – External Audit (In Progress)
• Respirator Program – External Audit
• Crane Program – External Audit

So what is next for the SHIP?

• Update of the SHIP (both additions and refinement)
• Changes to our electronic infrastructure:
• Using PolicyTech to manage safety programs, plans and procedures.

Note: Using PolicyTech will give us a better tool for tracking documents in the review process.

• Moving from incident reporting to condition reporting:
• Improve categorization of incidents
• Improve tracking and trending of off normal conditions
• Improve incident review and assignment of action items

High Level Corrective Action Program Process Map

Problem Identification Condition Report (CR) Generation

Condition Report Screening

• 1. Problem is identified and condition report is generated
• 2. Supervisor provides a parallel review for quality (no delay)
• 3. Operations, Dispatch, Safety, CAP, and Security review for immediate actions
• 4. Condition Review Team (CRT) reviews for significance and assignment (Screening

is performed each business day)

• 5. Trend Codes Applied by CAP group
• 6. Daily summary of safety related CR’s and weekly summary of other than safety

related CR’s generated and actions taken sent via workflow, district-wide

• 7. Simple issues are routed to work management or as enhancements/betterments
• 8. Category “A” issues move to investigation, implementation, effectiveness review,

then closure review, then closure

• 9. Category “B” and “C” issues move to investigation, implementation, closure review,

then closure 10.Category “D” issues move to implementation then closure 11.Non-CAP (betterment and enhancement) issues move to implementation then closure

Powering our way of life.

Thank You

Powering our way of life.

State of Security 2020 Q1

2020 Incidents

2020 YTD Reportables

2019 Reportables YTD

Security Budget

Budget Year-end Projections

Genetec Project

Budget: $2.27M Life to Date: $1,228,652.81

• commissioned. Electric Shop is 95% complete.

CIP 014 Improvements

Project Scope

Wanapum Switchyard has been identified as a critical station/substation under NERC CIP-014-2. As a result the District must conduct a physical security assessment and plan to protect critical assets within the switchyard. As this yard is a shared facility with Bonneville Power Administration. Our goal is to develop a comprehensive security solution for the site. CIP-014 also requires a threat and vulnerability assessment of Ephrata Dispatch and implementation of mitigating measures to address identified vulnerabilities. The scope of work would include the increased security measures at Ephrata Dispatch. UPDATE March 2020: BPA not in favor of us to install a gate that would impact their access. After conducting a review, we are looking at immediate options for improving cameras on-site and installing analytics to the cameras that would allow us to design virtual fence lines, intrusion detection and provide real-time alerts. BPA has noted their improvement plan will include new and improved fencing within the next 2 years. We will review our options down the road for our fence improvement opportunities as well.

Project Budget: $650k Improvement deadline is July 2020

Emergency Management Incident Command System Status

Status Update: Emergency Management Incident Command System (ICS) Incident Management Team (IMT) Training Basic on-line ICS (700, 100 and 200) classes for the identified IMT were completed in January. The FEMA Intermediate ICS for Expanding Incidents (ICS-300) class took place January 21st-23rd at BBCC with 33 previously identified IMT members in attendance. The instruction, 21 hours in length, was well received and participation throughout the interactive class was high and engaging. The ICS G-0402 NIMS Overview for Senior Officials (Executives, Elected, & Appointed) took place at the conclusion of the ICS-300 class on January 23rd. The majority

• f our Executive Team and Commissioners were in attendance. As with the ICS-300 class this group was engaged, asking pertinent questions in understanding their

role in times of crisis. Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Considerations for development of an EOC will be addressed in our Business Continuity and Comprehensive Emergency Operations plans (BCP/CEOP). An emphasis will remain on consideration of a mobile Incident Command Post (ICP) which is the more likely need for the District with our vast campus, various work disciplines and

• assignments. This work will take place with the assistance of a consultant with the following projected time lines:

Phase 1 – Discovery and Assessment (2 Months) Phase 2 – Development of a Comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan (12 months) Phase 3 – Development of a Business Continuity Plan (4 Months) These timelines are estimates that the Discovery and Assessment phase will drive. Originally set to begin in April 2020, the COVID-19 response and the availability of travel of our consultant may delay or cause the phases to taken of order. Emergency Action Plan (EAP) Coordinator The transition of Dave in this role has been initiated as he works closely with the Dam Safety group specific to his responsibilities. The role/responsibilities of the EAP coordinator is required and governed by FERC.

Powering our way of life.

Powering our way of life.

Commission Presentation March 24, 2020

PUBLIC POWER / INDUSTRY OUTREACH ACTIVITY REPORT

Andrew Munro, Senior Manager External Affairs & Communications Chuck Allen, Supervisor Public Affairs

Public Power/Industry Outreach Activity Report – Agenda:

Powered by… I. Vision and Goals II. Memberships

• III. Leadership
• IV. Recent Activities

V. Recent Awards

Vision & Goals Trusted & Reliable Utility Leader

2020 Goals

External Affairs & Communications

1. Increase Revenue Opportunities a) $50M for Fiber by 2021 b) $100M for PP/PD by 2021 c) Increase Fiber take rate by 500/Qtr. 2. Top 5% Utility in Communications Excellence a) 5 Industry Awards by 2021 b) ≥ 95% GCPUD brand compliance by 2021 c) Implement 2-3 actions that increase CS by 2021.

• 3. Operational & Compliance Excellence

a) Implement Information Gov. by 2021. b) Implement Policy Mgt. Software by Q2 2020. c) Implement PRA Software by Q2 2020.

Operating Unit Goals align/support GCPUD Strategic Plan Objectives.

Industry Memberships Unified Voice

Industry Memberships (Unified Voice)

Industry Leadership Powerful Voice

Industry Leadership (Powerful Voice)

Board of Directors – Andrew Munro President of Board of Directors – Chuck Allen Environmental Task Force CEO Sponsor – Kevin Nordt Board of Directors – Tom Flint

Industry Leadership (Powerful Voice)

Board of Directors – Kevin Nordt Executive Committee – Kevin Nordt Board of Directors – Dale Walker Communications Committee – Chuck Allen

Recent Activities Support Grant PUD Customer Goals

2020 Planned Activities Summary*

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Monthly meetings – CRT, PGP, PPC, NWRP, WPUDA Monthly meetings – CRT, PGP, PPC, NWRP, WPUDA Monthly meetings – CRT, PGP, PPC, NWRP, WPUDA Monthly meetings – CRT, PGP, PPC, NWRP, WPUDA APPA Legislative Rally – Wash, DC APPA National Conference & Expo APPA Policy Makers Council DC Fly-In WPUDA Annual mtg. NHA Board mtg. NHA Annual Conf. NHA Board mtg. NHA Board mtg. NWHA Annual Conf. FWEE Hydro STEM Academy HydroVision FWEE Annual Board mtg. LPPC CEO Meeting LPPC CEO Meeting LPPC CEO Meeting LPPC CEO Meeting Energy NW Energy NW Energy NW Energy NW

* Dependent on travel restrictions and remote capabilities.

Recent Educational Outreach

School tour of Priest Rapids Hatchery in Autumn of 2019

Technology Van

Illuminator Technology Van funded by $100,000 grant from Microsoft.

Developing outreach materials

No Net Impact messaging. Collaborating on Hydropower flyer with NWRP.

Collaborating with Hydro Industry

RiverPartners Press Conference in Kennewick – Feb. 28, 2020.

Sharing industry messages in our communications platforms.

Hydro Appreciation Day with Mariners in July 2020

The Foundation for Water and Energy Education (FWEE) and it’s partnering hydropower agencies is teaming up with the Seattle Mariners for Hydro Appreciation Day! We’re celebrating hydropower as the foundation of the Northwest’s renewable energy future. Date to be announced in the next few weeks.

Vision – Trusted & Reliable Utility Leader

Powered by Respect Q1 Powered by Teamwork Q2 Powered by Innovation Q3 Powered by Heritage Q4

Powering Our Way of Life

Locally, Regionally & Nationally

Powering our way of life.

Powering our way of life.

Transmission Cost of Capital

Powering our way of life.

Clark Kaml, Sr. Manager Rate and Pricing Bob Brill, Economist

Cost Study

Standard Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Cost of Service Study Methods Based On FERC Accounting

Cost of Service Components

Cost of Service Study (COSS) components Amounts

(in millions)

Transmission Operation and Maintenance Expense $6.1 Administrative and General O&M Expenses $4.7 Total O&M expenses $10.8 Depreciation Expenses $6.8 Revenue Credits ($0.4) Transmission Plant Cost of Capital $9.1 Total COSS $26.3

Calculation of Cost of Capital and Return

Source Percent Cost WACC Debt 60% 3.50% 2.10% Equity 40% 9.80% 3.90% Total 100% 6.02%

Some Methods of Estimating Cost

• The Build-Up Method (“BUM”): Is the sum of the risk-free rate and the equity risk

premium yields

Pros: The buildup method is frequently used in small and medium-size businesses where comparisons to publicly traded company betas are not deemed to be applicable or it is felt they should be supplemented. Cons: This method has several subjective determinations that need to be made by the analyst, including the amount of risk associated with the business’ earnings, and the value to reflect that risk.

• The Capital Asset Pricing Model (“CAPM”): This method describes the relationship

between systematic risk and expected return for an asset

Pros: CAPM is widely used throughout finance for pricing risky securities and generating expected returns for assets given the risk of those assets and cost of capital. The CAPM postulates that the cost of capital is generally composed of three components, the risk-free rate, the market derived risk premium, and the organization’s market volatility compared to entire market volatility. Cons: Like the BUM, this method has several subjective determinations that need to be made by the analyst. This works well for intra- company analysis, but not very well for estimating other investors’ required returns

Some Methods of Estimating Cost

• The Discounted Cash Flow (“DCF”): This analysis to estimates the cost base of equity

based on the current value of a company and projected earnings

Pros: this method is a market based analysis that relies on publicly available stock prices and public available projected earnings to derive market based cost of equity Cons: This method also required some subjective decisions by the analyst such as which stocks appropriately represents the target market

• Equivalent Cost of Debt: Assumes the cost of customer funded capital is that same as

the cost of debt

Pros: this is simple to use and does not require any complex analysis Cons: assumes that the cost of debt and cost of equity are equal and does not reflect the opportunity cost

• Zero Cost Financing: Assumes the entity is a public good and that a customer financed

portion of a municipality or PUD has zero cost

Pros: this method is an easy application of a policy decision Cons: this method ignores the opportunity costs of public financing

Impact of an 1% change in ROE:

Recommendations:

• ROE of 9.80%, (ROI of 6.02%)
• FERC-approved DCF based settlement (average
• f PacifiCorp (10.04% ROE) and Puget Sound

(9.54%) last FERC rate case proceedings)

• $kW-month factor change of $0.07
• COSS changes by $0.6 million

FERC adopts new base ROE methodology I American Public Power Association

AMERICAN

PUBLIC

'•c v .• a./K

ASSOCIATION

ELECTRICITY MARKEUS

(https:/ /www.pubLicpower.org/)

FERC adopts new base ROE methodology

November 22, 2019 Paul Ciampoli Vpeople/paul-ciampoli* Home (0) / Periodical / Article / FERC adopts new base ROE methodology

Pagel ot4

Powering Strpng Communities

SHARE THIS

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on Nov. 21 approved an order that alters the Commission's methodology for analyzing the base return on equity, or ROE. component of a jurisdictional public utility's rates. In remarks on the order. FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee said that the new method was technically sound, Legally durable, and would provide much needed certainty. https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/ffrc-adopts-new-base-roe-methodology 12/2/2019

FERC adopts new base ROE metiodology I American Public Power Association Page 2 of4 The order applies the revised base ROE methodology to two complaint proceedings involving the base ROEs of Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) transmission owners: the first proceeding is rehearing of Opinion No. 551, in which the Commission applied the base ROE methodology established for New England transmission owners in Opinion No. 531, and the second proceeding is a review of an initial decision by an administrative Law judge (Docket Nos. EL14-12-003, EL15-45-ooo). In Emera Maine v. FERC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded the Commission's decision in Opinion No. 531, finding that the Commission had neither properly demonstrated that the existing base ROE in that proceeding was unjust and unreasonable under the first prong of Federal Power Act (FPA) section 206 nor properly justified its selection of a new base ROE under the second prong of section 206. FERC subsequently issued briefing orders for both these MISO proceedings and separate New England proceedings at issue in Opinion No. 531. In the briefing order in the MISO proceedings, the Commission proposed changes to its ROE methodology to address the issues that the D.C. Circuit remanded to the Commission in Emerb /V"aine v. FERC and directed the parties to submit briefs addressing those proposed changes. FERC's order, which was approved at its Nov. 21 open meeting, addresses those proposed changes in Light of the briefs and other evidence in these proceedings. FERC's order adopts the changes that were proposed in the briefing order, with certain

• revisions. Principally, this draft order adopts the use of the discounted cash flow model

and capital-asset pricing model (CAPM) to determine utilities' cost of equity. However, the order rejected the briefing order's proposal to also use the expected earnings and the risk premium models in the Commission's revised ROE methodology. The order concludes that using the discounted cash flow and CAPM models will make the Commission's ROE determinations more accurately reflect how investors make their investment decisions. while also avoiding deficiencies in other models. Zone of reasonableness https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/ffrc-adopts-new-base-roe-methodology 12/2/2019

FERC adopts new base ROE methodology I American Public Power Association Page 3 of4 The discounted cash flow and CAPM models will be used to establish a composite zone

• f reasonableness. The zone of reasonableness produced by each model will be given

equal weight and averaged to determine the composite zone of reasonableness. FERC will use that composite zone of reasonableness to evaluate whether an existing base ROE remains just and reasonable under the first prong of FPA section 206 and to establish a new just and reasonable base ROE, under the second prong of FPA section

206, when the existing base ROE has been shown to be unjust and unreasonable.

The order adopts the proposal in the briefing order to use ranges of presumptively just and reasonable ROEs in the Commission's analysis of existing ROEs under the first prong of FPA section 206. Specifically, within the composite zone of reasonableness, the revised methodology will establish quartile ranges of presumptively just and reasonable ROEs, FERC said. If an existing ROE falls within the applicable quartile range based on the risk of the utility

• r utilities, it is presumed just and reasonable. If it falls outside of the applicable quartile

range, it is presumed unjust and unreasonable. The range of presumptively just and reasonable ROEs for each utility or group of utilities would be based on its risk profile. For example, the range for an average risk group of utilities, like the MISO transmission owners, is the quarter of the zone of reasonableness centered on the midpoint of the zone. In addition, the order adopts certain other changes to the Commission's ROE methodology, such as the high-end outlier test that was proposed in the briefing order to screen out comparison group results that should not be relied upon. The order also adopts a revised low-end outlier test that eliminates from the discounted cash flow and CAPM proxy groups any ROE results that are less than the yields of generic corporate "Baa" bonds plus 20 percent of the CAPM risk premium.

FERC grants one complaint, dismisses a second

https://wwx.publicpower.org/periodical/aruicle/ffrc-adopts-new-base-roe-methodology 12/2/2019

FERC adopts new base ROE methodology I American Public Power Association Page 4 of4 In applying the revised base ROE methodology, including the CAPM, to these proceedings, the order granted the complaint in the first proceeding, finding that the MISO transmission owners' 12.38 percent base ROE is unjust and unreasonable and that a just and reasonable replacement base ROE for the MISO transmission owners is g.88

• percent. The order requires appropriate refunds based on that determination.

It also applies the revised base ROE methodology to the complaint in the second proceeding, which results in dismissing that complaint. The order finds that, in order to grant relief in the second proceeding. the Commission would need to find the 9.88 percent ROE established in the first proceeding to be unjust and unreasonable. FERC. however, found that the g.88 percent ROE falls within the range of presumptively just and reasonable ROEs established in the second proceeding, and that the evidence in that proceeding does not rebut this presumption. Therefore, FERC dismissed the complaint in the second proceeding. declined to order a prospective change to the 9.88 percent ROE and did not require refunds in that

• proceeding. Commissioner Richard Glick partially dissented on this aspect of FERC's
• rder.

Tags Transmission ("Tags/Transmission) Topics Electricity Markets VT

• pic/Electricity-Markets)

https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/ffrc-adopts-new-base-roe-roethodology 12/2/2019

Powering our way of life.

Quarterly Commission Update 3/24/2020

Corrective Action Program

Mission:

To promote the efficient and reliable generation and delivery of energy through a structured and consistent application of a corrective action program. EXCELLENCE IN SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP To promote the efficient and 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 operating 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.

Vision:

Accomplishments

• Supported Investigations - Getting to the Right Problems
• Created Instructions for Prompt Investigations
• Developing Requirements for Condition Reporting

System

• Filled the CAP Analyst Position
• Contracted a Facilitator to Provide Training to 20 Key

Personnel From Various Departments Around the District

• Drafting Procedures to Govern the Future State of the

Corrective Action Program (25% Complete)

Corrective Action Program Goals for 2020

• Finalize the definition of the condition reporting (CR)

process

• Partner in the buildout of the condition reporting platform
• Develop governance (policy, procedures and instructions)

for the Corrective Action Program

• Facilitate Root Cause Analysis (team lead) training
• Facilitate Cause Investigation and Analysis (team

member) training

• Utilize teams in the investigation process.

Define Educate Improve

• nly

• Cat. D CR

High Level Corrective Action Program Process Map

• 1. Problem is identified and condition report is generated
• 2. Supervisor provides a parallel review for quality (no delay)
• 3. Operations, Dispatch, Safety, CAP, and Security review for immediate actions
• 4. Condition Review Team (CRT) reviews for significance and assignment

• 5. Trend codes applied by CAP group
• 6. Weekly summary of CR s generated and actions taken sent via workflow, district-wide
• 7. Simple issues are routed to work management or as enhancements/betterments
• 8. Category A issues move to investigation, implementation, effectiveness review, then

• 9. Category B and C issues move to investigation, implementation, closure review, then

• 10. Category D issues move to implementation then closure
• 11. Non-CAP (betterment and enhancement) issues move to implementation then closure

Powering our way of life.

Powering our way of life.

Commission Brief 3/24/2020 David Klinkenberg, Project Manager

GRANT PUD

Load Growth Project

Red Rock Transmission

Line Route Alternatives

Segment/Line Route Analysis

• 69 segments with 84 Potential routes
• 3 routes identified with least impact

Public Workshops

2 Open Forum Meetings

• 25 Members of the Public attended
• 18 comments received
• District representation from Design Build 2,

Property Services, Environmental Affairs, Public Affairs and Owner’s Engineers Stanley Consultants

Western Route

Least Publicly Favored Route

• New Corridor where one doesn’t currently exist
• Impact to Irrigation Circles
• Impact to Aerial Chemical Application
• Proximity to school and cemetery

Central Route

Neutral Public Response

• New Corridor where one doesn’t currently exist
• Impact to Aerial Chemical Application

Eastern Route

Publicly Favored Route

• Maximum Use of Existing Corridor
• Fewer New Landowner Impacts
• Least Impact to Aerial Chemical Application
• One Comment Expressing Concern Over

Property Value and Structure Placement

Additional Considerations

Owner’s Engineer Recommends Eastern Route

• A significant portion of the line runs through an existing corridor
• Minimizes distance which is parallel to irrigation structures
• Does not cross federal or state lands or existing transmission lines
• Has minimal impacts to crop land
• Does not impact public facilities
• Has minimal impact to residences within 500 feet of the route

Operations and Maintenance Input

• Eastern Route – Least Impact to Maintenance Activity

Financial Analysis

• Eastern Route Initial Construction Cost Higher Than Central Route
• Existing Frenchman-Royal 115kV Nearing End of Lifecycle
• Eastern Route Includes Full Rebuild of Frenchman-Royal 115kV

Eastern Route Selected

• Publicly Preferred Route
• Owner’s Engineer Recommended
• Operations and Maintenance Recommended
• Financial Analysis Determined the Eastern

and Central Routes Have Similar Net Costs

Powering our way of life.

M E M O R A N D U M 3/24/2020 TO: Kevin Nordt, General Manager/Chief Executive Officer VIA: Rich Wallen, Chief Operating Officer Jeff Grizzel, Managing Director of Power Delivery Julie Pyper, Senior Manager of the Project Management Office Russ Seiler, Manager of Power Delivery Projects FROM: David Klinkenberg, Project Manager SUBJECT: Red Rock Transmission Line Route Selection Purpose: To inform the Commission that District Staff have selected the Eastern Route as the path for the new Red Rock Line. See “Attachment A - Route Map.” Discussion: Background: District Staff have initiated a project to build a new substation in the Port of Royal Slope known as the Red Rock Substation. The District already owns the parcel of land in the Port of Royal Slope where the substation will be built. To provide power to the new substation, a new 115kV transmission line will be built. The line is known as the Red Rock Transmission Line. The District’s System Engineering Group performed a power flow study and determined that the origin point for the new transmission line should be the existing Frenchman Hills Substation, northwest of Royal City. Line Route Alternatives: The Red Rock Transmission line will be built as part of the District’s Load Growth Project also known as Design Build 2 (DB2). Stanley Consultants, the Owner’s Engineer for DB2, led a structured process to develop 3 line route alternatives. The process began with a field study which identified 69 potential line segments. See “Attachment B - Line Segment Map.” These line segments were combined in different ways to produce a total of 84 possible line routes. Each line segment, and subsequently each line route, was given a numerical score that rated its impact on the public. The criterion used to asses public impact included 14 factors that ranged from impact on irrigation to proximity to public facilities. Of the 84 potential line routes, the three route alternatives deemed to have the least impact on the public were identified. See “Attachment C - Route Alternatives.” These were titled the Western Route, the Central Route, and the Eastern Route. Note that the Eastern Route parallels the existing Frenchman- Royal 115kV line for most of its length. The Eastern Route alternative includes fully rebuilding the existing Frenchman-Royal 115kV line segment and placing it on new double circuit transmission structures along with the new Red Rock Transmission Line. Public Workshops: In order to make a final determination of the preferred route, District staff hosted two public meetings designed to solicit public input regarding benefits or impacts associated with the three route alternatives. The District notified the public about the workshops through mailed letters, local newspapers, the District’s Facebook page and homepage. The workshops were an open forum style with several informative displays about the project including: the project background, why it is needed, what is proposed, the line route study area, the three route alternatives and Transmission Line

structure examples. There was District representation from the Design Build 2 Core Team, Property Services, Environmental Affairs, Public Affairs and from Stanley Consultants. The public was encouraged to ask questions and engage with the District representatives and were also given the opportunity to provide comments either by a provided comment sheet and/or through emails. The District asked to receive all public comments back by February 12th, 2020. Between the two public meetings, 25 members of the public attended. Within the allotted response time we received 9 written comments submitted at the workshop, 6 written comments via USPS, 2 emails submitted to the project manager and 1 email to Public Affairs. Justification: Public Comments: Of the 18 public comments collected, public opinion favored the Eastern Route. The comments submitted generally included concern about land use impact, land value impact, and impacts to agricultural related aviation activity. The Eastern route was favored by 3 commenters while also having several more comments noting that following the existing corridor was preferred. There was also concern with placing power lines where none currently existed. The Western Route received 6 comments of opposition, the Central Route received 1 comment of opposition and the Eastern Route received 1 comment expressing concern. Two

• f the comments submitted favored the Central Route with the Eastern route as second choice.

Owner’s Engineer Recommendation: Stanley Consultants offered the following recommendation in their final route selection report: “Based on this Screening Study and the comments received from the public workshops, Stanley Consultants is recommending that Route 8 (East Alternative) move forward into the design process as the preferred

• alternative. The criterion for this route indicates the following:
• A significant portion of the line runs through an existing transmission corridor;
• Minimizes distance which is parallel to irrigation structures;
• Does not cross federal or state lands or existing transmission lines;
• Has minimal impacts to crop land;
• Does not impact public facilities; and,
• Has minimal impact to residences within 500 feet of the route. “

O&M Impacts: The District’s Line Department was asked to assess the impact of the three route alternatives on Construction and Maintenance activity. The Line Department recommended the Eastern

• Route. Their reasons included less impact to the existing vegetation management program, not adding

more assets to manage and maintain, and it allows us to utilize the existing right of way. Financial Considerations: An independent review of the economic analysis was done for the Central and Eastern Routes. The Western Route was not considered in the economic analysis due to strong public opposition to the Western option. Total cost to build, increased O&M for additional line miles, and the expected cost avoidance over ten years were analyzed.

The existing Frenchman-Royal line segment will require a rebuild within approximately ten years due to the age and condition of the structures. The Eastern route includes a full rebuild of the existing Frenchman-Royal line segment. This results in a higher up-front cost but avoids the future cost to rebuild the existing Frenchman-Royal. Choosing the Central Route means that a second future Frenchman-Royal rebuild project would still be required. By considering the financial impacts of the aging Frenchman-Royal segment and future O&M costs, both the Central and Eastern routes have similar net costs. Central Route Eastern Route Up Front Cost $7,053,000 $10,051,000 10 Year Cost Avoidance $1,496,000 $4,052,000 10 Year Net Cost (escalated) $5,364,000 $5,358,000 Mile of New Line Corridor 5.29 3.3 Summary: After a thorough analysis and public process, District Staff has selected the Eastern Route as the preferred route for the new Red Rock Transmission Line. Attachments: Attachment A - Route Map Attachment B - Line Segment Map Attachment C - Route Alternatives