HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-12 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesReading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
230 Ash Street R E C E I V E D
Reading, MA 01867 I O W N CLERK
�Irr December 12, 2013 E r^, D I N G. MASS.
Start Time of Regular Session: 7:30 p.m.
End Time of Regular Session: 9:45 p.m. Z914 JAN 30 A 10; 04
Commissioners:
John Stempeck, Chairman Philip B. Pacino, Vice Chair
Robert Soli, Commissioner David Talbot, Secretary
David Mancuso, Commissioner
Staff:
Coleen O'Brien, General Manager Beth Ellen Antonio, Human Resources Manager
Jeanne Foti, Executive Assistant Bob Fournier, Accounting/Business Manager
Priscilla Gottwald, Community Relations Manager Jane Parenteau, Energy Services Manager
Citizens' Advisory Board:
Tom 011ila
Rubin and Rudman LLP:
Diedre T. Lawrence
PLM:
Mayhew Seavey
Public:
Marsie West
all Meeting to Order
Chairman Stempeck called the meeting to order and stated that the meeting was being videotaped, it is live in Reading only.
Opening Remarks
Chairman Stempeck welcomed Tom 011ila Citizens' Advisory Board (CAB) member and then read the RMLD Board of
Commissioners Code of Conduct. The RMLD Board of Commissioners recognizes the importance of hearing public
comment, at the discretion of the Chair, on items on the official agenda as well as on item(s) not on the official agenda. We
ask that all questions or comments from the public be directed to the Chair and that all parties, including members of the
RMLD Board, act in a professional and courteous manner when addressing the Board or responding to comments. Once
recognized by the Chair, all persons addressing the Board shall state their name and address prior to speaking. It is the role
of the Chair to maintain order in all public comment or ensuing discussion.
Chairman Stempeck asked Mr. Talbot to perform the duties of Secretary for the meeting.
Approval of Board Minutes (Attachment 1)
September 25, 2013
Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli that the RMLD Board of Commissioners approve the Regular Session
meeting minutes of September 25, 2013, as presented.
Motion carried: 4:0:1. Chairman Stempeck abstained; he was not present at the meeting.
October 30, 2013
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr. Pacino that the RMLD Board of Commissioners approve the Regular Session
meeting minutes of October 30, 2013, as presented.
Motion carried: 5:0:0.
0
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Report of the Chairman (Attachment 2)
Town of Reading Subsequent Town Meeting
Chairman Stempeck reported that he and General Manager Coleen O'Brien presented information on five items at the Town
of Reading's Town Meeting: 1. The Impact of Gas Within Our Northeastern Environment; which has been very helpful when
the generators are running on gas, unfortunately the flip side is gas constraints exist during the winter months driving up the
gas rates dramatically. Chairman Stempeck said that the constraint is due to the pipelines and that the pipeline suppliers are
not planning on increasing capacity anytime in the near future. 2. Renewable Energy Credits; which the RMLD has sold in
accordance with policy and will continue to do so. 3. Energy Conservation; the impact of energy conservation focused on
peak shaving is a very tangible savings in terms of RMLD. 4. Return on Investment to Reading; which was approximately
$2.5 million. 5. The RMLD's successful General Manager Search: this resulted in hiring Ms. Coleen O'Brien. Chairman
Stempeck asked Ms. O'Brien if she had anything to add. Ms. O'Brien thanked Chairman Stempeck, she stated that at the
Town Meeting she provided a brief overview of her charge to develop a long term strategic plan aimed at reliability,
organizational structure, and keeping rates low. Ms. O'Brien stated that she was glad to have been introduced to the Meeting
body and appreciated Chairman Stempeck's comments.
Chairman Stempeck recognized Selectman West who was in attendance at the meeting.
Report of the Chairman
Town of Reading Home Rule Charter Changes
Chairman Stempeck stated that the Town of Reading Home Rule Charter changes are being brought up in open session with
three attachments: 1. Letter dated November 25, 2013, from Laura Gemme, Town Clerk; in the April 2013 Town Meeting
there was an instructional meeting to create a committee to examine the Home Rule Charter and to suggest changes to that
charter. Chairman Stempeck said that the meeting was originally scheduled for December 4 and moved to December 2.
Chairman Stempeck stated that the reason he asked that this be on the agenda this evening was his concern that changes were
being suggested at that meeting. The RMLD was unaware of them, and these changes might impact us or play a role outside
of the purview of the Town of Reading. Chairman Stempeck wanted to be sure that the Committee and the Board of
Commissioners were in sync with making suggestions that were appropriate and could be fulfilled. Chairman Stempeck
expressed his surprise when Commissioner Pacino was called to attend the meeting and to find that Commissioners Pacino
and Mancuso were already on that committee. Chairman Stempeck stated that they were unaware as a Commission that this
was happening and as a result had a few questions to ask. Chairman Stempeck reported that he had written a note to the
Town Clerk to be distributed then read the note aloud.
Dear Sirs: The Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners has not had an opportunity to review the content within
the suggested proposed changes. As such, any suggested changes in the present document are premature and need to be
approved via the entire Municipal Light Board. At this time, they must take exception to any and all changes until they are
determined to fall within Home Rule Charter versus Massachusetts state law. Thank you.
Chairman Stempeck stated that they are just trying to coordinate things and opened the floor to Commissioners Pacino and
Mancuso to give a heads up of why the entire Board was not involved in the process. Mr. Pacino reported that this was an
instructional motion that came from Town Meeting to review and update the language in the Charter it was not to make any
substantive changes at this point. Mr. Pacino stated that the motion was to have one representative from each of the eight
precincts in town and said that the idea was to bring it up in accordance with reality or what is really going on. Mr. Pacino
said that in terms of not knowing, his assumption was that everyone knows what is going on in Town Meeting. Mr. Pacino
reported on the changes that have been made, in the second paragraph the reference there was removed and it is now covered
under Chapter 164, there is an update on changing the name to Municipal Light Board of Commissioners which is the official
stated name in Chapter 164 and in the fourth paragraph under the School Committee the change would be that they would set
the duties in terms of employment instead of adding all the extra wording.
Mr. Pacino said that this is all tentative and they are a long way from being done, many of the changes have already been
reviewed by the Town Counsel and at the end of this process Reading Town Counsel will review the entire process again.
The meeting was originally scheduled for December 4 the original memo before you was an error sent with the wrong date.
Mr. Pacino stated that the committee meets every two weeks and will be meeting next Monday night, all are welcome to
attend. Mr. Pacino said that if there are any comments to certainly get them back to the committee to make whatever changes
need to be made. Mr. Pacino reported that this information was conveyed to the CAB at their last meeting and that all this
information is available on the Town of Reading's website under Bylaws. Mr. Pacino said that nothing is in stone and
welcomes any comments. Mr. Pacino reported that there are some controversial issues that they are proposing; decreasing
the size of Town Meeting, making the Board of Assessors and the Board of Library Trustees elected.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Report of the Chairman
own of Reading Home Rule Charter Changes
hairman Stempeck asked if Mr. Mancuso had anything to add. Mr. Mancuso stated that he only mentioned this to
Chairman Stempeck as they were walking down the hall, but will try and make sure that as a new Board member and as these
kinds of things come up he will do it in writing so that there is a record of it. Mr. Mancuso said that it is important to keep in
mind that the Town Charter process is somewhat separate from this Board in terms of authority and responsibility and while
he is sure that there is going to be open door input at the end of the day it is beyond the scope of what he and Mr. Pacino have
as two members of that committee to guarantee any outcome as it will be of the will of the larger body of fifteen people. Mr.
Mancuso stated that as Mr. Pacino said, that the important thing for them as Commissioners is that they are simply trying to
make sure that there is no confusion in the Town Charter about the authority that our General Manager has or the authority
that this Board has that is relative to the town and that they are really trying to do what they can to polish up the language to
make sure that it is really clear of who is responsible for what, that is the only goal.
Chairman Stempeck said that as a Commission it is awkward to have two of our commissioners on a committee and we are
not made aware of, to be suggesting changes that are right, wrong or indifferent as a courtesy they rest of the Board should
have been made aware before it was presented to the committee. Chairman Stempeck stated that it was awkward and maybe
even stretched to a conflict of interest because you are involved in us so intimately and yet the entire Board did not know
what was being presented to the town. Chairman Stempeck said that some of the items here may be portrayed straight
forward or quite innocent, however when you look into them a little bit further there are questions of the Board not being able
to set the compensation of the General Manager or to be removed by a vote of majority. Chairman Stempeck stated that
there is only one person that reports to the Board and that is our General Manager, so any change in those abilities of the
Board to govern are pretty significant, it is the one thing that they do outside of identifying and hiring the General Manager
other than setting policy. Chairman Stempeck would like the Board to be more coordinated and would appreciate if they
could do that together as opposed to separately, perhaps from this point forward. Chairman Stempeck said that he did ask
Diedre Lawrence to chat about the difference of what can be done in terms of making suggestions in this manner versus what
cannot be done under state law. Chairman Stempeck stated that the reason for this is that he does not want the Board to
appear foolish by making suggestions that they cannot implement for which come up later and find that it is not appropriate.
Mr. Mancuso said that there was not any intention on his or Mr. Pacino's part to not have this conversation and so it is
)mpletely acceptable and appropriate and both are happy to cooperate. Mr. Mancuso stated that many of these things that
ey will be discussing on another item are a matter of timing and so they are crystal clear that there was no intention on our
part accept to act in good faith as citizens of this town in our capacity on that committee and as members of this commission
respecting both of those roles. Chairman Stempeck said he was sure that was the case. Mr. Pacino stated that the changes
that you see here were not proposed by himself or Mr. Mancuso. Mr. Mancuso said that they are all on board with the need
to communicate and that later on this evening there will actually be an agenda item that will make your point.
Mr. Soli said that it sounds to him like this is an Ad Hoc Committee and wondered when the Selectmen approved
membership on both the Ad Hoc Committee and other town boards and commissions. Mr. Pacino replied that this is not
appointed by the Selectmen this is appointed by the Moderator, this is a committee of Town Meeting. Mr. Soli said however,
this is not Town Meeting and understands that one may be a Light Commission member and cannot belong to another board
or commission without approval for example, when he was working at the elections all the election workers had to get
approval from the Board of Selectmen that they could be both an election worker and hold some other position in town. Mr.
Pacino asked Mr. Soli what his point was. Mr. Soli replied that it was not acting as Town Meeting they were acting as
another body and asked does acting as another body in addition to being a commissioner require Selectmen approval. Mr.
Pacino replied that for this committee his is not aware that this is the case. Chairman Stempeck stated that they should get
clarification for this after the meeting just to make sure that they are doing things appropriately and if anything it is good that
commissioners participate in the town. Chairman Stempeck reiterated that for the courtesy of knowing that you are doing it,
knowing what is being said so that they can all agree so they do not have to chase you downstream and that they were not
violating anything in terms of a Charter in one organization or another.
Chairman Stempeck asked if there was any comment from the public in terms of this, there was none.
Report of the Chairman
Remote Participation Policy — Town of Reading
Chairman Stempeck said that this is an excellent thing to have been approved by the Board of Selectmen and it ties into the
- lectronic format these days of being able to participate. Mr. Pacino stated that it was an excellent idea and wondered how
�,ey would work it in this room to have remote participation. Mr. Pacino asked if there was a phone that they could call into
Otere and asked if a conference system like that in the General Manager's conference room could be installed here to call in.
Chairman Stempeck wanted to make everyone aware that the policy is in place and all are welcomed to use it. Mr. Pacino
said that the only thing that he had noticed was if you had more than one person on the phone and one was to lose the
connection then the conference call would have to stop.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Report of the Chairman
Remote Participation Policy — Town of Reading
Mr. Mancuso asked if they would have to adopt this policy as a separate Board, it has been adopted by the Town and the
Board of Selectmen is it something that would they have to procedurally adopt. Mr. Mancuso said that it is a great idea and
is personally all for it, allowing for broader participation with everybody's busy schedule and wondering how they would
adopt it. Mr. Pacino's thought was that it would be up to the Department to implement it. Ms. West stated that this was
discussed at great length with the Board of Selectmen and since they adopted the policy it applies to all the rest of the Boards,
Committees and Commissions within the town. The RMLD should have actually gotten something in the mail that said this
was now policy and that there is no need for you to adopt it separately. Ms. West said that she did participate remotely in a
meeting so they have actually had that happen on more than one occasion. Mr. Pacino asked Ms. West if this only covers
meetings held in the Town of Reading so if the CAB met outside the Town of Reading this would not apply to them. Ms.
West replied that she was not sure about that and asked if the CAB was a Reading group or not and was not sure how that
would necessarily apply and that this would be a good thing to bring up with Counsel.
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien — General Manager
Retrofit for customer Jack Devir
Ms. O'Brien reported that during National Public Power Week the RMLD had an Open House that was successful and as part
of that the RMLD provided, as a lottery, one home retrofit for LEDs up to $500; a collaboration with Home Depot. Mr. Jack
Devir of Reading won the retrofit. Ms. O'Brien indicated that Mr. Devir was asked, if RMLD could retrieve savings data
after his conversion so that the data could be shared with other homeowners on the typical savings of a LED replacement
project. The data would be provided under "Saving Energy and Money" on the RMLD website; a January or February target
date was given by Mr. Devir.
Organizational Study RFP
Ms. O'Brien reported that the RMLD is currently working with Cotte and Associates and are at the final draft stage on the
RFP, looking at a possible January bid. Ms. O'Brien stated that the Organizational Study would require a number of input
components; A Long Term Reliability Study, which would be a component of the RFP and an independent Cost of Service
Study, along with a six year Financial Plan. Ms. O'Brien said that it typically takes about 1.5 to 2 months to perform a
preliminary Reliability Study, then inputted into the ongoing Organizational Study as a parallel effort, Ms. O'Brien indicated
that she was hopeful to have a late spring presentation. Ms. O'Brien reported that all of the components are integral and key
to the Final Strategic Plan.
Power Supply Report — October 2013 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 3)
Ms. Parenteau presented the October Power Supply Report provided in the Commissioner packets covering power supply
charges, energy costs, fuel charges and collections, fuel reserve balance, spot market purchases, capacity costs, as well as the
percentage of RMLD's hydro projects and energy efficiency measures installed.
Ms. Parenteau reported that the RMLD's load for October was approximately 55.3 million kWhs and which is a 0.4%
decrease from October 2012. RMLD's energy cost came in at approximately $1.7 million and that is equivalent to
approximately $.03 per kilowatt hour. Ms. Parenteau stated that the Fuel Charge adjustment was set at $.04 per kilowatt hour
for the month of October and the RMLD sales totaled 53.7 million kilowatt hours, as a result the RMLD over collected by
approximately $130,000 resulting in a Deferred Fuel Cash Reserve balance of $3.6 million. The November and December
Fuel Charge adjustment remained at $.04 and the Deferred Fuel Cash Reserve is projected to be a little over $2.7 million at
the end of the calendar year.
The RMLD purchased about 8% of its energy requirements from the ISO New England Spot Market and the average cost of
$39 per megawatt hour. Ms. Parenteau reported on the Capacity side the RMLD hit a peak demand of 99.6 megawatts on
October 7 at 8:00 p.m., the temperature was 71 degrees and this compares to a peak demand of 4 megawatts lower in October
15, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. when the temperature was 49 degrees. The RMLD's monthly capacity requirement was 215 megawatts
of capacity equivalent to $1.48 million or just under $7 kilowatt month.
Ms. Parenteau reported that for capacity and energy costs as well as energy generated in kilowatt hours for the month of
October, RMLD capacity and energy costs came in at just under $.057 per kilowatt hour. In addition, for the month of
October, 4.3% of our energy purchases were generated from hydro generation.
19
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Power Supply Report — October 2013 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 3)
"he RMLD has received approximately 10,000 RECs from Purchase Power Agreements for the January through October
game. There were 4,600 RECs that sold for $245,000 which was included in the October fuel, the market value of the
remaining RECs is about $491,000. Ms. Parenteau reported that the RMLD is currently reviewing a sales agreement with a
buyer to purchase the second quarter RECs which is about 6,400 RECs for a total of about $340,000.
Ms. Parenteau reported that the RMLD's total transmission cost for the month of October was $1.1 million which is
approximately a 14% increase from September 2013.
The RMLD processed ten commercial lighting rebates totaling $38,000 bringing the fiscal year total to $67,000. The RMLD
calculates the capacity savings to be approximately 187 kilowatts and the energy savings to be approximately 846 megawatt
hours. On the residential side the RMLD calculates 87 kilowatts of capacity savings and 65 megawatt hours of energy
savings. To date the RMLD has processed 507 residential rebates totaling $23,700 and 131 RMLD customers have received
audits totaling $26,200.
Mr. Talbot said that there was a question from the public over the past month that he had sent on to you and Ms. O'Brien,
asking for a breakdown of how much of the RMLD supply is renewable and nuclear, what the percentage is right now. Ms.
Parenteau said that if you look at the graph below Table 2, it lists the projects by resources. Mr. Talbot stated that it looked
as though 16% to 17% would be nuclear. Ms. Parenteau said that would be Seabrook and Millstone #3. Mr. Talbot asked
what the simple answer was adding up the asterisked ones. Ms. O'Brien replied 4.34 %. Mr. Talbot asked plus 16% that is
nuclear would add it up to 20 %. Ms. Parenteau replied that is correct. Mr. Talbot asked with the recent contracts signed
would that move it up too? Ms. Parenteau replied that was two hydro projects and the RMLD is looking at another wind
project that will be presented to the Board in Executive Session this evening. The RMLD is also looking at some additional
hydro projects in 2014 as well as another wind project. RMLD has residential solar that is growing and looking for
commercial opportunities. Mr. Talbot asked if all of those come to fruition what would they add up to. Ms. Parenteau
replied that it is really fluid and volatile with these projects after going through the motions with interconnecting and
permitting they may or may not come to fruition. Currently given what we have in our queue if all those projects came
online in 2015 it would be around 18 %. Ms. Parenteau reported that the big kicker to that is the Concord Steam Project
hich was about 6% of the overall portfolio and that may or may not happen. The RMLD should know within the next
ouple of days. Mr. Talbot asked that it would then be 18% plus the 16% nuclear. Ms. Parenteau replied correct.
Ms. O'Brien reported that the RMLD was trying to target some renewables in our service territory and asked Ms. Parenteau
to speak to the Wilmington Project. Ms. Parenteau said that over the last two years the RMLD has been working with several
developers on a project in Wilmington. This project started out as a 3.4 megawatt project and is down right now to 1.7
megawatts due to structural issues on the roof. Mr. Talbot asked if this is the project that the Town of Wilmington wanted to
tax. Ms. Parenteau stated that there was issue with that but the developer was able to overcome those issues and we were at
the final stages of the Purchase Power Agreement when she received a message on Friday that there was a high probability
that the project will not go online because Integrys who ultimately was going to be the holder of the contract, when doing
their due diligence found restrictions with the mortgage on the property, if the owner was to foreclose then the mortgager
would have the ability to liquidate all equipment at the site which would include the solar capital. Ms. Parenteau stated that
Integrys will not move forward with a multi - million dollar investment given that circumstance, the two developers that we
are working with are trying to see if they can work around that, but they say it is highly unlikely. Circumstances of that
nature tend to happen when working with these developers. Ms. Parenteau said that we try to do our due diligence and then
have to rely on them.
Financial Report — October 2013 — Mr. Fournier (Attachment 4)
Mr. Fournier presented the October Financial Report provided in the Commissioner packets for the first four months of this
fiscal year; the negative change in Net Assets or Net Income of $175,000, decreasing the year to date Net Income to $1.7
million. Year to date kilowatt hour sales were 255,000,000 kilowatt hours sold which is 2.9 million kilowatt hours or 1.1%
behind last year's actual figure. Mr. Fournier pointed out that the total revenues from the Gaw project from inception are
$2.2 million with the cost at $2.5 million. By January or February the $2.5 million will be recovered.
Mr. Fournier reported that the year to date budgeted Net Income was approximately $2.7 million with the resulting Net
Income being under budget by $1 million or about 36 %. Actual year to day fuel revenues exceeded fuel expenses by $1
million.
ear to date base revenues were under budget by $554,000 or about 3 %, actual base revenues were $16.6 million compared
to the budgeted amount of $17.2 million. Year to date purchased power base expenses were under budget by $200,000 or
about 2 %, actual purchased power base costs were $10 million compared to the budgeted amount of $10.2 million.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Financial Report — October 2013 — Mr. Fournier (Attachment 4)
Year to day operating and maintenance (O &M) expenses combined were over budget by $100,000 or just over 2 %, actual
O &M expenses were $4.4 million compared to the budgeted amount of $4.3 million. Depreciation expense and voluntary
payments to the Towns were on budget.
Operating Fund was at $8.9 million, Capital Fund $4.3 million, Rate Stabilization Fund $6.7 million, Deferred Fuel Fund
$3.6 million and the Energy Conservation Fund at $440,000.
The five divisions came in over budget by $101,000 or 1.5 %.
General Discussion
Ms. O'Brien stated that Ms. Gottwald will be presenting updates from activities on the calendar.
Tree Lighting — December 1
Ms. Gottwald reported that the RMLD has been donating holiday lights for the past five years for a conversion program in
order that all the holiday lights in the towns will be LED lighting. The RMLD gives forty strings to Lynnfield and
Wilmington and to Reading and North Reading through the Reading/North Reading Chamber of Commerce. RMLD is an
intricate part of the lighting ceremony which took place on December 1 in Reading. Participating employees included;
Maureen Hanifan, Michelle Lamson, Scott Williams, Tom Williamson, Steve DeFerrari, Joe Bilicki and Priscilla Gottwald
who made sure that the lights were switched on when Santa came to town. Ms. Gottwald thanked Tom O'Connor for
coordinating his staff that makes sure the lights go on every night at 4:15 p.m.
T -Shirt Awards — January 9
Ms. Gottwald said that the T -Shirts were collected and judged today by RMLD employees, Linemen; Dan Follis and Tom
MacRae, Technical Services Manager Nick D'Alleva and Engineering Project Manager Vaughan Bryan. The T -Shirts are
being prepared to send off to the photographer /designer who will put them in a poster calendar format. The winners will be
presented on January 9, 2014, Ms. O'Brien and the Chairman are usually expected to speak and stated that usually another
Commissioner attends. Mr. Pacino said that is one of his more enjoyable events to attend.
North Reading Rotary Christmas Caroling
Ms. Gottwald stated that as part of the North Reading Rotary they went Christmas Caroling and presented calendars to the
residents at Peabody Court in North Reading. They were also joined by the North Reading High School Interact Club a
Junior Rotarian Club sponsored by the North Reading Rotary.
Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA) Conference — December 19
Ms. Gottwald reported that on December 19 as a Board member of the Wilmington School Business Partnership, she will be
a judge at their Distributive Education Clubs of America (DECA) Conference. DECA prepares emerging leaders and
entrepreneurs for careers in marketing, finance, hospitality and management in high schools and colleges around the globe.
This judging will take place in Boxboro and twelve high schools in our district will be there to be judged.
A Taste of Metro North
Ms. Gottwald reported that the as a North Reading Rotarian they are working with the Reading Rotary Club to put on A
Taste of Metro North, which involves restaurants in our area who present some of their samplings and menus. This has been
very successful over the past few years.
Trains in RMLD's Lobby
Ms. O'Brien gave special thanks to Paul Carson who was a previous Chief Engineer at the RMLD who is instrumental in
arranging and setting up the trains in the lobby. Ms. O'Brien said that the trains this year are now elevated up on some
blocks, Customer Service Manager; Maureen Hanifan sewed the entire skirt that wraps around it. Ms. Gottwald stated that
Tom Schibilio from the Facilities Department created the structure that holds the tracks that will be stored here at the RMLD.
General Discussion
Cost of Service Study
Ms. O'Brien reported that there was an absence of a current formal Six -Year Financial Plan that provided the level of detail
that was needed. Previous projected data assumed overall sales growth, which based on current data, had not come to
fruition and that preliminary findings are showing a potential negative income. No six year plan was prepared or included for
the FY14 Budget. Ms. O'Brien stated that it was her fiduciary duty to ensure that the RMLD continue with a stable financial
plan and that most likely she would be seeking a prompt rate increase to ensure that the RMLD complete the FY14 year
stable with all commitments paid.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
lost of Service Study
I*4&W ls. O'Brien stated that a 9% increase to the base rate only, (an approximately 5% overall increase) or a $3 increase to a 500
kWh bill, effective February 2014, would return financial stability and ensure a positive net income. The full Cost of Service
will review the financials and split the cost of production between the rate classes. Ms. O'Brien reported that immediately,
when the erosion of overall sales was determined, a preliminary six year plan was generated and a full Cost of Service /Cost
Allocation and Rate Design Study was called for. Ms. O'Brien stated that Mr. Seavey will speak to the Cost of Service Study
process. Ms. O'Brien said that last week a training seminar was held where Mr. Seavey gave a more formal presentation
prior to the CAB meeting.. Ms. O'Brien stated that this evening she will be looking for a motion to defer to the Citizens'
Advisory Board, then introduced Mr. Seavey who is employed by PLM of Hopkinton, MA. Mr. Seavey is well known
throughout the industry for Power Supply and Rate Economics.
Mr. Seavey introduced himself as Principal of Power Line Models, PLM in Hopkinton, MA. Mr. Seavey reported that he has
done Cost of Service and Rate Studies for more than half of the power systems in Massachusetts and New England and has
been doing them for close to thirty years.
Mr. Seavey stated that he has been retained by the RMLD to perform a thorough Cost of Service Study and Rate Analysis.
Mr. Seavey had the pleasure of speaking to a group last week about the fundamentals of principles of the cost of service
analysis and rate design and presented the preliminary results of the Cost of Service Study. Mr. Seavey said that he had
reviewed the present rates in terms of the structure of the rates and looked at some ways that they might be restructured to be
more in line with best practices in the industry these days. Also performed, was the first stage of the rate study which is
called a historic test of your Cost of Service Study where actual expenses and revenues are taken from a previous year, in this
case fiscal 2013 and then allocate the expenses of the plant to the various customer classes to see how the rates are
performing in terms of what rate of return to each customer class is producing and what are the rates overall producing in
terms of a rate of return.
Mr. Seavey reported that the preliminary findings were what is really typical with municipals is that the rate of return across
the classes was fairly uneven, that can be dealt with, but the immediate concern is that the overall level of net income rate of
turn was lower than intended and all the indications were that this was a result of declining sales and sales not keeping up
ith expenses. Mr. Seavey said that as a result the net income has eroded. The result is that there is a need for an immediate
increase in revenues in order to meet your commitments for this year and while that happens we will conduct a future test to
the cost of service to determine where the rates need to be going forward. Also, a six year projection out to the future will be
done to see how sustainable any rate design recommendation is over the long term. Mr. Seavey stated that this is going to
require some assumptions of what is going to happen with sales in the future and will have to test that under a variety of
different sensitivity conditions with the idea that they will come back with a recommendation for rates that the RMLD will be
able to implement probably the beginning of the next fiscal year July 1, although the results should be ready in two to three
months. Mr. Seavey said that in light of the 9% increase if that takes place February 1 as is recommended, it is not at all
clear at this point whether the change on July 1 will actually be another increase or a decrease. Mr. Seavey stated that they
are compressing 12 months of revenue shortfall into five or six months which is why the increase needs to be 9% and not
three or four percent. Mr. Seavey stated that it may be that the RMLD can adjust rates downward July 1, but is too soon to
tell if the RMLD is looking at an increase or a decrease. There will be a range of options and recommendations before that
time.
Mr. Talbot asked as part of the proposed or rate increase is there any thought on how to structure a change in rates to
encourage behavior that we want to encourage. That is, to reduce peak demand. Mr. Seavey replied, that would be part of
whatever rate changes that result from the Cost of Service Study those sorts of changes in terms of increasing block rates or
more extreme time -of -use rates and things like that we could consider and make recommendations to be effective later in the
year. Mr. Seavey does not believe that is part of the initial recommendation. Ms. O'Brien stated that Mr. Seavey's scope of
work includes for the long term to address LED streetlight rates. Chairman Stempeck said that in general what we are seeing
is that the overall demand is actually shrinking which is more than interesting to us because we have commitments. When
the demand shrinks and the cost remains stable and you have fixed expenses that is very difficult to reduce it means that your
bottom line reduces so somehow one needs to make up for that if you want to make the same commitment for the bottom
line.
Mr. Talbot said in looking at the overall business model of RMLD, all the electricity that we provide is bought from
�Wlsewhere. And we pay these increasingly soaring transmission costs. Meanwhile the cost of producing energy locally keeps
dropping, principally PV if it is done right, and any of the fuel cells coming on. Mr. Talbot asked when is the point when
RMLD says we need to as we did 100 years ago, tweak the business model and start being in the business of generation, not
just subsidizing third parties to do it, but do it directly and efficiently as a core part of our business.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
Cost of Service Study
Mr. Talbot said this would be a substantial change, but one that the Board should start thinking about. Increasingly the
economics are making a lot of sense instead of handing all these subsidies to the middleman, we could think about bringing it
in- house. Mr. Talbot stated that this was probably way outside the scope of what Mr. Seavey was looking at, but at some
point our current model starts to look a little creaky. Mr. Seavey replied, that it is not exactly outside the scope of what is
being looked at and that these are policy issues and this is precisely the body to make decisions like that. Mr. Seavey said
that he has done a lot of work with other municipal utilities developing rates for renewable generation that really reflect the
value of what Mr. Talbot is talking about, being able to avoid some of the purchase capacity and transmission costs that you
are subject to. This carries on with a very powerful incentive for customers to do that in terms of the economics because so
much of the value of it right now is in the form of tax credits which do not provide any value to the RMLD as a tax exempt
entity, but there are plenty of models for public private partnership that could make good use of those benefits under your
umbrella and encouragement through public buildings, schools, etc. Mr. Seavey said that he could give examples of what has
worked in other communities along those lines.
Mr. Talbot said that as we are talking about increasing rates to bring in more revenue, another way to make revenue is to go
to these businesses directly. Chairman Stempeck stated that it is appropriate to consider this. Mr. Talbot said this is
something to consider over the long term.
Chairman Stempeck commented just from the data that he had looked at that it has been 3%z years since the RMLD has had a
rate increase, July 2010. Chairman Stempeck asked who else hasn't had a salary increase, cost of living increase or social
security increase in 3%z years stating that is quite commendable that the RMLD has not had to do a rate increase for 3%z years.
Chairman Stempeck stated that his understanding is that at the beginning of the year our competitors such as NSTAR are
asking for over a 30% increase, compare that to the 9% that we are asking for. Everything in life is relative and when you put
in on that kind of a scale it is pretty impressive that if given it is just 9% it may be less over a period of time.
Mr. 011ila asked if the new chart that came out with the agenda included the new National Grid rates. Ms. Parenteau replied
that the NSTAR rates are effective January 1 and that those would be NSTAR's old rates. Mr. 011ila asked if NSTAR's rates
were going up more than the rates listed. Ms. Parenteau replied yes, in January. Mr. 011ila asked then National Grid is already
the higher rate. Ms. Parenteau replied correct. Mr. 011ila stated that it is a lot higher. Chairman Stempeck stated that it is 30%
to 40% higher. Chairman Stempeck said that it may seem dramatic that the RMLD is asking for 9 %, but in a relative world, if
you step outside the boundaries of our communities and you are paying significantly more. Mr. 011ila said that the only one that
is not is Peabody, and asked if there was any particular reason why they are more comparable to us. Ms. O'Brien replied that
they have the generation that Commissioner Talbot was speaking about and if we could talk Middleton into building the facility
inside of our NEMA zone, that would be the optimum solution. Ms. O'Brien said that National Grid goes out and purchases
every six months so they may go up 30% and as the gas constraints are tighter during the winter time that 30% may come down
when they go out for their next purchase, it may not stay at 30 %. Mr. Seavey said that he would try not to make too much of
that 27% increase it is a seasonal phenomenon of the gas delivery issues that the Chairman was referring to earlier and when
you get to the summer those are less of a problem. It is also based on another value which is stability, 3!/2 years without a
change and they are reflecting in large part the six month market price for 100% of the energy requirement. Chairman
Stempeck said that even if they were 10% versus 40% on average then they are about 25 %. Mr. Seavey said that the RMLD has
a built in permanent advantage at this point.
Mr. Mancuso stated his appreciation for pointing out that the RMLD is not as a municipal exactly the same thing as one of the
IOUs, there are some fundamental differences in terms of rate of return in. The goal is to make the RMLD whole with this
increase and coming from the perspective of not having received any information up to this point. Mr. Mancuso said he has not
seen any data, while 9% is not a big number relative to 40 %, if you want to throw out the apples and oranges comparison it is a
significant number and that he wants to make sure that we really understand that we have a public conversation about all those
details. Mr. Mancuso asked that we are trying to make ourselves whole relative in our rate adjustment to what, our costs, our
commitments in the Twenty Year Plan, what are we making ourselves whole too? Ms. O'Brien replied what is being made
whole is to have a consistent net income based on what you voted on as a budget and what is considered to be a stable financial
positioning, which is around five to six percent. Ms. O'Brien stated that we are allowed to make up to eight percent. RMLD
targets an appropriate financially strong income, one which balances low rates with meeting financial obligations, including all
of the town payments and PILOT to Reading. That number has historically been in the general range of 5 -6.7 %. Ms. O'Brien
asked Mr. Fournier if the payment of the Gaw Substation is ending and asked what the offset of that is for a customer's bill.
Ms. Parenteau replied one mil.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
�ost of Service Study
1 lr. Mancuso asked what the variables are in this that we are looking at, stating that we have a twenty year payment and cost of
operations. This is coming on relatively sudden and realizes that there has not been a formal plan from what has been said,
presumably the organization is going to be looking at this periodically, what are the variables involved in us having to think
about this. Ms. O'Brien asked if he was talking the immediate one or the long term. Mr. Mancuso asked what variables are
driving us to have to do this immediately. Ms. O'Brien replied that it was to ensure that we make a sufficient net income by the
end of FY14. Chairman Stempeck said to address this using the spreadsheet model that was used during the presentation last
week and Mr. Mancuso was unable to attend the meeting where it did cover many of the different variables. Chairman
Stempeck stated that the fact that the demand is dropping it is predictable and has been historically predictable and dropping
then when you are proactive in projecting that forward it has some consequences in terms of not being able to meet the bottom
line. Mr. Mancuso said that is always going to be the case as we increase people to be more efficient we are going to run out of
more and more money we are going to have to find ways to replace that revenue or adjust the model because we are going to be
successful at doing what we say we want to do. Chairman Stempeck said people are becoming more efficient much more
rapidly than one would ever suspect, people are actually putting in the LED lights very quickly and the cost of the LED lights
has dropped hugely and people are actually implementing them. Industries are putting in adjustable frequency drives which use
a fraction of the power of the previous drives, everyone is adopting this and when that happens this is not a linear type of thing
it is a very sharp drop off.
Mr. Mancuso said that he did not see a spreadsheet in the packet and did not receive any details before this so it would be
helpful to have someone walk him through whatever is that you have available in terms of data. Mr. Seavey said that he could
provide a copy of the presentation that was made last week. Chairman Stempeck asked that a copy of the presentation be
provided to everyone and any follow up questions that the Commissioners would have be directed through the General Manager
to Mr. Seavey.
Mr. Seavey stated that he would caution against attributing the reduction in sales and revenues to energy efficiency
improvements alone, we have been through an economic crisis here and seeing a lot of municipal utilities in similar situations
that have seen declining sales over the last three or four years and also in the same situation. Mr. Seavey said that most of them
�3ve no energy efficiency programs at all and certainly a portion of that has to be attributable to energy efficiency but suspects
�at it is a relatively small piece.
Mr. Seavey stated that it is not something where you need to be concerned as seen with water utilities where you can get into a
spiraling situation where the more people that conserve the higher the price goes then the more you conserve. Essentially the
customers that do not conserve end up paying more that is almost a problem that you would like to have on the electric side.
Mr. 011ila asked isn't the main driver for the financial problem the first item in Mr. Fournier's report which is that the year to
date fuel revenue has exceeded fuel expenses by $1 million or is this not the issue either. Mr. Fournier replied that eventually
during the course of year that will catch itself up, it really is the lack of base revenues. Ms. O'Brien stated that if you are
possibly thinking that you probably need to reduce your expenses, part of the point of the Organizational Study is that it looks
at the reliability of your system and that you may have some shift of operating and maintenance costs going over to capital
costs, it has been very heavy on the expense side. Ms. O'Brien said that the study will be looking at the amount of
employees specific for the size of the RMLD, the long term improvement plans, programs and processes, and determine the
skill sets and appropriate organizational structure. A lot will come out of the report directed at costs and processes that are
appropriate for this size utility or they need to be more or less. Ms. O'Brien stated that is the whole point of these things will
all coming together, the financial and reliability plans will be inserted into the Organizational Study to get a full picture of
why it is happening. It may just be that the RMLD has not had a rate increase in a long time, prices are going up, the cost of
electricity is going up, capacity and transmission is going to be going up and the RMLD is not selling enough and then you
have to adjust your rates to make sure that you are recovering the needs. Ms. O'Brien said when the whole picture gets
presented it will speak to the expenses, the power supply costs, rates, structure and everything will come together and make
sense.
Mr. Seavey stated that one of the things that can come out of this long term projection is that it gives you the ability to revisit
the question of how much net income do you really need to make, that is a decision that was made in the past and put into
policy. With better information about the long term financial situation you can look at what your capital and funding needs
are to expand, maintain and replace equipment. Mr. Seavey said that is really other than commitments for payments in lieu
f taxes the only other use of that net income is to invest in your plant.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
Cost of Service Study
Mr. Seavey stated that if your projection shows that you can maintain a stable financial position and do the necessary
investment with a lower rate of return than that is something that can come out of that study. In the absence of good
information commissions have a tendency to want to keep the rate of return a little bit higher to be on the safe side, it is a
good opportunity to look at it from zero base budgeting.
Chairman Stempeck stated that there is a historical precedent for that too, the Rate Stabilization Fund as he understands is
that way back in history was that it was set at $14 million and what is the purpose of having a fund if you are not tapping into
the fund. This has been reduced significantly to basically half at around $7 million, so if you can operate an organization like
this as basically a nonprofit and saying one percent or close to zero than you should do it. The problem is that this is not a
lean manufacturing organization, there are lots of variables including the cost of power that we have absolutely no control
over and one has to have buffers in place so you need some kind of rate of return to buffer that.
Mr. Talbot said that as we all know one of the main ways that we can reduce expenses is to cut the peak and one of the tools
that we have is the time -of -use meter which exists in name, but adoption is around one percent. Mr. Talbot stated that when
looking at something like this we really need to ramp up how we are promoting that particular program. Mr. Talbot said if
that page of the website was something comprehensible and user friendly where it was simple, it was a click to act, a button
on the website where we could be sending that around, Ms. Gottwald could be sending that around, it could be in the
newspapers and online. Then the RMLD could start getting people to know about the program and adopting time -of -use
meters to start chopping off that peak to a much greater extent. Mr. Talbot said that even before we do a whole website
redesign, that one page right now is a text heavy explanation of the costs and benefits, but there is nowhere to go to say that
you want one. This is something that we need on the website immediately, promote it heavily and get the adoption of above
one percent for time -of -use meters in this district. Mr. Talbot stated that you cannot say we need a 9% increase without
pushing that as hard as we can.
Mr. Soli said that we probably need a motion. Mr. Pacino asked that they discuss the process first. Chairman Stempeck
stated that there is a five step process; 1. Initiate a Cost of Service Study or at least take the preliminary results from the Cost
of Service Study and try and be proactive in terms of getting most of it headed off at the pass. 2. The RMLD Board makes a
recommendation to the CAB. 3. The CAB has 30 days to approve, disapprove or ignore with regard to the recommendation.
4. The RMLD Board accepts or rejects results of the CAB. 5. If accepted the rates get posted. Chairman Stempeck said that
it is about a two month period of time before the rates actually get implemented.
Ms. West asked if the Chairman was taking questions from the public. Chairman Stempeck replied that they were going to
take them at the end. Ms. West said that she had a question about the process. Ms. West stated that it sounds like you are
asking the RMLD Board to take a recommendation to move to do something without actually having provided them with the
data, in other words people did not get the numbers in the package that they needed to be able to really assess what was said,
is that correct. Chairman Stempeck replied that we did see the numbers. Ms. West said the numbers were not in the package
but maybe it came later. Ms. West stated that she looked at the package before the meeting wanting to have some of the
background. Ms. West asked for this RMLD Board of Commissioner's meeting, not the CAB, and was this data provided?
Chairman Stempeck replied that the initial data was provided. Mr. Mancuso stated that he has not seen a thing and said that
he is trying to understand the urgency because at the end of the day the question on the table can we live up to the budget that
we have set and can we meet the commitments that we have. All the things that Ms. O'Brien has stated in terms of the future
look of the organization and all of that are wonderful variables that we should be looking at so what is the urgency, what is
driving the need to do this. Is it the end of the fiscal year, are we trying to close the gap, have we suddenly come to the
realization that our numbers up to this date have not been accurate, what was missing beforehand. Ms. Parenteau replied that
it appears to be based on the actuals to the way they are coming in, the net revenue will be $1.7 million lower than what was
budgeted that trickles down to the bottom line based on the preliminaries when that gets adjusted net revenue can be negative
at the end of the fiscal year or slightly positive and that is after the town payments. Ms. Parenteau stated that without a rate
increase there is the potential of finishing the fiscal year in the red. Mr. Mancuso said that could then be compensated for
when we do the full rate study in July and realize that we do not necessarily need to make that adjustment it may actually be
refunded so there may be a period of time when we would be operating in the red. Chairman Stempeck said that even the
perspective of operating in the red is not acceptable at all for the RMLD which has never operated in the red and will put us
in more of an emergency situation in July.
Chairman Stempeck stated that it is imperative for this Board to be proactive using what the historical past observances in
terms of trends that are happening to try and head off any kind of issue and not wait until the last minute where it is an
emergency situation. Then the entire town or all the towns may get involved, we are here to provide insurance basically that
this is a very operational group and we are trying to provide the right thing for the right people.
10
11
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
ost of Service Study
rthairman Stempeck said that we go back to no rate increases for 3'/z years then we want to extend that to four years and is
suggesting that based on expert testimony which is what Mr. Seavey is providing to us that we need to do something
relatively quickly to at least fill in the gap. Then we can adjust it just like the fuel adjustment does it basically fills in the gap
on a month to month basis that is basically what we are doing here with the rates. Mr. Mancuso stated that he would agree
with everything that the Chairman had just said but also has an obligation to understand the decisions that he is making
walking in having a motion before him on this table when he has not seen any of the information and has not had a chance to
take advantage of Mr. Seavey's knowledge and experience.
Mr. Mancuso said it would be inappropriate for him to vote on that and that he is trying to get the information in order to
catch up with the rest of the Board who have already gone through this. Chairman Stempeck understands but to delay this to
the January meeting which drops them back to another thirty days for the CAB to consider it keeps pushing it further down
the road and does not think that is appropriate either. Chairman Stempeck said that they should act when they think they can
act and can always drop back if needed. Chairman Stempeck stated that there is enough of a history here to be able to do that
and encourages all to re -look at the data at the next meeting and if they are not satisfied with that then they can make a
change at that point in time. In this point in time it is his belief that they need to move this forward to get it on track.
Mr. Pacino said that he went to the training session last week and quite truthfully was surprised that at the beginning of the
training session there was a recommendation for a rate increase. Mr. Pacino stated that he would have liked to have known
that beforehand, it was not on the agenda. Mr. Pacino said that he heard similar comments from some of the CAB members
that they really got ambushed at that meeting. Mr. Pacino stated that one thing that they need to do is to move forward on
this to at least refer it to the CAB in order to move forward. Mr. Pacino said that he had a different motion and is not crazy
about the word approved that means that we actually approved it and substituted it with the word refer, give them the thirty
days to get the information and then we have the thirty days to get all that information. Mr. Pacino stated that he was
surprised that Mr. Seavey's presentation was not on the agenda and criticizes whoever made that decision and hopes going
forward that it becomes part of the agenda going forward.
Ir. Pacino stated that there were two motions and recommended doing each as a separate motion. Chairman Stempeck
sked the opinion of the other Commissioners to changing the word approve to refer. Chairman Stempeck asked if it were
8.5% would it still be a referral. Mr. Pacino replied yes, if it were one percent it would still be a referral and would like to
hear the CAB recommendation before voting on a final approval. That would be the process and feels that they owe the CAB
members the right to get their opinion. Mr. Pacino suggested advisory recommendation in accordance with the Twenty Year
Agreement and at the end within thirty days of this date December 12, 2013, so that it actually starts the clock running and
then there is no question as to when that clock would stop running. Chairman Stempeck said that would give the CAB
enough time to have their meeting and consider.
Mr. Pacino made a motion move that the Commission refer to the CAB a 9% rate increase for all customers for the following
charges, base charge, demand charge and customer charge for their advisory recommendation in accordance with the Twenty
Year Agreement within 30 days of this date December 12, 2013.
Chairman Stempeck asked when the next CAB meeting was scheduled. Mr. 011ila replied that they have not set the January
date. The December 19 meeting was cancelled. Mr. Pacino said that the motion could say that the CAB make their
recommendations before the next Board of Commissioners Meeting.
Mr. Talbot stated that he wished he had attended the informational meeting and that for a large rate increase he would like to
see the RMLD to be far more aggressive with the peak shaving with time of use, take a second look at some of the capital
projects recalling that at a couple of meetings ago that there were a bunch of circuit upgrades that were approved but had not
been done. Mr. Talbot wondered if they needed to be done especially with load going down. With demand side management,
do we have ways to save money that have not been looked at aggressively enough? Mr. Talbot asked if the increase had to
be 9% if we might be scaling it back down in July why don't we do 6 %. Mr. Talbot said that he was sure that there were
good answers to these questions but was not sure what they are. Chairman Stempeck asked Mr. Seavey if he was correct in
saying that as a result of the meeting last week in his spreadsheet analysis that has been run for many municipalities using all
the variables, that he had suggested that a 9% increase is what was needed projecting forward to be able to meet the needs.
Mr. Seavey replied that the detailed analysis of the 9% increase on base were based on current projections. Mr. Seavey
l dicated that his COS had not yet reached a point where he was projecting revenues and expenses for the current fiscal year
at RMLD. Ms. Parenteau stated that was based on the actuals from July through November and a flat no load growth from
December through June would put us in a potentially negative net income position. Ms. O'Brien indicated that Mr. Seavey
had concurred at the training seminar that based on the RMLD projections that the increase seemed appropriate and reiterated
the industry trend in sluggish sales, etc.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
Cost of Service Study
Chairman Stempeck stated that it was based on projections from historical data and that it is actually not one year. Chairman
Stempeck said that he has been looking over the data and that it has actually been dropping one percent per year in terms of
demand growth. Chairman Stempeck agrees that they need to look at real data but in the meantime would like to move
forward on this motion and get the ball rolling, stating that they could always back out of it if they disagree when they
examine the data or have other questions they do not have to do it. Chairman Stempeck said if they do not do it and get it
posted then we would get into a very awkward situation in March or April or May and people would ask why didn't you
proactively do this, in any industry or business if you have been there for ten years you can see certain trends happening and
you proactively adjust to manage it and that is what the expectation is here, we are doing exactly that. Chairman Stempeck
stated that if that is not the case let's look at the data and prove that it is not the case and back out of it.
Mr. Talbot asked if it goes to the CAB can it be changed at that point. Mr. Pacino replied that the CAB could look at that
same data and come back with a different recommendation. Mr. Talbot said that the idea here is to overshoot initially by
design to give us room to maneuver over the next couple of months. Mr. Pacino stated that it moves the ball forward.
Chairman Stempeck commented that part of this is unbeknownst to us if the demand dropped off significantly in February
and March and had a very warm winter we cannot predict our future. Mr. Talbot said that he would defer to Commissioner
Pacino. Ms. O'Brien stated that she would take full responsibility and agrees with Commissioner Mancuso that the training
data should have been in the packet. Ms. O'Brien said that she is trying to be more proactive and was in dismay looking at
the numbers going forward, when you are having that type of load growth or lack of load growth, you start to look at the
numbers working with staff to bring in budget to actuals to get all the groups communicating and as this has started to come
together it just appeared. Ms. O'Brien stated that not being familiar with the CAB process in the future will do a much better
job providing the data. Ms. O'Brien reported that she had recently spoken with three CAB members at a recent Rotary
meeting and told them this was going to happen. Ms. O'Brien had asked the Board if a training session would help them to
understand which is why she had Mr. Seavey come in with his presentation. Not all Commissioners or CAB members were
able to make the training session. If in the future there are Commissioners that are unable to make the training that she would
make sure that she reaches out to them personally and bring them up to speed with that training. Ms. O'Brien apologized to
the Board reiterating that she was unaware of the process and stated if they had to make an adjustment now that as we roll
forward with the formal Cost of Service will make sure that it goes through the formal process. Chairman Stempeck stated
that he and Commissioner Pacino had discussed that the five step process is not specifically delineated anywhere so for
anybody to come in and try to figure out what the process is would be ambiguous and that is one of the policy things that we
are going to change. Chairman Stempeck said that they are going to make it unambiguous so the next person does not
stumble over this for example if the CAB does not take any action on it we can consider it to be approved. It is the little
nuances that float through this and unless you read in between the lines it is very difficult to pull it out.
Mr. Soli said that he would like to offer an amendment to add the following to the end of the previous motion "and
establishes a new rate class for residential customers with eligibility for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
and who show eligibility each year for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program such that the new rate class is not
subject to the rate increase of the main motion ". Mr. Soli reported that the RMLD has a few customers that live on Social
Security under $20,000 and some who get assistance for their oil heating where someone else determines their eligibility and
they are able to show it. This motion says if someone comes in here showing eligibility for that heating assistance program
then they will not be at this rate increase. Mr. Soli stated that it is a modest rate increase and it is only a modest amount of
people but there are folks out there that are really hurting and believes that the RMLD should do something for them.
Mr. Pacino would like to suggest to Mr. Soli that this should be a separate motion and not to mix it into what they are
referring to the CAB. Mr. Pacino said that it clouds what the referral is and should be a separate motion not an amendment to
the previous motion. Mr. Soli stated that this would have to go to the CAB. Mr. Pacino said that he has wording to refer it to
the CAB as two separate motions. Chairman Stempeck agreed with Mr. Pacino that it is a valid motion and something that is
very appropriate. Mr. Soli said since his motion had not been seconded. Mr. Talbot seconded the motion. Mr. Pacino stated
that he would like to see the motion with the rate increase to move that ball forward and would hate to see it slowed down
based upon a new rate.
Mr. Talbot asked why that would slow anybody down it is going to be a very small number of people. Chairman Stempeck
replied that he does not know the number of people that's the problem, if it is 20% of the people that means that you have to
have a 1.2 times increase for the rest of the group to make up for the fact that you did not carry it. Chairman Stempeck said
the point that was made earlier where is the data to support it and is 100% in favor of this it just needs to be kept as a separate
motion.
12
13
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
lost of Service Study
s. O'Brien asked Mr. Seavey wouldn't this be that the rate would affect everyone and then you could look at your heating
program. Mr. Seavey replied that it is a fairly established practice to have a residential low income separate rate schedule all
the private utilities have them and many of the municipal utilities have them as well. Mr. Seavey stated that you could easily
develop a separate rate schedule completely divorced from the temporary 9% rate increase and prepare that within the same
time frame. Mr. Seavey said that it is cleaner to do it that way rather than to bundle it together as part of the rate increase to
establish a separate rate schedule or rate classification with the notion that it would be roughly 10% lower than the base
residential rate. Then you would establish the eligibility requirements which you could copy directly from a National Grid
tariff because it is well established and has been well vetted.
Mr. Soli moved to establish a new rate class for residential customers. Mr. Pacino asked if the second motion had been
withdrawn. Mr. Talbot replied if the main motion is revised he would withdraw.
Mr. Pacino made a motion move that the Commission refer to the CAB the establishing of a new rate class for residential
customers with eligibility for the LIHEAP Program and those customers show eligibility each year for the LIHEAP Program
such that a new rate class is not subject to the rate increase of the previous motion for their advisory recommendation in
accordance with the Twenty Year Agreement and to report that recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at its
January 2014 meeting.
Ms. O'Brien stated that if a customer was eligible for the low income rate, then it is not clear whether the rate increase would
even be applicable to that new rate class.
Ms. O'Brien said that it would be two motions, one to put forward the need of rate increase and the second would be to
develop the low income rate which you could become eligible every year. Ms. O'Brien asked if we were looking to do that
before as part of the rate studies that Mr. Seavey is being asked to do or prior, do you want to implement it prior or as part of
perhaps the new rates that Mr. Seavey is going to present. Chairman Stempeck replied that it should probably be included in
the entirety of the rate study itself, it makes it cleaner, it is bundled together and we accomplish exactly what we are trying to
nend. Mr. Pacino agreed with what Ms. O'Brien stated that it should be added to Mr. Seavey's work load when he does the
my Cost of Service Study. Ms. O'Brien said that when Mr. Seavey is done with his presentation that we could have a
formal presentation with all of the different rate structures, you could vote then to implement that before July for the low
income that way they would be coming out of the proposed rate increase quicker. Ms. O'Brien stated that Mr. Seavey would
do his presentation March or April. Chairman Stempeck asked that if everything were to work correctly and the 9% on base
charges, if approved, would go in the end of February. Ms. O'Brien replied it would go in for the February billing and if
anything changes when Mr. Seavey is done with the presentation then we would go through another process to make the
change whether it is to go down, stay the same or whatever and we would also implement the new rate structure so people
could hop onto the low income. Chairman Stempeck said at the most it will be a month carry and asked Mr. Soli if that was
acceptable. Mr. Soli replied that would be a Board vote.
Mr. Mancuso wanted to clarify that the way this reads is that it states the base charge, demand charge and customer charge is
that 9% inclusive. Ms. O'Brien replied that it is just the base charges only, base energy charge and customer charge, which is
why it is approximately $3. Mr. Pacino asked that the demand and customer charges should not be in the motion. Ms.
O'Brien asked Ms. Parenteau that the demand and customer charges are not in the motion it is just 9% of the base charges.
Ms. Parenteau replied correct.
Mr. Soli said that as a residential customer he is paying base and demand charges all under the basis of kilowatt hours, his
base charge includes money that goes for demand. Ms. Parenteau stated that she spoke incorrectly it is the demand,
customer and base charges. Mr. Mancuso asked then it is all inclusive. Ms. Parenteau replied yes. Mr. Mancuso said that he
wanted to reiterate something that Commissioner Talbot had said that as we go through this public conversation we make
sure that we are clear about all of the thinking that we have done so other temporary reductions in cost might mitigate the
need for a rate increase, what are all the options on the table so that folks have a very clear understanding that we have gone
through every single line to consider what to do keep from going from this rate increase and having to come back in July to
revisit it again. Mr. Mancuso said to prepare to articulate the details publicly.
Mr. 011ila said from the CAB point of view it is very important to have more in the package of what the options are and here
the data. Even with the preliminary discussions with their Selectmen they are already asking the same questions, have you
ooked at expenses, what's the projection, etc. Mr. 011ila stated that they want to see the same data, hopefully within the next
week or two we could have that package of common data that we can present to all of our Selectmen and be able to say these
are the reasons for the increase and here are the projections and we will revisit with a formal study in April.
14
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
General Discussion
Cost of Service Study
Mr. 011ila stated that assuming you are going to approve this that the CAB is going to need that information. Chairman
Stempeck said that was a reasonable request.
Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli that the Commission refer a 9% rate increase for all customers for the base
charge to the CAB for their advisory recommendation in accordance with the Twenty Year Agreement and to present that
recommendation to the Board of Commissioners at its January 2014 meeting.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli to instruct the Department to look into the feasibility of establishing a new
rate class for residential customer's eligibility for the LIHEAP Program.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Ms. Foti stated that the Policy Committee has to meet sometime in January and that she will send out emails the second or
third week to get that scheduled.
Public Comment
Chairman Stempeck asked if anyone from the public would like to speak. Ms. West said that it is clear that there is probably
a need for a rate increase and that she even asked about that when they were going through the audit process. Ms. West
wanted to make sure that as Mr. Talbot had stated that all of the information is there and she finds it surprising that there
were not figures for the Commissioners before they voted. Ms. West reiterated that there is no doubt that there is a need for
this we need to have all of the data and all of the information. Chairman Stempeck stated to make it very clear that three of
the Commissioners did see some of the data so it was not that all of them did not see it. Ms. West asked that information
included what has been done to mitigate costs as well. Chairman Stempeck replied, no. Ms. West said when she refers to the
data that is what she would be looking for all of the data. Mr. Talbot said that he did not go to the meeting last week that was
optional.
Chairman Stempeck stated that the December 19 CAB meeting has been cancelled.
Mr. Pacino reported that the CAB would like the RMLD Board to meet consistently on the fourth Wednesday of the month if
they could because of coverage issues. Chairman Stempeck asked Ms. Foti to comment. Ms. Foti stated that it depends on
what the date is and that they do not have the financial figures until the 17`h or 18`h of the month, if it is the fourth Wednesday
you may not have information that is why we push it out to the 5th Wednesday. Chairman Stempeck said that they will try
and accommodate the CAB as best as they can.
BOARD MATERIAL AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED
Rate Comparisons, December 2013
E -Mail responses to Account Payable/Payroll Questions
RMLD Board Meetings
T -Shirt Award Ceremony, Thursday, January 9, 2014
RMLD Board Meeting, Wednesday, January 29, 2014
RMLD Board Meeting, Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Citizens' Advisory Board Meeting
To Be Determined
Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Meetings
April 2, 2014 — Lynnfield — April 9, 2014
Executive Session
At 9:15 pm. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Mancuso that the Board go into Executive Session to approve the
Executive Session meeting minutes from August 14, 2013 and September 25, 2013, to discuss mediation and union
negotiations update, based on Chapter 164: Section 47D Exemption from public records and open meeting requirements in
certain instances and return to Regular Session for the sole purpose of adjournment.
Chairman Stempeck polled the Board. Motion carried by a polling of the Board:
Mr. Talbot; Aye, Mr. Pacino; Aye, Mr. Mancuso; Aye, Mr. Soli; Aye, and Chairman Stempeck, Aye.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
December 12, 2013
Adjournment
t 9:24 p.m. Mr. Mancuso made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli move to adjourn the Regular Session.
A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes
as approved by a majority of the Commission.
David Talbot, Secretary
RMLD Board of Commissioners
E*
15
Office of the Town Clerk
781- 942 -9050
November 25, 2013
John W Stempeck
65 Avalon Road
Reading MA 01867
Town of Reading
16 Lowell Street
Reading MA 01867
Dear John:
As you may be aware at the April 2013 Town M
Town of Reading's Home Rule Charter.
The Instructional Motion reads as follows-
Move that a 'Home Rule Petition" committee rme
committee shall have one Town Meetin cbe
who shall serve as the Chair.
Said committee shall report its finding d re men
until the fall Town Meeting o y a
A committee has been for and i the p s of
The committee w g ivin
chance to give put H Rule r.
When; December 2, 2013
Time: Ampkim
Where easant x Center
The curre'
Please co
Laura A Gemme
Town Clerk
ATTACHMENT 1
fax: 781- 942 -9070
website: %Lreadingma.gov
I Motion to review the
Reading Home Rule Charter, said
Jointed by the Moderator and the Moderator
annual Town Meeting of 2014 or may be extended
suing the charter as requested.
public as well as all Boards, Committees and Commissions a
available for review on the Town's website as well as the proposed changes to date.
ons or concerns
Town of Reading Home Rule Charter Article 3 - Elected Officers and Boards
{a The School Committee shall appoint a Superintendent of Schools and shall fix his Gerper }satien,
define his duties and terms of employment.
May diSGhaFge him.
[Amended November 15, 2004 - Article 16 and approved by vote of the Town on April 5, 2005]
0-0 The School Committee shall make all reasonable rules and regulations, consistent with law, for the
administration and management of the public schools of the Town.
3 -4 Board of Library Trustees
There shall be a Board of Library Trustees consisting of six (6) members elected for three (3) year
terms so arranged that two (2) terms shall expire each year.
The Board of Library Trustees shall have control over the selection of Library materials, and shall
have custody and management of the Library and of all property of the Town related thereto, except
that the Town Manager or his designee shall have responsibility for the maintenance of the Library
building and grounds.
All money or property that the Town may receive on behalf of the Library by gift or bequest shall be
administered by the Board in accordance with the provisions of such gift or bequest.
[Amended November 15, 2004 - Article 16 and approved by vote of the Town on April 5, 2005]
The Board shall have all of the powers and duties given to Boards of Library Trustees under the
General Laws of the Commonwealth, and such additional powers and duties as may
be authorized by the Charter, by Bylaw, or by othr ,, Town Meeting vote.
3 -5 Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
There shall be a Municipal Light Board of Commissioners consisting of five (5) members elected for
three (3) year terms so arranged that as near an equal number of terms as possible shall expire each
year.
The IVIURiGipal Light Beard Af Cnrnrnissipners shall haVe GhaFge of all the real estate, faGPI
personnel and equipment of the TOWR pertaining to the production anrd tranqrnFs';iAn of elen
power, both �AfmthiA the Tn�vn and Plspwhere.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall have all the powers and duties given to cities and
towns in respect to municipal lighting plants under MGL Chapter 164 Section 34 et seq. and other
general and special acts pertaining thereto, together with such further powers and duties assigned to
them by this Charter, by Bylaw, or by at-her Town of Reading Town Meeting vote.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall hire the General Manager of the Beading
Municipal Light Department and set the duties and terms of employment. h+s-- sempensatkw— die
General M@-RageF shall serve at the of the ReaFd and may be by vete of a majw4y
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall appoint the Accounting Manager or Chief
Accountant of the Reading Municipal Light Department and appoint counsel to the Reading Municipal
Light Department.
The Accounting Manager or Chief Accountant, as the case may be, and Counsel shall be subject to
the supervision of the General Manager.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall approve warrants for payments of all bills and
payroll of the Municipal Light Department and shall approve all contracts which are at or above the
competitive sealed bid procedures level as stated in MGL Chapter 30B Section 5 and, further, all
contracts shall be made in accordance with MGL Chapter 30B. Contracts for purchasing of power
shall not be subject to MGL Chapter 30B but shall be approved by the Municipal Light Board of
Commissioners.
13 Reading Home Rule Charter Review — 2013
Town of Reading Home Rule Charter Article 3 - Elected Officers and Boards
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall employ the Auditor appointed by the Town of
Reading Audit Committee.
The Municipal Light Board of Commissioners shall annually set electric rates and approve an annual
operating budget and Capital Improvements Program each fiscal year. Such approval will be done by
a majority vote of the Municipal Light Board of Commissioners. After the Municipal Light Board of
Commissioners has approved an annual operating budget and Capital Improvements Program, it will
present them to the Town of Reading Finance Committee and Town of Reading Town Meeting. Upon
request of any of the other towns served by the Reading Municipal Light Department, the Municipal
Light Board of Commissioners shall make a presentation to the Finance Committee and /or Town
Meeting of any such town(s).
[Amended April 28, 2003 - Article 7]
[Amended November 15, 2004 - Article 16 and approved by vote of the Town on April 5, 2005]
3 -6 Board of Assessors
There shall be a Board of Assessors consisting of three (3) members elected for three (3) year terms
so arranged that one (1) term shall expire each year.
[Amended November 30, 1989 - Article 36 and approved by vote of the Town on March 19, 1990]
The Board of Assessors may appoint property appraisers and shall have all of the powers and duties
given to Boards of Assessors under the General Laws of the Commonwealth, and such additional
powers and duties as may be authorized by the Charter, by Bylaw, or by Town Meeting vote.
3 -7 Moderator
There shall be a Moderator elected for a one (1) year term. The Moderator, as provided in Article 2
Section 2 -8, shall be an ex officio representative Town Meeting Member and shall preside and
regulate the proceedings at all sessions of the Town Meeting. The Moderator He shall have all of the
powers and duties given to Moderators under the Constitution and General Laws of the
Commonwealth, and such additional powers and duties as may be authorized by the Charter, by
Bylaw, or by ether Town Meeting vote. The T :,,r,;.+ Moderator shall not simultaneously serve as an
elected Town Meeting Member or in any other elected municipal office in the Town.
14 Reading Home Rule Charter Review — 2013
John Stempeck
From: John Stempeck (John @avalonassociates.comj
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 1:39 PM
To: 'Gemme. Laura'
Subject: Written response to Home Rule Petition Committee relative to Section 3.5
December 2, 2013
To: Home Rule Petition Committee
Re: Response to Section 3.5; Municipal Light Board
Please present this to all of the members of the Home Rule Petition Committee on Dec. 2, 2013
Dear Sirs:
The Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners has not had an opportunity to review the
content within the suggested proposed changes. As such, any suggested changes in the present
document are pre- mature and need to be approved via the entire Municipal Light Board. At this time,
we must take exception to any and all changes until they are determined to fall within Home Rule
Charter versus Massachusetts state law.
Thank you.
John Stempeck
Chairman of the Board of Commissioners
OF Re
tic
y _ Office of the Town Manager 781 - 942 -9043
16 Lowell Street townmanager @ci.reading.ma.us
'6�9IN(oRP��P� Reading, MA 01867 www.readingma.gov /town - manager
To: Board of Selectmen
From: Bob Lel-acheur
Date: November 6, 2013
RE: Remote Participation Policy
Insert bold language below in Selectmen's Polices section 2.1 as item # 9.
9. All appointed and elected Boards, Committees and Commissions (hereinafter
'public body') are hereby authorized to conduct Remote Participation subject to the
requirements of The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, G.L. c30A, §20(d), 940 CMR
29.10, and the Additional Regulations listed below. This authorization is on a trial
basis and expires on December 31, 2014 if not renewed.
Additional Regulations
(1) Remote participation is limited to members of a public body and is not available to
the general public;
(2) A member of a public body requesting remote participation must notify the Chair
or acting Chair in writing and in advance of the meeting, stating the reasons why;
(3) The person chairing the meeting may permit remote participation if he or she
determines that one or more of the following factors makes it unreasonably
difficult for the member requesting remote participation to physically attend the
meeting.
a. Personal illness;
b. Personal disability;
c. Emergency;
d. Military service; or
e. Geographic distance.
(4) Remote participation is allowed as audio only. The remote audio must be clearly
heard in the public meeting space to all participants;
(5) The Chair or acting Chair shall announce the presence of any remote participants
at the start of the meeting;
(6) If technical difficulties arise and persist during a meeting, the remote participant
will be declared to have left the meeting and the Chair of the public body may
decide to continue with the Agenda if there is a quorum still physically present;
(7) A quorum of the body, including the Chair or, in the Chair's absence, the person
authorized to Chair the meeting, shall be physically present at the meeting
location, as required by M.G.L. c. 30A, sec 20(d);
(8) All votes must be by roll call if there is a remote public body participant;
(9) All handouts or presentations must be made available to all remote participants in
advance. If used during the meeting, such documents shall be part of the official
record of the meeting, and shall be listed in the meeting minutes and retained in
accordance with M.G.L. c. 30A, sec. 22;
(10) A member participating remotely may participate in an executive session, but
shall state at the start of any such session that no other person is present and /or
able to hear the discussion at the remote location, unless presence of that person
is approved by a simple majority vote of the public body;
(11) Any costs associated with remote participation are born entirely by the remote
participant.
ATTACHMENT 2
To: Coleen O'Brien
From: Maureen McHugh, Jane Parenteau
Date: December 2, 2013
Subject: Purchase Power Summary — October, 2013
Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the
month of October, 2013.
ENERGY
The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 55,259,300 kWh, which is a .04%
decrease from the October, 2012 figures.
Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases.
Table 1
Amount of
Cost of
% of Total
Total $
$ as a
Resource
Energy
Energy
Energy
Costs
%
(kWh)
($ /Mwh)
Millstone #3
3,668,014
$8.80
6.64%
$32,265
1.94%
Seabrook
5,887,093
$8.22
10.65%
$48,366
2.91%
Stonybrook Intermediate
269,403
$159.42
0.49%
$42,947
2.58%
JP Morgan
7,100,800
$58.79
12.85%
$417,445
25.08%
NextEra
4,490,000
$47.21
8.12%
$211,953
12.73%
NYPA
1,943,414
$4.92
3.52%
$9,562
0.57%
ISO Interchange
4,237,818
$39.37
7.67%
$166,830
10.02%
NEMA Congestion
0
$0.00
0.00%
- $348,838
- 20.96%
Coop Resales
11,817
$137.33
0.02%
$1,623
0.10%
MacQuarie
9,178,800
$39.83
16.61%
$365,635
21.97%
Summit Hydro /Collins /Pioneer
242,926
$54.51
0.44%
$13,241
0.80%
Braintree Watson Unit
30,358
$276.27
0.05%
$8,387
0.50%
Swift River Projects
210,543
$96.33
0.38%
$20,281
1.22%
Exelon
18,000,000
$37.51
32.57%
$675,094
40.56%
Stonybrook Peaking
0
$0.00
0.00%
-$257
-0.02%
Monthly Total
55,270,986
$30.12
100.00%
$1,664,534
100.00%
Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA LMP Settlement and the RT
Net Energy for the month of October, 2013.
Table 2
Amount Cost % of Total
Resource of Energy of Energy Energy
(kWh) ($ /Mwh)
ISO DA LMP ' 3,661,975 44.40 6.63%
Settlement
RT Net Energy ** 575,843 7.36 1.04%
Settlement
ISO Interchange 4,237,818 39.37 7.67%
(subtotal)
Independent System Operator Day -Ahead Locational Marginal Price
" Real Time Net Energy
OCTOBER 2013 ENERGY BY RESOURCE
Hrain'rpa Wa
0.13
Swift River
Protects, 0.4'
Sumrrut'.
• Millslune #3
• Seabrook
• Stonybrook
xnk Irderrnediale
iate, ■ JP Morgan
• NpxtFra
• NYPA
• ISO Interchange
• MacQuarie
• Summ t Hydro
• Braintree Watson
unit
• Swift RNer Projects
• Exe Ion
Stonybrook Peaking
1C
CAPACITY
The RMLD hit a demand of 99,578 kW, which occurred on October 7, at 8 pm. The
RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for October, 2013 was 215,602 kWs.
Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirements.
Table 3
Source
Amount (kWs)
Cost ($ /kW- month)
Total Cost $
% of Total Cost
Millstone #3
4,950
49.20
$243,532
16.47%
Seabrook
7,903
46.99
$371,352
25.11%
Stonybrook Peaking
24,981
1.94
$48,521
3.28%
Stonybrook CC
42,925
3.17
$135,966
9.20%
NYPA
4,019
4.02
$16,172
1.09%
Hydro Quebec
4,683
4.16
$19,464
1.32%
Nextera
60,000
5.50
$330,000
22.32%
Braintree Watson Unit
10,520
10.73
$112,893
7.63%
ISO -NE Supply Auction
55,621
3.61
$200,745
13.58%
Total
215,602
$6.86
$1,478,645
100.00%
Table 4 shows the dollar amounts for energy and capacity per source.
OR
Table 4
Cost of
% of
Amt of Energy
Power
Resource
Energy
Capacity
Total cost
Total Cost
(kWh)
($ /kWh)
Millstone #3
$32,265
$243,532
$275,797
8.77%
3,668,014
0.0752
Seabrook
$48,366
$371,352
$419,718
13.35%
5,887,093
0.0713
Stonybrook Intermediate
$42,947
$135,966
$178,913
5.69%
269,403
0.6641
Hydro Quebec
$0
$19,464
$19,464
0.62%
-
0.0000
JP Morgan
$417,445
$0
$417,445
13.28%
7,100,800
0.0588
NextEra
$211,953
$330,000
$541,953
17.24%
4,490,000
0.1207
* NYPA
$9,562
$16,172
$25,734
0.82%
1,943,414
0.0132
ISO Interchange
$166,830
$200,745
$367,575
11.69%
4,237,818
0.0867
Nema Congestion
- $348,838
$0
- $348,838
- 11.10%
-
0.0000
MacQuarie
$365,635
$0
$365,635
11.63%
9,178,800
0.0398
" Summit Hydro /Collins /Pioneer
$13,241
$0
$13,241
0.42%
242,926
0.0545
Braintree Watson Unit
$8,387
$112,893
$121,280
3.86%
30,358
3.9950
* Swift River Projects
$20,281
$0
$20,281
0.65%
210,543
0.0963
Coop Resales
$1,623
$0
$1,623
0.05%
11,817
0.1373
Constellation Energy
$675,094
$0
$675,094
21.48%
18,000,000
0.0375
Stonybrook Peaking
-$257
$48,521
$48,265
1.54%
-
0.0000
Monthly Total
$1,664,534
$1,478,645
$3,143,180
100.00%
55,270,986
0.0569
* Renewable Resources
4.34%
OR
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs)
Table 5 shows the amount of banked and projected RECs for the Swift River Hydro
Projects through October, 2013, as well as their estimated market value.
TRANSMISSION ,
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of October were $1,059,828. This is
an increase of 13.8% from the September transmission cost of $931,368. In October,
2012 the transmission costs were $845,905.
Table 6
Current Month
Table 5
Last Year
Peak Demand (kW)
99,578
Swift River RECs Summary
95,568
Energy (kWh)
55,270,986
Period - January 2013 - October 2013
56,606,524
Energy ($)
Banked
Projected Total
Est.
Capacity ($)
RECs
RECs RECs
Dollars
Woronoco
3,652
988 4,640
$242,786
Pepperell
1,483
1,036 2,519
$148,621
Indian River
1,251
437 1,688
$99,592
Turners Falls
1,172
269 1,441
$0
RECs Sold
4,605
$245,712
Grand Total
7,558
2,730 14,893
$736,711
TRANSMISSION ,
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of October were $1,059,828. This is
an increase of 13.8% from the September transmission cost of $931,368. In October,
2012 the transmission costs were $845,905.
Table 6
9
Current Month
Last Month
Last Year
Peak Demand (kW)
99,578
156,230
95,568
Energy (kWh)
55,270,986
58,614,875
56,606,524
Energy ($)
$1,664,534
$2,168,234
$2,595,375
Capacity ($)
$1,478,645
$1,489,738
$1,386,975
Transmission($)
$1,059,828
$931,368
$845,905
Total
$4,203,008
$4,589,340
$4,828,255
9
W
t
L
0
a)
C
N
c
ry
C
(O
E
L_
O
C
3
O
C
Q.)
Y
O
C
(fl
O
C
7
O
L
}
U
Z
W
U_
LL
LL
W
(D
W
Z
W
O
U
v
Ln
v
a
C.
E
E
O
U
0
0
0
o
M
�
O
co
N
co
M
In
V
O
CD
cc
O
cc
j--
O
1
O
N
O
N
Q1
f)
O
N
»
H
»
�
N
�
CO
cl
V)
U-
a
0
U
ea
(fl
0
0
o
0
o
0
n
eA
e»
N
N
N
O
l0
I�
Y
co
�
0
ai
LO
co
N
N
LO
co
ch
O
n
In
00
v
(0
A
M
A
A
>�
Q)
=
a
N
EA
EA
ffl
Ef3
e9
eH
L
CO
co
co
O
0
O
0
m
a)
O
O
r
O
2
0
0
N
co
U
Q
A
A
U
Q'
e4
eH
04
efl
eA
(fl
rn
n
o
O
n
O
m
O
co
O
t)
_
e�
V
L
(D
OCT
P-:
0
0
.1
0
0
0
n
0
o
0
0
0
o
LO
N
N
LO
rn
LO
[
p
w
(0
N
N
m
(n
Ln
t!i
L
O
O
O
3
�
ea
Y
e»
e»
e»
e»
y�
e»
c»
eR
N
o:
a
rn
v
v
0)
co
0000
N
N
N
LQ
a°
o'
v°
rn
OLO
V
r
('7
m
r
(D
(n
T
V
o
c0
N
m
V
O
N
N
M
r
@
�
f0
N
°
D
EA
69
V)
i
b9
Vi
fA
to
"
U7
°'
L
Y
F
V
o
o
V
12
N
�
a
a
0
0
o
0
O
00
O
(D
0)
N
'IT
N
�
Ln
C
1
LO
rn
C
M
rn
y
�
O
�
�
M
(n
00
N
n
LO
N
(o
o
N
Cl)
fA
a
O
b9
fA
fH
N
�
U
F
a
Co
Ues
04
eR
(»
e»
e»
LO
N
Lc)
N
N
N
N
tD
O
V
u1
M
N
S
(OD
N
O
M
L
n
O
O
C
m
oc
0
Y
co
64
O
og
M
y
C)
cc
M
co
v
j
>
II-a
M
1
�
0
0
0
0
0
�
c6
Si
c°D
T
N
m
N
U_
`m
U
C
W
n
}
v
(D
o
C7
n
r
N
Y_
(7
CV
O
O
N
n
M
N
O
(d
w
N
U)
O
_a
E
�
e»
F»
U
F»
E»
e»
r»
E»
°
L
m
N
o
n
m
m
o
Q
a
M
V
M
N
N
N
0
r
0
n
0
0
0
In
o
U
o
(7
M
LO
Cl)
n
v
u7
n
v
n
v
0
0
0
0
N
�
}
LL
B
LL
LL
LL
LL
O°
EA
EA
EA
EA
fA
EA
69
bA
LID
O
U
M
N
O
M
rn
N
�D
O
O
M m
M
N
�
M
ti
a) m
0
C
y
O
O
0
0
0
E
@
0
N
70
M
m
U
In
In
0
0
0
0
H
N
N
m
rn
h
(D
c0
C
0
0
0
o
O
M
In
V
N
1
°
»
H
»
O
�
MITI
N
U-
a
0
0
o
0
o
0
n
N
N
N
N
O
l0
I�
N
0
o
A
M
A
A
>�
=
a
4.
m
a)
a
`m
2
U
Q
A
A
A
�0
,�
rnmN
<101
e�
»
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
o
0
0
0
o
LO
N
N
LO
rn
N
N
m
�o
3
�
ea
e»
e»
e»
e»
e»
C
N
o:
a
a°
o'
v°
rn
loo
rn
�
rn
r
O
N
r
a
V
o
m
N
m
m
N
N
M
r
N
rn
f0
°
D
EA
69
V)
fA
b9
Vi
fA
to
"
°'
Y
F
o
o
m
12
N
n
M
a
a
0
0
o
0
0
o
N
N
Ln
C
1
LO
rn
C
M
rn
y
�
p
o
fA
to
fA
EA
Hf
b9
fA
fH
F
a
LO
N
Lc)
N
N
N
N
tD
O
V
u1
M
N
S
N
m
m
64
og
y
o
o
co
v
j
>
II-a
M
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
Si
c°D
N
N
U_
`m
0
m
}
v
(D
o
rn
O
O
N
n
M
N
O
w
N
O
E
�
e»
F»
r»
F»
E»
e»
r»
E»
°
L
m
o
n
m
m
o
C3
a
M
V
M
N
N
N
0
r
0
n
0
0
0
In
o
0
o
V
N
LO
to
V
u7
Lo
7
ti
m
N
�
L
O°
EA
EA
EA
EA
fA
EA
69
bA
LID
O
N
N
M
rn
�D
N
M m
M
N
�
M
0
�
a) m
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
m
o) rn
In
In
0
0
0
0
N
N
m
rn
h
(D
c0
C
N
rn
O
�
m
a�
o
O
F»
v>
F»
rA
F»
F»
eA
rH
v
m
}}
V
rn
UN
I�
M
m
ID
M
a
M
O
�
F-
a
N
M
M
M
M
.-
m
0
OM
0
0 l
0
0
0
0
0
C
rn
N
rn
N
L
h
O
Lo
m
v
m
rn
c0
�
o
c
fA
N
EA
to
fq
fR
fA
fA
LVI
oo
O
rn
N
M
m
a
HN
oo
m
O
N
M
a
o
0
o
L°
}
0
0
0
ATTACHMENT 3
Dt: December 2, 2013
To: RMLB, Coleen O'Brien, Jeanne Foti
Fr: Bob Fournier
Sj: October 31, 2013 Report
The results for the first four months ending October 31, 2013, for the fiscal year
2014 will be summarized in the following paragraphs.
1) Change in Net Assets: (Page 3A)
For the month of October, the net loss or the negative change in net assets was
$175,559 reducing the year to date net income to $1,731,294. The year to date
budgeted net income was $2,725,204, resulting in net income being under budget
by $993,910 or 36.47 %. Actual year to date fuel revenues exceeded fuel expenses
by $1,014,561.
2) Revenues: (Page 1113)
Year to date base revenues were under budget by $554,628 or 3.2 %. Actual base
revenues were $16.6 million compared to the budgeted amount of $17.2 million.
3) Expenses: (Page 12A)
*Year to date purchased power base expense was under budget by $201,999 or
1.9 %. Actual purchased power base costs were $10.0 million compared to the
budgeted amount of $10.2 million.
*Year to date operating and maintenance (O &M) expenses combined were over
budget by $99,955 or 2.3 %. Actual O &M expenses were $4.4 million compared
to the budgeted amount of $4.3 million.
*Depreciation expense and voluntary payments to the Towns were on budget.
4) Cash: (Page 9)
*Operating Fund was at $8,894,314.
* Capital Fund balance was at $4,371,683.
* Rate Stabilization Fund was at $6,696,777.
* Deferred Fuel Fund was at $3,624,048.
* Energy Conservation Fund was at $440,753.
5) General Information:
Year to date kwh sales (Page 5) were 255,873,497 which is 2.9 million kwh or
1.1 %, behind last year's actual figure. GAW revenues collected ytd were
$255,902, bringing the total collected since inception to $2,249,127.
6) Budget Variance:
Cumulatively, the five divisions were over budget by $101,339 or 1.5 %.
FINANCIAL REPORT
OCTOBER 31, 2013
ISSUE DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2013
NET ASSETS
INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT
RESTRICTED FOR DEPRECIATION FUND (P.9)
UNRESTRICTED
TOTAL NET ASSETS (P.3)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
(1)
69,646,306.18
TOWN OF
READING, MASSACHUSETTS
3,995,166.03
25,052,604.69
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
98,361,472.83
100,048,472.83
109,161,494.96
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY
FUND
STATEMENT
OF NET
ASSETS
10/31/13
PREVIOUS YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
ASSETS
CURRENT
UNRESTRICTED CASH
(SCH A
P.9)
10,161,162.65
8,897,314.37
RESTRICTED CASH
(SCH A
P.9)
19,204,956.13
20,609,666.59
RECEIVABLES, NET
(SCH B
P.10)
7,412,425.34
7,132,879.48
PREPAID EXPENSES
(SCH B
P.10)
1,216,522.99
1,082,856.98
INVENTORY
1,473,163.32
1,490,293.74
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
39,468,230.43
39,213,011.16
NONCURRENT
INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATED CO
(SCH C
P.2)
46,958.35
31,379.32
CAPITAL ASSETS, NET
(SCH C
P.2)
69,646,306.18
70,058,022.04
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS
69,693,264.53
70,089,401.36
TOTAL ASSETS
109,161,494.96
109,302,412.52
LIABILITIES
CURRENT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
5,244,705.34
4,890,583.01
CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
636,420.42
759,104.12
CUSTOMER ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION
390,463.15
416,584.15
ACCRUED LIABILITIES
1,545,517.46
55,107.57
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
7,817,106.37
6,121,378.85
NONCURRENT
ACCRUED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATED
ABSENCES
2,982,915.76
3,132,560.84
TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES
2,982,915.76
3,132,560.84
TOTAL LIABILITIES
10,800,022.13
9,253,939.69
NET ASSETS
INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT
RESTRICTED FOR DEPRECIATION FUND (P.9)
UNRESTRICTED
TOTAL NET ASSETS (P.3)
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
(1)
69,646,306.18
70,058,022.04
3,662,561.96
3,995,166.03
25,052,604.69
25,995,284.76
98,361,472.83
100,048,472.83
109,161,494.96
109,302,412.52
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
NONCURRENT ASSET SCHEDULE
10/31/13
SCHEDULE C
PREVIOUS YEAR
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO ELECTRIC 2,975.74
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO TRANSMISSION 43,982.61
TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES 46,958.35
SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL ASSETS
LAND 1,265,842.23
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 6,730,277.16
EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS 12,851,923.34
INFRASTRUCTURE 48,798,263.45
TOTAL CAPITAL ASSETS, NET 69,646,306.18
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS 69,693,264.53
(2)
CURRENT YEAR
3,261.87
28,117.45
31,379.32
1,265,842.23
6,430,802.65
12,529,390.07
49,831,987.09
70,058,022.04
70,089,401.36
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
10/31/13
OPERATING REVENUES: (SCH D P.11)
BASE REVENUE
FUEL REVENUE
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE
GAW REVENUE
NYPA CREDIT
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH E P.12)
PURCHASED POWER BASE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL
OPERATING
MAINTENANCE
DEPRECIATION
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING
INTEREST INCOME
INTEREST EXPENSE
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT)
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP)
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
NET ASSETS AT END OF OCTOBER
MONTH MONTH
LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR
3,277,968.30
3,492,589.91
2,369,147.98
2,147,543.67
152,401.19
18,256.40
96,307.74
86,153.82
49,522.68
52,860.87
50,311.27
53,711.38
(48,781.28)
(23,964.99)
5,966,877.88 5,827,151.06
LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD %
TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
16,727,082.14
16,648,546.49
-0.47%
12,283,719.39
11,582,191.59
-5.71%
783,578.23
86,995.55
- 88.90%
375,197.22
309,544.92
- 17.50%
254,827.02
252,123.73
-1.06%
258,658.69
255,902.40
-1.07%
(201,732.78)
(173,262.24)
- 14.11%
30,481,329.91 28,962,042.44 -4.98%
2,233,116.17
2,210,925.58
10,033,532.96
10,021,951.34
-0.12%
2,595,375.45
1,994,534.42
12,402,011.25
10,394,368.11
- 16.19%
962,694.87
898,222.37
3,115,564.84
3,466,298.53
11.26%
313,038.01
297,243.82
771,858.33
970,756.33
25.77%
305,469.18
314,969.55
1,221,876.72
1,259,878.20
3.11%
114,000.00
116,666.67
456,000.00
466,666.68
2.34%
6,523,693.68 5,832,562.41 28,000,844.10 26,579,919.19 -5.07%
(556,815.80) (5,411.35) 2,480,485.81 2,382,123.25 -3.97%
3,601.00
12,631.70
40,347.75
17,569.08
- 56.46%
(188,785.58)
(191,768.42)
(755,142.32)
(767,073.67)
1.58%
2,775.44
7,852.25
12,388.38
15,213.72
22.81%
(255.95)
(257.94)
(1,032.41)
(1,028.32)
-0.40%
28,402.11
1,395.05
50,365.63
84,489.98
67.75%
(154,262.98)
(170,147.36)
(653,072.97)
(650,829.21)
-0.34%
(711,078.78)
(175,558.71)
1,827,412.84
1,731,294.04
-5.26%
(3)
96,534,059.99 98,317,178.79 1.85%
98,361,472.83 100,048,472.83 1.72%
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
10/31/13
OPERATING REVENUES: (SCH F P.11B)
BASE REVENUE
FUEL REVENUE
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE
GAW REVENUE
NYPA CREDIT
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH G P.12A)
PURCHASED POWER BASE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL
OPERATING
MAINTENANCE
DEPRECIATION
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
OPERATING INCOME
NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING
INTEREST INCOME
INTEREST EXPENSE
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT)
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP)
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR
NET ASSETS AT END OF OCTOBER
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
ACTUAL
BUDGET
(82,430.92)
%
YEAR TO DATE
YEAR TO DATE
VARIANCE*
CHANGE
16,648,546.49
17,203,175.00
(554,628.51)
-3.22%
11,582,191.59
11,909,584.00
(327,392.41)
-2.75%
86,995.55
384,551.00
(297,555.45)
- 77.38%
309,544.92
378,470.00
(68,925.08)
- 18.21%
252,123.73
258,820.00
(6,696.27)
-2.59%
255,902.40
258,620.00
(2,917.60)
-1.13%
(173,262.24)
(233,332.00)
60,069.76
- 25.74%
28,962,042.44
30,160,088.00
(1,198,045.56)
-3.97%
10,021,951.34
10,223,950.00
(201,998.66)
-1.98%
10,394,368.11
10,577,238.00
(182,869.89)
-1.73%
3,466,298.53
3,274,845.00
191,453.53
5.85%
970,756.33
1,062,255.00
(91,498.67)
-8.61%
1,259,878.20
1,258,400.00
1,478.20
0.12%
466,666.68
466.664.00
2.68
0.00%
26,579,919.19 26,863,352.00 (283,432.81) -1.06%
2,382,123.25 3,296,736.00 (914,612.75) - 27.74%
17,569.08
100,000.00
(82,430.92)
(767,073.67)
(767,200.00)
126.33
15,213.72
16,668.00
(1,454.28)
(1,028.32)
(11000.00)
(28.32)
84,489.98
80,000.00
4,489.98
(650,829.21)
(571,532.00)
(79,297.21)
1,731,294.04
2,725,204.00
(993,909.96)
98,317,178.79
98,317,178.79
0.00
100,048,472.83
101,042,382.79
(993,909.96)
(3A)
- 82.43%
-0.02%
-8.72%
2.83%
5.61%
13.87%
- 36.47%
0.00%
-0.98%
9
9
9
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
RECONCILIATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS
10/31/13
SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
DEPRECIATION FUND BALANCE 7/1/13
CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE 7/1/13
INTEREST ON DEPRECIATION FUND FY 14
DEPRECIATION TRANSFER FY 14
TOTAL SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS
USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
LESS PAID ADDITIONS TO PLANT THRU OCTOBER
GENERAL LEDGER CAPITAL FUNDS BALANCE 10/31/13
(4)
2,733,146.78
1,500,000.00
2,141.05
1,259,878.20
5,495,166.03
1,123,482.63
4,371,683.40
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SALES OF KILOWATT HOURS
10/31/13
(5)
9
9
MONTH
MONTH
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
YTD %
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TO DATE
CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL SALES
16,592,003
17,750,687
98,824,733
97,920,239
-0.92%
COMM. AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
31,442,265
33,478,174
150,183,420
147,943,090
-1.49%
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
73,263
74,261
292,550
296,264
1.27`k
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS
48,107,531
51,303,122
249,300,703
246,159,593
- 1.26`k
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING
237,606
239,799
950,384
958,304
0.83`k
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
688,570
708,382
3,254,856
3,169,601
- 2.62%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS
926,176
948,181
4,205,240
4,127,905
- 1.845
SALES FOR RESALE
193,350
244,313
1,331,570
1,333,799
0.175
SCHOOL
1,070,788
1,207,903
3,981,390
4,252,200
6.80%
TOTAL KILOWATT HOURS SOLD
50,297,845
53,703,519
258,818,903
255,873,497
-1.14%
(5)
9
9
MONTH
YEAR TO DATE
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
KILOWATT HOURS SOLD BY TOWN
10/31/13
TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD
NO.READING WILMINGTON
RESIDENTIAL
17,750,687
5,495,732
2,370,310
4,296,495
5,588,150
COMM & IND
33,478,174
3,759,018
240,800
5,466,997
24,011,359
PVT ST LIGHTS
74,261
13,129
1,360
22,030
37,742
PUB ST LIGHTS
239,799
60,662
32,500
41,970
84,667
MUNI BLDGS
708,382
153,451
141,223
149,931
263,777
SALES /RESALE
244,313
244,313
0
0
0
SCHOOL
1,207,903
420,127
264,343
160,840
362,593
TOTAL
53,703,519
10,166,432
3,050,536
10,138,263
30,348,288
RESIDENTIAL
97,920,239
30,327,646
14,225,242
22,947,928
30,419,423
COMM & IND
147,943,090
17,783,567
1,201,854
23,186,599
105,771,070
PVT ST LIGHTS
296,264
52,516
5,440
88,556
149,752
PUB ST LIGHTS
958,304
322,648
130,000
166,988
338,668
MUNI BLDGS
3,169,601
720,471
646,868
645,056
1,157,206
SALES /RESALE
1,333,799
1,333,799
0
0
0
SCHOOL
4,252,200
1,531,188
990,961
519,800
1,210,251
TOTAL
255,873,497
52,071,835
17,200,365
47,554,927
139,046,370
RESIDENTIAL
98,824,733
30,442,396
14,569,224
23,183,082
30,630,031
COMM & IND
150,183,420
18,501,256
1,145,356
23,268,999
107,267,809
PVT ST LIGHTS
292,550
54,340
5,440
85,204
147,566
PUB ST LIGHTS
950,384
322,144
129,960
160,172
338,108
MUNI BLDGS
3,254,856
721,672
582,607
696,582
1,253,995
SALES /RESALE
1,331,570
1,331,570
0
0
0
SCHOOL
3,981,390
1,418,489
865,532
487,720
1,209,649
TOTAL 258,818,903 52,791,867 17,298,119 47,881,759 140,847,158
KILOWATT HOURS
SOLD TO TOTAL
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
33.05%
10.23%
4.41%
8.00%
10.41%
COMM & IND
62.34%
7.00%
0.45%
10.18%
44.71%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.14%
0.02%
0.00%
0.04%
0.08%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.45%
0.15%
0.06%
0.08%
0.16%
MUNI BLDGS
1.32%
0.29%
0.26%
0.28%
0.49%
SALES /RESALE
0.45%
0.45%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
2.25%
0.78%
0.49%
0.30%
0.68%
TOTAL
100.00%
18.92%
5.67%
18.88%
56.53%
YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
38.27%
11.85%
5.56%
8.97%
11.89%
COMM & IND
57.82%
6.95%
0.47%
9.06%
41.34%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.12°%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.07%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.37%
0.13%
0.05%
0.07%
0.12%
MUNI BLDGS
1.24%
0.28%
0.25%
0.25%
0.46%
SALES /RESALE
0.52%
0.52%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
1.66%
0.60%
0.39%
0.20%
0.47%
TOTAL
100.00%
20.35%
6.72%
18.58%
54.35%
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
38.18%
11.76%
5.63%
8.96%
11.83%
COMM & IND
58.03%
7.15%
0.44%
8.99%
41.45%
PVT ST LIGHTS
0.11%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.06%
PUB ST LIGHTS
0.37%
0.12%
0.05%
0.06%
0.14%
MUNI BLDGS
1.26%
0.28%
0.23%
0.27%
0.48%
SALES /RESALE
0.51%
0.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SCHOOL
1.54%
0.55%
0.33%
0.19%
0.47%
TOTAL 100.00% 20.39% 6.68% 18.50% 54.43%
(6)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FORMULA INCOME
10/31/13
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (P.3)
ADD:
LESS:
POLE RENTAL
INTEREST INCOME ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
OPERATING EXPENSES (P.3)
CUSTOMER DEPOSIT INTEREST EXPENSE
FORMULA INCOME (LOSS)
(7)
28,962,042.44
77,296.08
464.06
(26,579,919.19)
(1,028.32)
2,458,855.07
9
9
lk
SALE OF KWH (P.5)
KWH PURCHASED
AVE BASE COST PER KWH
AVE BASE SALE PER KWH
AVE COST PER KWH
AVE SALE PER KWH
FUEL CHARGE REVENUE (P.3)
LOAD FACTOR
PEAK LOAD
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL STATISTICS
10/31/13
MONTH OF
OCT 2012
50,297,845
56,606,524
0.039450
0.065171
0.085299
0.112671
2,389,147.98
81.14%
95,568
MONTH OF
% CHANGE
YEAR
THRU
OCT 2013
2012
2013
OCT 2012
OCT 2013
53,703,519
-0.19%
- 1.14%
258,818,903
255,873,497
55,270,986
1.42%
-1.54%
264,152,924
260,075,231
0.040002
6.14%
1.45%
0.037984
0.038535
0.065035
0.04`k
0.68%
0.064629
0.065066
0.076088
-4.31%
-7.57%
0.084934
0.078502
0.105024
-5.46%
-1.57%
0.112089
0.110331
2,147,543.67
- 12.22`k
-5.71%
12,283,719.39
11,582,191.59
76.03%
99,578
(8)
U)
■
s
6e
JO
a�
O
de �lp
oz °"b
�tOb�G
Fed v
J
1 O
�� ti
JO
d
Cl/ �b
Ce
C'l
d�
C''Z
J
ei �O
7 O
ee 'v
<< J0
d�
<< s
ee �n
e,e
eeO�y
Oe2�n
J
oe �p
-10 O+
�J
O
r
C)
U)
C)
Y)
C)
00
I�
Lo
'Cl-
N
T-
�i--�
O
^^:,
W
^�1
W
> it
O
O
O
�!
U
O
O
O
6q,
U
L'
{f}
U)
619-
III
.L1
4
�•
Jo
U)
■
s
6e
JO
a�
O
de �lp
oz °"b
�tOb�G
Fed v
J
1 O
�� ti
JO
d
Cl/ �b
Ce
C'l
d�
C''Z
J
ei �O
7 O
ee 'v
<< J0
d�
<< s
ee �n
e,e
eeO�y
Oe2�n
J
oe �p
-10 O+
�J
O
r
C)
U)
C)
Y)
C)
00
I�
Lo
'Cl-
N
T-
C)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6q,
{f}
(f)-
{f}
{f}
619-
El
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS
10/31/13
UNRESTRICTED CASH
CASH - OPERATING FUND
CASH - PETTY CASH
TOTAL UNRESTRICTED CASH
RESTRICTED CASH
CASH - DEPRECIATION FUND
CASH - CONSTRUCTION FUND
CASH - TOWN PAYMENT
CASH - DEFERRED FUEL RESERVE
CASH - RATE STABILIZATION FUND
CASH - UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS RESERVE
CASH - SICK LEAVE BENEFITS
CASH - HAZARD WASTE RESERVE
CASH - CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
CASH - ENERGY CONSERVATION
CASH - OPEB
TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH
TOTAL CASH BALANCE
PREVIOUS YEAR
Ell
10,158,162.65
3,000.00
10,161,162.65
3,662,561.96
0.00
1,211,142.00
1,950,019.84
6,684,768.87
200,000.00
2,985,384.73
150,000.00
636,420.42
378,703.93
1,345,954.38
19,204,956.13
29,366,118.78
SCHEDULE A
CURRENT YEAR
8,894,314.37
3,000.00
8,897,314.37
3,995,166.03
376,517.37
1,233,740.36
3,624,048.62
6,696,777.33
200,000.00
3,133,559.37
150,000.00
759,104.12
440,753.39
0.00
20,609,666.59
29,506,980.96
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
10/31/13
UNBILLED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4,915,936.83
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 7,412,425.34
SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS
PREPAID INSURANCE 641,141.72
PREPAYMENT PURCHASED POWER 73,594.29
PREPAYMENT PASNY 241,849.32
PREPAYMENT WATSON 245,413.96
PURCHASED POWER WORKING CAPITAL 14,523.70
TOTAL PREPAYMENT 1,216,522.99
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING OCTOBER 2013:
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
LESS: SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY
GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE
CURRENT
30 DAYS
60 DAYS
90 DAYS
OVER 90 DAYS
TOTAL
(10)
3,283,947.25
(280,517.68)
3,003,429.57
2,530,299.10
PREVIOUS YEAR
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
11.49`k
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
2,466,520.02
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - OTHER
471,861.86
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - LIENS
23,583.91
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - EMPLOYEE ADVANCES
892.14
SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY
(229,595.81)
RESERVE FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
(236,773.61)
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BILLED
2,496,488.51
UNBILLED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4,915,936.83
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 7,412,425.34
SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS
PREPAID INSURANCE 641,141.72
PREPAYMENT PURCHASED POWER 73,594.29
PREPAYMENT PASNY 241,849.32
PREPAYMENT WATSON 245,413.96
PURCHASED POWER WORKING CAPITAL 14,523.70
TOTAL PREPAYMENT 1,216,522.99
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING OCTOBER 2013:
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
LESS: SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY
GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE
CURRENT
30 DAYS
60 DAYS
90 DAYS
OVER 90 DAYS
TOTAL
(10)
3,283,947.25
(280,517.68)
3,003,429.57
2,530,299.10
84.24%
345,108.37
11.49`k
62,103.87
2.07%
14,373.86
0.48%
51,544.37
1.72%
3,003,429.57
100.00`k
SCHEDULE B
CURRENT YEAR
3,283,947.25
186,435.14
24,643.21
892.14
(280,517.68)
(240,543.08)
2,974,856.98
4,158,022.50
7,132,879.48
629,971.19
17,554.34
242,260.90
178,546.85
14,523.70
1,082,856.98
Wn
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE
10/31/13
SCHEDULE D
(11)
MONTH
MONTH
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
YTD %
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
LAST YEAR
CURRENT YEAR
TO DATE
TO DATE
CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL SALES
2,097,174.39
2,110,778.50
12,347,572.86
12,072,421.59
- 2.23`k
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
3,313,242.89
3,269,240.46
15,557,137.08
15,057,428.86
-3.21%
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
5,707.37
5,245.44
22,778.04
22,424.23
-1.55%
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS
5,416,124.65
5,385,264.40
27,927,487.98
- 2.785
27,152,274.68
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING
27,917.05
25,891.70
111,662.20
108,300.96
-3.01%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
80,928.79
77,953.77
370,637.93
355,991.54
-3.95%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS
108,845.84
103,845.47
482,300.13
464,292.50
-3.73%
SALES FOR RESALE
22,496.25
26,616.35
154,747.61
152,434.94
- 1.49%
SCHOOL
119,649.54
124,407.36
446,265.81
461,735.96
3.47%
SUB -TOTAL
5,667,116.28
5,640,133.58
29,010,801.53
28,230,738.08
-2.69%
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
96,307.74
86,153.82
375,197.22
309,544.92
- 17.50%
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
152,401.19
18,256.40
783,578.23
86,995.55
- 88.90%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL
16,605.36
17,762.21
98,870.89
97,968.73
-0.91%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMMERCIAL
32,917.32
35,098.66
155,956.13
154,155.00
-1.15%
GAW REVENUE
50,311.27
53,711.38
258,658.69
255,902.40
-1.07%
NYPA CREDIT
(48,781.28)
(23,964.99)
(201,732.78)
(173,262.24)
- 14.11%
TOTAL REVENUE
30,481,329.91
-4.98%
5,966,877.88
5,827,151.06
28,962,042.44
(11)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE BY TOWN
10/31/13
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
11.66%
MONTH
9.03%
11.76%
59.35%
7.49%
0.75%
9.94%
RESIDENTIAL
2,110,778.50
657,371.26
280,588.21
509,285.71
663,533.32
0.09%
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
3,347,194.23
422,216.32
42,140.43
560,698.33
2,322,139.15
0.00%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
25,891.70
8,405.16
3,316.77
4,601.52
9,568.25
0.65%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
5,245.44
913.80
94.41
1,618.66
2,618.57
CO -OP RESALE
26,616.35
26,616.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.19%
SCHOOL
124,407.36
43,834.02
27,115.00
16,828.53
36,629.81
0.07%
TOTAL
5,640,133.58
1, 159, 356. 91
353,254.82
1,093,032.75
3,034,489.10
0.54%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.64%
THIS YEAR TO DATE
0.37%
0.20%
0.48%
100.00%
21.77%
7.32%
RESIDENTIAL
12,072,421.59
3,760,328.38
1,743,641.10
2,829,199.86
3,739,252.25
13.16%
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
15,413,420.40
2,029,173.48
203,698.16
2,487,634.43
10,692,914.33
8.81%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
108,300.96
35,233.88
13,917.08
19,183.61
39,966.39
0.08%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
22,424.23
3,938.89
404.84
6,938.03
11,142.47
0.00%
CO -OP RESALE
152,434.94
152,434.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48%
SCHOOL
461,735.96
167,632.97
105,769.72
57,797.17
130,536.10
TOTAL
28,230,738.08
6,148,742.54
2,067,430.88
5,400,753.11
14,613,811.55
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
12,347,572.86
3,817,707.36
1,810,235.10
2,893,065.29
3,826,565.11
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
15,927,775.01
2,133,150.43
194,983.32
2,554,743.28
11,044,897.98
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
111,662.20
35,902.20
14,201.16
20,918.00
40,640.84
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
22,778.04
4,173.48
417.00
6,881.21
11,306.35
CO -OP RESALE
154,747.61
154,747.61
0.00
0.00
0.00
SCHOOL
446,265.81
160,825.16
96,083.89
56,345.84
133,010.92
TOTAL
29,010,801.53
6,306,506.24
2,115,920.47
5,531,953.62
15,056,421.20
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL
INDUS /MUNI BLDG
PUB.ST.LIGHTS
PRV.ST.LIGHTS
CO -OP RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL
TOTAL
READING
LYNNFIELD
NO.READING
WILMINGTON
37.42%
11.66%
4.97%
9.03%
11.76%
59.35%
7.49%
0.75%
9.94%
41.17%
0.46%
0.15%
0.06%
0.08%
0.17%
0.09%
0.02%
0.00%
0.03%
0.04%
0.47%
0.47%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.21%
0.78%
0.48%
0.30%
0.65%
100.00%
20.57%
6.26%
19.38%
53.79%
42.76%
13.32%
6.18%
10.02%
13.24%
54.60%
7.19%
0.72%
8.81%
37.88%
0.38%
0.12%
0.05%
0.07%
0.14%
0.08%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.05%
0.54%
0.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.64%
0.59%
0.37%
0.20%
0.48%
100.00%
21.77%
7.32%
19.12%
51.79%
42.56%
13.16%
6.24%
9.97%
13.19%
54.90%
7.35%
0.67%
8.81%
38.07%
0.38%
0.12%
0.05%
0.07%
0.14
0.08%
0.01%
0.00%
0.02%
0.05
0.53%
0.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.55%
0.55%
0.33%
0.19%
0.48%
100.00%
21.72%
7.29%
19.06%
51.93%
(11A)
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
RESIDENTIAL
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING
SALES FOR RESALE
SCHOOL
TOTAL BASE SALES
TOTAL FUEL SALES
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMMERCIAL
GAW REVENUE
PASNY CREDIT
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED REVENUE VARIANCE REPORT
10/31/13
SCHEDULE F
ACTUAL
BUDGET
%
YEAR TO DATE
YEAR TO DATE
VARIANCE *
CHANGE
7,618,091.90
7,926,823.00
(308,731.10)
- 3.89%
8,601,095.62
8,841,888.00
(240,792.38)
-2.72%
65,178.73
66,526.00
(1,347.27)
- 2.035
92,015.77
107,943.00
(15,927.23)
- 14.76%
272,164.47
259,995.00
12,169.47
4.68%
16,648,546.49
17,203,175.00
(554,628.51)
-3.22%
11,582,191.59
11,909,584.00
(327,392.41)
-2.75%
28,230,738.08
29,112,759.00
(882,020.92)
-3.03%
309,544.92
378,470.00
(68,925.08)
- 18.21%
86,995.55
384,551.00
(297,555.45)
- 77.38%
97,968.73
98,825.00
(856.27)
-0.87%
154,155.00
159,995.00
(5,840.00)
-3.65%
255,902.40
258,820.00
(2,917.60)
-1.13%
(173,262.24)
(233,332.00)
60,069.76
- 25.74`k
(1,198,045.56)
-3.97%
28,962,042.44
30,160,088.00
(11B)
OPERATION EXPENSES:
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
METER EXPENSE
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
OUTSIDE SERVICES
PROPERTY INSURANCE
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
RENT EXPENSE
ENERGY CONSERVATION
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
10/31/13
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR
LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE
2,233,116.17 2,210,925.58 10,033,532.96
SCHEDULE E
CURRENT YEAR YTD %
TO DATE CHANGE
10.021.951.34 -0.12%
66,592.72
49,980.89
186,135.02
182,135.58
13,956.59
10,221.00
29,744.06
37,222.79
79,054.60
71,301.38
211,993.96
231,943.18
77,365.14
52,514.07
186,724.92
174,469.79
6,834.27
6,364.62
24,362.69
22,991.87
32,412.73
26,643.74
66,525.09
69,606.83
41,385.07
35,839.01
115,344.01
117,750.71
8,123.39
1,240.62
32,093.41
12,267.04
178,107.71
154,734.61
514,290.24
519,176.60
8,333.33
10,500.00
33,333.32
42,000.00
60,363.24
41,202.29
156,109.20
148,946.59
89,524.45
80,326.54
254,951.94
306,318.52
12,722.94
26,138.99
61,788.54
87,573.13
44,881.09
76,027.61
124,813.17
146,662.00
31,925.42
29,926.02
126,960.68
119,704.08
5,005.55
3,553.51
15,321.99
13,034.11
139,740.68
146,448.48
680,714.72
979,241.91
10,345.81
12,213.85
48,960.68
56,505.01
13,774.20
13,798.14
76,113.08
68,356.79
42,245.94
49,247.00
169,284.12
130,392.00
962,694.87
898,222.37
3,115,564.84
3,466,298.53
MAINT
OF
TRANSMISSION PLANT
227.10
227.08
908.40
908.32
MAINT
OF
STRUCT AND EQUIPMT
23,850.98
19,624.34
45,548.55
60,592.75
MAINT
OF
LINES - OH
234,733.57
192,386.93
484,217.53
551,853.96
MAINT
OF
LINES - UG
4,772.57
10,141.50
28,845.22
59,995.19
MAINT
OF
LINE TRANSFORMERS
1,535.48
2,777.18
11,919.07
76,227.73
MAINT
OF
ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
18.13
(85.28)
(202.32)
(320.39)
MAINT
OF
GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
35,233.87
53,628.51
150,174.77
163,108.91
MAINT
OF
METERS
5,428.36
1,511.32
15,579.84
9,113.78
MAINT
OF
GEN PLANT
7,237.95
17,032.24
34,867.27
49,276.08
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
313,038.01
297,243.82
771,858.33
970,756.33
-2.15%
25.14%
9.41%
-6.56%
-5.63%
4.63%
2.09%
- 61.78%
0.95%
26.00%
-4.59%
20.15%
41.73%
17.51%
-5.72%
- 14.93%
43.85%
15.41%
- 10.19%
- 22.97%
11.26%
J
-0.01%
33.03%
13.97%
107.99%
0.00%
58.36%
8.61%
- 41.50%
41.32%
25.77%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
305,469.18
314,969.55
1,221,876.72
1,259,878.20
3.11%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
2,595,375.45
1,994,534.42
12,402,011.25
10,394,368.11
- 16.19%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
114,000.00
116,666.67
456,000.00
466,666.68
2.34%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
-5.07%
28,000,844.10
26,579,919.19
5,832,562.41
6,523,693.68
(12)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
10/31/13
OPERATION EXPENSES:
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
METER EXPENSE
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
OUTSIDE SERVICES
PROPERTY INSURANCE
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
RENT EXPENSE
ENERGY CONSERVATION
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMENT
MAINT OF LINES - OH
MAINT OF LINES - UG
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
MAINT OF METERS
MAINT OF GEN PLANT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
ACTUAL
BUDGET
YEAR TO DATE
YEAR TO DATE
10,021,951.34
10,223,950.00
182,135.58
153,884.00
37,222.79
28,797.00
231,943.18
240,616.00
174,469.79
144,727.00
22,991.87
30,043.00
69,606.83
64,055.00
117,750.71
128,882.00
12,267.04
15,319.00
519,176.60
506,065.00
42,000.00
42,000.00
148,946.59
132,228.00
306,318.52
256,864.00
87,573.13
89,400.00
146,662.00
173,486.00
119,704.08
153,500.00
13,034.11
19,732.00
979,241.91
706,532.00
56,505.01
105,996.00
68,356.79
70,668.00
130,392.00
212,051.00
SCHEDULE G
%
VARIANCE * CHANGE
(201,998.66) -1.98%
28,251.58
8,425.79
(8,672.82)
29,742.79
(7,051.13)
5,551.83
(11,131.29)
(3,051.96)
13,111.60
0.00
16,718.59
49,454.52
(1,826.87)
(26,824.00)
(33,795.92)
(6,697.89)
272,709.91
(49,490.99)
(2,311.21)
(81,659.00)
3,466,298.53
3,274,845.00
191,453.53
908.32
1,000.00
(91.66)
60,592.75
34,195.00
26,397.75
551,853.96
527,424.00
24,429.96
59,995.19
161,706.00
(101,710.81)
76,227.73
63,868.00
12,359.73
(320.39)
3,459.00
(3,779.39)
163,108.91
202,817.00
(39,708.09)
9,113.78
19,668.00
(10,554.22)
49,276.08
48,118.00
1,158.08
970,756.33
1,062,255.00
(91,498.67)
1,259,878.20
1,258,400.00
1,478.20
10,394,368.11 10,577,238.00
466,666.68
466,664.00
18.36%
29.26%
-3.60%
20.55%
- 23.47%
8.67%
-8.64%
- 19.92%
2.59%
0.00%
12.64%
19.25%
-2.04%
- 15.46%
- 22.02%
- 33.94%
36.60%
- 46.69%
-3.27%
- 38.51%
5.85%
-9.17%
77.20%
4.63%
- 62.90%
19.35%
- 109.26%
- 19.58%
- 53.66%
2.41%
-8.61%
0.12%
(182,869.89) -1.73%
2.68 0.00%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 26,579,919.19 26,863,352.00 (283,432.81) -1.06%
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(12A)
OPERATION EXPENSES:
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
10/31/13
RESPONSIBLE
SENIOR
MANAGER
JP
REMAINING
2014 ACTUAL BUDGET
ANNUAL BUDGET YEAR TO DATE BALANCE
29,123,336.00 10,021,951.34 19,101,384.66
REMAINING
BUDGET %
65.59%
F.
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP
KS
467,978.00
182,135.58
285,842.42
61.08%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC
KS
90,088.00
37,222.79
52,865.21
58.68%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE
KS
729,521.00
231,943.18
497,577.82
68.21%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE
KS
446,308.00
174,469.79
271,838.21
60.91%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE
KS
90,729.00
22,991.87
67,737.13
74.66%
METER EXPENSE
KS
218,064.00
69,606.83
148,457.17
68.08%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE
KS
396,379.00
117,750.71
278,628.29
70.29%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE
KS
46,322.00
12,267.04
34,054.96
73.52%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE
RF
1,570,864.00
519,176.60
1,051,687.40
66.95%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
RF
126,000.00
42,000.00
84,000.00
66.67%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE
JP
416,982.00
148,946.59
268,035.41
64.28%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES
CO
794,002.00
306,318.52
487,683.48
61.42%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE
CO
268,000.00
87,573.13
180,426.87
67.32%
OUTSIDE SERVICES
CO
419,150.00
146,662.00
272,488.00
65.01%
PROPERTY INSURANCE
KS
460,600.00
119,704.08
340,895.92
74.01%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES
KS
58,206.00
13,034.11
45,171.89
77.61%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS
KS
1,870,479.00
979,241.91
891,237.09
47.65%
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE
CO
219,695.00
56,505.01
163,189.99
74.28%
RENT EXPENSE
KS
212,000.00
68,356.79
143,643.21
67.76%
ENERGY CONSERVATION
JP
636,761.00
130,392.00
506,369.00
79.52%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES
9,538,128.00
3,466,298.53
6,071,829.47
63.66%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT
KS
3,000.00
908.32
2,091.68
69.72%
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT
KS
105,738.00
60,592.75
45,145.25
42.70%
MAINT OF LINES - OH
KS
1,604,829.00
551,853.96
1,052,975.04
65.61%
MAINT OF LINES - UG
KS
485,432.00
59,995.19
425,436.81
87.64%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS
KS
160,000.00
76,227.73
83,772.27
52.36%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM
KS
10,487.00
(320.39)
10,807.39
103.06%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM
KS
668,507.00
163,108.91
505,398.09
75.60%
MAINT OF METERS
KS
41,160.00
9,113.78
32,046.22
77.86%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT
RF
145,480.00
49,276.08
96,203.92
66.13%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
3,224,633.00
970,756.33
2,253,876.67
69.90%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
RF
3,775,200.00
1,259,878.20
2,515,321.80
66.63%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE
JP
31,789,470.00
10,394,368.11
21,395,101.89
67.30%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS
RF
1,400,000.00
466,666.68
933,333.32
66.67%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES
66.29%
52,270,847.81
26,579,919.19
78,850,767.00
9
(12B)
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY PROJECT
ITEM
1 RMLD AND PENSION TRUST AUDIT FEES
2 PENSION ACTUARIAL EVALUATION
3 LEGAL- FERC /ISO ISSUES
4 LEGAL- POWER SUPPLY ISSUES
5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6 NERC COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT
7 LEGAL
8 LEGAL - GENERAL
9 LEGAL SERVICES- OTHER
10 LEGAL SERVICES - NEGOTIATIONS
11 LEGAL SERVICES - ARBITRATION
12 LEGAL GENERAL
13 SURVEY RIGHT OF WAY
14 ENVIRONMENTAL
15 INSURANCE CONSULTANT
16 LEGAL
17 LEGAL MATS MGMT
16 DSA BASIC CLIENT SERVICE
TOTAL
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY VENDOR
MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY
UTILITY SERVICES, INC.
DUNCAN AND ALLEN
RUBIN AND RUDMAN
DOBLE ENGINEERING
CHOATE HALL & STEWART
WILLIAM CROWLEY
BERRYDUNN
PLM
TOTAL
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10/31/2013
DEPARTMENT ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
ACCOUNTING
32,500.00
32,250.00
250.00
ACCOUNTING
0.00
0.00
0.00
ENERGY SERVICE
0.00
6,000.00
(6,000.00)
ENERGY SERVICE
37,203.52
15,000.00
22,203.52
ENERGY SERVICE
6,445.00
8,000.00
(1,555.00)
E & 0
4,989.50
5,000.00
(10.50)
ENGINEERING
0.00
5,000.00
(5,000.00)
GM
43,429.33
50,000.00
(6,570.67)
HR
495.05
14,000.00
(13,504.95)
HR
15,121.95
0.00
15,121.95
HR
4,629.73
21,900.00
(17,270.27)
BLDG. MAINT.
0.00
500.00
(500.00)
BLDG. MAINT.
0.00
1,668.00
(1,668.00)
BLDG. MAINT.
0.00
1,668.00
(1,668.00)
GEN. BENEFIT
0.00
3,332.00
(3,332.00)
GEN. BENEFIT
64.60
1,668.00
(1,603.40)
GEN. BENEFIT
950.00
7,500.00
(6,550.00)
ENGINEERING
833.32
0.00
833.32
146,662.00
173,486.00
(26,824.00)
(13)
ACTUAL
32,500.00
3,637.50
16,049.53
63,517.92
833.32
20,246.73
2,080.00
6,445.00
1,352.00
146,662.00
RMLD
DEFERRED FUEL CASH RESERVE ANALYSIS
10/31/13
(14)
GROSS
MONTHLY
TOTAL
DATE
CHARGES
REVENUES
NYPA CREDIT
DEFERRED
DEFERRED
Jun -13
2,609,487.38
Jul -13
3,464,349.32
2,953,072.91
(53,841.00)
(565,117.41)
2,044,369.97
Aug -13
2,767,250.13
3,385,440.39
(33,645.12)
584,545.14
2,628,915.11
Sep -13
2,168,234.24
3,096,134.62
(61,811.13)
866,089.25
3,495,004.36
Oct -13
1,994,534.42
2,147,543.67
(23,964.99)
129,044.26
3,624,048.62
(14)
RMLD
BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2013
DIVISION
ACTUAL
BUDGET
VARIANCE
CHANGE
ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS
1,586,273
1,568,199
18,074
1.15%
ENERGY SERVICES
322,519
373,280
(50,762)
- 13.60%
GENERAL MANAGER
267,231
323,088
(55,857)
- 17.29%
FACILITY MANAGER
1,524,448
1,349,528
174,920
12.96%
BUSINESS DIVISION
3,231,232
3,216,268
14,964
0.47%
SUB -TOTAL
1.48%
6,931,703
6,830,364
101,339
PURCHASED POWER - BASE
10,021,951
10,223,950
(1,321,494)
-1.98%
PURCHASED POWER - FUEL
10,394,368
10,577,238
728,144
-1.73%
TOTAL
-1.03%
27,348,022
27,631,552
(492,011)
(15)
RMLD
STAFFING REPORT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE, 2014
GENERAL MANAGER
GENERAL MANAGER
HUMAN RESOURCES
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
TOTAL
BUSINESS
ACCOUNTING
CUSTOMER SERVICE
MGMT INFORMATION SYS
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL
ENGINEERING & OPERATIONS
AGM E &O
ENGINEERING
LINE
METER
STATION
TOTAL
PROJECT
BUILDING
GENERAL BENEFITS
TRANSPORTATION
MATERIALS MGMT
TOTAL
ENERGY SERVICES
ENERGY SERVICES
TOTAL
RMLD TOTAL
CONTRACTORS
UG LINE
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
14 BUD
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
TOTAL
13
13
13
13
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
7.75
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
16.75
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
22.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
40.00
2.00
2.00
8.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
39.00
3.50
4.50
3.50
3.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
4.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
4.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
73.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
71.25
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
75.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
73.25
(16)
.40 1
<
N N
h O
p
0 h Vt
r o
n
N
co
��v
O q
p
-oa.{
a
-Q
J3$ n
Mipcw)
go
�n�
N N
�
N
N
�C
V)
Mca
m N
o o
10 co N
Im O
O!
~
N .-
p O S
M N
N° ICf.
N
N N O
O
p N
M
In
CO
2 �On
N
ak
Of IA f`
W C
r O
ID
44
F a •
r E
co ,
-c')
e
J;;
O
Go O
co
M
O N°
co
GOD m o
N
N Y
2
n
U p
N
h O <
N N
r _
N e9
n
0
Y1�N
c
MM
J
N
C
ap-
OD
0 L e
Oo3
n�
N
r�.ipA
J o
$
N�
N
J b
I G;
N
M
r
C
`M
m
W 9a
qs
one
E
W Y ;
Y
N O
0
N `°
�$Qg
O
M�
o�
N N
d
p
b
U ri
N
M
F-
N 0
O
•�O
Z S
N w
N V n
qO
�
W
K
O
F' M Y
J
< L C
F ; n
O
h M
m cs
cn o
z N
p N
h
N
<
N pN
N1
W
d'
O
J
M
FO
L
N
U
w
z
W ;
O1
M
a z
N
N W
w
W O
O �
F z
S �
(� N
i6
a
Z
O
U p
=
p �
O
J
J
Z
W
W
O
U
K
p Z
O
J U
J U W
O
S
U
z W
z m
p< SSCC
z m LL
O<
LL
p
a
z aX
<
N N
h O
o
O co
0 h Vt
r o
n
N
co
��v
pp ry°
°r°ov
p
-oa.{
a
-Q
r�
N N
�
N
N
'n,
N
V)
Mca
m N
o o
10 co N
CO
N ID
0�0
GO
N .-
l'7 1A
p�
W M N
YY
t0 M
N N O
N M
p N
M
In
CO
cn O
ak
Of IA f`
V
r O
ID
44
NONE
IOC
tD
NON
A Lo
to
NpN' ID
M
O N°
co
GOD m o
r`
N M c
N Y
O N
N (c(p
q N
M V I�f)
r _
O
y►CiN vi
n
0
Y1�N
c
MM
N
Cl.
N /C
GD
N e
co
N
N Ln
CO
�;n op
N M
>- W
z (7
C
o = z
J
U
U m = W
C J Y LL
p
z OF a X
U, LO
10 e
N � �
o
N N r
o
co co e
N
O n
N r
M
� M o
N
N O I>
N
H
z
5
a
S
J
<
o_ W
U K
J U W
p m � W
m < LL
o K p
IL i a X
31
N
tN'f �2 r
o.
N � N
m
N c
T �2 f0
N � N
A � o
N`O �
H
D_
W
O
J
J
<
A.
U W
i < U
z J U z
OF J W
m
J J LL
�0 It
CO
cn
�A
10
M
f!
M M o
N O
N
N " N
co
M o
O � V
m
N
H
w
W
O
2
J
<
a
v_ W
W
U
U
W m = K
W ` LL
'c
3 a X
Jeanne Foti
rom: Jeanne Foti
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:59 AM
To: RMLD Board Members Group
Subject: Account Payable Warrant and Payroll - No Questions
Good morning.
In an effort to save paper, the following timeframes had no Account Payable Warrant and Payroll questions. This e -mail
will be printed for the Board Book for the RMLD Board meeting on December 12, 2013.
Account Payable Warrant— No Questions
October 25, November 1, November 8, November 15 and November 22. There was no Account Payable Warrant on
November 29.
Payroll — No Questions
November 4, November 18 and December 2.
.2anne Foti
Reading Municipal Light Department
Executive Assistant
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
781 - 942 -6434 Phone
781 - 942 -2409 Fax
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
1