Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-05-08 RMLD Board of Commissioners Minutes
Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners RE RECEIVED R E Joint Meeting with the Citizens' Advisory Board • H CLERK Regular Session kiw 7ao Ash Street -GING. MASS. Reading, MA 01867 William Seldon, Senior Energy Analyst May 8,2014 CC 22 A 4l Start Time of Regular Session: 6:31 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 7:57 p.m. Commissioners John Stemperk, Chairman Philip B. Pacino, Vice Chair Robert Soli, Commissioner David Talbot, Secretary Thomas O'Rourke, Commissioner Staff Coleen O'Brien, General Manager Jeanne Fall, Executive Assistant Bob Fournier, Accounting/Business Manager Hamid Jaffari, Engineering and Operations Manager Priscilla Gottwald, Community Relations Manager Jane Parenteau, Integrated Resources Manager Kathleen Rybak, E &O Operational Assistant William Seldon, Senior Energy Analyst Citizens' Advisory Board John Norton, Chairman George Hooper, Vice Chairman David Nelson, Secretary Tony Capobianco, Member Dennis Kelley, Member Town of Readina Board of Selectmen Liaison to the Board: Marcie West Luest: Mayhew Seavey, Principal, Power Line Models Call 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 read the RMLD Board of Commissioners Code of Conduct. Chairman Stempeck reported that Commissioner Talbot will be the Secretary this evening. Introductions Chairman Stempeck welcomed Selectwoman Music West and the Citizens' Advisory Board. Chairman Stempeck also introduced the new RMLD Board member, Tom O'Rourke. Mr. O'Rourke thanked Chairman Stempeck for the introduction. Chairman Stempeck introduced Mayhew Seavey who has performing the Cost of Service Study for the RMLD Ms. O'Brien welcomed the Board and the CAB. She explained that approximately every two to three years, utilities should conduct a Cost of Service Study to ensure that their allocations remain in or at the utility industry standards. A Cost of Service Study has now been performed, a little differently from previous studies at the RMLD. Only budget and revenue requirements were provided to PLM, Mayhew Seavey, to ensure that fully independent results could be achieved. Ms. O'Brien stated that Mayhew has established a Cost of Service modeling system that includes baseline data from other municipals and Independent Operating Utilities (IOU's) in the commonwealth of Mamachusetis. Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. Seavey stated that he performed a Cost of Service Study, and is reporting on the results on behalf of the RMLD using fiscal year 2015 dam as the basis. Mr. Seavey said that he will be making recommendations with respect m rate design and discuss what the next steps are then discussion. (c lliiwl. Seavey explained that the process began by conducting a historic test year Cost of Service Study. This was performed with actual dam from fiscal year 2013, expenses and revenues, and then allocated across the various customer classes to determine how the existing classes were performing. This was also done to verify that the model was working correctly such as calculating revenues correctly; they provide a snap shot on how the present rates look. Regular Session Meeting Minutes May S, 2014 Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Cost of Service Study (COSS) Mr. Seavey explained that the model was updated with fiscal year 2015 data provided by RMLD in terms of expenses then calculated what the revenue should be using the present rates and made sure that those revenues were consistent with what the • RMLD has projected Then determine what was required to meet the revenue requirements to cover expenses and to provide sufficient net income. The bottom line is that it was determined that an overall increase of 1.3% was all that was necessary to meet the budget expenses for fiscal year 2015 based on the projected sales that were looked at. Mr. Seavey stated that the model indicates that the existing rates of mium by customer class we at the limit of what is considered the standard municipal utility practice, they are not outside of the range, but are at the outer edge of the range of rates of mum. The residential rates' rates of return are fairly low whereas the commercial industrial are fairly high. However, the RMLD's existing rates are extremely competitive with other municipal and private utilities across all customer classes. It is to note that one of RMLD's main objectives is to atnact and retain commercial load which helps to support competitive rates for everyone and keeps rates stable. Mr. Seavey reported that two cases were considered the first with an across the board 1.3% increase. It is the easiest approach to take by adding approximately 1.3% to the total rates that customers are being charged which produces enough revenue to meet expenses. Every customer class has the same impact. The second case is to slightly smooth out the rates of return within the same general constraint of 1.3% to move the individual class rates of return within the standard range. In order to do that, it would require a 5% increase in residential rates, 1.3% increase in industrial rates and 3% decrease in the commercial and school rates. This would have a fairly significant impact on the difference between the lowest rate of rearm and the highest rate of return Each customer class would see a slightly different impact. Mr. Seavey pointed out that a third commercial class was cousidered, a small commercial class. Typically private utilities and larger municipal utilities have three commercial classes or general service classes. A small customer class which deals with small businesses that use less than 10,000 kilowatt hours per month which are the majority of RMLD's commercial customers. There is a medium size commercial class which consists of a demand charge and energy charge.class. The RMLD is already demand metering all those small customers. If you were to take approximately 2,000 small commercial customers off the demand rate and put them onto an energy only rate a significant amount of them would see a 20% increase. This was a surprise to him because of when you think of small commercial customers as being fairly uniform. Some of RMLD's small commercial customers towards the higher end of the usage have very good load factors. For every kilowatt of • demand they put on the system, they are using quite a few kilowatt hours. Those customers are doing quite well under the current rate. If you put them onto an energy only rate, they would be hurt and pay quite a bit more. Also, it would not be an accurate way of billing them because they are not imposing a lot of demand on the system and the present rate structure rewards them for that. Similarly, there would be decreases for the low load factor customers, but they are considered to be bad customers because they would have high demand relative to the number of kilowatt hours they are using. Those customers would get sizeable decreases. It would not be consisted with the goal of sending the message of accurate price signal to the customer. He is not recommending RMLD adopt a small commercial class. Mr. Seavey added that another rate looked into was a residential low income rate. All private utilities have this rate and many municipals have adopted them voluntarily as well. There is a state mandate that calls for the private utilities to have the low income rate. This rate applies to customers who are receiving any type of means tested assistance from the commonwealth of Massachusetts. Then are two approaches that are currently widely used. Many municipal light departments have chosen to eliminate the customer charge for customers who qualify for a low income rate. One advantage of this is provides the same benefit to all customers. It is particularly beneficial on a percentage basis to small customers. It provides a fixed benefit in dollars and a different benefit in percent depending on usage. For a customer using 250 kilowatt hours it will be a 9% reduction, a 500 kilowatt how customer which is a more typical customer it is a 5% reduction. The other option used by the private utilities is a flat percentage discount on the entire bill exclusive of the purchase pow" charge. In the case of private utilities their delivery services, in RMLD's case it would be the distribution charge. The IOU's discounts are that National Grid uses 25% and NSTAR uses 27 %. Mr. Seavey calculated that if the RMLD replace the prompt payment discount that is currently 10% with a 25% low income discount that would reduce the total bill by 6 %. He did not add the prompt payment discount to the low income discount because that is duplicative. Those are the two options he has suggested. They are fairly equivalent overall as to the amount of revenue the RMLD would spend putting a rate like that into place. The only difference is that the flat customer charge would benefit low usage customers more. Since there is no data available for the customers who qualify for that there is no way to estimate the impact on the customers or revenue. Mr. Pacino asked one question to Mr. Seavey and the other is for the Department. The discount on the lower rate what is the offset at this point. The offset has to be made up by some other customers. Where would be the offset be? Mr. Pacino's • second question is what would be the cost to administrate this and how would it be handled by the Department if this was to be put in place. Mr. Seavey responded it is not possible to estimate what the revenue loss would be. Initially, the revenue would come out of net income. Once you gain a year's experience, you would adjust the rates to make up for the lost income. Regular Session Meeting Minutes 3 May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. Seavey said that the presumption he has going into this is that we are not talking about a huge amount of revenue that � ll be lost that would make a material impact on meeting the revenue in the system. In terms of implementation the way the We is implemented by private utilities or other municipals is to require documentation from the customer that they we eligible to receive some sort of means tested assistance. That would be a simple process to sign up a customer and put that rate code into the billing system. Ms. O'Brien commented that the RMLD has payment plans with its customers that require documentation and already have that process. With the new Cogsdale update the RMLD can add that rate structure. Chairman Stempeck inquired that RMLD's customers will know what means tested assistance or will it be published. Mr. Seavey responded that it is typically identified in the tariff. Mr. Pacino said that this would be taken out of the 8% or the bottom line in the short term. As time goes on other customers would be making up for this. Mr. Seavey responded that he believes that is correct. Mr. Hooper asked if this could benefit some of the seniors. Mr. Seavey replied presumably that is correct. Mr. Seavey reported that the next item is the unbundling of the rate structure and creating rates that essentially take all the purchased power costs out of the base rates. There is approximately four cents of purchased power costs embedded in the base rates and the rest of the purchased power costs come through the purchased power adjustment. The fuel adjustment recovers all the energy costs. They are proposing collapsing those three pieces into a single purchase power charge which includes all purchase power costs and would be billed on the basis of estimates then trued up after the fact to actuals. It is fairly standard practice in the industry by now to break out the distribution tole which covers all the costs of owning, operating and maintaining your distribution system plus all of your profit and net income. Putting that into what essentially is the base rate which will be called distribution rate and all the purchase power and transmission costs will be covered by a purchase power charge. That makes it much more transparent and easier to account for purchase power collection whether you are accurately collecting all your purchase power costs or whether your base rates are perforating properly. If you end up with more revenue than expected at the end of the year, it is difficult to tell right now if you overcollected on your base rate or purchase power costs. Breaking into these two components makes it possible to do that. The one downside to this is the prompt payment discount applies to the entire base rate would no longer apply to the four cents of purchase power that is built into the base rate. While the percentage discount will remain at ten percent, the dollar discount to the customer will be smaller. The purchase power charge is a pass through cost; you cannot discount it because if you discount it incorrectly you 11 under recover your costs. The proposal would be to keep the prompt payment discount at ten percent, but would apply to rtaller piece of the rate. Mr. Seavey demonstrated the rate for a residential customer noting that the results would be similar. The customer charge remains the same. The base rate charge would drop by approximately fow and a half cents because it would take that base rate purchase power charge out. In place of the four cents that is in the base rate plus the five cent fuel adjustment plus the two mill pumbase power adjustment you would have a nine and a half cent purchase power charge which recovers all the purchase power costs (capacity, energy plus transmission). These designs reflect fiscal yew 2015 projected. The typical five hundred kilowatt how bill, 1.3% higher overall the energy conservation charge and NYPA credit will remain the same. The ten percent prompt payment discount would only apply on the four and a half cent distribution charge plus the $3.73 customer charge. The discount is built into the rate. The bill will have one fewer line item on it. It might be easier for the customer to understand. It would be easier to compare to a National Grid or NSTAR bill because it will have the same terminology. It will have a distribution charge on it to compare RMLD's to the investor owned utilities. Increasingly, municipal utilities have the same structure so that comparisons can also be made with other municipal utilities. Mr. Kelley asked that 2013 numbers were utilized and the multipliers were not the same as what has been presented. Mr. Seavey replied that in the presentation, it is for forecasted fiscal year 2015 which is based on estimated purchased power costs. Mr. Kelley pointed out that the fuel adjustment is .05167 however, on his bill it is .06 not quite a penny difference which is 2014. Mr. Seavey explained that this is the problem doing this type of comparison. What this compares is what the bill would be if you did not change the rates to this new structure, but you have the costs that you have next year. It is not what the bill is now, it is would be on July 1 if the rate change was not performed. Mr. Kelley added on top of the rate increase theyjust had, it will be another 1.3 %. Mr. Seavey added that it is probably going to be a decrease. Ms. O'Brien responded that the RMLD performs purchase power fuel adjustment analysis every month that fluctuates. You are trying to hit a moving target. Purchase Power costs are a pass through, no profit is made. Ms. O'Brien stated that purchase power by law, must be recovered. You are projecting forward and reconciling because it anges every month and you have to recover this. By unbundling this, the not for profit percent return, goes on to the retribution side so the RMLD is clear that it is covering all of its purchase power costs. Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSH) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. O'Rourke commented that this depends on a lot of factors, in general for an average bill taking out the purchase power charge what does that ten percent become nine percent, eight and a half percent. Mr. Seavey clarified ten percent of the • discount. Mr. O'Rourke explained that the current bill is discounted ten percent Mr. Seavey responded that the fuel does not get discounted. Mr. O'Rourke wants to understand from a customer's perspective they will not get a ten percent that they are currently receiving. Mr. Seavey stated that on a five hundred kilowatt bill instead of a $4.50 discount it will be approximately $2.25 based on the too percent discount. Mr. O'Rourke stated that in terms of the description on the bill it will need to be clear to delineate this. Mr. Seavey said that he is not sure how the bill is structured and community education is one avenue to deal with this. Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Seavey to speak in the utilities that have gone to unbundling and how they have dealt with the prompt payment discount. Has the percentage on the prompt payment discount has it been increased. Mr. Seavey said that there is one municipal that he has knowledge of that increased the prompt payment discount in order m try to maintain the same level of dollar discount. Most municipals these days are realizing that the prompt payment discount may not be that useful of a tool as it use to be before. There is some indication that in essence it is a his on customers who don't have cash to pay their bills quickly. He does not know of any municipals that have done a controlled experiment. The only situation that he is aware of is that urn years ago, Concord added a prompt payment discount and showed a fairly sharp drop in their receivables. The customers who do not take advantage of the discount are paying for those who do. Mr. Pacino said that this committee had discussed the ten percent discount, is the ten portent common, and is it standard. Mr. Seavey replied that it is very widespread; at least eighty percent of municipal utilities have the ten percent prompt payment discount. Some of them have five percent for some groups of customers, such as businesses who pay promptly. Mr. Pacino explained that there was discussion about fifteen years ago with Peabody Light avoided a rate increase by lowering their prompt payment discount. Mr. Pacino said that he does make the deadline and pays the extra ten percent. Chairman Stempeck said that this could be considered in another session. Chairman Stempeck added that the water department also has a significant discount if you pay ahead of time. Mr. O'Rourke asked approximately how many customers take advantage of the discount. Mr. Seavey replied that the number is high because he has not seen a utility in which its customers did not take advantage of it. Mr. Founder reported that on an annual basis, the RMLD will we approximately $1 million in forfeited discounts. However, on the discount dates the RMLD is inundated with payments. The options that the RMLD offers is automatic pay and auto pay to ensure customers meet the discount. Chairman Stempeck commented there is a balance in having the discount or not having the discount. From an economic perspective is that you get you money faster, and have knowledge that you are going to receive it. If the RMLD were m take the prompt payment discount away or lower it would • have an economic impact. Mr. O'Rourke said that to speak to the other side, is there any penalty if you are ninety days late on your payment. Chairman Stempeck asked how long until the RMLD shuts off power. Mr. Fournier responded that there are regulations that dictate when you can shut off customers. When customers are past due, they receive two notices; it does not get to the ninety day timeframe. There are methods and processes that the RMLD follows that are dictated by the Department of Public Utilities. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that nonpayment by RMLD's customers is the exception, not the rule. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that it his understanding that the RMLD bends over backwards m work with its customers. Mr. O'Rourke added that what he is touching upon is if did eliminate the prompt payment totally that it disincentives the customer to pay more expeditiously. Mr. Seavey added that the prompt payment discount has a positive effect on cash flow. Mr. Pacino clarified that the RMLD can put a lien on a customer's home for nonpayment. Mr. Foumfer commented that the RMLD does place liens on residential customers for nonpayment. Mr. Pacino stated that it is his under standing as explained that the 1.3% increase of the 4.5% from the prior rate increase, but Mr. Seavey has said previously that it actually has decreased. Mr. Seavey clarified it is the function of the fact that the 1.3% increase is with all things being equal on July 1. Mr. Seavey pointed out that July 1 the bill will be 1.3% higher than it would have been. What it has relative in the June bill is a function of purchase power costs that me being billed in June versus purchase power costs that are being forecasted for July. Mr. Seavey said that he is not sure where that is going to fall right now. Given the increase, it is not a large adjustment one way or the other. Mr. Pacino said that potentially under the purchase power adjustment that could be a 1.3% increase no matter what. Mr. Seavey explained that purchase power costs can swing the bill much more than that 1.3% very easily. Mr. Seavey commented that we are dealing with some costs the RMLD has control over going up 1.3% the others will swing either way. Mr. Pacino said that if we do nothing than we will and up with a 1.3% increase that is his understanding. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that is beyond our control that is external; the purchase of power can go anywhere, we are dependent on our internal power pool to find the lowest possible cost. It is an advantage that the RMLD has. Chairman Stempeck said that we need to look at different variations on the theme of the discount which will be looked at and come up with a reasonable assumption. • Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Ms. West stated that her question is what percentage of purchase power, which she believes is a pretty high percentage, is able. Mr. Seavey pointed out that purchase power is nine and a half cents versus four and a half cents for everything else ch is two thirds. Ms. West asked is there any way to try to make that variability less are there any strategies to make that variability less on the purchase power or to make purchase power lower as a total percentage. Ms. O'Brien replied that this is the function of Integrated Resources and Planning group. By creating a power supply portfolio that has the lowest cost power, and risk management for power supply. That is how we are able to have the second lowest rate in the state. Ms. O'Brien is not sure other than performing an analysis on the portfolio almost on a daily basis that you could get it much lower than that. Ms. West commented that there is no way to decrease the fluctuation. Ms. O'Brien said that when you perform purchase power and fuel adjustment analysis you generally are looking ahead six months and reconciling six months then you strategic to even that out the best you can. You are forecasting ahead. If you know it is going to go up then you might do something a little different if you know it is going down in order to keep as stable a rate as possible within that pass through and getting all your money back. Ms. West stated that the reason she is asking this is that two thirds of the power can go up and down; you have the potential for things to bounce around. Chairman Stempeck agreed. Chairman Stempeck stated that others in different industries when presented with that kind of variability they try to track it historically, and know such in July and August when air conditioning goes on it will go up you try to do longer tern contracts to lower costs to try help that or shave the peak power if you can do that. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that the RMLD is trying to get programs in place to shave its peak, which takes time to make that happen. Mr. Seavey then addressed the structure of the hydropower credit. Presently, the hydropower credit is calculated on the basis of market value of the capacity and energy that the RMLD receives from New York Power Authority. The recommendation is to change that methodology to a formula that is tied to the average cost of the energy which RMLD receives from all its other sources compared to the cost of energy from NYPA if the average cost of energy which is basically the same number as the current fuel adjustment. As that goes up, the value of the hydro power credit will increase and if it goes down the value of the hydropower credit will decrease. Since we are in a period of time where energy prices have gone up significantly in the last year and projected m go up, this change in methodology should produce a larger credit for the residential customers through the hydropower credit. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that this is an excellent approach to help the residential customers. Seavey said that they are looking at the streedighting rate and in the process of reviewing the present streetlight rate to ter mine if there is a need to adjust the rates which is not quite completed. It is looking however, that the present streetlight rate are acceptable and they are not going to recommend any change in the present rates. They are looking at instituting a new rate for LED streetlights as they come on stream that will help reflect the greater efficiencies being offset by the higher costs of the fixtures. They will develop a rate that is consistent with the other rates, but will reflect that greater efficiency in the rate. Hopefully, the cost to the communities will not increase as a result of that new technology in the short tan and decrease over time as the cost of those new fixtures get amortized over the expected longer life. It is anticipated that those rates should be completed within the next week or so. Mr. Soli asked if Mr. Seavey is going to discuss the spreadsheets. Mr. Seavey responded that he was not planning on it. Mr. Soli said that he had a question, power is a big part between demand, transmission and energy, it is approximately $78 million of the total budget. Mr. Soli said that with energy the RMLD meters which are new and should be in calibration. However, $40 million for demand and transmission are based on RMLD's estimates. If the estimate perhaps is off two and a half percent, this translates to $1 million. Mr. Soli said that he looked at the metering and mn the numbers; you need to get every meter, every fifteen minutes. Mr. Soli noted that he ran a year's worth that is eighteen months of data measured every fifteen minutes. The data rate looked like that a kilobit per second which is very modest. For a dial up modem, the peak rate is fifty six kilo per second, it is vastly greater at a kilobit per second. Mr. Soli stated that being on the Board we have never seen really good data. The schools have fancy meters for the school rate. They have never really seen the demand that they have relative to what the percentage states. Mr. Soli said that he would be reluctant to go $40 million just on the basis of an estimate when it seems, just get the data. A kilobit per second, eighteen months of data, taken every fificen minutes, the hardware is modest with some software. Mr. Seavey added that there are many utilities that have already installed smart meters on all their accounts and are now in the process of building that data. This modeling benefits from that data. While the data in here is not of the residential customer of RMLD, it is the residential customers of National Grid because they are performing that type of research and are required to publish residential class loads hourly for an entire year on their website for the use of competitive electric supply. Seavey reported that is the data he uses when he determines what residential customers are contributing to the monthly [em peak and therefore how much of the transmission cost gets allocated to them. How much residential customers am ontributing to the summer annual peak and therefore how much capacity costs gets allocated to them. Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation— Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. Seavey said that he would not guarantee that these allocations are accurate to within one to two percent, there is a very high degree of confidence particularly with the residential class consists of 20,000 customers which is an enormous amount • of diversity. There will not be many outliers that will throw the results off that happen with large industrial customers. Mr. Seavey said that he is a little more leery about typical load shapes for large commercial industrial customers because they can have different usage patterns from one utility to another. Mr. Seavey said that he is comfortable with the data that was utilized to allocate the capacity and transmission costs are representative. Can you do a better job by sending correct price signals to customers, be careful what you wish for. If every residential customer has a smart meter you have the potential to bill them for their contribution to the summer peak and it will have a varying effect on customers. Currently, all the residential customers are lumped together and are socialized for the cost of the class. All we treated exactly the same for contribution to you costs. If you disaggregate them as in the small commercial class there will be winners and losers. The winners are going to win small and the losers are going to lose big. It is the nature of a probability distribution like that. The data is getting more available, more affordable. It is a matter of what you decide to do with that data. Chairman Stempeck added that this may be a unique case in which you both can be right. Chairman Stempeck said that we would like to use real time data. There is no question that when you use real time data it would help the analysis tremendously. Chairman Stempeck asked what RMLD's penetration of smart meters is. Mr. laffari responded that RMLD's 500 club which consists of commercial and industrial that need to be completed. Chairman Stempeck commented that the question is how we get the right algorithm in place to real time measurements. Chairman Stempeck pointed out that doing things on an individual basis could be positive for load reduction. Chairman Stempeck asked how difficult is it to obtain real time data as Mr. Soli pointed out in order that this is fed into the model to see what the dichotomy is. Chairman Stompeck said that if we have the mechanism why not do this because decisions may be made differently if we had the actual data. Mr. Kelley said that what is being discussed and is in agreement that we are making assumptions, but should be taking real data to make sue it is not an assumption. Mr. Kelley said that we are speaking about another 1.3% increase to the end user. Chairman Stempeck commented that it is going to take time to figure out what the algorithms are to write the software then perform another analysis. Chairman Stempeck pointed out RMLD is a month to two months behind on the real data for purchase power, etcetera and that needs to be readjusted in the following invoice. The RMLD then has to readjust for this time lag in the following invoice which could be off one or two percent. Mr. Kelley staled that we just had a rate increase where it was 5% or 9 %. Chairman St copeck pointed out that he wanted to make it clear the increase was not 951o. Chairman • Stempeck explained that the 9% was on a sub category; the increase on the entire bill was 5 %. Mr. Kelley said that there was a 5% increase now; it will be going up 1.3 %. Chairman Stempeck responded that is correct. Chairman Stempeck explained that we we going up to what our cost of power is because by law we are required to do so. Chairman Stempeck asked if this was clear. Mr. Kelley responded, no. Chairman Stempeck said that otherwise the RMLD can send documentation. Mr. Kelley said that he is asking a question in that the rates have gone 5% and are going up another 1.3 %. Mr. Kelley said that's what the statement was, and he will go back to the minutes, and that part of the reason was that the things done for energy savings have affected the net profit so this was the change. The net profit to him is what RMLD is making, that is all he is asking. Chairman Stempeck explained that the way the analysis for the rate increase was presented it was clearly indicated that there was going to be a rate increase in the July timeframe. They were doing an estimate at that time, but projected the 5% increase and with the Cost of Service it is 1.3% which is incredibly accurate. Chairman Smmpeck pointed out that it has been three and a half years since there has been a rate increase. People have received salary increases over the last three years and a half years, if not they have had cost of living increases. Mr. Kelley added that he disagreed because there companies out there in which employees do not get one every yew. Chairman Stempeck said that Mr. Kelley could share the companies with him offline because they are probably going out of business. Ms. O'Brien said that she will ask Mr. Jaffwi to work with Mr. Founder to look at the dam channels of what those meters can bring back hourly. We could analyze if residential assumption is correct. Mr. Talbot said that Mr. Soli is on the right track the more dam you have the more efficient things become. Mr. Talbot said that he is impressed by how much revenue it can save and generate by dealing with that peak Mr. Talbot said that if he understands it correctly, we can't change the rates in a manner to influence the peak because the RMLD does not have tiered real -time pricing for almost all customers. Rates cannot be raised from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm for some of them to send them a price signal to chop the peak, is that correct. Ms. O'Brien replied that the RMLD is hoping to work with the larger commercial customers to have real time pricing at some point. Mr. Talbot said that the RMLD does not have a tiered structure, however, when the RMLD has the dam it will able to say which customers contributed more to the peak which resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars extra per year because of the high monthly peaks in the summer. • Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. Talbot pointed out that if each month's peak how could be cut, it would be a large cost savings for RMLD and its WComers, five percent translates into $1 million for the organization it is amazing how powerful that is. The data will help us th that. Mr. Talbot said that the people contributing to the peak need to know they have to do something and will be charged if they do not. In the meantime, as we head into the heat wave season and there is a hot day in Jane or July, the weather forecast will show this, if everyone is contributing to some larger communication strategy that day at 10:00 am there are a -mails going all over the place, radio announcements and Facebook postings that customers are getting the message it gets done that day. Real financial savings will be garnered if we implement a communications strategy in that manner. It is not that difficult to do this. Mr. Talbot added that he teamed that newspapers are not as efficient for this purpose. He wrote an op ed laying this out and suggesting people get a time of use meter and save money on their bills, but only a few customers called to get one. There were front page articles in the Reading Chronicle and the Wilmington newspaper with almost no effect. The lesson is that when press releases are done to the newspapers it has little impact on consumer behavior. The viral strategy is the way to go on hot weather days with customers until the RMLD has the data and deals with the commercial customers, July is coming up and we can do it this year. Mr. Hooper asked based on the conservation charge, what constitutes that has the RMLD thought of a flat rate, other utilities charge thirty six cents for their conservation charge. Ms. Parenteau replied that it is a rate design. Initially, the conservation charge is self - funded so any moneys that are collected, for that go out for that purpose. Examples of use of this use of the conservation charge are the residential appliance rebate, energy audits and commercial incentive programs. The rate designs for the IOU's or private companies are set up on a per kilowatt how charge likewise it is three times higher than what RMLD charges. That is why the RMLD elected to choose that rate design. You can design the rate any way you want to. Historically, the RMLD use to charge residentials fifty cents per bill. Today, the conservation charge brings in estimated revenue of $700,000. It is a matter of achieving the revenue requirements and set the rate appropriately in order to wllect those revenues. Mr. Hooper asked if the RMLD is generating sufficient funds to cover this. Ms. Pmenteau replied that is correct. Mr. Seavey added that from a rate design perspective, charging on a flat per customer basis is considered to be fairly regressive because it affects small users more highly than high users. Mr. Seavey said that someone using two hundred kilowatt hours per month is going to pay the same conservation charge as someone using two thousand kilowatt hours a month. L Ur. Pacino said that if we do nothing with the purchase power adjustment, the 1.3 % will be coming into place if we do thing. That is what he is taking away from this. Mr. Seavey explained that if the 1.3% comes in from the purchase power adjustment, it will not flow to you bottom line, not reach net income and will not help you meet your revenue target. Mr. Seavey pointed out that it is really important that the 1.3% happens to the base cafes regardless of what happens to purchase power. Mr. Pacino asked if we are trading a variable under the purchase power adjustment for a steady 1.3 %. Mr. Seavey responded it is not trading because the variable still has to be recovered. Those expenses and revenues are off in a different part of the world. The part that is over here 1.3% increase needs the 1.3 %, you cannot use purchase power revenues to subsidize. Mr. Encino said that the purchase power adjustment goes away until another rate study is performed, that is his understanding and will be replaced by the 1.3% increase. Ms. O'Brien explained that when the rate increase discussion back in November them would be a five percent in January or February and another two percent in July. The RMLD was estimating on a revenue requirement. There is a little bit of confusion because the purchase power and the fuel are pass throughs. The 1.3% is required for the revenue requirement which has anything to do with purchase power. Mr. Kelley asked that the RMLD is taking the pass through numbers and bundling those together because the discount only me the part that you make revenue on. Ms. O'Brien explained that currently, you have an embedded purchase power piece that is a pass through that is part of the base rate. The base rate consists of purchase power, operating and maintenance expenses, and as purchase power and fuel fluctuates from what you have in the embedded rate as it goes up and down this is adjusted every month, to collect by law what you have to collect. When you unbundle the rate, you have you expenses and your purchase power. It is lot easier to do a budget to actuals, to make sure that you are collecting for you expenses, purchase power you me collecting for that. Ms. O'Brien pointed out that most utilities are going towards a transparent unbundled rate. Mr. Kelley said that at the last commission meeting he attended, Mr. Soli asked to take the pass through money and keep it in a separate that is what you me working towards that. Ms. O'Brien replied that is correct. Mr. Kelley said that the budgets will show those as separate line items. Ms. O'Brien agreed. Ms. O'Brien clarified that her answer at that meeting is that the RMLD is going to an unbundled rate and the reason it is not there is because the billing software is being upgraded. The RMLD is doing the Cost of Service and unbundling it. As soon as Cogsdale billing is capable to handle this, then it will be unbundled on the bill. That is the direction the RMLD is going. Mr. Soli said that the current purchase power adjustment the value is a little more than half a cent per kilowatt how. On five mdred kilowatt hours, it would be $2.50 as opposed there is an eighty five cent differential as shown in the presentation. s. Parenteau pointed out that the current billing adds the fuel to account for the purchase power charge. Mr. Seavey pointed out in the presentation it is not the present today, it is the present Julyl, based on budget estimates. Regular Session Meeting Minutes May 8, 2014 Cost of Service Study (COSS) Presentation — Mayhew Seavey (Attachment 1) Mr. Soli added as of his May bill it is half a cent a kilowatt month. Mr. Pacino added that the point Mr. Sob is trying to make that it is a real possibility that if the 1.3% is put in place that is based on estimates that we could be possibly decreasing this • to the customer as opposed to doing nothing. Mr. Seavey added that if purchase power costs go down, at the same time it goes down. Mr. Seavey commented that it is really important to do this if purchase power costs are entangled together with base rates it is far too easy for the utility to do essentially a back door rate increase by overcollecting purchase power costs and flowing it through the bottom line because you cannot account for them. That is what municipals have done for decades as soon as they had the ability to do a purchase power adjustment rather than increasing the rates they would increase the purchase power adjustment. They would do that in order to make their three to four percent, for the rate of return. It was not possible for their auditors to tear that apart, you did not actually cam a four percent return for the yea, and you actually overcollected $500,000 in purchased power costs. With it broken out and unbundled then this is not a possibility. You as a customer can look at the numbers and we that the correct amount of money was collected from the base rates and recovered all the purchased power costs. It is much more transparent. Ms. O'Brien said that when the RMLD went through the 4.5% in February, the schools were 3.9% it varied for the rate classes. When we went through that conversation and Ms. Parenteau discussed that realistically that if you looked at the fuel, the customer's bill had down. Willi the 4.5% increase, realistically the purchase power had gone down more than what the RMLD was increasing into base. However, purchase power can go up, if one of your nuclear plants shuts down and you have to go the market for replacement power. The RMLD tries to stabilize that over time or to soften that so there are no rate spikes and tries in do this on a daily basis. Purchase power goes up and we have to recover it. Mr. Pacino asked where we go from here where we have had the presentation, what is the next step. Chairman Stempeck said that we need some refinement on the LED streetlighting before we can provide the final acceptance. Mr. Seavey added that you will need actual rate schedules that you can vote on. Chairman Stempeck said that the rate schedules will be available at the next meeting. Chairman Stempeck said that the next step would be a recommendation on the adoption of the policies that have been just walked through. An agreement of each of the proposals, in terms of breakouts on how to structure the mix question and then approval for 1.3% increase. There am three things different things that need to happen. Chairman Norton pointed out this needs to occur before it comes to the CAB. Mr. Pacino said that he is trying to establish the timetable. Chairman Stempeck said that the Board hopes to have a recommendation before its next meeting. Mr. Pacino • said that the RMLD Board needs to meet in order to make the recommendation and refer it to the CAB. Mr. Pacino noted that the CAB has a thirty day time review. Ms. O'Brien said that Jane 18 is the deadline for Cogsdale billing changes for a July bill. Chairman Stempeck said that all the data will be available for the next meeting, Thursday, May 15. Mr. Talbot asked that the customer charge goes up when customers get a special meter and stays on the bill for $2 forever such as the time of use meters, is there a payback for that charge. Mr. Fournier replied that it does not matter if it is a time of use meter or not. Mr. Talbot said that remains even for forty years. Mr. Fournier explained that will stay on as long until the customer charge is changed again. Mr. Seldon said that you try to time that out so for the next generation of metering comes in you will have a brand new meter. Ms. O'Brien clarified the dam that will be needed. Mr. Seavey said that it would be a complete set of rate schedules on either option. Chairman Stempeck said that the outcome of the May 15 meeting will be forwarded to the CAB. Mr. Pacino said that if any commission member needs information to communicate to the department tomorrow. Ms. O'Brien said that the recommendation to the CAB is up to thirty days. RMLD Board Meetines Thursday, May 15,2014,6:30 pm Citizens' Advisory Board Meetine Citizens' Advisory Board will continue to meet after this meeting and determine their next CAB meeting date. Adjournment At 7:57 p.m. Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr. Pacino to adjourn the Regular Session to adjourn. • A one copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as approved by a majority of the Commission. David Talbot, Secretary Pro Tem RMLD Board of Commissioners 09 f l .V 4- O UO) 0 0) ru Q. L O O v L fu 0 m L 0 Q N U ru O M O 00 ru rn d c w m 0 u J O 4w AcA' AW W Lo O ■ F-, 1 LJ w O +-J V) O V Ln fo c O } fo U � LL E L- O 'n U O >, a m C: o Q o L V) � Ln _u > 4-J ' U -J Y`J M I- '\. N 4w 0 E^ ' W Li >' U...V o m E U 0 4m 0 Q) O 1 i- L 4-j G7 V mc ^ V Ln L O J J Lo W LL 2 � M ce / O E rO V / N Ln � L C �O Q � X 0) '3 a� c -o 4-J rB Q Q 0 :3 Q Ln J r2a LL N W L 0 Q� ru Q) c Q O M V I Q) 0. O1 w _ 3 V w E 21 O L V C) C) N W T m Q) >- L Q) O cn a-J N U _r U ro -C O L LO Q N ._ U m ro �- N 0 � O �>, cn E to O =3 U Q— 4-J 4z- -a 0 rB M L ro a-J Q) i O O > L m O L p Q Q O i fu O ry -O � V) cnC u E o C 4-J + aO ce ro 0 V O WE v, v C ra O C Q) U C N V) =, a-J v-a X U W rB Q W E� ce + 0 0 R., C O CA V07(j) L- (n rn fu w fu W O C: O v w 4-J C Z) U E a ce C: U 'a > (u I � L L rrww O �. ro > M 7 o o o m aV o C L 0 r O O V) fo � O c 4j 0 ce � N � � o 0 N v a4) ru CL V C O C L 4- O Ln Ln Ln U O c c � =3 �lY `� o U v ra C f ru ra ru ra E a� v ro Ln m O Ul) N C) v v O N L V) o � M Q hl fu Q) O u O u v UN O O M :n M fu Ln N M 7 v v " v v �s_� u o -� a cu -a L -o L Q) O 4- O v O Q) C o . U 4-J . 4 Lo o c O -r- Q cn V) O u O 4J E :5 fo U O W ^' EJ E 0 +j Uo O Vf _ o 4 ra 0 rL° O c V n C: 3 C m Ln O :E .� fp L o > fo C 0 — 0' a � . V 4-J -a al ra s O � � +) .� ro v O 4-J Le) c L 4 C E r' O Q) U) — V V V� (n O > z O o v Q) a E c � v � v f @ U pi U ru ro L 0) L -0 o C) O w v N 4 O ° ° C: 0 � o Ln o' 3 Ln w Ln o N E 0o acv, v 0 4, L w ra D v u 0 3 a �o5 t �o c Q) u 4; D � w =3 cn u r^ ru V) v rU i O C— U :3_C ::3 o 00) 0— 0v) �c 3:o o N ■ ■ ■ T 'a O co C v o E 0 3 Ln N a C v O vU M C O u ^ 4' p E C i i C 0 V) 0 E M Ln ro T (Q C C V C C1 > 7 a f0 O O C L= V y, m U E f 0 fo a) Q o D (O v Q) (d p (n U C = O j c 0 E° o L a ro w O v � f N 3 0 a) Ln O J "C V V fJ y ■ � d� A L L C V) L \ ((00 - N 4-i 'V w >i � Q7 � LfI o w O C :3 N N i ui O m Ln d J () (a =3 (O «- w N o C +�.+ p +' c c C 7 0 7 0 W aJ �w o o Q� n p� 0 cil L, LQX u o N` ' ' O C7 Ln L U i- >, v a v N y c �� j c: Ln o v v V C E � 5r`ar0 C'� gyp— r`v En uT OO NX C") ow) O M )N� •+J Ln a v i ++ v z z Q a o O u 0Q) 06 0 f / 2 EE 2 ( t \ m £ \ � I s \ E 5 2 E \ / 3 ® 0 o § % / \ f ƒ E ^° Q) m B § 0 ( \ @ £ \t E =3 %£ / \ EE\ -00 - g o&Q 2 e c eas \ \e g %_° � Q)oe > k w �: T § \U LU E \ (\\ �2/ 0 2§ E CO te e / e m (um §£ /22 \ ul 42 R £ § °b \ ee » g u\ 2�� \ \\ \ Ln0 \ LM %\ ca e /mot � a� »U \ /§/ 40 k\ Egk�e\ t%E8� \ ) \ § / \ /\ \u \/ 0 Fn Lo q ° � m m � § OL 0 E �/ \7 \/\ :3U g 2 \552@8 \21jE � 7 • f • • " \ • CD mo w + + + 2 m ■ OMEN ollool c r� YI 0 N 0 3 n v L a y v 0 v n °v E v o� V v 0 a a L a' F 00 �o F lJ I� M O V O ' N o Uf h 00 M O O O O ifT O O O .--i f, EA O O O U {� v w� Q1 W 0 /A Y 41 O L 7 U o A CL L C n O L 41 i i ro Y 0, (0 v Q. v � L U o v W E � U c c o -o o a ra v +-, v U v °- E-c a a U a O m Q i v O 7 7 C } U a w z a N N O n � tD O� O N 0 O O O O O O O O ifr 4 Y N 0) Y EL 7 U O j w ' C W 0 O L v v Q } 0 Y O Y L U U E c T_ _ a° v +v ? v U v a L E p V U Q o ¢ L a) Q Y v Ln u (V a E O CD Um Z o ii a w a Lf) 0 N 0 3 n v L a y v 0 v n °v E v o� V v 0 a a L a' F 00 �o F lJ 09 M V4 LLB. O E Q 4-J I O •-n Q o0 4w IA -C w U H a 3: Q ,V E a x � o Z JA 4w 0)= II V1 c Q cn U i c'>- ■� cB Z > Ic 4W '}J V Q) (/1 Al V '0 4-d 0 L 0 L 0 (f E 171 Z 4W 0 Z3 IA O rro OC V CG a) 'v U v L Q a z U 0) L c O 0 L fu c Q Z O 0 p1 ca L ro Q 4- O V) 0 a) 0) co > a) ry M Q) ate-' U v 'C: O Ln_0 () U C Q) C a a) 0 U Q) Ln fu :3 V (Q 0) 0 c Ln Q) C cn v w N a° LU u M J a 0 N T �0 o O � w v Q Z c Q Z O 0 p1 ca L ro Q 4- O V) 0 a) 0) co > a) ry M Q) ate-' U v 'C: O Ln_0 () U C Q) C a a) 0 U Q) Ln fu :3 V (Q 0) 0 c Ln Q) C cn v w N a° LU u M J a 0 N T �0 O M v 4-J 4-J L u `00 L av m (L) . W J = > N L O (1) u .L p1 Q) 41 [A Q) ca >O L. O L O Zj (i) LO C O� L O .�+ G N '� ;-' •�-' -+ 4; O �_ OC V ce N w aJ fo L- 4-J 4-J Ln 0) o J J 4-J o L 4-J pC L aj iJ C 0, N W fl Q a > 4J w a-' O a O 0) ca C C QJ 4-d v fu o ( J m T L M O C C 0) C W a) 3 a° U v Cn w J d V 0 O ru N W °S88 8 588 8 8'8 88S S SS 88 88885 0$8 00 °o no y4°o °08 88 8$880 008 0��8'$�0 oo$p �80, 88 88 `o U m 00000 0 �` 0 0 000 0� 8$ 00 0 000 0 � o 0 1v 000 0 N E 08o SNm S 88800S 88 808 8S 8g a d o 66 h N m� o Op N N O r y N 0 m° Op O oap o N n pp pp p ppp 0 Opp pp opp pp pp d e S p 8 m' 8 o 8000 °g m o O 0"48 0 o p ppp -- opp p pp pp mm 088 m og8 RO8O8 8R8 0 Opw O m wm N � m n O O p p O o ..0.6 m C O O° O 6.. O O O O 69 O O C A 6 f N n n N O O n n O n N m O Qa! m r O n p^ 1b O p e O O 6 0 0 6 OO pN O e O O O O OO O O O Y O O O O O O O O O O O O 66. O O 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 N w 0 i o¢ p Z w O mO F " O E 02, 0 W LL U Y 6 Y W 2 2 w Q w a yaw 0¢ U W W W W 2 W¢ 2 w Vl U Ww N N R W< 2 w¢ 0= U- U_' F 6 N w m 2 w w 0iw o v a z 3 333 U m N Z b m O ¢ E d R ¢¢¢ ¢ ¢¢ z¢ a b a w aa R¢ w w¢ 6 W m Z F w w¢ww w w w w w¢ww w w 6 J w w > W woo"w0 Oya¢p >» OO '� E Ei� 3 iE f O o of w¢ww o o >w f d (� p O 000 O F 000 F F r �00 2 U' O a¢ ry O1 = m> 6 ¢ W a Z W W Q 41 !7 N m 0 w w m Vl w m < F f m U < f w w Y- F- N N V Z W a> O 6 Z Z W J J J J J J J J W J b W z b Q J J Q y W a O Q U Q Z w2ww w Q U U U U U 000 O U O O U U y U U d 0 4 w V o 0 `2 o a a z w 0 0 o g i s CFi c3i a | § § EL | § § kR : k � I2 �E � § : ` E� o� § ) _ f §) § _ ! §_« § / | P) §! : § }� § \§ §) ) ) § i §)!! § § § :! Z|| § |) §m2] ( 44r�10\\!! k > !■ § \\ §;; ;! | § § )/ ))) §§ §§§§ 63 :8 ; §\ #�§ ( !! )/ ))) §§ §§§§ 63 :8 ; §\ #�§ ( \§ ) /( § t \ / / iE ! § ! !! ! . }G [( 2 r \ -� � \ \a< k (/( \ \\ ƒ° )\ §5■ §!k#!` )/ ))) §§ §§§§ 63 :8 ; §\ #�§ ( k§ ;m /( § t o(.�m / | ! ! ! . }G 2 r -� \ \a< �0 (/( \ \\ °.T:| ) §5■ §!k#!` !! ;| #( !r !0; / 0 a, 2 § ; §E_ `® K|(!\ * )/ ))) §§ §§§§ 63 :8 ; §\ #�§ ( /( § t o(.�m / | ! ! ! . }G -� \a< �0 (/( !»;#m °.T:| ) §5■ §!k#!` !! ;| #( !r !0; / 0 a, 2 § ; §E_ `® K|(!\ * - § r \\ \)) \ {§ \IEEE )/ ))) §§ §§§§ 63 :8 ; §\ #�§ ( /( § t o(.�m / | ! ! ! . - -� \a< �0 (/( § ) §o(| !0; / 0 a, 2 § ; §E_ `® K|(!\ * - § r \\ \)) \ {§ \IEEE / / )w / / \ �{ r $ § , \ rmElmElEEEE _ ( § )zm) ).)§ | ) , § §5E!(\)§!§ | §r § §� ; § ; |e§ § IEEE;!! | § §! ` ■!■!N!!lkll | | ) / EL f \ �{ r $ § , \ rmElmElEEEE _ ( § )zm) ).)§ | ) , § §5E!(\)§!§ | §r § §� ; § ; |e§ § IEEE;!! | § §! ` ■!■!N!!lkll | | ) !2 o\ \ o � �) %LU UA [\ / J° )) \ �{ r $ § , \ rmElmElEEEE _ ( § )zm) ).)§ | ) , § §5E!(\)§!§ | §r § §� ; § ; |e§ § IEEE;!! | § §! ` ■!■!N!!lkll | | ) §I? \\ �(LLI §| \§ E° ! \ tz )� ) } [�y ��� ¥!_ f!■; ) } ) La 0 Ono 0 00 Ono , /( °` • ¥!!; |! }) }) \) 0 tz )� ) } [�y ��� ¥!_ f!■; ) } ) La 0 Ono 0 00 Ono , °` • ¥!!; |! \ §)( !� §) \ � tz )� ) } [�y ��� ¥!_ f!■; ) } ) La 0 Ono 0 00 Ono °` • ¥!!; |! tz )� ) } [�y ��� ¥!_ f!■; ) } ) La 0 Ono 0 00 Ono WA U i �d u 11p1 4 Y 1 t 1 N1 4 o f N V ' LL � d 1 d O � � n F ( L 4 6 I N 1 LL 1 O JN C Q WW W QQQQ W D »> Q _ � f O O O > WW< �F G �Z Q ¢Q O w3w ¢n O Zwy <w uu¢iiw ^_�oN O Q +OWNtYL/� VJ N�TWb OW ¢JW�[J' WU6 OW �~nN1(�(]]O 20 Z¢W WWyF�t�QWyFW U6 Wzo�z WZF yS O N�qq O 'vi uNi F m w � F N ZO z $n O W� 6 O2�LL 0 <6u2 ti 2'Z1 o anwnn R i v m 0 `w ti g 0 i 0 b y� P 6 �o loiool io�o R 3 9 e N �o $omoom $oho go ogo N ogoog g o$oo$ $ o$o $osoo o$o �,o aio €3o$3 oNo R= _ _ R- WW W QQQQ W D »> Q _ � f O O O > WW< �F G �Z Q ¢Q O w3w ¢n O Zwy <w uu¢iiw ^_�oN O Q +OWNtYL/� VJ N�TWb OW ¢JW�[J' WU6 OW �~nN1(�(]]O 20 Z¢W WWyF�t�QWyFW U6 Wzo�z WZF yS O N�qq O 'vi uNi F m w � F N ZO z $n O W� 6 O2�LL 0 <6u2 ti 2'Z1 o anwnn R i v m 0 `w ti g 0 i 0 b y� P 6 � ( }} | } !) EE \ °i« ! ■ # § ` /§ )k LU ) �)§ Lu , . � § . § � )! o 0 Po Po W. ` \)` §_ } - -) .. - « \ _ _ | !! _ / . ZZ ° � ( m° 0 a T a° j 6 r. m LL = a` ���oomooNo� a.mo m$ maeoegomoN oe��NON°y �mi �y �N 4 O N m � �F• � � m '�i ' EY $NNmmmmm�mm Nm °� -m W _ o�.m m m .m m m. N2 YI E n W ° 8 z as 0000°�o$ m °° °8 °m £ H Z q W `o F N 2 nNNOO °u� j N0 0 Q Q E aaeV W ~ u c LL q Q � O O � Q N O L 6 n O N Nom° m gvo g F V W € J UddUU E UUdUUU E W ozzooN��O° ooz000N�° a" w F W o 0 0 w yw w m ww Y. wm dW t a ZW w z d'm"o¢N WmS�, z m w'�fm Q W ax Z NXZ° j2 �JW�RZ U' y q W O p(1N�0 q J O S02W dJJ2W SJF6W�'UwV ¢¢aWOWJ F ¢ Z W°2 q a Zd2X OJOW WgWZZFZ2 -m °OU'd¢¢ 6"WL 26N410JJN22 WF- 1- >22f�h 22 p ~¢W~QO�¢w¢O�m LLLLLLLLLLLLLL 00000000 g<<� Y N 2w7 s aW¢¢WOQFN�2 zzz_zzzzzQzz_Qz V°U p dgOO g, ei U2¢ 222 222SZ2 cN yO�y.fy ul'u�ul'u�'ul'u�7i��� �nnnnp1n �n$ Q Q m° 0 a T a° j 6 ,. „ .... §° , _ «, .,. . ° . 4 ■ §!! ;§ ;: !; � ,.,,,. „ ; „ ,., ;.�_;( °; , , °: !;■!a, °; go, ;,: : ! \® °_§; ° ° °K! °w }j . u 77 \ k ! °!9it 97 °e $ K °! ; do g!; , . ....,, !- )K. / ■ ,_. . „ ..So. ... „ ,_ . ,� MEW. ` ° §;§ § ,Z - - -- U..m . . t !§ :[r! |` ! FL §()\ §) 0 ( )(§ i ; „ :]E «� 4 \0 ( |� \ | § ) k / /q§ ( R \Q \/ 0 :�z \ �\ 120.0.- \ !Z.M. ®`; , ! : , ; ; ;!M.. ! \ \ ! » f ( ) | § § § ■§ « « !� ¥; }: • ;�r ; §I \ E; § ; 98w }\ 5 65 !§ »! !» e ! \ \ ! » f ( ) | § § § ■§ « « !� ¥; }: • ;�r ; §I \ E; § ; »! !» e E \ �\ .7g #f! ; ! : �# °■K# - ! § °§« ; ° °r § t\ Rgggg\ 2 § §) ®z - §) ` ° ) ) _§(§ i zg. § , Z§ ,. } ( / g (/ a § ///a\ / /. \ / } � z � 2 ! \ \ ! » f ( ) | § § !) � . { _ ,_� }/ ... \\ uj - |` �` (/ 5 ) \/® E;° „! )§ . ... . ... .1.,. o = ■.¥ §�, [ � I) uj LU § / ! ®� ! Oe = ! 'o) §| /~! | ^ § § [ ! _ ° , § \)\ � § / i , /( Z J ! �! § \/ : ! J\ ( ©\ : / \ § / // t\) ; ! !` §!: