Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-12-10 RMLD Board of Commissioners Minutes
CU)iil Town of Reading Meeting Minutes Board - Committee - Commission - Council: RMLD Board of Commissioners Date: 2015 -12 -10 Building: Reading Municipal Light Building TOWN CLERK OB ,iEADING, MASS. 1016 APR -5 A 00 1$1 Time: Location: Winfred Spurr Audio Visual Room Address: 230 Ash Street Session: Open Session Purpose: Regular meeting, general business Version: Final Attendees: Members - Present: Commissioners: Thomas O'Rourke, Chairman David Talbot, Vice Chairman Philip B. Pacino, Commissioner John Stempeck, Commissioner - Secretary Pro Tern Dave Hennessy, Commissioner Members - Not Present: Others Present: Staff: Coleen O'Brien, General Manager Jeanne Foti, Executive Assistant Bob Fournier, Accounting /Business Manager Hamid Jaffari, Director of E &O Wendy Markiewicz, Senior Accountant Jane Parenteau, Director of Integrated Resources Rahul Shah, Integrated Resources Engineer Tirzah Shakespeare, Integrated Resources Engineer Citizens' Advisory Board: Dave Nelson, Vice Chair Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Thomas O'Rourke Topics of Discussion: Start Time of Regular Session: 7:30 p.m. End Time of Regular Session: 10:10 p.m. Call Meeting to Order Chairman O'Rourke called the meeting to order and stated that the meeting was being videotaped, it is live in Reading only. Opening Remarks Chairman O'Rourke read the RMLD Board of Commissioners Code of Conduct. Introductions Chairman O'Rourke acknowledged Dave Nelson Citizens' Advisory Board (CAB) Vice Chair. Chairman O' Rourke stated that Mr. Stempeck will be the Secretary this evening. Page I 1 Public Comment Mr. Pacino stated that he is taking a point of personal privilege in that he is announcing that he put his name in to run for reelection to this Commission for another three year term and if elected this would be his eleventh term. Mr. Nelson stated that this past year has gone by very quickly. During this time, RMLD has had a few challenges and challenges makes one better in the long run. The good things that RMLD has done outweighs any of the challenges that it has been faced with this year. Mr. Nelson also stated that the relationship with the CAB from the RMLD and the Commissioners has gotten stronger and he wants to continue that focus because it is very important. Although there are currently about seventy two RMLD employees, he realizes that he always deals with the CAB, Board of Commissioners, or if he goes to a meeting in town, but behind the scenes there are a lot of employees that do such great jobs; keep the lights on, the linemen, the office workers, warehouse staff, technicians etc. Mr. Nelson stated that it is important that all employees get some recognition, as well, he wants to thank them and the CAB wants to thank them. Mr. Nelson commented that he told Ms. O'Brien that he saw a crew in Lynnfeld today while they were working on the LED streetlights, he stopped to say hello, and thanked them for doing a good job, and for doing it safely and the linemen really appreciated this. Chairman O'Rouke thanked Mr. Nelson for sharing and spoke on behalf of all the Commissioners stating they agreed that the relationship has been great. The meetings he has attended are constructive, collaborative and not contentious which does not help get problems solved, appreciates that and will continue with good relationships. Report of the Committee — Fiber Committee Update — Commissioner Pacino Mr. Pacino reported that the Fiber Committee met on Wednesday, December 9, 2015, Messrs. Talbot, Hennessy and Pacino were all present. Mr. Pacino stated that the discussion was on using fiber in terms for further economic development. Basically at this point the committee was determined to do some more fact finding. It was decided to invite an experienced consultant in that would provide the committee more information on what questions should be asked, etc. That meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 2016 which is an open meeting, therefore, anyone can attend. Mr. Pacino urged all the Commissioners to attend, it could be very important to ask questions, what the effects are and how to go about doing a study. The Committee would have a recommendation to bring back to the full Board. Chairman O'Rourke stated that is a great next step. To be able to take a proactive, careful and thoughtful approach to this once we have the consultant's input. Mr. Hennessy stated that he is also in agreement that this is a great next step, but wanted to clarify that this consultant is not a paid engagement; this consultant is just coming in to discuss the opportunities. Chairman O'Rourke stated that sometimes the consultants are knowledgeable providers. Chairman O'Rourke explained that at this stage RMLD is looking to have someone provide that knowledge and understands that there may be some work ahead; it is a good step. Mr. Pacino reiterated it is very important that all Commissioners attend this meeting and it is a public meeting, the public can attend. Mr. Pacino stated that at the committee meeting it was also recommended at the meeting that a vote to continue the committee be made at this meeting. RMLD vote is required for the continuance of the Fiber Committee The timeline for the Fiber Committee needs to be extended because previously the duration was one meeting. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck to continue the appointment of the Fiber Subcommittee of the Board until after the March 2016 RMLD Board meeting. Motion carried 5:0:0. Report RMLD Board Member Attendance at RMLD Citizens' Advisory Board Meeting Commissioner Hennessy attended the CAB meeting on November 18, 2015. Mr. Hennessy reported that he attended the CAB meeting on November 18 and was impressed with the efficiency of the CAB meeting; it was a very tight operation. The CAB approved the finance presentation which the commission had seen, therefore it was a brief meeting. Page 12 Approval of Board Minutes — July 30, 2015 and September 24, 2015 Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck to approve the Regular Session meeting minutes of July 30, 2015 as presented. Motion carried 4:0:1. Mr. Hennessy abstained, as he was not present at the meeting. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck to approve the Regular Session meeting minutes of September 24, 2015 as presented. Motion cabled 5:0:0. General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien Update on Meeting with Town Administrators and Town Managers Ms. O'Brien reported that she has now met with all the Town Managers and Town Administrators in that same vein of establishing and improving communication. The meetings involved items that they wanted to discuss then focused on what they wanted Ms. O'Brien to present to their respective Boards of Selectmen. Ms. O'Brien created Power Point presentations for each of the towns' Board of Selectmen which incorporated items requested to be discussed at her meetings with the Town Administrators and Town Managers. Ms. O'Brien stated that three of the Towns have been completed, the last one is next Monday evening in Wilmington. Ms. Parenteau, Mr. Jailed and Ms. O'Brien all made the presentations and answered all the questions asked. The presentations went well and were very well received. RMLD has followed up with the towns' questions that they asked in which answers were not provided at the meeting, for example additional data requested, etc. Ms. O'Brien stated that discussions were on double poles and some updates from the Annual Meeting. The meetings were very productive. Ms. O'Brien appreciated Ms. Parenteau and Mr. Jetted's assistance with the presentations. Chairman O'Rourke asked if these meetings are quarterly or semiannually. Ms. O'Brien replied that these meetings have been scheduled twice a year. Ms. O'Brien explained that she committed to meeting twice a year because when she first began at RMLD she had to go to the respective towns for the rate increase. Ms. O'Brien also explained that due to the fact that the towns and RMLD are both on fiscal year budgets, there is no segue into their budget process for when RMLD is doing evaluations for any rate increases. One of the points was to meet in the fall when Ms. Parenteau has completed preliminary budgets, then in the spring, after RMLD completes its budget, she will have a formal number to give for the Towns to put in their budget for effective on July 1. That is the point of doing it twice a year. Chairman O'Rourke asked how many meetings is it with the four towns. Ms. O'Brien stated that this was the third time she has done this. Chairman O'Rourke commented that this is in addition to having prediscussions with the towns. Ms. O'Brien stated that she had discussions with the Town Managers and Administrators prior to going before their respective Boards of Selectmen. Mr. Hennessy asked if there is a theme that Ms. O'Brien sees that the town likes to see with the presentation. Ms. O'Brien stated that it starts with RMLD's theme from this year's Annual Report "Peak Performance" and last year's theme of "Get Greener, Go Paperless." Once RMLD comes up with a theme it is not just a theme for the year, it is a theme forever and are adding Peak Performance. Ms. O'Brien stated that some of the slides addressed double poles and we are using new software called National Joint Utilities Notification System (NJUNs). There can be an issue because some of the poles are owned 50/50 throughout all the four towns, except for the custodial area. For example Reading is the custodial of North Reading and half of Reading, whereas Verizon has the remainder. The custodial person even though we have a transfer on every pole is the person that would put in the new pole and take out the pole butt. The towns want to know who is holding up these unsightly double poles, we talk about what circuits we are putting in, the pole inspection, all of these things create more poles. Now that we have a list they can hold people accountable. Ms. O'Brien explained that RMLD knows the double poles are unsightly, but everybody has to transfer including fire, Comrast, etc. The "NJUNS" is not as accurate as RMLD would like, but Davey is collecting information to build RMLD's GIS by providing more accurate data to build this. Verizon is supposedly doing an audit of its poles for other reasons and we are hoping to make this accurate by next year. >age 1 3 General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien Ms. O'Brien stated that is basically what is discussed in the meetings in addition to the natural gas pipeline coming through, how it impacts RMLD and if we really need a pipeline. Ms. O'Brien said that the RMLD remains neutral on such discussions. Ugly Sweater Contest Ms. O'Brien stated that RMLD had involvement in the Holiday Tree Lighting, which many of the LED lights are donated by RMLD and the square looks beautiful. On Haven Street, RMLD had some of the Customer Service Representatives out there explaining some of RMLD's programs, selling LED light bulbs and LED holiday lights for the trees and we had a trouble truck there. We had an Ugly Sweater Contest; we didn't get too many contestants, but the folks won a prize. Holiday Lights Decorating Contest Ms. O'Brien reported that the Holiday Lights Decorating Contest has been publicized in local papers, on cable TV, emailing parents of school children. RMLD is looking for entries. Flyers were taken to pay stations, libraries and town halls in each town. If you see an unbelievable display of lights, please provide Priscilla Gottwald pgottwaldCMrmld.com the address and she will gel permission from the owners to enter his /her name. Ms. O'Brien stated that there may not be many people signed up, the RMLD is now going out and trying to recruit with the prize being a $100 credit toward the winner's electric bill and there will be one winner for each of the four Towns. RMLD Tree Ms. O'Brien commented that the RMLD tree in its lobby is decorated. Retired RMLD Chief Engineer, Paul Carson is working on his villages and electric trains, much to the delight of visiting customers and their children. Save Energy Campaign Ms. O'Brien stated that she has permission from all four school superintendents to contact the principals at the 24 public schools in our service territory for the LED's Save Energy campaign where each school body will compete against the other schools in town to purchase LED bulbs from RMLD's online store. When purchasing, they will be asked which school they support. Whichever school purchases the most bulbs and /or power strips will win the contest. There will be a winning school in each town and they will receive $2,000 toward ENERGY STAR equipment. TShirt Contest Winners Ms. O'Brien stated that the winners have been chosen, photography and design are in process, printing will be done for Awards Ceremony scheduled for Thursday, January 7. 2016. The Board and she will present to the winning students. This is a well-attended popular event attended by the students, parents, teachers, principals and superintendents. Power Supply Report — October 2015 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1) Ms. Parenteau reported that the month of October was a good month with three slides that explain the energy market performance. Ms. Parenteau said that the first slide represents the Real Time and Day Ahead LMP for the month of October. The Day Ahead average prices peaked on October 19 at $63.69 per Mwh, the Real Time prices dipped to $11.63 per Mwh as the average with the low price at the negative $138.00 at 5:00 am. The rest of the month is close, with the Day Ahead and the Real Time tracking each other with little variance. Ms. Parenteau explained that the next slide looks at October 2013, 2014 and 2015 which are Day Ahead prices. The highest price for this period occurred on October 19, 2015 with the daily average being $63.68 per Mwh. Power Supply Report — October 2015 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1) Ms. Parenteau said that the lowest price occurred October 2014 with an average daily price of $19.15 per Mwh. During October 2013 prices were stable. In 2015, the Day Ahead average price was about $37.00 per Mwh which is slightly higher than $32.00 per Mwh in 2014, and $33.00 per Mwh in 2013. Ms. Parenteau pointed out that one of the things to note in October 2015 was that one of the nuclear plants, Seabrook, was on a refueling outage which can cause prices to be slightly higher because there is a less low cost base load available. Page 1 4 Power Supply Report — October 2015 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1) Ms. Parenteau stated that the final slide shows the average Real Time prices for the same three year period 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Real Time average price hit a peak of $80.98 per Mwh in 2014, the Real Time prices the low occurred on October 26, 2015 at $11.63 per Mwh for the average day. Overall, the Real Time market appears to be a little more unpredictable, with more volatility in this market which is to be expected. That was especially true in 2014 versus 2015. The average price in 2015 was around $33.00 per Mwh which is comparable to the day ahead in 2014. Ms. Parenteau reported that RMLD's Fuel Charge for the calendar year comparing 2015 to 2014 decreased approximately 6.2 %. This is reflective of the market, RMLD's Power Supply Portfolio, and the drop in natural gas. This is a direct pass through to customers when they look at their fuel charge rate on the bill which was actually 6.2% less than what it was in 2014. Commercial Lighting Program Presentation Ms. Parenteau introduced Ms. Shakespeare and Mr. Shah who are both Integrated Resource Engineers that will present the Commercial Lighting Program noting that Ms. Timah Shakespeare has been with RMLD for about three years and Mr. Rahul Shah started with WILD in May of 2015. Mr. Shah explained that the Commercial Lighting Program was instituted for non - residential customers and commercial customers that are in good standing. The RMLD has a customized approach with almost all lighting projects in which the RMLD team works with the customer from beginning to end. Mr. Shah reported that the RMLD team starts off walking the customer through the entire project in order that they feel connected to the team. At the same time, if the commercial customer has any questions the team is entirely reachable, therefore there is no ambiguity or anything the customer is not aware of. Mr. Shah stated that historically the cap for this program was $10,000; however, it was raised in April of this year to $20,000. The commercial customers can take advantage of this because the prices of LEDs are now a little higher than the regular fluorescent lights, but that is what will help them. The LEDs are the most efficient and reliable which results in a huge reduction in maintenance costs for commercial customers. RMLD basically follows a four step process: first is the application, then the inspection, after the inspection is the installation, with verification at the end is the post inspection payment. The rebate program has two paths, the most common of which is the prescriptive rebate, where the incentive is predetermined by category. The second path is the customized rebate for large scale installations, where the incentive is strictly based on the demand reduction due to the capacity and transmission charges on the wholesale side, it starts off with aligning with the whole company, as well. Mr. Shah then passed the presentation to Ms. Shakespeare. Ms. Shakespeare stated that to follow through on what Mr. Shah was speaking to noting that the Commercial Lighting Program covers LED products that must be Energy Start Certified. Ms. Shakespeare provided background on the grants and program updates. Ms. Shakespeare stated that starting back in 2013 -2014, RMLD was awarded an MLP LED Grant from the DOER which RMLD received $250,000 in funds, $75,000 were dedicated to commercial customers. Ms. Shakespeare explained that RMLD used this money to assist the commercial customers in projects. The RMLD incentive at that time was a $10,000 cap which has been doubled to a $20,000 cap and the prescriptive rebates were also doubled which allowed all customers to achieve that $20,000. This gave the commercial customers that incentive push to move on to LED's which broke through to the barrier of the higher cost of the LED's. The program was updated in April 2015 following the changes in industry standards. The fluorescent traditional tubular lighting has been phased out, now the standard is the LED solid state lighting for sustainability as well as environmental. Ms. Shakespeare noted that the program now offers prescriptive LED incentives as well as customize incentives. The customize incentives are on a case by case basis and as Mr. Shah mentioned these incentives are based on RMLD's peak demand reduction. Ms. Shakespeare noted that "The Standard Table of Prescriptive Incentives" is available on the WILD website for all the customers. This contains a broad spectrum of LED categories currently on the market as there are many LEDs available to the customer, unfortunately RMLD is unable to list every single one of them. However, the RMLD likes to provide them categories so the customers understand how to qualify. As Mr. Shah stated, the RMLD will walk the customer through it. We encourage the customer to contact us in the beginning with the application process to inform them which fixtures qualify also letting them know which fixtures are cost beneficial to them, as well. Page 1 5 Power Supply Report —October 2015— Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1 Commercial Lighting Program Presentation Ms. Shakespeare said that the program also covers everything from the LED substitute lighting, this is where the customer can put a light in and actually bypass or incorporate the original ballast and wiring, versus the LED whole new fixture where they are actually literally gutting the fixture and installing a brand new one. Ms. Shakespeare stated that the incentives range from $25 per fixture up to $150 to $300 per fixture. Ms. Shakespeare stated that interior and exterior lighting both quality, with each light fixture having a set criteria. Ms. Shakespeare added that photocells and sensors are also covered. Customization basis comes into play for the larger commercial customers who do these installments in bulk. They have a vast number of fixtures that cannot quality for the prescriptive so they are well over that $20,000 cap so we like to look at them on a customized basis and see what they are actually doing for demand reduction. Mr. Shah stated that they already have some numbers from fiscal year 2015, and more than thirty commercial/industrial customers participate in the program. The total amount spent on the program is $200,000 from the conservation supplies with the energy savings is 1.1 million annual kilowatt hours and the demand reduction of 300 kilowatts from the commercial lighting rebate programs. Mr. Stempeck asked if there are more industrial, commercial or retail customers that take advantage of this program. Ms. Shakespeare answered that many of the commercial customers take advantage of these programs more often than the industrial customers. This is not to say the industrial customers won't participate in this program. It is their lack of awareness that there is an incentive because they are doing these more on a maintenance basis, they are doing it to cut costs on their end and not even realizing there is an energy efficiency practice, as well. On the smaller commercials they are looking at it from the maintenance standpoint, but they are also looking at it from cutting cost on their electric bill, they are definitely looking at it from an energy efficiency standpoint. There are a good amount of small commercials, but there is good size of medium size commercials. Mr. Stempeck stated that it seems like a great program. Ms. Shakespeare agreed. Mr. Shah added that we are trying to work a modular with every customer. He personally takes the opportunity to create a relationship so if there is anything else they want to pursue on the energy efficiency side in the future they can still contact with us. Ms. Shakespeare stated that to speak to Mr. Shah's point that is exactly how we initiate relationships. Many times we'll have a small commercial customer contact us based on how to reduce their bill and we mention lighting, which is low hanging fruit for them. In those instances they will call back and say they have a roof top unit or a compressor and want to know if that qualifies. Ms. Shakespeare pointed out that there are a many programs, but the lighting program is the biggest segue into all the other programs. Chairman O'Rourke thanked Mr. Shah and Ms. Shakespeare noting that the program is a very positive program and asked if there is a piece of it where they actually go out to the customers and do site visits. Mr. Shah stated that where there is already an existing relationship for site visits, for example, if he were to go to the customer for meeting with them at their premises and noticed old lights he would mention the commercial lighting rebate program. Mr. Shah continued, for a new customer, we would create a platform and take it from there and work with them. Ms. Shakespeare commented that as part of RMLD's validation process, if it is a newer customer that we haven't had a relationship with, we do take that opportunity to go out and take a look at their lighting in order to verity what was existing, even if it was a new commercial customer. Ms. Shakespeare noted whether they are doing a new build where there is nothing existing it gives us the opportunity to meet with the Facilities Managers and give our muhipresence there, but we do a pre inspection and post - inspection. Chairman O'Rourke stated that to establish customer relations in this business there is no sales force at RMLD, per se, so you two are really functioning that capacity. By being able to process and to understand the needs of the customer, which is a lot easier to do face to face to see what the opportunities are and asked if this will continue into the next calendar year. Ms. Shakespeare answered, yes we use the funding from the conservation energy funds, as it is a rolling account. We are trying to make good use of those dollars and until further notice the programs will continue to run. Page 1 6 Power Supply Report — October 2015 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1) Commercial Lighting Program Presentation Mr. Pacino stated that he has seen this presentation when he attended the CAB meeting. That is why he suggested bringing this to the RMLD Board in order to distribute this to a wider audience this way more people are aware of this program. Community Solar Ms. Parenteau stated that Mr. 011ila has been working diligently on the Community Solar Program, but is on jury duty and unavailable. Ms. Parenteau stated that the RMLD is looking at a Solar Choice Program. The RMLD is, gathering information from the Massachusetts DOER, the MAPC, consultants, developers and other municipals on community solar concepts. Mr. Parenteau reported that the RMLD has selected Power Management as RMLD's community solar subject matter expert. Power Management is helping immensely in terms of putting together the project specs, assisting with the RFP that will go out, helping with setting up criteria to do the evaluation; project management, etc. Power Management has worked with several municipals, not necessarily municipal light plants. They have worked with the Cities of Randolph and Quincy, to name a few in terms of soliciting for solar power and having them put on municipal buildings such as schools and town buildings. Ms. Parenteau explained that right now RMLD is in the process of finalizing the project specs with the hope of issuing the RFP to select a solar developer owner operator. The ultimate winner will be owning the system in order that they can take advantage of the tax incentive credits and as a utility RMLD will receive the off take of the power. The developer needs to retain the SRECs to make the project profitable and the towns will receive personal property taxes as well as a lease payment. Ms. Parenteau stated that they are trying to set up the RFP that it is both, advantageous for the RMLD in terms of lowest rate as well as the towns for two components: the personal property as well as a lease program. Ms. Parenteau said that Mr. 011ila is working diligently looking at sites within all four communities to evaluate, there is no obligation for any of the towns to go forward, but at least it will give them the information that they will need in order to make an informed decision, this will be incorporated into the RFP. Ms. Parenteau noted that Mr. 011ila is working with Wilmington right now, he has met with them on three or four occasions as well the CAB members Hooper and Kelley. They are in the process of developing a master site plan for all of Wilmington's public buildings. As a result of that, the RMLD has scaled back slightly because Wilmington does not want RMLD to look at the rooftop, but focus on a solar canopy. Ms. Parenteau explained that there are a couple of sites that RMLD is focusing in on that is approximately 500 kilowatt which would be a good starting point for this program. Additionally, solar canopies are also being considered in Reading at some of the sites, but just to present the information with no obligation for any of the towns. Ms. Parenteau stated that Mr. 011ila is meeting with North Reading and Lynnfield to determine what sites could be included in the RFP. The next step is to finalize the sites for each of the four towns. The RMLD will issue the RFP and gather bids from the solar developers. RMLD will use Power Management to review the bids, finalize the initial solar sites and hopefully award a winner of the RFP. In order to take advantage of the Solar RECs incentives and the tax incentives the project needs to be completed by December 31, 2016. After that point there is no assurance that there will be tax incentives which would change the economics significantly. Ms. Parenteau stated that the hope is to get the RFP out soon and share the results with all the four towns. Mr. Stempeck asked if there is a downside to this, as it sounds like a win win for all in terms of economics for each of the towns. Ms. Parenteau answered, because RMLD is not subject to deregulation, the only way RMLD can do this is if RMLD takes the off take of that. The RMLD cannot have solar developers serve the towns because that would infringe on RMLD's ability for franchise. Thus, Ms. Parenteau stated that the win is RMLD is looking at parking lots for the DPW and from the towns in conversation, they like the idea of a solar canopy because they won't have to plow that area due to the fact it will be protected, it allows them to park vehicles there, they get that additional tax benefit for the towns. Then RMLD is looking to structure the communities solar where customers will have the ability to lock in a piece of their power supply at a fixed rate for a ten to twenty year period. Ms. Parenteau stated that it is very exciting and there are a lot of advantages to it. Chairman O'Rourke asked which customers would benefit from this, only commercial customers? Ms. Parenteau answered no, RMLD is looking to utilize municipal space right now and if this doesn't work out the next venue would be industrial parks. The RMLD wants to make it a win win for us as well as the towns that we serve. Page 1 7 Power Supply Report —October 2015 —Me. Parenteau (Attachment 1 ) Commercial Lighting Program Presentation Ms. Parenteau stated that we are looking to focus on residential customers initially, the RMLD is going to phase out the Green Choice because those customers are paying $3.00 for every block which support RECs in the New England region, primarily in Massachusetts. The first option would be given to those customers who are signed up for the Green Choice then have a lottery system and potential waiting list for the next phase of the project. Ms. Parenteau explained that this is still evolving as we move forward and once the pricing is established it will be more interesting. Chairman O'Rourke stated that he would like further updates as this program progresses. Mr. Talbot asked what the possible canopy sites in Reading are. Ms. Parenteau explained that initially when RMLD was working with the MAPC they were evaluating some additional sites, but they looked at the high school, the train station and the Burbank Arena. Ms. Parenteau said that Mr. 011ila could probably provide more specific information. One of the issues is the developer has to be able to visit the site in order to determine what can be installed. Ms. Parenteau said that with Reading they are really short staffed, so RMLD will focus on the outside sites. Ms. Parenteau said that was her recollection for the three sites. Mr. Talbot stated that he asked because it is unclear whether there were any sites that the town wanted RMLD to be looking at. Ms. Parenteau stated that her understanding was the town's concern is personnel to go through the building and to get on the roofs. The way RMLD looked at it is if it was an outside site there was no personnel required, it is information, and there is no obligation for anybody to move forward in any manner with any of this. Mr. Talbot just wanted clarification that Town Hall is fine with RMLD doing an evaluation with the high school parking lot, Burbank Arena and the train station. Ms. Parenteau said that she will confirm that. Mr. Pacino stated that living next to the train station he suggests before doing anything with that there should be discussions with the neighbors. Ms. Parenteau explained that the RMLD is nowhere near that, there is no commitment from anybody right now, this is just data. Without data it is difficult for people to make an informed decision, all we are providing is data. Ms. Parenteau stated that RMLD is working with North Reading to identify sites. Ms. Parenteau suggested that if there is any community that wants RMLD to look at particular site we encourage them to get in touch with us. Also, if there is a sense they don't want to look at any sites that is not a problem. We do not want to push this forward if there is no interest. Community Solar Chairman O'Rourke asked if it made sense that if at the right time, to publish a press release that would articulate the plan because what happens is things get spoken or misspoken and the press release would be a good way to disseminate this message. Ms. Parenteau stated that Ms. O'Brien has been including this in her presentations to the Selectmen. Chairman O'Rourke stated that he only suggested a press release because people miscommunicate or they hear something. It is a good way to keep the town informed and also if people have questions they have a contact. Mr. Stempeck agreed a press release is a good idea because a -mails can be misinterpreted. Ms. Parenteau reiterated that the intent is not to do four towns at the same time; it is a pilot. The RMLD needs to start with one and Mr. 011ila has been working very closely with Wilmington, where there has been an acceptance by Wilmington for us to move forward and RMLD just wants to get more data. Chairman O'Rourke asked what kind of financial opportunities this program offers RMLD. Ms. Parenteau responded that from the RMLD point of view this is a win win situation because this gives customers the ability to secure a fixed amount of their cost structure and it removes some of the volatility. From the RMLD's perspective we still obtain that base revenue and we are just allocating a certain piece of the power supply portion to a class of customers. Unlike when customers put solar on their individual roof sometimes customers don't have the right roof, its facing the wrong direction or they don't have the capital to do it so it allows the economics for customers to participate who may not be able to because it is a bigger scale, but it is not on their roof so it is a win win situation. RMLD is very excited about getting a pilot going and being able to evaluate it and the success of it. Chairman O'Rourke supports this and wanted to thank Mr. 011ila for his efforts. Chairman O'Rourke stated the Board certainly supports it and believe it is a great project. Page 18 Power Supply Report — October 2015 —Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1) Commercial Lighting Program Presentation Mr. Talbot wanted to be sure he understood that in December, 2016, if things aren't installed and plugged in by then after that we don't know. Ms. Parenteau stated that at this time we don't know because the tax incentive is driving it. Mr. Talbot staled that if there is a pilot, presumably the pilot could be completed in 2016, but the actual practical result is that is all would get done if the lazes are going to expire. Then the RMLD is not going to do a pilot and then do more in the same space in ten months? There will be a pilot and we will see how it works that means taxes will expire that is all that will happen? Ms. Parenteau answered, if it expires, it may not expire, something may occur to put it in its place. Mr. Stempeck clarified that it depends on the timing. Ms. Parenteau answered, correct and every location will be different and depending on when they do it the market changes, the market is what drives the cost to the suppliers. Mr. Talbot commented that the tax incentives are big deal killers. If this is going to be a pilot, something may have to happen if the tax incentives are not extended. Ms. Parenteau explained that in addition to the tax incentives, the SRECs market, as well as regulatory changes to legislation impact the overall economics. Ms. Parenteau stated that the tax incentives could be renewed and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts did something with their renewable market that could play into it so there are many movable factors. Mr. Talbot stated that his impression was this was urgent for the four towns to say now because there may not be another shot, that was my understanding until now, it was 2016 or it would not be possible. Is that a misimpression? Mr. Stempeck stated that it is being assumed that the taxes will expire and they won't be renewed, so there is no way to know for certain. Mr. Hennessy stated that something could replace it. Ms. O'Brien commented that the price could go down. Mr. Talbot's final comment was that Reading asked that only solar canopy parking lots be involved. Ms. Parenteau stated that she will clarify with Mr. 011ila and have Ms. O'Brien get back to the Board. Chairman O'Rourke suggested that updates on this topic be saved for when Mr. 011ile is present. Engineering and Operations Report — October 2015 — Mr. Jaffari (Attachment 2) Mr. Jaffad reported that there are three categories for Capital Projects which include Construction Projects, New Customer Service Connections, and Special Projects. In the month of October RMLD has spent about $132,160 for Routine Construction bringing the year -to date total to $500,437. Mr. Jaffari stated that the Maintenance Programs are going very well and we are making steady progress in all programs. Mr. Jaffan said that 13.73% of the pad mounted transformers and 11.08% of the overhead transformers, which were targeted as the potential for release of oil, were replaced in the month of October. For our Pole Inspection Program, 132 poles have been replaced increasing the number of double poles. However, all double poles in the four communities are being diligently transferred and removed during the routine construction. In the category of the Visual Inspection of Overhead Lines, we have inspected the following feeders: 5W8, 5W9, 5W5, 4W10, 5W4, 4W28, 4W5, 4W6, 3W8, 3W18, 4Wl3, 4W12, 3W15, 4W24, 4W28, 5W4, 3W6, 3W7. Manhole Inspection is still pending waiting for the GIS data to be collected. The Porcelain Cutout Replacement program is 91% completed. There are 263 Cutouts remaining to be replaced. The Tree Trimming program is going very well and did not receive any complaints. The infrared scanning of all substations is complete with no problems found. We also infrared scan the industrial parks in our system quarterly. There were no signs of trouble in any of them. There are approximately 16,000 poles system wide, which 35% are RMLD's and 65% are Verizon poles. Mr. Jaffari said that the RMLD has custodial of the poles in one half of Reading and North Reading, Verizon has custodial in Lynnfield and Wilmington. All poles in each town are shared with Comcast and Verizon. The NJUNs report reveals 69 double poles in Reading, which need to be transferred or removed. The number of double poles in each community is as follows: in North Reading, there are 18, in Lynnfield there are 26, and in Wilmington there are 206. This is a dynamic process and the numbers will Fluctuate. Some of these poles owned by Verizon are very old and they have nothing to do with RMLD. Page 1 9 Engineering and Operations Report — October 2015 — Mr. Jaffarl (Attachment 2) Mr. Stempeck asked if transfer means transferring from Verizon to RMLD. Mr. Jaffari explained that transfer means from the old poles to the new poles. When the new pole is set next to the old pole the linemen must do the transfer from the old to the new. Verizon is trying to get out of the pole business. RMLD is maintaining the poles in which it is responsible for the sake of employee and public safety. Mr. Jaffari stated that the Pole Inspection Program is the best way to identify potential safety issues with our poles. Mr. Jaffari reported on the Reliability Report: System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI), Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) and System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) noting were exceeded due the regional and local indices due to the storm on August 4 -5, 2015, which damaged our lines and structures in the Lynnfield and Reading areas. Mr. Jaffari noted he compares the jump in these numbers to blood pressure, the blood pressure of our system basically goes up when the system is stressed. Mr. Stempeck asked if the outages were caused by branches, etc. Mr. Jaffad responded that the outage caused by two huge trees that came down on down lines in Lynnfeld noting a handful of customers were out of power for two days. Mr. Patin stated that he heard on the news that in Braintree a pole fell over so he believes it is very important to keep the Pole Inspections going. Ms. O'Brien added that she and Mr. Jaffari will be updating the Board on the Organization and Reliability Study Recommendations in January. MGL Chapter 30B Bid (Attachment 3) IFB 2016 -13 —Sale of Surplus Meters Mr. Jaffari said that the RMLD's 17,000 scrap meters went out to bid. Mr. Jaffari reported that twelve bidders were sent an invitation to bid, three bidders responded. In addition there was one unresponsive bidder who did not meet the bid requirements because the bid came in late after 11:00 a.m. The two bids that qualified and the pricing that was very close, one was 40 cents per meter and the other was 50 cents per meter. Mr. Talbot asked if how much the cost of the meters were when new. Mr. Jaffari responded $29 to $30 each when RMLD purchased these meters. Mr. Pacing made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck that bid 2016 -13 for the Sale of Surplus Electric Meters be awarded to Vision Metering, LLC for a total cost of $8,873.50. Motion carried 5:0:0. Financial Report — October 2015 — Mr. Fournier (Attachment 4) Mr. Fournier introduced Ms. Wendy Markiewicz, the Senior Accountant who has been with the RMLD for four years. As part of her Career Development Program she will be presenting the Financials going forward. Mr. Fournier reported on the October Financials this represents the first four months of this fiscal year. There are no surprises or unusual incidents to report on. The RMLD is still feeling the benefits of the hot September. Due to the fact that the Audit was presented late with all the changes caused by GASB 68 there are no slides to present this evening, but there will be slides going forward. For the month of October, the Net Loss the negative change in Net Assets was about $300,000, which reduces the year to date Net Income to about $1.6 million. The budgeted amount is $1.6 million dollars resulting in a Net Income being over budget of only about $25,000. The actual year to date Fuel Expenses exceeded Fuel Revenue by $70,000. The Purchase Power Capacity and Transmission expenses exceeded revenue by about $40,000. The Base Revenues exceeded the budgeted amount by $261,000 or about 3 %. The actual Base Revenue was $8.7 million compared to the budgeted amount of $8.4 million. Year to date Purchase Power Base Expense is over budget by about $41,000; a little more than one third of 1 %. The actual purchase power base cost came in at $11.1 million dollars. The Operating and Maintenance expenses combined came under budget by a little more than $500,000 or about 10 %. The actual Operating and Maintenance expenses came in at about $4.5 million dollars versus a budgeted expense of $5 million. Page 1 10 Financial Report — October 2015 —Mr. Fournier (Attachment 4) Mr. Fournier noted that Depreciation Expenses and Voluntary Payments to all four towns are on budget. The Operating Fund has a very healthy balance with a little over $12 million, the Capital Fund balance is at $6.5 million, the Rate Stabilization Fund is $6.8 million, the Deferred Fuel about $4.4 million and the Energy Conservation Fund a little over $700,000. Mr. Fournier noted that on the general information side, year to date kilowatt hour sales were at $257 million which is about 8.4 million kilowatt hours or about 3.4% ahead of last year's actual figure. Again, September was a hot month. The budget variance cumulatively the five divisions are under budget by a little more than $500,000 or 7.1 %. The first third of this fiscal year is starting off strong. However, a mild winter could throw a monkey wrench into all of that. This is a good base for the first four months of this fiscal year. Mr. Pacino stated that he noticed that in terms of the Operating Expenses the line for Energy Conservation seems to be so much less than the actual than the budgeted. Are there any particular reasons why? Mr. Fournier explained that this is a timing thing. BOARD MATERIAL AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED E -Mail responses to Account Payable /Payroll Questions Rate Comparisons, November 2015 RMLD Board Meetinas Thursday, January 28, 2016, Thursday, February 25, 2016 TShlrt Award Ceremony, Thursday, January 7, 2016, RMLD Cafeteria CAB Meeting Wednesday, January 13, 2016 — Commissioner Talbot will attend. Chairman O'Rourke will be the back up. Fiber Committee Meeting Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. Policy Committee Meeting To Be Determined. Chairman O'Rourke thanked the RMLD Staff for the services provided to all the customers throughout this calendar year. Executive Session At 9:18 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck to go into Executive Session to approve the Executive Session meeting minutes of July 30, 2015 and September 24, 2015 to discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining, and return to Regular Session for the sole purpose of adjournment. Chairman O'Rourke called for a poll of the vote: Mr. Pacino; Aye, Mr. Talbot; Aye, Chairman O'Rourke; Aye, Mr. Stempeck; Aye, and Mr. Hennessy; Aye. Motion carried by a polling of the Board 5:0:0. Adjournment At 10:10 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Stempeck that the RMLD Board of Commissioners move to adjourn the Regular Session. Motion carried 5:0:0. A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes as approved by a majority of the Commission. John Stempeck, Secretary Pro Tem, RMLD Board of Commissioners Page 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui Un Ln Ln Ln Ln Un Ln Ln vi vi ui m m vi m m m w I, to m a m N r-I VT J/� lj)� 4.r� tr� Jr� V'� Vj M N N lfl N m N a-I N Q1 c-1 N Ln M N N lf) m ti Y V 0 M N I :i .ti B J N V B d E L U F U H N 4� J i "' a L N 4, j, y � a � a c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ui Un Ln Ln Ln Ln Un Ln Ln vi vi ui m m vi m m m w I, to m a m N r-I VT J/� lj)� 4.r� tr� Jr� V'� Vj M N N lfl N m N a-I N Q1 c-1 N Ln M N N lf) m ti Y V 0 M N I :i .ti B J N V B d E L U F O CL O O O O L!) J L/) � Q1 U! U Ln Lh Ln ~ ti � LO Ln a � N VT c v V) V} V} v > v C3 O t Q C3 0 O O O O O O L!) L!) L/) Lf Lf) U! Ln Ln Lh Ln Ln u) h LO Ln V M N VT VT V) V) V} V} M N r N L!) N M N N U1 O) ~ v n I Ln ti m M � N L a rn I Ln M rl O O Lf) L!) Ln to c l/) u3 v w ti w i U1 0 N N M 4a N O u A � N m Cl) N n N N m N ci 0 N m N Ol Ie-I r a Ln V ci O m I Ln u O m I Ln m r-I O O O O O O O Ln ui ui ui ui ui U! 1, l0 l!7 V m (N N V} i/T VT V? V). In u} N m Cl) N n N N m N ci 0 N m N Ol Ie-I r a Ln V ci O m I Ln u O m I Ln m r-I To: Coleen O'Brien From: Maureen McHugh, Jane Parenteau Date: November 24, 2015 Subject: Purchase Power Summary - October, 2015 Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the month of October, 2015. ENERGY The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 53,527,006 kWh, which is a 1.77% decrease from the October, 2014 figures. Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases. Table 1 Amount of Cost of %of Total Total$ $asa Resource Energy Energy Energy Costs % (kWh) ($~) Millstone#3 3,685,803 $6.71 6.88% $24,732 0.97% Seabrook 886 $6.68 0.00% $6 0.00% Stonybrook Intermemate 486,487 $53.16 0.91% $25,862 1.02% Shell Energy 7,418,000 $73.25 13.85% $543,343 21.36% Ne #Era 7,022,000 $53.60 13.129/6 $376,364 14.79% NYPA 2,388,838 $4.92 4.46% $11,753 0.46% ISO Interchange 9,597,156 $45.24 17.92% $434,128 17.07% NEMA Congestion 0 $0.00 0.00% $16,366 0.64% Coop Resales 14,671 $141.25 0.03% $2.072 0.08% SP Energy 9,670,400 $47.73 18.0694 $461,568 18.14% Hydro Projects' 774.200 $84.28 1.45% $65,250 2.56% Braintree Watson Unit 287,836 $88.23 0.54% $25,395 1.00% Saddleback Wind 1,346,505 $95.00 2.51% $127,918 5.03% Ezelon 10,848,600 $39.55 20.269% $429,116 16.87% Stonybrook Peaking 0 $0.00 0.00% $44 0.00% Monthly Total 53.541,382 $47.51 100.00% $2,543,917 100.00% - Pappenll, Wononow.f than R1ver,7umen Falls, Col /lns, Ploneer,Hoslery Mills, Summit Hydro Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA LMP Settlement and the RT Net Energy for the month of October, 2015. Table 2 OCTOBER 2015 ENERGY BY RESOURCE tllYgr J.LA Stonybrwk frmediate, 2.4% Amount Cost %of Total Resource of Energy of Energy Energy (kWh) ($ /Mwh) ISO DA LMP 10,974,257 $43.35 20.50% Settlement RT Net Energy" - 1,377,101 $23.67 -2.57% Settlement ISO Interchange 9,597,156 $45.24 17.92% (subtotal) ' Independent System Operator Day -Ahead L rational Marginal Price " Real Time Net Energy OCTOBER 2015 ENERGY BY RESOURCE tllYgr J.LA Stonybrwk frmediate, 2.4% CAPACITY The RMLD hit a demand of 92,325 kW, which occurred on October 13, at 7 pm. The RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for October, 2015 was 224,184 Ws. Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirements Table 3 Source Amount(kWs) Cost($1kW- month) Total Cost$ %of Total Cost Millstone #3 4,950 34.70 $171,768 11.90% Seabrook 7,910 25.26 $199,801 13.84% Stonybrook Peaking 24,981 1.86 $46,353 3.21% Stonybrook CC ,42,925 7.70 $330,671 22.91% NYPA 4,019 4.19 $16,934 1.17% Hydro Quebec 0 0 $19,414 1.35% Nextera 60,000 5.90 $354,000 24.53% Braintree Watson Unit 10,520 10.82 $113,835 7.89% ISO -NE Supply Auction 66,877 2.85 $190,625 13.21% Hydro Projects 2,002 0.00 $0 0.00% Total 224,184 $6.43 $1,443,301 100.00% Table 4 shows the dollar amounts for energy and capacity per source. Table Cost of %of Amt of Energy Power Resource Energy Capacity Total cost Total Cost (kWh) ($/kWh) Millstone 43 $24,732 $171,768 $196,500 4.93% 3.685.803 0.0533 Seabrook $6 $199,801 $199,807 5.01% a86 225.5181 Stonybrook Intermediate $25.862 $330,671 $356,533 8.94% 486,487 0.7329 Hydro Quebec $0 $19.414 $19,414 0.49% - 0.0000 Shell Energy $543,343 $0 $543,343 13.63% 7,418,000 0.0732 NexlEra $376,364 $354,000 $730,364 18.32% 7,022,000 0.1040 NYPA $11,753 $16,834 $28,587 0.72% 2.388,838 0.0120 ISO Interchange $434,128 $190.625 $624,753 15.67% 9,597,156 0.0651 Name Congestion $16,366 $0 $16,366 0.41% - 0.0000 BP Energy $461,568 $0 $461,568 11.58% 9,670,400 0.0477 " Hydro Projects $65,250 - $1,300 $63,950 1.60% 774,200 0.0826 Braintree Watson Unit $25,395 $113,835 $139.229 3.49% 287,836 0.4837 Saddleback Wind $127,918 $0 $127,918 3.21% 1,346,505 0.0950 Coop Resales $2,072 $0 $2,072 0.05% 14,671 0.1413 Exelon Energy $429,116 $0 $429,116 10 .77% 10.848,600 0.0396 Stonybrook Peaking $44 $46,353 $46,397 1.16% - 0.0000 Monthly Total $2,543,917 $1,442,001 $3,985,918 100.00% 53,541,382 0.0744 Renewable Resources 8.47% RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs) Table 5 shows the amount of banked and projected RECs for the Swift River Hydro Projects through October 2015, as well as their estimated market value. The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of October, 2015 were $1,276,977. This is a decrease of.57% from the September transmission cost of $1,284,290. In October, 2014 the transmission costs were $1,248,904. Table 6 Current Month Table 5 Last Year Peak Demand (kW) 92,325 RECe Summary 99,181 Energy(kWh) 53,541,382 Period - January 2015 -October 2015 Energy ($) Banked Projected Total Est. Capacity ($) RECs RECs RECs Dollars Womroco 836 1,514 2,350 $101,050 Pepperell 1,939 2,229 4,168 $179,224 Indian River 817 1,614 2,431 $104,533 Turners Falls 132 1,119 1,251 $0 Saddleback 1087 2,798 3,885 $167,055 Jericho 0 0 0 $0 Sub total 4,811 9,274 14,085 I RECSSold 0 $0 Grand Total 4,811 9,274 14,085 $551,862 The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of October, 2015 were $1,276,977. This is a decrease of.57% from the September transmission cost of $1,284,290. In October, 2014 the transmission costs were $1,248,904. Table 6 Current Month Last Month Last Year Peak Demand (kW) 92,325 154,933 99,181 Energy(kWh) 53,541,382 62,550,094 54,494.499 Energy ($) $2,543,917 $3,302,140 $2,290,434 Capacity ($) $1,442,001 $1,346,792 $1,261,207 Transmission($) $1,276,977 $1,284,290 $1,248,904 Total $5,262,895 $5,933,222 $4,800.544 O � N n m fff000 O m N � b m n mp f0 N `� V N V1 N (A r r q 3 N m O m p M � m t7 �_ t7 N n O R' N M W N 0 O N (NV iy 0�5 � C O< O G W N pN mN m M N h 0 b CI _ _ w m r � � � � N W K O b O 3 a o n m °m min nom m � � � n � n � n c�i o � w` e e e 3 W N 1� O n O O r r r N m » '6 n o � w O� � N N h F CI O W N �p yp� �r � O y Q m O N N W "'� 3�m <� N O N yY_ 0 N q� ry6 V m O m N O O O d � ) � ) > T LL LL LL LL LL LL m 9 n m m E Q � �' a 9 O O _ � � sqq F F U� U C� U r U !; I I ...T }{ \° !§!!! \� 2 2^ 3 �) \ \ . \\\ \: \) ;j /\ ; ; ; ; ; ;: ;;; >! .. ;. ;....1 It =_ . |! .......... !!!!!!!!!! ,! .......... !t °lri4,El•; • , |,,,,l,<, !! ......... 2§9ReRg 11/30/2015 L0:15 AM READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT FY 15 CAPITAL BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 31, 2015 ROUTINE CONSTRUCTION: 114 Routine Construction ALL 132,130 600,437 1,000,000 498,663 SPECIAL PROJECTS I CAPITAL PURCHASES: ACTUAL 100 Distributed Generation COST no ANNUAL REMAINING PROD DESCRIPTION TOWN OCT ADDITIONS BUDGET BALANCE 70,000 CONSTRUCTION: 114 Fiber Optic Test Equipment ALL 101 SW9 Reconductodng- Ballardvale Area W 115 100,000 100,000 102 Pale Line Upgrade - Lowell Street W 11,179 84,913 113,000 28,087 104 Upgrade Old Lynnfield Center URDS (Cooks Farm) LC 17,228 80,307 42,000 (38,307) 105 4W54W6Tie R 3,137 11,750 - (11,750) 106 URD Upgrades ALL 2,186 3,481 340,000 336,519 107 Step -dmvn Area Upgrades ALL 7,664 10,026 352,000 341,974 110 Pole Line Upgrade - Woburn Street,W W Communication Equipment (Fiber Optic) ALL 91,000 91,000 212 Force Account West Street R 5,169 137,868 150.00 12,132 154)41 SUB -TOTAL 1,045,259 46,763 328,345 1,188,000 859,555 STATION UPGRADES: 100,000 100,000 SUB -TOTAL 96 Station 4 (GAW) Back -up Generator R 5,077,000 4,70,919 107,000 107,000 108 Station 4 (GAW) Relay Replacement Project R OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS: 73.00 73.00 109 Station 4 IDA" Transformer Replacement R 95 230 Ash St Building 41.00 41,000 111 Shahan Equipment Upgrade (all) ALL 97 254,000 254,000 112 Station 4 (GAW) SvritchgeacHreaker Replacement R 50,000 508,000 5011.00 113 Station 4(GAW) Battery Bank Upgrade R 10,000 10,000 57,000 57,000 130 Station 3- Remote Terminal Unit(RTU) Replacement NR 50.00 94,000 54.00 118 SUB -TOTAL ALL 6,150 1,134.00 1,1N.00 NEW CUSTOMER SERVICES: Security Upgrades Al Sites ALL 07,000 112 NowService Installations (Commercial I Industrial) ALL Great Plains/ Cogsdale Upgrade ALL 34,000 34.00 113 New Service Imsallabons(Residents) ALL 12,161 44,586 164,000 119,414 319,794 SUB -TOTAL 280,208 12,161 44,588 198,000 153,414 ROUTINE CONSTRUCTION: 114 Routine Construction ALL 132,130 600,437 1,000,000 498,663 SPECIAL PROJECTS I CAPITAL PURCHASES: 100 Distributed Generation ALL 2,164,000 2,164.00 103 Distribu0on Protection and Automation ALL 15,706 15)06 70,000 54,294 114 Fiber Optic Test Equipment ALL 15,000 15,000 115 Fault Indicators aLL 50,000 50,000 116 Transfomrers and Capacitors ALL 139,207 668,000 528,793 117 Meter Purchases (including "500 Club ") ALL 11,040 13,427 219.00 205,573 122 Engineering Analysis Software and Data Conversion ALL 73,000 73,000 125 CIS ALL 420,070 420,000 126 Communication Equipment (Fiber Optic) ALL 98,000 98,000 131 LED Street Light Implementation ALL 43,241 154)41 1,200,000 1,045,259 134 Substation Test Equipment ALL 100,000 100,000 SUB -TOTAL 69,988 328,081 5,077,000 4,70,919 OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS: 95 230 Ash St Building R 80,000 80,000 97 HVAC ROOF Units - Garage R 50,000 50,000 98 ]RD hardware R 10,000 10,000 99 Electrle Vehicle Supply Equipment R 50.00 WAID 118 Rolling Stock Replacement ALL 6,150 448,000 441,850 119 Security Upgrades Al Sites ALL 07,000 50.00 120 Great Plains/ Cogsdale Upgrade ALL 8,550 8,550 127,000 118,450 121 HVAC System Upgrade -230 Ash Street R 319,794 319,794 600,000 280,208 123 Oil Containment Facility Constmcbon LC 4,735 59,000 54,265 127 Hardware Upgrades ALL 21,975 152,000 130,025 N 128 Software and Licensing ALL 525 14,307 172,000 157,693 �c 129 Master Facilities Site Plan R 150,000 150,000 4b 136 Voltage Data Recorders ALL 50,000 50.00 SUB -TOTAL 328,869 375,511 1,998,000 1,622,489 R Q TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET $ 9,D23,040 S 589,939 8 1,571,960 $ 10,595,000 h W ^0 P1 • O ct r4;3 0 U c. y0 0 h N O N N Q ri a N yO C.� 0 a� .j Ei a a W W O O y ti w W �V;, ti b ILI Vl � 1 1 V Od e d 1 6 O: U� W W f�f � 1� •ICI CC U M r a n v d rn rymry N r n H H e o m r d C LL O 1/i p Y C O E U Ul N C O 9 9 C � T � J c � J La N m a° D 0 0 w .» w w V! i9 M f9 t9 C C C C O O O a c d °m dC N rn o c y L a C J Q C pZ 'O U O�d '�'� d C O C ~ai @ 3 < � O d O C J Q N y dN LL a N D! d d N d q3 N U c N IA pZ na y N Z d 0 K d d `d a�iP N a w r J W Sd d Z N r O V f� I.� O U a� 0 I M N N n y V N a r� d m N m a° m 0 M N N m v 'a v d u rn H d 0 m E o > W c o E o d =z m � v q v T m d �3 �t V N i y J � t C � U v a` m W 0 da m a o E � d as E N O F' n O � O a Y � � 3 m 3 ° m • a° J a w n M W r m v K 0 Z n fO ° m2 F 2-,,,j 0 C N 0 m N r m W W A m 0 c 5 o :o U � 0 V C � 3�a v =� C N-Wi C � O J y N m = y a n Q 2 (D �. E c v E 0 7 N � J F 0 } \ \ \ \ & \ co � Q S / } \ \ }\ o g ,« \} =( _ / 0 c\\ k © ` E c a = c -" k \ ® \�� Im �k c CL 0 u D§ t 2§$ : /u! ¥� k u e 0 c u$— E K \�)g\}� §\�f- 2!£7](I22 E } } })\ \§ \ �F193 / O a O o E ° A o m o 00 a S > `O 0 o 0 0 z 3 c F Z 6�E oE 9L E o c �F E I r 8 0 W � m FC E g q w gg f z� V s= z� K _ z z oE 9L ,| r`! ������f� )| { | o e }/ . . ,! | ! ! : ® � & | {$ ,, � ! -- - - - - -- - , < . , . � § ^ ! )' :_,,.[ {} 7 � / _ | |����I� � � ( `, � ,!!!�)� ` _ , � � `� ■_ § � _ ƒ» ,{ , § !$)} k ; ; ;���§ \} �� � |��� | |� }f � k � }i � 2 2 . , t§ , § ) � \ | \ _ „ _,,,,__ � a � ] |( . 2 , ■ § � � ; \RHRIR� VI U a� aA u U a -x „tea E oil a -x „tea E 01• N i O H D L`� Dt December 3, 2015 To: RMLB, Coleen O'Brien, Jeanne Foti Fr: Bob Fournier Sj: October 31, 2015 Report The results for the fast four months ending October 31, 2015, for the fiscal year 2016 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 $313,842 thereby reducing the year to date net income to $1,649,946. The year to date budgeted net income was $1,624,710, resulting in net income being over budget by $25,236 or 1.5 %. Actual year to date fuel expenses exceeded fuel revenues by $702,849 and purchased power capacity and transmission (ppct) expenses exceed ppct revenues by $39,477. 2) Revenues: (Page 3A) *Year to date base revenues exceeded the budget amount by $261,616 or 3.1 %. Actual base revenues were $8.7 million compared to the budgeted amount of $8.4 million. 3) Expenses: (Page 12A) *Year to date purchased power base expense was over budget by $41,350 or .37 %. Actual purchased power base costs were $11.1 million and budgeted power base costs were $11.1 million. *Year to date operating and maintenance (O &M) expenses combined were under budget by $532,437 or 10.6 %. Actual O &M expenses were $4.5 million while budgeted expenses were at $5.0 million. *Depreciation expense and voluntary payments to the Towns were on budget. 4) Cash: (Page 9) *Operating Fund was at $12,182,003. • Capital Fund balance was at $6,585,805. • Rate Stabilization Fund was at $6,788,330. • Deferred Fuel Fund was at $4,477,436. • Energy Conservation Fund was at $701,754. 5) General Information: *Year to date kwh sales (Page 5) were 257,504,653 which is 8.4 million kWh or 3.4 %, ahead last year's actual figure. Budget Variance: *Cumulatively, the five divisions were under budget by $545,059 or 7.1% Attachment 3 FINANCIAL REPORT OCTOBER 31, 2015 ISSUE DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2015 ASSETS CURRENT UNRESTRICTED CASH RESTRICTED CASH RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS RECEIVABLES, NET PREPAID EXPENSES OTHER DEFERRED DEBITS INVENTORY TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS NONCURRENT INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATED CO CAPITAL ASSETS, NET TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS TO@! OF READING, 6A11SACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND STATENENT OF NET ASSETS 10/31/15 PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR (BCH A P.9) 10,866,293.24 12,185,003.37 (BCH A P.9) 22,849,476.09 22,823,116.78 (BCH A P.9) 1,292,906.26 1,284,061.45 (BCH B P.10) 7,355,753.11 7,878,586.30 2,918,870.73 (BCH a P.10) 1,220,648.96 2.918,870.73 1,573,396.79 3.070.487.93 (BCH B P.10) 0.00 1,547,815.00 1,405,795.08 16.009.945.20 1,611,976.40 44.988,872.74 48.904.556.09 (BCH C P.2) 26,993.75 26,993.75 (BCH C P.2) 69,880,562.00 70,173,425.31 69.907.555.75 70.200,419.06 LIABILITIES CURRENT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CUSTOMER DEPOSITS CUSTOMER ADVANCER FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCRUED LIABILITIES TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES NONCURRENT ACCRUED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATED ABSENCES TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES TOTAL LIABILITIES INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT RESTRICTED MR DEPRECIATION FUND (P. 9) UNRESTRICTED TOTAL NET ASSETS (P. 31 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET "SETS M 114,896.428.49 119.104.975.15 5,770,445.38 8,111,871.82 808,845.77 865,750.47 477,695.98 904,188.35 1,953.61 3,057,646.63 7.058.940.76 12.939.457.27 2,918,870.73 3,070,487.93 2.918,870.73 3.070.487.93 9.97].811.47 16.009.945.20 69,880,562.00 70,173,425.31 5,422,755.74 6,585,805.71 29,615,299.28 26,335,798.93 306.918.617.02 103.095.029.95 114.896.428.49 119.104.975.15 TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT NONCURRENT ASSET SCHEDULE 10/31/15 SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES NEW ENGLAND HYDRO ELECTRIC NEW ENGLAND HYDRO TRANSMISSION TOTAL INPESTMIDNTS IN ASSOCIATED C@ @ANIES SCHHDULH OF CAPITAL AHSETS LAND STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS INFRASTRUCTURE TOTAL CAPITAL ASSETS. NET TOTAL NCNCURR02T' ASSETS (2) SCHEDULE C PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR 2,975.74 2,915.74 24,018.01 24,018.01 26.993.75 1,265,842.23 6,085,971.99 12,333,518.78 50.195.229.00 69,880.562.00 69.907.555.75 26.993.75 1,265,842.23 6,096,043.58 11,952,257.16 50,859.282.34 70.173,425.31 70.200.419.06 OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH E P.12) PURCHASED POWER CWACITY PURCHASED POWER TRANSMISSION PURCHASED POWER FURL OPERATING HAFNTENWCE DRPWCIATION VOLUNTWT PAYMENTS TO TOWNS TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO RSAOING INTEREST INCttE I.AMST EXPENSE OTHER (MDSE AND SHORT) TOTAL NONOPEWTING REV (EMP) CHANGE IN WT ASSETS NAT ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEW NET ASSETS AT END OF OCTOBER 1,261,648.66 TOWN OF WADING, MASSACHUSETTS 1,665,962.19 5,519,978.33 6,061,987.60 9.826 MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT 1,268,903.65 1,276,977.08 6,900,306.72 5,051,316.02 BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND 3.086 2,290,636.18 2,563,916.53 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS 17.186 1,051,767.27 966,531.22 10/31/15 3,691,507.71 3,639,189.38 -1.508 292,927.19 MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR 1,116,169.76 CURRENT TEAR I= -6.14% LAST YEW COSECANT YEAR TO DATA 328,732.65 TO DATE 1,287,155.16 CHANGE OPERATING WVENUEE: (BCH D P.11) 2.166 1181000.00 118,000.00 672,000.00 BABE REVENUE 1,662,699.86 1,967,976.23 7,728,027.20 8,722,127.22 12.86% .I REVENUE 2,425,374.16 2,607,127.52 12,811,927.61 12,261,090.01 -6.609 PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 2,251,877.11 2,377,809.70 10,351,676.60 11,073,826.66 6.984 FORTRITED DFSCOUNTS 31,589.93 65,937.80 200,610.15 261,800.92 -6.704 ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE 53,010.11 56,009.76 263,595.56 250,801.65 2.960 HYPA CREDIT (76,565.031 (105,545,52) (232.164,64) (362,366.60) 67.666 TOTAL OPERATING AEVENUES 6,329,806.12 6,961,315.69 31,183,670.68 32,216,300.66 3.314 OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH E P.12) PURCHASED POWER CWACITY PURCHASED POWER TRANSMISSION PURCHASED POWER FURL OPERATING HAFNTENWCE DRPWCIATION VOLUNTWT PAYMENTS TO TOWNS TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO RSAOING INTEREST INCttE I.AMST EXPENSE OTHER (MDSE AND SHORT) TOTAL NONOPEWTING REV (EMP) CHANGE IN WT ASSETS NAT ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEW NET ASSETS AT END OF OCTOBER 1,261,648.66 1,665,962.19 5,519,978.33 6,061,987.60 9.826 1,268,903.65 1,276,977.08 6,900,306.72 5,051,316.02 3.086 2,290,636.18 2,563,916.53 10,706,933.73 12,600,595.35 17.186 1,051,767.27 966,531.22 3,691,507.71 3,639,189.38 -1.508 292,927.19 617,821.39 1,116,169.76 1,066,310.29 -6.14% 321,788.79 328,732.65 1,287,155.16 1,316,930.60 2.166 1181000.00 118,000.00 672,000.00 672,000.00 0.006 6,585,669.52 7,077,921.06 27,690,669.63 29,996,327.86 9.119 (255,043.60) (130,605.57) 3,692,821.05 2,219,972.90 - 39.889 0.00 2,163.96 395.20 36,618.86 0.009 (196,605.25) (191,537.08) (717,621.00) (790,168.321 1.616 3,138.50 7,969.88 35,696.06 62,272.98 19.104 (256.80) (182.78) (1,039.66) (719.35) - 30.809 1,972.00 6,368.63 95,233.03 161,969.17 69.069 (189,551.551 (183,237,39) (661,538,191 (570,026,08) - 11.919 (665.396.951 (313,862.96) (I) 3,065,282.86 1,669,966.72 - 65.829 301,873,336.16 101,665,083.23 -0.624 104,918,617.02 103,095,029.95 -1.764 TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTKUPI BUSINESS -TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS 10/31/15 OPERATING REVENGES: (SCH F P.118) EASE REVENUE FUEL REVENUE PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY FORFEITED DISCOUNTS ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE NYPA CREDIT TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH G P.12A) PURCHAEED POWER - CAPACITY PURCHASED POWER - TRANSNISSION PURCHASED POWER FUEL OPERATING MAINTENANCE DEPRECIATION VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS TOTAL OPERATING £XPENSEE OPERATING INCOAE NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO R MG INTEREST INCOME INTEREST EXPENSE OTHER (YIDS& AND ANORT) TOTAL NONOPERATING HEM (BXP) CHANGE IN NET ASSETS NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR NET ASSETS AT END OF OCTOBER * ( ) - ACTUAL UHDER BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET % YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE- CHANGE 8,722,127.22 8,460,511.00 261,616.22 3.091 12,248,090.81 12,136,580.00 111,510.81 0.928 11,073,824.64 11,071,952.00 1,872.64 0.02% 261,800.92 253,816.00 7,984.92 3.15% 250,801.65 248,740.00 2,061.65 0.83% (342,344.60) (300,000.00) (42,344.60) 14.11% 32,214,300.64 31,871,599.00 342,701.64 1.06% 6,061,987.40 6,158,063.00 (96,075.60) -1.56% 5,051,314.82 4,913,889.00 137,425.82 2.806 12,608,595.35 11,836,580.00 772,015.35 6.524 3,439,189.38 3,708,152.00 (268,962.62) -7.254 1,046,310.29 1,309,785.00 (263,474.71) - 20.129 1,314,930.60 1,327,720.00 (12,759.40) -0.96% 472,000.00 472.000.00 0.00 0.00% 29,994,327.84 29,726,189.00 268,138.84 0.90% 2,219,972.80 2,145,410.00 74,562.80 3.48% 36,618.84 100,000.00 (63,381.16) - 63.38% (790,148.32) (790,000.00) (148.32) 0.02% 42,272.98 50,000.00 (7,727.02) - 15.459 (719.35) (700.00) (19.35) 2.76% 141,949.77 120,000.00 21,949.77 18.29% 1570.026.081 (520,700.001 149.326.08) 9.47% 1,649,946.72 1,624,710.00 25,236.72 101,445,083.23 101,445,083.23 0.00 103,095.029.95 103 069 793.23 25.236.72 (1A) 1.55% 0.00% 0.02% TOWN OF HEADING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPMTMENT RECONCILIATION OP C 17%1 FUNDS 10/31/15 SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS: DEPRECIATION FUND BALANCE 7/1/15 5,636,307.79 CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE 7/1/15 1,600,000.00 INTEREST ON DEPRECIATION FUND FY 16 8,526.70 DEPRECIATION TRANSFER FY 16 1,314,930.60 TOTAL SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 8,157,765.09 USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS: LESS PAID ADDITIONS TO PLANT THRU OCTOBER TOTAL USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 1,571,959.38 GRINUMQ LEDGER CAPITAL FUNDS BALANCE 10/31/15 6,585,805.71 TONN OF READING, 59 HHACHUSE7TS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTNBNT HALHH OF RIIO TT HOURS 10/31/15 MUMCIPAL SALES: 6 H MONTH LRST TSAR CORHRNT YEAR TTD % BALES OF ELECTRICITY: LAST YEAR CURRENT MBAR TO DATE TO MTE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL sALES 18,922,756 20,153,166 93,966,046 99,814,022 6.22% OOW. Mm l musmB SALES 32,824,826 32,564,710 144,901,358 147,338,326 1.68% PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING 19,012 79,488 315,850 317,582 0.55% TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS 51.826,594 52.797,364 239.183.254 247.469.930 3.46% MUMCIPAL SALES: RTRKET LIGHTING 242,669 251,810 971,707 951,246 -2.11% MUNICIPAL SUIMMGS 708,382 695,765 3,134,865 3,148,268 0.43% TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONeut 951,051 947.635 4,106,592 4.099.514 -0.17% SALES MR RERALE 236,085 244,135 1,321,601 1,372,069 3.82% SCHOOL 1,207,903 1,116,462 4,513,060 4,563,140 I. lit TOTAL KIlP ATT HOURS SOLO 54.221.633 55,165,596 249.124.507 257.504.653 3.36% (5) TOWN OF HEADING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT RILGMATT HOURS SOLD BY TOWN 10/31/15 TOTAL HEADING LYNNFIRLD NO.READING WILMINGTON MONTH RESIDENTIAL 20,153,166 ],114,8]9 2,469,599 5,045,494 5,523,194 COMM c IND 32,564,710 3,701,443 250,902 4,946,822 23,665,543 PVT BY LIGHTS 79,488 13,418 1,506 24,861 39,703 PUS BY LIGHTS 251,870 84,898 33,745 44,232 88,995 MUNI BLDG9 695,765 144,309 172,700 135,938 242,818 SALES /FEBAI.E 244,135 244,135 0 0 0 SCHOOL 1,176,462 410,836 246,427 248,340 270,857 TOTAL 55,165.596 11,713.920 3.184,8]9 10.445.687 29.831,110 YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 99,814,022 30,556,315 14,697,649 23,324,096 31,235,962 COW 6 IND 147,338,326 17,656,009 1,170,471 22,530,494 105,981,352 PVT ST LIGHTS 317,582 53,672 6,010 99,231 158,669 PUS ST LIGHTS 951,246 320,430 127,716 167,062 336,036 MUNI BLDGS 3,148,268 665,227 719,088 611,434 1,152,519 SALES /M8 1,372,069 1,372,069 0 0 0 SCHOOL 4,563,140 1,599,773 966,626 903,880 1,092,861 TOTAL 25].504.653 52.223,495 17,687,562 4].636.197 139.957.399 LAST YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 93,966,046 29,397,969 13,679,727 21,862,285 29,026,065 COMM 6 IND 144,901,358 17,813,562 1,144,047 22,572,447 103,371,302 PVT ST LIGHTS 315,850 53,356 6,096 99,106 157,292 PUB ST LIGHTS 971,707 326,543 131,217 170,757 343,190 HUNI SLOCB 3,134,885 708,534 684,645 609,469 1,132,237 SALES /RESALE 1,321,601 1,321,601 0 0 0 SCHOOL 4,513,060 1,628,954 981,167 635,120 1,267,819 TOTAL 249.124,50] 51.250.519 16.626.899 45.949.184 135.297.905 RIL. TT HOURS SOLD TO TOTAL TOTAL R ING LYNNFIELJ NO.R ING WILMINGTON HONTH RESIDENTIAL 36.54% 12.90% 4.48% 9.15% 10.01% COW 6 IND 59.03% 6.71% 0.45% 8.974 42.90% PVT ST LIGHTS 0.14% 0.02% 0.00% 0.05% 0.07% PUB ST LIGHTS 0.46% 0.15% 0.06% 0.08% 0.17% MUNI SLOGS 1.26% 0.26% 0.31% 0.258 0.40 SALES /PE9ALE 0.44% 0.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 2.13% 0.74% 0.45% 0.45% 0.49% TOTAL 100.00% 21.22% 5.75% 18.95% 54.08% YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 38.76% 11.87% 5.71% 9.06% 12.124 COW 6 IND 57.22% 6.86% 0.45% 8.75% 41.10 PVT ST LIGHTS 0.12% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.00 PUB ST LIGHTS 0.38% 0.128 0.054 0.06% 0.15% MUNI BLDGS 1.24% 0.26% 0.28% 0.24% 0.46% SALES / RESALE 0.53% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 1.758 0.628 0.38% 0.35% 0.40% TOTAL 100.00% 20.28% 6.87% 16.508 54.35% LAST YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 37.72% 11.80% 5.49% 8.78% 11.65% COMM & IND 58.16% 7.159 0.46% 9.06% 41.49% PVT ST LIGHTS 0.13% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.07% PUB ST LIGHTS 0.39% 0.13% 0.05% 0.07% 0.14% MUNI SLDGS 1.20 0.28% 0.27% 0.24% 0.474 SHIES /RESALE 0.53% 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 1.81% 0.65% 0.39% 0.25% 0.52% TOTAL 100.00% 20.568 6.668 18.44% 54.34% IQ TOWN OF HEADING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT FORMULA INCOME 10/31/15 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (P.3) ADD: POLE RENTAL LESS: INTEREST INCOME+ ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS OPERATING EXPENSES (P.3) CUSTOMER DEPOSIT INTEREST EXPENSE FORNULA INCOME (MOSS) (n 32,214,300.64 0.00 1,743.02 (29,994,320.84) (719.35) 2.330.995.47 SALE OF EWH (P. 5) RNR PURCHASED AVE RASE COST PER ENE AVE RASE SALE PER ENE AVE COST PER EWE AVE SALE PER EWE FUEL CHARGE RRVEEUA (P. 3) LOAD FACTOR PEAS QM TONE OF READING, HASSACHVSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT GENE[Ui. STATISTICS 10/31/15 NOETM OF OCT 2014 54,221,633 54,494,499 0.046073 0.030218 0.088104 0.074840 2,425,374.16 75.27% 99,181 MONTH OF % CHANGE YEAR THRO OCT 2015 2014 2015 OCT 2014 OCT 2015 55,165,596 -2.64% 3.36% 249,124,507 257,504,653 53,541,382 -3.45% 3.961 251,090,338 261,035,355 0.027006 7.69% - 44.04% 0.041500 0.023223 0.035311 - 52.32% 9.19% 0.031021 0.033872 0.074519 7.17% - 14.99% 0.084134 0.071525 0.082571 - 25.27% -1.22% 0.082445 0.081436 2,607,127.52 10.62% -4.40% 12,811,927.61 12,248,090.81 79.44% 92,325 IQ TOM OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT SCH ®ULE OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS 10/31/15 UNRESTRICTED CASH CASH - OPERATING FUND CAHH - PETTY CASH TOTAL UNRESTRICTED CASH RESTRICTED CASH CASH - DEPRECIATION FUND CASH - CONSTRUCTION FUND CASH - TOM PAYMENT CAHH - DEFERRED FUEL RESERVE CASH - RATS STABILIZATION FUND CASH - UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS RESERVE CASH - RICA LERVE BENEFITS CASH - HAZARD 4 STE RESERVE CASH - CUSTOMER DEPOSITS CASH - ENERGY CONSERVATION TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH INVESTMENTS SICK L W BUYBACK TOTAL CASH BALANCE SCHEDULE A PREVIOUS YEAR CCMMWT YEAR 10,861,293.24 12,182,003.37 3,000.00 3,000.00 10,864.293.24 12,185,003.37 5,422,755.74 6,585,805.71 26,387.64 0.00 1,249,621.00 1,262,148.00 6,007,504.40 4,477,436.01 6,739,112.58 6,788,330.35 200,000.00 200,000.00 1,688,570.26 1,792,491.28 150,000.00 150,000.00 808,845.77 865,750.47 556,678.70 701,754.96 22,849,476.09 22.823.716.78 (9) 1,292.906.26 1,284.061.95 35.006.675.59 36,292 781.60 TOWN OF READING, NASSACNU82TT3 MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE OP ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 10/31/15 SCHEDULE B SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS PHEPAID INSURANCE PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 20,753.13 272,226.78 RESIDENTIAL AND CO CIAL 2,168,666.55 2,822,773.89 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - OTHER 22,506.53 253,507.80 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - LIENS 16,481.86 6,837.76 ACCOUHTS HECBIVABLE - ENPLOYBE ADVANCES 892.14 543.53 SHIMS DISCOUNT LIABILITY (209,601.78) (138,890.48) HESSRVE FOR BNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS (267.461.47) (232,536.15) TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BILLED 1,733,483.83 2,712,236.35 UNBILL® ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 5,622,269.28 5,166,349.95 TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, HET 7.355.753.11 7.878.586.30 SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS PHEPAID INSURANCE 640,769.04 696,565.14 PREPAYMENT PURCHASED eoWEA 20,753.13 272,226.78 PREPAYMENT PASNY 259,957.39 307,572.50 PREPAYMENT WATSON 286,469.29 282,142.31 PURCHASED POWER WORKING CAPITAL 12,700.11 14,870.06 TOTAL PREPAYMENT 1.220.648.96 1.573.396.79 OTHER DEFERRED DEBITS 0.00 1.547.815.00 ACCOUNTS BSCEIVABLE AGING OCTOBER 2015: FESIDENTIAL AND CMEffiRCIAL 2,822,773.89 LESS: BALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY (138.890.48) GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE 2.683,883 .41 CURRENT 2,150,295.24 80.12% 30 DAYS 406,060.50 15.13% 60 DAYS 67,407.38 2.51% 90 DAYS 13,990.47 0.52% OVER 90 DAYS 46.129.82 1.721 TOTAL 2.683.883.41 100.00% (10) TOWN OF REMING, HASSMHUSETTS MBIICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE OF OPEMTING REVENUE 10/31/15 SCHEDULE D MUNICIPAL SALES: MONTH NORTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YM % SALES OF ELECTRICITY: LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE RESIDENTIAL SALES 1,711,405.45 1,957,326.51 9,061,890.86 9,556,152.62 5.454 COMN AHD INDUSTRIAL SALM 2,146,689.46 2,384,440.56 10,595,914.03 10,593,551.28 -0.02% PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING 9,037.52 9,899.83 38,119.71 39,778.49 4.35% TOTAL PRIVATH CONSUMERS 3.867.132.43 4.351.666.90 19.695.924.60 20.189.482.39 2.51% MUNICIPAL SALES: 18,857.75 20,959.45 STREET LIGHTING 29,860.45 28,018.19 119,441.80 49,223.76 - 58.79% MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 55,630.96 58,945.99 252,859.43 251,417.78 -0.571 TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS 85 491.41 96,964.18 372 301.23 300,641.54 - 19.25% SALES FOR RESALE 18,857.75 20,959.45 114,722.45 113,998.05 -0.63% SCHOOL 96,392.41 95,513.22 357,006.53 366,096.05 2.55% SUB -TOTAL 4,067,874.00 4,555,103.75 20,539,954.81 20,970,218.03 2.09% FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 31,589.93 65,937.80 280,610.15 261,800.92 -6.70% PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 2,251,877.11 2,377,809.70 10,351,474.40 11,073,824.64 6.98% ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL 18,932.98 20,157.99 93,995.92 98,608.62 4.91% ENERGY CONSERVATION - COlME=IAL 34,077.13 33,851.77 149,599.64 152,193.03 1.73% HIM CREDIT (74,545.03) (105,545.52) (232,164.44) (342,344.60) 67.46% TOTAL REVENUE 6,329.806.12 6.947.315.49 31.183.470.48 32,214,300.64 3.31% (M1) TOWN OF BEADING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPABTMNT SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE BY TOWN 10/31/15 PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING INCOME TO TOTAL TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD TOTAL NO.RSADING LYNNFIELD NILNINGTUR MONTH MONTH RESIDENTIAL 42.96% 15.20% 5.244 RESIDENTIAL 1,957,326.51 INDUS /MONI BLDG 692,341.62 7.03% 238,878.89 8.5]% 687,477.18 PUB. ST.LIGHTS 538,628.82 0.21% INDUS /MUNI BLDG 2,443,386.55 0.22% 320,356.13 0.22% 36,457.12 0.00% 390,432.56 0.11% 1,696,140.74 0.46% PUB. ST.LIGHTS 28,018.19 0.00% 9,423.64 SCHOOL 3,]45.]1 0.74% 4,940.07 0.47% 9,908.]] TOTAL PRV.ST.LIGHTS 9,899.83 6.55% 1,625.20 49.85% 197.40 3,239.54 4,837.69 CO -OP RESALE 20,959.45 16.48% 20,959.45 10.62% 0.00 INDUS /MINI BLDG 0.00 6.86% 0.00 8.20% SCHOOL 95,513.22 0.23% 33,548.73 0.03% 19,468.82 0.08% 21,276.88 0.19% 21,218.79 0.00% TOTAL 4 555.103.]5 CO -OP RESALE 1.0]8.254.]] 0.54% 298.]4].94 0.00% 90'/.366.23 SCHOOL 2.2'/0.]39.81 0.60% 0.354 0.41% 0.39% xoxAL 100.00% 22.59% ].68% 19.33% 50.40% LAST YEAR TO DATE THIS YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 44.11% 13.84% 6.38% 10.23% 13.66% INDUS /MUNI BLDG PUB.ST.LIGHTS RESIDENM• 9,556,152.62 0.73% 0.08% 3,035,694.19 36.16% 0.20% 1,377,273.77 0.19% 2,22],8]9.44 0.00% 2,915,305.22 0.10% INDUS /MUNI HLDG 10,864,969.06 0.56% 1,438,104.10 0.00% 154,096.74 SCHOOL 1,]19,115.4] 0.63% ],533,652.]5 0.25% PUB. ST.LIGHTS 69,223.76 100.00% 16,512.39 ]. 57% 6,566.20 50.60% 8,719.50 1],425.6] MV. ST. LIGHTS 39,]]8.49 6,533.34 (11A) ]6].09 13,005.36 19,4]2.]0 CO -OP RESALE 113,998.05 113,998.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCHOOL, 366,096.05 126,040.93 74,046.40 85,420.23 80,588.49 TOTAL 20,9]0.218.03 4.]36.883.00 1.612.]50.18 4.054.140.01 10.566.444.84 LAHT YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 9,061,890.86 2,842,924.77 1,311,206.00 2,101,896.85 2,805,863.24 INDUS /MUNI BLDG 10,648,]]3.46 1,499,572.29 149,113.08 1,771,578.13 7,428,509.96 PU8 . ST.LIGHTS 119,441.80 40,056.92 16,096.32 21,068.20 42,220.36 PRV.ST.LIGHTS 38,119.71 6,338.39 748.26 12,383.03 18,650.03 CO -OP RESALE 114,722.65 114,722.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 SCHOOL 357,006.53 129,648.48 ]],1]1.1] 50,683.39 99,503.49 TOTAL 20.539.954.81 d. 633.263. 30 S.SSd,334.83 3.95].609.60 10.39d.]d].OB PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING INCOME TO TOTAL TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD NO.READING W111KINGTON MONTH RESIDENTIAL 42.96% 15.20% 5.244 10.708 11.82% INDUS /MONI BLDG 53.64% 7.03% 0.60% 8.5]% 37.24% PUB. ST.LIGHTS 0.62% 0.21% 0.08% 0.11% 0.22% PAV.ST.LIGHTS 0.22% 0.04% 0.00% 0.07% 0.11% CO -OP RESALE 0.46% 0.46% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 2.10% 0.74% 0.43% 0.47% 0.46% TOTAL 100.00% 23.68% 6.55% 19= 2% 49.85% THIS YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 45.57% 16.48% 6.57% 10.62% 13.90% INDUS /MINI BLDG 51.72% 6.86% 0.13% 8.20% 35.93% PUB.ST.LIGHTS 0.23% 0.08% 0.03% 0.04% 0.08% PRV.ST.LIGHTS 0.19% 0.03% 0.00% 0.06% 0.10% CO -OP RESALE 0.54% 0.54% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 1.75% 0.60% 0.354 0.41% 0.39% xoxAL 100.00% 22.59% ].68% 19.33% 50.40% LAST YEAR TO DATE RESIDENTIAL 44.11% 13.84% 6.38% 10.23% 13.66% INDUS /MUNI BLDG PUB.ST.LIGHTS 52.82% 0.58% 7.30% 0.20% 0.73% 0.08% 8.63% 0.10% 36.16% 0.20% PRV. ST. LIGHTS 0.19% 0.03% 0.00% 0.06% 0.10% CO -OP RESALE 0.56% 0.56% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% SCHOOL 1.74% 0.63% 0.38% 0.25% 0.48% TCTAL 100.00% 22.56% ]. 57% 19.2]% 50.60% (11A) SALES OF ELECTRICITY: RESIDENTIAL COW AND INDURTAIAL SALEH PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING SALES FOR RESALE SCHOOL TOTAL BASE SALES TOTAL FUEL SALES TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE POREBITED DISCOUNTS PURCHASED PONEA CAPACITY ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION - COFAIBRCIRL NYPA CREDIT TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES f ( ) : ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET TWIN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPAETMENT BUDGETED REVENUE VARIANCE REPORT 10/31/15 SCHEDULE P ACTUAL BUDGET 4 YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE • CNANGE 4,820,146.99 4,676,455.00 143,691.99 3.07% 3,656,808.29 3,475,863.00 180,945.29 5.21% 49,223.76 126,255.00 (77,031.24) - 61.01% 50,517.10 47,171.00 3,346.10 7.09% 145.431.08 134.767.00 10.664.08 7.91% 8,722,127.22 6,460,511.00 261,616.22 3.09% 12,248.D90.81 12,136.580.00 111.510.81 0.92% 20,970,218.03 20,597,091.00 373,127.03 1.81% 261,800.92 253,816.00 7,964.92 3.15% 11,073,824.64 11,071,952.00 1,872.64 0.02% 98,608.62 96,643.00 1,965.62 2.03* 152,193.03 152,097.00 96.03 0.06* (342,344.60) (300,000.00) (42,344.60) 14.11% 1.08% 32.214.300.64 31 871 599.00 342.701.64 (118) TOWN OF HEADING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES 10/31/15 SCHEDULE E MAINTENANCE EXPENSES: MONTH NORTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD 5 OPERATION ERPENSES: LAST YEAR MAINT OF TRANSMiSSION PLANT CURRENT YEAR TO DATE 227.08 TO DATE 908.40 CHANGE PURCHASED POKER CAPACITY 1,261,848.44 -0.016 1,445,942.19 MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT 5,519,918.33 6,061,961.40 9.828 PURCHASED POWER TSANSMISSION 1,248,903.65 - 42.116 1,276,911.08 MAINT OF LINES - ON 4,900,304.72 5,051,314.82 3.086 TOTAL PURCHASED POKER 2,510,752.09 2.006 2.122.919.27 MAINT OF LINES - UG 10.420.283.05 11.113.302.22 0.13 OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP 53,316.31 0.996 50,720.78 MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS 182,361.23 178,717.56 -2.006 STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC 19,263.24 49.226 15,680.63 MAIN? OF ST IT I SIG SYSTEM 54,161.54 48,578.03 - 10.316 LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE 81,171.11 256.616 74,695.59 MAINT OF GREASE AND STOCEROCM 222,366.16 244,157.24 9.806 STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE 44,318.96 22.286 39,186.24 MAINT OF METERS 153,858.84 133,087.76 - 13.506 STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE (1,073.59) 0.006 10,186.29 MAINT OF GEN PLANT 26,533.17 35,486.42 33.746 METER EXPENSE 15,320.59 - 58.93* 20,863.76 TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 59,111.15 72,133.17 21.896 MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE 54,568.14 -6.149 41,156.78 DEPRECIATION EEPBNSE 140,828.20 148,224.19 5.256 METER READING LABOR L EXPENSE 1,458.27 2.166 2,240.34 PURCHASED POKER FUEL EXPENSE 6,498.63 11,489.65 76.806 ACCT 6 COLL LABOR 6 EXPENSE 213,830.84 17.786 149,485.22 VOLOHTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 604,492.66 542,015.61 - 10.34* UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS 10,000.00 0.006 10,000.00 TOTA. OPERATING EXPENSES 40,000.00 40,000.00 0.006 ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE 44,812.05 9.116 50,559.23 137,343.28 184,963.96 34.676 ADMIN 6 GEN SALARIES 73,019.26 92,091.87 277,261.13 284,483.73 2.606 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6 EXPENSE 31,229.10 32,267.88 95,450.17 100,748.19 5.556 OUTSIDE SERVICES 42,974.07 31,148.02 121,632.52 117,937.50 -3.046 PROPERTY INSURANCE 29,063.73 31,242.39 119,454.92 124,969.56 4.626 INJURIES AND DAMAGES 3,720.93 3,623.07 14,352.85 15,692.47 9.336 E.IPLOYEES PENSIONS I BENEFITS 226,340.56 227,911.25 990,343.67 919,714.24 -7.136 MISC GENERAL EXPENSE 15,158.58 13,519.89 45,357.45 45,361.12 0.01* SENT EXPENSE 14,573.76 13,870.45 55,850.28 57,116.33 3.456 ENERGY CONSERVATION 78,681.70 36,073.54 144,177.86 133,652.65 -7.306 TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 1,051,747.27 94fi 531 22 3,491,507.71 3.439.189.38 -1.506 MAINTENANCE EXPENSES: MAINT OF TRANSMiSSION PLANT 227.10 227.08 908.40 908.32 -0.016 MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT 40,284.46 36,059.63 199,266.66 115,352.71 - 42.116 MAINT OF LINES - ON 170,884.69 276,590.94 586,835.95 598,594.53 2.006 MAINT OF LINES - UG 10,328.07 9,157.43 48,073.30 48,551.47 0.996 MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS 17,941.59 21,866.90 45,794.55 68,317.80 49.226 MAIN? OF ST IT I SIG SYSTEM 69.59 (78.23) (68.45) (244.10) 256.616 MAINT OF GREASE AND STOCEROCM 37,763.77 63,953.52 146,210.17 178,792.60 22.286 MAINT OF METERS D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.006 MAINT OF GEN PLANT 15,427.93 10,044.12 87,739.20 36,036.96 - 58.93* TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 292.927.19 417.821.39 1.114.749.78 1.046.310.29 -6.149 DEPRECIATION EEPBNSE 321,788.79 328,732.65 1,287,155.16 1,314,930.60 2.166 PURCHASED POKER FUEL EXPENSE 2,290,434.18 2,543,916.53 10,704,953.73 12,608,595.35 17.786 VOLOHTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 118,000.00 1181000.00 472,000.00 472,000.00 0.006 TOTA. OPERATING EXPENSES 6.585.649.52 1.071.921.06 27,490.649.43 29.994.327.94 9.116 (12) TOM OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARIXENT BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT 10/31/15 SCHEDULE G % AINTENANCE EXPENSES NAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT ACTUAL BUDGET (91.68) -9.17% % OPERATION EXPENSES: YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE • CHARGE PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 6,061,987.40 -8.73% 6,158,063.00 MINT OF LINES - ON (96,075.60) -1.56% PURCHAHED POWER TRANSMISSION 5,051,314.82 -8.35% 4,913,889.00 NAINT OF LINES - UG 137,425.82 2.80% TOTAL PURCHASED POWER 11.113.302.22 - 38.61% 11.0]1,952.00 MINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS 41,350.22 0.37% (81,682.20) -54.45% OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP 178,]1].56 211,555.00 (32,837.44) - 15.52% STATION SUP LABOR AND NISC 48,578.03 27,502.00 21,076.03 76.63% LING HISC LABOR AND EXPENSE 244,157.24 219,352.00 24,805.24 11.31% STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE 133,087.76 146,304.00 (13,216.24) -9.03% STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE 35,486.42 31,192.00 4,294.42 13.77% METER EXPENSE 72,133.17 70,725.00 1,408.17 1,314,930.60 1.99% 1,327,720.00 MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE 148,224.19 151,346.00 (3,121.61) 12,608,595.35 -2.06% 11,836,580.00 METER READING LABOR 6 EXPENSE 11,489.65 11,037.00 452.65 472,000.00 4.10% 472,000.00 ACCT 6 COLL LABOR I EXPENSE 542,015.61 558,141.00 (16,125.39) -2.89% UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS 40,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 84 0.00% 29.]26.189.00 ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE 184,963.96 159,331.00 25,632.96 16.09% ADMIN A GEN SALARIES 284,483.73 273,422.00 11,061.73 4.054 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6 EXPENSE 100,749.19 100,400.00 348.19 0.35% OUTSIDE SERVICES 117,937.50 147,082.00 (29,144.50) - 19.82% PROPERTY INSURANCE 124,969.56 155,400.00 (30,430.44) - 19.58% LN=RIES AND DAMAGES 15,692.47 17,484.00 (1,791.53) - 10.25% EMPLOYEES PENSIONS S BENEFITS 919,714.24 926,132.00 (6,417.76) -0.69% MISC GENERAL EXPENSE 45,361.12 119,892.00 (74,530.88) - 62.17% REST EXPENSE 57,776.33 70,668.00 (12,891.67) - 18.24% ENERGY CONSERVATION 133,652.65 271,187.00 (137,534.35) - 50.724 TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 3.439,189.38 3.708.152.00 (268.962.62) -7.25% % AINTENANCE EXPENSES NAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT 908.32 1,000.00 (91.68) -9.17% MINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMENT 115,352.71 126,390.00 (11,037.29) -8.73% MINT OF LINES - ON 598,594.53 653,156.00 (54,561.47) -8.35% NAINT OF LINES - UG 48,551.47 79,086.00 (30,534.53) - 38.61% MINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS 68,317.80 150,000.00 (81,682.20) -54.45% NAINT OF ST IT 6 SIG SYSTEM (244.10) 3,351.00 (3,595.10) - 107.28% N NT OF GARAGE AND STOOOOOf 178,792.60 216,565.00 (37,772.40) - 17.444 NAINT OF METERS 0.00 20,837.00 (20,837.00) - 100.00% NAINT OF G8N PLANT 36,036.96 59,400.00 (23,363.04) - 39.33% TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 1.046.310.29 1.309,785.00 (263.474.71) - 20.12% DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 1,314,930.60 1,327,720.00 (12,789.40) -0.96% PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE 12,608,595.35 11,836,580.00 ]]2,015.35 6.52% VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TONNS 472,000.00 472,000.00 0.00 0.00% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 0.90% 268 138 84 29.994.327.84 29.]26.189.00 ( ) - ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET (4A) TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTIdNT BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT 10/31/15 HAINTENANCE EXPENSES I INT of TRANSHISSION PLANT RESPONSIBLE 3,000.00 908.32 RENKENING 69.72% [MINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPHT SENIOR 2016 ACTUAL BUDGET RENAMING OPERATION EXPENSES: HANAGCR ANNUAL BUDGET YE11R TO DATE BALANCE 598,594.53 BUDGET % PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY JP 17,095,785.00 HAINT OF LINES - UG 6,061,987.40 130,694.00 11,033,797.60 48,551.47 64.54% 82,142.53 PURCHASED POWER TRANSNISSION JP 12,600,639.00 [MINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS 5,051,314.82 156,000.00 7,549,324.18 68,317.80 59.91% 87,682.20 TOTAL PURCHASED PONSR 56.21% 29.696.424.00 (MINT OF ST IT 6 SIG SYSTEM 11,113.302.22 9,745.00 18.583.121.78 (244.10) 62.58% 9,989.10 OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING SEP NJ 629,691.00 TAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCHROOM 178,717.56 660,131.00 450,973.44 178,792.60 71.62% 481,338.40 STATION SUP LABOR AND HISC NJ 84,858.00 MINT OF METERS 48,578.03 43,675.00 36,279.97 0.00 42.75% 43,875.00 LINE RISC LABOR AND EXPENSE NJ 666,641.00 HAINT OF GEN PLANT 244,157.26 178,200.00 422,483.76 36,036.96 63.38% 142,163.04 STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE NJ 448,347.00 TOTAL HAINTENANCE EXPENSES 133,087.76 3.341.465.00 315,259.24 1.046.310.29 70.32% 2.295.154.71 STREET LIGHTING 2238115E NJ 93,347.00 35,486.42 57,860.58 61.98% DEPRECIATION EXPENSE METER E2PRNSE NJ 233,649.00 1,314,930.60 72,133.17 2,668,214.40 161,514.83 66.99% 69.13% PURCHASED POKER FUEL EXPENSE NISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE NJ 457,068.00 12,608,595.35 148,224.19 21,717,733.65 308,843.81 63.27% 67.57% VOLUNTARY PAYHENRS TO TOWNS HETER READING LABOR 6 EXPENSE NJ 32,578.00 472,000.00 11,489.65 944,000.00 21,088.35 66.67% 64.73% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES ACCT I COLL LABOR I EXPENSE RF 1,693,219.00 542,015.61 1,151,203.39 64.14% 67.99% 83.632.495.00 UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS JP 120,000.00 53.636,167.16 40,000.00 80,000.00 66.67% ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE JP 482,273.00 184,963.96 297,309.04 61.65% ADMN 6 GEN SALARIES CO 838,461.00 284,483.73 553,977.27 66.07% OFFICE SUPPLIES 6 EXPENSE CO 301,000.00 100,748.19 200,251.61 66.53% OUTSIDE SERVICES GO 377,332.00 117,937.50 259,394.50 68.74% PROPERTY INSURANCE NJ 466,200.00 124,969.56 341,230.44 73.19% INJURIES AND DAMAGES NJ 51,254.00 15,692.47 35,561.53 69.38% 2MFLOTEES PENSIONS 6 BENEFITS NJ 2,633,591.00 919,714.24 1,713,876.76 65.08% NISC GENERAL EXPENSE CO 231,022.00 45,361.12 185,660.88 80.37% RENT EXPENSE NJ 212,000.00 57,776.33 154,223.67 72.75% ENERGY CONSERVATLON JP 816,602.00 133,652.65 682,949.35 83.63% TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 10.869,132.00 3.439,189.38 7.429.942.62 68.36% HAINTENANCE EXPENSES I INT of TRANSHISSION PLANT NJ 3,000.00 908.32 2,091.68 69.72% [MINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPHT NJ 484,026.00 115,352.71 368,673.29 76.17% MAINT OF LINES - ON NJ 1,675,794.00 598,594.53 1,077,199.47 64.284 HAINT OF LINES - UG NJ 130,694.00 48,551.47 82,142.53 62.85% [MINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS NJ 156,000.00 68,317.80 87,682.20 56.21% (MINT OF ST IT 6 SIG SYSTEM NJ 9,745.00 (244.10) 9,989.10 102.50% TAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCHROOM NJ 660,131.00 178,792.60 481,338.40 72.92% MINT OF METERS NJ 43,675.00 0.00 43,875.00 100.00% HAINT OF GEN PLANT RE 178,200.00 36,036.96 142,163.04 79.78% TOTAL HAINTENANCE EXPENSES 3.341.465.00 1.046.310.29 2.295.154.71 68.69% DEPRECIATION EXPENSE RP 3,983,145.00 1,314,930.60 2,668,214.40 66.99% PURCHASED POKER FUEL EXPENSE JP 34,326,329.00 12,608,595.35 21,717,733.65 63.27% VOLUNTARY PAYHENRS TO TOWNS AF 1,416,000.00 472,000.00 944,000.00 66.67% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 64.14% 83.632.495.00 29,994.327.84 53.636,167.16 (ITS) TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10/31/2015 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY PROJECT ITEM DEPARTMENT ACTUAL BUDGET DUNCAN AND ALLEN VARIANCE 1 RMLD AND PENSION TRUST AUDIT FEES AccOUNTING 25,895.25 51,923.17 35,000.00 6,600.00 (9,104.75) 3,800.00 2 LEGAL -FERC /ISO /POWER /OTHER INTEGRATED RESOURCES 31,834.90 117,937.50 46,100.00 (14,265.10) 3 NERC COMPLIANCE AND AUDIT E 6 O 16,587.45 5,750.00 10,837.45 4 LEGAL- SOLAR /FIBER ENGINEERING 3,800.00 3,332.00 468.00 5 LEGAL - GENERAL GH 20,388.15 25,000.00 (4,611.85) 6 LEGAL SERVICES HA 8,831.75 19,568.00 (10,736.25) 7 SURVEY RIGHT OF WAY/ ENVIROHMENTAL BLDG. MAINT. 0.00 3,332.00 (3,332.00) 8 INSURANCE CONSULTANT /OTHER GEN. BENEFIT 10,600.00 9,000.00 1,600.00 TOTAL 119,937.50 147,082.00 (29,144.50) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY VENDOR (13) ACTUAL HELANSON MEATH 25,500.00 DUNCAN AND ALLEN 14,964.33 UTILITY SERVICE INC. 4,550.00 RUSIN AND RUDMAN 51,923.17 SMERCEYNSRI 6 CONN, PC 6,600.00 PLM ELECTRIC POWR ENGINEERING 3,800.00 FLEET COUNSELOR SERVICES INC. 10,600.00 TOTAL 117,937.50 (13) RlII.D DEFERRED MEL CASE RESERVE ANALYSIS 10/31/15 (74) TOTAL DEFERRED 5,180,285.15 4,704,560.60 4,537,789.03 4,519,770.54 4,477,436.01 GROSS MONTHLY DATE CHARGES REVENGES NYPA CREDIT DEFERRED Jun -15 Jul -15 3,492,949.80 3,083,024.15 (65,798.90) (475,724.55) Aug -15 3,269,589.09 3,172,916.67 (70,099.15) (166,771.57) Sep -15 3,302,139.93 3,385,022.47 (100,901.03) (18,018.49) Oct -15 2,543,916.53 2,607,127.52 (105,545.52) (42,334.53) (74) TOTAL DEFERRED 5,180,285.15 4,704,560.60 4,537,789.03 4,519,770.54 4,477,436.01 MID BUDGET / ACTUAL C06SARISON SUM4ARY SCHED= DRAFT 1 10/31/15 DIVISION ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE VAR % BUSINESS DIVISION 3,331,440 3,388,531 (57,091) -1.68% INTEGRATED NESOURCES 350,452 476,619 (126,167) - 26.47% ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS 1,653,290 1,836,589 (163,300) -9.98% FACILITY 1,497,911 1,604,498 (106,587) -6.64% GENERAL MANAGER 230,205 302.118 (71.914) - 23.80% Su -TOTAL 7,063,298 7,608,356 (545,059) -7.16% PURCHASED PDNER BASE 11,113,302 11,071,952 41,350 0.37% PURCRASEL PO R FULL 12,608,595 11,836,580 ]]2,015 6.52% TOTAL 30,785.195 30.516.888 268.30] 0.88% (16) RMLD November 24, 2015 Reading Municipal Light Deputmeot aeuaau roses eoa cexaaanons 230 Ash Street P.O. Box 150 Reading, MA 01867 -0250 Tel; (781)944 -1340 FU: (781)942 -2409 Web: www =Jd.o. Town of Reading Municipal Light Board Subject: Sale of Surplus Electric Meters On November 4, 2015 a bid invitation was placed as a legal notice in the Middlesex East section of the Daily Times Chronicle requesting proposals for Sale of Surplus Electric Meters for the Reading Municipal Light Department. An invitation to bid was emailed to the following: Vision Metering Hialea Meter Company Meter Technical Services, Inc. Reynolds Metering Services ScrapSafe Inc. Northeast Power Delivery Group Stuart C. Irby Company Texas Meter & Device Co North American Pennys Autobody Bay Metal Meter Recycling Prime Vendor, Inc. Bids were received from Vision Metering, LLC, ScrapSafe Inc. and Tesco The bids were publicly opened and read aloud at 11:00 a.m. November 24, 2015 in the Town of Reading Municipal Light Department's Board Room, 230 Ash Street, Reading, Massachusetts. The bids were reviewed, analyzed and evaluated by the General Manager and the staff. Move that bid 2016 -13 for Sale of Surplus Electric Meters be awarded to: Vision Metering, LLC for a total cost of $8,873.50 Item (desc.) 1- 14,939 Surplus Residential Meters 2 - 2,736 Surplus Commercial Meters Combined price Qiy Unit Cc st Total Net Cost 14,939 $.50 $7,469.50 2,736 $.50 $1,368.00 $8,837.50 as the highest qualified bidder on the recommendation of the General Manager Coleen O'Brien ( le/-- ) I w e ' Hamid -Jaffa Nick D'Alleva Attachment 4 File: Bids /FY16/ Sale of Surplus Electric Meters 201613 .�\ \] ;77 E ! ! k) \ \\ ° !!!§ 000 coo o|§ / \\\ /k\ )`} ! \§ }( \§ / f{ 0, ,_ § 7 ! k2 12 :!| !e| AD )§ )/ )§ �!) \/ _ &\} !(( .. kkk )( § \k) i!! Jeanne Foti From: Jeanne Foti Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 1:32 PM To: RMLD Board Members Group Subject: Account Payable and Payroll Questions Good afternoon. In an effort to save paper, the following timeframes had no Account Payable and Payroll questions. Account Payable Warrant —NO Questions October 23, October 30, November 6, November 13, November 20. On November 27 there was no Account Payable Warrant run due to the Thanksgiving holiday. Payroll — No Questions November 2, November 16 and November 30. This e-mail will be printed for the Board Packet for the RMLD Board meeting on December 30, 2015. Jeanne 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. | §[ )§! § §I § }; k §§ kj� ;.• (�` |•' !_� i•` $ §§ } §) |)< ! ;; ;�• |� . |,! .,■ !; } §) |.. �� |� .- ,,• §§ �) \ | §[ )§! § §I § }; k §§ kj� ;.• (�` |•' !_� i•` | §[ )§! § §I § }; k §§ kj� | _ ! ..,. ...� ;.• (�` |•' $ §§ } §) | _ ! ..,. ...� § § § § E (�` |•' $ §§ } §) |)< ! § § § § E $ §§ } §) § § § § E