HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-03-17 RMLD Board of Commissioners MinutesF
i
Town of Reading
Na
e Meeting Minutes
�4'6'�erhIC0R���Q
Board - Committee - Commission - Council:
RMLD Board of Commissioners
Date: 03-23-2017
Building: Reading Municipal Light Building
Address: 230 Ash Street
Purpose: General business.
Attendees: Members - Present:
RECEIVZD_
TOWN CLERK rt
READING. MASS
1811 AUG 21 P 2 3b I
Time: 7:30 PM
Location:
General Managers Conference Room
Session: Open Session
Version: Final
Thomas O'Rourke, Chairman, Philip B. Pacino, Vice Chair, David Talbot,
Commissioner, Dave Hennessy, Secretary Pro Tem,
Members - Not Present:
John Stempeck-Absent
Others Present:
Coleen O'Brien, Tracy Schultz, Jane Parenteau, Wendy Markiewicz
Mayhew Seavey, PLM Engineering
Dennis Kelley, CAB Secretary
William Brown, Reading Resident
Minutes Respectfully Submitted By: Philip B. Pacino, RMLD Board Chairman
Topics of Discussion:
Call Meeting to Order
Chairman O'Rourke called the meeting to order and announced that the meeting is being videotaped for
distribution at community television stations in Reading, North Reading, Wilmington and Lynnfield.
Opening Remarks
Chairman O'Rourke read the RMLD Board of Commissioners' Code of Conduct and acknowledged the attendance
of Dennis Kelley from the Citizens' Advisory Board, Peter Lydecker from the Town of Reading's Finance Committee,
and Mayhew Seavey from PLM Engineering. Chairman O'Rourke explained that Mr. Stempeck was absent due to a
work commitment, and that Mr. Jaffari was unavailable to attend that evening as well. Chairman O'Rourke asked
Mr. Hennessy to be Board Secretary, he agreed. Chairman O'Rourke then gave Reading resident William Brown the
floor for public comment.
Mr. Brown distributed a list of town and RMLD-owned properties that he had put together. Mr. Brown explained
that he wanted to initiate discussion in regards to moving the RMLD from its current site and using its present
location to generate some income for the Town of Reading. The current land is 6.6 acres and is worth just under
$12 million. A move would not only benefit the Town of Reading, but would also positively impact RMLD's
operations. Mr. Brown suggested that being down at the lowest end of the service territory must make it
increasingly difficult for crews to dispatch from Ash Street and go to West Street to pick up equipment and then
head out to outages.
Mr. Brown stated that he also wanted to express his opinion that the Town of Reading has a parking lot by the
train depot that goes from High Street all the way up to High and Vine: It would be a great place to erect canopy -
type solar panels.
Chairman O'Rourke asked Ms. O'Brien if she wished to comment.
Page 1 1
Opening Remarks
Ms. O'Brien said that RMLD has been working with the town and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council regarding
economic development and RMLD is waiting to hear if anything comes from these conversations. The Planning
Council's mockup showed the RMLD still on its current property, but with the surrounding area developed.
Mr. Brown reiterated his belief that the RMLD's current location is operationally inefficient since it must be difficult
for crews to get to outages. There is an available lot just north of West Street in Reading that would put RMLD
closer to the center of its business.
Mr. Talbot thanked Mr. Brown for coming in, and stated that he agrees with making optimal use of town real
estate, but he's not sure how to move forward -relocating the RMLD would involve the Selectmen and Town
Meetings.
Mr. Brown replied that he thinks that it is up to the Board, and then it goes through a Town Meeting.
Mr. Talbot reiterated that no one on the Board would be opposed to optimizing the use of town land. Putting solar
on town property, he fully agrees with the idea, but it must happen on different levels since RMLD doesn't own or
control town land or town roofs, to which Mr. Brown stated he will then approach a Selectman.
Mr. Pacino remarked that he had recently seen solar panels on parking canopies in Florida and they were far from
being an eyesore, and it is something that the high school should consider.
Mr. Talbot added that there are many private and public sites with flat roofs that would benefit from installing
solar. RMLD is actively researching the costs of offering or contracting solar installation.
Citizens' Advisory Board
Chairman O'Rourke asked Mr. Kelley to report on the last CAB meeting. Mr. Kelley explained that they were short
three members. Therefore, the meeting was quick and was more like an introduction for the new members, Neil
Cohen from Reading and Jason Small from North Reading. The CAB still needs one more member from Lynnfield,
but at least now they can get a quorum. Mr. Hennessy asked if Mr. Cohen had been on the Town Finance
Committee at one time. Mr. Brown replied that Mr. Cohen has been on multiple committees and he believes that
the Finance Committee was one of them. Mr. Hennessey was at the meeting and had nothing to add to Mr.
Kelley's report.
Report of the Chairman
RMLD Board Strategic Meeting
Chairman O'Rourke stated that the most difficult part of holding a strategic meeting is finding a date and time.
Ms. Schultz replied that she had scheduled a tentative date of Tuesday, May 16.
Chairman O'Rourke mentioned that off -sites can go for a full or a half day, to which Mr. Pacino asked for
clarification as to what was meant by 'off-site'. Chairman O'Rourke responded that the Board could probably meet
at RMLD. It's up to how much Ms. O'Brien thinks she can work without distraction in the office.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she thought it should take a couple hours.
Chairman O'Rourke asked, with some planning, are people available for a morning meeting, which was met with a
consensus. Chairman O'Rourke stated that he would have Ms. Schultz send out some dates and asked for any
blackout dates.
Mr. Pacino mentioned the upcoming Town Meetings and added that the Board can meet in the mornings of the
day of, just not during.
Chairman O'Rourke then said he would be talking to Ms. O'Brien about getting an agenda together.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she thinks Mr. Seavey's presentation will help to generate some topics for discussion.
Strategy and Plan to Improve Demand Reduction at Peak Times
Chairman O'Rourke invited Mr. Talbot to explain his ideas on RMLD's rates.
Page 1 2
Strategy and Plan to Improve Demand Reduction at Peak Times
Mr. Talbot stated that he wants RMLD to determine if is there a way to throw a time -based rate into the mix.
Ms. O'Brien asked Ms. Parenteau to start off by discussing the rates that RMLD has already had and the
interruptible rates that have been implemented in the past.
Mr. Talbot said that more investment in the grid would make it more intelligent, provide the ability to collect data,
and perform demand reduction. Ms. O'Brien said that, in a few weeks, when the Capital Budget is presented, one
of the line items that continues to be included is grid optimization. It is a 15 -year plan, and the next things that are
happening will be discussed, including the AMI mesh overlay.
Ms. Parenteau began by stating that rates can be cyclic due to what's happening in the industry. When Seabrook
was delayed coming online there was a capacity deficiency throughout New England. To combat that, RMLD
enacted seasonal rates at that time. There was a different rate in the summer than in the winter, with different
demand components during those periods. There were also non-firm and interruptible rates. A handful of
customers opted into the rate and during peak periods of time were required to shed load or be penalized
financially. In the early 2000's, capacity moved away from seasonal rates, and RMLD now has a flat rate structure.
However, RMLD still has a Time of Use rate where the demand charge only occurs between the hours of noon and
7 p.m. for both commercial and residential customers.
Mr. Talbot clarified that participation in those rates is optional. Ms. Parenteau affirmed and continued, saying that
the Peak Demand Reduction program cannot be opened to all customers due to metering constraints, because
such customers need to have smart meters. There are currently 20 customers enrolled. The first year the program
was in place, a megawatt of demand was shed. However, last year 250 kilowatts were shed, which was significantly
less. Yesterday, the Lunch 'N Learn was held for RMLD's customers. It was interesting to get feedback from
customers. Many of the rebate programs are based on peak demand. They are not mandatory. Ms. Parenteau
surmised that, based on his previous comments, Mr. Talbot was looking for a more rate -based approach to
demand reduction, rather than customers simply opting in.
Mr. Talbot confirmed this and asked what percentage of customers opt in to Time of Use. Ms. Parenteau replied
there are less than 300 customers. Mr. Talbot then asked what percentage of commercial customers opt in. Ms.
Parenteau explained that it is set up for commercial customers who have three shift levels and is geared towards
how customers operate their businesses. It is very specific to what customers can and cannot do.
Mr. Talbot explained that his high concept is to nudge it up for everybody in the late afternoon when we have big
peak costs. Mr. Talbot stated that he has always wondered why we can't just raise the cost of electricity across the
board during the peak usage time. This could benefit commercial customers if they adjust their operations a little
bit.
Chairman O'Rourke wondered how much benchmarking data is available, what other communities are doing, and
how much marketing of the benefits plays into results.
Mr. Seavey answered that, from an economist's point of view there are two ways to get customers to do what you
want them to do: one is the passive approach of setting the price and letting the customer decide; the other is to
actively enable and facilitate the customer doing something to modify their behavior. Right now, RMLD is doing
both of those things, and is probably doing them more and better than any other municipal utility.
The key is that the cost of electricity varies all the time, and there are quite a few pieces to that. The price of the
energy itself fluctuates - it goes up during the day, (the spot market, price which is the benchmark) and down at
night. But it's a small difference between day and night, only a few cents a kWh.
Mr. Seavey noted that we are looking at costs that are demand -related: transmission and forward capacity. That
price, looked at on a time -basis, are zero in the case of capacity, except for one hour of the year and we don't
necessarily know when that hour is going to be.
Mr. Talbot stated that except it will always be between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Mr. Seavey commented that it is usually
between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m., but that is not guaranteed. Mr. Talbot asked when has the annual peak not been
between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. Ms. Parenteau responded that, during the winter time, transmission peaks always
occur Monday through Friday. Last year, RMLD had a transmission peak on Sunday, February 14. This had never
occurred throughout the history of the utility.
Page 1 3
Strategy and Plan to Improve Demand Reduction at Peak Times
Ms. Parenteau noted that Mr. Seavey was correct when he said it is usually between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. However,
that is not to say if new technology comes into place that may shift the peak. Ms. Parenteau said that Mr. Talbot is
correct in that the peak occurs between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., if you look historically.
Mr. Seavey stated that if you were to design a perfect rate that would charge everyone exactly for what they were
using each hour, including those twelve hours each month (and the one in the summer), you would end up with a
rate that would enormously disadvantage some customers and enormously advantage others. At the end of the
day, there is very little that most customers can do to change the amount of energy that they are using during the
monthly peaks and annual peak. Mr. Talbot said that everyone can turn their thermostats off in the summer. Mr.
Seavey added that they need to know exactly when to do it. Mr. Talbot said that between 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. when
the price is higher.
Mr. Talbot commented that RMLD commercial rates are the same 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week, except for those few customers that take the optional Time of Use rate. Instead of knocking everything up
one cent 24 hours, what if you increased it to two cents from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., and .75 cents for the rest of the
twenty hours. They are better off 20 hours and a little worse off for 4 hours, if they do a tiny bit they can probably
come out ahead. Mr. Seavey commented that what Mr. Talbot is describing is a classic Time of Use rate. Mr. Talbot
added but a mandatory one. Mr. Seavey stated that in the private utility world, customers who use more than
100kW have been on mandatory Time of Use for years, it is how the regulated utility works. Voluntary or optional
Time of Use rates are bad economic policy. Mr. Talbot concurred, but he wants the Time of Use implemented
across the board. Mr. Seavey said that in response to Mr. Talbot's approach a couple of cents may not be enough
of a signal to change behavior. Mr. Talbot wants to know if there is any data that states if "X" were to happen then
"Y" would happen. Mr. Seavey said that he is sure that research has been done to show the threshold for behavior
change. Mr. Talbot asked where is the research, evidence, and data that shows what, if anything, they could be
doing.
Ms. O'Brien asked if Mr. Talbot was referring to creature habits. Ms. O'Brien clarified that what she is hearing is if
the investor owned utilities have a mandatory Time of Use rate can Mr. Seavey run that through the model based
on what we have for our model to show the price differential. Mr. Seavey said that he can do this, but he has
another approach that may accomplish even more than that. Presently, the price signal that really matters is the
demand charge for large customers, not the energy charge. That is something the customer can control and that
can have a big impact. The demand charge presently charged to large customers is much lower than the actual
cost. Those two price components, capacity and transmission, are being recovered through a flat cent per kilowatt
hour charge through the purchase, capacity, transmission and fuel charge. The purchase, capacity and transmission
charge should be a demand charge rather than a cent per kilowatt hour charge. It would be around twelve dollars
per kilowatt; this is a rate he has worked up for other municipals. If RMLD was to do this, it would send a very
strong price signal to control demand. It is not as closely targeted as Mr. Talbot would like, in that it is not targeted
specifically to that peak hour, but you can target it within a four-hour range. The demand charge is based on one
hundred percent of the demand within the four-hour period or eighty percent of the highest demand, outside of
the period. They can have a much higher demand outside of the four-hour critical peak period. The downside, as
with anything you do to change the rates across the board, is that initially there are winners and losers. Many of
the losers may not be able to control their business practices in a way that prevents them by being harmed by it.
Chairman O'Rourke asked if there is anywhere Mr. Seavey has seen this implemented where it had a positive
impact. Mr. Seavey responded that he has not because he has not been able to persuade a municipal utility client
to go to that great of an extent. There was one voted last week, however, that will not go into effect until July of
this year. The Town of Mansfield put a $12.60 capacity and transmission demand on their two largest classes of
customers. Mr. Talbot clarified that this was intended to attack the peak. Mr. Seavey concurred. Mr. Talbot asked
if we can look at that model for RMLD. Mr. Seavey replied that he can send a copy of the rate schedule which was
voted at a public meeting on Monday.
Ms. O'Brien asked Mr. Talbot if he wanted a copy of the rate or the analysis that was looked at before the rate was
voted on. Mr. Talbot said that he would like to see if there is anything that RMLD can do to attack the high level.
RMLD's peak costs have gone through the roof and he would like creative ways to have RMLD's rates attack the
peak. Every megawatt saves the RMLD $250,000.
Page 1 4
Strategy and Plan to Improve Demand Reduction at Peak Times
Mr. Seavey pointed out that it is important to take a step back and he hears often that the peak needs to be
controlled, because it is costing us a lot of money. In a sense, it is costing the ratepayers a lot of money. It doesn't
make sense to charge the ratepayers more to control something than what the value of controlling it is. If you are
charging them $12 a kilowatt, if they choose to control their demand, that is fine, if they choose not to they are
going to pay for it. The key is that they are economically indifferent and so are the other customers.
You want to be sure that no one is subsidizing anybody else because they either are or are not controlling their
usage during those critical periods.
Mr. Talbot stated that this is abstract discussion, he would like numbers and options that they can look at, and
analysis that would say: you can do this and this could be the potential downside. Mr. Talbot said that it is the
Board's main job to set rates, it is important to look at and understand actual numbers. Chairman O'Rourke
clarified with Mr. Seavey that it is a zero-sum game, there are winners and losers, but at the end there are no net
savings. Mr. Seavey clarified that if you set prices correctly, if you send the right price signal to people, whether or
not they act on the price signals, they are indifferent and so is everyone else. If you have a large customer that is
adding a megawatt to your peak as long as they are paying the cost for that megawatt they are causing, and no
one else in the system is, you're fine. What we do not want is a system where everyone else pays because some
customers are causing a large peak. Mr. Talbot commented that is what happens right now. Mr. Seavey
commented to a certain extent it is and we can do an analysis that shows how costs get shifted under the present
rate and how would a different rate design reduce the amount of cost shifting that takes place. Mr. Talbot said to
reduce unfairness and possibly reduce the peak would be the goal. Mr. Seavey said maybe reduce the peak if
customers make the rational decision to control their demand. Mr. Talbot asked if there is data, are there options
with scenarios that would show what would happen if RMLD implemented some of these things. Mr. Seavey stated
that the information can be provided. Mr. Talbot clarified that we do not have the information this evening. Mr.
Seavey replied, no. Mr. Seavey said that what he is talking about is RMLD analysis, of different rate designs, of
what the impact of that might be. Chairman O'Rourke asked if that is the logical next step. Mr. Seavey commented
that is correct. Mr. Seavey added that you can go down the road of making Time of Use rates more widespread
and applying them to more customers. One problem that RMLD has is there will be implementation costs —
metering and billing costs. Mr. Seavey commented that he thinks that analysis will show that it is not as effective
to simply add two cents to a non -peak energy charge as it would be to implement a twelve -dollar demand charge.
Mr. Talbot said that a twelve -dollar demand charge sounds good to him.
Chairman O'Rourke asked if there was any other Board input and asked Dennis Kelley. Mr. Hennessy asked what
are the implementation costs to put in Time of Use meters for all customers. Ms. O'Brien responded four million.
Mr. Talbot asked how about the commercial customers. Mr. Seavey added that when you look at residential you
run into diminishing returns. Mr. Talbot asked how many industrial meters are there. Ms. Parenteau responded
3,000 commercial customers, she would have to provide data on how many are 100kW or greater. Ms. O'Brien
added that they will have to check the parameters on how to program the new smart meters.
Ms. O'Brien stated that Mr. Seavey will be performing the Cost of Service Study, since it is the third year. Ms.
O'Brien said that we are all on the same page in that we would like to implement a new rate, but what she is
hearing from Mr. Seavey is that we have to be careful of the winners and losers. At the same time, we are talking
about economic growth and keeping our customers here. We are trying to balance a lot of different things at the
same time. Ms. O'Brien noted that when Mr. Seavey runs all the figures than we will be able to balance all the pros
and cons of making a change. Ms. O'Brien said that she would be interested in seeing all the analysis from
Mansfield and what their demographics are, what percentage makes up their residential and commercial, and who
their winners and losers will be. Just because there is a different rate does not mean that a company has an
automated demand management system. Not all commercial customers have the ability to react to demand
response automatically. Mr. Seavey said that electric municipal utilities are in a more advantageous position than
private utilities because there is a closer connection with customers. Rather than throw this rate at them you can
work with them to provide some tools to manage the change. You do not want to jump into this type of change
without being prepared to deal with the consequences.
Chairman O'Rourke asked if some of the analysis would include the assessment of the segments of customer's
base and how they would be impacted by a rate change. Mr. Seavey explained that he will go through and provide
a listing of all the customers above a certain size and how each one individual customer would be impacted by the
change. Chairman O'Rourke stated that a similar process was done in the past couple of years.
Page 1 5
Strategy and Plan to Improve Demand Reduction at Peak Times
Ms. O'Brien said that the RMLD was looking at low income rates and how it shifted. Chairman O'Rourke
commented the savings some of our customer might experience from shutting down pumps and other equipment,
could be offset with the problem of having downtime and the restarting of the pumps, is that an issue. Mr. Seavey
responded that it can be and that is an area to take a hands-off approach because that can present potential issues
of liability. Mr. Seavey added this is where you would assume that the consumer is rational and understands the
cost savings of not consuming.
Mr. Seavey said that when he worked at Taunton Municipal Light Plant, the largest customer had a two -megawatt
load and made crystal glass and they tried to get them interested in an interruptible rate. They replied that a
bandwidth of five minutes would cause a half million dollars of unusable glass. You hope that customers are
capable of making those decisions themselves.
Mr. Kelley added that you need to look at the type of buildings such as manufacturing versus a high school. If you
think that you can shut off the air conditioning between 5 p.m. -7 p.m. in a school, there are special needs
programs and children that are susceptible to temperature change. It is not always as easy using the example of
chillers, it is not that you do not want to do it, but the factor is how the building is used. In manufacturing, there
are a lot of factors to consider to shut down four to five hours. Mr. Seavey added that you must trust that the
customer knows their business.
Ms. O'Brien asked Ms. Parenteau to explain how the RMLD Tangent incentive -sharing program has helped curtail
the load during the peak. Ms. Parenteau explained that in the first year, the RMLD had twelve to fourteen
customers that participated, and they shed a megawatt of reduction. RMLD shared fifty percent of that savings
with the customer. It was very successful. The second year, it was a very hot summer, and the RMLD called peak
periods six to eight times. The peak occurred on August 12 at 3 p.m. RMLD is speaking with those customers to
determine where the problem was, because it went from a megawatt of success in year one, to dropping to 250
kW in year two. This was in spite of the price advantage increasing significantly, because as of June 1, the capacity
costs are going up $15 per kW which Ms. O'Brien has been addressing over the past two to three years. Ms.
Parenteau explained that the cost is going from $7 to $15 per kW, it would have been considerable savings to the
customer. At the Lunch 'N Learn RMLD had customers that are enthusiastic and eager to do this, but have a myriad
of things they are responsible for. When they receive the e-mail, depending on the day and what is required of
them from upper management, they may or may not be able to participate. It is lessons learned. Sometimes it is
not feasible for them to partake, it is not a high priority. Chairman O'Rourke asked that since we repeatedly inform
customers it may be a peak day and then it isn't, is that similar to crying wolf. Ms. Parenteau responded that it is
the nature of the peak period. Chairman O'Rourke pointed out that we can educate our customers that it may not
be a single day and there could possibly be four or five times during the summer that the RMLD will ask for
customers' diligence in relation to peak reduction.
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien
Ms. O'Brien began by thanking the Board for authorizing her travel to the APPA legislative rally in Washington DC;
it was an enlightening trip. Ms. O'Brien had the opportunity to meet with congressmen and senators and stated
that there were three main topics that were addressed. The discussions centered around: Concerns over keeping
municipal bonds from being taxed, forward capacity, and legislation in Massachusetts going to 100 percent
renewables. The latter could significantly impact non -carbon emitting plants. DEP works with FERC and NERC and
the municipals want to make sure that policymakers understand what is happening. The ISO that runs the system
in this area is down in Washington giving presentations weekly, and a lot of rules and changes are made without
thinking about municipals and the impact on their rate payers. Going forward, capacity is going to be significant,
and policy makers need to consider that municipals are vertically integrated, have long-term power supply
contracts, and are not like investor-owned utilities.
The Congressman or their staff person would listen and take notes, and Ms. O'Brien explained she will be following
up with a letter. Going forward, letters will be helpful since municipals are the small guy, and things get changed
without thinking about them. From that perspective, it was a successful trip.
Chairman O'Rourke remarked to be one group of stakeholders among so many others lobbying for their causes
makes it all the more important to be visible.
Ms. O'Brien agreed that it was a revolving door of constituents expressing their concerns. She will be writing a
follow up letter with Ms. Parenteau's help, and will make sure that the Board receives a copy.
Page 1 6
General Manager's Report — Ms. O'Brien
Ms. O'Brien announced that the Art Contest Calendars are being designed and ordered, and will be distributed
soon.
Joyce Mulvaney, the new Communications Manager, will be meeting with the Reading Elder Services Walking Club
at RMLD on Friday, March 31, to discuss available rebate programs, Shred the Peak, and to answer billing
questions.
RMLD will be attending the Town of Reading Earth Day event at Parker Middle School on April 22. RMLD will have a
LED light display and giveaways for the children.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she will be finishing up her presentations to the towns and meeting with the North
Reading Board of Selectmen on April 18, and then will start the process again towards the end of the year. RMLD
has let the towns know, so they can segue way it into their budgets, that RMLD is tentatively looking at a three to
five percent rate increase. The capacity auction has closed, and we were expecting it to be a bit lower, and not
sure yet what that will mean. Mr. Seavey is performing the Cost of Service Study and running numbers, there is a
lot of data coming in. Within a few weeks, we should have a better idea. Chairman O'Rourke asked when the
increase would be occurring. Ms. O'Brien replied that the increase goes into effect on July 1. For the last three
years, RMLD has been telling the towns that the capacity and transmission increases are coming; it is outside of
our control.
Chairman O'Rourke said that RMLD's rates are certainly competitive but wondered about utilizing marketing to
explain why the rate increase is happening.
Ms. O'Brien announced that RMLD is going to be asking ENE to take part in their rate comparison. It's something
that needs to be paid for, but it provides proprietary information. We are just waiting until after the data from the
capacity auction has been analyzed by other municipals so that we can get a snapshot of what everyone is putting
out on July 1.
Ms. O'Brien stated that RMLD looks at the rates every month, every quarter, and every year. Before Ms. O'Brien
began at RMLD, the rates hadn't been adjusted in a long time. Ms. O'Brien said that she thinks that they have
gotten all the towns and Selectmen used to the fact that we're doing our due diligence, looking at it constantly,
and have the science and data to back it up. 80 percent of the power supply is a pass-through, and Ms. Markiewicz
can attest that the rest are fixed costs.
Ms. O'Brien said that RMLD is having problems with the phone system and customers can use a new number 781-
942-6598.
Mr. Talbot sought clarification that the 1340 number is a number that RMLD has had for decades and it's now no
longer going to work? Ms. Parenteau replied that it has been problematic.
Ms. Markiewicz explained that the problem is on the vendor level; we're being told that it is a dead line. Ms.
Markiewicz stated that she will have Mark Uvanni, the IT Manager, contact Mr. Talbot to explain the situation.
Ms. O'Brien said that we are still trying to resolve the matter. Please call the new number for now
Power Supply Report — January 2017 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1)
Ms. Parenteau began her presentation by identifying the purchase power allocation of power supply costs for the
month of January 2017. This was comprised of 54 percent fuel, around 27 percent capacity, and a little less than 19
percent transmission. This marked a slight decrease in capacity, which is usually around 30 percent. In terms of
January costs, because of the price of natural gas and the Department's laddering and layering approach, our
energy costs have been going down over the last three years. Transmission has been going up. Capacity has been
level even though the capacity market is increasing, because the debt service on some of our supply contracts are
nearly paid off.
Ms. Parenteau stated that she received an e-mail from Mr. Stempeck regarding transmission costs. In 2015, the
RMLD paid a little over $721,000 in transmission. In 2016 that went up to $873,000.
Page 1 7
Power Supply Report —January 2017 — Ms. Parenteau (Attachment 1)
This past year, RMLD paid over $1 million in transmission charges. Transmission is socialized throughout New
England.
RMLD and other area municipals have been litigating with FERC since 2011, since transmission owners receive a
return on an equity payment of around 11.5 percent. Through our litigation with FERC we've decreased that to
10.57 percent. It is still being appealed because we think that amount is unjust and unreasonable. Transmission
costs are based on two factors: the rate for the R & S, which represents about 90 percent of our transmission cost,
and the monthly peak.
Ms. Parenteau then reported on RMLD's capacity requirement versus the vetted cost of capacity. The kilowatt
requirement for capacity is based on the summer peak. In 2015, that value was a little over 209 megawatts, in
2016 it went up to 224 megawatts, and in 2017 it was 232 megawatts. That requirement is going up slightly and it's
based on New England's overall peak. We have to get our capacity requirement plus a reserve margin, right now
that reserve margin is about 49 percent and then we're required to cover that capacity through that whole year
period. The cost of that capacity has been pretty flat. In 2015 and 2016, it was a little under $7.40. The decrease in
2017 was a result of the market price increasing, an elimination of our working capital on our MWork and
Stonybrook projects, and our Millstone and Seabrook debt service being reduced, subject to being paid off in 2018.
Ms. Parenteau then addressed the imbedded fuel and capacity costs. The capacity costs dropped in 2017. Fuel
costs have gone from a little under five and a half cents to five cents, and that's a complete pass through to
RMLD's customers. In his e-mail, Mr. Stempeck also commented on how RMLD's rates are competitive, and the
rates are significantly lower than those offered by investor-owned utilities, and wondered if we should publicize
that to our commercial customers. Ms. Parenteau stated that historically, RMLD had a separate newsletter that
was geared towards commercial customers, which focused on programs, rebates, Shred the Peak directly to those
individuals. Now that Joyce Mulvaney is the new Communications Manager, we are looking to start up that
publication again. Additionally, when the three Integrated Resources engineers visit with high use commercial
customers they make a point to emphasize RMLD's low rates.
Financial Report —January 2017 — Ms. Markiewicz (Attachment 2)
Ms. Markiewicz announced, that she will be presenting automated financials to the Board. It still needs some
tweaking. Ms. Markiewicz then discussed Accounts Receivable trends over the last three years. There are dips and
peaks that correspond with moratorium, the end of moratorium, and our credit and collections. There was some
inconsistency after the first seven months of 2016 as procedures and processes were being reviewed. However, we
came back strong in the beginning of FY 2017.
Chairman O'Rourke asked what the key takeaway of this is. Ms. Markiewicz replied that, for the most part, RMLD
has anywhere between 85 and 90 percent current receivables.
Ms. Markiewicz then addressed the capital funds. The year to date as of January 31, for the total use of capital
funds was $3.6 million and a source of $8.4 million, which leaves a total of $4.8 million. RMLD is right on target
with the capital budget.
For the month of January, RMLD's net income (positive change in net assets) was about $630,000, thereby
increasing the year-to-date net income to about $3.8 million. Base revenues have exceeded FY 2016 by about $1.5
million, or 11 percent. Whereas year to date operating expenses exceeded FY 2016 by $1.3 million or 12 percent.
Actual base revenues were approximately $15.6 million and actual operating costs were about $12.2 million.
Chairman O'Rourke then asked for clarification that our operating revenues are nine percent more than last year.
Ms. Markiewicz answered yes, but that is just looking at base revenue, because that's where we make our money.
It doesn't include purchase power, capacity, and transmission though, because there is a pass through there.
Chairman O'Rourke clarified that we're up 11 percent from last year. Ms. Markiewicz replied yes, but we're also up
12 percent in expenses.
Chairman O'Rourke asked where we are in regards to the budget. Ms. Markiewicz stated there is 38 percent left in
the budget so we're about 2 percent down from 41.6 percent, which is where we should be.
Page 1 8
Financial Report —January 2017 — Ms. Markiewicz (Attachment 2)
Chairman O'Rourke asked if that is evenly spread; is the same amount budgeted each month after dividing by
twelve?
Ms. Markiewicz explained that what was discussed as a team was that, because forecasting revenue month-to-
month is difficult and we don't necessarily know what month some operating projects are going to be in, the total
budget is examined. We are currently 7/12 through the budget. This means no comparison between the year-to-
date actual to the year-to-date budget because it wouldn't be accurate.
Chairman O'Rourke asked if a quarterly view would give a better picture. Ms. Markiewicz answered that it would
depend on when projects are scheduled; sometimes, depending on the weather, project completion dates change.
We're two percent down on revenue, but overall budget because 41.6 percent is the target number and overall
that's where we are at.
Ms. Markiewicz continued, stating that the year-to-date Purchase Power Capacity and Transmission (PPCT)
revenue exceeded PPCT expenses by $839,000. Fuel revenue was below fuel expense (disregard chart -shows
opposite because the NYPA credit was not taken into account) by $463,000. Net effect of that -Ms. Parenteau's
group is on target with balancing that out. Operating and maintenance expenses: comparison year to year and
comparison to budget as well. Combined, under budget by about $250,000 or two percent. Actual operating and
maintenance expenses were $12.2 million; budgeted expenses were $12.5 million. RMLD is on target with 41.6
percent of the budget remaining. There is a DPU report due on March 31. It is not fully prepared yet and Ms. Foti
or Ms. Schultz will need to coordinate with the Commissioners to have them come in to sign the document before
March 31.
Engineering and Operations Report —January 2017 — Ms. O'Brien (Attachment 3)
Ms. O'Brien began with the Capital Improvement Projects -Mr. Jaffari is on target and is making progress. The LED
streetlight conversion is 63.5 percent completed. This is something that the towns were interested in and have
conveyed progress status to them. Mr. Jaffari is doing a great job moving everything ahead. We recently had some
storms, but RMLD had minimal damage and minimal outages. Some towns didn't fare as well. Routine
maintenance is moving ahead, a lot of work is getting completed. We're finishing up failure analysis on all the
equipment that was not maintained. We are getting to the point where we can start to spread out the
maintenance better and start to get onto a cyclic plan. GIS is really going to help; it is going to provide new
mapping that will tell exactly how old equipment is. It is scheduled to be implemented this September. In terms of
double poles, we have a lot of pole butts we need to take out -we don't do during winter because poles break off.
Will start back up in the spring when the ground has thawed. The pole inspection program is surfacing a lot of
poles that were deemed failed. That's why pole numbers have gone up. Verizon isn't moving them as quickly as we
would like, we will try to meet with them next week.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she has been working with CAB Chair, George Hooper on Wilmington double poles.
Wilmington Fiber and Wilmington Fire are both now listed on the NJUNS report. Ms. O'Brien has provided Mr.
Hooper some numbers regarding the cost of removal; not necessarily to have RMLD do it, but what they can do to
move things along. The Town of Wilmington's Fire Department line has now gone wireless, there's a lot of wire
that's up there. The RMLD can't really remove that for them. We have to work out something with the town.
Ms. O'Brien then addressed reliability indices. Year to date, RMLD is way below regional and national averages.
Outage causes were typical, fuses and wildlife. We're seeing some improvements with the new tree trimming
program.
Mr. Kelley asked if the phrase 'substation maintenance' was referring to the Wilmington substation, noting that
the parking lot of that location has been packed with trucks for the last few weeks. Ms. O'Brien explained that
Substation 4 feeds Substation 5. In this year's Capital Project, we're going to be redoing the lines between them.
We have worked on catching up with a lot of lost maintenance on Substation 5 because we need that to stay
working and reliable until we find land and build another substation in Wilmington. We want Station 5 to be solid
for at least five years. The worst case -scenario is that we can't find land -in that case we would have to go back to
Station 5 to build another substation right up against the existing one. This is not the optimal choice.
Ms. O'Brien stated that she met with the bonding agency that the town uses in order that they could explain
exactly what needs to be done and the bonding process. It was a very educational meeting that Ms. Markiewicz
had set up.
Page 19
Engineering and Operations Report —January 2017 — Ms. O'Brien (Attachment 3)
Mr. Kelley reiterated that there were lots of trucks in the parking lot, it is amazing so many people fit in there. Ms.
O'Brien replied that RMLD has redone almost every component of the station.
RMLD Procurement Requests Requiring Board Approval — Ms. O'Brien (Attachment 4)
IFP 2017-35 Distributed Generation Worksite
Ms. O'Brien stated that there is only one bid to approve. 51 companies were sent the bid. Seven replies were
received.
Mr. Pacino made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hennessy, that proposal 2017-35 for Distributed Generation Worksite
be awarded to Tim Zanelli Excavating for $214,969.00 pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30 § 39M on the recommendation of
the General Manager.
Motion Carried 4:0:0.
General Discussion
Chairman O'Rourke stated he has one item for general discussion. With the budget meetings coming up in May, if
there is anything of importance that Ms. O'Brien wants Board input on prior to the actual budget presentations,
just let them know.
Ms. O'Brien then expressed her concern that Mr. Seavey will be coming back to do a presentation on the Cost of
Service and some rate designs. Mr. Seavey presents the Cost of Service with the budget, with the rate changes
effective July 1. The rates have to be filed earlier. Logistically, we could move forward with that and if we're going
to have a new rate structure, we're probably not going to be able to get that in for July 1. We can have Mr. Seavey
come back make his presentation, then discussion and make the decision afterwards. Ms. O'Brien asked Ms.
Parenteau for her input.
Ms. Parenteau replied that she thinks the plan was to get some input from the Board and the CAB in terms of if
there were any rate structures they want to be included or changed, and target for a July 1 implementation.
Because of the budget, if we know the dollar amount that we need to recover, we have the flexibility of approving
that in May or June. If the CAB and the Board are willing to work with RMLD in terms of changing the rate
structure, we would still try to aim for July 1.
Ms. O'Brien stated that we are talking about significant changes, and we need to keep that in mind. We would
need to meet, decide, and roll it into the budget for July 1. We're talking about demand changes on rates; that
doesn't give a lot of time to talk to customers.
Chairman O'Rourke asked if the April Board meeting was sufficient time to have a presentation, to which Ms.
Parenteau answered, yes.
Chairman O'Rourke said there are two possible outcomes after hearing the presentation. The reaction could be
this is great, it makes sense, and then a consensus is quickly reached. Or, it's not ready to be implemented, we
want to do it right. If more discussion and analysis is needed, could it be implemented later?
Ms. Parenteau explained rates need a three-month window, so new rates couldn't be filed until October. If we're
going to change how we bill the PPCT that is different than the base rate revenue that we collect for operational
expenses. Depending on what the impact of the rate studies are, it could occur.
Chairman O'Rourke stated that the most important thing is to get it on the agenda, hear it, and decide.
RMLD Board Meetings
The next Board Meeting will be Thursday, April 20. Mr. Pacino remarked that the first order of business will be
reorganization of Board. Wednesday, May 10 and Thursday, May 11 will be the budget meetings. Operating and
Capital will be approved together.
There are CAB meetings on April 5 at the new Wilmington High School and April 12 at the RMLD. Ms. Schultz will
send out an e-mail.
Mr. Pacino commented that he had heard on NPR that the marijuana growing industry in Colorado has increased
electrical usage.
Page 1 10
Executive Session
At 9:19 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion, seconded by Mr. Hennessy, that the Board go into Executive Session to
discuss the deployment of security personnel or devices, to consider the purchase of real property and discuss
strategy with respect to collective bargaining, Chapter 164 Section 47D exemption for competitively sensitive or
other proprietary information provided in the course of proceedings conducted pursuant to this chapter when
such municipal lighting plant board determines that such disclosure will adversely affect its ability to conduct
business in relation to other entities making, selling, or distributing electric power and energy pursuant to this
chapter 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; and Mr. Hennessy: Aye.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
Adjournment
At 9:53 p.m. Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Talbot to adjourn the Regular Session.
Motion carried 4:0:0.
A true copy of the RMLD Board of Commissioners minutes
as approved by a majority of the Commission.
David Hennessy, Secretary Pro Tem
RMLD Board of Commissioners
Page 1 11
5`
�
N
1
N
N
N
�
L
in
Q
i
O
C
C
�
�
O
•E
O
N
0
O
O
0
L
O
coJ
4
V
C
�
O
�
aJ
i
O
C
5`
Ln
N
O
�1
M
3
0
CL
L
E °O
c 00
ate
Ln
c
an
L-
Q)
C
W
■
0
N
C
viC
f6
H
■
■
ae
v
ri
ae
Ln
0
co N
r
r
M
N
V 1
O
r
• `rte
T,
f�
Ln
V
aR
M °
0
0
Ln N
Oo
Q
co
N
n�
W
Oae
O M
N Q
Q
� .o
t,
o
N
N N
V
�'
D
ae
.�
M
"D
N
c
an
L-
Q)
C
W
■
0
N
C
viC
f6
H
■
■
�1
0
N
Ln
Cl
N
O
O
• r-
V
N cr�
I M
O N
N
N
�
�
t0
L
C:
0
N
Ln
Cl
N
umm
aad ;sod pappagwl
0
C
g CD No C)
v
ci
� t^ t
�
Ln
M
.o
M
O
N
N
M
N
.O
VT
W
.O
�
O
N
N
N
V !
N
Ln
M
N
a-
O
OC
8
o
N 1
N
C
N
C C C�
N O — 10
o
E
3
�•i�
cr
a,
4J
a
O
&A
N
u°
. r.
u >1
1
1
(MM) juawajinbab Al!:)ede:)
C
u
0 6 0 0 0 0
4k^ vll
Co L o L o Ln o Lno
oo r,: � e .o U' ori 4 v
0
N
s
N
Ln
0
N
To: Coleen O'Brien
From: --Maureen McHugh, Jane Parenteau ti
Date: March 9, 2017
Subject: Purchase Power Summary — January, 2017
Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the
month of January, 2017.
ENERGY
The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 57,580,442 kWh, which is a 2.59%
decrease from the January, 2016 figures.
Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases.
Table 1
Monthly Totai 58,270 115 $49.97 100004/0 $2,911,543 10000%
'Pepperell, Woronoco,lndian River, Turner Fa/14Col/in4 Pioneer,Host" Mills, Summit Hydro
Amount of
Cost of
% of Totai
Total $
$ as a
Resource
Energy
Energy
Energy
Costs
(kWh)
($/Mwh)
Millstone #3
3,703,589
$6.72
6.36%
$24,894
0.86%
Seabrook
5,908,402
$6.32
10.14%
$37,341
128%
Stonybrook Intermediate
0
$0.00
0.00410
50
0.00%
Shell Energy
8,772,600
$59.53
15.06%
$522,247
17.94%
EDF
4,675,200
$57.16
8.02%
$267,225
9.18%
NYPA
2,353,452
$4.92
4.04%
$11,579
0.40%
SO interchange
9,774,137
$5288
16.77%
$516,871
17.75%
NEMA Congestion
0
S000
0.000,10
-$192,620
-6.62%
Coop Resales
6,888
$165.09
0.01%
$1,137
0.04%
BP Energy
9,460,200
$46.78
16.24%
$442,548
1520%
Hydro Projects-
4,617,134
$83.77
7.92%
$386,766
13,28%
Braintree Watson 'Jnt
622,800
$113.86
1.070/9
$70,913
244%
Saddleback/,Jenctlo Mind
2,424,030
$100.19
4.16%
$242.856
834%
One B-rtington Soar
122.231
$70.00
0.21%
$8.556
0.290/a
Exeton
5,791,200
$97.04
9.94%
$561.971
1930%
StonybrOCK Peaking
38.252
$242.04
007%
$9.258
032%
Monthly Totai 58,270 115 $49.97 100004/0 $2,911,543 10000%
'Pepperell, Woronoco,lndian River, Turner Fa/14Col/in4 Pioneer,Host" Mills, Summit Hydro
Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA L v1P Settlement and the RT
Net Energy for the month of January, 2017.
Table 2
Amount Cost % of Total
Resource of Energy of Energy Energy
(kWh) ($/MWh)
ISO DA LIVI ' 17,101,952 $44.47 29.35%
Settlement
RT Net Energy '" (7,327,815) $33.13 -12.58%
Settlement
ISO Interchange 9,774,137 $52.88 16.77%
( subtotal)
Independent System Operator Day -Ahead Locational Marginal Price
Real Time Net Energy
JANUARY 2017 ENERGY BY RESOURCE
ter cho W nd, 1.40%
• Stonyorook
Peak ng, 0.07%
• One B:x ngton
Solar. 0.219
• Exelon, 9.
• Sad01e03CK,
2 77%
•
BE -D, 107%
■ hydro Protect
7.94Y,
• BP Energy 16 27!-,
• MA stone a3, 6.37%
• SOlntercninge
8 77"-.
• StonyorooK
Intermea ate,
0.00'',
NyPA, 4 05''.
CAPACITY
The RMLD hit a demand of 105,335 M, which occurred on January 9, at 7 pm. The
RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for January, 2017 was 232,352 Ms.
Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirements.
Table 3
Source
Amount (kWs)
Cost ($&W month)
Total Cost $
% of Total Cost
Milstone #3
4,950
28.03
$138,728
9.44%
Seabrook
7,909
22.69
$179,450
12.22%
Stonybrook Peaking
24,981
1.74
$43,508
2.96%
Stonybrook CC
42,925
3.33
$142,825
9.72%
NYPA
0
0.00
$7,252
0.49%
Hydro Quebec
0
0
$1,790
0.12%
Nextera
60,000
6.15
$369,000
25.12%
Braintree Watson Unit
0
0.00
$81,700
5.56%
ISO -NE Supply Auction
91,587
5.51
$504,623
34.35%
Total
232,352
$6.36
$1,468,876
100.00%
Table 4 shows the dollar amounts for energy and capacity per source.
Table 4
Cost of
% of
Amt of Energy
Power
Resource
Energy
Capacity
Total cost
Total Cost
(kWh)
($,'kWh)
Millstone#3
$24,894
$138,728
$163,622
3.73%
3,703.589
00442
Seaorook
$37,341
$179,450
$216.791
494%
5.908,402
0.0367
Stonytxook Intermediate
$0
$142,825
$142,825
3.25%
-
0.0000
Hydro Quebec
$0
$1,790
$1,790
0.04%
-
00000
EDF
$267,225
$0
$267,225
609%
4,675.200
0.0572
Snell Energy
$522,247
$0
$522,247
1190%
8,772.600
0.0595
NextEra
$0
$369.000
$369,000
841%
0,0000
# NYPA
$11,579
$7,252
$18,831
0.43%
2.353.452
00080
ISOlntercnange
$516,871
$504,623
$1,021,494
23.28%
9,774,137
01045
Nema Congest on
-$192,620
$0
-$192,620
-4.39%
-
00000
BP Energy
$442,548
$0
$442.548
1008%
9.460,200
00468
* Hydro Projects
$386,766
$8,324
$395,090
900%
4.617,134
00856
Braintree Watson in t
$70.913
$81,700
$152.613
348%
622,800
02450
Sadd:ebacRrJercho
$242856
$0
$242,856
553%
2.424,030
0 1002
* One B.A ngton Soar
$8 556
$0
$8.556
019%
122.231
00700
Coop Resa:es
$1,137
$0
$1,137
003%
6.888
0 1651
Execin Energy
$561,971
$0
$561,971
1280%
5,791,2C0
00970
Stonyorook Peak ng
$9,258
$43,508
$52,767
1 20%
38,252
1 3794
Month y Tota
$2,911.543
$1.477,200
$4,388.743
100 00%
58.270.115
00753
` Renewable Resources
16.33%
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs)
Table 5 shows the amount of banked and projected RECs for the Swift River Hydro
Projects through January 2017, as well as their estimated market value.
TRANSMISSION
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of January, 2017 were S 1,019,500.
This is an increase of 18.05% from the December transmission cost of S863,599. In
January, 2016 the transmission costs were $873,184.
Table 6
C.rrent Montn
Table 5
Last Year
Peak Demand (kOl)
105.335
107,565
RECs Surrinsry
Energy tkVbh)
58,270.115
58,589,656
Period - January 2016
- January 2017
$2.911,543
Banked
Projected
Total
Est.
$1.795,516
RECs
RECs
RECs
Dollars
woronoco
0
10.715
10,715
$198.228
Pepperell
0
6.895
6,895
$127,558
Indian River
0
2.103
2,103
$38.906
Turners Falls
0
1.135
1,135
$20,998
Saddleback
0
12,148
12,148
$224,738
Jericho
0
6,894
6,894
$127,539
-----
Sub total
----
-----------------------
0
39,890
—
39,890
---
737,965
RECs Sold
so
0
$0
Grand Total
0
39,890 _ _
39,890
! $737,965
TRANSMISSION
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of January, 2017 were S 1,019,500.
This is an increase of 18.05% from the December transmission cost of S863,599. In
January, 2016 the transmission costs were $873,184.
Table 6
C.rrent Montn
Last tilontn
Last Year
Peak Demand (kOl)
105.335
107,565
105.260
Energy tkVbh)
58,270.115
58,589,656
59,610,620
Energy ($r
$2.911,543
$2986.249
$3.163.762
Capacity ($)
$1.477,200
$1.795,516
$1 642,335
Transm,ssiont$)
$1,010.500
S863599
$873 184
Total
$5,408,243
$5,645.364
$5,679.280
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
Municipal Light Department
Statement of Net Assets
1/31/2017
2017 2016
ASSETS
Current
Unrestricted Cash
$15,850,224.24
$10,898,477.11
Restricted Cash
22,605,998.32
21,091,052.83
Restricted Investments
1,345,663.06
1,284,061.45
Receivables, Net
8,285,113.20
8,362,181.76
Prepaid Expenses
1,937,910.40
2,641,259.88
Inventory
1,568,809.91
1,729,535.24
Total Current Assets
51,593,719.13
46,006,568.27
Noncurrent:
Investment in Associated Companies
26,993.75
26,993.75
Capital Assets, Net
73,414,409.00
70,413,182.84
Total Noncurrent Assets
73,441,402.75
70,440,176.59
Deferred Outflows - Pension Plan
6,338,218.00
1,547,815.00
TOTAL ASSETS
131,373,339.88
117,994,559.86
LIABILITIES
Current
Accounts Payable
6,939,310.44
7,684,893.28
Accrued Liabilities
710,032.79
(1,122,646.20)
Customer Deposits
986,734.14
905,204.18
Customer Advances for Construction
1,110,355.53
967,879.15
Total Current Liabilities
9,746,432.90
8,435,330.41
Non-current
Accrued Employee Compensated Absences
3,257,809.00
3,070,487.93
Net Pension Liability
8,833,549.00
4,524,191.00
Total Non-current Liabilities
12,091,358.00
7,594,678.93
Deferred Inflows - Pension Plan
883,172.00
0.00
TOTAL LIABILITIES
22,720,962.90
16,030,009.34
NET POSITION
Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt 73,414,409.00 70,413,182.84
Restricted for Depreciation Fund 4,863,316.41 6,350,404.06
Unrestricted 30,374,651.57 25,200,963.62
TOTAL NET POSITION 108,652,376.98 101,964,550.52
Total Liabilities and Net Assets 131,373,339.88 117,994,559.86
Attachment 2
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
RECONCILIATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS
1/31/17
SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
DEPRECIATION FUND BALANCE 7/1/16 4,494,952.86
CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE 711/16 1,500,000.00
INTEREST ON DEPRECIATION FUND FY 17 17,860.04
DEPRECIATION TRANSFER FY 17 2,392,429.69
LED GRANT PROGRAM 62,500.00
TOTAL SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 8,467,742.59
USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
LESS PAID ADDITIONS TO PLANT THRU JANUARY
TOTAL USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 3,604,426.18
GENERAL LEDGER CAPITAL FUNDS BALANCE 1/31/17 4,863,316.41
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
Municipal Light Department
Business Type Proprietary Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses
and Changes in Fund Net Assets
1/31/2017
Month
Month
Year to Date
Year to Date
Percent
Current Year
Last Year
Current Year
Last Year
Chan e
Operating Revenues: (Sch D p. 11)
Base Revenue
$2,082,018.94
$1,864,067.44
$15,604,822.26
$14,099,007.90
10.7%
Fuel Revenue
3,149,834.16
2,656,333.87
20,279,370.80
20,282,310.51
(0.0%)
Purchased Power Capacity
2,904,975.54
2,075,758.47
20,735,924.07
17,498,194.81
18.5%
Forfeited Discounts
76,354.02
68,040.93
533,226.80
473,822.61
12.5%
Energy Conservation Revenue
55,706.82
47,810.39
406,649.34
399,434.44
1.8%
NYPA Credit
(121,364.18)
(108,747.38)
(655,911.36)
(629,549.39)
4.2%
Total Operating Revenues
8,147,525.30
6,603,263.72
56,904,081.91
52,123,220.88
9.2%
Operating Expenses: (Sch E p. 12)
Purchased Power Capacity
1,513,015.67
1,691,412.49
11,785,879.65
11,083,628.14
6.3%
Purchased Power Transmission
1,019,499.88
873,183.82
8,110,789.47
7,686,115.05
5.5%
Purchased Power Fuel
2,911,543.18
3,163,761.69
20,087,288.22
21,019,051.42
(4.4%)
Operating
1,267,600.09
778,110.02
6,851,293.93
6,053,646.95
13.2%
Maintenance
360,664.60
235,485.37
2,166,974.04
1,732,112.83
25.1%
Depreciation
341,775.67
328,732.65
2,392,429.69
2,301,128.55
4.0%
Voluntary Payments to Towns
118,000.00
118,000.00
821,372.00
814,973.00
0.8%
Total Operating Expenses
7,532,099.09
7,188,686.04
52,216,027.00
50,690,655.94
3.07/.—
.0%Operating
OperatingIncome
615,426.21
(585,422.32)
4,688,054.91
1,432,564.94
227.2%
Non Operating Revenues (Expenses)
Contribution in Aid of Construction
Return on Investment to Reading
(198,722.33)
(197,537.08)
(1,391,056.33)
(1,382,759.58)
0.6%
Interest Income
11,645.97
10,131.95
85,118.76
79,246.33
7.4%
Interest Expense
(182.39)
(1,156.02)
(3,108.30)
(2,243.03)
38.6%
Other
202,725.97
205,484.04
458,880.70
392,658.63
16.9%
Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses)
15,467.22
16,922.89
(850,165.17)
(913,097.65)
(6.9%)
Change in Net Assets
630,893.43
(568,499.43)
3,837,889.74
519,467.29
638.8%
Net Assets at Beginning of Year
104,814,487.24
101,445,083.23
104,814,487.24
101,445,083.23
3.3%
Ending Net Assets
105,445,380.67
100,876 583.80
108 652 376.98
101,964,550.52
6 6%
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
Municipal Light Department
Business Type Proprietary Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Assets
1/31/2017
New project started this fiscal year
Month
Month
Year to Date
Year to Date
Percent
Current Year
Last Year
Current Year
Last Year
Change
Operating Revenues
Base Revenue
$2,082,018.94
$1,864,067.44
$15,604,822.26
$14,099,007.90
10.7%
Fuel Revenue
3,149,834.16
2,656,333.87
20,279,370.80
20,282,310.51
(0.0%)
Purchased Power Capacity
2,904,975.54
2,075,758.47
20,735,924.07
17,498,194.81
18.5%
Forfeited Discounts
76,354.02
68,040.93
533,226.60
473,822.61
12.5%
Energy Conservation Revenue
55,706.82
47,810.39
406,649.34
399,434.44
1.8%
NYPA Credit
(121,364.18)
(108,747.38)
(655,911.36)
(629,549.39)
4.2%
Total Operating Revenues
8,147,525.30
6,603,263.72
56,904,081.91
52,123,220.88
9.2%
Expenses
PowerExpenes:
Purchased Power Capacity
1,513,015.67
1,691,412.49
11,785,879.65
11,083,628.14
6.3%
Purchased Power Transamission
1,019,499.88
873,183.82
8,110,789.47
7,686,115.05
5.5%
Total Purchased Power
2,532,515.55
2,564,596.31
19,896,669.12
18,769,743.19
6.0%
Operations Expenses:
Operation Supervision and Engineering
4,015.60
44,754.63
232,633.51
317,019.40
(26.6%)
Station Supervison Labor and Misc Expense
13,099.46
13,167.24
81,764.82
88,712.54
(7.8%)
Line Miscellaneous Labor and Expense
66,244.90
29,845.60
376,950.96
411,409.43
(8.4%)
Station Labor and Expense
32,181.22
30,836.07
283,064.57
232,823.80
21.6%
Street Lighting Expense
8,323.09
13,381.99
70,691.69
70,515.07
0.3%
Meter Expense
21,408.05
19,008.17
123,314.04
130,138.17
(5.2%)
Miscellaneous Distribution Expense
43,161.34
38,932.31
256,925.41
258,409.61
(0.6%)
Meter Reading Labor and Expense
3,026.87
1,924.89
16,062.35
16,444.63
(2.3%)
Accounting and Collection Labor and Expense
84,708.69
122,199.73
946,694.65
963,408.88
(1.7%)
Uncollectible Accounts
12,500.00
10,000.00
87,500.00
70,000.00
25.0%
Energy Audit Expense
46,224.35
55,715.28
289,026.29
330,721.86
(12.6%)
Administrative and General Salaries
76,169.73
69,962.35
553,552.59
514,887.61
7.5%
Office Supplies and Expense
7,700.59
30,608.74
158,803.42
188,549.60
(15.8%)
Outside Services
(41,380.76)
10,530.85
296,093.84
191,653.85
54.5%
Property Insurance
7,184.86
30,594.30
173,471.16
218,048.71
(20.4%)
Injuries and Damages
9,233.24
3,627.56
35,995.54
28,173.88
27.8%
Employee Pensions and Benefits
762,737.55
193,472.01
2,283,236.68
1,593,232.94
43.3%
Miscellaneous General Expense
11,742.36
10,263.60
85,161.52
88,964.21
(4.3%)
Rent Expense
16,398.29
14,385.08
100,569.81
100,135.81
0.4%
Energy Conservation
82,920.66
34,899.62
399,781.08
240,396.95
66.3%
Total Operations Expenses
1,267,600.09
778,110.02
6,851,293.93
6,053,646.95
13.2%
Maintenance Expenses:
Transmission Plant
(6,268.92)
227.08
3,213.58
1,589.58
102.2%
Structures and Equipment
36,771.69
41,190.66
273,861.81
217,441.42
25.9%
Lines -Overhead
231,710.44
125,439.45
1,130,871.43
969,092.22
16.7%
Lines- Underground
35,755.43
4,704.68
189,480.78
68,899.79
175.0%
Line Transformers
1,725.00
7,752.67
20,112.89
87,669.33
(77.1%)
Street Lights and Signal Systems
(10.87)
(44.05)
70,089.24
(368.90)
Garage and Stockroom
47,655.24
44,240.70
297,081.86
313,151.87
(5.1%)
Meters
General Plant
13,326.59
11,974.18
182,262.45
74,637.52
144.2%
Total Maintenance Expenses
360,664.60
235,485.37
2,166,974.04
1,732,112.83
25.1%
Other Operating Expenses:
Depreciation
341,775.67
328,732.65
2,392,429.69
2,301,128.55
4.0%
Purchased Power Fuel Expense
2,911,543.18
3,163,761.69
20,087,288.22
21,019,051.42
(4.4%)
Voluntary Payments to Towns
118,000.00
118,000.00
821,372.00
814,973.00
0.8%
Total Other Expenses
3,371,318.85
3,610,494.34
23,301,089.91
24,135,152.97
(3.5%)
Operating Income
615,426.21
(585,422.32)
4,688,054.91
1,432,564.94
227.2%
Non Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Contribution in Aid of Construction
Return on Investment to Reading
(198,722.33)
(197,537.08)
(1,391,056.33)
(1,382,759.58)
0.6%
Interest Income
11,645.97
10,131.95
85,118.76
79,246.33
7.4%
Interest Expense
(182.39)
(1,156.02)
(3,108.30)
(2,243.03)
38.6%
Other
202,725.97
205,484.04
458,880.70
392,658.63
16.9%
Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses)
15,467.22
16,922.89
(850,165.17)
(913,097.65)
(6.9%)
Change in Net Assets
630,893.43
(568,499.43)
3,837,889.74
519,467.29
638.8%
Net Assets at Beginning of Year
104,814,487.24
101,445,083.23
104,814,487.24
101,445,083.23
3.3%
Ending Net Assets
105,445,380.67
100,876,583.80
108,652,376.98
101,964,550.52
6.6%
New project started this fiscal year
Town of Reading, Massachusetts
Municipal Light Department
Business Type Proprietary
Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and
Changes in Fund Net Assets
1/31/2017
Actual
Budget
Remaining
Remaining
Operating Revenues
Year to Date
Full Year
Budget
Budget
Base Revenue
$15,604,822.26
$25,500,000.00
$9,895,177.74
38.6%
Fuel Revenue
20,279,370.80
34,074,492.00
13,795,121.20
40.5%
Purchased Power Capacity
20,735,924.07
34,322,278.00
13,586,353.93
39.6%
Forfeited Discounts
533,226.80
688,500.00
155,273.20
22.6%
Energy Conservation Revenue
406,649.34
673,000.00
266,350.66
39.6%
NYPA Credit
(655,911.36)
J900,000-00).
(244.088.64)
27.1%
Total Operating Revenues
56,904,081.91
94,358,270.00
37,454,188.09
39.7%
Expenses
Power Expenes:
Purchased Power Capacity
11,785,879.65
20,943,651.00
9,157,771.35
43.7%
Purchased Power Transamission
8,110,789.47
13,378,627.00
5,267,837.53
39.4%
Total Purchased Power
19,896,669.12
34,322,278.00
14,425,608.88
42.0%
Operations Expenses:
Operation Supervision and Engineering
232,633.51
655,196.00
422,562.49
64.5%
Station Supervison Labor and Miscellaneous
Expense
81,764.82
91,269.00
9,504.18
10.4%
Line Miscellaneous Labor and Expense
376,950.96
901,213.00
524,262.04
58.2%
Station Labor and Expense
283,064.57
472,879.00
189,814.43
40.1%
Street Lighting Expense
70,691.69
102,402.00
31,710.31
31.0%
Meter Expense
123,314.04
205,717.00
82,402.96
40.1%
Miscellaneous Distribution Expense
256,925.41
464,418.00
207,492.59
44.7%
Meter Reading Labor and Expense
16,062.35
32,641.00
16,578.65
50.8%
Accounting and Collection Labor and Expense
946,694.65
1,792,724.00
846,029.35
47.2%
Uncollectible Accounts
87,500.00
150,000.00
62,500.00
41.7%
Energy Audit Expense
289,026.29
630,232.00
341,205.71
54.1%
Administrative and General Salaries
553,552.59
1,134,674.00
581,121.41
51.2%
Office Supplies and Expense
158,803.42
349,000.00
190,196.58
54.5%
Outside Services
296,093.84
418,100.00
122,006.16
29.2%
Property Insurance
173,471.16
424,500.00
251,028.84
59.1%
Injuries and Damages
35,995.54
57,215.00
21,219.46
37.1%
Employee Pensions and Benefits
2,283,236.68
2,922,673.00
639,436.32
21.9%
Miscellaneous General Expense
85,161.52
217,956.00
132,794.48
60.9%
Rent Expense
100,569.81
212,000.00
111,430.19
52.6%
Energy Conservation
399,781.08
871,575.00
471,793 92
54.1%
Total Operations Expenses
6,851,293.93
12,106,384.00
5,255,090.07
43.4%
Maintenance Expenses:
Transmission Plant
3,213.58
3,000.00
(213.58)
(7.1%)
Structures and Equipment
273,861.81
414,599.00
140,737.19
33.9%
Lines -Overhead
1,130,871.43
2,044,499.00
913,627.57
44.7%
Lines - Underground
189,480.78
125,066.00
(64,414.78)
(51.5%)
Line Transformers
20,112.89
300,000.00
279,887.11
93.3%
Street Lights and Signal Systems
70,089.24
10,287.00
(59,802.24)
(581.3%)
Garage and Stockroom
297,081.86
590,523.00
293,441.14
49.7%
Meters
44,658.00
44,658.00
100.0%
General Plant
182,262.45
180,000.00
(2,262.45)
(1.3%)
Total Maintenance Expenses
2,166,974.04
3,712,632.00
1,545,657.96
41.6%
Other Operating Expenses:
Depreciation
2,392,429.69
4,134,000.00
1,741,570.31
42.1%
Purchased Power Fuel Expense
20,087,288.22
33,174,492.00
13,087,203.76
39.4%
Voluntary Payments to Towns
821,372.00
1,445,420.00
624,048 00
43.2%
Total Other Expenses
23,301,089.91
38,753,912.00
15,452,822.09
39.9%
Operating Income
4,688,054.91
5,463,064.00
775,009.09
14.2%
Non Operating Revenues (Expenses):
Contribution in Aid of Construction
150,000.00
150,000.00
100.0%
Return on Investment to Reading
(1,391,056.33)
(2,534,668.00)
(1,143,611.67)
45.1%
Interest Income
85,118.76
125,000.00
39,881.24
31.9%
Interest Expense
(3,108.30)
(2,100.00)
1,008.30
(48.0%)
Other
458,880.70
740,000.00
281,119.30
38.0%
Total Non Operating Revenues (Expenses)
(850,165.17)
(1,521,768.00)
(671,602.83)
44.1%
Net Income
3.837,889.74
3.941 296.00
103,406.2§_
2.6%
jr
i
m
d
1uaiinD 98elua»ad
Z
Q
U
w
O
N
�L
m
CL
E
O
V
A�
W
N
CL
X
LN
dA
i
CL
O
A�
W
A�
W
W
c
W
W
m
co
}
LL
M
m
to
V-4
}
LL
a
c
CL
w
C
CL
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O O
a S
o
8
O O
o
0
g
g
S
8
0 C
0
o00
S
o
0
Vf 1A
N
Vf
a
c
CL
w
C
CL
O
Q7 i
LL
V T
r 3
m
G
a
a
d
i
(A
W
A�
CL
x
LLL _ y
= LL. +'
W (1)
` ~
io
•SM
tkoL
r
m LL
0o ^
L
O
i V
aJ
O
C
l9
O O
O
S
O
O S
S S
O
S
S
S O
S O
O
S
O
O o
O
S
O
S
S O
w
O O
v O O O O O O O
e-1 N
O m N R lD 00 O N
n W l�D R M .may 0 N
Vf N Vf 4A N N �
00 O lD
W t6 O e-1 N N 00 M tD
O ' lD lD V1 r1 m N 10
O Q a, O O
N
N y M N O1 R Om •�-1 N
> LL ri M O lD 00 O N
N W
m
� t0 N lD O N 00 N M
0
O < a R 1- m O tD v1
ti
W } m Cl V N tO V
Vf VT Vf N N to ''�
N
? 00 G t 175 m
u
C
Q v O 2 O
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FOR PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 2017
PROJ
DESCRIPTION
TOWN
ACTUAL
COST
YTD
ADDITIONS
ANNUAL
BUDGET
REMAINING
BALANCE
106
CONSTRUCTION:
Underground Facirkies Upgrades(URD's. Manho as. etc)
ALL
1.934
264,915
149,965
(114,950)
107
13 &V Upgrade (Step-down areas at
ALL
-
4,909
105.748
100.839
105
SUB -TOTAL
W
-
250,000
250,000
1,934
269,824
255,713
(14111)
125,394
220,021
94,627
115
Fa4t YxKaws
STATION UPGRADES:
1,340
25.000
23.663
116
108
Staton 4 (GAW) Relay Repeuement Pro,
R
884
102,709
18,904
(53.805)
109
Statlon 4 35kV Pow" Transformer Replacement
R
28.236
57
51,764
125
110
4W9 Gallaway Re WAff ent Stabon 4
R
134 595
360,000
234,747
(57)
234.747
111
Sub"M Eo AxnM11 Upgrade (A
ALL
7,064
69,173
74,590
74,590
113
Statial 4 (GAW) Boory Bahr Upgrade
R
430,271
24,000
17,037
(6,963)
120
Station 4 - Ra"SCADA hogra0on for Bus A&B
R
14,270
24.261
70.306
46.047
130
Station 3 • Remota Termk* Unk (RTU) Rep4amenl
NR
-
54.186
39,330
39.330
133
Smtcn 3 - Relay Upgrades and SCADA blegroon
NR
153,697
248,995
252.225
3.230
139
Station 5 - LTC Control R69lacarmrll
W
6,187
6,187
41,543
35,356
140
SAstalfan Grou+d<ng EgtJp nwg Upgrade
ALL
20.871
20.871
Contro Certter Moddcatons
SUB -TOTAL
160,748
406,209
799,355
393.146
New Service I sw4tions (COrmrcrcal I twusthat) ALL 6.929 69,743 139570 L9,827
SUB -TOTAL 6,929 69,743 139,570 69,827
ALL 158,063 1,062,014 1012,962 (49.0521
100
SPECIAL PROJECTS f CAPITAL PURCHASES:
Davbuod Gas Generation (Plot FY16.17)
ALL
43,132
86,307
2,720,409
2,634,102
102
Padma x Swkhgear Upgrade at ktduWal Parks
W
2,286
2.286
194.518
192.232
103
Grd Modemation and Opium zation
ALL
79,693
204.032
284,000
79.968
105
New WiMngion Sub -Station
W
-
250,000
250,000
112
AMI Mesh Network Expansion
ALL
20,349
125,394
220,021
94,627
115
Fa4t YxKaws
ALL
1,340
25.000
23.663
116
Trarslormers and Capac.tors
ALL
9,102
568,000
658 898
117
Meter Pachases
ALL
12,096
28.236
80,000
51,764
125
GIS
ALL
134,595
134 595
360,000
225 405
126
Corm -matron Eqw r An (Fioet Optic)
ALL
7,064
69,173
62.109
131
LED Street Lignt Impiorna tat on
ALL
61 737
430,271
804,070
373.799
134
S.ostation Test Eq•.rprnent
ALL
14,270
30.000
15,730
135
Analog Dev ces Cap Bank Upgrade
W
-
54.186
54,188
136
Vouge Data Recorders
ALL
25,000
25.000
SUB -TOTAL
353,888
1,042,896
5,704,379
4,741,483
OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS:
96
Contro Certter Moddcatons
ALL
100 000
130.000
97
HVAC Roof Utws • Gasp
R
44,484
(44.484)
98
Carpet Upgrsoe
R
8.430
71.653
63.223
99
E.ectrie VeW a Supp<y Eqt: pment
ALL
1,303
10.000
8.697
104
RMLD Lignorq (LED) Upgrade
25.00Q
25.000
118
Roiling Ston Rep acernent
ALL
22.606
53 083
310,900
256 917
119
Secuty Upgrades A I Saes
A,L
34 684
5.000
(29 684 )
121
HVAC System Upgrade - 230 Asn Street
R
51,765
519 550
500.000
(19 550,
127
Hardware Upgrades
ALL
5 943
63.021
112 365
49,044
128
Sottware ano L cens:ng
ALL
16.500
29.187
230 519
261,333
129
Master Faci flies Site Pan
R
50.000
50.000
SUB -TOTAL
96,814
753,741
1,414,237
060,496
TOTAL CAPITAL BUDGET S 779,176 5 3,604,426 S 9,406,216 S,tOt,790
Attachment 3
N
,. f
¢r
•—
�o
z
k
i
J
�
011—
V
4�
L
CL
i
E
0
E
a
V
M
a
�
to
A
M,
�
0•
C
p%0.
O
v
LO
N
�
rl-�
ch
No
64
oo
�o
o
�o
°w
O�
°a
c
;o
N
�
3
c
0
0
Q
°'
0
c
v c
a�
0
v
0
0
0-0
0
a°i
E -
c
U >
BQ
-0 0
0)c
Q
c
a ami
0
0
W
v
a
c0)
E
CL
°
°�
a Z a�
v
a
m 0
O
c
o
Na
a°i
�;
v112
o
a
a
a)
U o
c
O
O
Y
O
v 0
a
U
v a
O
U
c
c
o
N
0 V
U
z
U
co
LON
U
0
d
N
<N
�^
c
v
N
6
N
N H N
<(D
V)
U�
Q
<
.J
.o
o
v�
Ln
orn
L
T-1
e-1
Ln 1
1 ,
t/} 1
1
40- .
v%.
in
4/j.
An.
o
.o
o
'o
SCJ
7
J
t0
IIA
E
toN
O
E
C
3
O
�
N
•�
1 d
N
c
G
C
N
N
N
i
�°
O
o
3
C!
U
C
O
C
c
C
O
O
V
o
O a
U
vf
++
H
d0
m N
V
CC
00
-0+�.+
O-
L
_E
'C 1'n 3$
C c
N
J
C
V
EL
-0
=
=
4-o
t/f
C
m Y
O
Ln;
V
m t
0
3
L
r
te0
N
O
(D-
Q
m
•m
�
H
w
to
Ln
p
EN
cu
O
m
M
Lu
ac
O
C
C
d
0
d
d
N=
a
J
N
5
Q
3
v
�o
3
v
L
3
v
v
a)
a�
0
Q-
3
E
M
O
M
H
V
3
a
r-
N
o
o
M
�
M
3
t
mrE
Co
°6c
_
.�..
�
a,
v
N
a)
N
10
►.
—
_
N
LO
• �
p
O
Qi
A
U
O
m
`04
Co
a)
c
�-
E
O
co o-
a
C
M
o
Q.
6
o
U
_
vi
CL
v
u
�
u
N
�
a)
a�,
�
a
C:N
�
Q
a
O
o�
*0
.•m
_0
cv
H
O
>
�'
N^^�
AA''
C
D
a)
O
V)
p
a)
o
•�
a
_
h
E
Q
O
H
a)
c
a�
�
a
a) C,
a
a
c
_,
�,,
c 3
°�
CL
H
to
O
CL
N
E
�X
0
Q
O
IZ-
i
0
C) O
^
�
6
0 0
AL
�k
Q
E
c
0
O
•�
v
I
0)
.Q
N
W
-}�
V
Z
C
J
u � 3
i
r
i
i
ifigg
L�
N
�
�
O
a
a
W
m
W
N
M
Y
u9
qD
r
V1
Ul
0
o
s
s
o
o
s
o
I
N
�
•
O
N
oQ
O
M
.ti
N
N
N
N
X11
7
O
O
O
8
8
oO
O
OO
O
pO
O
O
g
g
f
N
LM
L4
o
w
y c
w
c
'c • •O t = 7
•
W 3 >• 3 > > zw
W
� C
m
C �
V
E
S — L
W ►�`- 3 > 3 > > z
cam•
RMLD e,
SLl i.
March 9, 2017
Reading Municipal Light Department
RELIABLE POWER FOR GENERATIONS
230 Ash ,Street
Ro. BOX ISO
Reading, MA 01867-0250
Tel: (781) 944-1340
Fax: (781) 942-2409
Web: www.mild.com
Town of Reading Municipal Light Board
Subject: IFB 2017-35 Distributed Generation Site Work
Pursuant to M.G.L c. 30 ✓; 39M, on February 15, 2017, a bid invitation for bid was placed as a legal notice in the
Middlesex East section of the Daily Times Chronicle and on the ECHE (Energy Council of the Northeast) website
requesting sealed bids for Distributed Generation Site Work.
An invitation for bid was sent to the following fifty-one companies:
Blue Diamond
Botti Co. Inc.
Caruso and McGovern
Cella Construction Co. LLC
ConstructConnect
Construction Journal
CRL, Ine.
Dec Corp (for Power Line Contractors,
Inc.)
Digitalogic via ECNE
Dowling Corporation
East Coast Developments, Inc.
Eaton's Cooper Power Systems Business
Edward Paige Corp.ElectriComm, Inc.
Fischbach & Moore
G Lopes Construction
InSite Contracting, Inc.
James Lynch Construction
Joseph Bottico, Inc.
K & R Construction Co. LLC
KOBO Utility Construction Corp.
LaRovere Design/Build Corp.
LIG Consultants
M.Keane Excavating Inc.
Mattuchio Construction
McLaughlin Bros. Contracting Corp.
Meninno Construction
Methuen Construction
MJS Construction, Inc.
Murphy & Fahy Construction Co., Inc.
NEDP
ONVIA
Ostrow Electric Company
PM Zilioli, Inc.
Power Line Contractors, Inc.
Project Dog
R.H White
R.S. Hurford Co., Inc.
Robinson Sales, Inc.
Rotondi Construction
Site Improvements, Inc.
Strength in Concrete, LLC
SumCo Eco Contracting
Systems Electrical Services Inc
T Ford Company
Target Construction
Tasco Construction, Inc.
The Ryan Company
Tim Zanelli Excavating
Tro-Con Corporation
Ventresca, Inc.
W.L. French
Sealed bids were received from seven companies: Cella Construction Co, LLC, CRL, Inc., MJS Construction, Inc.,
SumCo Eco Contracting, T Ford Company, Tasco Construction, Inc. and Tim Zanelli Excavating.
The sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud at 11:00 a.m., March 8, 2017, in the To%,. -n of Reading Municipal
Light Department's Audio Visual Spurr Room, 230 Ash Street, Reading, Massachusetts.
Attachment 4
File: Bid, F117; 2017-15 for Dtilributed Generation Site Work
RMLD �,t _ _ __
Reading Municipal Light Department
RELiADLF COWER FOR GENERA"r10Nf
,r,4 y*,
230 Ash Street, P.O. Box 150
Reading, MAO 1867-0250
The bids were reviewed, analyzed and evaluated by staff and recommended to the General Manager.
Move that bid 2017-35 for: Distributed Generation Site Work be awarded to: Tim Zanetti Excavating for
$214,969 as the lowest responsible and eligible bidder on the recommendation of the General Manager.
The FYI Capital Budget amount for this item is $205,875.
/
�i1Ll�it.
Coleen O'Brien
Ffhc: Bid/ FYI 7/ 2017-35 for: Distributed Generation Site Work
CD
S
q
%
%
o
$
00
v
q
0
0
p
ib
wcm
LO 6s
60
co 64
64
69#A
�
�
U
§
kc
0
.
p
N
I
e
-a
@i
§
.
A
E
P
2
o
U
C)
2
2
U 0
3
d
�w
m
7
�
62
a
E
/
2
0k
S
CD
b
From: Tracy Schultz
To: RMLD Board Members Grouo
Cc: Jeanne Fob
Subject: AP Warrant and Payroll
Date: Friday, March 17, 2017 7:09:00 AM
Good morning,
There were no Account Payable Warrant questions for the following dates:
February 17, February 24, March 3, and March 10.
There were no Payroll questions for the following dates:
February 27 and March 6.
This message will be included in the Board Packet for the RMLD Board Meeting on
Thursday March 23, 2017.
Tracy Schultz
Executive Assistant
Reading Municipal Light Department
230 Ash Street
Reading, MA 01867
Tel: (781) 942-6489
Ext: 489
$0
Oct
Via°
\j\
§ §�
� , ■
2§9La