HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-27 RMLD Board of Commissioners Minutes Reading Municipal Light Board of Commissioners
Regular Session
230 Ash Street
Reading,MA 01867 R E C E IV ED
April 27,2011 TOWN CLERK
Start Time of Regular Session: 7:34 p.m. R E A D i G' MASS.
End Time of Regular Session: 9:15 p.m.
2061 MAY 3 6 P I: 46
Attendees:
Commissioners:
Richard Hahn,Chairman Philip B.Pacino,Vice Chair
Gina Snyder,First Secretary Mary Ellen O'Neill,Second Secretary
Robert Soli,Commissioner
Staff:
Vinnie Cameron,General Manager Beth Ellen Antonio,Human Resources Manager
Jeanne Foti,Executive Assistant Robert Fournier,Accounting/Business Manager
Priscilla Gottwald,Community Relations Manager William Seldon,Senior Energy Analyst
Kevin Sullivan,E&O Manager
Citizens'Advisory Board
John Norton,Secretary
Guest:
Michael Vigeant,The Center for Research
Ms. O'Neill called the meeting to order and stated that the meeting of the Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD)
Board of Commissioners is being broadcast live at the RMLD's office at 230 Ash Street,Reading,MA. Live broadcasts are
available only in Reading due to technology constraints. This meeting was video taped for distribution to the community
television stations in North Reading,Wilmington and Lynnfield.
Opening Remarks/Approval of Meeting Agenda
Ms.O'Neill asked the Board members present if there were suggested changes or additions to the agenda. There were none.
Introductions
Ms. O'Neill read from a card sent by customer Sally Hilgendorff in Reading,"that wanted to congratulate us for successfully
increasing renewable energy in our power supply portfolio,"and asks,us"to keep up the fantastic efforts,there are a lot of us
out there who are grateful,"to RMLD for these efforts.
Ms.O'Neill introduced Citizens'Advisory Board Secretary John Norton.
Presentation—Residential Customer Survey-Michael Vigeant,Center for Research(Attachment 1)
Ms. Gottwald introduced Mr. Michael Vigeant, President of The Center for Research. Ms. Gottwald said that telephone
interviews were conducted in February to 400 residential customers within the towns of Lynnfield,North Reading, Reading
and Wilmington.
Mr. Vigeant stated that the survey represents a snapshot in time, explaining that the survey was developed to independently
and objectively collect views on service provided to customers by RMLD and to measure awareness on a number of key
issues. Mr.Vigeant reported that the customer calls were made February 10 to February 17.
Mr.Vigeant highlighted some of the areas within the report as follows:
Rating Area Organizations—Your electric company achieved a 94.9%rating,higher than other types of utilities such as gas
(87.6%),water and sewer department(85.2%),internet(79.4%),phone(77.9%)and cable TV(77.1%).
Rating Reading Municipal Light Department — The average positive rating given to RMLD across eight organizational
characteristics averaged 92.2%. Mr. Vigeant explained this represents a good number. Of customers who had contact with
RMLD,96.1%indicated they were satisfied with the service; 88.3%of those with contact with an RMLD field representative
reported satisfaction.
xeguiar session meeting ivimutes
April 27,2011
Presentation—Residential Customer Survey-Michael Vigeant,Center for Research(Attachment 1)
Mr.Vigeant highlighted some of the areas within the report as follows:
Information&Awareness—58.4%reported that they are aware that the RMLD is a"Community Owned Municipal Utility."
The survey results show that 8% of the customers view themselves as an advocate of RMLD. Mr. Vigeant reported that
83.5%of the customers feel that the RMLD is keeping prices low.
Communication—Mr.Vigeant reported that 90.4%reported reading all or at least some of the In Brief Newsletter. The In Brief
received a 94.4%rating for being informative. Customers prefer dealing with the RMLD via phone by 66%.
RMLD Customer Questions—Mr. Vigeant said that 75.5%of the customers surveyed pay their bills by check. On the Time
of Use Rate, 56.6%of customers are not aware of this rate. The RMLD's website, 52.9%of respondents reported being not
interested in using the RMLD's website for services related to their account or paying their bill. RMLD rebate offers, 60.1%
are aware of various rebate offers,but more than a third of customers are not at all aware. The RMLD does a very good or
good job of educating the public on electrical industry issues according to 64.8% of respondents. The RMLD purchasing
energy from renewable sources,71.3%"strongly"or"somewhat" support this. 36.4%of customer respondents reported that
rates is the most important service characteristic,followed by reliability,25.7%and customer service at 17.7%.
Overall,the RMLD is viewed by its customer as a very favorable organization with good value. Discussion followed.
Ms.O'Neill thanked Mr.Vigeant for his presentation.
Reorganization of RMLD Board—Election of Officers
Chairman
Ms. Snyder made a motion seconded by Mr.Pacino to nominate Mr.Hahn for Chairman.
Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr.Hahn to close the nominations.
Motions carried 5:0:0.
Mr.Hahn said that this is his second stint as Chair and gave his heartfelt thanks to Ms. O'Neill for the last two years
of hard work as Chairman and said that he will have big shoes to fill.
Vice Chair
Ms.O'Neill made a motion seconded by Chairman Hahn to nominate Mr.Pacino for Vice Chair.
Ms O'Neill made a motion seconded by Chairman Hahn to close the nominations.
Motions carried 5:0:0.
Mr.Pacino thanked Ms.O'Neill for her work as Chairman for the last two years.
Secretary
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr.Pacino to nominate Ms. O'Neill as First Secretary.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr.Pacino to close the nominations.
Mr. Soli made a motion to reconsider seconded by Mr.Pacino.
Motions carried 5:0:0.
Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Ms.O'Neill for Ms. Snyder as First Secretary.
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr.Pacino to close the nominations.
Motions carried 5:0:0.
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded by Mr.Pacino to nominate Ms. O'Neill as Second Secretary.
Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli to close the nominations.
Motions carried 5:0:0.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes 3
April 27,2011
Appointment to RMLD Committees
Ms. Snyder made a motion seconded by Mr. Soli that the Board approve the following committees, Accounts Payable and Payroll
assignments.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Budget Committee General Manager Committee
Philip Pacino,Chair;Richard Hahn,Mary Ellen O'Neill Richard Hahn,Chair;Mary Ellen O'Neill,Philip Pacino
Power&Rate Committee Policy Committee
Richard Hahn,Chair;Gina Snyder,Robert Soli Robert Soli;Chair,Mary Ellen O'Neill,Gina Snyder
Audit(Including Town of Reading Audit) Joint Committee-Payment to the Town of Reading
Philip Pacino,Robert Soli Philip Pacino,Robert Soli,Two Citizens'Advisory Board Members
One Reading Selectmen
Assignments Assignments
Accounts Payable Payroll—Four Month Rotation
Mary Ellen O'Neill Mary Ellen O'Neill,April-July
Robert Soli Robert Soli,August—November
Gina Snyder Richard Hahn,December—March
Richard Hahn(First Backup) Philip Pacino(First Backup)
Philip Pacino(Second Backup)
Report from Board Committee(Attachment 2)
Power&Rate Committee—Vice Chair Hahn-Report of April 20 Meeting
Chairman Hahn said that there was a full agenda for the Power&Rate Committee meeting held on April 20. In attendance at
this meeting were Ms. O'Neill,Mr. Soli and himself. Chairman Hahn reported that long term power supply was discussed in
Executive Session, and it is anticipated that another meeting will take place in May to cover this. Chairman Hahn said that
there was a new set of proposed streetlight rates in the last Cost of Service Study (COSS) and that there was a mismatch
between the projected revenues in the COSS. Therefore a new set of streetlight rates was being proposed by the General
Manager that would close this gap. Chairman Hahn stated that there are different types of rates for different types of lights; if
you have a 50 watt incandescent or 400 watt high efficiency you pay a different rate. The rates for most of the lamps will go
down. The Power& Rate Committee voted to recommend adoption of the proposed streetlight rates to the Board by a vote
of 2:1:0 with Mr. Soli having the dissenting vote. The next item covered was the Commercial C Rate. The Committee
recommended changing the on and off peak demand portion of this rate to the Board with a vote of 3:0:0. Chairman Hahn
mentioned that the net metering rate was discussed. When a customer installs a solar panel on their side of the electric meter
the output can be used to supply their own house which is deducted from the energy one would buy from the RMLD. A
technical and rate guideline was proposed for net metering customers, which needed to be put into the form of a tariff and
will be addressed at the next committee meeting.
Chairman Hahn said that the committee looked at terms and conditions with no changes made. The RMLD needs to go out
for a Request for Proposal for energy supply; the Department has a formal plan in place because it is time to do this again.
There was no action required by the Committee on this item.
Chairman Hahn reported that under the green choice program the Department is looking to add real projects to the program.
Customers who wanted to support renewable energy could buy into Renewable Energy Certificates with our real power
contracts with renewable generation facilities. The RMLD now has RECs and needs to decide how to modify the existing
green program to reflect this reality. No action was taken, awaiting a recommendation from the General Manager. A water
heater update was also provided with RMLD looking at direct load control devices rather than the time of use to reduce
customers' electric usage and cost.
Mr. Soli added that the rates were voted on and these go to the CAB in May then come before the RMLD Board. Mr.Norton
said that the next CAB meeting will be May 18.
Policy Committee—Commissioner Soli
RMLD Policy 10,Revision 5.RMLD Credit Card/Petty Cash
Mr. Soli stated that the Policy Committee met earlier this evening to discuss the policy on RMLD Credit Card/Petty Cash.
Mr. Soli said that the committee had met prior to this in which suggested changes to the policy had been incorporated in the
final copy.
tceguiar session meeting iviinutes
April 27,2011
Policy Committee—Commissioner Soli
RMLD Policy 10,Revision 5.RMLD Credit Card/Petty Cash
Mr. Soli reported that the policy states that there will be only one credit card,with the General Manager's name on it,which
will be used for company business only. This is needed because there are instances where some companies will only accept a
credit card and not a purchase order.This does not bypass the requisition process or the bidding process.
Mr. Soli said that the other instances for credit card use are for travel reservations after the travel request goes through the
approval process. It is a limited application for one credit card. Mr. Soli explained that the petty cash vouchers will be
aggregated on a monthly basis for approval and sent to the town who will issue a check to reimburse the petty cash. Mr. Soli
reported that the Policy Committee voted 3:0:0 to recommend this policy to the Board.
Mr. Pacino asked why the committee has items under 317: "Each petty cash voucher and the submission of credit card charge
slips shall contain a signature line following the statement: "This/these purchase(s)were not excessive, fraudulent or illegal
signed under penalty of perjury." Mr. Pacino wanted to know what is the reasoning for this and is it necessary. Mr. Soli
explained that under Chapter 164,this is serious stuff. Mr.Pacino said that he does not see the logic behind this.
Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Ms. O'Neill to strike the language in 3F from the policy.
Motion carried 4:1:0.Mr.Soli voted against the motion.
Mr. Soli made a motion seconded Ms. O'Neill that the Board accept RMLD Policy Number 10, RMLD Credit Card/Petty
Cash with the language in 3F stricken.
Motion carried 4:0:1.Mr.Soli abstained.
Approval of March 30,2011 Board Minutes
Mr. Pacino made a motion seconded by Ms. Snyder to accept the Regular Session meeting minutes of March 30, 2011 as
presented.
Motion carried 4:0:1. Chairman Hahn abstained.
General Manager's Report—Mr.Cameron(Attachment 3)
Mr. Cameron reported that the he would like to attend the NEPPA Annual Conference August 21-24 Samoset Resort,
Rockland,Maine.
Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Ms. Snyder to authorize the General Manager to attend the NEPPA Annual Conference
August 21-24 Samoset Resort,Rockland,Maine.
Motion carried 5:0:0.
Messrs. Pacino,Hahn and Soli will be in attendance at the NEPPA Conference. Mr. Cameron said that he will be checking
with NEPPA on Ms. Snyder's request for one day attendance at the NEPPA Conference.
Mr. Cameron said that May 1, 2011 will be the live date for its new E-Billing system for both residential and commercial
customers. Any residential customer who did not fill out the RMLD update sheet and would like to receive their bill via e-
mail should contact the RMLD. Those who provided their e-mail address will be sent an e-mail inviting them to receive their
bill electronically. Mr. Cameron reported that Friends and Family Day will take place on June 18 at the Birchmeadow Field
by Reading High School.Time of Use rates were advertised in the Chronicle.
Discussion followed.
Financial Report—March,2011—Mr.Fournier(Attachment 4)
Mr.Fournier reported on the Financial Report for March 2011 which represents the first nine months for fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Fournier reported that March was a break even month,the RMLD made a little less than $1,000. The Year to Date Net
Income is $2.2 million. The year to date budgeted Net Income is $1.2 million which is over budget by $1.0 million. Mr.
Fournier said that the year to date Fuel Revenues exceeded Fuel Expenses by$100,000. The energy conservation expenses
exceeded energy conservation revenues by$141,000. The Gaw soil remediation is at$1.2 million bringing the total cost this
fiscal year to$2.3 million.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes
April 27,2011
Financial Report—March,2011—Mr.Fournier(Attachment 4)
Mr. Fournier reported major expenses over budget were the Maintenance of Line Transformers account which reflects the
Gaw soil remediation expenses and the employee benefits account of$314,000.
The Depreciation Expense and Voluntary Payments to the Towns are on budget. Cumulatively, all five divisions were over
budget by$500,000 or 3.7%with most of this attributable to the Gaw soil remediation expense.
Discussion followed.
Pension Trust
Mr. Fournier reported on the pension trust,noting that the only change from December 31,2010 to March 31,2011 is in the
interest income and dividend of$12,800, bringing the total net assets to $4.8 million. This amount does not include the
RMLD contribution which will be determined by the end of the fiscal year.
Discussion followed.
Power Supply Report—March,2011—Mr.Seldon(Attachment 5)
Mr. Seldon presented the Power Supply Report for March 2011. Mr. Seldon reported that RMLD's load for March was 58.44
million kilowatt hours, a 0.94% increase compared to March 2010. Energy costs were $2.94 million which is equivalent to
$.052 per kilowatt hour. RMLD sales totaled approximately 58.5 million kilowatt hours and, as a result, the RMLD
overcollected by$341,000 resulting in a Deferred Fuel Cash Reserve balance of$2.8 million.
In March, the Fuel Charge Adjustment was $.056 per kilowatt hour and in April it will decrease by $.003 to $.0530 per
kilowatt hour. This will result in the RMLD undercollecting by$22,000 with a Deferred Fuel Cash Reserve balance of$2.79
million.
Mr. Seldon reported that the RMLD purchased approximately 22% of its energy requirement from the ISO Spot Market at
average cost of$4.63 per kilowatt hour. The RMLD hit a demand of 102,790 kilowatts on March 3, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
compared to the peak of 103,795 kilowatts which occurred in March 15, 2010 at 8:00 p.m. The RMLD's monthly capacity
requirement was 213,465 kilowatts. The RMLD paid $1.578 million for capacity which is equivalent to $7.11 per kilowatt
month.
Mr. Hahn asked for confirmation that RMLD purchased all attributes of the Swift River projects and why the capacity was at
$0.This is due to the fact that two of the three units are not currently supplying capacity.
Mr. Seldon reported that transmission costs for March were$670,000,a decrease from the February 2011 cost of$774,000.
Discussion followed.
Engineering and Operations Report—March,2011-Mr.Sullivan(Attachment 6)
Gaw Update
Mr. Sullivan reported on the Engineering and Operations Report for March 2011.
Mr. Sullivan said that Gaw had no activity this month. Mr. Sullivan stated that the transfer scheme still needs to be
completed. There were no expenditures for the month and the total project cost remains at$6.84 million.
Chairman Hahn asked if the control wiring was the only thing that needs to be completed. Mr. Sullivan responded, "yes."
Chairman Hahn asked if this is going to be complete by July 31. Mr. Sullivan replied,"yes."
Mr. Soli was seeking clarification on the transfer scheme at the substation. Mr. Sullivan explained that one of the last pieces
to complete at the substation is the transfer scheme,and its design is being improved.
Mr. Sullivan said that in the variance report there are many projects completed and next month Project 38, 115kV Insulator
Project will be completed.
Mr. Sullivan commented on the following projects worked on during the month: Project 1 4W14 Reconductoring—West
Street Project—work has begun;Project 5 Chestnut Street—being worked on;Project 36 3W8 Salem Street&Baystate Road
—in process; and Project 38 115kV Insulator Project—in process. Mr. Sullivan added that Project 33 4W4 Reconductoring
will be carried into fiscal year 2012.
Regular Session Meeting Minutes 6
April 27,2011
Engineering and Operations Report—March,2011 -Mr.Sullivan(Attachment 6)
Gaw Update
Mr. Sullivan said that on the service installations one single commercial service was at 55 Jonspin Road in Wilmington.
Residential services:there were approximately 25-30 services for the month. In routine construction there were seven cutouts
replaced making a total of 307 for fiscal year 2011.
Mr. Sullivan reported on the Reliability Report:the System Average Interruption Frequency Index(SAIFI)is up 12.5 minutes
due to repairs made on a couple of feeder outages which affected 1,877 customers. The CAIDI rolling average is down
marginally by 2.5 minutes. The Months between Interruptions(MBTI)is decreased by two months as of this month.
Mr. Sullivan provided an update on the reliability statistics number that included wind and snow:number of calls 124,outage
incidents 13,customers affected 1,877,feeder outages 2,area outages 5,and service outages 6. Mr. Sullivan commented that
this is the first time we have had feeder outages since October,the cause of one was trees, and the second was a failure of the
insulator on the switch.
Discussion followed.
General Discussion
Mr. Norton said that he wanted to make a statement on the general budget discussion the Citizens' Advisory Board had last
evening. Mr. Norton stated that he has been on the CAB for close to ten years and thought this new format for the Capital
and Operating budgets was clearer. Mr.Norton wanted to take the opportunity to compliment the entire RMLD staff within
house and in the field. Mr.Norton said that from time to time he receives compliments on RMLD's performance.
Ms. Snyder echoed Mr. Norton's compliments to the RMLD staff. Ms. Snyder said that the satisfaction levels noted in the
survey were high and the staff should be complimented accordingly. Chairman Hahn said that he seconds that.
BOARD MATERIAL AVAILABLE BUT NOT DISCUSSED
Rate Comparisons,April,2011
E-Mail responses to Account Payable/Payroll Questions
Upcoming Meetings
RMLD Board Meetings
Wednesday,May 25,2011 and Wednesday,June 22,2011.
Budget Committee and Power&Rate Committees will meet in May,e-mails will be sent to schedule these.
Adjournment
At 9:15 p.m.Mr.Pacino made a motion seconded by Ms.O'Neill 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.
Gina Snyder,Secretary
RMLD Board of Commissioners
ATTACHMENT 1
Center
Resear
2011
RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER
SATISFACTION STUDY
Conducted on behalf of
1 -ildit10 NfUllidpal Light Department
RMLD '.
L3
:x s
W,
2 0 _
1Pres tige Drive * Suite 102 * Meriden. , (], ' 06450
20 .3 . 237 . 5523 p . 203 . 237 . 5524 f.
STATEMENT OF • OWNERSHIP
All of the analyses, fmdings, data, and recommendations contained within this report are the
exclusive property of Reading Municipal Light Department with offices located in Reading,
Massachusetts.
As required by the Code of Ethics of the National Council on Public Polls and the United States
Privacy Act of 1974, The Center for Research maintains the anonymity of respondents to surveys
the firm conducts. No information will be released that might, in any way, reveal the identity of the
respondent.
Moreover, no information regarding these fmdings will be released without the express written
consent of an authorized representative of Reading Municipal Light Department.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page I
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................Page 3
SE C'ION
m 6
Methodology.........................................................................................................................................................................Page 4
SEC ON
Highlights................................................................................................................................................................................Page 5
SE ON
Summaryof Findings......................................................................................................................................................Page 9
Bating Area Organi�Zations ...................................................1 D
Rating the Electric Utility.......................................................11
Information/Awareness..........................................................16
Communication......................................................................23
RMLD Custom Questions.....................................................24
Demographics.........................................................................32
SEON
Appendix...............................................................................................................................................................................Page 36
Survey Instrument
Composite Aggregate Data
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 2
The Center for Research www.CFP.GLOBAL.COM
INTRODUCTION
The Center for Research (CFR) is pleased to present the results to a 2011 Customer Satisfaction Study
designed to assist Reading Municipal Light Department (RMLD) in understanding the levels of
service satisfaction among customers in its service area.
The study included a telephone survey among customers living in Lynnfield, North Reading,
Reading and Wilmington,Massachusetts.
This report summarizes statistics collected from a telephone survey administered during February
10th through February 17`h, 2011. This study also tracks results collected from a 2005 benchmark
survey of Reading Municipal Light Department customers for comparison.
Reading Municipal Light Department commissioned this study to independently and objectively
collect views on service provided to customers by RMLD and also to measure awareness on a
number of key issues.
Areas for investigation within this report include:
➢ Rating area organizations;
➢ Rating Reading Municipal Light Department;
➢ Information and awareness on key issues; and
➢ Demographics.
Section II of this report discusses the methodology used in the study while Section III includes
highlights based on an analysis of the findings. Section IV is a summary of findings while Section V
is an appendix containing the survey instrument and composite aggregate data.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page
The Center for Research � , www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
METHODOLOGY
Using a quantitative research design, CFR completed 401 interviews with Reading Municipal Light
Department customers.
Interviews were conducted February 10"d through February 17th, 2011 among Reading Municipal
Light Department customers.
Using a list of customers in Lynnfield, North Reading, Reading and Wilmington provided by
RMLD, CFR created an nth name stratified sample to ensure randomness. This sample was used by
CFR researchers to call prospective respondents.
Survey design at CFR is a careful, deliberative process to ensure fair, objective and balanced surveys.
Staff members, with years of survey design experience, edit out any bias. Further, all scales used by
CFR (either numeric, such as one through ten, or wording such as strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree) are balanced evenly. And, placement of questions is
carefully accomplished so that order has minimal impact.
Training of the researchers and a pre-test both occurred during the first night of fielding,which took
place on February 10th, 2011.
All telephone interviews were conducted from CFR headquarters located in Meriden, Connecticut.
Research was conducted primarily during the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekends.
CFR used a callback procedure to ensure the randomness of the sample and to reduce non-response
bias. When a randomly selected customer was not available during the first telephone contact,
additional callbacks were made in order to complete the interview. A demographic profile of
respondents may also be found in the Appendix of this report.
CFR researchers and senior staff completed all facets of this Customer Satisfaction Study. These aspects
included: survey design, sample stratification, pre-test, fielding, editing, coding, computer
programming, analysis and report preparation.
Statistically, a sample of 401 completed telephone interviews represents an accuracy level of
5.0% at the midpoint of a 95% confidence level.
In theory, a sample survey of Reading Municipal Light Department customers would differ no more
than +/-5.0%than if all customers were contacted and included in the survey.
That is, if random probability sampling procedures were reiterated over and over again, sample
results may be expected to approximate larger population values within +/-5.0%.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 4
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
HIGHLIGHTS
RATING AREA ORGANIZATIONS
➢ With "don't know" responses removed from the data, respondents reported the
following positive ratings (1-4 on a ten point scale) for a list of area organizations and
companies providing services to them.
➢ Your electric company:(94.9%)
➢ Your gas company (87.6%)
➢ Your water and sewer department(85.2%)
➢ Your internet provider (79.4%)
➢ Your phone company(77.9%)
➢ Your cable TV company (77.1%)
RATING READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
➢ The average positive rating given to RMLD across eight organizational characteristics
was 76.8% in 2011 (from 77.4% in 2005). This moves to 92.2% when "don't know"
responses were removed from the data(from 92.8% in 2005).
➢ Importantly, when "don't know" responses were included, the lowest rating was
recorded for "Community service" (54.11/4), however,when"don't know" responses were
removed, this number moved to a positive rating of 91.2%. This shift shows an
opportunity for education among residents to show the ways RMLD is involved in the
local community.
➢ Of the 44.6% (or 179 respondents) who had contact with RMLD, 96.1% (from 95.8% in
2005) reported being "very satisfied" (81.6% in 2011 from 82.4% in 2005) or `somewhat
satisfied" (14.5% in 2011 from 13.4% in 2005) with the customer service employee that
handled their call or visit.
➢ Of the 15.0% (or 60 respondents) who had contact with an RMLD field representative,
88.3% (from 97.3% in 2005) reported being "very satisfied" (78.3% in 2011 from 81.1% in
2005) or "somewhat satisfied" (10.0% in 2011 from 16.2% in 2005) with the way the
employee handled the visit. Readers should note the decrease in satisfaction is
completely attributed to an increase in "Don't know" responses (11.7% in 2011 from 2.7%
in 2005) and not due to dissatisfied ratings.
INFORMATION& AWARENESS
➢ Nearly three-fifths of all respondents, 58.4% (from 72.5% in 2005), reported Reading
Municipal Light Department is a "Community Owned Municipal Utility,"while another
-- 16.5% (from 9.5% in 2005) believed it is a "Business or Private Investor Owned
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 5
The Centerfor Research WWW.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Company." Remaining respondents, 25.2% (from 18.0% in 2005), reported to be
"unsure." Readers should note, after running a number of cross tabulations, it appears
the largest percentage of respondents providing an incorrect or "unsure" response are
comprised of those age 65 or older and those having lived in town more than 30 years.
➢ While 8.0% of respondents (from 2.5% in 2005) reported being "an advocate of RMLD,"
30.9% (from 22.8% in 2005) reported being a "loyal customer" and 59.11/o (from 73.5% in
2005) reported being a"satisfied customer."
➢ Importantly, more than four-fifths of respondents, 83.5%, either "strongly agreed"
(45.6%) or "somewhat agreed" (37.9%) that RMLD is doing all it can to keep customer
prices low regardless of changing fuel prices and economic factors.
➢ The top reported measures that respondents have taken to lower energy usage or reduce
energy consumption in their homes were:
➢ Turned off lights (58.4%)
➢ Purchased/replaced home appliances/equipment with energy efficient
models (19.5%)
➢ Applied weather stripping or purchased efficient measures like insulation for
roof, door,wall or window(18.7%)
➢
Purchased/switched to energy efficient light bulbs (18.5%) .
➢ Turned off/reduced use of electronics (TV, computer, etc.) (12.7%)
➢ The most frequently reported measures that respondents reported they plan to take in
the future to lower energy usage or reduce energy consumption in their homes were:
➢ No action planned (60.1%)
➢ Turn off lights (16.0%)
➢ Apply weather stripping or purchased efficient measures like insulation for
roof, door,wall or window(9.7%)
➢ Purchase/replaced home appliances/equipment with energy efficient models
(7.0%)
➢ Use less hot water (4.0%)
➢ Reported barriers that prevent respondents from implementing measures or actions that
might reduce energy consumption in.their home were:
➢ None (69.3%)
➢ Money/cost (17.5%)
➢ Lack of information or guidance (3.0%)
➢ Kids (2.0%)
➢ Reported drivers that currently motivate respondents to modify habits and behaviors to
actively conserve electricity in their home were:
➢ Financial/cost incentive (66.1%)
➢ Environmental (20.9%)
➢ Fuel cost increases (16.5%)
➢ Nothing- have always actively conserved (9.0%)
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 6
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Researchers continued and asked each respondent `Please think back to the last time you called or
visited an office ofbeading Municzpal Light Department for any reason."
Nearly one-quarter of all respondents,23.7%,indicated having"had contact with Reading Municipal
Light Department in the past year," while 53.4% stated they "had no contact with Reading
Municipal Light Department."
Contact with RALLD? 2005 2011
Less than 6 months ago 9.0% 14.5
6 months to 1 year ago 11.5 9.2
Over one year ago 15.0 20.9
Did not call or visit 62.8 53.4
Don't know --- 2.0
For those who indicated having contact with Reading Municipal Light Department in the past
(44.6%), researchers asked, overall, how satisfied they were with the customer service employee that
handled their call or visit.
Customer Service Satisfaction 2005 2011
=142 (N=179
Very satisfied 82.4% 81.6
Somewhat satisfied 13.4 14.5
Somewhat dissatisfied 3.5 1.7
Very dissatisfied --- 0.6
Don't know/unsure 0.7 1.7
Total satisfied 95.8 96.1
Total dissatisfied 3.5 2.3
Again, researchers probed those respondents indicating some level of dissatisfaction in the previous
question by asking why they were dissatisfied. The question was asked in an open-ended format and
provided the following results:
Reason for Dissatisfaction 2011
(N=4)
Did not show up 25.0%
Lack of assistance 25.0
No one got back to me 25.0
Rushed tree job 25.0
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 1
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
RATING READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
Researchers read a list of"different organizational characteristics" and asked those surveyed to rate
the job Reading Municipal Light Department is doing in those areas. Again, a scale of one (1) to ten
(10) was employed.
Organizational Characteristics 2005 2005 2011 2011
w/DK's w/o w/DK's w/o
DK's DK's
Reliable service 95.8% 97.7 96.0 97.5
Helpful and knowledgeable staff 71.8 96.6 71.1 96.3
Honesty/Integrity 86.8 96.1 86.3 96.1
Communicating with customers 83.0 94.6 83.3 94.6
Responsiveness to customers 79.5 95.2 76.6 93.9
Community service 57.3 92.7 54.1 91.2
Helping customers conserve electricity 76.3 91.0 72.8 86.6
Rates 68.8 78.3 73.8 81.1
Average 77.4 92.8 76.8 92.2
In an open-ended format question, those who provided unfavorable responses (8-10 rating) to any
of the organizational characteristics above were asked to provide the reason why.
Why poor ratings?(Rating of 8-10) 2005 2011
(N=7) (1V=25)
High rates 85.7% 32.0
Bill too high/too expensive --- 32.0
Poor communication --- 24.0
A lot of outages --- 4.0
Need more information on how to conserve --- 4.0
Denied rebate --- 4.0
Problem receiving a discount which was promised
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page I i
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
RATING AREA ORGANIZATIONS
Respondents were asked: `Please think for a moment about the overall quality of customer service you
receive from area organisations. As I read a list of area or and companies providing services to
you,please rate each on the quality of their overall customer service. Please use a scale of one to ten where one
is very good and ten is very poor."
The following table presents the cumulative totals for those respondents offering a rating of 1-4
(positive) on the ten-point scale for both 2005 and 2011. The second and fourth columns in the
table present the results including those respondents offering a "don't know" response, while the
third and final columns present the results with "don't know"responses removed from the data.
Service Organizations 2005 2005 2011 2011
With DKs w/o DKs With DKs w/o DKs
Your electric company 93.3% 95.4 92.5 94.9
Your gas company 49.5 91.7 35.2 87.6
Your water and sewer department 69.0 87.3 64.6 85.2
Your internet provider 61.3 86.0 67.3 79.4
Your phone company 81.3 83.5 "75.6 77.9
Your cable TV company 74.5 81.6 72.1 77.1
Positive Ratings for Service Companies
100
4
j
i
G.
go." 87.3 x
8
83:5
80-4777.1
z
70
F
60
Electric Gas Water& Sewer ISP Phone Cable
❑2005 w/o DKs ■2011 w/o DKs
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page:10
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
All respondents interviewed reported to researchers to being at least eighteen years of age, one of
the heads of the household and currently a customer of and receive a regular monthly electric bill
from Reading Municipal Light Department.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT ''� Page 9
The Centerfor Research www.CFP,GLOBAL.COM
➢ Three-quarters of respondents, 75.9%, reported to be either "very aware" (38.7%) or
"somewhat aware" (37.2%) of various RMLD's services, while 17.7% reported to be "not
at all aware."
➢ Nearly three-quarters of respondents, 71.3% reported they either "strongly support"
(44.1%) or "somewhat support" (27.2%) RMLD purchasing energy from renewable
sources.
➢ Finally, more than one-third of respondents, 36.4%, reported that "rates" are the most
important service characteristic. This was followed by "reliability" (25.7%) and
"customer service" (17.7%).
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page g
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
➢ While more than two-fifths of respondents, 40.9%, reported currently looking for
information about RMLD in the "utility's bill insert," significant percentages of
respondents report going to the "website" (25.7%) or looking in the "utility's
newsletter/brochure" (15.0%).
➢ When asked where they would prefer to look for information, 35.2% reported "utility's
bill insert." This was followed by "website" (31.4%) and the "utility's newsletter/
brochures" (16.21/6).
COMMUNICATION
➢ Of the 83.3% (or 334 respondents) who recalled receiving "In Brief," 90.4% reported
reading all or at least some of it.
➢ Overall, the large majority of respondents, 94.4%, reported that "In Brief' is either "very
good" (46.7%) or "good" (47.7%) on being informative.
➢ Two-thirds of all respondents, 66.8%, reported that their preferred method of
communicating with RMLD is through the "phone."
RMLD CUSTOM QUESTIONS
➢ While the vast majority of respondents, 86.0%, reported not using or participating in any
social media websites, 9.2% reported they would like to interact with RMLD through
"Facebook."
➢ Three-quarters of respondents, 75.5%, reported they currently pay their RMLD bill via
"mail check" (44.6%) or"direct payment from checking account" (30.9%)
➢ More than half of all respondents, 52.9%, reported being "not at all interested" in using
RMLD's website for a number of services related to their electric account and paying
their bill.
➢ Importantly, more than half of all respondents, 56.6%, reported being "not at all aware"
that they can reduce their electric bill by choosing the time-of-use rate.
➢ One fifth of all respondents, 20.4%, reported being either "very likely" (4.7%) or
"somewhat likely" (15.7%) to purchase an electric vehicle within the next five years.
➢ While three-fifths of respondents, 60.11/o, reported to be either "very aware" (37.4%) or
"somewhat aware" (22.7%) of various RMLD rebate offers, more than one-third, 35.7%,
reported to be "not at all aware."
➢ Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 64.8%, reported that RMLD does a "very good"
(21.7%) or"good" (43.1%) job of educating the public on electrical industry issues.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 7
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Those respondents having contact with Reading Municipal Light Department (44.6%) were asked to
report the purpose of their call. The table below identifies the results as compared with the previous
study.
Purpose for contact 2005 2011
(1V==142) (1V=179)
Outage 35.2% 19.6
To pay bill --- 19.6
Don't know/Unsure 9.9 12.8
High bill question 7.7 7.3
Question on bill of complaint) 21.8 6.1
Service call 10.6 6.1
Rebate --- 4.5
Downed Wire/Wire issue --- 3.9
Install service 2.1 3.4
Pick up calendar/light bulbs --- 3.4
Schedule a visit --- 2.8
Streetlight issue --- 2.8
Address chane 1.4 1.7
Request meter check 1.4 1.7
Power sure protection 0.7 1.7
Disconnect service 0.7 1.1
Energy audit --- 0.6
Payment arrangement --- 0.6
Tree maintenance --- 0.6
Other 8.5 ---
Similar to the question posed for contact with customer service employees, researchers asked each
respondent when the last time a field service employee from Reading Municipal Light Department
visited their home for any reason.
A small amount of all respondents, 15.0%, reported a visit from a RMLD field representative in the
past,while more than four-fifths, 81.8%, stated a field representative had not visited their home.
Visit from Reading Field Representative? 2005 2011
Less than 6 months ago 1.5% 3.0
6 months to 1 year ago 2.8 1.5
Over one year ago 5.0 10.5
Did not visit 89.8 81.8
Don't know/unsure 1.0 3.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 13
The Center for Research , www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Those respondents (15.0% or 60 respondents) reporting a visit from a field service employee were
then asked how satisfied they were with the way the employee handled the visit.
Field Representative Satisfaction 2005 2011
(1V=37) (N=60)
Very satisfied 81.1% 78.3
Somewhat satisfied 16.2 10.0
Somewhat dissatisfied --- ---
Very dissatisfied --- ---
Don't know/unsure 2.7 11.7
Total satisfied 97.3 88.3
Total dissatisfied --- ---
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 14
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
All respondents reporting a visit from a field representative were asked to provide researchers with
the purpose for the visit.
A complete list of reasons is presented in the table below.
Reason for visit from field representative 2005 2011
(N=37) (1V=60)
Repair ---% 25.0
Meter 29.7 23.3
Don't know/unsure 10.8 11.7
Install service 10.8 10.0
Outage 16.2 8.3
Service problem 18.9 6.7
Routine check 2.7 5.0
Audit --- 3.3
Question on bill her than usual) --- 3.3
Disconnect service --- 1,7
Power sure Protection _-- 1.7
Other 10.8 ---
Reason for field rep visit
30 - k -77777777 '7777777777
29.7
25 0 kx
}
25 �
20
r
15-
10.
510 8 . . . 10:8
:10:0 k
10-
A
0 ..
X8:3
} 6:7
5
J `'
0:0
0 T. y.. yv
Repair Meter DK/Unsure Install Outage Service Routine Other
service problem check
❑2005 ® 2011
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 15
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
INFORMATION & AWARENESS
All respondents were asked by researchers to indicate if their electric company was a "Community
Owned Municipal Utility" or a"Business Owned or Private Investor Owned Company."
Over half of all respondents, 58.4%, reported RMLD is a "Community Owned Municipal Utility,"
while another 16.5%believe it is a "Business or Private Investor Owned Company." The remaining
respondents,25.2%,reported-to be "unsure."
Results for 2005 and 2011 are presented in the table below.
Publicly or Privately Owned?
80-
70-
60-
50-
40- ,
0 70 6050 40
i 16.5 18 Os.
20
kel
95
10
;i
Municipal Private Don't know
❑2005 �2011
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page.16
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
All respondents were asked to describe their relationship Reading Municipal Light Department. The
chart below presents the results as collected.
Your relationship with RMLD?
80
70-
60-
50-
7
06050
40
.;30.9;,.
20
10 z5�
An advocate of RMLD Loyal customer Satisfied customer Less than satisfied
❑2005 ■2011
In a question new to the 2011 survey, all respondents were asked if they strongly agree, somewhat
agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement: `regardless of changing
fuel prices and economic factors, Reading Municipal Light Department is doing all it can to keep customer
prices low."
As presented in the following table, over four-fifths of respondents, 83.5%, either "strongly agree"
(45.6%) or "somewhat agree" (37.9%) that RMLD is doing all it can to keep customer prices low.
RMLD D is doing all it can to keep customer prices low 2011
Strongly agree 45.6%
Somewhat agree 37.9
Somewhat disagree 4.7
Strongly disagree 3.7
Don't know/unsure 8.0
Total agree 83.5
Total disagree 8.4
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 17
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Respondents were asked what measures, if any, they or others in their home may have taken to
lower energy usage or reduce energy consumption in their home.
Over half of respondents, 58.4% suggested they "turned off lights" as the primary measure taken to
lower energy usage. Readers should not multiple responses were accepted and presented in the table
below.
Measures you have taken to lower energy usage: 2011
Turned off lights 58.4%
Purchased/replaced home appliances/eui ment with energy efficient models 19.5
Applied weather stripping or purchased efficient measures like insulation for 18.7
roof, door,wall or window
Purchased/switched to energy efficient light bulbs 18.5
Turned off/reduced use of electronics ,computer, etc. 12.7
Turned off/reduced use of small appliances (hair dryer, alarm clock, etc.) 12.2
No action taken 8.7
Used less air conditioning turned off more frequently) 8.2
Used less hot water 6.0
Switched electric appliances to natural gas or other fuel source 4.2
Remodeling projects with focus on increased energy efficiency ratings 4.0
Washed clothes/dishes using cold water rather than hot/ran full loads/used less 3.5
Used less air conditioning set on warmer temperature) 2.0
Lowered thermostat 2.0
Used appliances during off-peak periods 1.7
Closed off rooms/area of home to use 1.5
Cooked less/used grill more frequently 1.2
Hung clothes to dry or used dryer less 0.7
Solar panels 0.7
Had an energy audit 0.5
Turned off pool, spa, sauna,waterbed, sprinklers or irrigation pumps 0.2
Refused/don't know/unsure 0.2
Disconnected/ of rid of second refrigerator or freezer 0.2
Less people in home (travel, death, etc.) 0.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 18
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Respondents were asked what measures, if any, they or others in their home maylt� an to take in
order to lower energy usage or reduce energy consumption in their home.
Three-fifths of all respondents, 60.1% reported they plan on taking no action. The table below
presents the results as collected. Multiple responses were once again accepted.
Measures you plan-to take to lower-energy usage? 2011
No action planned 60.1%
Turn off lights 16.0
Apply weather stripping or purchase efficient measures like insulation for roof, 9.7
door,wall or window
Purchase/replace home appliances/equipment with energy efficient models 7.0
Use less hot water 4.0
Remodeling projects with focus on increased energy efficiency ratings 2.7
Switch to/purchase energy efficient light bulbs 2.7
Turn off/reduce use of electronics , computer, etc.) 2.5
Switch electric appliances to natural gas or other fuel source 2.2
Refused/don't know/unsure 2.2
Use less air conditioning turned off more frequently) 2.0
Turn off/reduce use of small appliances (hair dryer,alarm clock, etc.) 2.0
Use less air conditioning set on warmer temperature) 1.0
Wash clothes/dishes using cold water rather than hot/ran full loads/used less 0.7
Have a home energy audit 0.5
Solar pane.. 0.5
Disconnect/ et rid of second refrigerator or freezer 0.2
Close off rooms/area of home to use 0.2
Use appliances during off-peak periods 0.2
Cook less/use grill morefrequently 0.2
Turn off pool, spa, sauna,waterbed, sprinklers or irrigation pumps ---
.Hang clothes to dry or used dryer less ---
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 19
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Respondents were asked what barriers may prevent them from implementing any measures or
actions that might reduce energy consumption in their home.
The table below presents the barriers reported.
Barriers to conserving electricity... 2011
None 69.3%
Mone /cost 17.5
Don't know/unsure 3.0
Lack of information or guidance 3.0
Kids 2.0
Time 1.5
Old house 1.5
Rent/apartment 1.5
Other 1.2
As a follow-up, respondents were asked what factors currently motivate or drive them to modify
habits and behaviors and actively conserve electricity.
The table below presents the drivers most frequently reported.
Drivers to conserve electricity... 2011
Financial/cost incentive 66.1%
Environmental 20.9
Fuel cost increases 16.5
Nothing-have always actively conserved 9.0
Don't know/unsure 3.5
Nothing- don't try to conserve and don't plan to 3.0
Increased knowledge/knowing knowledge/knowingwhat to do 1.2
Pressure from kids 0.5
Special rates (peak or time-of-use) 0.5
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT page 20
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
All respondents were read a short list of products and services and asked for each how likely they
might be to participate in if the product or service were available from Reading Municipal Light
Department.
A detailed list of results is presented in the table below.
Program or sereice Yes,have Yes, have No,plans No,no Don't
&will in &won't ` for future plans for know
future in future future
Rebates on energy efficient 44.9x/0 4.5 18.7 28.7 3.2
appliances or lighting
Low or no cost home energy 17.2 6.5 17.0 52.9 6.5
audit services on ener efficiency
On-peak/off-peak billing for your 14.7 3.2 12.0 45.4 24.7
electric rates
Seminars and presentations on
reducing electricity costs and 5.2 1.0 12.7 78.3 2.7
consumption
All respondents were asked to indicate where they currently look for information about RMLD.
The largest number of 2011 respondents, 40.9%, reported looking at the "Utility's Bill Insert."
The table below presents responses as collected. Readers should note that multiple responses were
accepted.
Where do you currently look for information on XMLD? 2011
Utility's bill insert 40.9%
Website 25.7
Utility's newsletter/brochure 15.0
None/don't look for information 11.0
Direct contact 8.7
Newspaper stories 7.0
Direct mail 6.2
Newspaper ads 5.7
Friends and co-workers 1.5
Don't know/unsure 1.2
Phone 1.0
Television ads 0.7
Television stories 0.2
Community organizations 0.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 21
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
As a follow-up, all respondents were asked to indicate where they would prefer to look for
information about RMLD. The largest number of 2011 respondents, 35.2%, reported preferring
"Utility's Bill Insert."
Where would you refer to look for information on RMLD? 2011
Utility's bill insert 35.2%
Website 31.4
Utility's newsletter/brochures 16.2
Direct contact 8.2
None 7.2
Newspaper stories 7.0
Direct mail 6.5
Newspaper ads 4.0
E-mail 1.5
Television ads 1.0
Friends and co-workers 1.0
Phone 1.0
Don't know/unsure 0.7
Radio ads 0.5
Community organizations 0.5
Television stories 0.2
Radio stories 0.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 221
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
COMMUNICATION
When asked, over four-fifths of all respondents, 83.3%, recalled receiving the Reading Municipal
Light Department newsletter called "In Brief'included with their bills.
Those recalling the newsletter (83.3%) were then asked to indicate how thoroughly they usually read
the newsletter.
As presented in the chart below, the majority of respondents, 90.4%, reported reading all or at least
some of the newsletter.
How thoroughly do you read "In Brief'?
33.5
35-
5,1
30-
25-
20-
7-1
0 2520
s
10
5 � .
P
K 013
Read all of it Read most of it Read some of it None/Don't read Not sure
it
■2011
Those reading all or at least a portion of the newsletter were then asked to rate "In Brief' on being
informative.
The clear majority of respondents, 94.4%, suggested "In Brief' is either "very good" (46.7%) or
"good" (47.79/6) on being informative.
How would you rate"In Brief"on being informative? 2011
(1V=302)
Very good 46.7%
Good 47.7
Poor 2.0
Very poor 0.3
Don't know/unsure 3.3
Total informative 94.4
Total:uninformative 2.3
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 23
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
RMLD CUSTOM QUESTIONS
All respondents were asked to indicate their preferred method of communication with RMLD.
As presented in the following table, over two-thirds of respondents, 66.8%, reported their preferred
method of communicating with RMLD is through "phone."
Whatis yourpreferred method of communication with.RMLD? 2011
Phone 66.8%
Email 15.5
Mail 13.2
Inperson/direct contact 2.2
Don't Know/unsure 2.2
Social Media ---
As a follow-up, all respondents were asked what social mediaa sites, if any, they would like to use to
interact with RMLD.
Social Media Websites... 2011
Don't use/participate in social media. 86.0%
Facebook 9.2
Don't know/unsure 3.2
Twitter 0.7
LinkedIn 0.7
Other ---
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 24
The Center for Research www.CIFRGLOBAL.COM
Respondents were then asked to indicate their current primary method for paying their RMLD bill.
Nearly half of respondents, 44.6% stated that"mail check"was the method they primarily used.
Payment method 2005 2011
Mail check 61.8% 44.6
Direct payment from checking account online 10.5 30.9
Drop off.payment at 230 Ash St. 8.8 8.7
Credit card 3.8 7.0
Drop off ata payment box other than 230 Ash St.) 7.0 6.5
Check/debit payment over hone --- 0.7
Credit card payment over phone --- 0.5
Not the bill payer in the home --- 0.5
Don't know unsure --- 0.5
Online paMent 6.0 ---
When asked how they currently access the internet, over two-fifths of respondents,42.9%, reported
having access to the internet "at both home and work."
Access;to the intemet 2011
At both home and work 42.9%
At home 39.2
Do not have access to the internet 16.2
Don't know/unsure 1.2
At work 0.5
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 25
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
All respondents were read the following statement: `How interested are you in using the KMLD
website for services such as paying monthly bills, accessing account information, changing an address, setting
up new service, terminating existing service, energy audits, signing up for budget payment plans or other
services? LVouldyou say... "
As presented in the following table, more than two-fifths of respondents, 41.6%, reported being
either "very interested" (24.91/6) or "somewhat interested" (16.7%) in using the RMLD website for
the above mentioned services.
Interest in using RMLD's;website? 2011
Very interested 24.9%
Somewhat interested 16.7
Somewhat uninterested 4.5
Not at all interested 52.9
Don't know/unsure/need more information 1.0
Total interested 41.6
Total uninterested 57.-4
All respondents were asked how aware they were of the option to reduce their electric bill by
selecting the time-of-use rate. While nearly two-fifths of all respondents, 37.9%, reported they were
"very" (16.0%) or "somewhat aware" (21.90/o), another 60.6% said they were "somewhat unaware"
(4.0%) or"not at all aware" (56.6%).
Aware of time-of-use rates?; 2011
Very aware 16.0%
Somewhat aware 21.9
Somewhat unaware 4.0
Not at all aware 56.6
Don't know/unsure 1.5
Total aware 37.9
Total unaware 60.6
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 26
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Following, all respondents were asked how likely they might be to purchase an electric vehicle in the
next five years.
While one-fifth of all respondents, 20.4% reported being "very" (4.7%) or "somewhat likely"
(15.7%) to purchase an electric vehicle within the next five years, three-quarters of respondents,
74.4% reported being"somewhat unlikely" (8.5%) or "not at all likely" (65.8%).
Howl&ely to buy an electric vehicle In the next five years? 2011
Very likely 4.7%
Somewhat likely 15.7
Somewhat unlikely 8.5
Not at all Wely 65.8
Don't know/unsure 5.2
Total likely 20.4
Total unAkel 74,¢
All respondents were then read the following statement: ` 4ow aware are you that RMLD offers
rebates on items such as: appliance rebates ranging from x`25 to $100 on Energy Star appliances, a $10
rebate on smart strip power strips and rebates on a photovoltaic(solar) installation."
As indicated in the chart below, three-fifths of respondents, 60.1%, suggested they were aware of
RMLD's rebate programs.
Aware of RMLD rebate offers?
37.4
40-
35-
30- J
0 35 30 22:7
25-
20f:
5 20 a
15
10. 4.0
5 0.2
0 _;�a`i.-< ..�x.a�x.E'�.f"�,-''_ �Jz.`i�.(,.'3��� ����.�` u. � S"?,+?r3�c'.,.i '�m�F^•5� _
Very aware Somewhat aware Somewhat Not at all aware Don't Know
unaware
■ 2011
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 27
The Centerfor Research & www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
All respondents were asked if they are currently using oil to heat their hot water, and subsequently,
would they consider changing to an electric hot water heater if installation and maintenance costs
were less than replacing their current method and operating costs were about the same.
Just over two-fifths of respondents, 43.6%, reported "no, I would not consider changing from oil,"
while less than one-fifth, 16.5%,reported"yes, I would consider changing from oil to electric."
Would you consider the switch from oil to electric to heat hot watery 2011
No,would not consider changing from oil 43.6%
Don't know/unsure 18.7
Yes, would consider changing from oil to electric 16.5
Fuse gas 12.2
Already using electric hot water heater 9.0
When asked to rate RMLD on educating the public about relevant issues in the electric industry,the
majority of respondents, 64.8%, rated RMLD as being "very good" (21.7%) or "good" (43.1%) at
educating the public on issues in the electric industry.
How well does RMLD educate the public on electrical industry 2011
issues?
Very good 21.7%
Good 43.1
Poor 6.0
Very poor 1.5
Notapplicable/don't seek information about electric industry 15.7
Don't know/ unsure 12.0
Toadgood 64.8
Totalpoor 7.5
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 28
The Center for Research www.CFP.GLOBAL.COM
All respondents were then read the following statement: "How aware are you that RMLD provides
services such as. budget billing 10% discount on monthly bills, credit card payments, drop boa:payments,
home energy audits, in-lieu-of tax payments,public school educational programs and membershp in local civic
or
an„ations?”
As presented in the table below, three-quarters of respondents, 75.9%, suggested they were aware of
RMLD's various services.
How aware of RMLD services. 2011
Very aware 38.7%
Somewhat aware 37.2
Somewhat unaware 5.5
Not at all aware 17.7
Don't know/unsure 1.0
To aware 75.9
Total unaware23.2
All respondents were read a list of possible additions to the RMLD monthly newsletter "In Brief"
and asked which of the following pieces of information they would like to see added.
Readers should note that multiple responses were accepted and are presented in the table below.
Which possible additions mright you like to see added 2005 2011
to the "In Brief"newsletter?
Current rate information 50.8%0 16.2
Conservation tis 50.0 29.2
Local events/news 37.5 5.2
RMLD news 35.8 6.2
Public notes 34.5 0.7
Don't know/unsure 26.3 32.4
Other 2.5 10.0
Other responses include: "track consumption" (6.0%) and "all of the above" (4.0%).
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT page 29
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
When asked about RMLD's recently signed contracts to purchase energy from renewable resources,
nearly three-quarters of respondents, 71.3% reported they either "strongly support" (44.1%) or
"somewhat support" (27.2%) the new purchase of renewable energy, whereas a smaller amount of
respondents, 7.4%, either "somewhat oppose" (3.2%) or "strongly oppose" (4.2%) RMLD
purchasing energy from these renewable sources.
Support RMLD purchasing energy from renewable resources?
50 44.1
40
`i 27.2
30
i
20
4
j
10- 32 4 2;
Strongly support Somewhat Somewhat Strongly oppose Don't know
support oppose
■2011
After being made aware that RMLD is in the process of upgrading its meters to support smart grid
technology, respondents were asked to indicate how likely they might be to utilize internet
capabilities to access their real-time (up-to-the-minute) electricity usage, if it were able to help them
better manage their usage and energy costs.
As presented in the following chart, over half of respondents, 53.6%, reported being either "very
likely" (25.7%) or "somewhat likely" (27.9%) to use the Internet to access their electrical usage
information in real time.
Howlikely to use internet to access real-time electricity reports? `` 2011
Very likely 25.7%
Somewhat likely 27.9
Somewhat unlikely 6.7
Not at all likely 35.4
Don't know/unsure 4.2
Total ikel 53.6
Total unlikely 42.1
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 30
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Respondents were then asked which service characteristic they believe is the most important to
them. As presented in the following chart, more than one-third of respondents, 36.4%, reported
that "rates" are the most important service characteristic.
What service characteristic is most important?
40- 36.4
30 -2 `
a
1W7--
20
13:5.
10
t
Rates Reliability Customer service Environmentally Don't know
responsible
02011
In an open-ended format question, all respondents were asked to name any other products or
services that RMLD should offer in an effort to provide better service.
The table below presents a complete list of responses as collected.
[khat RMLD can do to provide better service? 2005 2011
Nothing/Satisfied 83.1% 89.5
Lower rates/discounts for seniors 3.0 2.5
More conservation programs/information/audits 2.1 2.4
Rebates/incentives/a fiance rebates 1.0 2.0
Setter website/more options online --- 1.5
Don't know/unsure --- 1.2
Was to monitor usage --- 1.0
Quicker power restoration 0,8 ---
Offer additional services (cable,internet, appliances) 0.9 ---
Improve street lighting 0.8 ---
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 31
The Centerfor Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
DEMOGRAPHICS
Ease ofmaintainrng standard ofliving? 2005 2011
Very easy 8.8% 12.5
Somewhat easy 46.8 34.4
Somewhat difficult 35.3 35.4
Very difficult 4.5 9.5
Don't know/unsure 4.8 8.2
Total easy 55.6 46.9
Total difficult 39.9 44.9
Reason why... 2011
Price increase-gasoline 18.9%
Price increase-electric rates 18.3
Em to ent-low paying job/insufficient pay increases 17.8
Price increase-heating oil 15.6
Increase/high taxes 15.6
Employment-loss of job/no job 13.3
Price increase-natural gas rates 12.8
Cost of living /everything 11.1
Fixed income 7.8
Debt-credit card,loans 6.7
Economy 6.1
Don't know/unsure 6.1
Insurance-cost increase, co a ,premiums 5.6
Children in school- private/college 4.4
Housing market/mort a e rates 2.8
Health problems/medical bills 2.8
Children - general/just had another 1.7
Housing-repairs,upgrades, additions,problems 1.7
Automotive/Transportation costs -commute,repairs, re lacement, problems 1.1
Age? 2005 2011
18 to 24 0.8% 0.2
25 to 34 2.3 4.5
35 to 44 7.3 13.2
45 to 54 26.3 20.0
55 to 64 20.3 19.7
65 or older 36.5 34.2
Refused 6.8 8.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 32
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Highestgrade completed? 2005 2011
Eighth grade or less 0.5% --
Some high school 1.3 1.2
High school graduate 24.8 19.7
Some technical school 1.5 ---
Technical school graduate 1.8 2.0
Some college 15.3 13.0
College graduate 30.3 32.9
Post-graduate or professional degree 16.0 22.7
Refused 8.8 8.5
Income before taxes? 2005 2011
Under $9,999 1.0% ---
$10,000 to less than $25,000 7.3 2.5
$25,000 to less than $40,000 6.8 3.0
$40,000 to less than$50,000 6.5 1.7
$50,000 to less than $60,000 3.8 4.5
$60,000 to less than$75,000 3.5 4.5
$75,000 or more 12.8 24.7
Don't know 1.5 3.0'
Refused 57.0 56.1
Dwelling type... 2005 2011
Single family home 90.5% 83.0
Townhouse or multi-family house 3.3 4.7
Apartment building 2.8 2.5
Mobile home --- ---
Condo --- 4.2
Other 3.0 ---
Don't know/unsure/ refused --- 5.4
Heat your hot water with electricity? 2005 2011
Yes 24.0% 17.0
No 72.0 77.6
Don't know 4.0 5.5
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 33
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
Does your house have air conditioning? 2011
Yes 36.2%
No 60.3
Don't know 3.5
Method used to heat your home? 2005 2011
Oil 64.5% 60.3
Gas 30.0 31.7
Electricity 3.8 2.5
Wood --- 0.5
Other/don't know 1.9 5.0
Own or rent current residence? 2005 2011
Own 92.8% 89.0
Rent 6.5 5.2
Don't know/refused --- 5.7
.Are you the person who pays the electric bill? 2008 2010
Yes 77.0% 82.8
No 15.8 10.5
Sometimes 6.8 4.2
Don't know/unsure --- 2.5
Length of time Irving.in 2005 2011
1 to 5 years 11.5% 15.2
6 to 10 years 6.3 10.5
11 to 15 years 8.7 9.8
16 to 20 years 13.8 10.0
21 to 30 years 19.2 14.7
More than 30 years 40.5 39.8
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 34
The Center for Research www.CFRGLoBAL.com
Gender... 2005 2011
Male 39.8% 47.4
Female 60.3 52.6
Town... 2005 2011
L nnfield 23.5% 12.0
North Reading 25.8 21.9
Reading 25.3 35.9
Wilmington 25.5 30.2
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 35
The Centerfor Research WWW.CFRGLOBAL.COM
APPENDIX
INTERPRETATION OF AGGREGATE RESULTS
The computer-processed data for this survey is presented in the following frequency distributions.
It is important to note that the wordings of the variable labels and value labels in the computer-
processed data are largely abbreviated descriptions of the Questionnaire items and available response
categories.
The frequency distributions include the category or response for the question items. Responses
deemed not appropriate for classification have been grouped together under the "Other"code.
The "NA" category label refers to "No Answer" or "Not Applicable." This code is also used to
classify ambiguous responses. In addition, the "DK/RF" category includes those respondents who
did not know their answer to a question or declined to answer it. In many of the tables, a group of
responses may be tagged as "Missing" — occasionally, certain individual's responses may not be
required to specific questions and thus are excluded. Although when this category of response is
used, the computations of percentages are presented in two (2) ways in the frequency distributions:
1) with their inclusion (as a proportion of the total sample), and 2) their exclusion (as a proportion
of a sample sub-group).
Each frequency distribution includes the absolute observed occurrence of each response (i.e. the
total number of cases in each category). Immediately adjacent to the right of the column of absolute
frequencies is the column of relative frequencies. These are the percentages of cases falling in each
category response, including those cases designated as missing data. To the right of the relative
frequency column is the adjusted frequency distribution column that contains the relative
frequencies based on the legitimate (i.e. non-missing) cases. That is, the total base for the adjusted
frequency distribution excludes the missing data. For many Questionnaire items, the relative
frequencies and the adjusted frequencies will be nearly the same. However, some items that elicit a
sizable number of missing data will produce quite substantial percentage differences between the
two columns of frequencies. The careful analyst will cautiously consider both distributions.
The last column of data within the frequency distribution is the cumulative frequency distribution
(Cum Freq). This column is simply an adjusted frequency distribution of the sum of all previous
categories of response and the current category of response. Its primary usefulness is to gauge some
ordered or ranked meaning.
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT Page 36
The Center for Research www.CFRGLOBAL.COM
ATTACHMENT 2
Revision No.5 RMLD POLICY#10 Effective Date:
RMLD CREDIT CARD/PETTY CASH
General Manager/Date Chairman/Date
1. PURPOSE
A. To ensure that the RMLD's Credit Card and Petty Cash are used solely for RMLD business
purposes and that their use follows the established guidelines.
2. RESPONSIBILITIES
A. RMLD Board of Commissioners
1. Responsible for review,through normal bills payable process,of expenditures made
using the RMLD credit card and petty cash.
B. General Manager
1. Responsible for matching monthly credit card bill against vendor receipts and then
forwarding it to the Accounting/Business Manager for payment. The General Manager
shall note the reason for each expenditure on the monthly bill. Such notes should clearly
explain the business nature of the charges.
2. Responsible for ensuring that the credit card is only used for RMLD purchases of
materials, equipment and supplies for business purposes only and airfare and hotel
reservations for business travel only.
3. Responsible for setting the criteria and ceiling amount of petty cash payments. Initially,
but subject to change, the maximum amount for a petty cash reimbursement will be
$100.00.per voucher. The petty cash fund will be established at$3,000.
C. Human Resources Manager
1. Responsible for ensuring that the credit card is returned and destroyed upon the General
Manager leaving the employ of the RMLD.
D. AcccountingBusiness Manager
1. Responsible for reviewing monthly credit card bills with charge slips.
2. Ensure that petty cash vouchers are within the proper dollar limit and are completed in
their entirety in order to be processed.
3. Ensure that appropriate signatures are submitted for every credit card purchase and petty
cash voucher.
4. Will review with the General Manager any questionable charge slips..
3 POLICY ELEMENTS
A. The RMLD credit card is issued to the General Manager solely as a convenience for purchasing
materials, equipment, supplies, airfare and hotel reservations. All expenditures are to be business
related. The General Manager and Accounting/Business Manager will review any expenditures in
question. The General Manager will ensure that any expenditure determined not to be business
related will be remunerated within seven business days.
B. The General Manager will retain control of the credit card.
C. The credit card is not to be used to circumvent Policy#9,Procurement,nor the internal purchasing
process.
D. Petty Cash is intended to reimburse employees for small incidental business expenditures. No
employee shall use petty cash for any personal business.
E. All documentation submitted to support a petty cash voucher must include the original paid
invoice and/or the original paid receipt. All petty cash transactions must have the approval of a
supervisor.
F. Each petty cash voucher and the submission of credit card charge slips shall contain a signature
line following the statement: "This/these purchase(s) were not excessive, fraudulent or illegal
signed under penalty of perjury."
f h
y r
a
h _..
� �.s i ,g�''�"�� f}xx�d� :i7, »,s"'c -'�-�, }.�� tam Asx�.: ��.�-,.7�.�� -w,., � ✓ _ air,�+,u-_
y
The NEPPA 2 011 Annual Conference
Have you read the training manual for your computer, utility. On Tuesday, our speakers will look at the major
software or smart phone?Are you confused about the role trends and developments in our nation and our industry,
of social media in your utility?Are you intrigued by the including wholesale power markets,transmission, and fed-
possibility that tidal or solar power could help meet the eral energy policy in a divided Congress. As always, this
world's demand for energy? event will feature social activities where you will be able
This year's conference deals with the opportunities and to speak with other utility officials, service providers and
challenges presented by emerging technologies in the experts in the industry- all in a relaxing and elegant atmo-
workplace, social media, renewable power generation, sphere conducive to casual networking.
and the electric utility industry. Our speakers will focus on If you are a regular attendee at this annual event,
how to leverage technology to become more productive please register early and book your room now. If you've
and effective; how to use social media to better serve your never been to a NEPPA conference,this is a good time
customers and your community; and how to tap the sun and a great location to start.
and tides to generate clean, renewable energy for your
Samoset Maine's Premier Oceanfront Resort
Just south of Camden, Maine along the blue waters Golf Tournament
of Penobscot Bay lies the Samoset Resort, a legendary NEPPA's Annual Conference Golf Tournament will be
landmark which continues a tradition of gracious hospital- held at the resort's championship golf course that winds
ity and service reminiscent of a bygone era.The 230-acre through seaside vistas, woods and gardens. The course
ocean-side resort has been recently restored to create an offers some of the most magnificent views and formidabl'
ambience that combines old-world charm with new-world holes in golf. Particularly daring are the seven seaside
convenience and is designed to afford spectacular views holes that skirt the rugged coastline and expose even the
of the ocean just outside. -best shots to sometimes upredictable wind.
The resort features a championship golf course,tennis There will be a $120 charge to participate in the touma-
courts, hiking and walking paths and indoor and outdoor ment which includes carts, prizes and green fees. For more
swimming pools.All guest rooms and suites feature king information on the Golf Course go to www.samosetresort.
or double queen beds, marble baths, data ports, hair dry- com/golf.
ers and luxury amenity products. Each has either a private
balcony or terrace overlooking the ocean or golf course.
Within minutes of the resort are several charm-
ing coastal villages and antique, craft and outlet shops
abound in nearby Camden, Rockport, Rockland and
Lincolnville.
This year's conference will include a traditional Maine
lobster bake in a picturesque seaside garden overlooking
the golf course and the ocean.
f:s
G�,Sxir
Preliminary Program Highlights and Events
Sunday Evening '7uesdav Morning
Welcoming Reception with Cocktails America's Electric Future:
and Light Refreshments The Next Twenty-Five Years
Roger Gale, president& CEO of GF Energy, will provide
ionday hFiarning an overview of the major trends, technologies and political
Leveraging Technology to Improve realities which will shape America's electric utility industry
Productivity & Efficiency in the next quarter century.
Steve Turner of Turner Time Management will demon-
strate time-saving computer shortcuts and quick search Wholesale Power Markets and Transmission
tools to find things faster, as well as the most efficient way in New England: A FERC Perspective
to process and organize e-mails. Hon. Marc Spitzer, commissioner, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, will offer a federal regulator's per-
Social Media's Role in Public Power spective on the performance of unregulated power mar-
Jackie Pratt, marketing manager at Shrewsbury Electric& kets in New England, along with the costs and benefits of
Cable Operations, will share her utility's experience using new transmission projects in our region.
various forms of consumer-generated media.
Energy Policy and the 112th Congress
Tidal, River and Ocean Power Systems for Deborah Sliz, president&CEO of Morgan Meguire, LLC,
New England will bring her intimate knowledge of the U.S. Congress
Christopher Sauer, President& CEO of Ocean Renewable and federal energy policy to Maine, and tell us what's
Power Company, will discuss:breakthrough technology going on behind the scenes, and who is making it hap-
and eco-conscious projects that use river and ocean ener- Pen.
gy to produce clean, predictable electricity to power our
homes and businesses while protecting our environment. Tuesday Evening
Lobster Bake
Solar Energy and the Grid:
Developments and Prospects Wednesday Morning
Sandra Burton, regional director for the Solar Electric Farewell Breakfast
Power Association, will describe the growing role of solar
power in our nation's energy mix, and some of the tech- °µ
nological, market and policy issues to be addressed in
advancing this vital renewable resource. b �,
Monday Afternoons
Roundtabie discussion
Technical and Legal Issues Related to a ' '
Renewable Energy Projects
This informal roundtable discussion will focus on some of i
the challenges involved in planning, siting and building
-
community-based renewable energy projects, along with
the related legal and contractual issues involved in such ma a ire= uuih ,.p,<
ro ects. R Tv n
P j
Monday Everi,',n
Reception and Banquet
ON
NEPPA 201 I Annual Conference Registration Form
CC)NTACT NAME FMAII
COMPANY
ADDRFSS
PHONF FAX
Please indicate below the number of attendees,total cost and names as they will appear on the name badges. Please note:
All children must be registered in order to attend meal functions. Indicate age(s) of children to assist with program planning.
# FULL MF_MBFR Cdr$6n0 TOTAI $ NAMF( -
FIRST CORPORATE MFMRFR one cmmplimentaW rgI;jistmtinn Cot$0 NAMF-
# ADDITIONAI CORPORATF MFMBFRS Rr$600 TOTAL NAM (S)•
# ASSOCIATE MEMBER 0$650 TOTAI $ NAMF,(';)-
# NON-MEMBERS Col�750 TOTAL$ NAMF($)•
# GUFST OR CHIT DRFN OVFR 17 0$200 TOTAI $ NAMF( -
# CHILDREN( CA,F 1-16) 05 100 TOTAI—T NAMF(5)-
# SINGLE DAY RATE 0$300 TOTAL $ NAMF(S)-
Total to be billed or charged to company or firm $ If you would like to make a separate payment for guests,
fill out below.
n PLEASE SFND INVOICE FOR$ (MEMBERS ONLM M PI EASF SFND INVOICF FOR$ (MEMBERS ONLY)
CHFCK FNCLOSED FOR
CHECK ENCLOSED FOR$
PI FASF CHARGE A TOTAL OF$ TO MY ❑
PI FASF CHARGE A TOTAL OF$ TO MY
❑ ❑ .m ❑ EJ El 11
# FXP
EXP,
SIG NFD
SIGNFD
PRINT NAME
SEND CREDrr CARD RFCFIPT TO THF FOI I OWING ADDR SS• PRINT NAMF
SEND INVOICE AND/OR CREDIT CARD RECEIPT Tn THF FOI I OWING ADDRESS.
CANCELLATION POLICY:
Conference cancellations received by August 5 will be entitled to a full refund. Cancellations after August 5 will be subjec'"
to a prorated refund based on any costs incurred by the Association. Note: Any questions, special dietary needs, or
accommodations for disabilities,please call Kristin DiGirolamo or Sheila Boone at(508)482-5906 or kristind@neppa.org or
sboone@neppa.org.
ATTACHMENT 4
Dt: 12-25, 2011
To: RMLB,Vincent F. Cameron, Jr., Jeanne Foti
Fr: Bob Fournier
S3: Financial Report March 31,2011
The results for the first nine months endin(-7 March 31, 2011,for the fiscal year
2011 will be summarized in the following paragraphs.
1) Change in Net Assets or Net Income: (Daae 3A)
For the month of March; the net income or the positive change in net assets was
$720, increasing the year to date net income to $2,236,624. The year to date
budgeted net income was $1,214,457 the difference beim $1,022,167, or 84.17%.
Year to date fuel revenues exceeded fuel expenses by$109,095. Year to date
energy conservation expenses exceeded energy conservation revenues by
$141.572. Year to date GAVd soil remediation expenses totalled$1,256,863,
keeping the total cost to date for this project to $2,353,294.
2)Revenues: Gage 11B)
Year to date base revenues were over budget by$3,536,119 or 11.37 %. Actual
base revenues were $34.6 million compared to the budgeted amount of$31.1
million.
3) Expenses: (Page 12A)
*Year to date.purchased power base expense was under budget by$94561 or
.45%. Actual purchased power base costs were $20.8 million compared to the
budgeted amount of$20.9 million.
*Year to date operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses combined were over
budget by $564,587 or 6.26%. Actual O&M expenses were$9.6 million
compared to the budgeted amount of$9.0 million. The major expenses that were
over budget were maintenance of line transformers ($637,762) and employee
benefits ($314,371).
*Depreciation expense and voluntary payments to the Towns were on budget.
4)-Cash: (Wage 9)
*Operating Fund balance was at $6,728,886.
*Capital Funds balance was at$4,800,265.
*R.ate Stabilization Fund balance was at$5,393,426.
*Deferred Fuel Fund balance was at$2;435,207.
*Energy Conservation balance was at $167,310.
5) General Information:
Year to date kwh sales (Page 5) were 4.960/C, or 25.7 million kwh ahead of last
vear's fizure. GAVE revenues to date are $404,32 .
6) Budget N7ariance:
Cumulatively,the five divisions were over budget by $525,003 or 3.68 %.
FINANCIAL REPORT
MARCH 31 , 2011
ISSUE DATE : APRIL 25, 2011
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS-TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS
3/31/11
PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR
ASSETS
CURRENT
UNRESTRICTED CASH (SCH A P.9) 4,913,308.32 6,731,886.19
RESTRICTED CASH (SCH A P.9) 14,934,322.28 16,189,511.08
RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS (SCH A P.9) 4,400,000.00 2,200,000.00
RECEIVABLES, NET (SCH B P.10) 8,063,269.11 7,263,588.23
PREPAID EXPENSES (SCH B P.10) 1,635,333.01 1,616,472.55
INVENTORY 1,419,450.95 1,594,945.67
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 35,565,683.67 35,598,403,72
NONCURRENT
INVESTMENT IN ASSOCIATED CO (SCH C P.2) 106,967.43 85,253.67
CAPITAL ASSETS, NET (SCH C P.2) 65,643,284.17 67,391,870.95
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS 65,752,251.60 67,477,124.62
TOTAL ASSETS 101,317,935.27 103.075,526.3A
LIABILITIES
CURRENT
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 5,737,639.16 4,980,600.89
CUSTOMER DEPOSITS 493,771.43 518,723.97
CUSTOMER ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION 590,040.02 330,793.90
ACCRUED LIABILITIES 1,140,442.51 1,168,888.61
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES _ 7,961,893.12 6,999,007.37
NONCURRENT
ACCRUED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATED ABSENCES 2,873,114.33 3,020,032.75
TOTAL NONCURRENT LIABILITIES 2,873,114.33 3,020,032.75
TOTAL LIABILITIES 10,835,007.45 10,019,040.12
NET ASSETS
INVESTED IN CAPITAL ASSETS, NET OF RELATED DEBT 65,673,905.48 67,391,870.95
RESTRICTED FOR DEPRECIATION FUND (p.9) 5,545,661.50 4,800,265.08
UNRESTRICTED 19,293,982.15 20,864,352.19
TOTAL NET ASSETS (P.3) 90,482 927.82 93,056,488.22
TOTAL, LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS 101 .7,935.27 103,075,528.34
(1)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
NONCURRENT ASSET SCHEDULE
3/31/11
SCHEDULE C
SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO ELECTRIC 41,937.50 23,538.60
NEW ENGLAND HYDRO TRANSMISSION 67,029.93 61,715.07
TOTAL INVESTMENTS IN ASSOCIATED COMPANIES 108,967.43 85,253.67
SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL ASSETS
LAND 1,265,842.23 1,265,642.23
STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS 6,997,681.11 6,885,443.43
EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS 13,054,854.55 13,013,253.95
INFRASTRUCTURE 44,324,906.28 46,227,331.34
TOTAL UTILITY PLANT 65,643,284.17 67,391,870.95
TOTAL NONCURRENT ASSETS 65,752,251.60 67,477,124.62
(2)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS-TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
3/31/11
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD $
LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
OPERATING REVENUES: (SCH D P.11)
BASE REVENUE 2,939,624.37 3,564,066.20 29,558,229.60 34,648,641.07
FUEL REVENUE 3,138,855.35 2,992,700.15 33,399,974.65 31,294,028.16 -6.316
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 580,133.13 40,088.46 3,152,192.03 1,238,886.84 -60.70%
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 71,658.94 64,719.86 652,010.42 782,175.27 19.96$
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE 41,027.59 36,810.09 415,864.43 386,744.34 -7.009-
GA' REVENUE 0.00 53,456.19 0.00 404,325.74 100.00%
PASNY CREDIT 75 ^'? :'.. (93.444 57) - .09 6, 2c', 57.3 o_
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 6,695,667.13 6,679,396.38 66,789,005.04 66,142,288.13 2.03
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH E P.12)
PURCHASED POWER BASE 2,323,039.53 2,189,648.87 20,837,453.69 20,841,466.45 0.020
PURCHASED POWER FUEL 3,009,718.08 2,937,424.70 31,078,465.50 30,572,419.82 -1.63%
OPERATING 474,172.08 826,419.80 6,099,456.67 6,460,203.40 6.24;
MAINTENANCE 264,324.16 191,547.44 2,184,788.53 3,109,635.95 42.330
DEPRECIATION 280,105.78 287,729.05 2,520,952.02 2,589,561.45 2.720
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 104,500.00 110 000.00 940,246.00 985,885.00 4.850
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 6,455,859.63 6,542,769.86 63,661,362.41 64,579,174.07 1.440
OPERATING INCOME 239,607.50 136,626.52 3,127,642.63 3,563,114.06 13.92%
N_ OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST 4,835.13 12,051.60 561,075.64 47,139.02 -91.60
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING (183,222.50) (180,990.00) (1,640,002.50) (1,628,910.00) -0.68%
INTEREST INCOME 16,097.28 22,083.39 154,747.04 92,119.44 -40.47%
INTEREST EXPENSE (1,253.81) (1,006.13) (17,050.21) (11,301.33) -33.72%
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT) 54,623.78 11,955.27 256,798.90 174,462.42 32.06%
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP) (107,920.12) (135,905.87) (684,430.93) (1,326,490.45) 93.615
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 131,887.38 720.65 2,443,211.70 2,236,623.61 -8.465
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 86,039,716.12 90,819,864.61 3.165
NET ASSETS AT END OF MARCH 90,482.927.82 93,056,488.22 2.64€
(3)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS-TYPE PROPRIETARY FUND
STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS
3/31/11
ACTUAL, BUDGET
YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE* CHANGE
OPERATING REVENUES: (SCH F P.11B)
BASE REVENUE 34,648,641.07 31,112,522.00 3,536,119.07 11.37%
FUEL REVENUE 31,294,028.16 30,922,864.00 371,164.16 1.200
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 1,238,886.84 4,127,433.00 ,2,888,546.16) -69.980
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 762,175.27 684,475.00 97,700.27 14.270
ENERGY CONSERVATION REVENUE 386,744.34 409,463.00 (22,718.66)
GAW REVENUE 404,325.74 210,000.00 194,325.74 92.54%
PASNY CREDIT (61_'..513.291 (450.000.00) !162.513.29) 36.11%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 68,142,288.13 67,016,757.00 1,125,531.13 1.68%
OPERATING EXPENSES: (SCH G P.12A)
PURCHASED POWER BASE 20,841,468.45 20,936,030.00 (94,561.55) -0.45%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL 30,572,419.82 31,313,265.00 (740,845.18) -2.37%
OPERATING 6,480,203.40 6,553,617.00 (73,413.60) -1.12%
MAINTENANCE 3,109,635.95 2,471,635.00 638,000.95 25.61%
DEPRECIATION 2,589,561.45 2,625,003.00 (35,441.55) -1.35%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 985,885.00 990,000.00 (4.115.00) -0.42%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 64,579,174.07 64,889,550.00 (310,375.93) -0.48%
OPERATING INCOME 3,563,114.06 2,127,207.00 1,435,907.06 67.50%
NONOPERATING REVENUES (E-ENSES)
CONTRIBUTIONS IN AID OF CONST 47,139.02 300,000.00 (252,860.98) -84.29%
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO READING (1,G26,910.00) (1,631,250.00) 2,340.00 -0.14%
INTEREST INCOME 92,119.44 337,500.00 (245,360.56) 72.71%
INTEREST EXPENSE (11,301.33) (91000.00) (2,301.33) 25.57%
OTHER (MDSE AND AMORT) 174,462.42 90;000.00 84,462.42 93.85%
TOTAL NONOPERATING REV (EXP) (1,326,490.45) (912,750.00) (413,740.45) 45.33%
CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 2,236,623.61 1,214,457.00 1,022,166.61 84.17%
NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR 90,819,864.61 88,039,716.12 2,780,148.49 3.16%
NET ASSETS AT END OF MARCH 93,056,488.22 89,254,173.12 3,802,315.10 4.26%
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(3A)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL, LIGHT DEPARTMENT
RECONCILIATION OF CAPITAL FUNDS
3/31/11
SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
DEPRECIATION FUND BALANCE 7/1/10 4,801,693.77
CONSTRUCTION FUND BALANCE 7/1/10 0.00
INTEREST ON DEPRECIATION FUND FY 11 11,857.71
DEPRECIATION TRANSFER FY 11 2,589,561.45
FORCED ACCOUNTS REIMBURSEMENT 0.00
GAW SUBSTATION FY 11 497.085.00
TOTAL SOURCE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 7,900,197.93
USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS:
PAID ADDITI0NS TO PLANT THRU MARCH 2,602,847,85
PAID ADDITIONS TO GAW THRU MARCH 497,085.00
TOTAL USE OF CAPITAL FUNDS 3,099,932.85
GENERAL LEDGER CAPITAL FUNDS BALANCE 3/31/11 4,800,265.08
PAID ADDITIONS TO GAW FROM FY 11 497,065.00
PAID ADDITIONS TO CAW FROM FY 10 1,372,876.00
PAID ADDITIONS TO GAW FROM FY 09 3,136,764.00
PAID ADDITIONS TO CAW FROM FY O8 1,895,975.00
TOTAL 6,902.700.00
(4)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL, LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SALES OF KILOWP_TT HOURS
3/31/11
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD $
SALES OF ELECTRICITY: LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
RESIDENTIAL. SALES 18,353,938 19,615,870 189,544,591 204,757,072 8.03%
COMM. AND INDUSTRIAL SALES 30,066,818 31,221,033 305,149,590 315,588,856 3.42%
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING 70,91E 71,623 639,051 647,348 1.30%
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS 48,491,674 50,908,526 495,333,232 520,993,276 5.18%
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING .237,395 239,009 2,135,557 2,149,605 0.66%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 803,076 832,640 7,547,519 7,565,349 0.50%
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS 1,040,471 1,071,649 9,683,076 9,734,954 0.54%
SALES FOR RESALE 263,452 272,911 2,508,953 2,696,782 7.49%
SCHOOL 1,241,819 1,205,018 10,949,461. 10,775,818 -1.59%
TOTAL KILOWATT HOURS SOLD 51,037,416 53,458,104 516,474,722 544,200,830 4.96%
(5)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
KILOWATT HOURS SOLD BY TOWN
3/31/11
TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD NO.READING WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL 19,615,870 5,966,023 2,522,684 4,465,571 6,661,592
COMM & IND 31,221,033 4,001,364 249,176 4,791,298 22,179,195
PVT ST LIGHTS 71,623 14,039 1,360 19,851 36,373
PUB ST LIGHTS 239,009 80,436 32,437 39,837 86,299
MUNI BLDGS 832,640 255,064 136,137 153,474 287,965
SALES/RESALE 272,911 272,911 0 0 0
SCHOOL 1,205,018 411,938 253,013 161,040 379,027
TOTAL 53,458,104 11,001,775 3,194,807 9,631,071 29,630,451
YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 204,757,072 63,885,861 29,116,626 47,527,719 64,226,866
COMM & IND 315,588,856 39,400,721 2,559,067 47,668,595 225,960,473
PVT ST LIGHTS 647,348 125,967 12,240 190,253 318,888
PUB ST LIGHTS 2,149,605 723,924 292,085 357,493 776,103
MUNI BLDGS 7,585,349 2,051,058 1,301,816 1,520,676 2,711,799
SALES/RESALE 2,696,782 2,696,782 0 0 0
SCHOOL 10,775,818 3,815,186 2,286,736 1,406,040 3,267,856
TOTAL 544,200,830 112,699,499 35,568,570 98,670,776 297,261,985
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 189,544,591 59,248,986 26,886,534 43,823,295 59,585,776
COMM & IND 305,149,590 37,918,784 2,473,604 47,765,689 216,991,513
PVT ST LIGHTS 639,051 125,615 12,240 188,342 312,854
PUB ST LIGHTS 2,135,557 707,759 295,659 357,324 774,815
MUNI BLDGS 7,547,519 2,024,185 1,264,297 1,430,204 2,828,833
SALES/RESALE 2,508,953 2,508,953 0 0 0
SCHOOL 10,949,461 4,008,192 2,220,727 1,397,640 3,322,902
TOTAL 518,474,722 106,542,474 33,153,061 94,962.494 283,816,693
KILOWATT HOURS SOLD TO TOTAL
TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD NO.READING WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL, 36.69% 11.16% 4.72% 8.35% 12.46%
COMM & IND 58.41% 7.490 0.47% 8.96% 41.49%
PVT ST LIGHTS 0.13% 0.03% 0.00% 0.04% 0.06%
PUB ST LIGHTS 0.45% 0.15% 0.06% 0.07% 0.17%
MUNI BLDGS 1.56% 0.48% 0.25% 0.29% 0.54%
SALES/RESALE 0.51% 0.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SCHOOL 2.25% 0.77% 0.47% 0.30% 0.71%
TOTAL 100.00% 20.590 5.97% 18.01% 55.43%
YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 37.62% 11.74% 5.35% 8.73% 11.80%
COMM & IND 57.99% 7.24% 0.47% 8.76% 41.52%
PVT ST LIGHTS 0.12% 0.02% 0.00% 0.03% 0.07%
PUB ST LIGHTS 0.40% 0.13% 0.05% 0.07% 0.15%
MUNI BLDGS 1.39% 0.38% 0.24% 0.28% 0.49%
SALES/RESALE 0.50% 0.500 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SCHOOL 1.98% 0.70% 0.42% 0.26% 0.60%
TOTAL 100.00% 20.71% 6.53% 18.13% 54.63%
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 36.56% 11.43% 5.19% 8.45% 11.49%
COMM & IND 58.86% 7.31% 0.48% 9.21% 41.86%
PVT ST LIGHTS 0.12% 0.02% 0.00% 0.04% 0.06%
PUB ST LIGHTS 0.41% 0.14% 0.06% 0.07% 0.14%
MUNI BLDGS 1.46% 0.39% 0.24% 0.28% 0.55%
SALES/RESALE 0.48% 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SCHOOL 2.11% 0.77% 0.43% 0.27% 0.64%
TOTAL 100.00% 20.54% 6.40% 16.32% 54.74%
(6)
I
f
3
s
1 TOWN OF AETDIN6, M SSACHUMTTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FORNVLA INCOME
3/31/11
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES (P.3) 66,142,288.13
ADD:
POLE RENTAL 99,586.40
CUST0UM DEPOSIT INTDtDST INCOME 1,205.69
LESS:
OPERATING EXPENSES (P.3) (64,579,174.07)
CUSTO DEPOSIT INTEREST EXPENSE (11,301.33)
FON INC0HE (LOSS) 3 652.601.62
OI
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
GENERAL STATISTICS
3/31/11
MONTH OF MONTH OF % CHANGE YEAR THRU
MAR 2010 MAR 2011 2010 2011 MAR 2010 MAR 2011
SALE OF IMH (P.5) 51,037,416 53,458,104 -3.99% 4.96% 518,474,722 544,200,830
KWH PURCHASED 57,958,559 58,516,206 -2.780 4.47% 536,307,980 560,301,773
AVE BASE COST PER KWH 0.040061 0.037420 11.07% -4.27% 0.038854 0.037197
AVE BASE SALE PER KWH 0.057597 0.066670 2.98% 11.68% 0.057010 0.063669
AVE COST PER KWH 0.092010 0.087618 —13.45% —5.21% 0.096802 0.091761
AVE SAFE PER KWH 0.119099 0.122652 —11.88% —0.21% 0.121430 0.121173
FUEL .CHARGE REVENUE (P.3) 3,063,223.10 2,900,255.58 —24.98% —7.06% 33,010,708.56 30,681,514.87
LOAD FACTOR 76.49% 77.98%
LOAD 103,795 102,790
(e)
cn
0
G
O`'�s I
�J
€ Off/n
7 � 0 0,
db
p`cS6�
4
r Oz v
tib
00
6EJ�p�. o
"0
e
;11,
60 !�
/ e �J
r 6p �
d
.rfp 60�iS)
� b
60
6p�r
60) GG
r . cc
' 6 7-p
6
190
8O'JO
s
0�b
190
ti
CD M t,-,- LO t COI -z-
CD 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 CD o a
69- (J9- -ea C-a G
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPAP.TMENT
SCHEDULE OF CASH AND INVESTMENTS
3/31/11
SCHEDULE A
PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR
UNRESTRICTED CASH
CASH - OPERATING FUND 4,910,308.32 6,728,886.19
CASE. - PETTY CASH 3,000.00 ',000.00
TOTAL UNRESTRICTED CASH 4,913,308.32 6,731,886.19
RESTRICTED CASH
CASH - DEPRECIATION FUND 5,545,661.50 4,800,265.08
CASH - TOWN PAYMENT 860,175.00 673,750.00
CASH - DEFERRED FUEL RESERVE 3,671,637.31 2,435,207.14
CASH - RATE STABILIZATION FUND 2,401,280.37 4,393,426.47
CASH - UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCTS RESERVE 28,988.15 200,000.00
CASH - SICK LEAVE BENEFITS 1,404,855.29 2,036,029.60
CASH - INSURANCE RESERVE 35,251.72 0.00
CASH - HAZARD WASTE RESERVE 150,000.00 150,000.00
CASH - CUSTOMER DEPOSITS 493,771„43 518,723.97
CASH - ENERGY CONSERVATION 342,701.51 167,309.86
CASH - OPEB 0.00 614,798.96
TOTAL RESTRICTED CASH 14,934,322.28 16,189,511.08
RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS
RATE STABILIZATION * 2,900,000.00 1,000,000.00
SICK LEAVE BENEFITS ** 1,500,000.00 1,000,000.00
OPEB *** 0.00 200,000.00
TOTAL RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS 4,400,000.00 2,200,000.00
TOTAL CASH BALANCE 24,247,630.60 25,121,397.27
MAR 2010
* FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 1,400,000.00; DTD 07/02/09; INT 3.25%; MATURITY 07/15/14
* FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 1,500,000.00; DTD 01/23/09; INT 2.00%; MATURITY 01/15/13
** FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 500,000.00; DTD 01/23/09; INT 2.00%; MATURITY 01/15/13
** FED HOME LOAN MTG CORP 500,000.00; DTD 06/01/09; INT 3.70%; MATURITY 06/11/16
** FED NATIONAL MTG ASSN 500,000.00; DTD 05/07/09; INT 3.00%; MATURITY 05/15/15
MAR 2011
* FREDDIE MAC 1,000,000.00; DTD 09/10/10; INT 2.00%; MATURITY 09/15/20
** FREDDIE MAC 1,000,000.00; DTD 09/10/10; INT 2.00%; MATURITY 09/15/20
*** FREDDIE MAC 200,000.00; DTD 09/10/10; INT 2.00%; MATURITY 09/15/20
(9)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
3/31/11
SCHEDULE B
PREVIOUS YEAR CURRENT YEAR
SCHEDULE OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 3,859,660.67 3,623,841.25
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - OTHER 346,205.93 141,023.91
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - LIENS 157,671.62 90,956.75
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE - EMPLOYEE ADVANCES 1,067.16 892.14
SALES DISCOUNT LIABILITY (252,163.79) ;309,980.18)
RESERVE FOR UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS i222,117,t)61 !338,304.751
TOTAL, ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE BILLED 3,890,324.53 3,208,429.12
UNBILLED ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE 4,172,944.58 4,055,159.11
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, NET 6,063,269.11 7,263,588.23
SCHEDULE OF PREPAYMENTS
PREPAID INSURANCE 1,143,707.71 1,054,496.73
PREPAYMENT PURCHASED POWER 266,173.35 190,476.78
PREPAYMENT PASNY 271,753.66 239,666.63
PREPAYMENT WATSON 139,174.59 119,308.71
PURCHASED POWER WORKING CAPITAL 14,523.70 14,523.70
TOTAL PREPAYMENT 1,635,333.01 1,618,472.55
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AGING MARCH 2011:
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL 3,623,841.25
LESS: SAFES DISCOUNT LIABILITY (309,980.18)
GENERAL LEDGER BALANCE 3,313,861.07
CURRENT 2,425,954.18 73.210
30 DAYS 399,129.89 12.04%
60 DAYS 192,119.45 5.80%
90 DAYS 106,614.02 3.22%
OVER 90 DAYS 190,043.53 5.730
TOTAL 3,313,861.07 100.00%
(10)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL"LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE
3/31/11
SCHEDULE D
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR. YTD
SALES OF ELECTRICITY: LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
.RESIDENTIAL SALES 2,386,629.57 2,637,393.10 25,222,718.63 27,120,411.32 7.52%
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES 3,349,644.10 3,584,846.66 34,612,314.85 35,746,475.99 3.260
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING 10,256.30 10,861.05 94,231.85 95,396.85 1.24%
TOTAL PRIVATE CONSUMERS 5,746,529..97 6,233,100.83 59,929,265.33 62,962,2B4.16 5.06%
MUNICIPAL SALES:
STREET LIGHTING 45,696.51 46,434.68 416,076.83 417,834.54 -0.06%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 95,735.02 100,847.57 920,657.60 928,891.99 0.890
TOTAL MUNICIPAL CONSUMERS 141,431.53 147,282.25 1,338,734.43 1,346,726.53 0.60%
SALES FOR RESALE 32,411.08 34,022.13 317,625.66 334,393.05 5.28%
SCHOOL 158,107.14 142,361.14 1,372,578.83 1,299,265.49 -5.34%
SUB-TOTAL 6,076,479.72 6,556,766.35 62,958,204.25 65,942,669.23, 0.06
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 71,658.94 84,719.86 652,010.42 782,175.27 19.96%
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 580,133.13 40,086.46 3,152,192.03 1,238,886.84 -60.70%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL 9,163.84 13,728.15 94,820.91 110,647.91 16.69%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMORCIAL 31,843.75 23,081.94 321,043.52 276,096.43 -14.00%
GAM REVEL 0.00 53,456.19 0.00 404,325.74 100.00%
PASNY CREDIT (75,632.25) (92,444.57) (389,266.09) (612,513.29) 57.350
TOTAL REVENUE 6,695,667.13 6,679,396.36 66,789,005.04 68,142,288.13 2.03%
(11)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING REVENUE BY TOWN
3/31/11
TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD NO.READING WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL 2,637,393.10 805,425.72 338,325.62 600,314.34 893,327.22
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 3,685,694..25 515,408.46 47,469.75 5B5,063.32 2,537,752.70
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 46,434.68 16,227.98 5,649.79 7,678.41 16,878.50
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 10,861.05 2,005.60 198.43 3,422.13 5,234.69
CO-OP RESALE 34,022.13 34,022.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
SCHOOL 142,361.14 49,111.76 29,312.19 19,497.17 44,440.02
TOTAL 6,556,766.35 1,422,201.87 420.955.98 1,215 975.37 3,497,633.13
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 27,120,411.32 8,499,900.69 3,626,269.77 6,301,171.76 6,493,069.10
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 36,675,367.96 4,986,079.82 467,375.24 5,710,970.37 25,510,942.55
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 417,634.54 146,230.55 50,932.81 68,886.95 151,784.23
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 95,396.85 17,997.26 1,788.67 29,608.24 46,002.48
CO-OP RESALE 334,393.05 334,393.05 0.00 0.00 0.00
SCHOOL 1,299,265.49 4661,649.34 271,039.34 173,635.42 392,941.39
TOTAL 65,942,669.23 14,446,250.71 4,617,406.01 12,284,272.75 34,594,739.76
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 25,222,718.63 7,905,999.30 3,561,539.94 5,637,045.95 7,918,133.44
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 35,532,972.45 4,752,931.25 446,519.26 5,683,483.43 24,648,038.51
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 418,076.83 144,723.32 51,738.62 69,395.84 152,219.05
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 94,231.85 18,132.30 1,806.51 29,095.19 45,197.85
CO-OP RESALE 317,625.66 317,625.66 0.00 0.00 0.00
SCHOOL 1,372,578.63 501,151.53 274,532.76 180,802.67 416,091.67
TOTAL 62,958,204.25 13,640,563.36 4,338,137.09 11,799,823.08 33,179,680.72`
PERCENTAGE OF OPERATING INCOME TO TOTAL
TOTAL READING LYNNFIELD NO.READING WILMINGTON
MONTH
RESIDENTIAL 40.22% 12.28% 5.16% 9.16% 13.62%
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 56.21% 7.86% 0.72% 8.92% 38.71%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 0.71% 0.25% 0.09% 0.12% 0.25%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 0.17% 0.031-. 0.00% 0.05% 0.09%
CO-OP RESALE 0.52% 0.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SCHOOL 2.17% 0.75% 0.45% 0.30% 0.67%
TOTAL 100.00% 21.69% 6.420 18.55% 53.34%
THIS YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 41.13% 12.89% 5.80% 9.56% 12.88
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 55.62% 7.56% 0.71% 8.66% 38.69%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 0.63% 0.22% 0.08% 0.10% 0.23%
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 0.14% 0.03% 0.00% 0.040 0.07%
CO-OP RESALE 0.51% 0.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
SCHOOL 1.97% 0.70% 0.41% 0.26% 0.60%
TOTAL 100.00% 21.91% 7.00% 16.62% 52.470
LAST YEAR TO DATE
RESIDENTIAL 40.07% 12.56% 5.66% 9.27% 12.58%
INDUS/MUNI BLDG 56.44% 7.55% 0.71% 9.03% 39.15%
PUB.ST.LIGHTS 0.66% 0.23% 0.08% 0.11% 0.24%i
PRV.ST.LIGHTS 0.15% 0.03% O.OD% 0.05% 0.07' ''
CO-OP RESALE 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% .
SCHOOL 2.18% 0.80% 0.44% 0.29% 0.65%
TOTAL 100.00% 21.67% 6.89% 16.75% 52.69%
(11A)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED REVENUE VARIANCE REPORT
3/31/11
SCHEDULE F
ACTUAL BUDGET
YEAR TO DATE YEAR, TO DATE VARIANCE * CHANGE
SALES OF ELECTRICITY:
RESIDENTIAL 15,412,889.94 13,662,760.00 1,750,129.94 12.81°
COMM AND INDUSTRIAL SALES
PRIVATE STREET LIGHTING 18,088,662.52 16,219,169.00 1,869,493.52 11.53%
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS
PUBLIC STREET LIGHTING 293,636.44 403,356.00 (109,719.56) -27.200
SALES FOR RESALE 180,629.96 191,498.00 (10,868.04) -5.680
SCHOOL 672,822.21 635,739.00 37,083.21 5.83%
TOTAL BASE SALES 34,648,641.07 31,112,522.00 3,536,119.07 11.37%
TOTAL FUEL SALES 31,294,028.16 30,922,864.00 - 371,164.16 1.20%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 65,942,669.23 62,035,386.00 3,907,283.23 6.30%
FORFEITED DISCOUNTS 782,175.27 684,475.00 97,700.27 14.27%
PURCHASED POWER CAPACITY 1,238,886.84 4,127,433.00 (2,888,546.16) -69.98%
ENERGY CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL 110,647.91 90,275.00 20,372.91 22.57
ENERGY CONSERVATION - COMMERCIAL 276,096.43 319,188.00 (43,091.57) -13.50%
CAW REVENUE 404,325.74 210,000.00 194,325.74 92.54%
PASNY CREDIT (612,513.29) (450,000.00) (162,513.29) 36.11%
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 68,142,288.13 67,016.757.00 1,125,531.13 1.68%
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
(116)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
SCHEDULE OF OPERATING EXPENSES
3/31/11
SCHEDULE E
MONTH MONTH LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR YTD
OPERATION EXPENSES: LAST YEAR CURRENT YEAR TO DATE TO DATE CHANGE
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE 2,323,039.53 2,189,648.87 20,837,453.69 20,641,468.45 0.02%
OPERATION SUPER AND ENGIN-TRANS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP 41,750.56 33,316.24 309,509.67 338,964.90 9.52%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC 8,385.46 8,972.86 58,329.11 81,184.63 39.18%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE 60,698.28 61,696.84 475,654.03 483,386.73 1.58%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE 37,690.82 30,377.05 349,468.99 335,095.23 -4.11%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE 5,695.97 10,510.91 38,109.11 69,790.81 83.13%
METER EXPENSE 34,383.43 20,537.47 297,667.66 239,376.13 -19.59%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE 29,011.98 23,718.82 243,390.52 243,724.63 0.14%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE 4,554.71 4,966.12 54,323.05 55,028.38 1.30%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE 131,049.33 91,714.54 1,017,201.48 950,359.27 -6.57%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS 12,500.00 15,000.00 112,992.92 135,000.00 19.48%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE 54,033.33 26,549.63 350,566.08 284,876.34 -18.74%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES 72,583.31 54,114.35 583,925.68 518,820.42 -11.15%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE 21,778.59 24,231.81 198,611.49 202,598.92 2.01%
OUTSIDE SERVICES 3,422.04 24,497.99 208,748.03 169,756.18 -16.6B%
PROPERTY INSURANCE 30,646.58 31,705.39 282,583.03 279,477.49 -1.10%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES 3,782.60 5,386.50 .43,411.27 33,496.46 -22.84%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS (130,268.24) 181,366.81 941,575.66 1,244,718.42 32.200
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE 16,248.83 15,549.83 121,362.24 131,898.64 6.68%
RENT EXPENSE 15,956.25 18,072.70 147,929.31 154,332.88 4.33%
ENERGY CONSERVATION 20,268.25 144,131.94 263,877.32 526,316.94 100.2196
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 474,172.08 826 419.60 6,099,456,67 6.480,203.40 6.24%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT 227.08 227.08 2,043.74
2,043.76 O.Ouo
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMT 11,172.09 12,130.38 70,148.17 123,645.04 76.26%
MAINT OF LINES - OH 144,319.39 110,369.75 893,170.17 1,009,287.84 13.00%
MAINT OF LINES - UG 923.64 15,157.99 130,892.88 107,305.82 -18.02%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS ** 54,276.29 0.00 648,436.89 1,309,140.19 101.89%
MAINT OF ST IT & SIG SYSTEM 23.23 (22.49) (106.38) (141.27) 32.80%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM 44,982.56 72,764.50 369,133.88 467,920.87 26.76%
MAINT OF METERS 0.00 1,974.35 531.31 13,239.79 2391.91%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT 8,399.88 (20,994.12) 70,537.67 77,193.91 9.44%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 264,324.16 191,547.44 2,184,788.53 3,109,635.95 42.33%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 280,105.78 287,729.05 2,520,952.02 2,589,561.45 2.72%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE 3,009,718.08 2,937,424.70 31,078,465.50 30,572,419.82 -1.63%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 104,500.00 110,000.00 940,246.00 985,685.00 4.85%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 6,455,859.63 6,542,769.86 63,661,362.41 64,579,174.07 1.44%
** FY 11 YTD total includes GAW soil remediation expenses totalling $1,256,862.93
Total costs to date for entire project is $2,353,294.73
(12)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
3/31/11
SCHEDULE G
ACTUAL BUDGET
OPERATION EXPENSES: YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE VARIANCE * CHANGE
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE 20,841,468.45 20,936,030.00 (94,561.55) -0.45%
OPERATION SUPER AND ENGIN-TRANS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EXP 338,964.90 330,751.00 6,213.90 2.48%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC 81,184.63 63,532.00 17,652.63 27.790
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE 483,386.73 405,587.00 77,799.73 19.180
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE 335,095.23 319,110.00 15,985.23 5.010
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE 69,790.81 50,143.00 19,647.81 39.180
METER EXPENSE 239,376.13 362,179.00 (122,802.87) -33.91
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE 243,724.63 259,476.00 (15,751.37) -6.07
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE 55,028.38 46,247.00 6,781.38 14.06%
ACCT & COLL LABOR & EXPENSE 950,359.27 1,049,674.00 (99,514.73) -9.48%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS 135,000.00 135,000.00 0.00 0.00%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE 284,876.34 365,420.00 (B0,543.66) -22.04%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES 516,820.42 580,891.00 (62,070.58) -10.69%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE 202,596.92 206,596.00 (5,997.08) -2.87%
OUTSIDE SERVICES 169,756.18 216,396.00 (46,639.82) -21.550
PROPERTY INSURANCE 279,477.49 359,127.00 (79,649.51) -22.18%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES 33,496.46 48,717.00 (15,220.54) -31.24%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS 1,244,718.42 930,347.00 314,371.42 33.79%
MISC GENERAL, EXPENSE 131,898.64 175,636.00 (43,737.36) -24.90%
RENT EXPENSE 154,332.88 159,003.00 (4,.670.12) -2.94%
ENERGY CONSERVATION 528,316..94 485,585.00 42,731.94 8.80%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 6,480,203.40 6,553,617.00 (73,413.60) -1.12%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT 2,043.76 .2,250.00 (206.24) -9.17%
MAINT OF STRUCT AND EQUIPMENT 123,645.04 142,063.00 (18,417.96) -12.96%
MAINT OF LINES - OH 1,009,287.84 677,968.00 131,319.64 14.96%
MAINT OF LINES - UG 107,305.82 142,712.00 (35,406.18) -24.81%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS ** 1,309,140.19 671,378.00 637,762.19 94.99%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM (141.27) 6,656.00 (6,799.27) -102.12%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM 467,920.87 526,708.00 (58,767.13) -11.160,
MAINT OF METERS 13,239.79 2,898.00 10,341.79 356.86%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT 77,193.91 99,000.00 (21,806.09) -22.03%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 3,109,635.95 2,471,635.00 636,000.95 25.81%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE 2,589,561.45 2,625,003.00 (35,441.55) -1.35%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE 30,572,419.62 31,313,265.00 (740,845.18) -2.37%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS 985,885.00 990,000.00 (4,115.00) -0.420
TOTAL, OPERATING EXPENSES 64,579 174.07 64,689.550.00 (310,375.93) -0.480
* ( ) = ACTUAL UNDER BUDGET
** FY 11 YTD total includes GAT/7 soil remediation expenses totalling $1,256,862.93
Total costs to date for entire project is $2,353,294.73
(12A)
TOWN OF READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
BUDGETED OPERATING EXPENSE VARIANCE REPORT
3/31/11
RESPONSIBLE REMAINING
SENIOR 2011 ACTUAL BUDGET REMAINING
OPERATION EXPENSES: MANAGER ANNUAL BUDGET YEAR TO DATE BALANCE BUDGET %
PURCHASED POWER BASE EXPENSE JP 27,711,574.00 20,641,468.45 6,870,105.55 24.79%
OPERATION SUPER AND ENGIN-TRANS KS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%
OPERATION SUP AND ENGINEERING EX-v KS 441,828.00 338,964.90 102,863.10 23.28%
STATION SUP LABOR AND MISC KS 85,205.00 61,184.63 4,020.37 4.72%
LINE MISC LABOR AND EXPENSE KS 520,806.00 463,386.73 37,419.27 7.16%
STATION LABOR AND EXPENSE KS 426,438.00 335,095.23 91,342.77 21.42%
STREET LIGHTING EXPENSE KS 66,694.00 69,790.81 (3,096.81) -4.64%
METER EXPENSE DA 462,771.00 239,376.13 243,394.87 50.42%
MISC DISTRIBUTION EXPENSE JD 347,115.00 243,724.63 103,390.37 29.79%
METER READING LABOR & EXPENSE DA 64,358.00 55,028.38 9,329.62 14.50%
ACCT & COLL LABOR &EXPENSE RF 1,397,964.00 950,359.27 447,624.73 32.02%
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS RF 180,000.00 135,000.00 45,000.00 25.00%
ENERGY AUDIT EXPENSE JP 494,776.00 284,876.34 209,899.66 42.42%
ADMIN & GEN SALARIES VC 776,849.00 518,820.42 258,028.56 33.21%
OFFICE SUPPLIES & EXPENSE VC 278,100.00 202,598.92 75,501.08 27.15%
OUTSIDE SERVICES VC 293,500.00 169,756.18 123,743.82 42.16%
PROPERTY INSURANCE JD 478,900.00 279,477.49 199,422.51 41.64%
INJURIES AND DAMAGES JD 64,805.00 33,496.46 31,308.54 48.31%
EMPLOYEES PENSIONS & BENEFITS JD 1,188,607.00 1,244,718.42 (56,111.42) -4.72%
MISC GENERAL EXPENSE VC 212,096.00 131,898.64 80,197.36 37.61%
RENT EXPENSE JD 212,000.00 154,332.88 57,667.12 27.20%
ENERGY CONSERVATION JP 643,730.00 528,316.94 115,413.06 17.93%
TOTAL OPERATION EXPENSES 6,656,562.00 6,480,203.40 2,176,358.60 25.14%
MAINTENANCE EXPENSES:
MAINT OF TRANSMISSION PLANT KS 3,000.00 2,043.76 956.24 31.67%
MASNT OF STRUCT AND EQUTPMT KS 187,404.00 123,645.04 63,758.96 34.02%
MAINT OF LINES - OH KS 1,199,735.00 1,009,287.84 190,447.16 15.87%
MAINT OF LINES - UG KS 190,258.00 107,305.62 82,952.18 43.60%
MAINT OF LINE TRANSFORMERS ** KS 693,500.00 1,309,140.19 (615,640.19) -88.77%
MAINT OF ST LT & SIG SYSTEM JD 8,857.00 (141.27) 6,998.27 101.60%
MAINT OF GARAGE AND STOCKROOM JD 676,532.00 467,920.87 208,611.13 30.64%
MAINT OF.METERS DA 3,675.00 13,239.79 (9,364.79) -241.67%
MAINT OF GEN PLANT RF 132,000.00 77,193.91 54,806.09 41.52%
TOTAL MAINTENANCE EXPENSES 3,095,161.00 3,109,635.95 (14,474.95) -0.47%
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE RF 3,500,000.00 2,589,561.45 910,438.55 26.01%
PURCHASED POWER FUEL EXPENSE JP 39,512,664.00 30,572,419.82 8,940,244.18 22.63%
VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS TO TOWNS RF 1,320,000.00 985,885.00 334,115.00 25.31%
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 83,795,961.00 64,579,174.07 19,216,786.93 22.93%
** FY 11 YTD total includes"GAW soil remediation expenses totalling $1,256,862.93
Total costs to date for entire project is $2,353,294.73
(i28)
TOWN OR READING, MASSACHUSETTS
MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3/31/2011
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY PROJECT
ITEM DEPARTMENT ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE
1 RMLD AND PENSION TRUST AUDIT FEES ACCOUNTING 31,750.00 36,000.00 (4,250.00)
2 PENSION ACTUARIAL EVALUATION ACCOUNTING 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00
3 LEGAL- FERC/ISO ISSUES ENERGY SERVICE 0.00 13,500.00 (13,500.00)
4 LEGAL- POWER SUPPLY ISSUES ENERGY SERVICE 29,373.51 36,000.00 (6,626.49;
5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENERGY SERVICE 0.00 22,500.00 (22,500.00)
6 NERC COMPLIANCE E & 0 6,767.50 5,625.00 1,162.50
7 ENGINEERING STUDIES ENGINEERING 0.00 11,250.00 111,250.00;
8 LEGAL SERVICES- GENERAL GM 85,936.41 37,503.00 46,433.41
9 LEGAL SERVICES- ARBITRATION HR 3,481.90 0.00 3,481.90
10 LEGAL GENERAL. HR 2,663.18 31,500.00 (28,836.82)
11 LEGAL GENERAL BLDG. MAINT, 0.00 1,125.00 (1,125.00)
12 SURVEY RIGHT OF WAY BLDG. MAINT. 0.00 3,753.00 (3,753.00)
13 ENVIRONMENTAL BLDG. MAINT., 1,472.00 3,753.00 (2,281.00)
14 ENGINEERING SERVICES BLDG. MAINT. 0.00 6,390.00 (6,390,00)
15 INSURANCE CONSULTANT GEN. BENEFIT 2,291.68 7,497.00 15.205.32)
TOTAL 169,756.16 216,396.00 (46,638.82!
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY VENDOR
ACTUAL
MELANSON HEATH & COMPANY PC 49,698.99
RUBIN AND RUDMAN 77,765.12
DUNCAN AND ALLEN .16,445.81
WILLIAM F CROWLEY ATTORNEY 650.00
CHOATE HALL AND STEWART 5,945.08
UTILITY SERVICES INC. 6,787.50
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION 200.00
COVINO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES 1,472.00
ROMAREE INSURANCE 2,291.68
FIG LEAF SOFTWARE INC 500.00
STONE CONSULTING INC. 6,000.00
TOTAL 169,756.18
(13)
4/25/2011 RSD
2:02 PM BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2011
DIVISIONS AND DEPARTMENTS ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE CHANGE
ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS:
E&O MGR 149,262 152,167 (2,905) -1.91%
ENGINEERING 339,715 342,745 (3,031) -0.880
LINE 1,671,639 1,485,505 186,334 12.540
METER READING 55,028 48,249 6,779 14.059.
METER TECHNICIANS 240,121 362,367 (122,245) -33.740
STATION OP 416,280 382,642 33,638 8.790
STATION TECHS 1,446,025 B16,718 629,307 77.05%
DIVISION TOTAL, 4,318,270 3,590,393 727,677 20.27%
ENERGY SERVICES DIVISION TOTAL 842,503 923,380 (80,877) -8.76%
GENERAL MANAGER:
GENERAL MANAGER 304,983 274,177 30,806 11.24%
HUMAN RESOURCES 88,082 142,829 (54,746) -38.33%
COMMUNITY RELATIONS 117,978 143,554 (25,575). -17.62%
CAB 3,812 11,240 (7,428) -66.09%
BOA 3,664 7,125 (3,461) -48.57%
DIVISION TOTAL 518,520 578,925 (60,405) -10.43%
FACILITY MANAGER:
GENERAL BENEFITS 1,764,000 1,579,173 184,827 11.70%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE 469,468 541,727 (72,260) -13.34%
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 243,736 260,603 (16,867) -6.47%
DIVISION TOTAL 2,477,203 2 361,503 95,700 4.02%
BUSINESS DIVISION:
ACCOUNTING 548,957 585,223 (36,266) -6.20%
CUSTOMER SERVICE 450,051 498,677 (48,627) -9.75%
MIS 408,059 438,023 (29,964) -6.84%
MISCELLANEOUS DEDUCTIONS 5,241,935 5,264,372 (42,437) -0.80%
DIVISION TOTAL 6,649 001 6,606,295 (157,293) -2.31%
DIVISION TOTALS 14,805,498 14,280,496 525,003 3.68%
PURCHASED POWER - BASE 20,641,468 20,936,030 (94,562) -0.45%
PURCHASED POWER -FUEL 30,572,420 31,313,265 (740,845) -2.37%
TOTAL 66,22-9,38-7 66,529 791 (310,404) -0.47%
RMLD
DEFERRED FUEL CASH RESERVE ANALYSIS
3/31/11
GROSS MONTHLY TOTAL
DATE CHARGES REVENUES PASNY CREDIT DEFERRED DEFERRED
Jun-10 2,326,112.09
Jul-10 4,555,108.56 3,536,618.90 (98,501.74) (1,116,991.40) 1,209,120.69
Aug-10 4,151,871.47 3,658,721.48 (49,929.96) (543, 079.95) 666,040.74
Sep-10 3,437,081.39 4,007,231.89 (52,662.99) 517,487.51 1,183,528.25
Oct-10 2,586,224.15 3,632,858.99 (62,298.35) 984,336.49 2,167,864.74
Nov-10 2,717,341.26 3,468,972.22 (32,335.11) 719,295.85 2,887,160.59
Dec-10 3,582,794.01 3,213,832.76 (71,724.91) (440,686.16) 2,446,474.43
Jan-11 3,620,814.67 3,629,698.16 (59,937.36) (51,053.67) 2,395,420.56
Feb-11 2,983,759.61 3,153,393.61 (92,678.30) 76,955.70 2,472,376.26
Mar-11 2,937,424.70 2,992,700.15 (92,444.57) (37, 169.12) 2,435,207.14
Rr2LD
STAFFING REPORT
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE, 2011
ACTUAL
11 BUD JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
TOTAL 10 10 10 10 10 10 it 11 11
GENERAL MANAGER
GENERAL MANAGER 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
HUMAN RESOURCES 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
COMMUNITY RELATIONS 1.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a_
BUSINESS
ACCOUNTING 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
CUSTOMER SERVICE 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7
MGMT INFORMATION SYS 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
MISCELLANEOUS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TOTAL 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 16 16
ENGINEERING & OPERA'T'IONS
AGM E&O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
ENGINEERING 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
LINE 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20
METER 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5
STATION 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8
TOTAL 42 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42 40
PROJECT
BUILDING 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
GENERAL BENEFITS 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TRANSPORTATION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MATERIALS MGMT 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
TOTAL 8 8 8 8 B 8 8 8 8 8
ENERGY SERVICES
ENERGY SERVICES 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
TOTAL 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
RMLD TOTAL 79 76 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 73
CONTRACTORS
UG LINE 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
TOTAL, 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
GRAND TOTAL 61 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75
ATTACHMENT 5
To: Vincent Cameron
From: Energy Services
Date: April 20, 2011
Subject: Purchase Power Summary—March 2011
Energy Services Division (ESD) has completed the Purchase Power Summary for the
month of March, 2011.
ENERGY
The RMLD's total metered load for the month was 58,441,541 kWh, which was an
increase of.94 % compared to March, 2010. figures.
Table 1 is a breakdown by source of the energy purchases.
TABLE 1
%of
Amount of Cost of Total Total$ $as a
Resource Energy Energy Energy Costs %
(kWh) ($/Mwh)
Millstone#3 3,715,996 $5.54 6.35% $20,584 0.70%
Seabrook 5,863,252 $8.74 10.02% $51,263 1.75%'
JP Morgan 3,540,200 $53.51 6.05% $189,453 6.45%
Stonybrook CC 1,420,437 $57.82 2.43% $82,131 2.80%
Constellation 7,430,000 $63.30 12.70% $470,319 16.01%
NYPA 1,861,173 $4.92 3.18% $9,157 0.31%
ISO Interchange 13,003,517 $46.28 22.22% $601,843 20.49%
NEMA Congestion 0 $0.00 0.00% -$88,117 -3.00%
Coop Resales 75,457 $132.12 0.13% $9,969 0.34%
Stonybrook Peaking 0 $0.00 0.00% $38 0.00%
MacQuarie 19,083,000 $70.91 32.61% $1,353,253 46.07%
Braintree Watson Unit 249,298 $73.97 0.43% $18,441 0.63%
Swift River Projects 2,273,876 $96.35 3.89% $219,089 7.46%
Monthly
Total 58,516,206 $50.20 100.00% $2,937,425 100.00%
Table 2
Amount Cost % of Total
Resource of Energy of Energy Energy
(kWh) ($/Mwh)
ISO DA LMP'` 13,841,389 48.05 23.65%
Settlement
RT Net Energy" 837,872 60.81 1.43%
Settlement
ISO Interchange 13,003,517 46.28 22.22%
(subtotal)
Table 2 breaks down the ISO interchange between the DA LMP Settlement and the
RT Net Energy for month of March, 2011.
CAPACITY
The RMLD hit a demand of 102,790 kWs, which occurred on March 3, 2011 at 7 pm.
The RMLD's monthly UCAP requirement for March, 2011 was 213,465 kWs.
Table 3 shows the sources of capacity that the RMLD utilized to meet its requirement.
Table,3
Source Amount(kWs) Cost($/kW-month) Total Cost$ % of Total Cost
Millstone#3 4,991 $62.15 $310,189 20.44%
Seabrook 7,902 $56.67 $447,824 29.50%
Stonybrook Peaking 24,981 $1.99 $49,749 3.28%
Stonybrook CC 42,925 $3.28 $140,872 9.28%
NY PA 0 $2.96 $11,896 0.78%
HQICC 6,570 $3.99 $26,241 1.73%
ISO-NE Supply Auction 115,576 $3.65 $421,279 27.76%
Braintree Watson Unit 10,520 $10.43 $109,770 7.23%
Tota l 213,465 $7.11 $1,517,821 100.00%
*ISO DA LMP: Independent System Operator Day-Ahead Locational Marginal Price
*RT Net Energy: Real-Time Net Energy
Table 4
Resource Energy Capacity Total cost %of Total Cost
Millstone#3 $20,584 $310,189 $330,774 7.42%
Seabrook $51,263 $447,824 $499,087 11.20%
Stonybrook CC $82,131 $140,872 $223,003 5.01%
HQICC $0 $26,241 $26,241 0.59%
Constellation $470,319 $0 $470,319 10.56%
NYPA $9,157 $11,896 $21,053 0.47%
ISO Interchange $602,566 $421,279 $1,023,845 22.98%
NEMA Congestion -$88,840 $0 -$88,840 -1.99%
Coop Resales $9,969 $0 $9,969 0.22%
Stonybrook Peaking $38 $49,749 $49,787 1.12%
Integrys $189,453 $0 $189,453 4.25%
MacQuarie $1,353,253 $0 $1,353,253 30.37%
Braintree Watson Unit $18,441 $109,770 $128,211 2.88%
Swift River Projects $219,089 $0 $219,089 4.92%
Monthly Total $2,937,425 $1,517,821 $4,455,246 100.00%
TRANSMISSION
The RMLD's total transmission costs for the month of March, 2011 are $669,697. This
is a 10% decrease from the February 2011 cost of$744,186. In 2010, the transmission
costs for the month of March, 2010 were $625,865.
Table 5
Current Month Last Month Last Year
Peak Demand(kW) 102,790 108,295 103,795
Energy(kWh) 58,516206 55,387,717 57,958,559
Energy($) $2,937,425 $2,983,760 $3,009,718
Capacity($) $1,517,821 $1,516,708 $1,701,951
Transmission ($) $669,697 $744,186 $625,865
Total $5,124,942 $5,244,654 $5,337,534
Table 5 shows the current month vs. last month and last year (March, 2010).
ATTACHMENT 6
0 0 0
c c c
0 0 0
c c c
0 0 O
(1) a) a)
E E E
0 a) o
U U U
N O U
L L L
U U
C c C
cu
Na) mma� a� a� c' _c a� m0a) � � a� c)�
♦+ ++ Yom+ 4� rt+ - ✓ F+ Y� �F/ ++ .�
a) 'c C a) a) m a) a) a) a) C a)
U) aaaaaaa'ca 'Fu U) aaaaaaa'i6 a
.I E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z U U U U U U U it0� Z U U U U U U U W U
ca �
p p
G o0od0o00r r C 0) O10) 0) 0) 00rr
O o +r 0 0 0 - r r Q O O O O O r r r
++ U U +r �. r- N N tI5 O
a1 O r r
a) U � Q M O U z a) ` N C) Q c) M Q
O -, p O O r- m 0` O m
E E C> C) 0000
Q Q
U U
°> )
_m d
Q' 0000000 °- 0000000 O
E o000000mE o0oo0oo0
Q r r r r r r r Q r r r r r r r r
U U
o
mmmmmmomo
mmmmmmmmm 000000 � o `
O Oo000 o Nrtf7 ►+ e- ror Cfl
p O , O i i p N O N N CO N r O r
p V- � c aa)i cu m co aa)) m t: 00 i tom- o�p A N N m
•� cctL0oo0000 0
i U co
a
cn
L
E U Y
V a) L L
CU '0 O Q "O
Q co N N N
Q) Q C L O Q
vJ LflNa)
cn
W � o co
0 C U 0 LE _ Qma
C a
L C O m CU — L 0 d a) O -c N a) w
C c a C _I 0 U) ) U Q m E
N c a� c ° o 3 c o O o o 0 L c
d c N a) m 'm 0 P cb W 0) ° r w - - - n'U)
� . �
o o 0 0 o L EEE �L/
J.,_ _ L "O-W O UL L L a)
Q CD
OO OO =WC 75 Na)d U F to
C O c: CCCUa)� t6 N
,_
DT
V �^l
v7 �
,W
2.
CL ' ..
L � �
Pi
o
�(g
z�
M CO tom- CO U-) M N O l�
suoiliiw ui saelloa o�
cLO�,
C%4 r r
-------- ---- ---- - --- -- --- -- --=-
M M to M M M
> CD M co CD co
75
CL
(D 0 C) LO MLOOo tl- MM
�a M r- O C) LO MLO0oO 1tOOdt It
Lul 00 <- O P- 00 r CO O M 0 0 CD
O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
----- -- -- --
O t[7 L(� LO LO
> O O O O d7
Cs 0
M N h- CD CD 00
O O O CO N t` LO LO O O LO 0 d' CO LO
O W (4 � M Lf) O O O d M CO M h-
E 0 M M d N ih N — N LO O O N M
N I- O O O N O O O O O O O O 0
-------- ---- -------------------- ------------
co
---------------- ----------CD O O r
O O r r
N N N N N
� C C
N N
� • - • L LO
W O np U) ^^LL p 5 U) p _ e
J Lll c6 , E -a t6 -0 co to E-
d u Co
= ❑ p co ❑ Cocn
Q N V C3
o o L-a) p o p o O o
I—
0 a LY LL E— U n LL. U n LL CL GL
READING MUNICIPAL LIGHT DEPARTMENT
FY 11 CAPITAL BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT
FOR PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31,2011
ACTUAL YTD ACTUAL ANNUAL
COST COST BUDGET
4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOWN MARCH THRU 3/31111 AMOUNT VARIANCE
E&O Construction-System Projects
1 4W14 Reconductoring-West Street W 36,646 78,963 234,470 155,507
2 4W14 Extension-Woburn Street W 157,958 157,956
** 3 Station#4 Getaway 4W17 Replacements(FYI 0 Budget) R 157,877 169,928 12,051
*` 4 Boutwell Street W 96,215 125,955 29,740
5 Chestnut Street W 53,162 64,634 171,933 107,299
** 6 Haverhill Street-Reconductoring(FYI 0 Budget) R 102,575 100,534 (2,041)
** 7 URD Completions-Perkins Farm-Lynnfield NR,L 45,068 72,484 27,416
and Chestnut Village,North Reading(FYI 0 Budget)
** 8 Salem St.to Glen Rd.13kV Feeder Tie(FYI 0 Budget) W 11,531 11,334 (197)
** 22 Wilmington-Main Street(FYI 0 Budget) W 30,834 34,975 4,141
33 4W4 Reconductoring(formerly Project 3) W 103,315 103,315
36 3W8 Salem Street&Baystate Road(formerly Project 6) R 52,418 130,086 207,439 77,353
** 37 Elm Street(Formerly Project 7) NR 1,886 155,262 132,011 (23,251)
Station Upgrades
Station#4
38 11 5k Insulator Replacement (formerly Project 8) R 8,553 68,058 144,323 76,265
9 11 5k Disconnect Replacement R 87,975 87,975
11 Transformer Replacement
Part 1-Contractual Labor R 340,235 545,500 205,265
Part 2-Procured Equipment R 7,162 30,000 22,838
Part 3-RMLD Labor R 102,061 64,324 (37,737)
Part 4-Feeder Re-Assignment R 47,627 236,034 188,407
Station#5
** 23 151kV Circuit Breaker Replacement(Carryover FY10 Bud) W 125,552 158,731 33,179
New Customer Service Connections
12 Service Installations-Commercial/Industrial Customers ALL 1,083 49,832 55,055 5,223
13 Service Installations 0/H&U/G-Residential Customers ALL 19,492 149,509 200,345 50,836
14 Routine Construction
Various Routine Construction ALL 66,571 904,705 982,565 77,860
Total Construction Projects 239.810 2,667.785 4,027,188 1,359,402
Other Projects
15 GIS 12,125 20,000 7,875
16 Transformers/Capacitors Annual Purchases 14,180 265,952 190,167 (75,785)
17 Meter Annual Purchases 4,568 238,739 765,875 527,136
18 Purchase Two New Small Vehicles 64,000 64,000
19 Replace Line Department Vehicles 360,000 360,000
20 Purchase Pole Trailer 15,000 15,000
21 Upgrade Lighting Stockroom and Meter Room 3,798 22,400 18,602
24 Enlarge Parking Area and Construct Island 10,775 10,775
27 Hardware Upgrades 1,410 33,700 32,290
28 Software and Licensing 3,648 96,476 92,828
Total Other Projects 18,748 525,672 1,578,393 1,052,721
TOTAL RMLD CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES 258,558 3,193,457 5,605,581 2,412,124
29 Force Account/Reimbursable Projects ALL - - - -
TOTAL FY 11 CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENDITURES 258,558 3.193,457 5.605,581 2,412,124
** completed projects
Reading Municipal Light Department
Engineering and Operations
Monthly Report
March, 2011
FY 2011 Capital Flan
E&O Construction - System Projects
1. 4W14 Reconductoring -West Street -Wilmington - Underground cable
installation including setting up manholes for splicing.
2. 4W14 Extension -Woburn Street- Wilmington - No activity
3. Station #4 Getaway 4W17 Replacements Reading (FY10 Budget) - Project
complete
4. Boutwell Street-Wilmington - Project complete.
5. Chestnut Street-Wilmington -Engineering labor, Install spacer cable; framed
poles; pulled and clipped in messenger, install screw anchors; installed 336 cable;
spliced cable.
6. Haverhill Street- Reading - Reconductoring - (FY10 Budget)- Project complete.
7. URD Completions - Project complete.
8. Salem Street to Glen Road 13 kV Feeder Tie -Wilmington -(FY10 Budget) -
Project complete.
22. Wilmington - Main Street(FY 10 Budget)- Project complete.
33. 4W4 Reconductoring -Wilmington - No activity.
36. 3W8 Salem & Bay State Road - Reading - Installed spacers, spacer cable, and
pulling rope; spliced, installed gang operated switch; transferred; installed taps;
energized new spacer cable; installed new transformer, engineering labor.
37. Elm Street North Reading - Project complete.
Substation Upgrade Projects
38. 115kV Insulator Replacement- Station 4 Reading - Changed out insulators;
linemen and senior techs'labor.
9. 11 5k Disconnect Replacement- Station 4 Reading - No activity.
1
11. Transformer Replacement- Station 4 — Reading — No activity.
Part 1 — Contractual Labor—
Part 2 — Procured Equipment—
Part 3 — RMLD Labor—
Part 4 — Feeder Re-Assignment—
23. 15kV Circuit Breaker Replacement— Project complete.
New Customer Service Connections
12. Service Installations — Commercial/Industrial Customers—This item includes new
service connections, upgrades, and service replacements for the commercial and
industrial customers. This represents the time and materials associated with the
replacement of an existing or installation of a new overhead service, the connection of
an underground service, etc. This does not include the time and materials associated
with pole replacements/installations, transformer replacement/installations, primary or
secondary cable rep[acement/i nstal lations etc. This portion of the project comes under
routine construction. Commercial service upgrade in March was 55 Jonspin Road,
Wilmington.
13. Service Installations — Residential Customers—This item includes new or upgraded
overhead and underground services,temporary overhead services, and large
underground development.
14. Routine Construction—The drivers of the Routine Construction budget category
YTD are listed. This is not an inclusive fist of all items within this category.
NOTE: Numbers will not be ready until next week.
Pole Setting/Transfers
Maintenance Overhead/Underground
Projects Assigned as Required
Pole Damage includes knockdowns some reimbursable
Station Group
Hazmat/Oil Spills
Porcelain Cutout Replacement Program
Lighting (Street Light Connections)
Storm Trouble
Underground Subdivisions
Miscellaneous Capital Costs
TOTAL
*In the month of March, zero cutouts were charged under this program.
Approximately 7 cutouts were installed new or replaced because of damage making
a total of 7 cutouts replaced this month.
2
Reliability Report
Two key industry standard metrics have been identified to enable the RMLD to measure and
track system reliability. A rolling 12-month view is being used for the purposes of this report.
Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI) — Measures how quickly the
RMLD restores power to customers when their power goes out.
CAIDI = Total of Customer Interruption Duration for the Month in Minutes/Total
number of customers interrupted.
RMLD 12 month system average outage duration —43.29 minutes
RMLD 4 year average outage (2006-2009) — 50.98 minutes per outage
On average, RMLD customers that experience an outage are restored in 43.29 minutes.
80.00 70.66
70.00
C
60.00 54.9
50.00
36-60 -39:13 - -- - - --- — - -- - -- -- -
40.00 -35:77
5- 30.00 25.
d
® 20.00
10.00
U
0.00
,�O no ^O �'` ^"- N"'
b Monthly minutes per outage
— - - RMLD 12 month system axerage outage duration 43.29
RMLD 4 year average outage duration 50.98 (2006-2009)
3
System Average Interruption Frequency (SAIFI) — Measures how many outages each
customer experiences per year on average.
SAIFI = Total number of customer's interrupted /Total number of customers.
RMLD 12 month system average - .54 outages per year
RMLD 4 year average outage frequency - .82
The graph below tracks the month-by-month SAIFI performance.
1.20 1.12 1.13
1.00
m
0.80
0.76
76
0 0.600.54
0 - - - - - - - - - -C3�V W+W
5
0.35
0
a
0.20 \n pi n v) n 41
0.00
Oy
-- -RMLD monthly outage frequency
--- RMLD 12 month system average outage frequency.54
RMLD 4 year average outage frequency.82 (2006-2009)
Months Between Interruptions (MBTI)
Another view of the SAIFI data is the number of months Reading customers have no
interruptions. At this time, the average RMLD customer experiences an outage every 22
months.
4
m p j m 0 3 T O m m O m m O D m o m D O
O A v O O A -I D O A . .� ti D H
T $zS r m T Z r 0 " r T �` r A T x r O T. r 0 m z
3 m .mv S m -� A �° � � m t7 A x O 2 O O O 1
Z D r Cz1 y r 3 O y r c 0 D r m O y r A D r z D j
m A C m A C m A z m A 2 m A O A n c
0 Z G) z O n O K O O N 2
m m m mm m
v > w 3
> r r A c
m z
9
H y m r
D W r
2
O �
71 H ~ ~ C 2
A
O m
c v
m
a Wa A j W V O V v W W W O Z 1
O 2
N
m
N N 0 0 W j j O N O N O + o m
w �
O
c
m
v 0� w 0� tb O� W O� N O S •O,� 0 2
ti
m
A
A
m 0_
N A p V W d W A A b OJ C w N W tc $ m
V A A+ W m c a f0 \N OVl A y 3 3 L7
W �
0
3
D
N N 0 W W « l0
N N Q N N Opf N N D A fT N N �.O 3
t0 p �A N� N v V •J W 3 N A
l7
D
r
a v m + w 0 0
�{Jjl w >
�:tb fn o O o N p o tb N e N W a O
V p a W V p N O! N V N O 3
c x
m
2
+ O
N i N� � Nei Na Nom+ O C
W O w W O W > O+ v 0 W N O N O + q y
N i O j tj W O W a N V tall > N O v N D
O C
Jeanne Fob
From: Vincent Cameron
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 1:59 PM
To: Mary Ellen O'Neill; Richard Hahn; Phil Pacino; Bob Soli; Gina Snyder
Cc: Bob Fournier; Jane Parenteau; Kevin Sullivan; Lee Ann Fratoni; Jeanne Foti
Subject: Account Payable Warrant-March 25
Hahn
1. Parenteau -Why buy an exercise bike? Why use employee credit card?
The RMLD is involved in a project with a resident and students in North Reading to develop a bike that
will generate electricity to the grid (plug in). The bike and accessories were purchased by the RMLD.
When complete the bike will be in the RMLD lobby for demonstration purposes. The press release from
January on this will be attached to the payable.
The RMLD employees use a personal credit card for purchases from time to time. The RMLD Policy
Committee is meeting tonight to reinstitute the Credit Card and Petty Cash Policy,which is needed.
2. United Rentals-What is an Arrow Board, what use?
The RMLD repaired a conduit under the West Street bridge,which had to be accessed from Rte. 93. The
RMLD needed an arrow board to alert motorists of the work being done.
Soli
1. Std Electric- 120 of 105 watt bulbs- incandescent. Is this hoarding before they're discontinued?
Would CFL's work in their place?
The RMLD does not hoard equipment. These are street lights bulbs purchased to replace the
incandescent street lights on the system. The RMLD does not have CFL street lights.
2. United Rentals-What's an arrow board? Who makes sure it's returned when its mission is
accomplished?
See Item 2 for Hahn. The RMLD sees that it is returned, which it was, after the job was complete..
Snyder
1. JP Morgan -This bill seems a little different,what is it a settlement of+why is the line item "sell"?
RMLD purchases monthly energy from JP Morgan. Under description: "Settlement of Physical
Electricity" is how JP Morgan accounts for the transaction since they have multiple business ventures.
JP Morgan is the "seller" and RMLD is the "buyer",thus the term "sell"following the Deal #on the
invoice.
2. Barnard -Bill says 290.12 owed?
The refund was for$151.86.
3. General refunds question: What does it cost RMLD to process these?
The refunds average about 20 minutes per occurence or about$15.
3/28/2011
4. Teredyne-Memo indicates RMLD needs actual kw measures +estimated savings after VFD installation.
Yes. We verify the savings after installation.
5. Yellow Freight-Documentation doesn't match refund.
One page shows a credit of$140.93 and the second page shows a credit of$136.63, which are the total credits.
The page with the bill just shows a customer bill for reference and nothing else. I will look into whether we need
the copy of the bill and save paper.
5. Hansen -Why was a truck driven to NH?
This employee drove a truck to NH to have it fixed at Lavin Enterprises in Hempstead, NH.
6. Wilson Bohannon -What are 300 padlocks for?
The RMLD secures it facilities including transformers, switches, etc., with padlocks that are opened with a master
key. More padlocks are ordered from time to time.
3/28/2011
Jeanne Fob
From: Vincent Cameron
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Mary Ellen O'Neill; Richard Hahn; Phil Pacino; Bob Soli; Gina Snyder
Cc: Bob Fournier; Kevin Sullivan; Lee Ann Fratoni; Steve Kazanjian; Jeanne Foti
Subject: Account Payable Questions 4/4/11
Hahn
1. Hanifan- Does$149.96 need Mr. Fournier's signature?
Mr. Fournier's approves the expense report and his signature is on it.
Soli
1. Alpha - Is cooling unit Energy Star?
Yes.
2. Wakefield Police-Since they add 10% admin.fee I suggest taking them off RMLD's dance,card.
Wakefield Police detail costs $47.30/hour. Reading averages $53.5/hour, North Reading averages
$49.35/hour, Lynnfieid averages$48.25/hour, and Wilmington is$40. Three out of our four towns details
are higher than Wakefield. 1 think I will keep Wakefield Police on the RMLD's"dance card".
Snyder
1. Cogsdaie-What is a sales order processing module?
This software will be used for the third party billing (pole damages, etc.)
2. Commonwealth - I though the penalty was being split with the LSP.
The total fine (shown on page four of the ACOP)was$11,485. CJ paid $9,000 of the fine.
3. N. Reading What is the Master Box connection fee?
It is the fee for the fire alarm box at the North Reading Sub Station.
4/5/2011
Jeanne Fob
From: Vincent Cameron
Sent: Tuesday,April 12, 2011 9:29 AM
To: MaryEllen O'Neill; Richard Hahn; Phil Pacino; Bob Soli; Gina Snyder
Cc: Bob Fournier; Kevin Sullivan; Beth Ellen Antonio; Lee Ann Fratoni; Jeanne Foti
Subject: FW: Account Payable Questions -April 8
Hahn
1. Show of the Month-Why do we join this organization?
RMLD joined the Show of the Month Club over 10 years ago as a low cost($30 for 2 years of
membership) benefit we supply for our employees to use in booking shows and similar type events.
Snyder
1. Asplundh -Chip disposal is back on the bills. There should be a better way for using woodchips.
e.g., Northeast Tree sells them to a facility that produces energy.
Chip disposal is up to Asplundh. The RMLD doesn't get involved with it. I suppose I can make a
suggestion to them.
4/12/2011
Jeanne Fob
From: Vincent Cameron
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:31 AM
To: MaryEllen O'Neill; Richard Hahn; Phil Pacino; Bob Soli; Gina Snyder
Cc: Bob Fournier; Lee Ann Fratoni; Kevin Sullivan; Joe Donahoe; Jane Parenteau; Jeanne Foti
Subject: Answer to Payabies 4/18/11
Snyder
1. ISO Wire-Does the wire#50 need GM signature?
Yes.
2. Century Bank-Can you remind me when the new billing system will be in effect.
Not a new billing system. It is an enhancement to allow for electronic billing and lower credit card
charges. We are targeting a May start.
3. Zanni -What's the story on this bill from March. We paid quite a few bills for this last month and PO
is dated 4/4/11.
Snow was removed from under and around the ring bus at the Gaw Sub Station so that the ring bus
insulators could be changed out. The Req was done and the PO was cut when the work was done and
the RMLD was billed.
Soli
1. Rubin Rudman -What's with bankruptcy issues?
You are referring to the bill for the Long term Power Transactions. This activity is to ensure that the
RMLD is protected in the event that a power supplier goes into bankruptcy.
4/20/2011