Recording in progress. Okay. All right. Uh it being about 601, uh we'll call this meeting at the board of commissioners to order. >> Call the cab meeting to >> uh this meeting is being audio recorded
and held remotely on Zoom and live streamed on RCTV. The RMLD Board of Commissioners recognizes the importance of hearing public comment at the discretion of the chair on items on the official agenda. Once recognized by the chair, all persons addressing the board shall state their name and address prior to speaking. It is the role of the chair
to maintain order in all public comment and ensuing discussion. Do we have any public comment? Okay, great. Um, do we have any liaison or committee reports speak of? >> We do. We just had a wonderful policy
committee meeting. >> On that, but okay. Go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. >> Do you have anything? No. >> Yeah. I don't I Yeah, I don't have anything new in the in the town meeting or um uh bicycle front. Um >> Okay.
Yeah, the only other thing I might report on is uh MLCA, but uh we will the MLCA will be having a meeting at NEPA and so a chance for commissioners to meet face to face and get an update on what's happening at that time.
>> Great. >> Thanks, Dave. Uh policy committee. >> Okay, so we just had a meeting and we did approve and I expect well it's up to you, but we could be up for a vote next week on uh policy 30. So updating our our non-carbon policy to uh create some
triggers for board notification when things reach certain price thresholds uh rate impacts. Now we discussed some other ones that we have not yet voted out and so we'll continue those discussions in August um and maybe
approve one or more that time. So like the AI policy and some other things. >> Okay. So one recommendation >> one got voted out. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Is there any time sensitivity to that one? >> The one that we did vote out. >> Yes.
>> No, we can um I'll get to it later, but we are going to probably have definitely have an August meeting. >> So, we can put on that meeting and then that way it'll be in place for the September decision on the >> Okay. Right. On the agenda, we hope have an August
meeting then. >> Great. Well, thank you all for your time and efforts on that. I'm sure policy reviews are very exciting but very important work. So, thank you. Um, okay. So, uh, moving on, we have
Chris Pard here, um, from CT Law to give us, uh, kind of an overview of board RO training refresher for folks, get new information for new folks. Um, floor is yours. >> Thank you. So, um, as Pam said, my name is Chris
Pard. I'm an attorney with, uh, KP Law. I've been representing municipal light plants and other public power entities such as Mass Development, Mass Board, MBTA, New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, um, since 2000. Um, during that time, I've had the privilege privilege of working with nearly every single uh, municipal plant in
Massachusetts. Um, I've been asked to speak to today on two topics. U, one, the division of responsibility between the board of commissioners and the managers. Can you just play with the volume a little bit? >> Maybe we can move the mic a little closer so that it actually
>> How's that? >> Oh, that much better. >> The rain is very loud. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Thanks, Chris. >> So, I've been asked to speak to today on two topics. Um, the division of responsibility between the board of commissioners and the manager and two,
the relationship between the board of commissioners and the citizens advisory board. Concerning the division of responsibilities, let me give you the single most important concept um that I think you should remember today. If you're deciding what the utility should accomplish, you're probably acting as a
commissioner. If you're deciding how the utility should accomplish it, you're probably acting as the manager. Everything else we're going to discuss today flows from that principle. Massachusetts municipal plans operate under a unique statutory framework
established by chapter 164. Unlike most municipal departments, the legislature, dividing responsibility between two separate governing authorities, the board governs the utility and the manager operates it. Massachusetts courts have consistently enforced that
division. Let's begin with the statute because that's where the legislature establish the respective roles of the board and the manager. Massachusetts municipal life plans are governed by general laws chapter 164 which establishes a clear division of responsibility between the
board of commissioners and the manager. Let's talk about the board first. Section 55 assidens the board statutory powers necessary to govern the municipal a plant. Among its principal responsibilities, the board is authorized to construct, purchase,
lease, and maintain the municipal plant. It's empowered to appoint, compensate, evaluate, and where appropriate remove the manager. The board may establish rates and regulations by section 58. You may
review and act upon the manager's annual budget or annual estimate as it's called in the statute submitted pursuant to section 57 and exercise the other powers specifically assigned to the board by chapter 164. These statutory responsibilities establish the board's
role as the governing body of the municipal 8 plan. In carrying out that role, the board focuses on establishing general policy, setting the utility's long-term strategic direction, establishing the utility's long-term financial objectives, holding the
manager accountable for for performance, and making decisions reserved to the board by statute. The board does not, however, manage the day-to-day operations of the utility. Those responsibilities are assigned by section 56 to the manager.
So, let's talk about the manager next. Section 56 places the manager in quote full charge of the operation and management of the plant. Close quote. That broad grant of authority makes the manager the municipal light plan's chief executive officer and gives the manager
responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the utility. Consistent with that responsibility, the manager generally has authority over utility operations, personnel and employment matters, purchasing, contracting, customer service and system
administration. Retaining and directing consultants, engineers, attorneys, accountants, and other professional adviserss. Preparing and submitting the annual budget or annual estimate to the board pursuant to section 57. administering the utilities
finances and accounts and carrying out the board's lawful policies and directives. Massachusetts courts have consistently recognized that the legislature intended the manager, not the board, to make the operational decisions necessary to operate the utility. The board's role is to
establish policy, set long-term strategic direction, and hold the manager accountable for the results, not to supervise the utility's day-to-day operations. In short, the board governs the utility and the manager operates it.
Next, although chapter 164 defines the respective statutory responsibilities of the board and the manager, many practical questions arise in areas where the statute only speaks in general terms. Massachusetts courts have filled those gaps by consistently preserving
the legislaturator's separation of govern governance and management. There are two key cases I'd like to briefly discuss. These are the glubic and the large decisions. Galubic tells us where that line is and large tells us what
happens when the line is crossed. In the glue case, the Massachusetts appeals court considered the respective authority of a municipal light board and its manager under general laws chapter 164 sections 55 and section 56. Simply put, in this case, the board tried to
manage the light plant and the court said no. Specifically, the court recognized that the board serves as the governing body of the municipal light plant and possesses important statutory responsibilities. At the same time, however, the legislature expressly assigned the
operation and management of the plant to the manager. The court concluded that the board exceeded its statutory authority by attempting to exercise powers that chapter 164 had specifically assigned to the manager. The case is significant because it's the leading
Massachusetts appellet decision defining the respective roles of the board and manager. The decision confirms that the board governs the utility, the manager operates the utility, operational authority belongs to the manager, not the board, and the board may not assume
management functions simply because it disagrees with the manager's operational decisions. The case makes clear that the board's authority is exercised primarily through the appointment, evaluation, and when appropriate, removal of the manager, not through direct involvement in utilities
daily operations. Next is the large case. This is the case that tells us what happens uh when the line of responsibility is crossed. In the large case, a commissioner attempted to direct the manager's hiring decision. The manager refused because he believed doing so would violate chapter 164.
After further inter interference from individual commissioners and ultimately the board, litigation followed. The first circuit ultimately reinforced that personnel decisions belong to the manager. Specifically, the court concluded that
the manager could reasonably believe that complying with commissioner's directive to hire particular individual would violate section 56. The court emphasized that section 56 vests the authority over the employment of utility personnel in the manager and rep relied
upon Galubic in recognizing that the hiring authority is vested in the manager alone. Although the case was decided under the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act rather than chapter 164, the court's analysis reinforces the statutory separation of authority
established by sections 56 and 55. The case is significant because it demonstrates the practical consequences that may result when a board or individual commissioners attempt to exercise authority assigned by the statute to the manager. The decision reinforces several important principles.
Personnel decisions entrusted by section 56 are the responsibility of the manager. Individual commissioners may recommend candidates for employment, but they may not direct the manager to hire a particular applicant. A manager refuses to carry out a directive that the manager reasonably
believes would violate chapter 164 may be protected under Massachusetts whistleblower act and continued interference with the manager statutory responsibilities may expose the munite plant to significant damages. In summary, the large case illustrates
that the separation of governance and management is not merely a matter of good governance. It has legal consequences. Commissioners should avoid directing hiring decisions involving themselves in day-to-day personnel matters or taking actions that effectively substitute the
board's judgment for that of the manager on matters entrusted to management by section 56. If the board is dissatisfied with the manager's performance, its remedy is to evaluate the manager through the board's lawful governance authority, not to assume the manager's
statutory responsibilities. These the galupic and large cases together establish that municipal board may establish general policy and exercise governance, but it may not directly exercise operational authority that 164 assigns to the manager. Massachusetts courts have consistently
rejected attempts by boards to substitute their judgment for those of the manager on operational matters. Next, let's talk about some collaborative governance issues. Although chapter 164 establishes a clear
division of authority between the board and the manager, the successful operation of a municipal light plant depends upon a collaborative working relationship between them. The board's responsibility is to establish general policy, provide strategic direction, and make the decisions assigned to it by
statute. The manager is responsible for implementing those policies and managing the day-to-day operation of the utility. Many of the utility's most important initiatives require meaningful participation by both both the manager and the board. While their respective
responsibilities differ, effective governance is achieved through cooperation, open communication, and mutual respect for the statutory role assigned to each. Here are some examples of matters requiring collaboration. Strategic planning. The board establishes the
long-term vision and strategic objectives for the utility. The manager provides operational expertise, evaluates alternatives, develops implementation strategies, and carries out the board's approved direction. The annual budget. The manager prepares
the annual operating capital budgets based upon the utility's operational needs and financial objectives. The board reviews the proposed budget, evaluates its consistency with utility strategic goals and policies, and acts upon the manager's budget in accordance with chapter 164.
Capital improvement planning. The manager identifies infrastructure needs, develops engineering recommendations, establishes project priorities, and prepares capital improvement plans. The board reviews those recommendations, establishes overall priorities,
authorizes major capital expenditures when required, and monitors project progress. Rate setting. The manager develops rate recommendations and supporting financial analyses. The board reviews those recommendations, considers the financial needs of the utility and the interests
of the rate payers and establishes rates pursuant to section 58. In concluding, I note that whenever you're uncertain whether something belongs to the manager or to the board, ask yourself one question. Am I deciding
what the utility should accomplish or am I deciding how it should accomplish it? If it's what, you're probably acting as a commissioner. If it's how, you're probably acting as a manager. That simple question will answer most governance issues you'll encounter.
So I I've concluded the legal portion of the presentation um and we'll finish with a few examples uh because these are the types of questions that commissioners actually face and that we've actually been asked. Example one, the general manager wants to hire a new line worker. Who makes
that decision? >> Jason. Who? Who? >> It's an easy one. The manager. It's a personnel decision entrusted by chapter 164 to the manager. We've actually been asked that question. >> The board believes that the utility should improve reliability by increasing treatment lengths. Who makes that
decision? >> GM. >> The board policy. It's it's policy and a strategic decision. >> No, that's the GM. >> How about how many crews to hire when the work is when the work is done and which circuits are trimmed first? That's the manager.
three. A commissioner receives a complaint about a billing problem. Should the commissioner call an employee and tell them to fix it? >> No. >> No. The commissioner should refer the concern to the general manager. Four, the board wants to improve reliability
over the next five years. Who decides this? >> The board. Yeah, >> the board does. Who decides how the reliability improvement is achieved? The manager. Last one. The utility needs to purchase new bucket truck. Should the
board select the manufacturer? No. Selecting the equipment and administering the procurement is a management responsibility. So these examples illustrate why chapter 164 is structured the way it is. The legislature wanted clear lines of responsibility, accountability. When
commissioners focus on governance and managers focus on operations, municipal plants function efficiently and avoid the legal problems we discussed in Galubic and large. So I'll leave you with the same principle we started with. If you're deciding what the utility should accomplish, you're probably
acting as a commissioner. If you're deciding how it should accomplish it, you're probably acting as the manager. I >> ask a question about the last example. >> Yeah. So we obviously have to approve purchases and the part of that approval
is the review of the bid process and the selection of the particular manager. So we are saying yes or no. We're not saying no go with the other bidder, right? But we are impacting what they can do if they think say no. So like how
are we thinking about >> generally? >> Yeah. >> Right. But you're not saying you need to buy the Ford. You might be saying, "Okay, we've set a budget of this and you need to, you know, stick with that budget." And if the Ford is the only one that's under the budget, um, you know, that then in
essence, you've done that, but you haven't done it by saying you must select the the for. >> Thank you. and and follow up to that that if we set we're supposed to follow 30b purchase requirements and the presentation to us is and we follow the
procedures and here are the bids and the qualifiers then we can affirm that the process has been followed and and and approve that if like yeah my friend just got a good deal on a bucket truck um I I want to buy it well where's the 30B procedures we would say no to that
because not because we aren't approving the need for a bucket truck but the procedures aren't aren't followed in procuring it which is a policy requirement and we would be overseeing that >> unless the manager has a good reason for not following 30B because 30 30B doesn't
apply to municipal plants unless >> they have their procurement requirements and yes >> yes >> go ahead >> on a on a budget we approve the budget correct >> correct >> so and that means something um when
budget lines say what they say does the manager then have the ability to infinitely move things around without coming back to us? Um, not infinitely, but but to spend in ways that aren't specifically enumerated in the budget.
>> It's a very nuanced question. Um, what the statute requires is that a manager submit to the board an annual estimate of costs and receipts. There's nothing in this statute that
expressly says the board approves that, but everybody understands that if you're if the manager is submitting it to the board, it makes sense that the board approves it. But it also comes down to what's in that budget. Um there's no requirement that a budget be submitted
to the board u with a line by line item. Um it as it's you know the statute just says an annual estimate of receipts um and costs. Um so so it's it's unclear whether having approved it let's assume
that that means we do have the power to approve and that the approval or not approval by us has any meaning in the law. Let's assume it does have meaning. Does it then mean the GM uh cannot uh make significant changes without coming
back to us for a vote? This is again it's nuanced and it's going to come down to specific facts. If if there's like an attempt to put in a budget that you can't spend more than $5,000 on tree
trimming. >> Well, sure. If it's ridiculous, >> not exactly right. >> If it's 500, maybe it makes sense to come back. Um, but an absolute legal requirement to stick with enlightened items. I don't
think so because the statute just isn't written that way. But if you know the budget was submitted to you um, and I'm making the numbers up for $10 million and the manager has determined that expenditures in excess of $10 million
need to be made. Absolutely. It needs to come back to you. >> Do we have do we oversee the general manager? you have statutory governance uh governing responsibilities. Um oversee is not a word that's used in
the statute or the cases. >> Okay. But from an a basic employment matter or do do we hire the general manager? >> You hire you hire you evaluate and you let go when necessary >> as part of evaluating. Is it reasonable that we should obtain information about
performance or concerns that involve the general manager if they should arise? >> Performance. So, you mean performance and concerns about the general? >> Well, I mean, for example, and I know you were here 10 years ago reviewing all our policies and we're in the process of now doing that again. And when we get
into the details, you know that we're speaking purely hypothetically here, but there are many categories of problematic things that can happen. and the GM if there spells out you know for example if there's workplace violence in the in the company the GM has to know about it it's
going to no tolerance blah blah blah same with drug and alcohol same with fraud anything like that super clear that the general manager and of course oversees the utility none of us do with any employees >> sure >> but what if the hypothetical happens in
the future that a concern of that nature involves the general manager do we have to be told about without exception. >> I think it's reasonable for you to have a policy. >> Yeah. >> That says if there's an allegation
against the general manager um that you're apprised of it. >> Okay. And it doesn't just get handled by his direct reports. >> This gets tricky. Yes. I'm not sure who else can handle it. um the board doesn't
have the authority to investigate and hire and figure that out >> but to get the information. >> So the way the statute is set up in is you know the general manager is the ultimate
operational correct authority. All employees report to him. So he could direct somebody human resources to advise you and get you the information that you need.
>> But we don't oversee that any of those people. >> But that's true of any company. It IBM same thing that board uh would have to rely on the CEO of IBM to have staff advise the board. >> Sure. >> At big corporations with tens of thousands of employees, it works like
that. Yeah. >> Okay. It works post. >> It can get you you you would acknowledge it could get if there were ever a situation in the future that it could be challenging to navigate something of that nature. >> It could be challenging >> because of this categorical way that
this is being described that because it effectively means only the GM has the power to direct people to share information. >> But you have the ultimate authority, right? Because if something if there's an allegation made against the general manager um and you know there's the
litany of issues and problems and you're not happy with the general manager because he hasn't directed his staff or you know done proper things to keep you advised right you let him go >> but only if we were to know about an issue. I'm just saying that's why the the policies some of them say we have to
be told and some of them say we don't have to be told the policies as they stand now and that's what we're working on right now is harmonize that >> and if you have a policy >> that requires the board to be advised >> and it's the general manager's response job responsibility to implement the
policies. So if he's not advising the board or having the board advised, he's not achieving his job responsibilities, which goes into his evaluation. >> Uh I I have a question. It's the I might I'm probably mispronouncing it. The Luger case, >> uh Glubic and large
>> large the large case one large was the one about the hiring uh and the board had a specific or they didn't agree with the candidate or something like that. Is that the only time that this has been litigated where the board and the GM
have crossed an operational where they've come to some sort of operational impass? >> Those are just two key cases. Um so the glue case is the general manager um hires um council
consultants engineers um and the large case their commissioner had directed it involved labor consultants and a particular commissioner directed the u general manager to hire particular labor consultants general manager had already
hired somebody um so we said no another commissioner got involved said we want you to hire this labor consultant. General manner said no. The board got together. They vote hire this labor consultant. General man said no. Um then they fired him. Um they didn't fire they
didn't renew. Now they renew his uh uh contract. This is um >> this was large. >> Oh, I thought Lubec was a labor relations consultant. That's Go ahead. Sorry. >> And um so he went and filed a whistleblower claim. Um and the court
found that uh the >> GM fired P uh found the whisk. >> Correct. The GM did. Yes. Yes. And then the first circuit found um that his rights had in fact been violated and he'd been impermissibly non-renewed.
>> So I I I just I guess my question is how many of these have been litigated in that way? >> Not a lot because Galubic and large are pretty clear in the division of responsibilities. So it really hasn't gotten that far >> except I guess that larch was decided on
the basis of a whistleblower law not on the basis of section 164 >> but there was a substantive analysis of 164 as well. >> Okay. So that is that was in >> it was decided on whistleblower act but there was an analysis. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Thank just another probably a nuanced answer nuanced question. We talked about cooperation versus cover. So, it's the board's responsibility to manage a budget. So, if it came to a personnel
expense that was not in the budget and um you know the general manager is going to authorize that personnel expense, um where would you say that line falls
where now it's, you know, it's impacting the bottom line? where where does that line end on the board and the general manager? So, it's it's it's more, you know, it's uh who's going to write a check. Who
should be the one that oversees that check or approves that? That's so that that's a man management decision, but it could also be a board decision. Um, so it could be a board
decision. If I'm making this all up, let's say, uh, there's a dispute with an employee. General manager wants to let the, uh, employee go. Um, there are claims back and forth. They want to settle it. We're going to offer them $500,000 to make the employee go away.
>> Start with 10,000, but okay, go ahead. >> We'll use your number. And um, so that's to get a release of claims. So, you're buying a release of claims, entering into a settlement agreement and whatnot. If that is going to push uh the
total budget over the budget number that you've approved, I would say he has to come back, the general manager would have to come back to the board um for approval on the budget because you've now exceeded the budget. If it's within the operational
context of the budget, it's an expense. um I'm not sure he would need to come back, but you could have a policy that just says if you're going to pay uh a um termination payment in excess of why um
please consult with us. >> Okay. Just >> but ultimately it's going to be the general manager's decision. >> Okay. So that's that's the key question. Consulting is one thing, but you're saying that the GM together with any attorneys he may retain, which could be
you or others would have the unilateral power to determine I will write a payment of that magnitude to an outgoing. Yes, >> if it's within the budget. >> If it's within the budget, but >> only to the point of advice. >> But but hang on. The budget being the hundred million overall budget, so it's
unlikely that this is going to hit that, especially with all the other things that can be pushed and pulled. you could create a category for it. >> So I guess the the the question so we you know there's a governance thing we're supposed to oversee and kind of protect the rateayer at a high level and
and costs. So the if and I think what Bob might be getting at is what would be our powers to say we want to checkpoint on that uh in the in the public interest. Let's say 20 years in the future, it'll never happen, but there's
a bad actor that ends up as the GM who has hired his or her team and decides to do something like that for the whole group as they're all out the door and we're a public sector entity. And under the argument you're making, it seems like that that can just happen. It
could. >> There will be millions of dollars that would be written out in theory without any ability of the governing body to say no. >> Yes. >> You don't have to come to us for a vote to to write checks for a couple million dollars. >> Correct. >> And he could just hire,
>> for example, KP Law, write these agreements and and write those kinds of checks. So I think that's a problematic and I think it's something that our board should try to maybe put a line in the sand at that point and that in the public interest and in the interest of
>> to protect against that type of un I hear you and it it >> it it's a tricky and concerning issue but it all comes back to who has what responsibility under generalized chapter 164 in the cases that have decided that
there's no general oversee um component of the board's job. Um the board's job is to is to hire, evaluate, and let the GM go when they're not happy with how the light
department is being run. So unfortunately, you know, to draw a line in the sand and and do it anyway and say, "Okay, well, if it's more than $100,000, you have to come get our approval." The the larch decision there is uh
instructive because it's when you cross the line that you create potential liability for the >> in your in your opinion. >> Uh it's pretty solid. >> Yeah. So, so could you create a budget line item for that or is it not obviously total
budgets? Could you create a line item budget create a policy that says if we have a line item budget for you know employee expenses just call it that or whatever it is you know whatever and if you've created that that if you exceed that budget that you need to come back
that be something >> an example of where that exists today is um GM travel right where we have to approve every travel expense even if it's in the budget >> great example >> now I don't necessarily think we need to maintain that. It's a much smaller
dollar value typically. So, it's a different conversation, but it is a case where we have approval authority over >> that's an excellent examp >> can I follow up? That's it's such a perfect example because you guys finish.
So again, just going back to what 164 says, um the budget that the manager is required by law to present to the board um is an estimate of expenses and revenues. It so it could like have two
numbers in it. Um so I think if the board were to try to, you know, put in small line items, um it could be problematic. Should a general manager uh challenge it?
>> So, so Chris, what you're saying the final number is what is the governing law here, the budget number, and it's not line by line, but in practice,
I think our utility and other utilities have practiced some line by line. Uh so if that is a practice and it is a good practice can that practice be extended to other
aspects. So because because you now have examples of you know being followed and respected. So the absolute enforcability of the budget comes down to what's in the statute. When you start to deviate
from that, it just becomes a little more risky. And excuse me, how much you deviate from that is going to dictate the level of risk. Um, you know, I think the key is really to have um, excellent
communication uh, with your manager. I mean, the other part of it is you do a cost a costbenefit analysis or some sort of a risk analysis. you know, Dave, you know, to your example, you know, if you're concerned about, you know, millions of dollars walking out the door, um, you
know, under a bad actor, you know, maybe you set a threshold, you know, 500,000 bucks or something and hope that it works. And then if you get a general manager that um challenges it and and uh wins on it when they're in the act of
doing that, what are you out solutioning? Again, to use Bob's word, Bob's the voice of reason on the board here, as is Pam. Pam had a great example and and again going back because I'm the old guy on the board now and I was here 10 years ago and I remember you going
through line by line all the policies and you you reviewed the policy she's talking about and had no issue with the board has has to vote before the GM can go out of town and spend two grand. And that was something that went through you and you're one of the leading guys in
the state on on these matters or so I understand. So, so then if that's something that you approved then for such a pick aune amount of money, why would it be that you know I guess what we're saying is we need your help in extrapolating that out for bigger types
of matters like the one Bob brought up. >> Sure. >> And not just be told, well, you know, 64, it's not the manager and you know, >> that's not what I'm trying to do. >> I know. I'm trying to protect you. I'm trying to protect and uh the RMLD and limit your legal exposure. >> Sure.
>> And the way you limit your legal exposures by following the law, >> right? >> So, what I'm doing is telling you what the law says. >> Sure. >> If you want to operationally do something a little different,
that's up to you and the general manager. But I think the example Pam cited is operationally different and yet it's there in the policy. It's been there for a decade or two and you also reviewed and thought it was fine and no manager has challenged it. So
>> would have to go back 10 years. I don't remember what we did 10 years ago. >> Okay. Well, but with that as as an established practice, why would that not be extrapolatable to much larger things? That's all. and help us if if you're going to be involved because I guess
Jason will involve you help us extrapolate that small approval step to much bigger things that are of much more consequence to the rateayer. And I guess my my question to just in terms of tying these things together
about the actual ruling and the law on which it was based, are these things the example that Dave and and Bob are talking about, are they the same as the labor dispute in principle? And would they be
litigated the same if they were in court? I mean, I guess I I I feel a little bit of a >> a seriousness. Well, I I'm not familiar with the with the labor dispute.
>> So, but but fraudulent behavior is different. It seems like even from a legal standpoint, from a labor dispute. So, but I guess where where it potentially comes up is it if you've got a making it up line item in the budget
that says X and the general manager exceeds it. Um, and the GM says, "Well, you don't have the authority to do that anyway." Um, and let's say just like large contracts up for renewal and you say, "You know what? We're we're not
going to renew your um contract." But there's been a lot of back and forth on this particular issue. there's a record that there's been a back and forth on this issue and then the general manager files a whistleblower claim. It's the same thing. It's have you gone beyond
what 164 says? Now, with that said, um you know, on on this particular issue, I've told you in prep preparation for this presentation, um I read the statute, worked through it all. Um, I have my notes and I'm just
telling you what the statute says. Now that I have questions from you, I can go back and see um, try and figure out where we go from here because I understand your need. Um, and you know,
the goal would be to try and satisfy a need while complying with 164. Um, so I'm not fully prepared to give you um an up or a down on how that works, only to tell you what exactly the statute says at this point.
>> Just doing a time check. I wanted to know if there will be time to discuss with board and cap part also. Just just >> we have two more questions from Ray and then we need to move on to that other piece. >> Okay. >> All right. I I'll try to summarize it
quickly. Um, the Reading Town Charter tells the board of commissioners that we have certain responsibilities under the town charter. And a couple of those responsibilities are that we we recommend the hiring of the accountant
and the attorney at RMLD. That's a clear conflict in my opinion of of 164. >> Um, is is that the answer? That's a clear conflict of 164. We were governed by and
and so as while it is legal for the town to say that it's not practical for us to implement it. >> Correct. >> Okay. The the second thing is it's easy to say and we're not going to renew your contract uh to the GM. It's
another thing to actually then not renew the contract and hire a new GM. >> Agreed. And so in in that process of deciding whether you are or not going to renew or or you're in the process of hiring a new contract, it is often the
case where the board is seeking legal or other advice. That advice then if it's a contented contentious separation that our resources then come from the
general manager. We would then ask the general manager for resources and the general manager would then suggest what our options are more than suggest. He'd either would tell us we're using this person or not even if we were to suggest. So
guidance on resources that the board can have when indeed managing that GM contract and that GM change is comes about. So, um,
every time I've seen this come up, the board has asked the GM, uh, for, uh, an attorney, and the GM has always done it, um, provided it. >> He's provided an attorney. >> An attorney,
>> okay, of the GM's choosing in a conflict involving the GM. So the I've seen board make boards make recommendations as to who they would like. Sometimes the GM follows that.
Sometimes the GM doesn't. >> But it is of the GM's choosing for a conflict which he is a party. >> Correct. >> And the person assigned to us is of the GM's choosing. >> Yes. Section 56 unfortunately does not
distinguish um between a conflict situation and a non-conlict situation. In your opinion, are there gaps in 164? >> I mean, you you can find gaps in any legislation,
you know, it's like making sausage because everything's done by committee and it's tough when you do it by committee. Um, but I think overall 164 works pretty well. It it's worked pretty well for, you know, 150 years. Um, are there gaps?
Yes, it you know are there other gaps in stat like procurement? Oh my goodness, we could talk about procurement for days uh in the gaps in the procurement statutes and particularly as they apply to new supply plans. >> We move to the board versus >> yes
>> board and tab not >> board and cab collaborate. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. You're welcome. Jason was all hypothetical like oh boy.
>> Yeah, I I agree it is. >> So earlier we discussed the relationship um between the board of commissioners and the general manager. Uh that relationship concerns the divi division between um governance and management. Now, uh, we'll talk about another unique
feature of the Reading Municipal 8 Department's governance structure, the Citizens Advisory Board. Unlike most Massachusetts municipal 8 plants, RMLD serves four communities: Reading, North Reading, Wilmington, parts of Blfield.
As part of the 20-year agreement entered into among those communities, the parties agreed to establish a citizens advisory board to provide all four communities with a formal opportunity to participate in major policy discussions affecting the utility. The agreement
describes the citizens advisory board as providing an additional opportunity for the communities to provide input into RMLD's decision-making process. That naturally raises the question, if RNLD has both a board of commissioners and a citizens advisory board, what's
the difference between them? The act the answer is actually quite simple. The board of commissioners governs the utility. The citizen advisory board advises the board of commissioners. That distinction is fundamental. The board of
commissioners is the governing body established under Massachusetts law. As we discussed earlier, chapter 164 gives the commissioners the legal authority to establish policy, approve rates where required, act upon the annual budget submitted by
the general manager, appoint and evaluate general manager, and make the decisions that the legislature has reserved to the board. The citizens advisory board has a different role. Its purpose is not to govern the utility or to make operational decisions. rather
his purpose is to assist the commissioners by providing thoughtful advice on significant policy issues affecting the department. The 20-year agreement identifies several important matters on which the citizens advisory board is expect to advise the commissioners. Those include major
transmission and distribution projects, long-term power supply contracts, cost of service studies, financial and accounting practices, and other significant policy issues affecting the utility. The agreement also provides that the citizens advisory board will
review the proposed annual operating capital budgets and may recommend additions, deletions, or other changes before the commissioners take final action. Similarly, it is afforded an opportunity to review proposed rate schedules and
make recommendations before rates are adopted. Notice the distinction. The citizen advisory board studies important issues, evaluates proposals, and provides recommendations. The board of commissioners considers those recommendations and makes the final
decision. The agreement reinforces this distinction by expressly stating that all input provided by the citizens advisory board is advisory in nature. The commissioners and the general manager may consider the advisory board's recommendations, but
responsibility for making the final decision remains with the board of commissioners. The agreement also provides that while the citizens advisory board generally has up to 30 days to provide its recommendations, the commissioners are not required to postpone decisions indefinitely if
action must be taken. It's equally important to understand what the citizen advisory board does not do. The citizen advisory board does not supervise employees. It does not direct utility operations. It does not negotiate contracts and it does not
manage the department. As we discussed earlier, chapter 164 places the operation and management of the municipal light plant in the general manager. The 20-year agreement expressly recognizes that statutory responsibility. Accordingly, the citizens advisory board
advises, the board of commissioner governs, and the general manager manages. When each group fulfills its respective role, the governance structure established by the 20-year agreement works exactly as intended. The citizens board, the citizens advisory
board brings regional perspectives, technical expertise, and thoughtful recommendations from all four communities. The board of commissioners carefully considers that advice and exercises the legal authority entrusted to it under Massachusetts law. The
general manager then implements those decisions by operating the utility on a day-to-day basis. So if you remember only one thing from this discussion, remember this. The cab does not make decisions. It informs them. The board of commissioners makes
those decisions and is accountable for them. and the general manager carries those decisions into effect through the day-to-day operation of the utility. Those are three distinct roles and each is essential to the successful operation of the reading municipal department. The
20-year agreement was carefully designed to preserve those separate responsibilities while ensuring that all four communities have a meaningful voice in the future of RMLD. >> Thank you. Any further questions? question.
>> Piece of cake. So, what's the hard part? >> Um, thank you for the overview. Appreciate it. Well, um, definitely raised some follow-up questions. So, >> yes, >> the right time to have you come back and share some thoughts on kind of resolving some of those other questions.
>> That sounds great. Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your questions. Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Right. So, we're going to move to request for renewal. >> We don't have to do that. He can do that all by himself.
>> Do Good night. >> Thank you. You too. Thanks for being here. >> Yeah. Which one do you want to do first? The bid first. >> Yeah, first. >> Sure. Um, so Nick Deva, I know I met
most of you, but not maybe everybody. Um, I'm the general foreman of grid assets and communications. So the um bid before you is for the um remediation removal um transportation disposal re
remediation of hazardous materials including uh emergency response. Um so it's typically a three-year contract. Um and um uh it went out to 15 companies uh for
bid the IF um fee. Uh we got three submitts and the um most qualified um responsible responsive um bidder was uh Boston Green Fuel Company LLC. Um our
existing um company did um submit a bid but um Boston Green Fuel Company was lower. So um it includes um any type of um emergency response for
uh leaking transformers or hydraulic hose leaks. Um it also includes disposal of material like batteries uh fluorescent lights and that kind of stuff. U computers um and um and that's
about it. I don't know if anybody has any questions. Who who is the existing >> existing is green sight services. >> Okay. Green side service existing >> I recognize it's the the lowest bidder fully confident in capability.
>> Yeah. So we um you know we are limited on you know what we can pick and choose as the discussion we just had. Um so we did check their uh references. Um I made phone calls so all their references. Um and um everybody uh had really good
things to say about them. Um so um we're pretty confident that um u you know they're more than qualified to do the work. >> And you said this was a this is a one-year agreement or a three-year. >> It's a threeyear >> three-year agreement. Okay.
>> And again, the pricing is is based on historical um uh data. You know, it's it's hard to tell what we're going to have. So it's not it's not a guarantee. It's um um on a um job basis whatever they come in to do.
It's so it's not like they um um just get paid a retainer or anything like that. So it's just the dollar amount. >> Yeah. So that's the part I wanted to understand because you have an estimate for 50k >> but the bid was for 23.8. >> Yeah. So what we do is we
>> and my question would be like what is the budgeted amount as such for this line item because I know I looked at the hazardous there's a hazardous waste fund that have like 750k sitting in there right >> so so what is the budgeted amount for
this year and just want to get a sense of yeah that >> sure I can't speak too much for the budgeted but as far as um also what falls under budgeted for hazardous material is we we work with another
vendor as far as disposal of transformers. >> Pam said that you know I guess I did read here it says the operating budget for this item is 50k. >> Yes it is. So but that that 50k is based on historical
um >> dat all hazardous services >> that is just for spill response. >> Just for spill response. >> Yeah. So we do use another vendor for um spent transformers, disposal of old transformers. We use um >> that is separate. >> That is separate.
>> So this is 50k. You want approval for 50k. >> Yes. Yeah. And again it is um you could you could have a tree come down on a pole and and spend that you know what I mean in a week. you know, it it really we just try to use uh historical data um
to uh give you some guidance of what we've, you know, what we've done over I think it's a three-year average is what we used. And as far as their dollar amount, we we set up um some typical jobs. We tell them um you know, what
kind of equipment they need to bring, how long it's for, so it's an apple toapple comparison. So um and that's where those numbers come up. Any other questions? >> This is just a board motion. Governor
>> uh IFB 2026 remediation transportation disposal of hazard materials. moved that IFB2026-ft for removal transportation disposal and remediation of hazardous materials including emergency response services be
awarded to Boston Green Fuel Company LLC for an estimated amount of $50,000 per year pursuant to MGL chapter 30 paragraph 39M as the laws responsible eligible bidder on the recommendation of
the general manager second. All those in favor? Motion carries. Great. Uh we have an AMI update. Yes. >> Okay. Um first I want to thank Aaron for putting this all together.
But um so just a quick update on the um AMI project. Things are going very well. Um so um I know there's been some requests for some information. So um you know this is our first crack at it as far as um um giving you guys um a
dashboard of what we're doing, how many meters are done. Um and that will be on the the um the second slide. But as far as um this first slide um we have a pie chart on
the actual meters themselves um we have um right now in stock or at the time we did this is 62% of the meters were in stock. 21% of them have been installed and are in service at customer locations and we have about 17% on order that will
all be um delivered by the end of this year. Um and then as far as the what we call collectors of the devices um in the field that are actually um bringing the reads back um
to um the tanalyst system. Uh 62% of the collectors have been installed. Um 38 have not u but we do have them in stock. So they are here just not deployed yet. um we have a lot of the equipment um out
in the field um it'll you know um keep us busy for quite a while. There's going to be a little bit of a change with a cell carrier that we're going to have to deal with. Um so that's why we haven't deployed anymore. So um but um T-Mobile
bought US Cellular or something like that. So we have to we we have to make some changes with that. So, >> so what do we anticipate the percentages will be by the end of the calendar year?
um end of the calendar year my target um you know somewhere you know between 50 to 60% is would be my target >> of the residential meters >> all all meters >> okay >> you know combination um the next the
next chart will kind of has it broken down more in by um residential and commercial meters but as a as a whole um you know I think we um realistically It will be between 50 and 60%.
>> Can we see the next slide? Sure. >> Anybody have any questions on this one? >> Yeah, go to the next slide. I mean the you know Pam asked about what will be done by the end of this year. I think >> if you see like but towns like North Reading and Lynfield is they don't have
much deployment. So could you give people a sense of how long it'll take for the other towns to catch up? you know, reading is going first, but just >> Sure. So, the the best deployment method uh for this type of system is density.
So, um it um skipping around going to different locations um is uh is it's not going to it's not going to function well. Um it's important that we get these reads right away because these uh these reads are being exported to an MDM
system where a lot of analytics can be done. Um so missing data is not good. It can fill in some gaps, but you don't want those gaps to be too long. So, um we uh we established um two pilot areas.
Um one was in Reading and um one was in Wilmington. So, that's why you see the numbers there are more in those locations. So, um we do have some um collectors out in the other areas. We're
ready to deploy there. It's just we do move back and forth between Reading and Wilmington depending on billing schedules. Uh we don't want to be changing meters right in the middle of of billing customers. It just um it it creates a little havoc with the billing
um the uh billing people. So we try to you know give them a week's grace period and we move somewhere else. Um but we we will be close to being done with threading by
um probably um towards the end of the summer, you know, into September. Um as as a whole, you know what I mean? Um it's that last 1% that's always a problem. But uh but you know for the most part um you can
see we're over half the commercial um meters in um in reading are completed um and um you know about 60% of the meters in reading are completed. So um we will then move on to um North Reading in
Lynfield. Uh some of the meters that were done in North Reading was because of a new building. uh we didn't want to go buy the new meters. So we we you know we put one of those uh collectors um it just fell online where where the
location was and um so we we had to deploy some meters out there so um we can utilize the stock that we had. So, um, but I would say, you know, we, uh, we should be finishing up in Reading, um, by probably end of September. Um,
and then we will, um, move to the other two communities and and start doing meters in and in and we'll be doing meters in all three communities after that. So, I would say um, you know, we'll we uh, can't give you an
exact plate. you know, we can try to pin that down a little bit for for you, I can uh give that information to Jason >> next year, like you know, the year after just just >> Yeah. Again, we will, you know, we'll be out there. We're not signaling anyone out or have a plan that we're just going
to stay in a certain community. Um so we will um you know be implementing um >> so so if you can't tell us now, could you just let us know? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we'll try to get a a more concrete >> I agree. That was my question here too.
I know you sent out a an email to uh Lynfield and people are waiting for it to happen because they talked about it but nobody knows when. >> That was like an initial email to say we're going to be replacing meters over the next couple years. So that went to every customer.
>> So sorry I think you know so so please and I don't want to put you on the spot. >> No no no we to share whatever best information >> we can u the website on the AMI page there is maps of areas. Yeah. >> And and um of where we're going next and as we said moving our
>> but it doesn't have any target dates. >> But typically we post the areas that we're we're >> working on. >> Right. But there's no target dates for the rest. >> There is no we uh yeah we have not implemented a system where um we can sort of project where we're going to be
in a month or six months. But um that is something we can we can work on. So if um you're saying six months you should be roughly 50%. Do you think you'll be complete next year? Yes, that's
>> with all >> there might be a couple str >> Yeah, there's there's there's there always that half of a half percent left that we will struggle with but um >> purposes >> but we will um you know we will be um we'll be done with the project next year
and I would say mid next year >> and they came to my house that knocked on the door I wasn't home my son was there called up we're going to take power And by the I think the time I hung up it
was done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It was it was that fast. It was instantaneous. So >> yeah. Yeah. It goes it goes pretty quick. You know what I mean? >> Came up knock on the door but lately all was happen very >> y
the talk chart um it was entered a lot to like separate everything before June. So, we preloaded the three or four at the end of that first dot. >> Yeah. >> But going forward, you're going to get like every 15 days a dot and then consecutive we're going to get to see a
a run rate in a few weeks. >> 2,000 meters in a month. That's a that's a lot of work. >> Yeah. Again, you know, it it's an average um you know, we um we did a lot of uh apartment complexes early on. Um
we try to um hit a lot of occasions that we knew we were going to have issues with because they were uh you know we we've had you know similar systems you know we've had some struggles and uh >> so so so right now it's about 7500 out
of 30,000 meters 32,000 meters >> yeah roughly. Yes. >> Okay. >> And that number is going up every day you know. So, uh, you know, I think I looked at it today, we're we're almost at 8,900 again. You know, it, you know,
these numbers here are based on, um, our billing system. So, there is there is a little bit of a lag. Um, but, um, you'll you'll see, you know, uh, every month, like Jason just said, we'll be giving updates twice a month on the 15th and in
the in the first of the month. So, um you you'll see a steady progress of these meters going up. >> Thank you. >> We can definitely work on trying to you know um come up with a plan on areas too. So
>> yeah, and maybe it's part of your PM update on a monthly basis just hey we're heading to this section next or you know something like that just so >> any other questions? Okay, thank you so much for that. >> Very welcome. Thank you.
>> Finance update night. Hello. You know me, Patty Cameron. So, we're going to um look at the financial position of the company midyear. Um go to the next slide.
>> So, these are some of the things that we've been working on. Um we paid the four towns the uh voluntary payments uh which took a total of uh 1.2ish million. Oops. Sorry.
Then and then that hits the cash in June. Uh we also paid the first two prepayments of the below the line payment and that was paid in July. That was the the 1.2 million. We also paid the pension contribute contributo
payment which is something that we pay uh annually and that's uh based on the actuarial report on what is um necessary for the company to pay towards the um pension and u we've discussed that it's be fully
funded I think it's supposed to be 2032 um we did the PTF and the RNS filing um back in May and we submitted it on time. Uh we also did the DPU report and uh submitted it early because it's not due
until September, but we had to have it done for the PTF. So, it's all done and that's great. Um next month we are going to do interviews for the ERP consulting. Uh we had five candidates and the the
team um narrowed it down to three and we enter we're going to interview those three on August 4th and then review our findings on August 5th and uh believe it or not it's time to do the budget again. So uh we'll be working
on the u calendar year 27 budget started. We're going to do a kickoff meeting um in a couple of weeks where we have the department heads and the key personnel uh talk about the plan. Um we're hoping for more participation from
the departments on um the expenses and um we're going to discuss the a different way to handle the capital budget carryovers and when we get to the capital slide um Jason's going to help me explain that.
So these are some highlights. Um these um some of the what I'm reporting is as of June and some is as of May because we have not closed out power supply for June yet because we're still getting invoices for June now. So we can't close
out the month completely until that happens. So um the first two things kilowatt hours sales and operating revenue is through June. And you can see that we're kilowatt hour sales we're up three and a half percent and operating
revenue is pretty flat over last year. So next slide. >> Quick quick question on that. >> Yeah, if I may. So that's a pretty dramatic jump that we hadn't seen in a couple years. Is that we had >> a lot of that was January and February. >> Okay. >> And that would be weather related now.
>> Okay. Yeah. So this was through June. So June it did start to get warm but the real heat was like early July. June. Okay. >> The biggest impact was January for for that year-to- date figure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And here's a graph of uh our budget to
actual for the five months. Um the blue is the actual and the red is the budget. So you could see that um you know we're running on target. Um the numbers look a little bit lower than the budget which is good.
um net income is higher. And then the next slide is the actual 25 versus actual 26. And um it it's pretty consistent overall. >> So
what were the key variances in the GNA expenses versus >> for uh the budget? You mean the last slide? >> The last slide. Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh well, it's the pretty much the rebates for the um energy.
>> So, a lot fewer >> fewer than what we predicted and also legal costs are down. Next slide. Yeah. So here's where we talk about capital and we have all the columns and we have the actual in the
left column and then we have the 2026 budget and then the carryover from previous years and then the combination of what we have remaining and I broke it down into four major categories. The substation, the AMI, other construction which is everything else and then the um
smaller things with the remaining um departments. So, um, we're talking about changing the way we do the carryover, but when we do the budget this time and Jason, you want to explain a little bit?
>> Yeah. So, the last few years we carry over. So, the actual budget for the year really did that combined. Um, however, um, in my experience was looking at it and talking with
staff, some of that carryover is stuff that we think might happen in 26, but we also know some of it might actually happen in say 27. So to carry it all over into 26 isn't really giving you a true budget value or a good forecast of a particular project if we're just
lumping it all just moving into the next year. But what I I would like you to include is in a project we don't spend the budget amount in 26 and we're going to carry that amount over. We're going to look to put what we think we're going
to spend that carryover in 27 and 27. And if any of it we think might actually happen in 28 or 29 or any of the other years, we'll put the values in the years that we think that we're going to spend it. Um so you get a truer forecast of when the money is going to be spent. Um,
now the reason why some of these carryovers are large is if you so like with the Wington substation, we had to go procure large transformers that were extremely expensive. So we needed to have that in the budget of the year that we were making that procurement event. But once we ordered it, we knew they
weren't going to come in for a year and a half. At the end of that budget year, we can then put it right rightful spot and not put it into the necessarily the next year. And then so we're not just moving it one year down the road every time. we're after equipment where we need it to on some of these other items
because sometimes these projects either they move a little bit slower than we thought they were going to or some of them are with customers or state and they get delayed. So just having that visibility and putting it into where we actually think it's going to spend as opposed to just keep moving it one year down the road every time. So that's kind
of the thought process and I thought this chart was kind of a good example of how how you could see that which is why you have $12.7 million of carryover substation when some of that was most of that was actually going to be spent 27 the transport showed up that switch
showed up construction but if that wasn't the case then we might be five going to be in 27 26 and five and 7 million so we'd make that split we did the budget so you'd have better visibility in the actual out years. Um
so it's so the overall project amount doesn't necessarily change. Um it's just when those dollars are going to be spent. >> So so remaining is actually carry forward. And what you're saying is you'll show it as carry forward 27 carry forward 28 carry forward.
>> You keep moving one year down. >> So it'll be better if you say it that way because then >> Yeah. So the remaining what if this was the end of the year not mid the year point and say we knew we still need to spend that 11 million in Wilmington but I knew only five of it was going to get spent 27 I would add that to whatever we thought
we're going to get down to 27 plus whatever we were moving in and whatever that value would be would be in your 27 budget line item and then the remaining 7 million if I thought that was coming in 28 we would put it in 28 with whatever else we thought instead of all just >> I think that's good that's good
>> yeah so that was like one of the changes and I It was how it was done a few years ago. That changes made a few years ago. >> So, we're kind of go hopefully going back, but just trying to like the methodology is so that just gives better visibility of when the money is actually going to be spent after
>> or if a project gets significantly delayed or project could get moved up. Yeah, we have a project that think we're doing at 28 and now we have a need to do it at 27, we'll move it up. sliding it into the right years. And so
that's just a pie chart of showing what we've spent for capital for the year through June. So that's self-explanatory. Um the next slide, this next slide, it's a little more confusing, but uh we have
some restricted funds and two of those restricted funds have to do with capital. We have the depreciation fund which is really the annual depreciation that we move money monthly into the depreciation restricted account.
So in in addition to that we have to take some of the operating cash and put it into what we call the construction fund. And the two things there should carry what we're going to spend. But the blue the light the dark blue is the roll
over from the previous year money that we didn't spend from the previous year and we roll it over. So you have all the all the years complete years and then the last columns are the um the through June. So, we started out with the 9.7
and then we had six months of depreciation and then we also rolled over um transferred $9 million from the operating account at the beginning of the year and then we had you know 59,000 in interest and what we've spent against
those funds is what's in red the 11,369. So the depreciation will increase by another six months but other than that um that's how much money we hope to have on hand to uh pay for the capital
expenses. >> The interest is because we're holding money in a bank waiting to pay the things. >> Depreciation fund is one of the funds that's actually in a bank interestbearing account. So the depreciation earns interest but the uh
the 9 million in the construction fund does not. So next slide. So these we mentioned all the different uh restricted cash accounts that we have. We have 10 um and we don't have to read all of them but um you have that in
your packet to explain what each of those cash reserves does and why we have it. Um we have one that's uh the deferred fuel reserve which we have because fuel is a pass through account and we um we have we sometimes collect
more or less than what we pay. So we have a reserve and we keep a a balance that a desired balance to have on hand in case there's a increase in fuel costs. Well, we want to add another one. We're going to add another one for PPCT
because that also is a pass through. So we think for consistency we should have a reserve for PPCT as well and the um that definition is there. So we'll be moving the money that we have on a
worksheet that we've been keeping track of collection versus payment and we um will move that money into its own reserve account which is really just on the books. It's like an earmarked account so that we know that money is
for this purpose. >> And that and you want to keep that as restricted account, >> a new restricted account, >> right? A new restricted account. >> Okay. And would like but a lot of these we set limits on the cap or you know we we sometimes we find that
there's overage in that account. It builds up too much. But you think four million is your right number. Is that >> Yeah. And we've been use we've been using it you know as we need it like we they they fix the rate so that it will come out go up or go down
just to maintain the the the balance the desired balance. >> Yeah. Um if you see in the fuel reserve it would keep it around 4 million as well. I think even though the PBCT was kind of more of a a spreadsheet even though the money was in the cash we're already doing this. It's just more
formalizing it in the >> just the consistency >> and targeting for it. But I would say um I think there's going to be some financial policy type stuff like how many days of cash on hand, stuff like that that's going to come out of the cost of service study that um you know we have some already board approval from
the past stabilization and stuff like that, right? >> All that's going to recommendations of that should come out of the cost of service study when that's done when they do when they finish our financial review. So if they change those amounts or make recommendations and have justification on why we should change
those amounts, we'll come back. >> Okay. So the last slide is uh oh that's not the last slide. This a pie chart of where all the money is in the different restricted accounts. And I think you've seen this one before. So then the last
slide is um this is something that's in your packet every month. a monthly cash flow report shows, you know, the money coming in and the money going out and then the transfers. This is a year-to-ate one through May, and it shows where we started at the beginning of the year and where we're at now and
what, you know, the net effect is. And you could see the money and the uh restricted going in and out. Any questions on that one? on on the uh cash balances chart that as it made it the pie chart.
>> Yeah. >> Um >> go back. Yeah. >> What would you It's so out of those 10 accounts from the previous page. I know they're all represented here, but uh
so basically they're cash reserve funds like you say. uh there any way to like put us put them together next time we talk about it? Not not now, but uh just to say what chunk of that
cash reserve it is because it's kind of we can't touch it other than the other than the uh PPCT account. Other than that, it's really a lot of those funds are they're there for a purpose,
>> right? Just want to understand what what total of the 50 is >> what which total sorry >> the subtotal of those 10 accounts 58 million
>> 58 million. >> So if you go to you mean in total >> it it is the total >> no if you go to if you go to the um next slide again. So the restricted balance is 34 million by you know 487 and the
operating is the 23 930. Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry Patty. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So it's 34 billion. >> Right. >> Okay. >> And like I said some of those are rear marketing. I I you know we're restricting them internally not necessarily
>> restricted restricted if we had to like take the construction on for some reason you know assuming we didn't have construction expenses we to pay for it down that we could move it back and we cash other things like the fuel and stuff like that that would part that would
depreciation we wouldn't be able to do that necessarily it's just really build it >> I think that was it any questions Any other questions? >> There's no way of telling a uh comparison of our group compared to
other ones. Is there out of curiosity other municipalities? Are we better off worse off? Because we don't get a chance to look at their books, do we? Or is that >> I guess the closest thing you could do would go to the DPU
um site and look for other um plan DPU and reports. So like we we all have to submit them. >> Yeah. >> So you could go look and um right now there's probably only a handful that submitted because like Patty said for the full transmission the PT filing we
had to have it done but that's because we have transmission facilities that we get revenue back on. Most like plants don't have that file until like September. So but if you went to look now most of them you would see would be 2024 205s.
Some a lot of them actually put on their websites too. If you go to their websites, they'll have their DP report. >> Good. Thank you. >> They'll also have their financials too, right? >> Yeah. I mean, financials, yes and no. I I I'd like to point to the DP report because it's all in the same format and
and structured. That's why they do it. So everybody files exactly the same. So it can make for that comparison purpose. >> I mean, they're all MLPS are all different sizes. We're among the top two largest. So, it's going to be hard to
compare us to Marvel Head or to Ames Brier or uh other other towns which are much much smaller. >> Fair enough. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you, Patty. >> Thank you very much.
You didn't have to angry Dave to go away. What do we have to Hello. I think I have a lot tonight. I can't first the energy program. That's >> uh Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. We have two topics, right? IRD update and then the annual report for you >> and then the uh >> exact session. Oh yeah, looking at the next 25 minutes for now.
Okay, go fast. Um so just a reminder I think um we've settled on each January I'll provide an update on the uh energy efficiency and electrification programs which is both
mostly the rateay programs uh for the past year and then every July I'll give this part two update which is mostly on the demand response programs. So these two updates will cover all our most of our customer programs which also
includes a little bit of our own kind of asset large asset management. Um so this is the summary of the peak demand uh reduction that we've achieved last year. All these numbers are also in the 2025
annual report. Uh I want to I'm not going to read all this. Um I just want to highlight actually the first one which was the first time that we were able to um quantify the reduction of the voluntary residential peak alert program
participation and um we have collectively over you know 13 hours of peak uh collectively 9 megawatt of reduction. So that is significant and average over the 2600 customers is only
like 0.2 two or three kilowatt reduction that you need to do for the for the whole year to achieve nine megawatt. Just imagine if you do it every month and then you know that will kind of multiply more. Uh so we definitely are
encouraged by this result. were definitely reaching out to customer to see how they did it. You know, especially the top reducers um to do some case studies and then to put out better outreach and educational material
to customers and to make this uh program more active and um uh also I'm planning to roll out a um kind of a savings sharing with these customers. um we'll set up a threshold then then we'll share
a percentage of the savings as a credit to these participant customers. So how how exactly were you able to get this additional measurement from from the new meters? >> Because uh no actually I think we had
this discussion last year quite a bit. We set up the meter manage the meter data management system last year that was a huge help because actually I think at least 80% of our current meters have hourly reads. So those reads are
transported into our MDM system. So we were able to use them and we have really good analysts and they really look at all the hourly data of these participating customers and came up with a reduction. We have pretty solid um uh
kind of how to set the baseline, how to make the adjustment to the baseline because it's a common practice to uh adjust the baseline before you calculate the reduction. So they did it for every single customer participating in this and I'm not going to kind of sugarcoing this definitely a lot of people did not
reduce they even increased. So the nine megawatt is the actual reduction because you cannot you cannot discount the reduction by saying oh there's increase on the other side because if they didn't reduce there's actually more increase right so we're just counting all the
reduction as not me >> so each one of these 2600 people who are enrolled that's voluntary did you did we implement any type of control >> no these uh these do not include the
direct control. The connected homes is direct control. >> This excludes >> So again to Hannah's point, I'm just trying to understand how you measured them. >> Yeah. >> Again, because I I so you don't know if they did reduce or they did not.
>> We would know from the meter reads. So you would look at Oh, so the chart here would explain the chart. Can you please >> this is a Yeah, this is an example. So on May 16th the peak hour was hour
ending 19 which is between 6:00 and 7 in the evening and at our ending 19 you can see the red line is a baseline it it's the peak it's the peak hour and if they didn't reduce their peak usage will be
in that hour but then when you see look at the blue line that's the actual usage so they actually shifted their peak because they they saw our email saying there's there's going to be a peak during these hours and then they reduced
the usage during the peak hour but they're peak shifted to our >> ending customer. >> What is this one customer? >> This is one customer. This is one customer and then the the baseline is what >> the red line >> the red
>> who who is the baseline >> the the customer >> the calculated yes >> so the baseline is based on the past 10 days of usage against the the peak day >> then we make adjustments >> to the baseline. >> So that was their like typical pattern.
>> Yes. >> And instead of the typical pattern they >> they shifted >> shifted to earlier. Yeah. >> So the baseline prior 10 days. So on the 11th day you you measure the peak. >> Yeah. The peak day is the 11th day.
>> Yeah. But that the adjustment is it's more it's it's more uh involved process. The baseline is adjusted you know because uh usually the day gets hot not just in one day. Usually they
will get hot for a few days and but on the peak day might be the hottest day. Um and then the the usage would the baseline underlying usage you would imagine that will be higher already. So the you know we take the two hours before the peak hour then three hours
before the peak cover we take the average and add that difference to the baseline. So the baseline is not the actual usage not the actual it's the average of the past 10 years ten days of usage and then we we add or subtract a
adjustment to that. And so what we're really calculating is the difference between the peak of the orange and that peak of the blue. >> Yeah. So basically at our ending 19 the baseline is say eight and then the
active uses is like five and a half >> right. But then there was another peak on that day on hour 20. >> Yeah. But hour 20 is not the peak hour. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The peak has passed. >> What was the warning for that day? It said reduce electricity between what and
what? >> Uh or this probably did between four and four and eight. >> So, and you don't and you don't know until retrospectively which hour. >> We won't know which hour. We won't know until
uh I think it's usually two to three weeks after the month ended. And and that's the challenge for the user in that you send out two or three peak warnings a month. You're not sure which day
is the going to be ultimately the peak day or even all demand. >> No, I understand. just saying, but from the user standpoint, we're sending out kind of a lot of notices um because that's our best guess of when their
effort will give us the most value. And so a responsive person who who's trying to save money for themselves and then benefit the the utility overall, um would be making
these adjustments on a regular basis. >> Yes. and and so >> behavioral change which is the hardest thing in the world. >> What I'm saying is that that's a a number of times we're asking to make have them to make those changes. So they really kind of need it's not just there.
I did it one day I'm good. I get my sticker and it's all done. It's really a continuous >> behavior that when the notice goes out they they make the change. Yeah. So >> and also I'm happy to report out of the 12 peak hours we predict it correctly for 11.
>> Yeah. and also the capacity predicted correctly. So, >> so, so that's that's good feedback. Also, I I I know my house now is ground source heat pump and so there isn't much to change. I can
nudge the air conditioning set point a little bit but other than that there isn't >> there isn't like I said that 9 megawatt comes out of average of 0.2 kilowatt. >> Yeah. >> Which is very small. Yeah. >> Can I ask a question about this graph?
So, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the the graph. So, um at some point the the warning went out and what would that have been that morning or the previous day? >> It's usually uh late morning. >> Late morning. Yes. >> So, at some point in this late morning
of that blue line, which is the day, right, is the day of their actual >> Yes. >> the peak day. They were told >> reduce energy use between four and eight. >> Yeah. So it another way to look at this is that if they were acting on that so 16 is four right and 17 is five right
and 18 is six which all could have been the peak according to the warning >> but their use is actually higher than it had been over the previous 10 days for those three hours >> it's only retrospectively that you know that you know you know two weeks later that the seven o'clock was the hour but
this doesn't I mean I want this to you're doing great work it's a very hard problem but This doesn't show that that customer took action during those four hours. >> Actually, they did, right? They they they peaked at hour 14 and then at our 16, which is the beginning of our peak
large period, they reduced they reduced their usage. They did, but relative to the 10 baseline days, >> the 10 baseline days, you you you need to remember before, you know, probably the first day of the 10day period, it wasn't that hot or, you know, so their
normal usage isn't that much. >> Okay? >> But the the thing that is normal is the fact that this particular household at 700 p.m. all engines are running at the right on a typical day. And what you're seeing is that they that's usually in
the evening. Exactly. Yeah. >> And it's probably the early hours are probably just whatever it's I mean that's when it's hottest is probably pumping more but maybe not as much as it would be. >> So the energy use on that day is actually higher but they they didn't the peak was not
>> wasn't as high as that could have been if they hadn't taken action. >> Okay. All right. That makes sense. >> Well it's the peak not the volume that >> then like the volume underneath it. Yeah, that's energy use. >> Yeah. And and and all these DR programs
uh RMLD save 2.2 million from the peak reductions. >> That's the gross saving. And I want to say that we do pay, you know, developers, you know, the service providers for our batteries of that 2.2 million.
>> Okay. Okay. So that so you'd have to net out >> you'd have to net out that storage and other Right. >> Not a total >> it's not just from these demand reduction. >> It's it is for so so I just talk about the residential peak alert and then
connected homes has just over 140 uh customers. So we have half a megawatt and commercial PDR we have about 20 over 20 I think 23 >> we have 4.2 and then two batteries two solars and one gas generator will have
107 megawatt. So all these four programs adding together it's $2.2 million. >> All those were operating at the peak. The batteries the two solar project because it's >> it's that solar is generating at
8 o'clock at night. That >> it's not. Yeah. Usually it's not. >> That's that's where that that that's generating earlier in the day unless the gas generator's on and the batteries are discharging at >> Yeah. Usually gas generators hit the peak pretty well. Solar really just
depends on nature, right? You know, depend also depends on the hour, the actual peak hour. If the peak hour was 4:00, probably there was some reduction. That's why I actually had a note about how how much the reduction was. If you're interested,
solar was actually six megawatt. Um, yeah. And do you have any idea just roughly what the net would be? >> I cannot I don't want to share that in the public uh meeting but we can share uh in a different venue.
>> Oh that's fine. I was just curious. >> Yeah. >> Can you share what was the and this showed up in the annual report also. What was the large asset 107? >> What are the assets? >> Yeah. >> Yes. The two batteries, two solar
projects and one gas generator. They add up to 107. >> Yes. >> AC across the year. Not all at one in one. >> Yeah. >> Peak. >> All 13 hours added together. >> Not a single event, but all 13 peak peak events.
>> So all 12 transition. >> So it's not because megawatt looks like a power number. >> It is power and peak demand is power. >> Talking over time. So >> no, not over time. It's the number of the power you have those. Okay. So you
add the number of peaks. Okay. So 13 peaks. >> Yeah. >> So the 107 is over 13 peaks. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yep. So of 107 if you want to know more. Seven was at the capacity peak hour and 100 is adding each month's reduction of
over 12 months. >> Okay. So seven plus. >> Yes. >> Okay. certificate retirement. Um so we had to work really quickly just because um the quarter one certificates
were not minted until July 15th and we were supposed to send out the flights like uh two days later whatever. So it was a little crunched. Um, so we have an updated estimate of the certificate retirement scenarios and we had two
discussions in January and February. So I'm not going to go through every single one of them. Um, the conclusion currently we're estimating a increase of $1.2 per month for typical customer for
average customer if we retire 60%. >> When's the cash? I think question is always okay. So it's an additional cash of of almost a million at 60%.
Right. >> Look at the total. >> So that's a if we move up it's a million dollars that >> Yes. >> we technically could at best >> put in the bank. >> Yes. >> Put it. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And and and the benchmark, remind me
again, was 55. Is that >> We're currently at 55. >> Right. Right. >> And and why is it different? Like why is this significantly different from the February estimate? >> Yeah. There's a few things like when I
update you uh in February, I had I had only half a year data for 2025 to begin. Then I had to estimate 2026 based on half a year of 2025. So that's one thing and in that kind of a factor one thing
that I did adjust or correct for this one was um the uh the MA2 certificate is actually lower value than the uh the ME the main 2 certificate is actually lower value than the CES.
So, uh, we would retire ME2 before we retire CE, uh, CE. Um, but in back in February, I think I had those flipped. So, that kind of played a little bit, uh, into, uh, the value that we're calculating here. But
the other two kind of a real reasons. One is our forecast for load has increased as we just discussed with Patty's presentation that's shown in her revenue uh numbers that uh load has increased year to date it's 3% so right
now for the whole year we have 1.3% of growth so it's a little higher than the February uh forecast and then the other piece is uh we did push to give us it's very difficult to estimate effects and CSC as of Now just because
I I I can't even get into it because um we don't have all the information but you did give us a estimate of what effects in CSSE might be uh effects are kind of similar to what I had originally estimated but cse was lower and then you
know be be mindful that CS value is actually higher than the other the two certificates we're going to retire. So the combination of all these factors now you know we have an increase of of uh additional cost. >> So effects and nuclear >> effects are nuclear
>> and the other one is solar. So that's that >> uh CES actually mostly also nuclear but then I guess there are some different factors into into like even even Ian E the the person we work with I think you've met him Ken Ken Stemler he even
told me he has no full visibility into how those are categorized until they are finally minted. So we really and and they usually don't really mint those effects until the end of the year. So it's it's a little it's a moving target
in a sense. So this is our best estimate right now. So this is only quarter one. Um so I think originally uh the board wanted to make a decision for 2026 in September. I'll just have to say now by September I won't have any new
information to provide to you. So you know I think you can you can decide when you want to make that decision. I would suggest we you make it makes sense to make a decision in quarter one of the following year. I think there should be
still enough time to re you know if you change the retirement level there should be enough time to catch up on the retirement instead of making the decision now with very incomplete information. Right now we just have quarter one information even quarter one
part of that is not clear >> decision in quarter one for 2020 quarter one of 27 for 2026 >> exactly yeah just because the six month we will have complete information per or >> we'll have three quarters >> three quarters yeah it's a little better
than one quarter >> so um in the 60% we are not buying any wrecks and we'd be not spending otherwise in our budget about a million dollars.
If we go to 80% then we would be drawing over $5 million and buying 63. So >> yes, >> 80 is a big jump. Um but we we can cover 60% with Rex we already have. >> Yes. >> Projected.
What's interesting, I was just trying to run some numbers on that. Like for every 1% increase, it's basically a quarter >> quart million. >> No, a quarter like like per quarter >> increase in an average bill.
>> So if you increase it 4%, it's a dollar. read that 25% or uh sorry 45% to get to 100. >> So you want to go >> is $10 >> $599.95
>> just like just I I need like that simple math kind of visual. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that was just a reference. Yeah. is is you me
>> that's annual report. >> Oh, annual report. Okay. Annual report. Uh I don't really have any presentation. We didn't receive any questions. Uh I mean emailed questions, so I don't know edit, but I'm sure it's already been
taken care of. >> Okay. I just Sorry. I thought we were going we have to ask questions here. So you can ask questions. Of course. Sure. Yeah, I was looking at the summary page. >> Yeah,
>> the 225 2020 page three of the report. >> Yeah, page three. So I I I just look at, you know, kilowatt hours and megawatt hours and I'm just looking for
consistency. Should we just use the same number >> for both? Because I'm just trying to understand the need to show two different units. Could we be using the same units? >> I don't know. It's probably just because it's just one number there. I can ask Melissa why. We can change it.
>> Yeah. No, it's just that it's more consist. >> We can change it to me hour. We usually use megawatt hour because I don't know maybe uh people feel they want to be precise about that delivered. >> No, no, it's just it's just good to use the same unit because I think you're
conveying that. So I use so much and so much was in territory. So it's it's >> Yeah. I I would actually suggest if we're if we're going to standardize, if we're going to give people a cost per kilowatt hour, >> maybe we standardize to that.
>> It's that that's right there. The average residential rate. >> No, I know territory generation just convert everything to kilowatt. >> People can look at it and say, okay, I understand like >> it's a lot of zero that >> as kilowatt hour. >> It's a lot of zero.
>> It's kilowatt hour. Well, because we have >> I think we're probably pretty adept at >> No, because this what's on the bill because you can't put >> Sure. >> That's just going to put too many zeros on the page. I I I Okay. >> Yeah. It's going to be as big as big as
have to reformat the whole page. >> Just three more zeros. Just three more. >> Make a decision. >> Sure. you >> 536 and then 537 kilowatt hours. >> We're getting into the house, so why don't you just figure
>> pick one? >> Okay. So, we're going to make the decision on what unit to use. >> Yes. >> No, I think that that that was the main thing. And and I I just had a question to
understand how is the customer rating and how is the customer satisfaction trust rating and customer satisfaction rating how are they determined just just to know. >> Yes, this was a survey we did last uh spring and there are two different
questions on customer satisfaction. So one is how how well you trust uh your utility and the other one is how much you're happy with your utility. So it's just two different aspects. >> So two separate surveys and >> two separate questions. Yep.
>> Yeah. And do other utilities also do the same surveys or is it just us doing these surveys? >> We this one particular one we did it on our own. um because this was part of the segmentation study we did because we want to understand our customer a little
better. You remember I did a presentation on like the typical profile of a of a RMLD customer and we had a few questions um related to customer satisfaction >> because I mean people do a net promoter score also like similar
>> the net promoter score we did look into that that one is more um applicable to businesses that are can attract new customers to have people come in but whether people move into our territories
out of our own control. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I have just a question that I may So on page 162 in the in our 56 of the um
presentations. >> Sorry, which >> 56 of the big PDFs. >> Yeah, of the big PDF. It's page 22 of the report 56 of the presentation. Um
yeah, that one that's there. If you if you move the screen up to the pie chart. Um I mean customer looking at this thinks I mean they don't know the nuances of wreck sales. So they they look at this
and think, "Oh, there's almost no fossil fuels being used here." When really it's it's the wrecks that drive that. So like the like we don't have 67% plus 9% 78%
whatever that adds up to that nuclear or renewable in our from a point of view of wreck, which is the only way that you really can claim those things. We actually don't have that in our >> those magnitudes of percentages. >> Yeah. So it's it's two different
concepts. >> I know. >> Yes. For this >> the customer won't understand. >> The customer will know from the greenhouse gas emissions inventory. >> Well, I mean when you have a pie chart that's that >> clear and yet it does not have a big asterisk
on it that this doesn't mean what you think it means. If you're the if you're the customer looking at this, you're thinking, "Oh, our our resources are when you add up nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar, it's up close to 80%." And it's just not the case because that's
not what our wrecks are supporting because we that the rerecks don't back those up and only the rerecks give you the ability to make the claim that that's where the power came from. I understand the distinction because it took me a few years on the board to get it, but I just think that type of presentation and I know we've done it
many times before is misleading. >> So this section is really about power supply where we buy the power. >> I know >> even if the certificates were sold that you cannot claim uh emissions reduction
from it but the power source is still that source. It's electricity, but when you strip away the wreck, it no longer has the hydro or the wind characteristic to it. >> That's just how it works. >> This is what you bought. >> It's
>> Are you saying that we So, we contracted 27% hydro >> and 41% nuclear. Would it would it help to maybe add a sentence after
>> we have this with the second sentence in the first paragraph that talks about the renewable choice. Oh, sorry. The third sentence is where we talk about how many we retired >> previous retired versus how many sold. >> 45%
retired. I'm sorry. >> And also I would say it's not really Rex. It's certificates because >> you're right. Some of it's nuclear. I understand the Rexum of it is nuclear. >> Yeah. >> Sorry. I was just can I just finish my point because I know that it says it on the prior page. But if the concern is
this page, just adding one sentence after the number of certificates we've retired >> to say this many certificates were sold or something like that that just reflects >> that particular concern. I I don't have
any concern with this pie chart. That's those are our power sources. We can say what our power sources are. >> The point around like the claims around >> what are you trying to say Dave? We we we this is what we buy. But >> are it's well established that when you
sell the wreck to somebody else, the other person gets to say >> what do you want to call it? Just phantom phantom power. >> I I don't think I'm the only one who's articulated this idea. I mean, it's been well established that you can't make the claim that you're using 80% nuclear,
solar, hydro, and wind on this pie chart when in fact you've sold Rex for a portion of that. that somebody else is now taking the credit for those because they bought the right to have that because they bought the wreck. It's just how it works. >> I mean, >> just say it says 20 purchase power by
resource type that >> So, is your is your concern that we should just not have this at all? Like you don't that would be your >> We could we could Yes, because it is it because it's misleading. We don't have an 80% portfolio of of wind solar. say
anywhere else in the presentation that I've seen what our sources are. >> They're not sources. >> But but I'm almost okay with the megawatt listing of the sources. If you made the table bigger >> uh and then take out the pie chart, then
you're not dealing with a percent. You can't add up the percentages unless you're saying you can also add add up the megawatt hours. >> That's just what we buy. What we sell as a as a business is proprietary, >> right? Well, it's not proprietary. It's public. This is what we what we purchase. If this is what we purchase,
what we choose to sell and what we choose to >> um get to 55% with that's that's business. >> So maybe >> that's business. That's the that's the operations of the business. I that complexity level
>> is is a very that guy knows what it is right there. Right. Bob does know. But other than that, there's very few people that would understand that. And so to me, that would be uber confusing. I I believe the way that this is written is
it represents that 55% of the state mandate by by we have to sell Rex to get there. We sell 50%. You you the only way to represent what Dave's saying is, you know, we could have sold up to 80%, but your rates are going to go up $20 a
household right now. So the well the other the as we're this there's two different points and it does feel like maybe we're mixing the points on this page because we're talking about giving customers a greener choice and renewable choice and all of those things. Perhaps
that is needs to go on a different page where we're focused on what our what our kind of targets are and what our potential is for for claiming non-carbon. Whereas this page >> shows this data just as these are our sources. So, so yeah. So, so maybe on
the sorry to interrupt >> if you go to the previous page and you're saying I have 55% >> uh you know Rex retired in that page somewhere if you could mention that currently 80% of my energy
comes from non-carbon sources and I'm retiring 55% of them. That's complete information >> because I think it's a slightly different point. Get it right. I I my my opinion no one's going to understand that. I think but
they I think if we take the chart rearrange it if and we put we put it on its own page or if we take making this smart shift somehow you add a page that that this is our our power supply
purchasing that detail that Megan some some way. I really think it's just taking away the paragraph around the greener choice or putting that in a different location. >> But I would say um so this section actually starts on page 21 and it's
titled powering an increasingly non-carbon future. So the first subsection we talk about retirement. That's the board's uh uh decision uh policy requirement that we meet. And the second section is about customers do
have a choice for RMLD to retire more, >> right? >> So it's tied into it. So that's above >> it doesn't feel like I think my point is it doesn't feel like that because it's not on the same page. So make it >> make it the same page. We can make this chart smaller.
>> Sure, make it smaller. There's a lot of blank, a lot of white space on that chart. >> Sure, we can do that. >> Move that over. Then the whole point of this page is just specifically talking about the power sources. And so I think you can you can just call it building stability through targeted supply
planning and show the sources and you're not confusing the issue with the non-carbon strategy. >> Okay, we can do that. >> Would that feel better, Dave? >> I I don't think you do. >> The pie chart is I've just everybody
disagrees with me. I think the pie chart is misleading. If if if we bought I know everybody >> dis what we buy >> it's been it's Bob you're in the industry hasn't the attorney general made a ruling on this that you can't claim >> I I don't know but I think you're right
Dave I think Dave is >> correct that it is misleading >> because it makes you seem like you're buying >> if you first >> non-carbon energy >> then you really from a technical
perspective Um, and it is if it doesn't have a rack, >> it's technically you don't get the claim. >> There you go, Bob. >> That's my I mean the guy. >> That's my view. But I understand that you're just trying to say the source,
but it is I think it is a little misleading. It kind of like it is mis and a lot of MLPS do it and I don't think they do it on purpose but it it is misleading when they're buying a hydro resource and they're not buying the rs
as well. >> Okay. Can we Okay, so that's helpful. Can we take a different approach and split? >> Yes, it has to. We have like nuclear >> sold Rex versus nuclear retain retired Rex and you you have different sources
on this page. >> I don't think you want I don't think >> well would the order of operations matter. So maybe we do this pie chart first where we buy our par from and then we talk about what we retire and what we claim. >> Yeah. Maybe. >> So you can say that we do buy this is what makes up your rate because this is important because this is how your rate
gets developed. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then this is what we claim as carbon. And make sure the page with this is just that page. >> Yeah. Put this put the pie chart first, but then explain how we're only retiring 50% of this. >> So then it reads like because this right
now reads I retire% and then oh by the way squ is this where if you say we buy here >> I think that's I think that's the misleading part. >> So so the third subsection will be the first one. >> Just cut it out.
I mean we how much >> I don't know >> can I feel like you'd also do 100% where you get that 100% of just the other different
obvious, easy. >> Yeah, >> I understand the base is the same. But if if I wanted to be say I well why aren't we 80% why yeah why aren't we 80% committing resources
this is where we buy it must come from there. Um but if you look at our chart we'd even have to buy more certificates to reach 80%. So there's things >> I I like I like reordering it from saying yes, we buy our power here, but
only so much of it we can claim as a resource. And >> and that tells the story. >> That tells the story, I think, in the right way. Um but I I understand where Dave's coming from. It's an easy thing to add up five numbers and get to 80% and say, "Oh, well, we're buying our power from these sources. How come we're
not >> the intent on the code?" >> I know, though. I understand, but it's it's a simple thing to add four numbers and and come up with 79%. And >> so why aren't we 79% retired? And yes, it's a business decision because that means we're not gaining economic value
from a certain amount of money. Um but it's also a uh not everything comes with a certificate and therefore we can't claim the the renewable energy aspect of it, >> right? I mean really it's not to claim the renewable or the non-carbon
>> but that's how it comes across >> that's why that's why I think if we do the order of operations where we say we buy our power from these sources however we only because of XYZ which we say here yeah >> we retire only 55% so we're only 55% carbon neutral
>> right >> we're 50% plus renewable choice that's >> but I but I agree with Dave keep the table of the where we buy power and have it power terms and then and not to put the percentages on because I think it's
still easy to say. >> So my marketing manager will argue with you. It's way easier for people to see the percentages than see the mag hours. >> And that's the problem is that it's easy to come up with the wrong answer by adding four numbers together.
>> But they can come up with the percentage the math. I get it. >> But that's not user friendly. So that's I'm I'm >> I think what you're hearing from some board members is we don't want it to be user friendly because we don't want people to make the wrong assumption >> about the wrong assumption. >> No, I don't want I want it to be
friendly. I don't >> what you're buying. That's what you're what you purchase, right? >> This this convers can I just say I've been on the board 15 years. The same discussion happens every year. There's been opinions on this. Bob Castle, who's the leading expert in the field, just agrees that it's misleading. Like let's
look at the hydro of the 27% how much of that have we retired Rex and how much have we sold the Rex. >> So then that should say 14% or whatever the correct number is because that's the only part that it's the only part that we can
>> which is why I'm saying like that my my thought is then you show hydro half of it's like hashed and the other half is full >> right or not not even a hash just put the percentage that we have. How about we do this? If we if we just show the pie chart instead of
as >> hydro >> that's how it works >> I think really I think we need to balance the technical this is the constant conversation I have with my marketing manager we are all technical here but when she faces the customers when my team faces the
customer will be >> like this is useless if they don't understand right >> chart again it's easier to look at a pie chart >> yes so can we just put megawatt hours on the pie chart instead of percentages. >> Oh, that's a good idea. Instead of percentages, put that put the uh Yeah, I like that idea.
>> I don't agree. I I I just want to say what I think it should be and you can tell me. You all can say otherwise. 41% nuclear is legitimate because all of those are retired. Correct. All of those closer to Okay, so that's a is it not all of it? >> Is it is it >> Let's keep assuming it's all if it was
all of it then then 41% would be accurate. If we retire all those nuclear certificate, if hydro of the 27% if we're retiring half of that, then it should say 13 and a half% or 14% because that's the only part we can legitimately say is hydro because we own the wreck so
we retired them. And the same with uh wind and the same with then you should put a second pie chart that shows the composition of the 55 of what you want to do. >> There you go. That's the other way to do
it. That's a pie chart that shows you right right in those three two circles in the the rectangle chart that shows you retired wreck. >> That's what that what Bob said is the correct way to do it. You have a pie chart and the 55 can be broken down by
hydro nuclear or wind and the other 45% is going to say mixed or whatever it is. Whoever bought our our wrecks it we essentially bought their polluting source because they get the bragging rights on those wrecks. Very. That's how it works. >> So, >> not us.
>> And again, you have to there was such a minuscule amount of people maybe in this room that understand that this whole concept that you're just we're trying to like say something in literally one line that's taken
>> and I work in the industry. We all do. And it's taken me a long time to figure it out. >> This is a sore point. This is >> for a bunch of >> for a lot of people >> for for a bunch of introverts. I hate to say it. reach care about where we get our
energy. So, they matter and we have,000 customers that we serve. >> 98% of them go, "My bill is $100. If I pay it by August 1st, it's going to be they pay it and they throw it out." >> Yeah. >> We're talking about 0.00 and we're
fighting here about 0.0 of that. >> Well, then we shouldn't put out an annual report at all. That's the mentality, you know, anyway. Yeah. I I just I I I we got way too. So I think we had we had a second chart that showed you would be retired and
satisfied Dave that everyone here would be satisfied with that. I think we put it on >> and reorder as we just talked about. >> I think you replace this with a 55% where that comes from and what are the components of the 55%. That's the truth. I think instead of a second one probably to replace this pie chart with what
Bobby you said you know of the 55% what is >> nuclear what is hydro blah >> that's accurate as >> if you're selling it just treat it as people call up and say I want to know that
>> there are there are people that do know >> that they're looking >> so confirm confirming that we are replacing this chart with a different chart that we just talked about. >> We are reordering this still.
>> That's >> based on Jason. >> Well, we don't this is just going to be what is of the wreck. So, >> replacing this based then we don't need to reorder if we do that. And then right next you put power
supply >> and then >> I mean the power supp. >> It's not just the Rex that and it's not just renewable. I mean there is actually a power supply and the contracting that we do that is a separate thing >> actually
right >> which is I think I think the data should be here somewhere. the power source as it's written either in the chart or on the on the grid on the list should be there somewhere. The confusing part is is combining the two together as if they're the same thing
>> which separate >> to separate. >> You just put them up like a dirty unhappy case. >> Sounds like we're not able to tell you explicitly what you're going to do, but I think everybody understands the message and we'll
>> some options figure it out and send it back. >> So, do you want this to come back at the next meeting in August or if we're gonna have >> that's a long time to wait. So why >> have this required deadline? Typically we try to
get it out uh by now by June. >> By June already late. >> How about How about How about we circulate a one-page provision? >> We do that. We can't comment on it. So I don't know.
So individually can send comments back. >> Then we still have to bring it to a meeting because then we can do a noon time meeting and then that way it gets it out quicker. >> Or do you just August >> I guess what I thinking of this through
make it easier for everybody is we come up with what I think works. We get it out well in advance of the August meeting. any individual feedback comes back to us that we can be prepared to talk about in the August meeting to keep the August meeting as
short as possible. >> But so then we're going to vote on this. Are we voting on this? >> Yeah. >> August. >> Um if we want to do a a new time meeting and try to I don't know want not want to try to keep adding meetings.
>> Um the August meetings early. It's August 11th. It's only good. >> That's only two weeks. Two weeks away. Three weeks away. >> Um I think having a meeting in between is saving us a few days. It's really not. >> Yeah. >> Considering it's June. So yeah.
>> And just to be clear, we can't do this motion with modifications because we don't know what the exact modifications are yet. Right. >> That would be up to you. I mean, >> can we just give you guys >> I >> are you are you okay? The >> August 11th meeting. We're having a meeting anyway, right?
>> I I don't I because we're going to take a guess at what we think is going to be the best foot forward for this. I would say I'd rather wait to do the motion. >> Three weeks. >> It's three weeks. >> Three weeks. I'd rather get it and that way we know what you're because if you
do that now and you don't like what we get back, matter once, cut twice, right? Okay. >> All right. Let's We got a couple quick ones to hopefully uh we've got approval of
meeting minutes. >> Motion. >> Uh we're on eight >> meeting minutes. >> 10. >> Okay. move that the RMOD citizens advisory board approve the following 2026 open session meeting minutes as
presented on the recommendation of the general management with secretary June 16. >> I second. >> All in favor? >> I sure move that the arability board of commissioners approve the following 2026 open session meeting minutes as
presented on the recommendation of the general manager and the board secretary. 16. >> All those in favor motion carries 5. Travel approval.
>> Okay. Um first up um is my travel to the perma which is the our insurance carrier the public insurance carrier. They have an annual membership meeting. Um it's down at the safe press at North Felmouth. Um it's a couple day meeting.
Um, so just looking for approval to go down there first, September 24th to 25th. >> Any discussion? >> Anybody want to read the motion? >> Move that the R&B board of commissioners approve for adjacent Smalls travel to and attend at the Perma 2026 annual
membership meeting to take place September 24th and 25th of 2026 at the Serest Beach Resort in North Felmouth, Mass. Second. All those in >> favor zero. Okay.
>> Uh next on is um upcoming um as part of me being on the reliable public power provider grading panel with APA. Um at October 28th to the 30th um there's a grading session at the APA office in entertainment. We go and grade the
applications and then again we finalize those grades December to the 10th and that's the at a member of the utility that's involved with the panel. It's Tallahassee for grade some applications which will be
ours. I will be able to grade it though. We are applying share. >> Any discussion? move that the Armley Board of Commissioners approve Jason Smalls travel and attendance at the 2026 RPG3 grading meetings to take place October
28th and through 30th, 2026 at the APA APA office in Arlington, Virginia and December 8th through 10th, 2026 in Tallahassee, Florida. >> Second. >> All in favor? And then uh today uh there also the last
minute adjustment. The email actually came out this morning for the me and managers meeting that's in uh September 17th to 18th in Plymouth. Um also uh commissioners are welcome to attend that meeting. So we want to make two motions. One for for myself to travel to that
meeting and and for any commissioner that would like to attend. >> Question. >> Just a clarification. Is that just BC or is >> okay
>> motion? Sorry, only you have it. >> Oh, sorry. Can I read it here? Um so move that the Arley board of commissioners approve Jason's travel to and attendance at the 2026 ME manager
meeting to take place September 17th 28th uh 2026 at the hotel in Plymouth Mass. Second >> all in favor 5. Uh move the RB board of commissions approved for a commissioner who wishes
to attend travel to and attend its act in 2026 me managers meeting to take place September 20 September 17 through 18 2026 at the hotel in Plymouth Mass. second.
>> Just on that one note, um even though the email came out today with the actual information, uh hotel rooms or heart rate and at least in the block, the hotel is part of the block was uh limited. So if you do make that decision, I recommend doing just myself
know because I have to let you know um who's like roughly who's attending. If if you're 50/50 but you think you might attend, just let me know anyway so I can let them know >> that sent to us today. >> Yeah. No, it just went to the GM's the information.
>> Yes, that's correct. >> Lightning fast GM update. >> Okay. Um so GM update uh primarily is going to be just an update on my goals about halfway still halfway through the year. Um
just here it gets up on the trying to make this a little bit more of like a kind of a dashboard than a a full-blown update, but um anything in blue is has been completed. Um green is
it's in progress um or about to start, but um is likely is no danger of not being completed by NDA at the moment. Um and then uh yellow is um it's we this a good chance we can get it I can get the department can get it done by the
end of the year but the there's some chances it might not um so the review uh which is a stretch goal so we kind of u when I put this in there I it would be tight um was review employee review process communication and movement improvements um it's only yellow because I haven't
started um I fully expect to have that done before review time before the end of the year um I've been working with Susan HR started and uh I I do believe that's going to get done but I I felt like putting in yellow where it hasn't started yet. Um and then one of the other ones stretch goal is around the
refine implement strategic plan. Uh same thing but hasn't been started yet. Um so it's I but I do expect to try to get that done by the end of the year. It's just where I haven't started. It's July. Um
and then um the next uh yellow would be the reliability target goals. Our reliability metrics through June are um a couple of them were we're definitely meeting. Uh one is um it's questionable to date. Um that it could
improve before the end of the year or get worse, but right now it's in it's possible we might not make it. such as wax. Um, and that would be the the Katy, but we are I did look at some of the data and there's some data in
there that we need to like just double check on the durations and I think that number is going to come down. So, I think we might be okay. Um, then uh the rate classes, review rate classes, that's yellow just because we can't start that until the cost of
service study is complete. Um, but I expect to get that done, we expect to get that done by the end of the year. And then the last one is around the ERP RFP. Um I put that as yellow because um this will tie into why we need an August
meeting. Um so we have as um Patty mentioned um we're in the RFP process to get consulting to help us develop that RFP and work through um the selection process and implementation of the new system. Um we're we're going to interview those candidates in the first
week of August. We're looking to come August 11th to get approval to award that to whichever vendor we think is is the best fit. And then um based on their timelines that we saw in the proposals, it's going to be real close to the end of whether it's December, January,
February to get that RFP out and awarded for the actual system. So therefore, that's why I put in yellow. But we it's in the best interest of RMLD to have this consultant help us through this process. So I am perfectly okay if we hit January or February with that if we have the right consult and go through
the process and get the right system. Um so but I just wanted to be clear that that's why I put that yellow. Any questions? That's most of my update. Um I uh Megan and myself and actually a few of Megan's um team attended the AAA annual
conference that was held in Boston back at the end of June, early July. Um just want to give an update. Um I um they attended several different um presentations um different from the ones I attended. I did some a couple of to Megan, but uh one was a US energy market
outlook that was uh given by Mike Sinker from Next Air. he he is like a expert in this field and his presentation was was pretty good uh really good actually um but the one of the things that came out of it was at that moment um the gas
pricing in America hadn't seen the big fluctuation like overseas from the Iran conflict and that was a little bit surprising so I kind of laid that out um and then so and then you talked a little bit about projected load growth and impacting from the large load centers
and data centers and large boats and what that's doing for the push for LG production and turbines and what that might that might impact capacity pricing moving forward and drive those up a little bit. Um that was kind of the bulk of his presentation but it was really
interesting and um one of the other ones I sat in on was um some evolving demand sign management which was presented by um MX connected homes uh Zoe who runs connected homes program which we participating and Belmont did a kind of a case study of what how they've been
doing it. It's a little interesting there um just seeing how they're you how they're rolling into using AM Idea and how that might change the program in the future. And then uh one of the other ones that was interesting was I went to was um UFS
who was doing our cost of service study um one of their people gave a presentation on communicating um rate increases to to customers and elected boards. Um she gave a a great presentation on that how they put the data and how they try to work it. Not to say that there's an upcoming rate
increase. Um, but I wanted to see her present because she is working on our study and if we did have a rate increase, it'd be nice to know how she was going to communicate that to to everybody here. So, um, that's just some update on on that confidence. Um, I think that's it on the GMO.
>> Yes. >> What are what did you hear about load growth in Massachusetts? um the the one that that I attended which was the Mike Slinker presentation he was looking at more across the United States and actually a lot of his stuff
on on the when he showed a lot of the forecast of low growth it was actually all the other areas except for Io New England in this presentation so there was wasn't much on there as far as New England was concerned um from his presentation it was more of a a national
outlook um so I actually I don't know made a sense we couldn't we couldn't build enough housing on the we triple quadruple stack that ready to match match with the the
consumption data centers just >> thank you Jason >> nice job appreciate it >> um Dave session meeting. >> Oh. Oh, okay. Sorry.
>> I don't think we have any we don't have materials. >> What am I supposed to do? >> Oh, >> in executive. So, it's in your uh iPad. >> And then your update was just that we did 2020. >> We did 2020.
>> Thank you for that. Okay. Um, so we need to move to go to executive session. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Move that the RMLD citizens advisory board go into executive session through general general law 164 section 47D.
Exception from public record and open meeting requirements certain instances under the purpose number 10 to discuss trade secrets confidential of proprietary information regarding activities and information provided by the
egg grid or energy cooperative for the approval of executive session minutes and return to open session for the continuation of regular session. Roll call vote required. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Call
>> Charlieus. >> I say your name. >> Bob Chassel. >> Hi. >> Move that the arm board of commissioners go. You finished voting. They get everybody. >> Okay. Move that the early board of
commissioners go into executive session pursuant to Massachusetts general laws chapter 164 section 47D exempt from public records and open meeting requirements in certain instances under the purpose number 10 to discuss trade secrets confidential or proprietary information regarding activities and
information provided by a municipal aggregator or energy cooperative as well as for the approval and release of executive session minutes and return to open session for the continuation of regular session. Note roll call vote required. Second
>> vote I >> reporter I That's good. Okay. Be all an executive. back in session for topic 15.
>> We need start with the function. >> Yeah, this one. uh moved that the RMLD citizens advisory board recommended on the RMLD board of commissioners vote to accept the general manager's recommendation to execute a contract extension for a 5-year renewal
term with Brainree Electric Light Department, the Watson Power Plant to begin in June 2029. Second do I I >> move that the Arm board of commissioners on the recommendation of the arable
citizens advisory board vote to accept the general manager's recommendation to execute the contract extension for a five-year renewal term branchy electric light department for the Watson power plant to begin in June 2029.
Second. >> All those in favor zero. >> Okay. Scheduling. >> We are holding the 11th meeting. >> Yes. >> Do we want to do it at the same time? Um
or do we want to >> Anybody have a issue with six o'clock? >> Six. >> All right. six o'clock should be fine. Thank you. Um, any other
questions or concerns on schedules? >> We can move to adjournment. >> Move that the RMLD Citizens Advisory Board adjourn regular set. Note roll call ves required. The second chalerus
>> Bob Castle. >> Thank you. >> The Arly Board of Commissioners adjourn regular session. No roll call vote required. >> Second. >> Swanson. Nice. I
>> pointer eye. >> Nice.