HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-02-1982 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, SERVING AS A BOARD
IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION OF THE RICHMOND. POWER
& LIGHT PLANT, AUGUST 2, 1982
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, serving as a Board in
2 charge of the operation of the, Richmond Power & Light Plant, met in regular
3 session August 2, 1982 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Building of
4 said City. Vice Chairman Hankinson presided with the following members
5 present: Messrs. Elstro, Williams, Ms. Henry, Mills, Parker, Carter and
6 Paust. Absent: WElch. The following business was had, to-wit:
7
8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 19, 1982
9
10 Councilman Parker moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as
11 published, seconded by Mr. Mills and on unanimous voice vote the motion was
12 carried.
13 -
14 APPROVAL OF BILLS .
15
16 Councilman Carter moved to approve the bills as shown an the agenda at $300,324.22,
17 seconded by Councilman Mills and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
18
19 REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER
20 . Indiana Municipal Power Agency Report
21
22 General Manager Irving Huffman reported the Public Service Commission is holding
23 a public hearing on August 9 to give approval for IMPA to issue bonds for the
24 payment of the twenty-five percent (25%) ownership of Gibson 5, which is owned
25 by Public Service company of Indiana. Part of the overall completed project will
26 be part ownership in PSCI's transmission facilities. All contracts between IMPA,
27 PSCI and NIPSCO have been agreed to in principle and will be coming up for
28 initialling and finalization within the next few days. To date there is no agree-
29 ment with I&M, who have indicated they will cooperate; however, they seem to be
30 delaying their procedure in providing the necessary information to obtain an
31 agreement. It will be necessary for this Board to pass a resolution to satisfy
III 32 the PSC's requirement for participants in Gibson 5 indicating they have reviewed
33 the statute required for Gibson 5 project, have had it under study and have
34 acted positively to go ahead with the project.
35
36 Indiana & Michigan Electric Company Report
37
38 Mr. Huffman stated I&M has a two (2) phased step increase in rates they have
39 applied for: The first phase took effect July 29 and is subject to refund. I&M
40 asked this not be subject to refund; however, the Commission disagreed and gave
41 a one (1) day suspension. The second phase will go into effect December 28 and
42 is subject to a five (5) month suspension. The first step is $889,000 and the
43 second phase will be $1,745,000, which includes a fuel adjustment clause to re-
44 cover part of the spent nuclear fuel disposal cost. Other municipal groups
45 dealing with I&M have perpetuated a settlement agreement; however, RP&L has not
46 as they have not met and their contract is different than'the others. If the
47 trend is followed in increases, the increase will be much less than they pro-
48 posed and filed for. RP&L would like to assign their contract with I&M to IMPA;
49 however, I&M does not want the contract assigned.
50
51 A pre-hearing conference has been •set for RP&L's filed rate increase for August
52 20 at 2:30 p.m. Testimony will be presented to determine a test year. In res-
53 ponse to Councilman Parker's question if it would be possible to negotiate with
54 I&M to get a more realistic rate increase and not have to make the refunds,
55 Mr. Huffman stated I&M will not negotiate before filing.
56
57 In response to Councilman Mills question concerning the percentage factored in
59 the rate increase for City lighting and power, Mr. Huffman stated it will be a
59 twenty to twenty-five percent increase. I&M's increase is also factored in.
60 The rate increase involves a cost of service study following PURPA requirements
61 and the increase must be justified. City street lighting is not carrying its
62 cost of burden. RP&L is trying to bring this up in a three step approach, not
63 hitting the City all at once. This may take a six to ten year period. In
64 response to Councilman Carter's inquiry as to his understanding the increase
RP&L Minutes Cont'd.
August 2, 1982
Page 2
1 would be $105,000 or eighteen percent, Mr. Huffman noted the City entails
2 more than just street lighting including other commercial rates, which are
3 subject to fuel clauses. He stated twenty-five percent is an outside figure,
4 while eighteen- percent is a known figure for street lighting and is filed as
5 part of the -RP&L rate case. Twenty-five percent should be used for budget
6 purposes.. _ -
7
8 REPORT OF STREET LIGHT COMMITTEE'..
9 • -
10 Chairman of the Street Light Committee Parker stated he had a conversation.
11 today wi'th.Mr. Jim Mays at RP&L to see what can be done to lower the cost of
12 street lighting. Discussion has been sodium vs mercury, different types of
13 engineering, replacement of street lighting and possible elimination of
14 some lights.
15
16 ADJOURNMENT
17
18 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and passed
19 the meeting was adjourned.
20
21 James Hankinson
22 Vice Chairman
23 '
24 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
25 City Clerk -