HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-20-1976 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, SERVING AS
A COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF THE OPERATION OF THE
RICHMOND POWER & LIGHT PLANT, SEPTEMBER 20, 1976
1 The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, serving as a
2 committee in charge of the Richmond Power & Light Plant, met in
33 regular session September 20, 1976, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. in the
4 Municipal Building of said City. Mr. Ahaus presided with the
5 following members: present: Messrs. Austerman, Carter, Elstro,
6 Merchanthouse, Mills, Paust and Williams. Absent: Cornett. The
7 following business was had, to-wit:
8
9 Mr. Carter moved to amend the September 7, 1976 minutes on page 2,
10 line 6 to drop the word "only" and add after "increase" "or decrease",
11 secpnded by Mr. Mills and on unanimous voice vote the motion was
12 carried.
13
14 Mr. Carter moved to approve the amended minutes of the previous meeting,
15 seconded by Mr. Mills and on unanimous voice vote the motion was
16 carried.
17
18 Mr. Paust moved to approve the following bills, interest coupons,
19 payroll and transfers, seconded by Mr. Merchanthouse and on unanimous
20 voice vote the motion was carr4ed:
21
22 APPROVE THE FOLLOWING
23 Bills in the amount of $ 475,898.24
24 Interest Coupons 706.25
25 1 Payroll 772,920.67
26
27 TRANSFER FROM CASH OPERATING FUND TO
28 D Depreciation Reserve Fund $ 91,000.00
29 . Cash Reserve Fund 60,000.00
30 Utility Bond Fund 68,937.48
31
32 Mr. Ahaus apologized for the cancellation of last Monday's meeting with
33 Ernst & Ernst and announced the meeting will be this Monday at 7:D0 P.M.
34 at RP&L.
35
36 Mr. Mills inquired if the Street Light Committee had met on the petitions
37 for lighting at S.W. 9th and 11th or N.W. 17th and 18th. Mr. Elstro
38 stated they had not.
39
40 General Manager, Irving Huffman, asked the Board to make a decision as
41 . to whether or not to ask the Chairman of the PSCI to conduct a hearing
42 and make a study on power cost tracking. At the end of this time RP&L
43 can make a decision to implement tracking or reject it if tracking is
44 decided upon.
45
46 Mr. Mills moved to allow the PSC to study the situation with power cost
47 tracking, seconded by Mr. Austerman and on a call of the roll the follow-
48 ing was recorded: Ayes: Ahaus, Austerman, Milos, Paust and Williams.
49 Noes: Carter, Elstro and Merchanthouse. The vote being five (5) to
50 three (3) in favor of the motion.
51
52 Mr. Huffman reported the retail rate case of I&M which we are presently
53 served under is on file at the PSC and, according to a US Court of
54 Appeals in Washington, we are entitled to the contract and the rate on
55 file with the PSCI which is also approved by the FPC. We are a party
56 to this case in that until the end of this year we are served under that
57 rate in that our issue we are taking is not that we feel I&M is not
58 deserving of a rate increase but we want to protect RP&L and its consumers .
59 Other consumers are being watched after and protected by public counsellor's
60 office. Naturally some of the participation in the case will help other
61 consumers throughout the state. The case of the company presenting their
62 material is about one-half way through. It is estimated that the case
63 will re-convene and will probably be completed on Friday as far as I&M
RP&L Minutes Cont'd
September 20, 1976
Page 2
1 presenting their case to the PSCI . The following week all interveners
2 are to present their pre-filed testimony. It is not expected any
3 type decision will be submitted until after November 15 at which time,
' 4 in all probability', I&M will go to the FPC and submit for a rate increase.
5 After the filing the Commission has 30 days to act upon it and grant a
6 delay from a day to five months . The maximum RP&L would have to pay
7 would be a fifteen (15) day period. It is hoped a contract will be
8 worked out in the meantime. If after January 1 we do not have a contract
9 worked out, we will be Subjected to a rate case filed with the FPC
10 which is a 150% increase. Some of the decisions and some of the informa-
11 tion presented by FPC have requested I&M to show cause why their demand
12 charges are as high as they are and the restrictions placed upon RP&L
13 which does not effectively allow RP&L to use its own generating equipment.
14 We hope to be meeting with I&M to go on with further negotiations. I&M
15 has indicated a desire to work out our differences.
16
17 Mr. Mills presented a petition for protective lighting on S. W. "D"
18 and immediately east of S. W. 4th.
19
20 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and passed
21 the meeting was adjourned.
22
23 Rick Ahaus
24 Chairman
25
26 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble
27 CityrClerkthe