From: jeff bennett <j_bennett506@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 7:58 AM
To: John Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Subject: light bill
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 7:58 AM
To: John Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Subject: light bill
John,
Just got my latest light bill which also contained a letter informing of the new remote read meters. Also stated this will eliminate the need for trucks and drivers going out to physically read all electric meters. My question is, how many employees will be let go in this effort and how many fewer trucks will light customers have to support now? That is, what is the dollar amount regarding operation costs that will be saved by switching to remote read meters. Seems like a win all the way around, fewer employees, fewer trucks equaling less fuel and other associated maintenance or operational costs.
Trying to analyze relationship of fewer trucks , employees, less fuel and increase in customer bill increase of .75 cents per month. Also, I noticed light bill is mailed from a New Jersey zip code. I assume this is a billing service, so is there a way to receive bill electronically and save the mailing / paper costs? I still wish to pay in person, but interested in any way to possibly save more to off sett things like employee costs (insurance, retirement, etc.) that we have little control of.
thank you in advance, regards;
Jeff Bennett
The answer I received from Templeton light:
From: John Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 1:27 PM
To: jeff bennett <j_bennett506@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: light bill
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2018 1:27 PM
To: jeff bennett <j_bennett506@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: light bill
Jeff,
No TMLWP employees were eliminated due to our moving forward with the new AMI system. We had a meter technician being compensated with wages and benefits since 1984 who was retirement-eligible in 2016. We simply did not fill this position since we estimated wage/benefit costs for a new meter technician hired in 2016 retiring in 2048 at (north of) $6,000,000. The installation costs for this AMI system will come in around $800,000 and in total should only cost TMLWP $2,000,000 in total over its 20-year useful lifespan. We still have a meter technician vehicle and likely will for the remainder of 2018 till all of our 3,550 electric meters have been changed out. Once they are there will be no need for this vehicle; we may hold onto it for travel to classes, seminars and/or training but it will not be replaced when it goes.
The additional $0.75 in monthly customer charges for our residential customers was to pay for their portion of the $900,000 total AMI system installation cost. Commercial customers had their monthly customer charges increase by $1.75 and industrial by $2.25. Savings to electric customers cannot be realized till the whole system is up and running. At present we are looking at a 9-year payback term on the system and an 11% return-on-investment. At Year 9 we will re-evaluate our $3.75 monthly customer charge.
The electric bills mailed to our customers are mailed from Billtrust in NJ, and although we now have multiple bill pay options for electric customers (cash, check, money order, credit/debit card over the phone, credit/debit card online, ACH thru TMLWP, ACH thru UniBank/UniPay) we do not send electronic bills to our customers. We still use the USPS to deliver all customer bills and I am not sure when this will change, if it changes at all. If we do decide one day to email customers their bills it would likley be thru Billtrust OR Invoice Cloud.
John M Driscoll
General Manager
The latest email from Templeton light - notice what is stated now regarding customer service charge:
John
Driscoll <jdriscoll@templetonlight.com>
Mon 2/10/2020 1:07 PM
·
Good Afternoon to All,
I apologize for taking so long
to respond to any of this Steve Drury matter over our AMI (Advanced Metering
Infrastructure) system, as the issue did start out of our office.
We completed our total AMI
system installation in town as of December 2018, and I don’t recall how many
AMI Opt-Out customers we had at that time, but we currently have 8 residential
electric customers who have opted out of an AMI meter and instead are being
metered with a non-AMI device. At the onset, each of these customers had
to pay a one-time non-AMI meter fee of $125, which was only 50% of the
non-AMI meter’s actual cost of $250. The Light Commission
was trying to be fair to those who wished to opt out, so a 50/50% split on
paying for the meter that they wanted and we did not seemed fair. This
non-AMI meter has all of the same measurement functionality as the regular AMI
meters do, less any meter data propogation/RF abilities. In addition to
the customer being responsible for the $125 fee they would also be subject
to a higher monthly customer charge than other residential customers
were. Our residential AMI electric
customers pay a monthly customer charge of $3.75,
a fixed charge that is not tied to KWH consumption, but rather to the light
department’s monthly cost of reading the customer’s meter, procesing a bill,
mailing a bill and finally processing a payment. With the AMI system the cost of actually reading the customer’s
meter is almost $0, but this is not the case with the 8 non-AMI Opt-Out
customers. In the calendar year 2020 these 8 customers will pay a higher
monthly customer charge of $17.12. The additional $13.37 paid to the light department was designed to cover the cost of our
sending a utility lineman to each of these 8 residences 12 times per year to
manually retrieve meter data so that we may process them an electric bill
here. Of these 8 AMI Opt-Out customers we have an average distance of 3.6
miles to travel from 86 Bridge St to each of the 8 locations and back, so we
feel that the $13.37 extra per month is justified here. This is almost 346
miles of extra driving per year to read only 8 electric meters.
It is important to know that
all 8 of our AMI Opt-Out customers were treated the same and were told that if
at any subsequent time they wished to “Opt-In”, we would accommodate them free
of charge. And although most of them did not like the $125 meter fee or the higher monthly charges going forward, most of
them understood why we needed to do it this way. Most of them.
Steve Drury has come to several
light commissioners meetings here over the last year to express his disdain for
both the meter fee and the extra monthly charges, and he has often cited
chapter and verse portions of the Massachusetts General Laws which are not
applicable to the matter at hand. He has also mentioned bills at the
Statehouse which, should they become law, would prohibit utilities from
charging opt-out customers such as these anything extra and such expenses would
simply be rolled into that utility’s electric cost-of-service. This kind
of mentality is why Templeton electric customers paid 12.79¢ per KWH ($90 per month) in 2019 while National Grid
(Gardner/Hubbardston/Phillipston/Royalston/Winchendon) electric customers
paid 24.61¢ per KWH ($172 per month).
As far as the lien goes that we
had the Town place on the property at #18 Drury Ln, we are well within our
rights as a municipal light department to ask the Town to place such a
lien. Our alternative would have been to wait until April 15, 2020 when
the state-imposed moratorium on electric shut-offs ends and turn off electric
service to #18 Drury Ln for non-payment of utility bills. I assume that
nobody on this email list would have wanted this as an alternative.
If anyone requires any more
information from the light department on this Drury matter please don’t
hesitate to contact me directly.
Thank you.
John M Driscoll
General Manager
So, as you can read, your customer service charge at Templeton light either pays for the cost of the so called smart meters or for reading, creating and sending bill. My question is simply, which is it? If I ask the same question, I should get the same answer; but, Templeton light is government.