HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Memo from K. Kruempel - misinterpretation of rate comparison April 8, 19854,
� I
To: The Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: K. Kruempel
1
I believe the Residential rate comparison on the second page of the
proposed letter to utility customers will be misinterpreted.
First, the comparison does not account for a fuel cost roll-in
which has been calculated at $.00067818 per KwH. For example, for a KwH
in the first 300 KwH block in summer:
Current Rate $ .078
+ Fuel Adjustment .00067818
+ Increase .00332182
= New Rate .082
Percent Increase = (.00332182/.07867818)(100) = 4.2%
Second, the percent increase listed is on one KwH of electricity
sold in a particular block and does not relate to a percent increase
in a customer's total bill. At the least, it is necessary to describe
the true meaning of the "Percent Increase" in the letter, however,
I doubt this would be successful when the customer will be interested
in the increase in his/her total bill. I would favor a comparison
table similar to the one in the EUORAB report to Council (attached) .
For example, for a 400 KwH consumption in Summer:
Current Bill $34.47
(including fuel adjustment)
+ Increase 1.83
= New Bill 36.30
Percent Increase = (1.83/34.47)(100) = 5.3%
In the Street and Security Lighting Rate, I think the 250 W present rates
of $6.21 and $7.21 are for sodium and not mercury vapor lights. The
last line on the first page also needs revision.
cc Steve Shainker
Merlin Hove
John Klaus
Betty Jo Harker
EUORAB
d�tio ME PpWA
1 '
i
1 G 3 Q
to 3 .0 O n
YES 1 h P Ni 1 M Y M h I
1 0 cf
I I y th
I I
I O S O M ti I 0 2 O M I
1 G 3 P m P i O Y
03 .,1 1 1> O M
1 O`z I P
Y� m m Ni I M h a i ti
I N
1 M q 1 N
I {q N ! N to k,....,-
1 1
1 03 -f N G I 0 3 O n i O M m
I 47 Ni
N ID CA V' I N Y rn I P v
I M i4 I YP b1 f t} N
I I
1 O S O S 0
1 G Y P d N I O i t-7 N 1 .0 W) ,0
i N + CJ 47 h i
i 47 � U7 ; h
� � � � 'A W I tl► N
1 1 1
I G 3 a m m t 0 3 0 J � I
� 47 Y I 67 Y
1 P Q C' 1 U -Mi V1 i In (} 4'
1 N M I
I
i i !
1 O S O W i O S O m (V 1 1 G P
GO P P P j 03 `0 d Ni N m
M 47 I .+ Pi m 47 1 V O 47
CO 1 0 0 1 T
W N � �fr HP 1 H 5f
I 1
M
I
i 1 ✓2 ,:, -. N 1 0 2 O .7 cr i h P �0
N I 1�Y 7 h O 1 4l 3 ,0 N 47 Irz
V N m
In
I I I
I i 1
I ! I
1 i
Cv 1 0:3 P � I h Y ox 6 Ca Gv
w I M F7 `s a V 47 ; O O
i M a ! M w i Nal +.# p
i O d
i
I 1 G '
ox
1
i 0 3 On N N i G 3
1 b} I M N MO 67 i a; N 47
1 0 1
! I 1
I i I
1
I O S O O 4 I O S 0 C. 0• I O O Ul
bi 47 U t V Q I
w i N i4 I m I M i 04 M
G7 1 i m
Q41
U 1 u
c2 _ 1 ti ro I OS 0 a N, 1 L
1 i C4 O ) 1 N Y P N C 1 n s}
m co O I P P
I y} YP I W M +} I {R M 41
! I i
Q i O S G h cf I O 2 O h
CZL coO v ; y h M .0 C
to 70
I j i 1a
w i !
I -N
cc I # y 1 # m O
J I # r i # � I ami c
cr IL 1 a m x 1 m > G, > N
F I Q
Z CJ7 1 F ti cn u CA
Q 7
W w I �. H m I 0: c m I CC C C C 'O
O * m ii ,t 0 1 (0 N v t, i m 3 Z 3 m0�
O rp I #
w i # .0 W U 1 * a x � I O E
I # Q IIIU 1 ¢CR ly IA U U.
I
- I
July 1 , 1979 (Revised)
AMES MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC SYSTEM
SCHEDULE OF COSTS FOR RENTAL LIGHTING
The following is a schedule of charges to be made monthly, along with
Other utility billing, for the ins `allation and operation of rental lights
where it 15 impossible or impractical to meter the electrical energy used
through the Customer' s normal metering location.
.Size an1 e Existing Aug. 1 , 1979
Cost Per Month Rate
175 watt mercury*
175 watt ornamental mercury $4.00 $4.64
100 watt sodium ($.25 less than 175W mercury50 6. 14
70 watt sodium ($. 50 less than 175W r; 4.39iercury) _ 4 14
400 watt mercury* 5.75 7.21
400 watt mercury ornamental 8. 50 9.96
400 watt mercury flood 6.75
4n0 watt mercury flood ornamental 8.21
250 watt sodium* �• 50 10. 96
250 watt sodium ornamental 6.21
1 ,000 watt mercury* 7. 21
1 ,000 watt mercury15 ornamental 1 .2. 5050 16. 16
19. 16
*,1.ppl i es to a br fie)acket-t p fixture on an existing wood pole.