Consultants tell Waynesfield council electric revenues need about 11% boost by 2028; recommend 1¢/kWh and stepped customer-charge hikes

John Cordney, a consultant with Courney Associates, told the Waynesfield Village Council that the village’s electric utility is projected to face a revenue gap and that “revenues would need to be increased by approximately 11% in order to meet the 2028 revenue requirement,” based on the firm’s slide presentation and projections. Cordney said the utility sells about 7.3 million kilowatt-hours a year overall, with roughly 4.3 million kWh in the residential class, and that AMP (American Municipal Power) provided the power-supply cost projections used in the analysis.

The study found average projected power costs near 8.97¢ per kWh and estimated the system incurs about 12% losses. Cordney said a recent capacity auction will drive a noticeable transmission/capacity cost increase that will appear on customer bills starting with next summer’s billing cycle. After accounting for expected power-cost adjustments, the firm identified an operating shortfall of roughly $82,000 in the current year that grows to about $123,000 by 2028, which the consultant summarized as an approximate 11% revenue gap.

To narrow the gap, Courney Associates recommended two principal changes: raise the energy charge by 1¢ per kWh effective in the coming year, and increase the fixed monthly customer (meter) charge by $2.50 per month each year for four years (the consultant described moving the charge from $5 to $7.50, then $10, $12.50 and $15 across the period). The firm also recommended conducting a full cost-of-service study next and enabling demand metering on larger three-phase accounts so demand-related costs can be allocated by contribution to peak load.

The consultant outlined how the recommendations would affect a typical household. Using the firm’s figures, a 900 kWh monthly residential account would see roughly $9 more per month from the 1¢/kWh energy increase; the consultant said average residential customers would see an annual first-year increase on the order of $138 based on the sample usage and phased meter-charge changes.

Council members pressed on local effects. One council member raised concerns that raising fixed customer charges—particularly the consultant’s proposal to set commercial customer charges at twice the residential level and industrial/institutional charges at five times residential—could burden the village’s largest employer. The consultant explained those larger fixed charges reflect the higher equipment and service costs of three-phase and industrial service (transformers, service lines, specialized meters) and argued demand metering and a cost-of-service study would allow more precise, data-driven allocations.

Cordney and his colleague Scott (identified as his associate) recommended practical next steps: (1) enable and collect interval/demand data on large accounts using meters already procured, (2) complete a full cost-of-service analysis to allocate revenue requirements across customer classes, and (3) return to council with concrete rate ordinance language once those data are incorporated. No rate ordinance was adopted at the meeting; the presentation concluded with the consultants leaving the session and council discussion continuing.

Why it matters: the consultant’s analysis frames a multi-year path for the utility to restore fund balance and meet capital needs such as pole and transformer replacements. Any future rate ordinance will affect residential bills, small businesses and the village’s industrial customers and would be subject to later council action and public notice.