Concord light plant outlines time-of-use rollout, bill redesign and marketing plan

Concord Municipal Light Plant staff told the Municipal Light Board on May 14 that the utility is preparing to roll out time-of-use rates and a redesigned customer bill, and that a consultant will present a draft cost-of-service study to the board on June 9 with a final report expected by July 23.

The work matters because the cost-of-service study will recommend season definitions, peak hours and prices that would be used in a time-of-use rate structure; staff and the board said they want clear bill graphics and a sustained customer outreach campaign so residents can plan ahead if rates change.

Jason (staff) described bill-print mockups developed with NISC that show monthly usage by peak, mid-peak and off-peak periods, a colored “stacked” usage graphic and a meter-reading table. He told the board the vendor is still trying to display a second prior-year comparison in the graphic and that staff has asked for clearer grouping and labels for distribution, energy and surcharge line items. "We wanted this April, last April, and then the April from a year before," Jason said during the update. "If it's not possible, one other solution ... is to put the kilowatt hours used in that period down here from two years ago." (evidence: meeting presentation and discussion)

Laura, the board’s project lead for the cost-of-service study, said the consultant (UFS) is close to delivering model results but was awaiting final MDM (meter data management) aggregates. "We are probably running about a week late," she said, and the draft will be shared at the June 9 meeting with a target final report by July 23. She said the consultant favors a gradual approach to any price changes and expects to recommend a multi-year path rather than a single large increase. "If their time of use suggests that we have to go from our current 22¢ to ... 60¢ for the on-peak period, there's no way that we're gonna go to 60¢ year 1," Laura said. "They will say that ... the 5-year hope for landing point is 60¢, and here's a 5-year schedule on how we would get there." (evidence: cost-of-service timeline and consultant approach)

Board members pressed staff on how to present the new rates and said clarity is crucial. Brian asked for degree-days or weather context to help customers understand month-to-month differences; several board members said the bill should clearly list on-peak, mid-peak and off-peak hours and highlight the charges that drive the largest dollars on a bill. Bianca urged an early and visible outreach program so residents have time to prepare: "We could potentially start a marketing campaign ... way ahead of when the rates change ... Get ready," she said, arguing for early signals to customers.

Staff said it has retained Questline, a marketing firm with experience in utility rate rollouts. The planned outreach has three phases: summer awareness, a 90/60/30-day pre-launch cadence ahead of a planned go-live (staff cited January 1 as an illustrative target for the timeline), and a post-launch program with weekly messaging for the first month. Staff said targeted communications would be used—different messages for customers with EVs, customers on other special rates and households with high usage.

The board also discussed policy trade-offs. Laura noted prior cost-of-service studies show cross-subsidies between rate classes and told members the study will quantify how much each class pays relative to its cost of service; the board will then weigh whether to reduce or maintain existing cross-subsidies. Laura also warned that if the board repeatedly revisits core design decisions it could delay the project: the consultant asked for a clear board consensus to avoid multi-month pauses.

Public comment highlighted billing clarity. Resident Jim Terry asked that monthly bill labels reflect the actual usage month (for example, that a December bill reflect December usage), a point staff said it would investigate in a future meeting. Pamela Dred urged presentation clarity rather than simplification: "I worry that we have the wrong goals. I don't think simplicity should be a goal. Clarity should." (evidence: public comment)

No formal rate change was adopted at the May 14 meeting; the items presented were staff updates, consultant timing and design mockups. Staff will return with the consultant's draft report on June 9 and with additional bill-print iterations and a proposed outreach budget in subsequent meetings.

Board members and staff identified follow-up work: staff will (1) confirm whether the two-year comparison can be added to the monthly usage graph or find an alternative placement; (2) simplify and relabel the bill's right-hand cost table into logical groups (distribution/energy/surcharges); (3) finalize procurement and materials with Questline and begin an awareness campaign over the summer; and (4) present the UFS draft cost-of-service modeling and recommended timing/season definitions on June 9.