Concord light plant moves toward default time-of-use rates; staff seeks cost-of-service consultant and outlines public education plan

The Town of Concord Municipal Light Plant (CMLP) is preparing to shift residential customers to a default, opt-out time-of-use rate and has launched a recruiting process for a third‑party cost-of-service study that will recommend the new TOU prices and rate structure.

Jason (last name not specified), Director, Town of Concord Municipal Light Plant, told the board the staff plans to solicit fixed-price proposals from qualified consultants and begin work in early April so draft results can inform summer outreach. “We feel pretty good that this is gonna be possible,” Jason said when describing vendor capabilities to implement multiple billing ‘register sets’ needed to support TOU and possible solar compensation buckets.

The study’s scope, presented by Laura Scott, who works on power supply and energy management for CMLP, asks consultants to: analyze costs by customer class using hourly advanced meter data; propose the number and seasonal timing of TOU periods and prices; recommend what costs should be recovered as fixed charges vs. variable charges; and recommend compensation approaches for behind‑the‑meter solar and for customers who allow utility load control of hot water heaters. The staff timeline shown to the board calls for proposals due at the end of the month, consultant work to start the week of April 9, a draft study in June and a final report after a July presentation.

Why it matters: board members said the study and the subsequent rate choices will shape a major change in how customers are billed and how the utility signals the cost of peak power. Several board members urged that the study produce both accurate cost allocations and variants that trade complexity for clearer customer messaging.

Key details and board concerns

- Vendor capabilities: Staff described how the current billing vendor (NISC) can support multiple register sets for TOU and additional registers to accommodate more complex solar compensation. Jason said the vendor can also add heating and cooling degree‑day data to the customer bill through an API, if the board wants that metric displayed.

- Communications plan: The staff proposed a multi-channel campaign timed to the cost-of-service results: bill inserts, Smart Hub messaging and alerts, social media posts, workshops/webinars, targeted email blasts (CMLP’s news-and-notices list of ~1,600 addresses) and in-person events such as senior-center workshops and “first Friday” sessions. Tools proposed include side‑by‑side sample bills, a bill calculator, and load-management programs that could enroll customers and provide credits for automated load shifts.

- Metrics and tracking: Board members asked staff to track whether customers’ bills fall or rise after the TOU rollout and to report aggregated monthly counts to show how many customers benefited from bill reductions. Staff said aggregated effects should be visible over time, but individual customer tracking may require additional work with the billing vendor.

- Solar and special rates: The board discussed whether to keep a separate solar tariff or compensate solar generation within the TOU framework. Board members warned that embedding detailed solar compensation into TOU increases bill complexity; staff said they are retaining flexibility so the consultant can model alternatives. The study brief requests the consultant to recommend net‑metering or crediting approaches that “assign utility costs to customers with solar generation fairly.”

- Load control and ETS: The study scope asks consultants to quantify the value of utility control of electric thermal storage (ETS) water heaters and recommend appropriate customer compensation for participating devices. Board members asked that the scope explicitly require the consultant to propose a transition strategy for the existing ETS program if objectives will not be met by the new TOU design.

- Heat pumps and equity: Board members asked the consultant to assess the cost to serve heat pumps and to provide information the board can use when deciding whether to offer rebates or targeted incentives outside of rate design. The board emphasized that low-income protections should be included and that messages to the public should emphasize customer empowerment to save money as the primary benefit of TOU.

Process and next steps

Staff asked the board for rapid feedback on the draft scope and objectives so proposals can be solicited without delay. Laura Scott said the target schedule would yield draft study results in June, with a presentation to the board in July; several board members requested an interim presentation of preliminary quantitative findings at the June 11 board meeting so the board will have time to provide input before final recommendations are prepared. Staff agreed to circulate the scope for comment and to adjust the timeline to accommodate focused board review.

Board members repeatedly stressed a need to balance accuracy and simplicity: they want consultants to recommend rates that reflect cost causation while also providing options that are easier to explain to customers. “The simpler we can make this bill, the more the information people need to adjust their behavior,” said Bianca (last name not specified), board member.

Community context and timing

CMLP completed advanced meter installations this month and staff said the utility can now leverage hourly data in the consultant’s analysis. Staff also noted external factors that could affect customers’ concerns — recent discussion of Canadian import tariffs and reductions in Mass Save program funding — and said they will prepare careful public-facing messaging once price scenarios are available.

Staff emphasized that effective outreach will be essential to the success of any default TOU rollout and asked the board for guidance on the level and timing of communications as rate recommendations emerge.

Ending

Staff will circulate the cost-of-service scope for board comment and return with a vendor-selection plan and an interim presentation of preliminary quantitative results before recommending final TOU prices. The board asked staff to include options that preserve the ability to simplify bill displays while retaining accurate cost signals for planning and solar compensation.