Concord light board favors time‑of‑use framework for solar credits, rejects flat "value of solar" approach

The Concord Municipal Light Board said it will compensate customer generation using time‑of‑use (TOU) blocks rather than a single flat ‘‘value of solar’’ credit, and asked staff to engage its billing vendor to build flexibility so the utility can adjust whether solar compensation uses the same TOU buckets as consumption or a separate tariff.

Board members debated three approaches: a flat value‑of‑solar rate, a bidirectional TOU method that credits exported kilowatt‑hours at the same TOU price as consumption (Brian—), and a hybrid that would allow different TOU buckets or values for exported generation (a separate solar tariff). After extended discussion the board said it would not pursue the flat value‑of‑solar option and asked staff to request that NISC (the billing vendor) implement the programming needed to support either the single TOU approach or a separate solar tariff if necessary.

Why this matters: The method for crediting exported energy affects customer bills, the economics of rooftop solar and storage, and how well prices signal the utility's true cost of serving load. Board members said they want a system that reflects when the utility incurs generation and delivery costs while remaining administratively feasible and reasonably clear to customers.

Details of the decision and debate Brian (board member) framed the preferred approach as "not a technology rate, not a solar rate, but a bidirectional meter reading rate," arguing that "when someone delivers a kilowatt to us, we can credit them the same amount" as the pass‑through energy price for that hour. He said the proposal would give customers clearer price signals to choose batteries or load shifts: "If you were adding solar alone and you don't have any management of it... you should get enough, you know, just the cost of generation." (Brian)

Laura (CMLP staff) cautioned that a very precise hourly scheme would be complex for customers and that the board must balance economic precision against bill complexity and customer understanding: "...in practice, because the board has to weigh bill complexity against economic precision and customer understanding, it may be difficult to make that work ... the value of solar may prove to be more administratively feasible and better for customer understanding." (Laura)

Board members discussed seasonality and the shape of local load, pointing to winter's double morning/evening peaks and to ISO day‑ahead price forecasts used as examples in staff materials. John asked whether the TOU buckets could be set seasonally (summer/winter) rather than changing monthly; Laura said that is possible but could be "kind of ugly" for customers if buckets are irregular. Several participants said that three TOU blocks (on, mid, off) are an improvement over a flat rate but that people will struggle to remember irregular multi‑hour blocks if they are too granular.

Staff direction and next steps Jason (director) summarized the board's direction: staff should ask NISC to design the billing functionality that allows compensation by time blocks and that can support either (a) credits that match the consumption TOU buckets or (b) a separate solar tariff with distinct buckets/values if the board later chooses that route. He reported NISC confirmed technology can implement bidirectional TOU credits and that the vendor told staff different solar buckets would be treated as a separate rate/tariff for filing purposes.

No formal regulatory filing or final rate schedule was adopted at the meeting. The board said it would not pursue option 2 (single flat value of solar) and asked staff to return with specifics on bucket definitions, revenue neutrality analysis, and bill examples before finalizing the implementation timeline.

Quotes "So a solar tariff is crediting usually on a flat scale, flat rate for any delivery of solar from the customer to the utility." (Brian) "In practice...the board has to weigh bill complexity against economic precision and customer understanding." (Laura) "We're not going to go with option 2, a value of solar tariff." (Chair)

Ending Staff will work with NISC and report back with concrete bucket definitions, revenue‑neutral modeling across the residential class, and bill mockups before a final rate is adopted. The board asked staff to preserve implementation flexibility so the utility can switch between a single TOU credit and a separate solar tariff if analysis or customer‑facing clarity requires it.