Concord board agrees on bill layout for time-of-use rates, defers final decision on solar credits

Members of the Concord Municipal Light Plant (CMLP) board directed staff to prioritize a simpler bill layout that highlights time-of-use (TOU) consumption while postponing a policy decision on how rooftop solar should be credited.

The board agreed on several design choices to inform NISC (the utility billing vendor) and the public-facing bill print: show monthly consumption broken out by on-, mid- and off-peak buckets (netted for solar customers), include at least 13 months of data (with a preference from some members to show 14 months by adding the same month two years earlier), and add a QR code that links customers to SmartHub or an explanatory landing page for interactive detail. “Our goal, main goal today… is to give clear direction about what we want to see on the new bills that roll out when we have time of use rates,” the board chair said during the meeting.

Why it matters: The layout choices determine how easily customers can see when they consume energy and therefore whether TOU pricing will influence behavior. They also affect how much detail is presented on paper versus what customers must retrieve via a QR code or SmartHub account.

Key decisions and guidance to staff

- Show consumption by time-of-day: The board directed staff to display consumption by the TOU buckets (on/mid/off peak) and to present net consumption for solar customers so customers can see usage and generation within each bucket. Several members argued the graph should make it easy to see whether load-shifting is working.

- Months to show: Members agreed to at least 13 months of data on the bill, with several favoring 14 months (the last 12 months plus the same month one and two years earlier) so customers can compare year-over-year.

- QR code and SmartHub: The board favored including a QR code on the printed bill that links to explanatory material or to SmartHub for account-specific detail. Staff said the QR code will initially point to a static landing page explaining TOU concepts; linking directly to account-level data in SmartHub will be investigated with NISC and may not be ready for launch.

- Fixed vs. variable presentation: Board members debated how to label fixed/collection charges and the variable distribution charge. A majority favored simplifying the printed bill into a single fixed charge line plus an energy (TOU) section. One persistent preference was to keep distribution (the cost of delivering power) visually separated from power-supply costs to make cost causation clear for customers and installers.

- Decimal presentation of rates: Staff noted internal billing calculations require five decimal places for accuracy. Several members asked whether TOU rates could be displayed in cents (for readability) rather than as dollar amounts with many decimal places; staff said the underlying system needs five decimals but presentation could show rates in cents if feasible.

Solar crediting: concept not decided

The board reviewed two broad approaches for crediting rooftop solar under TOU: a flat "value of solar" tariff (a single per-kWh credit derived from a study) and a time-differentiated credit that pays solar generation different values depending on the TOU bucket. One board member urged that credits reflect when generation occurs to incent batteries and array orientation that help system peak needs: “What I'm suggesting is… you credit… when they're providing electricity, not just the minimum generation value,” he said, arguing that time-differentiated credits would better reward generation that occurs during on-peak demand.

Staff and board members agreed the billing-layout conversation should not be allowed to foreclose either solar-crediting option. Several members said the layout choices must be flexible enough to present either approach once the board decides the policy. The board did not set the actual credit amounts or select a method at this meeting and directed staff to place the solar-crediting policy question on a future agenda with numeric examples.

Other discussion highlights

- Heat pumps: Staff said prior analysis showed most heat-pump customers would fare as well or better under TOU than under the current R-7 special rate. Board members noted customers with electric heating have limited ability to shift winter load and asked staff to consider that in outreach.

- Bill detail for installers/advanced users: Some members asked that the QR-linked landing page or SmartHub provide downloadable hourly meter data (CSV) so solar installers and technically inclined customers can analyze usage precisely.

- Vendor follow-up: Staff (Laura, Jason and others) said they will ask NISC about technical options (different bill prints for solar vs. non-solar accounts, QR linking to account detail, and presenting cents instead of dollars) and return with feasibility and timeline.

Votes at a glance

- Approved minutes (12/04/2024 and 01/08/2025): motion moved by John, seconded by Brian; outcome approved (vote recorded in the meeting transcript as yes votes from board members present).

- Motion to adjourn: moved and seconded; outcome approved (recorded unanimous yes votes from members present).

What’s next

Staff will return with NISC feasibility and timing for the agreed bill-print features and will place solar-crediting (value-of-solar tariff vs. time-differentiated credits) on the next board agenda with numeric examples and legal/operational implications.

Quotes (selected)

“Our goal, main goal today… is to give clear direction about what we want to see on the new bills that roll out when we have time of use rates,” the chair said.

“What I'm suggesting is… you credit… when they're providing electricity, not just the minimum generation value,” a board member said in support of time-differentiated credits for solar.

“I find our current bill confusing… I would just say… we definitely wanna try to simplify it as much as possible,” a board member who has solar said.

“I use my solar bill the way it's currently presented to gauge how quickly I am getting payback for my investment,” a finance committee member and public commenter said during public comment.

Ending

The board did not adopt a solar-credit policy. The next step is for staff to report back with NISC's technical options and for the board to consider a dedicated agenda item comparing the two solar-crediting approaches with numeric examples and implementation implications.