Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Billing Design Time Of Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord light board outlines time-of-use bill design, defers decision on how to credit solar
Summary
At a Town of Concord Light Board meeting, members agreed on key presentation elements for a new time-of-use bill—including showing 14 months of usage, TOU buckets in the graph, and a QR code linking to more detail—but postponed decisions about how solar output will be credited until a future meeting.
The Town of Concord Light Board met virtually to review how a redesigned bill should present time-of-use (TOU) rates and to explore options for displaying solar output on customer bills. "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," Warren, a board member, said, framing the discussion as design guidance rather than a decision on rates.
Board members and staff discussed two principal ways to credit behind-the-meter solar once TOU rates are in place: a fixed-value "solar tariff" derived from a study that pays a single cents-per-kilowatt-hour rate for all exported solar, and a time-varying credit that adjusts compensation by on-, mid- and off-peak periods so output produced during high-demand periods receives higher credit. "What you described was a solar tariff, very common," Brian, a board member, said. He advocated instead that credits reflect when solar is produced: "You credit solar customers for when they're providing electricity, not just the minimum generation value. This incentivizes them to invest into batteries and other things too."
Jason, a staff member working on bill mock-ups, summarized board feedback on overall bill presentation. Members agreed the printed bill should be simpler than current versions: include 13–14 months of historical data so the same month in previous years can be compared, show TOU buckets in the usage graph (so customers can see on-, mid- and off-peak consumption), and include a QR code linking to a static landing page or SmartHub for deeper, account-specific detail. Jason said the QR code will initially go to a static landing page explaining TOU and that linking directly to a customer's specific bill (SmartHub) is possible but likely requires more vendor work and may not be ready for the January launch window.
Board members debated how many lines to show for delivery and supply. Several members favored separating delivery (the utility's fixed and distribution costs) from power supply (market/pass-through costs) so customers and solar installers can see which parts of the bill they can influence. Others argued for a simpler presentation with a single fixed delivery line and the energy/supply portion broken out by TOU buckets, reserving detailed breakdowns for SmartHub. "If someone wants to add solar, they'll see the energy section reduced, but the distribution section will still collect for everything sent to the customer," Brian said, explaining how distribution charges interact with netting and credits.
On presentation details, the board settled on a few specific points to pass to the vendor (NISC): include at least 13 months plus the matching month from two years earlier (14 months total), show consumption broken out by TOU buckets in the main graph (netted for solar customers), include a prominent QR code that links to more detailed explanations and data, and investigate providing downloadable hourly meter data (CSV) for customers who want raw data. The board also asked staff to confirm whether the vendor can render different bill prints for solar vs. non-solar customers or whether that would require treating them as separate rates.
The board did not adopt a rate or a method to credit solar output. Members agreed to bring the solar-crediting concept back for a focused decision at a future meeting so the board can choose between (a) a value-of-solar tariff (single, time-agnostic credit) or (b) time-of-use–based credits that would raise the value of generation produced during on-peak hours. "If we go to a flat solar tariff mixed with TOU, that is what I am opposed to," Brian said, arguing a flat tariff would reduce incentives to orient arrays or add batteries to supply power during system peaks.
The meeting also included routine business: a motion to approve minutes for Dec. 4, 2024, and Jan. 8, 2025, passed; the board later moved to adjourn. Staff were directed to take the board's bill-print preferences to the vendor (NISC) for feasibility and cost estimates and to return with a solar-crediting agenda item at the next meeting.
The board's next steps are to (1) ask NISC to prototype the agreed bill-print options and report constraints, (2) confirm whether the QR code can link directly to account-level SmartHub detail at launch, and (3) place a focused solar-crediting decision on a future agenda. The board did not set detailed numeric rates or solar-credit amounts during this meeting.
