Concord utility board advances plan for default time-of-use rates, debates bill layout

The Concord Municipal Light Plant Board on a January meeting reviewed plans to move the utility to a default, opt-out time-of-use rate intended to more closely align customer prices with the actual cost of power and to reduce system peaks that drive transmission and capacity charges.

Board Chair Warren introduced the discussion by saying the meeting would set a starting point so “not all board members were here for prior discussions of this topic.” Jason, a CMLP staff presenter, summarized the goals: “the way we are charging for electricity is encouraging, more energy you use,” and a TOU rate would instead “more closely align the cost for electricity to what we pay for.” Laura, CMLP staff, detailed how transmission and capacity charges are allocated by ISO New England and how those charges are sensitive to when the regional grid peaks.

The presentations emphasized three linked aims: create rates that reflect the true cost of delivering energy, lower overall system costs by reducing peak demand, and protect and reward customers who already invested in distributed resources such as rooftop solar and batteries. Laura told the board that transmission charges are assessed monthly on the local regional peak and currently represent a large and rising portion of CMLP’s supply costs. She quantified the impact: “Each megawatt of load costs $15,850 each month,” and noted that two kilowatts of shifted peak load by a household could translate to meaningful savings at scale.

Board members discussed several unresolved design choices. Laura and Jason asked the board to decide whether to (a) present a single bundled per‑kWh price per TOU period on bills, or (b) continue to break out components such as energy, capacity/transmission and distribution for each period. They also asked whether the usage history shown on the bill should show one month or 12 months and whether the 12-month display should show the TOU-period breakdown.

Views among members: Bianca favored collapsing the supply components into a single per‑period price for simplicity and using a QR code for deeper detail. Brian supported collapsing energy/capacity/transmission into the period price but argued that distribution charges (fixed and variable distribution collection) should remain visible and suggested displaying variable distribution adjacent to fixed meter fees. John and others emphasized the trade-off between simplicity and sending accurate price signals; John warned the board would need to balance simplicity against the need to “get the price right.” Several board members supported keeping a 12‑month usage view if it can be presented readably (for example, stacked bars showing on/mid/off-peak by month). The board asked staff to collect written comments and to present a mock‑up at the next meeting.

Jason and Laura flagged schedule constraints: the vendor that supplies the billing system requires roughly six months to implement comprehensive bill-format changes. Staff said they intend to kick off a work order in February to have pilot bills ready by fall and to implement the default TOU rate in January 2026, if the board and implementation milestones align.

Public commenters supported clarity and historical displays. One resident said she “really like[d] the Cobb EMC” example because it made seasonal and on/off-peak usage easier to understand; another urged that bill graphics aim for “transparency and understandability” rather than reducing complex policy choices to oversimplified statements.

The board did not adopt final TOU rates or bill designs at this meeting. Staff will compile board member comments submitted in writing by the next week, produce bill mock-ups, and return with a recommendation at the next meeting.