×
Note – this article was originally published on energychoicecoalition.org
Much of the attention in the realm of energy choice recently has been in the southern United States, with the Energy Freedom Act in the Carolinas, the Florida Supreme Court striking down the energy choice ballot initiative, and the Virginia Energy Reform Act. But as 2020 comes into full swing it has become clear that the Northeast is an integral battleground.
In the past, northeastern states have been great examples of the benefits of energy choice and the successful implementation of such programs. But those who want to restrict energy choice are fighting in these states to take away the freedom of energy choice.
In Massachusetts, energy choice advocates are being opposed by the state Attorney General Maura Healey, who has accused competitive power retailers of overcharging customers. With this claim as the stated motivation, Healey has called for the Bay State to end their foray into electric retail competition.
In an op-ed for Commonwealth Magazine, the Attorney General claims that customers in Massachusetts have been deceived by the retailers they switched to, experienced underhanded tactics to promote switching from their utility, and therefore have ended up paying millions more in power bills in than if they hadn’t switched. She goes on to say:
Massachusetts is indeed one of the national leaders in the total number of residents who chose a new electricity supplier, reaching 39% of total residential customers in 2018. And it’s true, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has noted that residential customers in Massachusetts that have chosen their own provider paid 1.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) more than those with the default provider, but it is important to note that the price difference doesn’t tell the full story.
For one, surveys have consistently shown that many residential customers are willing to pay slightly more for power if it allows them to choose energy suppliers with a higher percentage of renewable energy. As an example, a Yale study found that Americans were willing to pay an average of $16.25 per month more to get power from 100% renewable sources.
Further, many competitive customer choice programs provide other offerings that are appealing to customers. These offerings include prepaid plans that allow for electricity to be budgeted more clearly, variable pricing plans that allow customers to shift their power use based on changing rates, and more. Customers can take advantage of these pricing plans or not, but to remove that choice from customers under the pretense of protecting the intelligent citizens of Massachusetts is the real misleading practice at play.
Just a bit further north, customers in Maine are watching a bill be debated by state lawmakers that also threatens to take away competitive energy suppliers under the guise of protecting the consumers. The state’s Office of the Public Advocate is encouraging the adoption of a law that would require all residential customers to use the single standard offer rate negotiated by the state, rather than seeking out the energy retailer that the customer decides has the best price and service.
As in Massachusetts, those pushing this change in Maine are citing an increase in utility bills compared with what they would have paid via the single standard offer. In supporting this measure, State Representative Seth Berry, chair of the legislature’s energy committee, noted that:
The same EIA data cited above finds that the 13% of Maine residential customers who have opted for customer choice programs have ended up paying 1.9 cents per kWh more than the default price, but once again that raw number is only looking at one aspect of the market and thus only one reason that customers may change providers. The presence of a competitor forces innovation by the default utility and other competitive retailers that arise, both to advance clean and affordable energy technology as well as custom-tailored programs that benefit the customers in the ways that matter most to them.
Indeed, as the national spokesperson for the Retail Energy Supply Association noted,
So while those looking for a reason to do away with energy choice have falsely claimed that these ways of selling the product are an avenue of deceit, retail energy suppliers are finding that the only way to get the real information to customers is through personal education efforts. And unsurprisingly, when customers hear the truth about retail energy and see the benefits specific programs can offer them, that is when they switch. Maine’s efforts to restrict these in-person interactions are just another example of putting a stranglehold on all providers except the default utility.
While Massachusetts and Maine are considering actions to do away with energy choice altogether, New York lawmakers are continuing to increase the restrictions placed on retail energy providers until it suffocates the market entirely, essentially removing the choice from the consumers. Specifically, New York has instituted a price cap and other limits under the PSC Reset Order.
The PSC Reset Order, known officially as the ‘Order Resetting Retail Energy Markets and Establishing Further Process,’ artificially limits the products that retail energy providers are permitted to offer. Specifically, the reset order denotes that the only products they can provide to New York residents are:
Once again, these limits are set artificially and are purposely intended to make it difficult for retail energy providers to provide customers with unique programs that will encourage them to opt-out of their default utility provider.
While Massachusetts and Maine are looking to outright eliminate energy choice, the Retail Energy Supply Association has characterized these types of moves coming from New York as “unprecedented action of effectively eliminating retail choice for residential and small commercial customers in New York by substituting the Commission’s judgment for that of consumers in determining what energy products offer value.”
In total, 16% of New York residents have found a program, a rate, a product, or some other offering of a retail power provider to be more desirable than what they were receiving from their default utility. Customers (both those who switch providers and those who stay) should continue to be able to weigh the pros and cons of each offer, but the reset order is suggesting that residents cannot make this choice on their own and should instead only be offered what the Commission thinks they should.
Expert Bio:
Expert is currently an Energy Analyst at an energy research company, working on U.S. Federal Statistical System publications to vet analyses for data and factual accuracy as well as proofread and copy-edit them for writing quality and accuracy.
Subject matter expert in the energy industry, particularly as it relates to energy policy, efficiency technologies and initiatives, and the clean energy transition.
This expert is also an independent Energy Analyst, Consultant, and Writer, publishing drawing on professional experience and independent research and analysis.
Responsibilities include:
Writes blog posts for an energy solutions company for an environmentally-focused website (topics including clean and renewable energy technologies), and for an energy consulting company (topics including grid management strategies, carbon sequestration policies, and effects of decarbonization of energy systems)
Role which includes evaluating and assessing U.S. companies in the energy industry, providing insights into the companies’ functions, performance, and future outlooks
Conducts market research for a client seeking to evaluate market shares of electric and gas utility energy efficiency programs
Expert was a Senior Consultant at an American management consultancy firm
Worked with a U.S Energy Department in Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy on the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, supporting the development of energy regulations with a focus on various lighting technologies.
Responsibilities were the following:
Conducting engineering and market analyses of existing technologies on the market;
Creating and analyzing a database of all major manufacturers and product SKUs to discover trends of performance, compliance with current and potential regulations, and comparing prices;
Worked to write, proofread, and edit official policy rulemaking documents in the forms of notices in the Federal Register, Technical Support Documents, test procedures, and final text for the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register.
Developed presentations and conducted public meetings with stakeholders to disseminate the proposed regulations, answer questions, and solicit feedback;
Assisted with the tearing down and reverse engineering of products to determine their component parts and prices; and
Oversaw the outside testing of products at a testing laboratory to compare advertised performance with advertised abilities.
Want to receive exclusive content? Sign up through the short form below.
