Manufacturers, businesses, nonprofits and residential energy customers advocate for a competitive energy market to enhance energy reliability and reduce costs

JEFFERSON CITY –– Missouri legislation to break up the electric utility monopoly continues to advance, presenting a free-market alternative to Senate Bill 4 –– legislation that allows utility companies to charge customers to build future power generation projects in the state.

Senate Bill 487, sponsored by Sen. Nick Schroer was heard by the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy & the Environment Committee on April 1. Companion legislation, House Bill 417, sponsored by Rep. Don Mayhew, was heard and voted favorably out of the House General Laws committee in March and is awaiting referral to a House Rules Committee.

Both bills would require the electric utilities to compete with electricity generators and suppliers to build power plants and sell electricity to continue serving Missouri customers. The bills have received strong support from the business community, residents and companies that wish to invest in Missouri. 

Large energy users and industry organizations have testified in strong support of the legislation to help reduce electricity costs and ensure energy reliability. A representative of the auto manufacturer Ford Motor Company, which employs more than 9,000 workers at its Claycomo, Missouri plant, pointed to the successes of Ford plants in other states that have introduced competitive energy options.

Testimony from Ford and General Motors included: 

“Our utility rates have become one of our largest cost challenges with no real ability to offset those increasing costs. Should various energy legislation proposals become law this year we anticipate continued increases annually for the foreseeable future,” Tony Reinhart, director of government relations for Ford, shared in written testimony to the committee. “Missouri doesn’t normally look to Illinois for good public policy. But Illinois got it right where they have unbundled generation, transmission and distribution services in a fair and equitable manner, providing us the ability to purchase power on the open market and better manage our costs. … We are in support of HB 417.”

“As electricity costs continue to rise, GM supports legislation that ensures reliable and affordable electricity for our operations. HB 417 will assist industrial customers in managing their anticipated rising energy costs,” Rob Threlkeld, global energy strategy director for General Motors, shared in his written testimony.

“Missouri businesses and residents are excited about the progress of legislation allowing competition and the potential for price relief in the face of rising energy costs,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “Competition has proven successful in other states with better price performance, reliability and the variety of options available to commercial and residential customers.”

The Consumers Council of Missouri reports the average residential electric rates increased by 20 percent from 2020-2023. Missouri ranked fourth among states in the U.S. in 2023 for the biggest jump in electric rate increases.

Residential electric customers have shared their concerns with rising energy and no alternative options. Missouri energy users are currently served by an investor-owned utility (Ameren, Evergy West/Metro, Empire), distribution cooperatives or municipal-owned systems. House Bill 417 and Senate Bill 487 only apply to the three utilities and their customers.

Adding to customer concerns is legislation –– Senate Bill 4 –– that awaits Governor Kehoe’s signature. This bill allows utility companies to start charging customers to build power plants before construction on the plant even begins. The need for new power generation stems from the lack of generation built in the last two decades and retirements within the next 10 years, causing a loss of half of the existing power that is generated. Ameren projects costs to build new power plants to be $13 billion over the next ten years. 

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Missouri is a net importer of electricity, consuming eight times more energy than its utility companies produce. State utilities have not kept pace to build enough power generation to meet customer demand and are buying power from other states, power generators and the wholesale energy market. 

Missouri residents statewide are voicing opposition to the utility monopoly model and the need for choices.

“I hate the fact that I do not have a choice in who my utility company is. The only one available in my county is Ameren, and my average bill is $400 a month, with up to $900 during the summer months. This is a marked increase over even last year. How is anyone supposed to afford this?” -Rebecca S., Moberly

“Energy costs are much too high. Every time Evergy requests an increase in electric rates they always get what they ask for.” -Kristine S., Belton

“Evergy is monopolizing the entire two-state area. They overcharge and tack on all kinds of different fees. People deserve to have a choice on who their energy provider is.” -Melanie J., Kansas City

“It’s awful and killing our town. We have lost so many businesses this year because they can’t afford to operate under Liberty Utilities.” -Jacquelynn R., Bolivar

Both bills are continuing to move through the legislative process to either be heard again or voted on in assigned committees.

###

Annapolis, MD –– Energy customers, suppliers and business leaders held a press conference at the State House today asking lawmakers to restore competition to Maryland’s energy market. Customers who once had the ability to shop for lower rates with energy suppliers shared frustrations about legislation that has trapped consumers by forcing them to enroll with their local utility company and accept their utility’s rates and products.

At issue is legislation passed last year –– Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) –– that aimed to increase consumer protections but has instead eliminated customer choice in Maryland. Competitive energy offers went from nearly 300 in January 2024 to zero at the start of 2025 –– at a time when customers were complaining about skyrocketing utility rates. Customers who want to shop for better rates can’t. And the thousands of customers across the state who are currently benefiting from lower cost and cleaner energy options through the competitive energy marketplace are unable to renew their plans.

The variety in voices at Tuesday’s press conference tells a story of frustration throughout Maryland communities. 

Energy Shoppers

“For years, I chose to power my home with clean energy and chose my supplier based on their renewable energy plan,” said Tobias Hurwitz, a Towson resident. “Now I’m being forced onto a utility plan that doesn’t fit my needs –– and it costs more than what my former supplier was charging.”

“Energy choice has allowed me to be able to sign two year contracts with Constellation Energy to lock in lower energy rates than BGE,” shared Craig Williams of Parkville. “Removing energy choice will allow companies like BGE to monopolize the energy market in Maryland and cause price hikes in energy rates. The state of Maryland should be doing what is best for its taxpayers. Not big corporations like BGE.”

“I really value the ability to choose my energy supplier because it lets me lock in longer-term rate plans,” said Richard Eschenbach of Kingsville, MD. “This way, I know exactly what I’ll be paying for electricity down the road, which is a huge relief. I recently renewed my electric supply contract, but if the legislature doesn’t act, I’ll have to go back to the default utility provider. It’s so important to keep this choice available for all of us.” 

Energy Choice Advocate

“Marylanders no longer have energy choices –– they are being held captive by their utility companies and forced to accept energy products and wallet-busting rates they don’t want and can’t afford,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “When Senate Bill 1 was introduced, it was promised to constituents as a consumer protection bill. The only thing it’s protecting is utility companies who no longer have to compete for the business of customers –– Maryland residents now trapped in a monopoly stranglehold. As the General Assembly seeks ways to address energy affordability, it must correct Senate Bill 1 and jumpstart the competitive energy market to support constituents struggling with utility bills.”

Competitive Energy Supplier

“With energy prices at their highest level in years, Maryland families should have more options to manage costs – not fewer,” said David Dardis, executive vice president and chief legal and policy officer for Constellation, which is headquartered in Baltimore and is one of the state’s competitive energy suppliers. “But last year’s legislation has left households with no choice but to pay high utility rates, eliminating the ability to lock in price stability, choose cleaner energy or find a plan that meets their needs. Tens of thousands of Constellation customers are saving today with a fixed-price energy plan. Without action from the legislature, nearly 90 percent of them will be returned to higher utility rates by year end.”

Business Leaders

“SB 1 has had a devastating impact on small businesses like mine,” said Frank Orcel, a partner with Protocall Communications, a sales and marketing firm based in Hanover, Md., that supports Constellation’s competitive energy supply business. “So far this year, we have turned down thousands of calls from Maryland customers who want to shop for their energy from Constellation. Serving those customers supports more than 100 jobs at Protocall. Those jobs are now at risk because of this bill. We urge lawmakers to consider the severe consequences of this legislation and to take action to restore energy choice for Maryland families and businesses.”

“Ridge Printing employs dozens of Marylanders, whose livelihoods are now at risk due to SB 1,” said M. Paul Gyr III, owner of Ridge Printing Corp. “Ridge Printing has been supporting Constellation for more than 15 years with marketing and other services, so the inability to continue serving Marylanders who shop for energy puts a significant stress on our business.”

In January 2024, nearly 303,000 energy users were enrolled with an electric supplier. By December, 275,300 electric customers were enrolled. Customers continue to be returned to their utility company for supply service as a result of SB 1. From December to February 2025, 70,500 electric customers were returned to their utility –– 26 percent of customers enrolled with electric suppliers. Tens of thousands of customers enrolled with gas suppliers are also being returned to their local utility.  Nearly all customers enrolled with a supplier for gas or electric will be returned to their utility by the end of the year.

Retail energy advocates are urging the state legislature to work with stakeholders in correcting SB 1 before the end of session to help their constituents begin shopping for more affordable energy options again.

Photos of the event can be downloaded here.

As Massachusetts state leaders continue to hear an outcry from constituents over unaffordable energy bills, energy choice shoppers and advocates in March provided lawmakers with stories of personal experiences and an education on how energy customers can reduce their energy bills by shopping for electricity with a competitive supplier.

The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL) and its membership –– the nation’s leading energy suppliers –– partnered with My Energy Choice shopping advocates and the What’s In My Electric Bill platform for two days of advocacy and education at the Massachusetts State House.

Advocating to Preserve Energy Choices

Energy shoppers from various communities throughout Massachusetts gathered at the State House to share the benefits they receive from shopping for their electric supplier. In meetings with lawmakers, these energy customers provided examples of positive shopping experiences that rewarded them with significant cost savings. 

With shopping totes in hand, full of educational materials for lawmakers to share with constituents, the shoppers also delivered a petition and quotes on behalf of more than 5,000 residents statewide asking legislators to protect their energy choices and oppose proposed legislation (Senate Bill 2255, Sen. Brendan Crighton and House Bill 3534, Rep. Frank Moran) that would take away the ability for residential customers to shop for the one item on their electric bill they have the option to change.

The reasons why these customers shopped differed, but they all agreed that shopping provided them with what they want from an electric supplier and are against any legislation that would take their energy choices away.

“It doesn’t make any sense to me,” Mike Lucarelli of Upton said, perplexed as to why state leaders would want to take something away from him that helps save him money. Mike has been shopping for electricity for more than two decades, something he started doing just to reduce his electric bills. “Two years ago, I probably saved $150 a month on my National Grid bill just because I shopped.”

While Mike shops to put money back in his pocket, other energy choice advocates shared with lawmakers that they shop for a 100% renewable energy product that they can’t get with their utility company.

“I wanted cleaner energy and found it by shopping on the state’s energy shopping website,” said Larry Cole of Weymouth, an electricity shopper for nearly four years. “Even with a 100 percent renewable energy product, the rate I locked in with my supplier is still less than the current rate of the basic product my utility company is offering.”

Competition creates choices that benefit customers. That was the message energy shoppers shared with lawmakers during their daylong visit to the State House. If the market closes and eliminates competition, energy shoppers lose their choices and will be forced to return to their local utility, with no option but to accept the product and price the utility wants to sell them. 
There was legislation that advocates were asking lawmakers to support. House Bill 3459 and Senate Bill 2311, sponsored by Rep. Tackey Chan and Sen. Patrick O’Conner, will modernize the competitive energy supply market and increase consumer protections for shoppers. This reform legislation has been a REAL priority for multiple legislative sessions in an attempt to enhance the customer shopping experience and add new safeguards to protect inexperienced shoppers.

Providing Education on Energy Bills

To understand the problems constituents are facing with their energy bills, lawmakers must understand what makes up an electric bill and how a customer is receiving their energy.

During an energy forum hosted by REAL, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy Abby Foster was joined by What’s In My Electric Bill developer Robert Rio who walked legislators and their staff through the makeup of a Massachusetts electric bill and the structure of energy supply in communities across the Commonwealth. 

Rio pointed out that over the last 10 years the average utility bill for a 750 kilowatt hour per month customer steadily increased well above the inflation rate. The monthly bill for a residential customer using 750 kWh a month jumped nearly $160 a month in that 10 year span. He also noted that policy charges during that same time for the same monthly energy use increased by 25 percent.

Foster educated lawmakers on the various types of plans, incentives and suppliers including, utility companies, competitive energy suppliers, and municipalities that establish an aggregation program where they can lock in an agreement with a competitive energy supplier to serve a large group in that community. 

As energy customers are trying to find ways to save, Foster walked forum attendees through how to compare the electricity rate offered by a utility company to the rates of competitive energy suppliers on the Massachusetts electricity shopping website. Foster shared resources that are available to help better educate constituents who are struggling to address their energy situation and even offered ideas on how Massachusetts can better educate and inform energy users on the options available to them.

As Governor Healey rolls out her affordable energy initiative, including a $50 credit to customers, lawmakers were reminded that with the ability to shop for energy in Massachusetts, customers could be saving $50 a month if they shop for lower rates.
A recent analysis of electric rate state averages revealed energy customers who shop and use 1,000 kilowatt hours a month could have saved $300 –– or $50 a month –– from August through January when compared to the average rate of all seven utility companies during that time if they enrolled with the lowest fixed rate offer in their area.