Categories
Energy News

Lawmakers Working to Address Rising Electric Rates Re-Introduce Bills to Break up the Utility Monopoly

Customers held captive by utility companies are demanding alternative solutions as electric rates increase

JEFFERSON CITY (Jan. 20, 2026) –– Sen. Nick Schroer (St. Charles County), Rep. Tricia Byrnes (St. Charles County) and Rep. Don Mayhew (Miller and Pulaski Counties) re-introduced legislation aimed at ending Missouri’s monopoly utility model. The bills create electricity options for residents and businesses, providing consumers more power over their electric bills. The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL), a national advocacy organization dedicated to the expansion and modernization of American retail energy markets, applauds Schroer, Mayhew and Byrnes for their legislation.

“Missouri residents and businesses are in search of better options as they continue to be overwhelmed by their monthly electric bills,” 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 products and contract options available to commercial and residential customers. Sen. Schroer and Reps. Mayhew and Byrnes are taking action to address a problem facing all Missourians with a solution that can help move the state forward.”

The bills, Senate Bill 1411, House Bill 2233, and House Bill 2207 create a free-market alternative to a vertically integrated energy structure. Both bills require the electric utilities to compete with electricity generators and suppliers to build power plants and sell electricity. All electric users will benefit from having more options to power their homes and businesses.

Sen. Nick Schroer, SB 1411 sponsor

“As Americans, we have the freedom to shop for just about anything in this country, but in Missouri we don’t have the right to shop for our own electricity,” said bill sponsor Sen. Nick Schroer. “Missourians are trapped, held captive by a monopoly utility structure and the financial risks these investor-owned utilities place on the backs of their customers. This must change. Missourians deserve the right to hold utility companies accountable by having the ability to choose who supplies their electricity and what that energy product is, forcing all suppliers to compete for the business of consumers.”

Rep. Don Mayhew, HB 2233 sponsor

“My constituents keep adjusting their thermostats as utility companies continue to drive up electric bills,” said bill sponsor Rep. Don Mayhew. “Utilities can now bill for billion-dollar power plants before a shovel ever hits the ground — printing themselves sky-high guaranteed profits — while families are left wondering if they can even afford to keep the lights on. This legislation is long overdue and is needed to give Missourians real energy choices and hold utilities accountable in a consumer-first market.”

Rep. Tricia Byrnes, HB 2233 sponsor

“I continue to hear the outcry from my constituents about how expensive electricity is as they struggle with the fear of price gouging in a monopoly energy market,” said bill sponsor Rep. Tricia Byrnes. “My colleagues Sen. Schroer and Rep. Mayhew gained traction last year with legislation to break up the monopoly market and give consumers energy choices. By introducing House Bill 2233, I’m helping to carry that momentum forward to help give consumers a stronger voice –– and options –– to hold utility companies more accountable.”

Large energy users and industry organizations have previously testified in strong support of the legislation to help reduce the cost of electricity 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 Tony Reinhart, director of government relations for Ford Motor Company

“Our utility rates have become one of our largest cost challenges with no real ability to offset those increasing costs. … 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.”

BACKGROUND ON MISSOURI ENERGY MARKET
  • Missouri ranks 5th worst among all states in price percentage change from 2008-2023, with an increase of 61% during that time
  • Residential electric rates increased by 20% from 2020-2023, according to Consumers Council of Missouri
  • Missouri is a net importer of electricity
    • The state consumes 8x more energy than its utility companies produce
    • Missouri utility companies have only built or updated ~2,000 megawatts (MW) of power generation from 2008-2023
  • With the construction work in progress (CWIP) law, utilities can plan to build muli-million dollar power plants to increase generation and bill customers for those costs before construction even begins
  • The Missouri Public Service Commission unanimously approved new rates for large electric users like data centers even after concerns were raised about increases to residential electric bills
MISSOURIANS ARE SPEAKING OUT

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

“Unleash the free market that encourages companies to be innovative, compete for their customers’ business, provide return on investment, and offer respectful customer service. Had there been electric company competition, maybe Ameren wouldn’t have been so heavy.” -Mary Ann B., St. Peters

“Ameren has gone up nearly 40%. They want us to pay for future infrastructure, while banking OUR MONEY gaining THEM INTEREST!” -Lori W., Wentzville

“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

Categories
Energy News

New Legislation Targets Large Energy Users, Relieves Electric Grid Strain

Bill will protect ratepayers from new generation costs by decreasing energy demand pressure on Indiana utility companies

INDIANAPOLIS, IN (Jan. 14, 2026) – New legislation was introduced today to strengthen Indiana’s energy market by giving major employers new options to manage electricity costs — while protecting residential and small business ratepayers from growing energy demands. The bill, Senate Bill 272 introduced by Sen. Stacey Donato, allows commercial and industrial companies to purchase electricity supply from an energy market rather than being limited to a single utility option, helping employers better navigate rising and volatile energy costs.

“Indiana’s economic future depends on having reliable, affordable electricity,” said the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Stacey Donato. “This legislation gives our largest employers the flexibility to procure their own electricity and manage those costs. This is a balanced approach that protects consumers, attracts privately funded power generation, and helps ensure our state has the power it needs for the future.”

The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL), a national organization advocating for energy market expansion and consumer choices, applauds Sen. Donato for championing legislation that will provide commercial and industrial businesses with a choice in their power supply.

“The concept is simple: allow large energy users to have direct access to an energy marketplace to meet their electricity needs the same way utility companies do,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “Allowing large energy users to access competitive electricity supply is a practical solution that can reduce their cost pressures, encourage new power generation from independent power producers, and ease the strain on utility systems — benefiting all ratepayers in the long run. We applaud Sen. Donato for her comprehensive approach to help support Indiana’s energy needs.”

Electricity remains one of the top operating expenses for many manufacturers and industrial employers. When those costs rise unpredictably, it threatens jobs, wages, and future investment in Indiana communities.

Energy-intensive businesses are particularly sensitive to electricity prices. States such as Michigan and Kentucky already allow large energy users to purchase electricity supply from an energy market — providing significant cost savings and giving those states a competitive edge in attracting and retaining major employers.

HOW RATEPAYERS CAN BENEFIT

In Michigan, 10 percent of a utility’s customer load is permitted to procure their own electricity. That cap has been fully subscribed since 2008, with more than 5,000 commercial and industrial customers served by a third party supplier. As of 2023, there’s an additional 5,000 customers in the queue waiting to participate in the program. This program has reduced the amount of power generation the utility needed to build and maintain by 2,798 MW –– the equivalent of four natural gas plants that could have cost all ratepayers $3.2 billion for the utilities to build. 

In 2023, the commercial customers that purchased from a competitive supplier saved more than $150 million compared to the utility’s commercial rate in Michigan, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

WHAT SENATE BILL 272 DOES

Under current Indiana policy, most customers receive electricity supply exclusively from their designated utility, concentrating growing demand on utilities and driving costly new generation investments that are ultimately passed on to ratepayers –– customers.

Senate Bill 272 allows large energy users — including manufacturers, steel producers, and technology companies — to purchase electricity supply directly from a competitive provider while continuing to pay utilities for transmission and distribution. Residential and small business customers would continue to receive service as they do today. 

As energy demand grows and older power plants retire, utility obligation to build new generation is increasing, at significant cost. Allowing large energy users to procure their own electricity helps utilities meet that obligation with private capital, which protects ratepayers and  strengthens grid reliability.

Senate Bill 272 represents a commonsense step toward a more resilient energy future for Indiana — one that shifts the cost of meeting new energy demand from all ratepayers to the companies that want and need new energy.

Categories
Energy News

The Real Story Behind Electricity Price Comparisons

When it comes to measuring the success of energy markets, one metric often gets the most attention: price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. On the surface, this simple way of comparing prices might seem like the best way to compare state electricity market success. But in reality, focusing solely on this number paints an incomplete picture. 

True market success goes beyond just the price per kWh because the price per kWh represents a bundled cost of one unit of electricity consumed. That cost incorporates fees, taxes, and distribution charges that are unique to each state and utility. It also doesn’t weigh a state’s access to different generation assets, which can easily alter the price. 

Context is needed when comparing raw data from state to state. Without it, the price rankings often reported on in news stories leave consumers with apples-to-oranges comparisons.

Price Isn’t the Same as Price Performance

Price per kWh is a snapshot of cost at a specific time and day, rather than an overall consumer value. It doesn’t account for the factors that drive long-term performance, resilience, or innovation the way that price performance does.

Price performance looks at how well a market delivers value relative to cost over time, which is missing when only considering price per kWh. 

States also cannot be equally compared just on price because no two states are the same. Consumers’ electric bills are comprised of a variety of different charges, many of which are directed by the state legislature.

Massachusetts is a state that demonstrates the difficulty in comparing prices to other states. The average residential electricity rate for Bay-Staters is just north of 30¢/kWh, ranking Massachusetts as the state with the third-highest average rate. According to WhatsInMyElectricBill.com, nearly 30% of a Massachusetts electric bill is public policy charges: residential assistance programs, energy efficiency, and renewable energy requirements. About 40% of the bill is the average distribution and transmission charge across the two main utilities. That leaves only about 30% of the bill for the actual cost of the electricity purchased and used.

By comparison, Idaho ranks number one for the best rate at less than half of Massachusetts’. Consumers in Idaho are required to pay for energy efficiency charges and even the closure of a coal plant; but the actual cost of the electric source is tiered into pricing levels for Idahoans based on energy usage and the time of year they are using it. 

Each state legislature and investor-owned utility has its own policy beliefs and priorities, which create differences among state electric bills.

The often untold story on price is when states are compared based on price performance. When factoring in all consumer classes, Idaho actually ranks third worst among all states for its change in electricity price from 2008-2024. During that time, Idaho’s average electric price increased by more than 67%. Massachusetts ranked about 15 states better with a price change over the same time of less than 50%.

When comparing state prices based on performance over time, a factor that should be considered is whether the state operates under a monopoly market run by investor-owned utilities or if the state has restructured the electric market in any way to welcome competition.

Downward Price Pressure from Competition

Pennsylvania leaders voted to restructure the state’s energy market in 1996. Competition in power generation and electric supply has provided consumers with more affordable electricity options, including products at a lower price than electricity sold in 1996. But more importantly for all consumers in Pennsylvania, competition has applied downward price pressure on the utilities –– which still sell electricity –– keeping all prices more affordable. In fact, Pennsylvania consumers who were still receiving their electricity from their utility in 2024 were saving about 20% on their electric supply compared to what the rate would have been when an inflation adjustment is applied to the 1996 rate. This is a demonstration of downward price pressure because competition is present, preventing monopoly utilities from charging uncontested rates. 

The effect of competition and downward price pressure can be found in all consumer class electricity prices. When comparing all monopoly utility states to competitive states, non-residential (industrial and commercial) electric prices increased by nearly 40% between 2008-2024 in monopoly states. In contrast, electric prices for that same consumer class slightly decreased by .3%.

In looking at the price performance over time, not only did monopoly states prices increase significantly over time, but the average price for monopoly states also surpassed the average price for competitive states –– which decreased over time. 

When attempting to compare electricity prices, it helps to understand what makes up the price that’s being compared, and just as important, how prices have performed over time in the states that are being compared. In the end, price per kWh only scratches the surface of what defines market success. Price performance gives a better picture by measuring long-term consumer value.