Categories
Energy News

Competitive Energy Markets Provide Greater Resource Adequacy and Meet Energy Demands

From roughly 1990 to 2020, electricity markets operated in what could be called the “flat load era” — marked by slow, stable demand growth and a centralized, fuel-based generation mix. But since 2020, the landscape has shifted dramatically.

Drivers of this shift include: a surge in data center development, the push toward electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry, and the rapid growth of intermittent renewable resources

During that same span of 30 years, some states began to change their electricity identity, converting from monopoly states, where vertically integrated utilities manage generation, transmission, and distribution, to competitive states where generation and supply are open to private investment and consumer choice.

With more than three decades of two different electric markets, it bears asking the question: which market structure is proving more capable of meeting this new wave of demand?

The data points to one clear answer: competitive electricity markets are outperforming monopoly states on resource adequacy, generation growth, and investment responsiveness.

Competition Meets Demand

As of 2023, competitive states now produce more electricity relative to their consumption than monopoly states — a complete reversal from 1997, when monopoly states generated around 8% more than competitive states.

Competitive states, such as Pennsylvania, are successfully serving as a net exporter of electricity, supporting load growth with generation growth. Additionally, competitive states are excelling at keeping price increases low or even better than before introducing competition. This shift underscores how competitive markets are better equipped to address today’s emerging demands facing electricity markets.

Competition Brings New Opportunities for Investment As Old Generation Retires

One major advantage of competitive markets is their ability to attract private capital when it’s needed — without relying solely on ratepayer-backed investments.

Utility companies in monopoly states that have been caught flat-footed through the flat load era, unable to see the change in energy demand ahead, are faced with an immense challenge of securing more power without financially harming their customers. This is also happening at a time when utilities were preparing to retire outdated baseload generation resources.

Take Indiana, for example. This is a state that is expecting 40% of its generation to be retired by 2035, while also expecting to see more than a 50% increase in demand. Using Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy report, it will cost –– conservatively –– $17 billion to build 22 new natural gas plants just to meet the projected 15,000 MW of new power generation needed by 2035.

Without private investment from competition, all $17 billion would be passed down to ratepayers through charges on their bills. This is after utility rates have already increased by 60% over 16 years –– and during that time, only less than 2,000 MW of new or updated power generation was built or completed.

But in states where competition is welcomed, private investments are made by energy companies to build new and efficient power plants, protecting all ratepayers from exorbitant and burdensome costs. Consumer classes can then ensure the security of more energy resources and shop for their supply at more affordable prices.

Competition Breeds Adequacy

Rapid growth in serving electrification and data centers, successful generation, and resource adequacy are paramount to market success.

As the U.S. grid transitions into a new era of complexity, the ability for consumers –– especially large energy users –– to procure their own electricity creates a diverse energy grid that is more reliable, more responsive, and more resilient. This approach for achieving a stronger grid protects ratepayers from the burdensome costs of utilities billing for the buildout of new power plants.

Sources: Information used in this blog includes data that was sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, utility integrated resource plans (IRP), FERC Form 1, and Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy report.

Categories
Energy News

How to protect consumers from the energy demands of data centers

Across the country, news stories are capturing the concerns of utility customers who fear that new data centers will strain electric resources and drive up prices in their communities.

This story is playing out in all states, particularly states with vertically integrated electric markets –– states where utilities monopolize and control electricity for consumers. But the tone and response of powering a data center in one state is different –– and so are the state’s regulations.

In 2024, Microsoft and Constellation Energy announced a 20 year power-purchase agreement (PPA). This is a direct agreement between the customer (Microsoft) and the power generator (Constellation Energy) to restart the Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 1 power plant as the Crane Clean Energy Center and produce more than 800 megawatts of carbon-free electricity to power Microsoft data centers.

The agreement has been celebrated by Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, state and local officials, building trades and community members excited to welcome back jobs and the subsequent economic development, including tax revenue.

Because of this PPA with a competitive energy producer and supplier, Pennsylvania residents are protected from the many risks that can come with serving a large energy user, including financial and energy reliability risks. This kind of agreement gives residents security.

Creating change with competition

Pennsylvania restructured its energy market in 1996, ending the monopoly utilities once held over electricity. Lawmakers opened the door to competition, giving Pennsylvanians the ability to choose their energy supplier and inviting private companies to invest, innovate, and sell power directly to consumers.

Nearly three decades later, many states still have customers held captive to utility monopolies, with no energy alternatives for households or large businesses. But in Pennsylvania, competition has delivered what it promised: real options for consumers and the benefits that come with them.

Choice has become a defining feature of daily life in the past 30 years. In the early 1990s, Jeff Bezos was selling books out of his garage. Today, more than 300 million people shop on Amazon each month, expecting endless options, competitive prices, and constant innovation.

Yet when it comes to electricity, only about 25% of customers nationwide have the same kind of freedom to choose.

Shielding residents from costly risks

Many Americans don’t have the ability to switch electricity providers if they’re unhappy with their utility’s prices or products. Instead, they’re captive to monopoly utilities that set the rates, control the supply, and pass along the financial risks of building new power plants. In some cases, those same rates are even paying for the lobbying efforts to prevent giving customers more choices.

Most utilities are investor-owned (IOUs), which means they’re for profit companies accountable to shareholders. Their profits come from ratepayers. If an IOU wants to build a new plant — whether to serve growing demand or to power massive users like data centers —it estimates the cost and passes the bill directly to customers. If new generation isn’t built, reliability suffers and utilities must buy power on the market at premium prices –– that cost also flows to ratepayers. Either way, customers bear the risk.

Competition changes that equation

In Pennsylvania, restructuring ensures that private companies, not consumers, shoulder the financial risk of new power projects. When Microsoft partnered with Constellation to source power from Pennsylvania’s nuclear fleet, Constellation took on the $1.6 billion cost to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1. Microsoft is paying for the costs of that electricity — not Pennsylvania ratepayers.

Competition signals for energy companies with private funds to enter a state to build new power generation –– costs that are not placed on the backs of ratepayers. With a restructured energy market, all customer classes can enroll with a supplier of their choice to buy their energy –– or remain with their utility. If they are a large enough energy user, they can secure their own PPA, similar to Microsoft contracting directly with Constellation to secure enough power for its data centers.

As other states weigh how to attract large employers without driving up rates or jeopardizing reliability, Pennsylvania offers a model. Competition made it possible for economic development and consumer protection to coexist—without asking residents to pay the price.

Categories
Energy News

New Analysis: Retail Electric Supply Rates Offered Massachusetts Customers Up to 14% in Savings on Electric Bills in October

Consumer Savings Still Available After Eversource and National Grid Hiked Rates

BOSTON –– The average lowest price for electricity offered by competitive electric suppliers in October matched the average lowest price in October 2024. Competitive electric suppliers have offered electric plans priced well below the average utility rate in 2025, including September when the average price reached its lowest point in the past 12 months. This positive news for consumers comes after significant rate increases were imposed by Massachusetts’ major electric utility companies. Bay Staters who have shopped for electricity with a competitive electric supplier continue to benefit from saving money on their electric bill.

According to a new October rate summary analysis by My Energy Choice, retail electric suppliers had 142 fixed-rate offers available this month that were less than the utility company rates for Massachusetts customers to enroll in. The lowest retail offers available for customers ranged up to 2.27¢ per kiloWatt hour (kWh) cheaper than the utility rate.

Eversource customers in the BECO, CAMB and COMM service territories could save up to 12% on the supply portion of their bill, while National Grid customers in the MECO territory could save up to 14%. Those saving percentages would equate to about $18 to $22 a month for a customer that uses 1,000 kWh per month.

Collectively, Massachusetts residents could save as much as $16,967,282 this month by enrolling with a retail supplier.

Customers who prioritize green energy can also find offers for less than utility rates. The statewide average price for green offers (exceeding the state’s minimum clean energy requirement) in October was still 3% less than the statewide average utility rate.

A total of 243 competitive electric supply offers were available as of October 15. Customers had 104 100% renewable energy offers to choose from.

This monthly rate summary analysis can be found here. Massachusetts residents can review offers from competitive energy suppliers using the state shopping website EnergySwitchMA.gov. View a guide to shopping here.

Data for this analysis is sourced from Massachusetts’ state-managed energy shopping website, EnergySwitchMA.gov.