JEFFERSON CITY (March 31, 2026) –– As electric rates continue to rise for Missourians, momentum continues to build in Jefferson City for a solution that will give consumers the power to hold electric utility companies accountable. At a press conference Tuesday, competitive energy market advocates and the sponsors of three legislative bills to break up the utility monopoly model addressed the growing support to establish an energy market that gives consumers the ability to shop for their electric supply –– forcing utilities and other suppliers to compete for the business of consumers. 

Three Missouri lawmakers have introduced legislation to restructure the state’s utility energy structure, establishing a competitive market for consumers to benefit from. Those bills are: 

● Senate Bill 1411 – Sponsored by Sen. Nick Schrorer (St. Charles County) 

● House Bill 2207 – Sponsored by Rep. Don Mayhew (Miller and Pulaski Counties) 

● House Bill 2233 – Sponsored by Rep. Tricia Byrnes (St. Charles County) 

“Utilities are the only service in Missouri where we have legalized monopolies,” said Sen. Nick Schroer, sponsor of Senate Bill 1411. “Missourians deserve the right to hold utility companies accountable and the freedom to choose which company they want to buy electricity from. As state leaders, we must put the power in the hands of the people by giving them options and forcing utilities to compete for the business of consumers.” 

“This is a peace of mind solution that puts consumers first,” said Angela Viviano of O’Fallon. Viviano lives in Sen. Schroer’s district and is grateful for his leadership, as well as the House bill sponsors, in addressing energy affordability in Missouri. “Missouri families like mine make so many sacrifices, and I’m advocating for them and other families to have the chance to seek better rates and hold utilities accountable.” 

Organizations participating in the press conference included: My Energy Choice, Americans for Prosperity-Missouri, MO Tax Relief Now, and Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers. Leaders of these advocacy groups served as a voice for Missourians who want free-markets, lower costs, and economic growth. They shared consumer cost concerns under the current utility structure, and applauded lawmakers for standing up for their constituents by advocating for a competitive energy market. 

“Missourians are seeing their electric bills rise year after year, with no ability to shop for better options. Meanwhile, utilities are asking for more projects and more spending — all backed by guaranteed returns paid by ratepayers,” said Camellia Peterson, legislative director for Americans for Prosperity-Missouri. “This legislation is a step toward energy freedom, giving families and businesses real choices and helping bring long-overdue cost discipline to the system.” 

“Two dozen states in the country offer some form of competition, and more are considering restructuring their energy market because of the unstable energy market monopolized by electric utilities,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “All consumers, large and small, deserve the right to have energy options and be able to choose an energy product and price that works best for them and their budgets.” 

Following Tuesday’s press conference, consumer groups, large energy users, policy institutes, energy companies and others testified in favor of Senate Bill 1411 during a hearing before the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy & the Environment Committee as the bill continues to move through the legislative process. 

“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,” said Rep. Don Mayhew, sponsor of House Bill 2207. “That’s not a free market. That’s a government-protected monopoly, and it’s costing families and businesses more every month.” 

“My constituents are fed up with high electricity costs and no choices,” said Rep. Tricia Byrnes, sponsor of House Bill 2233. “Families are opening their electric bills and wondering how they’re going to afford them. Small businesses are trying to stay afloat while their costs keep climbing. And right now, they have no other option.” 

House Bills 2207 and 2233 have been referred to the House General Laws Committee. A hearing for the House bills is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon where advocates are slated to testify in favor of the bills. 

###

The post Energy Reform Gains Ground as Missouri Lawmakers Target Utility Monopoly, Advocate for Consumer Options  first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) is taking a commendable approach to conduct their own investigation in search of solutions for more affordable energy. It’s an objective set by legislators and regulators across the country. The best way to achieve that objective is by reducing infrastructure costs that are paid by ratepayers.

In Indiana’s current energy structure, ratepayers bear the risks and costs ––plus guaranteed profits for shareholders –– when utilities build new infrastructure projects, such as power plants. Indiana is in need of new power generation to be built, as electricity demand increases and outdated power plants are retired, forcing all ratepayers to pay more in their electric bills to cover those costs.

For example, one 700 megawatt natural gas plant will cost at least $800 million dollars. Indiana utilities project they will need new generation that is the equivalent of nearly two dozen natural gas plants to meet projected demand by 2035.

Indiana power bills were already increasing during the ‘flat load era,’ with minimal new power generation built. From 2008 to 2024, the price performance of Indiana’s electricity has increased 60%, ranking the state seventh worst in the country for price percentage change during that time. The cost of electricity increased 46% alone for industrial consumers during those same years, whereas similar industrial consumers in neighboring Illinois, Ohio and Michigan only saw rates increase by 15-25%. The difference in energy policies is benefiting consumers in neighboring states.

As the IURC diligently investigates energy affordability, we encourage the Commission to consider ways that relieve demand on utilities –– creating a reduction in infrastructure projects paid for by ratepayers –– and explore how to attract private investment that can support Indiana’s rapidly growing energy demand.

The Retail Energy Advancement League recommends that Indiana update policies and regulations to allow large energy users to procure their own electricity –– a buy your own power model –– to alleviate strain on utilities, limiting the need for new and costly ratepayer funded power generation.

###

The post Energy Advocates Commend IURC for Investigating Electricity Affordability Concerns first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

CHARLESTON, WV (Feb. 11, 2026) –– Del. Tristan Leavitt has introduced House Bill 5411, the Energy Freedom & Fairness Act, in the House chamber. This legislation allows commercial and industrial companies to purchase electricity supply directly from competitive electric suppliers rather than being limited to a single utility option, helping them better manage rising energy costs.

House Bill 5411 is a companion bill to Senate Bill 733, recently introduced by Sen. Patricia Rucker.

“Affordable electricity isn’t a luxury — it’s a necessity for West Virginia families and the employers who provide their jobs,” said bill sponsor, Del. Tristan Leavitt. “When energy costs keep climbing, businesses are forced to make tough decisions, and those costs eventually show up in paychecks, prices, and lost opportunities. This bill gives large employers a responsible way to control their energy costs. It’s a practical solution that promotes fairness, strengthens our economy, and helps keep West Virginia competitive.”

The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL), a national organization advocating for energy market expansion and consumer choices, applauds Sen. Leavitt 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 electric 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. Leavitt for his comprehensive approach to help support West Virginia’s energy needs.”

Both bills are supported by the West Virginia Energy Users Group (WVEUG) and the West Virginia Manufacturers Association (WVMA).

Electricity is a top three operational cost for commercial and industrial businesses. Neighboring states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, already allow large energy users to procure their own electricity and secure significant savings –– West Virginia risks falling further behind.

According to a study by Cleveland State University, commercial and industrial energy customers in Ohio collectively save an average of $1.17 billion annually by having access to a competitive electricity marketplace.

“West Virginia manufacturers depend on affordable, reliable electricity to compete, grow, and keep people working,” said Bill Bissett, president of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association. “Energy costs are one of the biggest factors in whether manufacturers can grow and remain competitive. This legislation gives employers greater control over costs and reliability. It’s a smart, pro-jobs solution that builds on last year’s microgrid law and expands energy control to more in-state manufacturers. With this bill, lawmakers can strengthen our economy, protect jobs, and ensure West Virginia businesses remain competitive.”

Under current West Virginia law, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are required to receive electricity supply from their designated utility. This structure places the full burden of growing energy demand on utilities, requiring them to build or purchase additional power — costs that are ultimately passed on to all ratepayers. House Bill 5411 and Senate Bill 733 allow large energy users –– manufacturers, steel plants, tech companies –– to shop for their electricity from a supplier or power generator other than their utility company.

By allowing large energy users to procure their own electricity, this legislation positions West Virginia to attract new investment, strengthen grid reliability, and address rising energy costs without shifting financial burden onto households and small businesses. House Bill 5411 and Senate Bill 733 represent a commonsense step toward a more resilient, competitive energy future for the state.

About Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL)

The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL) is a national advocacy organization dedicated to the expansion and modernization of American retail energy markets. In many states, utility monopolies still control the electric market and customers can’t choose where they buy their electricity and gas. Nearly half of all states in the U.S. offer some form of electricity competition to energy users.

The post Second Bill Introduced Targeting Rising Electricity Costs for Major Employers in West Virginia first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

CHARLESTON, WV (Feb. 3, 2026) –– New legislation was introduced to strengthen West Virginia’s energy market by giving major employers new options to manage electricity costs, while protecting residential and small business ratepayers. The bill, Senate Bill 733 introduced by Sen. Patricia Rucker, is common-sense legislation that allows commercial and industrial companies to purchase electricity supply directly from competitive electric suppliers rather than being limited to a single utility option, helping them better manage rising energy costs.

“West Virginia’s economic future depends on having reliable, affordable electricity,” said Sen. Patricia Rucker, sponsor of Senate Bill 733.“When rising energy costs make it harder for major employers to do business, it puts jobs, wages, and future investment at risk for West Virginians. This legislation gives employers more flexibility to manage their energy costs, while protecting families and small businesses from the risks of energy intensive businesses. This is a practical, market-driven approach that encourages investment, supports job creation, 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. Rucker 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 electric 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. Rucker for her comprehensive approach to help support West Virginia’s energy needs.”

Electricity is a top three operational cost for commercial and industrial businesses. Neighboring states, such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia, already allow large energy users to procure their own electricity and secure significant savings –– West Virginia risks falling further behind.

According to a study by Cleveland State University, commercial and industrial energy customers in Ohio collectively save an average of $1.17 billion annually by having access to a competitive electricity marketplace.

“West Virginia manufacturers depend on affordable, reliable electricity to compete, grow, and keep people working,” said Bill Bissett, president of the West Virginia Manufacturers Association. “Energy costs are one of the biggest factors in whether manufacturers can grow and remain competitive. This legislation gives employers greater control over costs and reliability. It’s a smart, pro-jobs solution that builds on last year’s microgrid law and expands energy control to more in-state manufacturers. With this bill, lawmakers can strengthen our economy, protect jobs, and ensure West Virginia businesses remain competitive.”

Under current West Virginia law, residential, commercial, and industrial customers are required to receive electricity supply from their designated utility. This structure places the full burden of growing energy demand on utilities, requiring them to build or purchase additional power — costs that are ultimately passed on to all ratepayers. Senate Bill 733 allows large energy users –– manufacturers, steel plants, tech companies –– to shop for their electricity from a supplier or power generator other than their utility company.

West Virginia continues to rank second worst –– out of all states ––in electricity price percentage change since 2008.

By allowing large energy users to procure their own electricity, this legislation positions West Virginia to attract new investment, strengthen grid reliability, and address rising energy costs without shifting financial burden onto households and small businesses. Senate Bill 733 represents a commonsense step toward a more resilient, competitive energy future for the state.

The post New Legislation Targets Rising Electricity Costs for Major Employers first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

Just as homeowners deal with electric bills that can deliver real sticker shock, school districts face the same challenge.

A 2002 fact sheet from the U.S. Dept. of Energy found that K-12 schools nationwide were spending more than $6 billion annually on energy. In many school districts, the fact sheet states, energy costs were second only to salaries in district expenses.

Efforts to reduce energy costs for schools often focus on additional investments, such as facility upgrades or efficiency improvements. But what if there was another option to reduce costs –– an option on who supplies electricity to schools to secure a better price?

In the business community, companies often create aggregation programs to secure bulk purchasing power, better pricing, and more tailored energy products. This approach helps businesses better meet goals, specifically on cost with better price certainty.

Business Aggregation for Massachusetts Retailers

One example of this is the Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM) Fixed Rate Electricity Supply Program. RAM partners with a broker and an electric supplier to secure fixed-rate electric supply pricing for program participants, such as independent stores and restaurants. 

The program is designed to protect businesses against unexpected price fluctuations commonly experienced in the electricity market, enabling members to confidently budget their annual electricity costs and achieve savings compared to utility rates.

New Jersey school districts applied the same model in hopes of achieving the same results.

More Than 25 Years of Savings for New Jersey School Districts

In 1999, three major New Jersey education organizations joined together for ACES: the Alliance for Competitive Energy Services.

The New Jersey School Boards Association, New Jersey Association of School Business Organization, and NJ Association of School Administrators joined forces to capitalize on New Jersey’s energy market structure and offer a statewide program for all school districts to benefit from aggregate power purchases. 

After experiencing great success procuring electricity at cheaper prices, the Alliance began an aggregate program for natural gas procurement. 

Within a decade, the Alliance said ACES saved New Jersey school districts more than $250 million on energy bills.

Retail Aggregation Brings Results

The key benefit of business aggregation is that it provides entities with the economic benefits of bulk purchasing, such as reduced energy pricing and access to options otherwise only available to massive energy users.

Without a competitive market structure, schools and other public entities cannot leverage collective buying power — limiting cost savings and access to innovative energy solutions.

The post Energy Aggregation Isn’t Just for Businesses — Schools Benefit Too first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

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

The post Lawmakers Working to Address Rising Electric Rates Re-Introduce Bills to Break up the Utility Monopoly first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

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.

The post New Legislation Targets Large Energy Users, Relieves Electric Grid Strain first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

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.

The post The Real Story Behind Electricity Price Comparisons first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

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.

The post Competitive Energy Markets Provide Greater Resource Adequacy and Meet Energy Demands first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

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.

The post How to protect consumers from the energy demands of data centers first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.