BOSTON (July 1, 2026) — The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL) issued the following statement after the Massachusetts Senate voted to advance legislation allowing municipalities to eliminate residents’ ability to shop for their own electricity (Senate Bill 3143, Section 35). This statement can be attributed to Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League.
“Tonight’s vote is a profound disappointment for the hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts consumers who exercise their right to choose who supplies their electricity. Rather than standing with their constituents, members of the Senate voted today to cede control of the legislature to local government over a decision that belongs to consumers.
“After years of failed attempts to close the retail energy market –– and opposition from their constituents –– lawmakers changed tactics by writing a provision into Senate Bill 3143 that allows municipalities to take the choice away from the very residents they were elected to represent.
“This is a troubling precedent to empower local governments to –– without transparency or an opportunity for the community to weigh in or intervene –– block access to industries and services for the people in their communities. The freedom to choose an electricity supplier should not depend on where someone lives or the political preferences of local officials. The freedom to choose an electricity supplier is a consumer right—not something government should be free to take away.
“As extreme heat drives electricity demand higher and utilities prepare to raise rates again, Massachusetts families and businesses are sweating over their costly electric bills. Instead of expanding access to affordable energy options, lawmakers have chosen a new path to eliminate consumer choice. Attempts in other states to follow a similar path of eliminating choices has backfired. Massachusetts should learn from those experiences — not repeat them.
“Senators had an opportunity to stand with the families and businesses they represent by protecting consumer choice. Sens. Tarr, Cronin, Dooner, Durant, Fattman and O’Connor took that stand offering amendments (#34 and #67) to strike language from the bill in order to protect consumer choice. In the end, the larger body voted to make it easier for that choice to disappear.
“REAL remains committed to fighting for the rights of Massachusetts consumers to control their own energy decisions.”
History has shown that restricting or eliminating competitive electricity markets harms consumers. Connecticut restricted retail choice for certain customers and reversed course in 2024 after consumer backlash. Maryland made its retail energy market inoperable, forcing suppliers to leave, eliminating any alternative option for consumers as utilities increased rates without a presence of competition. After litigation over Maryland’s policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sided with retail energy suppliers, leaving policymakers and regulators to walk back policies.
Similar to the legislation in Maryland that has been struck down in the courts, this thinly veiled attempt to close the market in Massachusetts has been framed as a consumer protection bill. For years, retail electric suppliers in Massachusetts have advocated for commonsense and thoughtful reforms to consumer protections in Massachusetts’ retail electric market through bills that have most recently been introduced by Rep. Chan and Sen. O’Connor. Those bills did not advance.
###
