The court reversed the lower court’s decision in part and ordered a preliminary injunction against key provisions of Senate Bill 1 that prohibited retail energy suppliers from truthfully marketing their renewable energy products as “green,” “clean,” “100% renewable,” or other similar claims.

“This is a significant win for free speech, consumer choice, and competitive energy markets,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. 

“From the outset, Senate Bill 1 was a far-reaching attempt to limit consumer access to competitive energy choice. Maryland residents were promised consumer protection, but instead got a law that stripped away their choices, forced customers off competitive products, drove suppliers out of the market, and blocked affordable electricity options — only for provisions of that same law to now be ruled unconstitutional.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals vindicates the First Amendment right of suppliers to accurately sell electricity products to consumers.

“Consumers benefit from energy suppliers providing truthful information —not arbitrary restrictions on how products can be explained, unless they are from government preferred sources. Competitive suppliers play an important role in expanding access to innovative, affordable and renewable energy options, and they must be able to communicate those offerings appropriately.

“We look forward to continuing the fight of ensuring state policies support — not undermine — consumer access to diverse energy options.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals Fourth District ruled that Maryland failed to demonstrate that the terms used to describe energy products are inherently misleading, and deemed that the district court erred in denying the preliminary injunction requested by REAL and Green Mountain Energy Company. 

REAL was represented by Wiley Rein LLP during this litigation process. Read Wiley’s press release of this ruling here. 

The post Retail Energy Choice Advocates Win Free Speech, Renewable Energy Battle over Maryland Legislation Harming Consumer Options 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.

Retail energy suppliers know that navigating today’s legal and regulatory environment can be complex, and having the right legal partner makes all the difference. McDowell Hetherington (MH), a REAL business partner, has built a reputation as a go-to litigation firm for the energy sector, representing clients in high-stakes cases nationwide. 

REAL spent time with Matt Matthews, a partner at Houston-based McDowell Hetherington, asking questions to learn more about the firm and gather insights on evolving issues and the latest legal trends that suppliers should be aware of to protect their operations.

Q: Who are McDowell Hetherington?

A: McDowell Hetherington is an elite litigation firm that represents clients in complex commercial disputes across the country. MH has sixty lawyers (licensed in twenty-two states) based in offices in Texas, California, and Florida. We are hard-working, creative, client-focused, and results-oriented. Since the firm’s founding in 2009, we have been lead counsel in the trial courts of every state and have successfully argued appeals before the United States Courts of Appeals for eleven federal circuits and numerous states’ appellate courts.

Q: How does MH support clients in the energy sector, particularly in retail energy?

A: For more than fifteen years, MH has represented retail suppliers—including many REAL members—in hundreds of matters in more than thirty-five states. This experience includes commercial disputes (plaintiff-side and defense-side), a variety of contract and tort cases, and dozens of class actions (including variable-pricing, sales, contract-disclosure, and TCPA cases).

No law firm has had more experience or more success defending retail suppliers in class actions about variable-rate pricing and disclosures. Since 2014, we have represented retailers in more than fifteen such cases. Our wins at the dismissal and summary judgment stages—and our success in the Second and Seventh Circuits affirming those decisions—have helped shaped this area of the law in a way that has given the industry a roadmap to potential victory.

Q: What sets MH apart from other litigation firms?

A: The depth of our experience in retail energy litigation and our understanding of the industry set us apart. In fact, when it comes to retail energy litigation, our experience is unmatched. For years, we’ve communicated with our retail energy clients about their cases on a daily basis. We have also seconded attorneys to our retail energy clients on five occasions. As a result of all this experience, we know our retail energy clients’ businesses, the litigation challenges they face, and the best ways to tackle those challenges. The strength of our connections and depth of our institutional knowledge enable us to handle our retail energy clients’ cases efficiently and effectively.

Q: Are there legal trends within the energy sector that you are noticing?

A: After a few quieter years, variable-rate pricing and disclosure class action filings are back on the rise. There are a few consumer class action firms with significant experience in these cases that are adjusting older arguments and/or pursuing new ones. As an example of a new argument, we’ve seen variable-rate cases that now also include claims alleging that representations about the renewable qualities of electricity were misleading (i.e., allegations that marketing electricity matched with RECs as “renewable” or “green” is inaccurate). Those same firms are also broadening their claims to include nationwide customers, regardless of the product they purchased—whether power or gas, residential or commercial, green or standard.

Q: What is a recent notable case MH litigated that is important for retail suppliers to be aware of?

A: In 2022, MH won the first two summary judgments ever granted under a New York statute about variable-rate disclosures in consumer electricity and natural gas contracts. We then argued the appeals, both of which were summarily affirmed by the Second Circuit in 2023, ending two putative class actions after six years of litigation. While these cases were decided under New York law, their conclusions about what constitutes a “clear and conspicuous” disclosure have broader application for retail suppliers.

MH also recently acted as lead counsel for the retail electric provider defendants’ group in the Texas Winter Storm Uri MDL. We drafted and successfully argued the retailers’ bellwether motion to dismiss, one of only two industry-group dismissal motions that was fully granted (and was not appealed).

Q: How does MH stay ahead of regulatory and industry changes?

A: As mentioned, we’re in daily communication with our leading retail energy clients, who are the most knowledgeable and reliable source of information about regulatory and industry changes. But we of course also monitor industry news sources to identify legal and regulatory developments that could impact our clients. In addition, when it comes to litigation, for the last decade, we have closely tracked all variable-rate class actions across the country to identify trends, key court decisions, and settlement structures in those cases—a practice that helps us use winning arguments, avoid losing ones, and proactively manage our clients’ risks.

Q: What should a prospective client expect when working with MH?

A: Any prospective client can expect high-quality legal analysis, writing, and oral advocacy from MH. They can also expect responsiveness, dedication, and an intense focus on client service. A prospective retail energy client can also expect that we’ll know your industry—you won’t have to teach us. We know how deregulated energy markets are structured, how electricity and natural gas are traded, how energy supply portfolios are hedged, and how consumer and large commercial and industrial contracts work. We’ll hit the ground running and won’t need any handholding.

Looking to learn more about McDowell Hetherington? Connect with Matt Matthews and Diane Wizig.

The post Q&A With McDowell Hetherington: An Experienced Retail Energy Law Firm first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

According to a new August rate summary analysis by My Energy Choice, retail electric suppliers have 132 fixed-rate offers available this month that are less than utility company rates for Massachusetts customers to enroll in. The lowest retail offers available in the state’s seven utility service territories range from .2¢ – 3.39¢ per kiloWatt hour (kWh) cheaper than the utility rate in each service territory. The statewide average savings customers could receive is ~16%.

Eversource customers in the BECO, CAMB and COMM service territories can save up to 23% on the supply portion of their bill, while National Grid customers in the WMECO territory can save up to 22%. Those saving percentages would equate to about $40 a month for a customer that uses 1,000 kWh per month.

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 August was still 2¢ less than the statewide average utility rate.

A total of 241 competitive electric supply offers were available on August 13. Customers had 110 100% 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.

The post After August 1 Massachusetts Utility Rate Increases, Retail Supply Rates Could Save Consumers Up to 23% on Electric Bills first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

To take a closer look at how state governments and regulators are supporting their residents –– or not –– with competitive energy options and resources, public policy think tank R Street Institute went state-by-state to assess electricity competition benchmarks. R Street has developed a first of its kind grading report titled “State-by-State Scorecard on Electricity Competition,” that grades each state on a set of factors based on how effectively states empower consumers in electricity markets. 

All but one state was graded in this report –– Nebraska was omitted because it is served entirely by public power utilities. R Street’s grading system ranges from A+ (best) to F- (worst), using a detailed rubric across five categories:

1. Retail Market Access – Do customers have the ability to choose their electric supplier?
2. Competitive Procurement – Does the state use competitive bids to acquire power?
3. Wholesale Market Participation – Are utilities and suppliers part of an RTO, ISO, or both?
4. Smart Metering & Data Access – Do customers and third-party suppliers have access to real-time usage data?
5. Consumer Education & Protections – Are consumers equipped to make informed decisions?

States such as Texas, Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were the highest performing states. They have well-developed retail choice markets, plus other factors, including access to a wholesale market, smart metering, or great consumer education and protections. In contrast, states like Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming didn’t score that well due to monopoly structures, limited data transparency, or a lack of market access for consumers.

But what can all states be doing to improve their grades and provide better benefits to consumers?

R Street Recommendations

R-Street’s report offered numerous recommendations on how state leaders, regulators, and stakeholders can make meaningful improvements and unlock the benefits of retail energy choice. Some of these recommendations are:

• Full market restructuring
  • Create and pass legislation that allows all residential, commercial, and industrial consumers to shop for their electric supply in a competitive market. This involves removing statutory barriers and establishing licensing and oversight rules for competitive suppliers.
• Joining (or increasing participation in) a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) or Independent System Operator (ISO)
  • States that participate in an RTO or ISO benefit from transparent pricing and competitive procurement. States that do not currently participate in either an RTO or ISO should prioritize joining.
• Smart Meters and Data Access
  • Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) and consumer-facing tools allow suppliers to offer personalized products, enhance energy efficiency, and increase engagement. States should make smart meters a standard practice and require utility data portals with a user-friendly process for customers to give suppliers permission to access their data.

Improvements That Can Be Addressed Today

There are also recommendations that can take place more immediately. In comparing states, there are a couple of limitations that were recurring –– limitations that REAL has advocated to correct to improve customer experiences. Those recommendations include:

•  Accessibility
  • States that have retail choice should provide consumers with a government-run website that is promoted and easy to access, contains ample information to educate consumers making comparisons, and is easy to navigate for the products and prices available to that customer.
• Education and communication
  • All states should be regularly communicating with and providing consumers with resources that inform them on rate changes, retail supply offers, and available products in their area, if options are available. These resources should also be available in different languages to better serve more populations. Communications can happen in various forms, including direct mail, email, social media, press releases, and on the state’s website.
  • REAL provides resources for some restructured states:
    • State Profiles: Our state profiles contain a comprehensive overview of the current energy landscape, renewable energy requirements, and consumer protections.
    • Energy Shopping Guides: Our shopping guides help educate customers on how to effectively shop and compare electric suppliers through state-managed shopping platforms.
    • Monthly Energy Product Summaries: Each month, we publish summaries to break down the lowest fixed-rate offers and 100% renewable offers from retailers, organized by each utility service territory. Additionally, users can view a selection of value-added and unique products available from retailers in each territory.
• Customer protections
  • Consumers in all states should have access to their electricity usage data and be able to share that data with consultants, suppliers, or others to help the consumer become more efficient in their energy usage and understand alternative options that might better serve their energy needs. Aside from utility companies making this information more readily available, the deployment of smart meters will also improve data collection, and therefore can support greater transparency.

From Scorecards to Solutions

The results of this state-by-state analysis further highlight the limitations of monopoly utility markets when compared to restructured markets. Competition applies pressure to keep prices down, drives innovation, empowers consumers, and enhances accountability — all while reducing exposure to unnecessary utility risks.

While the letter grades provide a benchmark, the scorecard’s true value lies in identifying where states may be underperforming and how they can learn from one another to deliver better outcomes for electric customers. This scorecard serves as a valuable resource, especially at a time when state leaders are attempting to address energy affordability and reliability concerns.

We urge policymakers and regulators across the country, especially in low-scoring states, to see this report as a roadmap, not a verdict. We’re committed to helping states evolve their markets and raise their scores. Not for the sake of a letter grade, but for the millions of consumers who deserve better choices, better prices, and better products.

The post How Did Your State Score On Electricity Competition — And How Can They Improve? first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

“The House General Laws Committee took a major step forward to support Missourians who have been struggling with their electric bills,” said Chris Ercoli, the president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League. “This bill will introduce competition into the electricity market with new companies competing to bring the most affordable electricity to residents, while attracting private investments in energy generation and innovations. We applaud these legislators that took a step forward in breaking their constituents free of utility monopoly control.” 

Electric ratepayers in Missouri are currently served by either the investor-owned utility (Ameren, Evergy West/Metro, Empire) distribution cooperatives or municipal-owned systems. House Bill 417 only applies to the three utilities and their customers. 

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 market. 

The Consumer’s Council of Missouri reports the average residential electric rates increased by 20 percent from 2020-2023 and in 2023, Missouri ranked 4th in the U.S. for the biggest jump in electric rate increases.

As rates are increasing, utilities have announced that half of the existing power generated in Missouri is planned to be retired in the next 10 years. Utilities have published plans to build new generation. Ameren projects costs to build new power plants to be $13 billion over the next ten years. Adding to customer concerns, new legislation recently passed in the Senate (Senate Bill 4) that will allow utility companies to start charging ratepayers to build power plants before they even break ground. 

In Missouri, ratepayers have no choice but to pay for these costs. Utilities build generation and delivery infrastructure with guaranteed return on equity –– profit –– paid for by taxpayers. 

Dennis Ganahl, director of MO Tax Relief Now, spoke about the passage of House Bill 417, saying “I applaud the passage of House Bill 417 out of the General Laws Committee and Rep. Don Mayhew’s leadership. Missouri shouldn’t be protecting a monopoly on any business, especially with how much electric rates have increased recently. Free markets and competition are always in the best interest of the customer. I look forward to seeing new businesses invest in Missouri’s energy market and the benefit to our economy when big energy users to small businesses and families across the state have the power to shop and save.”

There are 22 states that allow for full or partial energy competition, providing options to ratepayers. In 14 of those states, the utilities have to compete when building their electric generation and can’t force ratepayers to pay for the costs.

The price of electricity is rising across the country. Compared to monopoly utility states, states that broke up the utility have fared better on price performance, generation built and performance, reliability and carbon emission reductions. Customers have access to a wide variety of energy plans and products and use their buying power to hold companies accountable for costs and drive investments in energy innovation.

Customers throughout Missouri are sharing their frustrations with their utility company and inability to change electric suppliers.

“I find it absolutely disgusting that we don’t get a choice and the one utility company in my city racks up endless charges because they can,” proclaimed Amanda H. of Kansas City.

Caleb B. of Springfield insisted that “energy companies should have to compete. When there is competition we win.”

“There is no other electric company we can call and their rates are ridiculous,” said Flora R. of Florissant  

House Bill 417 now heads to the House Rules Committee. A companion bill (Senate Bill 487) has been introduced in the Senate, filed by Sen. Nick Schroer. Senate Bill 487 has been referred to the Senate Commerce, Consumer Protection, Energy And The Environment Committee.

Resources:

• Missouri Energy Fact Sheet
• Monopoly vs. Competitive Markets Explained
• Quotes from Missourians Statewide in Support of Legislation (Approved for Media Use)

###

The post Missouri Legislators Support Breaking Up Utility Monopoly to Allow for Competition in Energy Market, Pass Bill Out of Committee first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

Missing from today’s press conference on energy affordability was the most important resource that is already available for Massachusetts residents looking for cost-savings: the ability for customers to shop. There are fixed-rate offers listed on the state shopping website (EnergySwitchMA.gov) below the utility price to compare rates in every service territory. 

Nearly 400,000 people shop for electricity in Massachusetts. If all utility enrolled ratepayers shopped for the lowest offers from competitive electric suppliers in 2024, more than $750 million could have collectively been saved. 

Governor Healey’s Energy Affordability Agenda can benefit from further expanding customer knowledge on how to shop for competitive electric suppliers. Competition has not only spurred innovation to the benefit of Massachusetts energy users, it has created a market where energy suppliers are competing for the business of customers, resulting in lower energy prices. 

The Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL) strongly encourages a renewed commitment to educate more residents on how they can save money by shopping for their electricity. We also urge Governor Healey to support Senate Bill 1519 and House Bill 659, legislation that will improve customer protection and enhance the competitive market.

In February, residential energy users statewide could have saved an average of 10 percent on their electric bill if they shopped for the lowest retail energy offer. Families that are shopping for their electricity are voicing their relief in having the ability to shop for a supplier that best supports their budget.

Nearly 1.5 million residential customers receive their electricity from a retail energy supplier. One-third of them (almost 13 percent of all electric customers) shopped for a supplier that offered the best product for their household and budget. The other two-thirds are served by competitive energy suppliers through their municipal aggregation program. Nearly 50 percent of the state’s entire electric load is supplied by competitive electric suppliers. 

Pennsylvania is a state Massachusetts can look to as a model on how to be successful at educating consumers on monthly energy bill savings.

###

The post Energy Shopping Can Support Massachusetts Energy Affordability Initiatives first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

RICHMOND, VA (January 22, 2025) –– The Virginia legislative session has kicked off with a flurry of bills introduced to provide energy customers with more options to better serve their electricity needs. Eight bills have been sponsored to expand energy choice, deliver cleaner energy plans, and provide competitive rates that reduce costs for customers. These consumer-focused solutions come at a time when Virginia is faced with the challenge of meeting immense energy demands, rising costs and 100% carbon-free electricity goals. 

“Virginia has an energy problem with demand expected to double in the next decade,” said Chris Ercoli, president and CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL). “Consumer-tailored solutions are needed to ensure energy reliability and to protect Virginians from the financial burdens of new power generation. The legislators sponsoring these bills understand the challenges their constituents are facing and are taking action to help expand resources that can better help serve the Commonwealth.”

Current regulations limit retail energy choices in Virginia. Within the eight bills, there is legislation to expand opportunities for energy-intensive users, such as data centers, to procure their own energy and help relieve the challenges facing state utilities as they work to supply growing demand. There is also legislation for residential customers to shop for a 100% renewable energy plan offered by a competitive service provider, and a bill to provide more competitively priced options to Appalachian Power customers.

“Our power bills make us choose between food or electricity for heat,” said energy choice advocate James Powers of Chilhowie. 

A 2021 survey found that 77 percent of participating Virginia energy customers prefer to have a choice in their electric supply. More than 80 percent of respondents prefer renewable energy to power their homes. The idea of a more competitive clean energy choice has customers and advocates excited about the opportunity to be a part of reducing carbon emissions. 

“It will stop us from using fossil fuels as much, moving us swiftly along to net zero,” said James Heyer of Chesapeake.

Virginia businesses, environmental groups and organizations representing more than 5,000 customers have joined the Virginia Customers for Energy Choice Coalition. This diverse coalition supports using Virginia’s existing retail electricity laws to respond to the growing energy demand and clean energy needs in Virginia. 

Without retail energy, the state would need to build new power generation to meet the growing demand. Virginia’s largest utility company has projected new generation, transmission and storage costs to exceed $100 billion. Such costs will ultimately be passed down to consumers.

Virginia was recently ranked the number one state for energy imports, with 36 percent of all electricity supply imported from other states. Because of a current lack of in-state power generation capability, Virginia utilities are forced to shop for electricity from the wholesale energy market to meet energy demands. The legislative bills that have been introduced this session will expand a competitive market that allows customers to shop and procure their own electricity.

There are 22 states that allow some form of competition with the utility whereby some or all customers can shop for the supply portion of their electric bill. Virginia is one of the partial competition states where the utilities still own their generation assets and some customers can shop. In comparison to the other states, Virginia has some of the most onerous restrictions and hurdles the few customers that can shop must overcome

“These legislative leaders have identified solutions to prioritize customers, embrace existing markets, and encourage development to position the state for a vibrant, clean energy future for both residents and businesses,” said Ercoli. “We commend them for that.”

The eight bills introduced are:

• House Bill 1672 –– Patron: Del. Michael Jones

This bill allows customers to enroll with a competitive energy provider if they choose a 100% clean energy plan that is backed by zero carbon energy sources. 

• House Bill 2281 –– Patron: Del. Joseph McNamara

This bill permits municipalities to aggregate the electric energy load of residential, commercial, and industrial retail customers within its boundaries so competitive energy providers may bid to serve those customers at a lower rate than the utility price.

• House Bill 2436 –– Patron: Del. Michael Webert

This bill changes the written notice requirement for a retail customer of electric energy to return to service by an incumbent electric utility from five years to one year (the average in other states is 15 days). 

• House Bill 2528 –– Patron: Del. Alfonso Lopez

This bill loosens restrictions that bar commercial and industrial customers from shopping for their own energy using a competitive energy supplier. 

• House Bill 2547 –– Patron: Del. Sam Rasoul

This bill provides, for retail competition for the purchase and sale of electric energy, that when two or more individual nonresidential retail customers of electric energy within the Commonwealth petition the State Corporation Commission for permission to aggregate or combine their demands to become qualified to purchase electric energy from a retail supplier.

• Senate Bill 1216 –– Patron: Sen. Stella Pekarsky

This bill allows customers to enroll with a competitive energy provider if they choose a 100% clean energy plan that is backed by zero carbon energy sources. 

• Senate Bill 1281 –– Patron: Sen. Travis Hackworth, Co-Patron: Sen. Todd Pillion

This bill authorizes APCO customers with bills that exceed 125 percent of the statewide average during the most recent calendar year to purchase electric energy from any supplier of electric energy licensed to sell retail electric energy within the Commonwealth.

• Senate Bill 1485 –– Patron: Sen. Kannan Srinivasan

This bill loosens restrictions that bar commercial and industrial customers from shopping for their own energy using a competitive energy supplier.

The post Virginia legislators respond to energy crisis by introducing eight bills to give customers energy choice first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

Last week, Virginia leaders and policymakers met to discuss the challenges facing the state in meeting energy demand in an affordable and reliable way. 

The case for competition was made by a panel of experts, led by Glenn Wright, President of Shell Energy. 

“The energy system of the future is multifaceted and multi dimensional,” said Wright. 

There is no silver bullet to address these issues, but a variety of solutions that will facilitate an affordable energy future start with allowing more of Virginia’s customers the freedom to procure energy outside of the utility. 

Dominion recently announced its return to the PJM capacity market, where it will sell electricity generated into the wholesale regional market. Like a retail energy provider, Dominion will also purchase the electricity needed to serve its customers from the regional wholesale electricity market.  

The difference is in where the risk lies on those electricity purchases. If a utility makes a poor choice in purchasing or does not hedge or plan appropriately, it can pass those additional costs on to the ratepayer in the form of riders. 

“Unlike utilities in Virginia, retail energy providers do not have riders or the ability to come back and ask the customer for more money in the event we didn’t collect enough. It’s an inherent risk that we take as a supplier when we hedge,” said Travis Kavulla, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at NRG Energy.

With the utility as the purchaser, the risk is on the ratepayer. With a retail energy provider, the risk is on the provider. 

“The lack of ability to control and manage wholesale prices at the hands of the utilities is why Virginia’s customers have seen such an increase in rates and riders,” said Kavulla.

In Virginia, only customers who consume >5MW of energy or have the ability to aggregate load from several sites to meet 5MW are allowed to use a retail energy provider to shop for the best price, services, or clean energy content (view customer breakout and shopping restrictions).

Even with the barriers to shopping, 1/10 of Virginia’s electricity is supplied by retail energy providers. 

“Virginia is generally regarded as a business friendly state but in my experience has the most red tape around energy procurement,” said Kavulla. 

Cox is one of those customers who selected Calpine as an energy provider, and it has been very beneficial on a number of fronts. 

“We’re able to hit our carbon goals, because through the retail energy provider, we can source renewable energy. We made [the] transition 5 years ago and our cost comparison shows we’ve come out with savings too,” said Jeff Merritt, Market Vice President at Cox Communications.

The reality of the utility profit function is they only profit by spending more money. 

“They are fundamentally indifferent to the efficiency of investments they make, whereas in the competitive retail market, we’re incredibly sensitive to it because we’re in competition with other companies and the customer is ultimately making choices based on preferences. It doesn’t serve customers for reliability or affordability with a single gatekeeper managing energy options for customers. It would be better to open it up to meet the challenges discussed today,” said Kavulla.

The session concluded with remarks from Wright, “Power is one of the easiest ways to decarbonize. Every industry is actively pursuing electrification in some way. To meet VCEA goals, Virginia must attract capital from private companies into the energy market. A number of different approaches are necessary to meet these objectives and the challenges ahead.” 

In summary, with the monopoly model, the risk is on the ratepayer. Virginia would benefit from diversifying its portfolio rather than putting all its eggs in one basket for these solutions. Removing some of that supply burden from the utility will also empower them to focus on the electric infrastructure, ensuring reliability. As laid out in Sen. McPike’s SB591 last session, removing some of the restrictions on shopping for Virginia’s large energy users will empower those to be part of the solution while benefiting from access to the variety of energy plans and use programs available on the competitive market.

The post Virginia Energy Summit Takeaway: Let Customers Shop first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.

• Moderator: PUCO Commissioner John Williams
• Speakers:
  • Scott Hudson, President of Vistra Retail
  • Rasesh Patel, President of NRG Consumer
  • Shay Reed, Energy Buyer of Costco Wholesale,
  • Frederick Hoover, Chairman of Maryland Public Service Commission

The conversation revolved around the objectives of retail electric choice, the impact of innovation, and the evolving regulatory landscape.

What is the goal of retail electric choice?

Shay Reed from Costco noted the goal today is slightly different than procurement 30 years ago. “We used to say this is a tool to manage costs, although now I might also say I like to control how clean my supply chain is.” 

Scott Hudson explained that the primary aim is to provide options to consumers, which fosters innovation and meets diverse customer needs. “Customer flexibility is key and price does not equal value for every customer.” Vistra’s business lines include generation, retail energy, and value-added services like energy use management. Hudson emphasized the need for alignment between regulators and retailers in delivering reliable, affordable, and sustainable power. Retail choice is a big part of that.

Innovation and energy use management

Rasesh Patel echoed Hudson’s sentiment, drawing parallels with the telecommunications industry. He highlighted that while consumer tech has seen rapid innovation, the energy sector is still catching up. 

NRG’s merger with Vivint aims to address demand management through smart home technology, which can optimize energy use and reduce peak demand.

As demand outpaces supply and intermittent resources require additional load balancing, demand management presents an effective tool that can be leveraged for more than just commercial and industrial customers. The integration of smart home technology into retail energy services for the residential customer represents a significant step toward efficiency and sustainability.

“Innovation can play a critical role in meeting both consumer and clean energy goals,” Patel noted, citing the need for standardized data interfaces to enable more effective demand management.

Rasesh Patel pointed out that smart home customers often have energy-consuming devices running during peak times when their homes are unoccupied. Better use of smart technologies could help shave peak loads, reducing capital requirements and enhancing grid efficiency.

Scott Hudson discussed the role of technology in providing consumer flexibility and reliability noting a not-so-distant future where residential consumers actively participate in demand response, supported by smart technologies like electric vehicles that can interact with the grid.

“The technology is available to enable consumer participation in demand response. We just need to harness it effectively,” Hudson said, emphasizing the need to keep pace with technological advancements.

Shay Reed from Costco underscored the importance of having access to and control over energy usage data, advocating for a standardized approach to data management to help large consumers like Costco optimize their energy consumption and support sustainability initiatives.

“The best kWh is the one you don’t use,” Reed said, stressing the need for better data access to drive efficiency.

Challenges to Realizing Full Benefit of Competition

Heavy-handed regulations: Maryland Public Service Commission Chair Fredrick Hoover provided insights from Maryland’s experience with retail energy markets, describing a history of regulatory challenges and recent legislative efforts. 

The panelists debated the role of additional regulation in enhancing retail energy markets. Hoover suggested that while new regulations are being implemented, a balance must be struck to foster innovation without stifling market dynamics.

Data access: The conversation touched on the balance between competition and regulation. Rasesh Patel argued that a standardized framework for competition, including data and infrastructure, would lower costs and enhance consumer value. He noted that innovation and competition drive choice, which is essential for the market’s long-term health.

“Standardizing competition frameworks and data interfaces can break down barriers and reduce prices,” Patel emphasized.

Restrictions on choice: Shay Reed highlighted the importance of market participation for large retailers like Costco, advocating for minimal external control over their energy strategies to ensure optimal resource use.

“As a large retailer, we need control over our energy choices to run our business optimally,” Reed stated.

Product and Service Restrictions: Rasesh Patel discussed cost caps and production restrictions, noting that some states are considering or have already implemented price caps, which restrict retail energy products from exceeding the cost of basic utility service. Additionally, he spoke on the limitations on the types of retail products that can be offered. These measures hinder innovation by constraining the ability to test and introduce new products to the market, especially when there is clear customer demand for such innovations.

Customer Education: Looking ahead, Scott Hudson identified the rapid evolution of technology as a significant challenge. He stressed the need for consumer awareness about their ability to choose energy providers and the benefits of such choices, including specialized plans for green energy or demand response. If residential customers are expected to play a role in supporting grid resiliency, they need to be educated on their options and engaged as active participants in their energy usage. This requires education and seamless applications tailored to the residential customer for easy integration.

Key Takeaways

• Customers value flexibility in energy options, which can be customized to meet their specific needs. This can include value-added services like energy use management and tailored plans that go beyond basic cost considerations.
• The need for consumer education on energy choices remains important. Engaging residential customers in their energy usage is crucial for supporting grid resiliency and optimizing resource use.
• Integrating smart home technology can optimize energy use and reduce peak demand. The potential for residential consumers to participate in demand response through technologies like electric vehicles and smart devices can balance load.
• Large retailers, like Costco, advocate for minimal external control to ensure they can make optimal energy choices. Policies that allow flexibility and support large consumers’ goals will allow them to make those choices.
• Balancing regulation with the need for market dynamism is crucial for fostering a competitive and innovative environment. Cost caps and restrictions on products or terms will hinder innovation and the market ability to respond to customer demand.

The post Customer Choice: Experts and Regulators Weigh In first appeared on Retail Energy Advancement League.