Blog entry July 2010

The number of competitive power suppliers continues to increase in Maryland. Multiple new providers have entered the state’s competitive electricity market, and consumers are responding as evidenced by increased switching rates.

In an op-ed this week, leading economists with MIT and Harvard urged policymakers not to “demonize” market-based policies to achieve national environmental and energy goals. The economists underscore the benefits of using market forces to bring about good policy outcomes in a least-cost manner, echoing COMPETE’s support for markets and market-based climate-change policies in a joint position paper with the Environmental Defense Fund.

Consumers have increased their participation in Connecticut’s competitive electricity market and are enjoying even greater economic benefits, recent announcements make abundantly clear. The state’s consumers scored a recent victory when Governor Rell vetoed a bill that would have rolled back competition in the state’s market, and now they are making the most of their opportunity to choose to purchase from competitive power suppliers.
 

Smart meters combined with enhanced information from utilities could significantly reduce electricity consumption and costs, according to a new report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
 

Demand for competitive power has overwhelmed the second market opening of additional supply in California’s retail power market, reports Electric Power Daily.
 

Smart grid technology is creating economic and environmental benefits, but must reach all consumers and enable intuitive energy use decisions to truly achieve its potential. This message was the focus of a recent panel discussion on consumer perspectives during a smart grid policy conference at the Brookings Institution.
 

Lower-cost electricity options in Western Pennsylvania are “the kind of significant savings envisioned by competition’s crusaders” a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette columnist writes in a recent column. The columnist’s effort to explain the competitive electricity market to consumers deserves applause.
 
But the relationship between the region’s power distribution utility and the competitive power supplier who offered the columnist less expensive electricity was confused in the article, and should be put in proper context.
 

Competition in Texas has created economic and environmental benefits for consumers, the Texas Tribune reports in an article examining the results of the state’s competitive retail market. The COMPETE Coalition applauds the Tribune for correctly identifying many successes of Texas’ competitive electricity market.
 
COMPETE closely follows electricity developments across the country and agrees with many observers that the Texas market is without question one of restructuring’s biggest success stories, providing consumers a robust choice of competitive power suppliers. “From 2002 to mid-2009, 86 percent of customers made at least one observable switch, whether between providers or to a different plan offered by the same provider,” the Texas Tribune reported.
 

The Prairie State’s competitive electricity market, already one of the nation’s most successful, is making progress toward fuller retail competition. The 2010 Annual Report from the Illinois Commerce Commission’s (ICC) Office of Retail Market Development finds customers are now shopping across every commercial and industrial customer electrical market segment, and takes an optimistic view that competition is poised to make great inroads in the residential sector.
 

Dynamic pricing is a term used to describe a key feature of competitive electricity markets. Put simply, electricity costs vary so power is cheaper when demand is low and more expensive when demand is high.
 
Now, a new report finds dynamic pricing significantly benefits low-income customers by empowering them to take control of, and reduce, their electricity bills. The report from the Institute for Electric Efficiency (IEE) challenges the prevailing view that low-income customers would be harmed by dynamic pricing and makes a strong argument for widespread adoption of one of the biggest economic benefits of competitive markets.