Competitive markets

California and New Jersey – two states with well-structured organized markets for electiricity – are leading the nation in solar capacity, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) Year in Review report released last week. 
 
The solar market grew from $3.6 billion in 2009 to $6.0 billion in 2010, with installations totaling 956 megawatts (MW), achieving a capacity of 2.6 gigawatts. According to SEIA, this represents only the beginning of such growth. In 2011, the organization expects U.S. solar installations to double from 2010 levels.
 

Competitive electricity markets around the United States promote and accelerate innovation and will continue to foster future innovation, according to a white paper released today by KEMA, a leading global energy consulting, testing and certification firm. The paper was commissioned by COMPETE. The white paper, along with the economic and environmental benefits of competitive markets, were topics of discussion at an event held this afternoon on Capitol Hill.
 

The number of customers in Michigan choosing their power supplier increased 38 percent over last year, according to the Michigan Public Service Commission’s (MPSC) annual report on electric competition released on Tuesday. By the end of 2010, more than 8,500 businesses and residents actively selected their electricity supplier. As a result, they are now enjoying numerous benefits, from competitive rates to more control over their daily energy usage. However, due the state’s capping of choice at 10 percent of the electricity load – and the cap was quickly reached in 2010 – many customers have been left with no opportunity to explore the market and choose a competitive supplier.
 

The number of consumers switching to competitive suppliers has continued its trend of upward growth in four states with competitive markets, bringing competitively priced electricity to even more customers. These switching numbers come from recently released state data posted in Restructuring Today, and reiterate that electricity customers switching their power suppliers is a clear sign of the success of competitive markets.
 

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).
 

Regulators, environmental groups, technology innovators and customers are increasingly converging on the fact that market forces can empower consumers to manage increases in energy costs and stimulate the technological innovations required for America to transition to a clean energy economy.  The latest voice in this growi

Legislators in Michigan have stood up for their constituents by introducing legislation to ease limitations on the number of consumers in the state who can purchase power from competitive power suppliers. The bipartisan companion bills introduced by Senator Wayne Kuipers and Representative Roy Schmidt would raise the state’s limit on retail choice from 10 percent to 25 percent of the utility’s total electricity demand.

This legislation comes on the heels of a petition by scores of Michigan businesses, including many COMPETE members, to lift the limitation on electricity choice.

During last week’s regular open meeting, staff with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission presented their 2009 State of the Markets Report, and the outcome for energy consumers was profound.  Prices for natural gas were down by 50 percent across the country, and as a result electricity rates declined proportionately in the organized competitive markets, where gas is a key generation fuel. Costs for both natural gas and electricity were at the lowest levels seen since at least 2002 – even earlier in some regions, FERC staff reported.

Electricity prices are falling dramatically in organized competitive markets, particularly when compared with states that stayed with a monopoly-protected utility industry. But these facts are ignored in the most recent attack on electricity competition from the American Public Power Association (APPA).

APPA’s report groups competitive states in the same category as states with monopoly regulation, so it’s a murky picture if comparing competitive states with monopoly states is the goal. Besides, comparing retail rates on a state-by-state basis is a flawed way to assess the benefits of multi-state regional competitive wholesale power markets.

Price differentials in electricity have always existed – one reason why competitive states opted to restructure in the first place. For example, Illinois and Pennsylvania, two highly competitive states APPA mischaracterizes as regulated, had rates well above the national average prior to restructuring.  But consumers in those states now enjoy rates well below the national average.