Monopoly utility provider

Competition Creates “Flood” of Innovation

Competitive electricity markets unlock the innovative solutions required to meet America’s energy needs and environmental objectives, said experts at a COMPETE Coalition panel discussion event. Unless markets are opened up to competition, the nation’s energy system cannot reach its full potential.

Competitive markets promote competition among power suppliers to deliver the best possible service to attract and retain customers. Comparatively, in monopoly-protected states, incumbent power providers have no incentive to innovate because ratepayers are captive to their monopoly utility and power suppliers are guaranteed recovery of their costs plus a profit.

Competitive Electricity Markets Stimulate Innovation and “Energy Miracles” Everyday

In recent remarks, entrepreneur and philanthropist Bill Gates called for “energy miracles” to meet the threat of global climate change.  But we at COMPETE would submit that with or without divine intervention, organized competitive markets have become incubators of technological innovation and renewable energy that meet rising demand with efficient clean energy generation.

“COMPETE believes a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and producing clean electricity offers the most innovative and economically efficient means of addressing climate change,” said Federico Peña, COMPETE Coalition Co-Chair and former U.S. Secretary of Energy.

Michigan Lawmaker Stands Up for Consumers

Michigan State Senator Cameron Brown has announced plans to introduce legislation raising the state’s limit on electricity market competition to 30 percent, according to the trade publication Electric Power Daily. This action signals new promise for consumers facing rising electricity rates in a beleaguered economy.

Last August, and again in December, electricity consumers in Consumers Energy and DTE Energy’s respective service territories reached Michigan’s 10 percent limit on consumer choice for electricity.  This left 90 percent of the electricity demand for those two utilities — which serve the vast majority of the state’s consumers —without a lower-cost alternative to their monopoly utility provider.