|
|
|
|
|
AG Says 50% Of Residential Customer Losses Under Retail Choice Are From Retail Suppliers Charging Only 10-30% More Than SOS; AG Says Eliminating Egregious Bad Actors Won't Solve Problem
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Eliminating "bad actor" retail electric suppliers from the market, who charge the highest rates above default service, won't materially reduce the consumer loss under retail choice, the Office of Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (AGO) alleged in a new report comparing residential electricity costs under default service versus retail electric choice in Massachusetts
The AG's report stated that retail suppliers charging more than 90 percent above the basic service rate account for only 4.71 percent of
customer losses from choice, while suppliers charging between 10 and 30 percent above the basic service rate account for 51.45 percent of customer losses.
"[T]he problems with the competitive supply market will not be cured by removing the suppliers that are charging
exorbitantly high rates," the AG's report said, as the AG sought to counter arguments which blame the customer losses under retail choice to a limited number of "bad actors"
"[T]he majority of the losses occur at moderately high competitive supply rates.
Accordingly, targeting only the highest rates will not ensure adequate protection for customers," the report says
The AG said that, for the period July 2024 to June 2025, Massachusetts residential customers under retail electric choice in aggregate paid $87.4 million more than basic service. That compares to shopping customers paying $73.7 million more than basic service for the period July 2023 to June 2024
The AG's report said that, over the past 10 years, residential shopping customers in aggregate paid $738.7 million more than default service
The AG's report said that shopping low-income customers continue to pay higher rates than non-low-income shopping customers. The AG said that for July 2024 to June 2025, the average annual loss from shopping for a low income customer was $286, versus a loss of $181 for non-low-income shopping customers
The AG's report further said that even non-shopping customers are harmed from higher retail supplier rates, due to the application of bill payment assistance funds to shopping customers' bills whose costs are higher than default service
For July 2024 to June 2025, the AG said that all ratepayers paid $9.6 million more than necessary for bill assistance programs due to customer shopping activity
The AG's 2026 report and press release use more ambiguous language for the AG's recommendations concerning retail electric choice.
For example, in a 2024 news release, the AGO said that a similar 2024 report on losses from electric choice showed the "urgent need" to pass legislation to "ban" individual residential electric choice, with the AG seeking to, "eliminate the individual residential electric supply market".
AG Campbell had said in 2024 upon the release of the 2024 report, "I will continue to push and advocate to the Legislature for the elimination of this predatory and broken industry."
In contrast, the 2026 report emphasizes regulation and "solutions", rather than a "ban".
The 2026 report states, "the AGO continues to support ongoing efforts by the Massachusetts House and Senate, as well as the Healey-Driscoll Administration, to find ways to meaningfully regulate the competitive electric supply industry."
A 2026 news release quotes AG Campbell as stating, "I will continue to work with my partners in the Legislature to find solutions and protect consumers harmed by this predatory industry."
A landing webpage for all of the AG's choice loss reports still states, however, as follows: "In order to prevent further harm, the Attorney General continues to call for an end to the individual residential electric supply market."
As first reported by EnergyChoiceMatters.com (see full details here), a variety of bills running a gamut of policy options concerning retail choice reforms remain pending at the Massachusetts legislature, but the most recently advanced bill would allow individual cities and towns to ban individual residential electric choice, rather than adopting a statewide policy
ADVERTISEMENT Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com. Unauthorized copying, retransmission, or republication
prohibited. You are not permitted to copy any work or text of EnergyChoiceMatters.com without the separate and express written consent of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
AG Says Residential Choice Customers Paid $87 Million More Than Default Service For Latest Annual Period
AG's Latest Report Seeks Regulation, Solutions; Drops Prior Language Which Emphasized "Ban" On Individual Electric Choice
March 31, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
• NEW -- Manager of Sales, Commercial -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Commercial Sales Support Specialist -- Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager - TX -- Retail Supplier
• NEW / Refreshed 2/24/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
|
|
|
|
|