|
|
|
|
|
REAL President Seeks To Strike, From D.C. Budget-Related Bill, Section Which Would Cap Residential Retail Supplier Rates & Which Would Make Existing Contracts "Void"
The following story is brought free of charge to readers by VertexOne, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
As a resident of the District of Columbia, Christopher Ercoli, President & CEO of the Retail Energy Advancement League (REAL), urged the Council of the District of Columbia to strike, from the proposed Budget Support Act (D.C. Bill 26-661), a section (Subtitle E) which would impose various restrictions on retail energy choice, including price caps
"I fully support protecting consumers from deceptive marketing practices and ensuring that vulnerable households are treated fairly. But I don't believe Subtitle E accomplishes that goal. Instead, it risks eliminating an entire marketplace that thousands of District residents have voluntarily chosen because it offers products and services that better meet their individual needs," Ercoli wrote
"As energy demand continues to grow and electricity prices rise throughout the region, this seems like exactly the wrong time to reduce consumer options. Some residents value the budget certainty of long-term fixed-price contracts. Others intentionally choose 100 percent renewable electricity because they want to support clean energy beyond what is required by law. Still others simply want the ability to decide who supplies their electricity. Those choices matter, even if they are not the right choice for everyone," Ercoli wrote
"We've already seen what can happen when legislation goes too far. In Maryland, similar policies effectively eliminated the competitive retail electricity market. In fact, the General Assembly has since taken steps to try to reverse course after recognizing the unintended consequences of those decisions. Once suppliers leave a market, however, they rarely return. It is far easier to preserve competition than it is to rebuild it after it has disappeared," Ercoli wrote
"I also believe the process matters. Subtitle E represents a major shift in energy policy, yet it is being considered through the budget rather than through the normal legislative process. A proposal that could fundamentally reshape the District's electricity market deserves committee hearings, stakeholder input, and a full public debate -- not inclusion in a budget bill where significant policy changes often receive less scrutiny," Ercoli wrote
"The District has long positioned itself as a leader in both clean energy and consumer innovation. I believe it can continue to be both. There are numerous examples from around the country where lawmakers have strengthened consumer protections without eliminating competitive markets altogether. Those are conversations worth having," Ercoli wrote
"I respectfully ask that the Council remove Subtitle E from the Budget Support Act and instead consider any reforms through the regular legislative process, where all stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute," Ercoli wrote
Subtitle E of D.C. Bill 26-661 generally implements the same reforms for electricity and natural gas. Any provisions listed below which refer to electricity also generally have mirroring language for gas, unless otherwise noted in this story
Most notably, D.C. Bill 26-661 would require the PSC to establish "one or more price caps" for electricity (and gas) supplied by a market participant to residential customers
The bill provides that "the" price cap shall not exceed 110% of the price of the standard offer service (electricity) or default service (gas)
Bill 26-661 provides two potential exceptions to the 110% electricity price cap, and one exception to the 110% gas price cap
Bill 26-661 would allow the PSC, for electricity only, to establish a higher price cap for a residential electric plan sourced, in an amount higher than the RPS, from a tier one renewable source or
tier two renewable source, using RPS definitions
For both electric and gas, the PSC would be broadly empowered to exempt from the price cap (or to establish a higher cap for), "specific market participants or types of electricity supply contracts if the
Commission determines that doing so is in the public interest".
Under the bill, such public interest determination shall consider:
• Whether a proposed service is new or innovative
• The potential for the service to result in long-term savings for
residential customers
• Any other energy-related benefits the service may provide,
such as improvements in energy efficiency or the ability of residential customers to manage their
energy costs
• The potential costs or financial risks to customers.
• Any other factor that
the Commission deems relevant
Notably, Bill 26-661 provides, for both electricity and gas, that an existing contract that contains a price for supply that exceeds an applicable price
cap, "shall [b]e deemed null and void as against public policy[.]"
However, the bill further provides that such an existing contract shall not be considered null and void, "if amended to be in
compliance with the price cap within 60 days of the establishment of the price cap; provided, that
the contract was either entered into before the Commission established the price cap, or entered
into at a price for electricity supply that was in compliance with the price cap initially and then
exceeded the applicable price cap after the price of the standard offer service changed." [similar language also proposed for gas]
The bill would hold retail suppliers liable for any violation of any legal requirement applicable to retail energy which is committed by the supplier's, "agents; contractors; marketers; or brokers."
The bill requires retail suppliers to post on a PSC website "standard
contract terms" for "each" contract to be offered to a residential customer
The bill would authorize the PSC to require various price, volume, and customer count reporting from suppliers, with the PSC empowered to determine whether such information should be public or should receive confidential protection
The bill would ban residential early termination fees
The protections described above would not apply to:
• The SOS (or default service);
• A municipal aggregation program;
• A single-customer or multi-customer microgrid, and
• The District government, the federal government, or the agencies and
instrumentalities of the District government or federal government
The administration of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, via the DC Department of Energy & Environment, had previously proposed various retail energy reform options similar to those in Maryland and other states, including price caps
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
July 2, 2026
Email This Story
Copyright 2026 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • ring@energychoicematters.com
NEW Jobs on RetailEnergyJobs.com:
• Refreshed 5/27/26 -- Manager, ISO Coordination (electricity), Retail Supplier
• NEW -- Channel Partner Manager -- Retail Energy
|
|
|
|
|