Targeted reforms, more oversight would be better than a ban on competition

I am writing to offer a differing perspective on the recent article discussing the practices of third-party electric suppliers in Massachusetts. The competitive supply market offers benefits to many consumers, including me.

The voices of those consumers are being drowned out by the rhetoric of lawmakers on Beacon Hill and other elected officials, including Governor Maura Healey, Attorney General Andrea Campbell, and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. It would be wrong to condemn the entire competitive supply market based on isolated incidents mentioned in the story.

The market was established with the intention of promoting competition and providing consumers with choice. It is worth acknowledging that some consumers have benefited from lower rates and access to green energy options through competitive suppliers.

As a consumer who actively engages in shopping for energy and has had a positive experience with competitive energy suppliers, and as someone who consults on the energy industry, I believe it is essential to provide a balanced perspective on this issue.

Instead of advocating for a blanket ban on the industry, I believe that targeted reforms and increased oversight could address the issues raised in the article while preserving consumer choice. Representative Tackey Chan’s proposed reforms, such as increased licensing fees and disclosure requirements, are steps in the right direction toward ensuring greater transparency and consumer protection.

Banning the competitive supply market outright would deprive consumers of choice and could have unintended consequences for the energy market as a whole.

I urge policy makers to carefully consider the implications of any proposed reforms or bans on the competitive supply market. By taking a nuanced approach that addresses the concerns raised in the article while preserving consumer choice, we can work toward a more equitable and sustainable energy future for all residents of Massachusetts.