Energy is being expended to reform electricity market in Mass.
Predatory practices are a concern, but pressing the DPU on municipal pacts could be the solution
Re “Predatory practices mar energy competition: Complaints prompt lawmakers to rein in — or outright prohibit — third-party electric suppliers” (Page A1, March 31): I have been vocal in questioning why the state should eliminate our choice to purchase electric supply, but the article by Globe reporter Sabrina Shankman and Miriam Wasser of WBUR was eye-opening.
First, let me say I am one of the “savvy consumers” they cite who has been able to save a significant amount of money, but now I understand the reason for legislative reform and the dilemma of people being taken advantage of.
Still, there is a simple solution that would cost the state and taxpayers nothing and would benefit Massachusetts residents. The problem is the bureaucratic mess the state has with the Department of Public Utilities. There are numerous town municipal aggregation agreements that have been pending in front of the DPU for years that have not been approved or resolved. The solution: Have lawmakers add to the legislation that the DPU must approve any such agreement within 60 days of receipt, so long as the application is similar to any existing municipal aggregation agreement previously approved by the DPU.
The benefits of such a move would be widespread.
“Savvy” residents who currently purchase their supply would receive competitive rates through their town’s program. In almost every case, the municipal aggregation agreement rate would be lower than any individual plan they could purchase.
Unhappy or disgruntled residents would not be taken advantage of, and they would receive rates lower than they are currently paying.
Electric supply companies would receive more business as municipal plans would purchase their supply from them.
With the imposition of a 60-day time limit, the DPU would regain the time currently wasted on delays over applications.
Politicians would serve constituents by seeing that residents enjoyed cost savings at no cost to taxpayers.
The solution is simple, so why can’t our elected officials resolve the matter?