Memo

To: William Harwood, Maine Public Advocate

From: Timothy Howington, Consultant to Maine Office of the Public Advocate

Date: January 29, 2024

Re: Results of examination of confidential Maine Competitive Electricity Provider data

Introduction

This memo describes the results of aggregating and analyzing confidential annual data submitted
to the Maine Public Utility Commission (“MPUC”) by Competitive Electricity Providers (“CEPs”) from
2016 through 2022. The objective of this analysis is to quantify the financial effects on Maine consumers
of participation in the competitive market for electricity. This analysis updates and refines similar work
provided in a report written in January 2023.1 In that report, Ms. Baldwin and I relied upon publicly
available data provided by CEPs to the U.S. Energy Information Administration2 (“EIA”) to develop high-
and low-end estimates of the excess amounts Maine consumers paid when purchasing electricity from
CEPs instead of obtaining service under the standard offer rate from the default utility.

While the EIA reporting system provides the total number of customers served, total sales (in
megawatt-hours), and total revenues for each CEP providing service in Maine, and separately by
customer class, it does not differentiate between customers located in the various utility service
territories. Because each territory has its own standard offer rate, the EIA reporting does not allow us to
pinpoint the amount consumers would have paid had they bought service from the default provider
rather than from the CEP. Instead, we must compare the actual rate paid to the highest and lowest
standard offer rates, and develop a range of excess rates paid.

The updated analysis provided here utilizes confidential annual reporting by the CEPS to the
MPUC. The MPUC data includes the number of customers, sales (in megawatt-hours), and revenue by
customer class. Importantly, in contrast to the EIA system, the MPUC reporting mechanism treats each
utility territory separately.3 Because the time series of historic standard offer rates for each territory is
also available from the MPUC, this data set allows us to calculate exactly what the consumer would have
paid had s/he bought electricity service from the default utility. Summing up the excess payments over
all the CEP customers, over several years, provides an aggregate measure of the financial impact of
allowing CEPs to charge rates greater than the standard offer rate.

1
“Reform of Electricity Supply: CEP-Served Residential Retail Electric Market,” Prepared by Susan M. Baldwin and
Timothy E. Howington on behalf of the Maine Office of Public Advocate per 2021 P.L. ch. 164 (LD 318), January 31,
2023 (“Baldwin/Howington 2023 Report”).
2
U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA Form 861 data, table "Sales_Ult_Cust_yyyy". See Annual Electric
Power Industry Report, Form EIA-861 detailed data files.
3
The three service territories analyzed here are the Central Maine Power District, the Bangor Hydro District, and
the Maine Public District.

1
Excess payments by year and in aggregate
Over the period 2016 – 2022, Maine consumers who purchased electricity from CEPs paid over $80 million more than
what they would have paid for the same amount of electricity from their default utility. This astounding total includes (is net of)
the results for 2022, the only year in this period when CEP customers paid less than they would have paid under the standard
offer rate.

Table 1, below, shows the total excess payments by year for the seven-year period.4

Table 1

Total Payments in Excess of

Standard Offer Rate
2016 $30,350,984
2017 $18,841,561
2018 $15,920,084
2019 $4,735,869
2020 $18,163,917
2021 $25,551,475
2022 -$33,205,291
7-yr total $80,358,598

Standard offer rates versus CEP rates by year and district

Using MPUC data, it is also possible to look at the average rates ($ per kWh) paid by CEP
customers compared to standard offer rates. By dividing the total CEP revenues by the total CEP sales,
and dividing by 1000 to convert from MWh to kWh, it is clear that the rates charged by CEPs are
generally much higher than the standard offer rates – sometimes as much as 50% higher. Table 2
provides a summary of weighted average CEP rates compared to standard offer rates by district and year.

4
Excess payments are calculated for each CEP by multiplying the usage (kWh) times the standard offer rate, and
then subtracting this amount from the actual CEP revenues. Excess payments from each CEP are then summed to
generate the yearly excess payments.

2
 Table 2

Standard Offer Rates versus CEP Rates

Central Maine Power Bangor Hydro District Maine Public District
Standard rate CEP rate Standard rate CEP rate Standard rate CEP rate
2016 $0.064643 $0.097309 $0.066240 $0.062423 $0.082595 NA
2017 $0.066910 $0.087149 $0.063220 $0.065386 $0.070669 $0.070680
2018 $0.079206 $0.092153 $0.072250 $0.092249 $0.074230 $0.066930
2019 $0.090029 $0.093207 $0.083695 $0.090049 $0.084610 $0.071972
2020 $0.073037 $0.091609 $0.068785 $0.091695 $0.067294 $0.071280
2021 $0.064494 $0.085861 $0.061960 $0.081348 $0.060267 $0.070856
2022 $0.118161 $0.091005 $0.116840 $0.083348 $0.110873 $0.077952

Note: CEP rates are average CEP rates weighted by usage in each district.

Number of CEP customers by year

While the data reported to EIA largely agree with those reported to MPUC, there are some differences. For example,
some CEPs that report customers, sales, and revenues to EIA do not have corresponding reports on file to MPUC. Likewise, some
CEPs report data to MPUC, but not to EIA. In addition, those CEPs reporting through both systems rarely show exactly the same
numbers for customers, sales, and revenues. Nevertheless, both sources show similar a similar trend in residential CEP customer
count over the study period.

Table 3 shows year-end customer counts from both sources.

Table 3

Total Year-end Residential CEP Customers

MPUC EIA
2016 115,040 117,544
2017 116,700 112,504
2018 85,843 105,786
2019 71,600 76,053
2020 67,553 67,730
2021 64,693 64,279
2022 51,834 62,100

Adjustments to the reported data

Inspection of the data as reported to the MPUC revealed some anomalies. In one case, a CEP
interchanged residential and non-residential customer totals for one period. The error was confirmed by

3
examining other years of data for that CEP. Another CEP consistently reported revenues in thousands of
dollars, rather than dollars. Finally, some CEPs mistakenly reported sales and revenues as if they were
providing service under the standard offer rate. In each case, a reasonable correction was made and
incorporated into the analysis.