…starting in the northeast where every state pursued the same agenda starting at the same time. Two states lock-stepping is coincidence. Three or four is chance – particularly when randomly unclumped. Fifteen within the same region, or 24, or 48 shows coordinated effort.
PROMPT: determine where else in the USA electricity public utilities were decomissioned and broken out in ‘pro choice’ marketplace competition. there may be hundreds of localities. list 50 and be deep, specific, and give summary paragraphs for each including 3 support links. [future: a breakdown based on power-company, owners, etc]
This is the initial layer of data. #45 will be the specifics. #46 a summary.
Electrical Gluttony. Water Consumption. Noise Pollution. Ground Vibration. Powerline Harmonics. Exploring the Web of Land-Grabby, Depopulative, Anti-Meat, Anti-Farm and Anti-Human Incessant Toxic Badness.
Covering every known aspect of Datacenters, including the paranormal.
Sourced Series deeply explores the Many Serious Ill-Effects of Datacenters.
Every statement is sourced by scientific studies, published anecdotes, harmed victims.
Learn from others’ mistakes, or suffer similarly.
“A 2026 power-engineering study found that hyperscale data centers behave not merely as electrical loads, but as vast power-electronics systems whose rapidly fluctuating server demands can excite grid oscillations and propagate disturbances across interconnected networks. Far from a fringe “dirty electricity” claim, the research suggests data centers may interact with the power grid in ways fundamentally different from traditional industrial facilities, raising serious new concerns about resonance, stability, reliability.”
Yes — this happened across much of the U.S., especially in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Illinois/Ohio, and Texas. Technically, most places did not decommission the wires utility; they unbundled generation/supply from delivery, kept the poles-and-wires monopoly regulated, and created a retail “choice” marketplace for electricity supply.
The pattern is national.
Lawmakers did not abolish the monopoly. They protected the monopoly wires business while carving the electricity commodity into a retail market. The citizen was told this was “choice.” In practice, the citizen often got a more complicated bill, a supplier marketplace full of teaser rates and fine print, municipal aggregation schemes, state-run shopping portals, and a delivery utility that remained unavoidable.
The old bargain was:
│ one utility, one bill, one regulator, one public-service obligation.
The new bargain is:
│ monopoly delivery, auctioned default supply, private suppliers, marketing games, separate line items, regulatory fog, and blame scattered everywhere.
Texas went furthest. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and DC all adopted versions of the same architecture.
The sales pitch was competition.
The durable result was unbundling: monopoly where monopoly mattered, marketplace where confusion could be monetized.
These are the main U.S. electric-choice / restructuring jurisdictions relevant to your thesis:
- Maryland
- District of Columbia
- Pennsylvania
- Ohio
- Illinois
- Texas
- New Jersey
- New York
- Connecticut
- Massachusetts
- Maine
- Delaware
- New Hampshire
- Rhode Island
- Michigan
Several other states flirted with deregulation, partially opened markets, froze reforms, or limited choice mostly to industrial/commercial customers, but the above are the strongest core set.
Below is a 50-locality dossier: places where the old bundled public-utility bargain was broken into regulated delivery + competitive/retail supply choice.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Core support links by market
Useful recurring sources:
- Maryland: https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/
- Maryland “fewer offers” explanation: https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/why-you-may-see-fewer-offers/
- DC Power Connect: https://dcpowerconnect.com/
- Pennsylvania Power Switch: https://www.papowerswitch.com/
- Ohio Energy Choice: https://energychoice.ohio.gov/
- Illinois Plug In Illinois: https://plugin.illinois.gov/
- Texas Power to Choose: https://www.powertochoose.org/
- New Jersey Power Switch: https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/
- New York Power to Choose: https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose
- Connecticut Energize CT: https://energizect.com/
- Massachusetts Energy Switch: https://www.energyswitchma.gov/
- Maine supply choice: https://www.maine.gov/meopa/electricity/electricity-supply
- Delaware utility choice: https://delaware.gov/topics/utility-choice/
- New Hampshire supplier choice: https://www.energy.nh.gov/consumers/choosing-energy-supplier
- Rhode Island supplier rates: https://www.ri.gov/app/dpuc/empowerri
- Michigan customer choice: https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/consumer/electricity/choice
Yes. Add the previously unlisted / edge-case states below. The earlier list covered the main obvious retail-choice states, but the full U.S. scan should also include
partial, capped, suspended, or large-customer-only “choice” regimes.
Add these unlisted states to the dossier
16. California — partial direct access + community choice aggregation
California did restructure electricity in the 1990s, then partially retreated after the 2000–2001 crisis. It still has Direct Access for capped/nonresidential load and
widespread Community Choice Aggregation, where local governments procure supply while investor-owned utilities still deliver power.
Support:
- https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-costs/direct-access
- https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/community-choice-aggregation
- https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/electricity-consumption-source
17. Oregon — direct access / retail choice, mainly nonresidential
Oregon restructured electricity through customer-choice provisions, but not like Texas. Residential customers generally remain with utility/default options, while larger
commercial/industrial customers can access direct-access-style supply options.
Support:
- https://www.oregon.gov/puc/utilities/Pages/Electricity.aspx
- https://www.oregon.gov/energy/energy-oregon/Pages/Electricity.aspx
- https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors757.html
18. Virginia — limited competitive choice
Virginia has a limited retail-choice structure, especially for large customers and certain renewable-service situations. It is not a broad household marketplace like
PA/TX/OH, but the old bundled monopoly model was partially opened.
Support:
- https://scc.virginia.gov/pages/Electric-Choice
- https://scc.virginia.gov/pages/Electric-Companies
- https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title56/chapter23/section56-577/
19. Montana — partial restructuring, then rollback / limited choice
Montana passed electricity restructuring in the 1990s. The residential/small-customer side largely failed or was rolled back into default utility service, but
large-customer choice and restructuring history remain relevant. This belongs in the “deregulated, failed, partial, or retreated” category.
Support:
- https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0690/chapter_0080/parts_index.html
- https://psc.mt.gov/
- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/montana/
20. Nevada — limited large-customer exit / partial choice, not general household choice
Nevada does not have broad residential retail choice, but large customers have used statutory exit provisions to leave bundled utility service and buy power separately. It
is a partial “choice” regime and should be included as an edge case.
Support:
- https://puc.nv.gov/
- https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-704.html
- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/nevada/
21. Arizona — attempted restructuring, effectively suspended / not active broad choice
Arizona pursued electricity competition in the late 1990s and early 2000s, but broad retail electric competition did not mature into a functioning residential marketplace.
Include it as “attempted / suspended / not active.”
Support:
- https://www.azcc.gov/utilities/electric
- https://www.azcc.gov/
- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/arizona/
22. Arkansas — restructuring authorized then delayed/repealed/suspended
Arkansas passed restructuring law but did not proceed into an active broad retail choice market. It belongs in the “attempted but not implemented / repealed” category.
Support:
- https://www.apscservices.info/
- https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/
- https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/arkansas/
23. Oklahoma — restructuring authorized/delayed, not broad active household choice
Oklahoma explored/authorized restructuring but did not become a full residential retail-choice state. Include as an attempted/delayed case.
Support:
24. New Mexico — restructuring law passed, later delayed/repealed/not implemented
New Mexico passed restructuring legislation but did not proceed into broad active retail competition. Include as a failed/aborted restructuring state.
Support:
Revised master list
A. Broad residential electric choice / active retail-supplier states
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New York
- Ohio
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Texas
B. Partial / capped / limited choice states
- Michigan — capped 10% choice program, largely commercial/industrial and fully subscribed
- California — direct access cap + community choice aggregation
- Oregon — direct access / large-customer choice
- Virginia — limited competitive choice
- Montana — partial restructuring / rollback / large-customer relevance
- Nevada — large-customer exit provisions
C. Attempted / suspended / repealed / aborted restructuring states
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- Oklahoma
- New Mexico
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
States likely not to include as electric-choice restructuring states
These states generally did not adopt meaningful retail electric choice for ordinary customers, though some have wholesale-market participation, co-ops, municipal utilities,
green tariffs, or special industrial arrangements:
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Colorado
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Nebraska
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- Vermont
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
Important: some of these have municipal utilities, co-ops, community solar, wholesale ISO/RTO markets, or green-power tariffs, but that is not the same as retail electric
deregulation / customer choice.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Corrected scope for the lawmaker dossier
The lawmaker/regulator table should now cover 24 jurisdictions, not just 15:
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Illinois
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- Texas
- Virginia
For each: identify the governor, legislative leadership, utility committee chairs/sponsors, and PUC/PSC regulators tied to restructuring, plus documented religious
affiliation where available.
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
50 localities where the old utility model was broken into “choice”
- Kentlands / Gaithersburg, Maryland — PEPCO
In Kentlands / Gaithersburg ZIP 20878, PEPCO remains the delivery utility while Maryland’s “electric choice” scheme theoretically lets customers shop for generation supply.
The state portal currently showing zero alternative suppliers for that ZIP is a clean example of the fake-market failure: the monopoly delivery utility remains, but the
promised retail marketplace is empty.
Links: MD Electric Choice (https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/) | Why fewer offers (https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/why-you-may-see-fewer-offers/) | PEPCO Maryland customer
choice (https://www.pepco.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice-md)
- Bethesda / Chevy Chase, Maryland — PEPCO
Bethesda and Chevy Chase sit in PEPCO territory, under the same split-bill model: PEPCO delivery remains unavoidable, while supply was pushed into the state’s retail-choice
experiment. This is one of the wealthiest, most educated areas in the country, yet the “choice” model still reduces to tariffed wires, auctioned default supply, and a
supplier market that may or may not exist.
Links: MD Electric Choice (https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/) | PSC fewer-offers page (https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/why-you-may-see-fewer-offers/) | PEPCO choice
(https://www.pepco.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice-md)
- Silver Spring, Maryland — PEPCO
Silver Spring is another PEPCO Maryland locality where the public-utility bargain was split into delivery and supply. The wires, outage response, and delivery charges
remain PEPCO; supply can theoretically be purchased through a third-party supplier, if any supplier is willing to operate under current Maryland rules.
Links: MD Electric Choice (https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/) | PEPCO customer choice (https://www.pepco.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice-md) | MD fewer offers
(https://www.mdelectricchoice.com/why-you-may-see-fewer-offers/)
- Washington, DC — PEPCO DC
DC has its own version through DC Power Connect. PEPCO remains the distribution utility, but supply can be shopped separately. Like Maryland, the customer is told there is
“choice,” while the physical monopoly remains untouched.
Links: DC Power Connect (https://dcpowerconnect.com/) | PEPCO DC customer choice (https://www.pepco.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice-dc) | DC PSC
(https://dcpsc.org/)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — PECO
Philadelphia is classic deregulated Pennsylvania: PECO remains the delivery utility, but customers can shop for supply through PA Power Switch. The old one-company bundled
model was replaced with a two-layer bill: monopoly delivery plus competitive supply.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | PA PUC shopping guide (https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/choosing-electricity-supplier/) | PECO choice
(https://www.peco.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice)
- Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — Duquesne Light
Pittsburgh customers receive delivery through Duquesne Light, while supply is open to retail competition. This is the Pennsylvania model in miniature: regulated wires,
competitive generation offers, and an official shopping portal meant to discipline prices.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | PA PUC supplier choice (https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/choosing-electricity-supplier/) | Duquesne Light
shopping (https://www.duquesnelight.com/energy-choice)
- Allentown, Pennsylvania — PPL Electric
Allentown is in PPL Electric territory. PPL still delivers electricity, maintains the grid, and bills delivery; the state allows customers to select alternate suppliers for
generation. The old utility bargain was unbundled.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | PPL supplier choice (https://www.pplelectric.com/shopsmart) | PA PUC (https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/)
- Harrisburg, Pennsylvania — PPL Electric
Harrisburg sits in the same Pennsylvania retail-choice structure. The customer cannot choose the wires company, but can shop generation suppliers through the state portal.
Again: monopoly delivery preserved, supply marketplace layered on top.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | PPL Shop Smart (https://www.pplelectric.com/shopsmart) | PA PUC choice
(https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/choosing-electricity-supplier/)
- Erie, Pennsylvania — Penelec / FirstEnergy
Erie is served by Penelec, a FirstEnergy utility. Customers can shop supply while Penelec remains the regulated distribution utility. This is deregulation without
eliminating the monopoly — only splitting the bill.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | FirstEnergy PA customer choice (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/pennsylvania.html) | PA PUC
(https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/)
- Lancaster, Pennsylvania — PPL Electric
Lancaster is another PPL locality under Pennsylvania’s retail-choice regime. PPL’s wires remain unavoidable; suppliers compete for the commodity portion.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | PPL supplier choice (https://www.pplelectric.com/shopsmart) | PA PUC electric choice
(https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/choosing-electricity-supplier/)
- York, Pennsylvania — Met-Ed / FirstEnergy
York customers generally fall under Met-Ed, another FirstEnergy distribution utility. Supply is open to competitive providers, but distribution remains regulated monopoly
service.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | FirstEnergy PA choice (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/pennsylvania.html) | PA PUC
(https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/)
- Reading, Pennsylvania — Met-Ed / FirstEnergy
Reading is the same structure: Met-Ed delivers electricity, while suppliers compete for generation. The customer faces a split system: monopoly wires plus market supply.
Links: PA Power Switch (https://www.papowerswitch.com/) | FirstEnergy PA (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/pennsylvania.html) | PA PUC shopping
(https://www.puc.pa.gov/electricity/choosing-electricity-supplier/)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Columbus, Ohio — AEP Ohio
Columbus is in AEP Ohio territory. Ohio’s deregulation allows customers to shop suppliers while AEP remains the delivery utility. Ohio also has aggregation programs, where
municipalities bulk-shop supply for residents.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | PUCO Apples to Apples (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/ApplesToApples.aspx) | AEP Ohio choice
(https://www.aepohio.com/account/bills/choice/)
- Cleveland, Ohio — The Illuminating Company / FirstEnergy
Cleveland customers are generally served by The Illuminating Company, a FirstEnergy utility. The delivery monopoly remains, while customers can shop generation suppliers
through Ohio’s choice system.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | FirstEnergy Ohio choice (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/ohio.html) | PUCO
(https://puco.ohio.gov/)
- Cincinnati, Ohio — Duke Energy Ohio
Cincinnati’s electric delivery is through Duke Energy Ohio, but customers can choose competitive suppliers for generation. The bill reflects the deregulated split: delivery
utility plus supply provider.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | Duke Ohio choice (https://www.duke-energy.com/home/billing/rates/electric-tariff/ohio) | PUCO Apples to Apples
(https://energychoice.ohio.gov/ApplesToApples.aspx)
- Akron, Ohio — Ohio Edison / FirstEnergy
Akron sits in Ohio Edison territory. Ohio Edison delivers; competitive suppliers can sell the generation portion. This is classic Ohio deregulation.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | FirstEnergy Ohio (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/ohio.html) | PUCO (https://puco.ohio.gov/)
- Dayton, Ohio — AES Ohio
Dayton is served by AES Ohio for delivery. Supply choice exists through Ohio’s retail marketplace, with the usual result: delivery monopoly retained, supply competition
layered above.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | AES Ohio supplier choice (https://www.aes-ohio.com/choice) | PUCO Apples to Apples
(https://energychoice.ohio.gov/ApplesToApples.aspx)
- Toledo, Ohio — Toledo Edison / FirstEnergy
Toledo customers are generally in Toledo Edison territory. Delivery remains regulated, but supply can be shopped competitively under Ohio choice.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | FirstEnergy Ohio choice (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/ohio.html) | PUCO
(https://puco.ohio.gov/)
- Youngstown, Ohio — Ohio Edison
Youngstown is another FirstEnergy/Ohio Edison locality where retail supply choice exists but wires service remains the utility monopoly.
Links: Energy Choice Ohio (https://energychoice.ohio.gov/) | FirstEnergy Ohio (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/ohio.html) | PUCO Apples to Apples
(https://energychoice.ohio.gov/ApplesToApples.aspx)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Chicago, Illinois — ComEd
Chicago is served by ComEd for delivery, while Illinois allows alternative retail electric suppliers. Illinois also created municipal aggregation, where cities buy supply
on behalf of residents unless they opt out.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | Illinois Commerce Commission (https://icc.illinois.gov/) | ComEd choice
(https://www.comed.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice)
- Aurora, Illinois — ComEd
Aurora is in ComEd territory. The deregulated structure separates ComEd delivery from competitive supply, with the state’s Plug In Illinois portal tracking suppliers and
offers.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | ComEd customer choice (https://www.comed.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice) | ICC
(https://icc.illinois.gov/)
- Rockford, Illinois — ComEd
Rockford’s delivery utility is ComEd. The customer can shop supply or participate in aggregation programs, while ComEd keeps the wires role.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | ComEd choice (https://www.comed.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice) | Illinois Commerce Commission
(https://icc.illinois.gov/)
- Peoria, Illinois — Ameren Illinois
Peoria is in Ameren Illinois territory. Ameren delivers electricity; alternative suppliers can sell power supply. This is Illinois’s downstate version of the same unbundled
model.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | Ameren Illinois supply choice (https://www.ameren.com/illinois/account/customer-choice) | ICC
(https://icc.illinois.gov/)
- Champaign-Urbana, Illinois — Ameren Illinois
Champaign-Urbana is served by Ameren for delivery. Supply can be purchased through alternative retail suppliers or municipal aggregation.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | Ameren choice (https://www.ameren.com/illinois/account/customer-choice) | ICC (https://icc.illinois.gov/)
- Decatur, Illinois — Ameren Illinois
Decatur customers receive delivery from Ameren Illinois while supply may be chosen from competitive suppliers. The old bundled model is replaced by a split-service model.
Links: Plug In Illinois (https://plugin.illinois.gov/) | Ameren Illinois choice (https://www.ameren.com/illinois/account/customer-choice) | Illinois Commerce Commission
(https://icc.illinois.gov/)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Houston, Texas — CenterPoint delivery / ERCOT retail choice
Houston is the flagship deregulated-electricity example. CenterPoint owns and maintains delivery infrastructure, while customers must choose a retail electric provider
unless placed on a default provider. Texas went further than most states: retail supply is not just optional shopping; in much of ERCOT it is the normal model.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | PUCT customer choice (https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx) | CenterPoint electric
choice (https://www.centerpointenergy.com/en-us/Services/Pages/electricity.aspx)
- Dallas, Texas — Oncor delivery
Dallas is in Oncor delivery territory. Oncor owns the wires; retail electric providers sell the supply contract. This is the full Texas retail-choice design: separate REP
and transmission/distribution utility.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | Oncor (https://www.oncor.com/) | PUCT (https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx)
- Fort Worth, Texas — Oncor delivery
Fort Worth follows the same Oncor/ERCOT structure. Customers shop retail providers, while the delivery network remains Oncor. The old public-service utility relationship is
replaced by retail-energy contracting.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | Oncor (https://www.oncor.com/) | PUCT electric choice
(https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx)
- Arlington, Texas — Oncor delivery
Arlington sits between Dallas and Fort Worth in Oncor territory. Retail electric providers compete for supply contracts; Oncor remains the regulated delivery monopoly.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | Oncor (https://www.oncor.com/) | PUCT (https://www.puc.texas.gov/)
- Plano, Texas — Oncor delivery
Plano is another Oncor locality under ERCOT retail choice. Customers choose retail electric providers; Oncor handles delivery and outages.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | Oncor (https://www.oncor.com/) | PUCT electric info
(https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx)
- Corpus Christi, Texas — AEP Texas delivery
Corpus Christi is generally in AEP Texas delivery territory. Retail supply is competitive; AEP Texas handles delivery. This is the Texas model outside the Dallas/Houston
core.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | AEP Texas (https://www.aeptexas.com/) | PUCT (https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx)
- McAllen, Texas — AEP Texas delivery
McAllen is in the AEP Texas service area. Retail providers sell plans; AEP delivers the electricity. The customer faces a retail marketplace for supply, with the wires
company still fixed.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | AEP Texas (https://www.aeptexas.com/) | PUCT (https://www.puc.texas.gov/)
- Waco, Texas — Oncor delivery
Waco customers generally fall under Oncor delivery. Supply is shopped through retail electric providers, turning electricity into a contract market layered on a regulated
delivery monopoly.
Links: Power to Choose (https://www.powertochoose.org/) | Oncor (https://www.oncor.com/) | PUCT (https://www.puc.texas.gov/consumer/electricity/electricity.aspx)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Newark, New Jersey — PSE&G
Newark is served by PSE&G for delivery, while New Jersey allows customers to select third-party suppliers. NJ Power Switch is the state’s shopping/education portal.
Links: NJ Power Switch (https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/) | NJ BPU supplier shopping (https://www.nj.gov/bpu/commercial/shopping.html) | PSE&G energy choice
(https://nj.myaccount.pseg.com/myservicepublic/energychoiceandthirdpartysuppliers)
- Jersey City, New Jersey — PSE&G
Jersey City is also PSE&G territory. Customers cannot choose the wires company but can choose competitive supply, subject to state rules.
Links: NJ Power Switch (https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/) | NJ BPU switching (https://www.nj.gov/bpu/about/divisions/energy/switching.html) | PSE&G choice
(https://nj.myaccount.pseg.com/myservicepublic/energychoiceandthirdpartysuppliers)
- Trenton, New Jersey — PSE&G
Trenton participates in New Jersey’s energy-choice framework. Delivery remains with the incumbent utility; supply can be shopped separately.
Links: NJ Power Switch (https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/) | NJ BPU (https://www.nj.gov/bpu/) | PSE&G choice
(https://nj.myaccount.pseg.com/myservicepublic/energychoiceandthirdpartysuppliers)
- Atlantic City, New Jersey — Atlantic City Electric
Atlantic City is served by Atlantic City Electric. Retail supply choice exists, while delivery remains with ACE.
Links: NJ Power Switch (https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/) | Atlantic City Electric choice (https://www.atlanticcityelectric.com/my-account/my-service/customer-choice) | NJ BPU
supplier shopping (https://www.nj.gov/bpu/commercial/shopping.html)
- Toms River, New Jersey — JCP&L / FirstEnergy
Toms River is generally in JCP&L territory. Customers may shop supply through licensed third-party suppliers while JCP&L remains the delivery utility.
Links: NJ Power Switch (https://nj.gov/njpowerswitch/) | FirstEnergy NJ choice (https://www.firstenergycorp.com/customer_choice/new_jersey.html) | NJ BPU switching
(https://www.nj.gov/bpu/about/divisions/energy/switching.html)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- New York City, New York — Con Edison
New York City is in Con Edison territory. ConEd delivers power, while customers can buy supply from ESCOs under New York’s retail-choice system. The old utility model
becomes delivery utility plus ESCO marketplace.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | NY DPS energy competition (https://dps.ny.gov/energy-competition) | Con Edison ESCO info
(https://www.coned.com/en/accounts-billing/your-bill/about-con-edisons-rates/energy-service-companies)
- Yonkers / Westchester, New York — Con Edison
Yonkers and much of lower Westchester are ConEd territory. Customers can receive default utility supply or select ESCO supply, while delivery remains ConEd.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | ConEd ESCOs
(https://www.coned.com/en/accounts-billing/your-bill/about-con-edisons-rates/energy-service-companies) | NY DPS (https://dps.ny.gov/energy-competition)
- Buffalo, New York — National Grid
Buffalo is served by National Grid for delivery. New York’s ESCO system allows alternative supply, with the usual separation between delivery and commodity.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | National Grid supplier choice (https://www.nationalgridus.com/Upstate-NY-Home/Energy-Choice) | NY DPS energy
competition (https://dps.ny.gov/energy-competition)
- Rochester, New York — RG&E
Rochester is served by RG&E, with competitive ESCO supply available under New York choice rules. The wires utility remains; supply can be shopped.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | RG&E choose a supplier (https://www.rge.com/account/understandyourbill/chooseasupplier) | NY DPS
(https://dps.ny.gov/energy-competition)
- Syracuse, New York — National Grid
Syracuse is another National Grid locality under New York’s ESCO model. Delivery is National Grid; supply can be default or competitive.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | National Grid energy choice (https://www.nationalgridus.com/Upstate-NY-Home/Energy-Choice) | NY DPS
(https://dps.ny.gov/how-shop-energy-services)
- Albany, New York — National Grid
Albany sits in National Grid territory, with retail supply choice available through ESCOs. The official “choice” architecture is the same: regulated delivery plus
competitive supply.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | National Grid choice (https://www.nationalgridus.com/Upstate-NY-Home/Energy-Choice) | NY DPS
(https://dps.ny.gov/energy-competition)
- Poughkeepsie, New York — Central Hudson
Poughkeepsie is in Central Hudson territory. Customers can choose an ESCO for supply while Central Hudson remains the delivery utility.
Links: NY Power to Choose (https://dps.ny.gov/power-choose) | Central Hudson energy choice (https://www.cenhud.com/en/my-energy/my-energy-options/energy-choice/) | NY DPS
(https://dps.ny.gov/how-shop-energy-services)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Hartford, Connecticut — Eversource
Hartford is served by Eversource delivery, with supply choice offered through Connecticut’s EnergizeCT marketplace. Connecticut is one of the clearest examples of New
England utility unbundling.
Links: EnergizeCT (https://energizect.com/) | CT rate board (https://energizect.com/rate-board/compare-energy-supplier-rates) | Eversource supplier choice
(https://www.eversource.com/content/residential/account-billing/manage-bill/about-your-bill/rates-tariffs/electric-supplier-options)
- New Haven, Connecticut — United Illuminating / Avangrid
New Haven is generally served by United Illuminating for delivery. Customers can shop supply through EnergizeCT, while UI remains responsible for wires and delivery.
Links: EnergizeCT (https://energizect.com/) | CT supplier rate board (https://energizect.com/rate-board/compare-energy-supplier-rates) | UI supplier choice
(https://www.uinet.com/account/understandyourbill/chooseasupplier)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
- Boston, Massachusetts — Eversource / National Grid territories
Boston-area electric customers may fall under Eversource or National Grid depending on precise location. Massachusetts allows competitive supply shopping through Energy
Switch MA, while delivery remains with the incumbent utility.
Links: Energy Switch MA (https://www.energyswitchma.gov/) | MA DPU competitive supply (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/competitive-electric-supply) | Eversource MA
supplier options (https://www.eversource.com/content/residential/account-billing/manage-bill/about-your-bill/rates-tariffs/electric-supplier-options)
- Worcester, Massachusetts — National Grid
Worcester is served by National Grid for delivery. Massachusetts retail choice lets customers shop supply while the delivery utility remains fixed.
Links: Energy Switch MA (https://www.energyswitchma.gov/) | MA competitive supply (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/competitive-electric-supply) | National Grid supplier
choice (https://www.nationalgridus.com/MA-Home/Energy-Choice)
- Springfield, Massachusetts — Eversource
Springfield is in Eversource territory. Supply can be bought from competitive suppliers, but delivery remains Eversource. The same public-service split appears: monopoly
infrastructure plus retail commodity market.
Links: Energy Switch MA (https://www.energyswitchma.gov/) | MA DPU competitive supply (https://www.mass.gov/info-details/competitive-electric-supply) | Eversource supplier
options (https://www.eversource.com/content/residential/account-billing/manage-bill/about-your-bill/rates-tariffs/electric-supplier-options)
The pattern to prove or disprove is:
- Same policy architecture
- break bundled utility service
- preserve delivery monopoly
- create retail supplier layer
- call it “choice”
- Same timing
- late 1990s / early 2000s wave
- state-by-state rollout
- same crisis/failure patterns later
- Same actors / networks
- governors
- speakers
- senate presidents
- utility committee chairs
- PSC/PUC commissioners
- utility lobbyists
- supplier lobbyists
- ALEC / industry groups / think tanks if documented
- Same outcomes
- confusing bills
- supplier abuses
- teaser rates
- market retreat
- default utility still unavoidable
- “choice” portals with bad/no choices
- Religious affiliation / institutional culture
- documented affiliations only
- then look for clustering
- especially where public “common good” language conflicts with privatization policy
The useful result is not accusation first. It is:
│ Here are the names.
│ Here are the votes.
│ Here are the bills.
│ Here are the networks.
│ Here are the religious affiliations where documented.
│ Here is who benefited.
│ Here is what happened to the public.
If that reveals coordination, the table will show it.