In Middletown, Pennsylvania, the Battle for Energy Choice Gets Hyperlocal
As those who fight for the freedom of energy choice know, the ability to choose a power supplier opens doors for individual customers. A single household or commercial entity can evaluate which energy suppliers align most with their needs, whether through lower prices, increased flexibility and personalization in rate structure, a greater presence of renewable energy, or otherwise. The mere presence of open competition on the energy market, meanwhile, shifts the motivations of power providers. The utilities will see they can no longer automatically default to monopolies, but rather they must earn the business of customers, like every other industry across the country.
When discussing such battles, advocates for energy choice typically focus on regional opening of markets. But sometimes the fight for energy freedom takes on a more personal and hyperlocal tilt. Such is the case for the owners of Librandi’s Machine Shop, a car part manufacturer and restoration specialist located in Middletown, Pennsylvania, a town just southeast of Harrisburg. The exact location of Librandi’s is taking center stage as the owners of the machine shop seek to stop overpaying for their electricity based on what they contend are artificially high prices.
According to a report in the local Press & Journal, Librandi’s address found it partly in the jurisdiction of the Middletown borough and partly in the Metropolitan Edison (Met-Ed) area of coverage. For years, Librandi’s was forced to buy its power from Middletown Borough, which Librandi’s contended, “sets its electricity rates artificially high so that the borough can use electric revenue to subside the general fund budget each year in order to avoid raising taxes.”
In a decision handed down on February 11, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission agreed and determined that as Librandi’s straddled the line delineating these two jurisdictions, the receipt of power coming from the more affordable Met-Ed would not result in impermissible competition and would not require unnecessary duplication of utility facilities.
At the heart of this matter, Librandi’s included in their lawsuit in 2016 that it paid $1 million more to Middletown in “excessive fees for electricity” than they would have if they were permitted to instead buy from Met-Ed, even contending that the right to shop for cheaper power providers under the Pennsylvania Electricity Choice and Competition Act of 1996 would have saved them immensely on utility bills over the decades. While Pennsylvania is indeed one of the states that allows some level of energy choice to consumers, Middletown is one of 35 municipalities in the state where electricity is provided by the city and no choice is permitted.
This fight that Librandi’s has undertaken underscores a few important points that energy choice advocates must remember:
While many states have passed energy choice legislation, that does not mean that all customers within that state equally receive such considerations.
The inability of individual entities to pursue their own energy suppliers has real and tangible consequences, such as Librandi’s needlessly paying $1 million more than they would have paid if they were located just a few hundred yards in a different direction.
Movement and awareness of the benefits of choosing your supplier, and the unfair detriments of being pointlessly locked into a monopolistic power provider, is spreading and regulators, public opinion, and more are shifting in favor of energy choice.
What might seem like a small battle, representing just a single commercial entity and its power bills, is simply a microcosm of the larger issues surrounding utility monopolies. And a victory for the Librandi’s Machine Shops of the world is a victory for all energy choice advocates.