The Bangor Daily News reports that, "hundreds of thousands of Maine CEP [competitive electricity provider] customers would have paid $20 million less if they had stuck with the default price in 2013 and 2014."

The BDN uses EIA data, creating averages, and apparently calendar year comparisons, for 2012, 2013, and 2014

Snapshot comparisons always present problems, and the only true comparison is for each individual customer over the complete term of their contract. While we do not dispute the overall conclusions from the BDN, and that two suppliers, in particular, had EIA-reported costs as well in excess of the Standard Offer, we do find a calendar year comparison particularly inappropriate in Maine, where for CMP and BHE the Standard Offer year had (at the time) run March to February, which may exacerbate any front-loaded (or back-loaded) savings versus default service that are "cut off" by using a calendar-year comparison (while we do not endorse a calendar year comparison in say, New York, at least in New York the utility supply rates change monthly so there is no mixing of distinct Standard Offer pricing periods). Given the size of the above-Standard Offer costs for two outlying suppliers (which drive nearly the entirety of the difference), we doubt it would make an appreciable change in the BDN's aggregate results, but for the bulk of suppliers, it may have made the difference between savings and above-market.

Indeed, apart from two outlying suppliers, the aggregate difference between Standard Offer rates and supplier rates is seemingly negligible, and considering the Standard Offer environment at the time, the non-outlier suppliers probably tell a story of customers that gained appreciable savings when Standard Offer rates were higher in 2012, and then received generally competitive rates as Standard Offer prices tracked closer to market (giving back some, but not all, of their prior savings). When the issue of value-added services (renewable or otherwise) is considered, the performance of competitive retail pricing may look even more attractive in that suppliers offered near-default service rates for superior products.

It's two outlying suppliers that accounted, per BDN's comparison method, for nearly all (~$17 million) of the costs above default service

Moreover, even including these costs, the average per kWh charged in excess of default service by suppliers was 0.5¢ in 2013, and 1.2¢ in 2014 -- we're not talking about 10¢ premiums. $20 million makes for a flashier headline, until you consider how many kWhs are covered by that $20 million. A lot of critics of choice complain that meager 1¢ savings in the market show a failure. While we stress customers should never "pay more", it seems disingenuous to make hay over a 1¢ premium, especially when considering the factors noted above (front-loaded or back-loaded savings, timing differences, value-added, etc.)

More convincing from the BDN are actual rates paid by customers, an example of 12¢ per kWh in one case (about double default service at the time), another 66% higher than SOS, another 23¢ -- again all from two outlying providers. Still, if these rates were charged and the average rate is only 1¢ above SOS, it means a lot of customers were seeing savings to offset these rates.

See the Bangor Daily News for the story