Commercial Texas Electric Prices Down Again Today

When Energy Markets Come Down Near Historical Lows

Today the energy markets came down again following a down day on Thursday and Friday. Commercial Texas electricity prices are at a good price range for those who have been holding out for just the right time to lock in their electric rates. By locking into an electricity price you are doing what many consider to be the safe way to procure energy. Texas electricity companies will buy natural gas futures in order to keep the electricity they sell you locked in at a specified price for 1, 2, or 3 years. So if you signed up at 1 year you will pay the same electricity price for that entire year. The other popular option would be to sign up on a MCPE electricity price. MCPE is a variable price that is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The price changes every 15 minutes, 96 intervals a day and is not for the risk averse. For most Texas businesses looking to procure their electricity we recommend locking in on a fixed electricity rate. If electric rates were higher we might recommend doing a 50/50 blend where you have half on a fixed rate and half on MCPE. With some of the cheapest commercial electricity rates we have seen in a long time you might as well lock in rather then get on a variable electricity price.

Our Proposal Gives You a Clear Snapshot of What Electricity Prices and Terms are Available

We have a commercial electric price chart we update every so often that shows a snapshot of what electricity rates have been doing. You can click on the link above to see the chart to give you a ballpark on what you can expect when locking into a fixed Texas electricity rate. You can achieve a much cheaper electric rate than the daily rates seen on our chart. Daily electricity prices are generic prices with a larger retail margin built in because the exact usage and demand is not known for the commercial business. Our company can procure a cheaper electricity price for your Texas business by putting your historical or estimated electricity usage through a reverse auction. By letting the energy consultant have your exact usage and giving them a couple days to make a tailor made electric rate and proposal for your business you can knock off a half a penny to a penny off of your per kWh rate. The usage goes through a reverse auction process where up to 15 different electricity companies bid on your account. Not all providers bid on small usage just as not all providers bid on large electricity usage. Depending on the size and type of your Texas business will determine how many providers choose to bid on your account. We promise that we can achieve a cheaper Texas electricity price for your commercial business by putting your electricity usage through a reverse auction. If you were to go to the same provider to attempt to achieve the price we achieve for you it will not be as cheap of a rate.

Not a Shell Company for a Provider But a Full Service Energy Consulting Company

When using Electricity Bid to procure your electricity price you will be using a company that acts as an energy consultant on your companies behalf. We do not represent a particular electric company and our fee is paid by the provider and is the same regardless of the provider that wins the bid. There are some energy Texas consulting companies/brokers out there that represent one or two companies. These electricity consultants are nothing more than a shell company for a provider. These so called brokers are not representing your companies interest but are trying to make the one brand they sell sound as good as possible even though there may be several other electricity companies out there with cheaper electricity rates.

Bid Down Your Electricity Price and Save on Energy

We have helped hundreds of Texas businesses bid down their electricity price among the Texas energy providers by our reverse auction process. We have helped businesses that use tens of millions of kilowatt hours a year to those only using 30,000 kWh a year. No matter the size of your Texas business we can consult you on your current electricity provider, show you an apples to apples comparison of what you are paying now to what you could be paying and help educate you on the entire reverse auction process. Our strategy is to be as open, transparent, and educational as possible so you know exactly what you are choosing and why. If you were confused about your electricity bill and what sales people at some of the energy companies were telling you before you will have a complete understanding of what to know going forward after speaking to our energy consultant.

Begin Your No Obligation Electricity Bid Reverse Auction

If you would like to begin the no obligation reverse auction process for your Texas commercial energy than please give us a call. We can be reached at 1-800-971-4020

Some of the Texas Cities We Serve

We serve all the deregulated cities of Texas including Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, Alpine, Laredo, Austin, Round Rock, Killeen, Tyler, Plano, and many others.

TXU Wholesale Energy (Luminate) PUCT Fine Explained

Meeting Date: Dec 18, 2008
Date Delivered: Dec 18, 2008
Agenda Item No.: 18
Caption: Docket No. 34061 – Notices of Violation by TXU Corporation, et al., of PURA 39.157 (a) and P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.503(g)(7).
In this docket, the Commission is asked to approve a $15 million dollar settlement between the Commission and Luminant regarding
the accusation that Luminant engaged in “market power abuse” as that term is defined in PURA and our substantive rules. I will vote
to approve this settlement, the largest in the history of the PUCT, but would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think
such a settlement is appropriate.
By way of review, the Notice of Violation (NOV) initially arose out of the “ERCOT 2005 State of the Market Report,” prepared by
Potomac Economics (Potomac), which at that time was serving as “advisor” to the Wholesale Market Oversight group within the PUCT.
This report was published in July 2006. In Chapter V, “Analysis of Competitive Performance,” Potomac avaluated whether any electric
power suppliers had engaged in either “physical withholding” or “economic withholding.” According to Potomac, physical withholding
occurs when a particpant makes resources unavailble for dispatch that are otherwise physically capable of providing energy and that
are economic at prevailing market prices. Potential economic withholding is evaluated by calculating an “output gap”. The output
gap is defined as the quantity of energy that is not being produced by in-service capacity even though the in-service capacity is
economic by a substantial margin, given the balancing energy price. A participant can economically withhold resources, as measured
by the output gap, by raising the balancing energy offers so as to be dispatched or by not offering unscheduled energy in the
balancing energy market.
Potomac concluded, wth regard to physical withholding, that they did not find evidence of physical withholding and that there were
positive indicators that the largest suppliers did not engage in physical withholding, but “that firm conclusions would require a
more detailed examination.” With regard to economic withholding, Potomac was concerned that Company C (TXU) began offering energy
in the last week of June (2005) at prices far in excess of generic costs–that being more than $50 per MWh above generic short run
marginal costs. This activity therefore led to an additional investigation by Potomac. Subsequently, Potomac, now in their new role
as ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, conducted an “Investigation of the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU from June 1 to September
30, 2005.” That report was filed in March 2007.
In assessing the report of March 2007, it is important to note a couple of things. First, during the period analyzed by Potomac,
there was no definition of “market power.” PURA section 39.157 (a) defines “market power abuse” as “practices by persons possessing
market power that are unreasonably discriminatory or tend to unreasonably restrict, impair, or reduce the level of competition,
including practices that tie unregulated products or services to regulated products or services or unreasonably discriminate in the
provision of regulated services. For purposes of this section, market power abuses include predatory pricing, withholding of
production, precluding entry, and collusion.” However, PURA does not define “market power”. In PUC substantive rule 25.504, which
became effective on September 13, 2006, the Commission defined “market power” to be “The ability to control prices or exclude
competition.” Because there was no definition of market power during the June 1 to September 30, 2005 time period, Potomac created
its own definition of market power as “the ability for a market participant to profitably raise prices above competitive levels.”
Second, in its analysis, Potomac excluded un-offered capacity from online units. In other words, there were other suppliers of
power that could have provided power but shose not to offer energy into the balancing energy market (BES). (To some degree, I
believe this was caused by $300 “shame” cap which the Commission has subsequently done away with.) Had those other suppliers
offered energy into the BES market, then TXU would have been the pivotal supplier less of the time.
Third, TXU’s offers during the study period were designed to cover the “full costs of owning, operating, and maintaining units
expected to be needed to satisfy the forecasted load. This amount includes the initial investment costs and other fixed costs such
as leasing arrangements for gas turbines.” Potomac rejected this approach claiming that in a competitive market, there is no basis
for an entity to take into account sunk costs [when designing a bidding strategy]. According to Potomac, TXU’s strategy should be
the same “regardless of whether TXU won the units in a lottery or TXU paid a large sum to buy the units.” In other words, according
to Potomac, TXU should have been bid its generation units either at or near its short run marginal costs.
I have been and continue to be skeptical of all three of Potomac’s above enumerated positions. The Commission’s definition of
market power is different and I believe better that the one used by Potomac. In any competitive market, one or more participants
may have the ability to raise prices above “competitive levels” for a limited period of time. However, in a market, the response to
high prices from one producer is that other competitors, both existing and new, will eventually begin to offer prices below your
prices and soon take away your market share and your profits. I don’t know why other generators didn’t offer power into the BES
market during the study period (perhaps it was the fear of the $300 shame cap), but we know that had they done so, TXU would have
been pivotal less of the time and therefore TXU’s offers would have set the price less frequently. Therefore, it is unclear to me
why TXU should be punished for the inactions of others.
In a previous memo by me, filed on May 11, 2005, in Project No. 30513, which was a “staff investigation into the Wholesale Market
Activities of TXU” during the fall of 2004 (and which resulted in a determination that TXU did not engage in market power abuse
during that time frame), I took exception to Potomac’s previous analysis. In that memo (a copy of which is attached), I said, “It
seems perfectly rational to me that a generator would attempt to recover a return on and of capital investment through its BES
offers. I think it a bit theoretical to assert that generators in ERCOT are acting rationally only when they offer at short-run
marginal cost. If generators are unable to recover long-run marginal costs, then I fear we run the risk of discouraging additional
generation at a time when it appears that we are really beginning to need it.” I still believe this to be the case. As a report on
Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) recently released by ERCOT demonstrates (page attached), ERCOT’s reserve margins have
dramatically improved since May of 2007 when they were projected to be below 12.5% as early as 2009. I am unconvinced that the
ERCOT region would have experienced such a robust new generation build were we to limit generators to recovering only their short
run marginal costs.
In Order No. 26, issued in this docket on July 21, 2008, ALJs Harvel and Walston opined on the issue of the maximum penalty that
could be assessed against TXU if the alleged violation(s) of market power abuse was found to be true. Staff argued for $171
million, Luminant argued for $610,000 or $7.930 million, in the alternative. According to the judges, there is no way to justify
staff’s proposed penalty of $171 million. Using the most generous calculation available-3,085 alleged seperate bid curves times the
maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation (which was the previous maximum dollar amount but has subsequently been raised to $25,000),
the total maximum penalty would be $15.525 million. The ALJs said, “In this case, Staff’s proposed trebling of Luminant’s alleged
damage to the market would result in an adminstrative penalty that would greatly exceed the penalty cap contained in section 15.023
(of PURA). Staff has not provided any legal authority to authorize such a penalty.”
Because I believe it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that Luminant’s bidding behavior in the BES market during
the study period was an abuse of market power, and because the proposed settlement is at the high end of the highest probably
recovery if Luminant were actually found guilty, I propose that we accept the settlement.From: Julio Bejarano [juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, December 19 2008 8:41 AM
To: Smitherman, Barry
Subject: TXU fine

barry

As expected! As I look at your picture I could not see the ring around your head from you having your head stuck up Perry’s or Craddick’s Ass. You came in after your predecessor oked the fine two hundred million for stealing from us usurers. We payed double for our electricity and now you let TXU off the hook for stealing from us. Go big business! When you were appointed by the governor I wrote you at the time and called you out on this exact chess move. I consider as big a thief as the other two above mentioned crooks. I plan to run a full page ad in the paper reminding everyone of the Governor’s big business protective practices. He is going down! I can only hope so are you ass sniffer.
Julio Bejarano
juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net
972-735-0444
You can read in more detail about this case against TXU on the PUCT website when searching for control number: 34061From: Julio Bejarano [juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net]

Luminate which is a subsidiary company of Energy Future Holdings and is the power generation side of their business was fined by the PUCT for approximately 15 Million around December of 2008 for what the PUCT called “market power abuse”. Energy Future Holdings bought TXU Corp which included Luminate, Oncor, and TXU Energy and is now a new company although still uses the same brand names. After looking into the issue further it appears PUCT Commissioner Barry Smitherman has some valid points that the $15 million penalty that was pushed by the staff at the PUCT may have been the wrong decision against TXU which now goes by Energy Future Holdings and whose power generation side is actually known as Luminate. After reviewing the commissioners detailed notes about what caused the MCPE balancing energy markets prices to spike in the summer of 2005 it looks like Luminate’s dominant position in the wholesale energy market in Texas created a bias against TXU simply because Luminant happened to be one of the biggest participants in the wholesale energy market. By having what the PUCT commissioner and others refer to as a “shame cap” it likely hindered other wholesale generation companies from bidding into this market which would have kept prices down. You can read what an uneducated consumer believes to be the truth and then we recommend you read the facts for yourself below which has more to do with unnecessary government regulation over the Texas energy market.

Sent: Friday, December 19 2008 8:41 AM

To: Smitherman, Barry

Subject: TXU fine

barry

As expected! As I look at your picture I could not see the ring around your head from you having your head stuck up Perry’s or Craddick’s @ss. You came in after your predecessor oked the fine two hundred million for stealing from us usurers. We payed double for our electricity and now you let TXU off the hook for stealing from us. Go big business! When you were appointed by the governor I wrote you at the time and called you out on this exact chess move. I consider as big a thief as the other two above mentioned crooks. I plan to run a full page ad in the paper reminding everyone of the Governor’s big business protective practices. He is going down! I can only hope so are you @ss sniffer.

Julio Bejarano

juliobejarano@sbcglobal.net

972-735-0444

PUCT Commisioner Barry Smitherman Explains The Problems With This Penalty Against Luminate

You can read in more detail about this case against TXU on the PUCT website when searching for control number: 34061

Meeting Date: Dec 18, 2008

Date Delivered: Dec 18, 2008

Agenda Item No.: 18

Caption: Docket No. 34061 – Notices of Violation by TXU Corporation, et al., of PURA 39.157 (a) and P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.503(g)(7).

In this docket, the Commission is asked to approve a $15 million dollar settlement between the Commission and Luminant regarding the accusation that Luminant engaged in “market power abuse” as that term is defined in PURA and our substantive rules. I will vote to approve this settlement, the largest in the history of the PUCT, but would like to take this opportunity to explain why I think such a settlement is appropriate.

By way of review, the Notice of Violation (NOV) initially arose out of the “ERCOT 2005 State of the Market Report,” prepared by Potomac Economics (Potomac), which at that time was serving as “advisor” to the Wholesale Market Oversight group within the PUCT. This report was published in July 2006. In Chapter V, “Analysis of Competitive Performance,” Potomac avaluated whether any electric power suppliers had engaged in either “physical withholding” or “economic withholding.” According to Potomac, physical withholding occurs when a particpant makes resources unavailble for dispatch that are otherwise physically capable of providing energy and that are economic at prevailing market prices. Potential economic withholding is evaluated by calculating an “output gap”. The output gap is defined as the quantity of energy that is not being produced by in-service capacity even though the in-service capacity is economic by a substantial margin, given the balancing energy price. A participant can economically withhold resources, as measured by the output gap, by raising the balancing energy offers so as to be dispatched or by not offering unscheduled energy in the balancing energy market.

Potomac concluded, wth regard to physical withholding, that they did not find evidence of physical withholding and that there were positive indicators that the largest suppliers did not engage in physical withholding, but “that firm conclusions would require a more detailed examination.” With regard to economic withholding, Potomac was concerned that Company C (TXU) began offering energy in the last week of June (2005) at prices far in excess of generic costs–that being more than $50 per MWh above generic short run marginal costs. This activity therefore led to an additional investigation by Potomac. Subsequently, Potomac, now in their new role as ERCOT Independent Market Monitor, conducted an “Investigation of the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU from June 1 to September 30, 2005.” That report was filed in March 2007.

In assessing the report of March 2007, it is important to note a couple of things. First, during the period analyzed by Potomac, there was no definition of “market power.” PURA section 39.157 (a) defines “market power abuse” as “practices by persons possessing market power that are unreasonably discriminatory or tend to unreasonably restrict, impair, or reduce the level of competition, including practices that tie unregulated products or services to regulated products or services or unreasonably discriminate in the provision of regulated services. For purposes of this section, market power abuses include predatory pricing, withholding of production, precluding entry, and collusion.” However, PURA does not define “market power”. In PUC substantive rule 25.504, which became effective on September 13, 2006, the Commission defined “market power” to be “The ability to control prices or exclude competition.” Because there was no definition of market power during the June 1 to September 30, 2005 time period, Potomac created its own definition of market power as “the ability for a market participant to profitably raise prices above competitive levels.”

Second, in its analysis, Potomac excluded un-offered capacity from online units. In other words, there were other suppliers of power that could have provided power but shose not to offer energy into the balancing energy market (BES). (To some degree, I believe this was caused by $300 “shame” cap which the Commission has subsequently done away with.) Had those other suppliers offered energy into the BES market, then TXU would have been the pivotal supplier less of the time.

Third, TXU’s offers during the study period were designed to cover the “full costs of owning, operating, and maintaining units expected to be needed to satisfy the forecasted load. This amount includes the initial investment costs and other fixed costs such as leasing arrangements for gas turbines.” Potomac rejected this approach claiming that in a competitive market, there is no basis for an entity to take into account sunk costs [when designing a bidding strategy]. According to Potomac, TXU’s strategy should be the same “regardless of whether TXU won the units in a lottery or TXU paid a large sum to buy the units.” In other words, according to Potomac, TXU should have been bid its generation units either at or near its short run marginal costs.

I have been and continue to be skeptical of all three of Potomac’s above enumerated positions. The Commission’s definition of market power is different and I believe better that the one used by Potomac. In any competitive market, one or more participants may have the ability to raise prices above “competitive levels” for a limited period of time. However, in a market, the response to high prices from one producer is that other competitors, both existing and new, will eventually begin to offer prices below your prices and soon take away your market share and your profits. I don’t know why other generators didn’t offer power into the BES market during the study period (perhaps it was the fear of the $300 shame cap), but we know that had they done so, TXU would have been pivotal less of the time and therefore TXU’s offers would have set the price less frequently. Therefore, it is unclear to me why TXU should be punished for the inactions of others.

In a previous memo by me, filed on May 11, 2005, in Project No. 30513, which was a “staff investigation into the Wholesale Market Activities of TXU” during the fall of 2004 (and which resulted in a determination that TXU did not engage in market power abuse during that time frame), I took exception to Potomac’s previous analysis. In that memo (a copy of which is attached), I said, “It seems perfectly rational to me that a generator would attempt to recover a return on and of capital investment through its BES offers. I think it a bit theoretical to assert that generators in ERCOT are acting rationally only when they offer at short-run marginal cost. If generators are unable to recover long-run marginal costs, then I fear we run the risk of discouraging additional generation at a time when it appears that we are really beginning to need it.” I still believe this to be the case. As a report on Capacity, Demand and Reserves (CDR) recently released by ERCOT demonstrates (page attached), ERCOT’s reserve margins have dramatically improved since May of 2007 when they were projected to be below 12.5% as early as 2009. I am unconvinced that the ERCOT region would have experienced such a robust new generation build were we to limit generators to recovering only their short run marginal costs.

In Order No. 26, issued in this docket on July 21, 2008, ALJs Harvel and Walston opined on the issue of the maximum penalty that could be assessed against TXU if the alleged violation(s) of market power abuse was found to be true. Staff argued for $171 million, Luminant argued for $610,000 or $7.930 million, in the alternative. According to the judges, there is no way to justify staff’s proposed penalty of $171 million. Using the most generous calculation available-3,085 alleged seperate bid curves times the maximum penalty of $5,000 per violation (which was the previous maximum dollar amount but has subsequently been raised to $25,000), the total maximum penalty would be $15.525 million. The ALJs said, “In this case, Staff’s proposed trebling of Luminant’s alleged damage to the market would result in an adminstrative penalty that would greatly exceed the penalty cap contained in section 15.023 (of PURA). Staff has not provided any legal authority to authorize such a penalty.”

Because I believe it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law that Luminant’s bidding behavior in the BES market during the study period was an abuse of market power, and because the proposed settlement is at the high end of the highest probably recovery if Luminant were actually found guilty, I propose that we accept the settlement.

Are you Waiting to Sign up for Commercial Electric Service?

Natural gas as most people know by now is what drives electricity prices in Texas. Well natural gas is on its way up again. Some people are saying that electric rates are already out of the price trend down and will continue up clear through the summer. I am a little on the sidelines as I think that it will be a bumpy up and down time this summer with electricity rates staying in the 7 – 8 cents kWh range. Texas electric rates have been as low as 5 cents a kWh the last few months which makes it hard to bite the bullet and lock in now that electricity rates are back up to 6 – 7 cents kWh. The problem is that if this is a new price trend you may not see electricity rates back down to 5 cents a kWh for a year or longer. It is almost impossible to catch the bottom of a price trend and so getting in close to the bottom is always something I recommend. If you would like to begin the process of shopping for the cheapest commercial electric provider in Texas then please click here to contact us.

I want to explain again that these are commercial electric prices and do not have the TDSP charges included. This is not to be misleading as commercial electric rates do not include TDSP charges initially because every business pays a different TDSP charge. Residential Texas electric rates are usually an all in rate that includes all fees and charges including the TDSP charges. The reason a residential rate is a total bundled rate is because a retail electric provider can average what most homes use in TDSP charges and make that a fixed charge that they bundle in with the “energy only” charge. For instance, if you go out to the state’s website www.powertochoose.com you will see that they list residential electric rates from different retail electric providers as a total bundled rate that includes the TDSP charges. If you attempt to shop commercial electric rates you will always initially be quoted an “energy only” rate that does not contain the TDSP charges because the retail electric provider will need to pull your historical electric usage to give you an accurate estimate of what you can expect to pay in TDSP charges.

A few Texas electricity companies from time to time will sneak on to the powertochoose website and will offer a residential electricity rate that does not bundle in the TDSP charges. At first it may seem that this is an honest mistake but when calling the electricity company and signing up for residential service the sales person will also fail to mention or disclose that their will be additional TDSP charges. Be careful when comparing and browsing electricity rates in power to choose as more then a few different times we have seen false rates on their site. If you need to sign up for the cheapest electric rate in Texas from a reputable electric provider we have the best deals listed on the top left on this page. Feel free to click on the “sign up now” link next to the fixed rate term you want and you can learn more and continue from there.

Texas Electric Bid

Quick and Easy Electric Rate Quotes

If you are a commercial business and would like a no hassle way of obtaining apples to apples Texas electric bids from reputable and competitive electric companies that have a track record of things like, accurate billing, good customer service, ethical contract terms and conditions, and a solid capital base then it can help quite a bit to have an energy consulting company like Electricity Bid go out to bid for your Texas commercial business. Our team of energy consultants work off of a fixed fee that is the same regardless of the provider that wins the bid. We have up to 20 different electric companies compete to win your electric usage and once we have worked down the electric rates among the multiple providers in the mix we create a detailed proposal. We will email this proposal to your company associate who can then use it to explain which provider has the best price. You will know why a provider is the cheapest as well as what the bottom line dollar savings are without the need to worry about additional hidden fees and charges. A detailed electricity comparison proposal will be given showing your energy savings next to your businesses current provider along with multiple other details. The Texas commercial energy prices below are a monthly snapshot of what some of the best rates were for a particular company one day out of the month. The reverse auction can achieve cheaper prices than those in the below chart based on actual or estimated electricity usage.

Feel free to call if you have a question: 1-800-971-4020

Type Of Business:
Monthly Electricity Bill
Comment

The Fee Involved is Paid to us by the Texas Electric Provider

Obtaining a Texas electric bid is a no obligation task we perform for your Texas business and the fee is paid to us by the provider you choose that wins the bid. The electric provider is happy to pay us our fee and no where on your electric bill will it show an additional charge for our service in obtaining electric rate bids on your behalf. We promise that through our bid process we can work out an electric rate that is cheaper then what your commercial or industrial business could obtain directly. If you have questions related to the proposal or bid process an energy consultant with Electricity Bid would be happy to answer your questions and go in to further detail. Among the electricity quotes we receive back are, fixed electric rate pricing, MCPE prices, Heat rate, and hybrids of both Fixed and one of the natural gas heat rate options or MCPE index choices.

Texas Residential Electric Service Quotes

If you are a Texas home residence and would like to receive a Texas electric bid we have a simpler more direct process for you. We have worked out some discount electric rates with several reputable residential electric providers. You may pick among several cheaply priced providers on the front page of our site. The rates on the front page of our site are North Texas electric rates so if you are in Houston or down in the Valley you may see slightly higher rates in your area when you go to type in your zip code. Electric Rates are higher across the board in Houston then they are in Dallas and Fort Worth because of congestion and line loss issues in those cities. You can check out residential electric rates here: Texas Residential Electric Rates

Green Mountain Electric Company

Green Mountain Energy offers some great renewable electricity rates and they have one of the most lenient credit requirements. You can compare Green Mountain Energy with Champion Energy and Bounce Energy to help determine which renewable electricity rate is the cheapest. All providers allow for you to sign up online and will approve you online. If for someone reason you are asked for a large deposit you cannot afford just keep trying until you get one of the providers who will pass you on credit. To learn more or sign just click on the “continue” link in the electricity comparison chart.

Green Energy is the new fad it seems these days with electric rate marketing. The Texas electric companies are now buying just enough green energy credits to have green energy injected into the grid to make their product “green”. Keep in mind that most of the energy is still being created using coal and natural gas fired power plants. The motive isn’t to save the environment but it does help give the Texas consumer that good feeling that they might be doing something. The issue at hand is when an electric provider offers green energy with a high markup. Some Texas electric companies have profited even more by offering a green energy product and then marking up the profit margin higher then usual as they know people are buying the option to save the environment rather then shopping for the best price on Texas electricity. Green electricity is more expensive so the higher price is justified so long as it isn’t raised so high that it could be considered price gouging. Most consumers have not the slightest idea how much more it costs to produce green renewable electricity and so they will pay the higher price without even knowing they may have been took.

A better option then just going with the first green energy plan you happen to see is to buy your own green energy credits from a company that sells green renewable energy credits. You can actually do this and it will have the same effect. Go ahead and buy your electricity from the cheapest electric provider in Texas but then buy some green energy credits on the side to save the environment. You will be doing the same thing and saving a little money at the same time. Green Mountain Energy is the most noticable electric company with green energy products because they have the “Green” name in their brand. Now, almost all Texas electric providers offer a green energy product, even TXU. TXU happens to own several dirty coal powered power generation facilities but they too offer green energy plans. So if you are going to save the environment just keep in mind the electric companies aren’t in it for the earth and humanitarian reasons you may be in it for.

Green Mountain Energy is a good electric company as far as their ability to consistently offer competitive Texas commercial electricity products. The retail electric provider also offers some of the best residential electric rates in Texas. Green Mountain has better prices for commercial businesses then they do in their residential sales division. They are a large wholesale electric provider, have good books, and a positive track record with their customers, energy brokers, and consultants. They operate in several states and are one of the fastest growing energy companies in the United States.

Electricity Bid helps you find an electric rate and provider to save you money and keep life simple.

Get in touch with us!