Indicators for state power sector competitiveness along a continuum of topics are presented across three categories: consumer, structure, and market. This table provides state-by-state metrics across of all of the indicators. See methodology details.
Scoring
| No policy/approach adoption |
Minimal adoption |
Partial adoption |
Highest adoption |
| |
|
|
|
Consumer Dimension Indicators
| State |
Third Party PPA |
Net Metering |
Utility Green Tariffs |
Residential Retail Choice |
Commercial and Industrial Retail Choice |
| Alabama |
Disallowed/restricted |
Utility programs only |
0.1-24.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) from participating top 5 utilities |
No |
No |
| Arkansas |
Partially permitted |
Utility programs only |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Florida |
Partially permitted |
Yes, no caps |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Georgia |
Permitted |
Yes, caps ≤1% demand |
>80% of C&I sales (top 5 largest utilities only) |
No |
Yes, with restrictions |
| Kentucky |
Disallowed/restricted |
Yes, caps ≤1% demand |
>80% of C&I sales (top 5 largest utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Louisiana |
Partially permitted |
Yes, caps >1% demand |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Mississippi |
Partially permitted |
Yes, caps >1% demand |
0.1-24.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| North Carolina |
Partially permitted |
Yes, caps >1% demand |
>80% of C&I sales (top 5 largest utilities only) |
No |
No |
| South Carolina |
Partially permitted |
Yes, no caps |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Tennessee |
Disallowed/restricted |
Utility programs only |
0.1-24.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
No |
No |
| Virginia |
Partially permitted |
Yes, caps ≤1% demand |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only) |
Yes, with restrictions |
Yes, with restrictions |
| West Virginia |
Permitted |
Yes, no caps |
50-79.9% of C&I sales (top 5 utilities only |
No |
No |
Structure Dimension Indicators
| State |
Option for Municipal Ownership of Utilities |
Presence of a Consumer Advocate |
Community Choice Aggregation |
Customer Concentration |
Generation Concentration |
Interconnection Standards |
Procurement Requirements |
| Alabama |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Guidelines |
Limited competitive |
| Arkansas |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Guidelines |
All-source competitiveor >66% participation in RTO |
| Florida |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State standard with restrictions |
Single-source competitive |
| Georgia |
Yes |
No |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Guidelines |
Single-source competitive |
| Kentucky |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Not concentrated |
Moderately concentrated |
State standard with restrictions |
All-source competitiveor >66% participation in RTO |
| Louisiana |
Yes |
No |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Guidelines |
All-source competitiveor >66% participation in RTO |
| Mississippi |
Yes |
No |
No |
Moderately concentrated |
Moderately concentrated |
State Standard with no restrictions |
Single-source competitive |
| North Carolina |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Standard with no restrictions |
Limited competitive |
| South Carolina |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Moderately concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Guidelines |
Limited competitive |
| Tennessee |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Not concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State Standard with no restrictions |
No requirements |
| Virginia |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Highly concentrated |
Highly concentrated |
State standard with restrictions |
All-source competitive or >66% participation in RTO |
| West Virginia |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Highly concentrated |
Moderately concentrated |
State standard with restrictions |
All-source competitive or >66% participation in RTO |
Regional Market Dimension Indicators
| State |
Market Participation |
Civil Society Participation Role in Wholesale Market |
State Authority Role in Wholesale Market |
| Alabama |
SEEM only |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| Arkansas |
>=90% in RTO/ISO |
Open membership |
Delegated |
| Florida |
SEEM only |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| Georgia |
SEEM only |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| Kentucky |
50-89.9% in RTO/ISO |
Non-voting |
Advisory |
| Louisiana |
>=90% in RTO/ISO |
Open membership |
Delegated |
| Mississippi |
25-49.9% in RTO/ISO |
Non-voting |
Advisory |
| North Carolina |
SEEM + 0.1-24.9% RTO |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| South Carolina |
SEEM only |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| Tennessee |
SEEM + 0.1-24.9% RTO |
Not in RTO/ISO |
No role/not in market |
| Virginia |
>=90% in RTO/ISO |
Non-voting |
Advisory |
| West Virginia |
>=90% in RTO/ISO |
Non-voting |
Advisory |
| Note: A designation of RTO participation is assigned only to states where at least 25% of customers are served by utilities within an RTO/ISO boundary. States below this threshold receive a classification of (Not in RTO/ISO), reflecting the absence of substantial organized market participation. For qualifying states, the score reflects the RTO/ISO serving the largest share of customers in the state. |
All Scores By Indicator Category
