The document provides an executive summary of the 2015 ABACCUS report, which analyzes the state of retail electricity choice in the United States and Canada. Some of the key findings include: 17.1 million households in North America have shopped for electricity savings, down slightly from 2013; commercial and industrial customers actively participate in retail markets that allow direct access; and Texas remains the leader in retail choice based on the ABACCUS scoring system. The summary recommends further regulatory reforms to phase out default utility services, better accommodate distributed energy resources, and facilitate new technologies and services that meet evolving consumer preferences.

1. ABACCUS 2015 Executive Summary
Annual Baseline Assessment of Choice in
Canada and the United States
Contact: Nat Treadway, Managing Partner, Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC, ntreadway@defgllc.com, 713-729-6244, Twitter: @nattreadway
July 2015

2. ABACCUS* is a scorecard to rank the progress of U.S. states and
Canadian provinces as they open the retail electric sector
to market forces and encourage consumer choice
Findings
• 17.1 million households in North America have shopped for electricity savings (down by 130,000
from 2013) out of a total of 39.2 million eligible residential accounts (44%)
• Commercial and industrial customers are very active and participate at extremely high levels in the
states and provinces that allow direct access between retail energy providers (REPs) and consumers
• Consumers shop for reduced monthly bills and valued features of service; consumer demand drives
markets to reduce costs, increase the variety of offerings and provide service innovations
• Households now choose from an ever-increasing diversity of offerings with regard to price risk, time-
of-use, technology offering, bill pay options; this diversity is an indication robust competition
• Retail electric markets are not fully deregulated: regulators oversee transmission and distribution
service and key aspects of customer service and protection
• Many recent modest regulatory reforms have encouraged the entry of new suppliers; the pathways
to consumer choice and market opportunities are getting clearer in several jurisdictions
• The phase-out of regulated default service remains the single most important change necessary to
increase choice for the typical residential consumer and to increase competition among providers
• Texas remains the leader with the highest ABACCUS scores
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 2Current or prior year ABACCUS reports online * ABACCUS research is sponsored by companies with a stake in competitive retail energy markets. The ABACCUS report does not
necessarily represent the views of any particular ABACCUS Advisory Board member, state regulatory agency or sponsoring company.

3. North America has 17.1 million residential electricity shoppers
• Nine U.S. states and one Canadian province each have more than 400,000 households participating
in competitive retail electricity markets
• In Alberta, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island & Texas, the direct market participation of individuals
has been the key factor; in Illinois, Massachusetts & Ohio, municipal aggregation has been important
• ABACCUS scores have been relatively stable in recent years, reflecting policy stability
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 3
Residential Customers Taking
Competitive Electric Service*
Jurisdiction Customers
Texas 5,959,000
Illinois 2,744,000
Ohio 2,253,000
Pennsylvania 1,794,000
New York 1,325,000
Alberta 606,000
Massachusetts 598,000
Connecticut 486,000
Maryland 485,000
New Jersey 464,000
Maine 172,000
New Hampshire 85,400
Rhode Island 36,000
District of Columbia 34,400
Delaware 28,800
ABACCUS 2015 Residential Scores
* End of year, 2014.

4. Residential electricity choice has been successful in many regions, but higher
ABACCUS scores would signal an increase in market opportunities
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 4
Residential Customer Taking
Competitive Electric Service
from Non-Incumbent Providers
* In Texas, all eligible residential customers are taking
competitive electric service. To compare jurisdictions in this
table, however, the percents indicate customers who no
longer receive service from the incumbent REP. An August
2014 ERCOT report found that 90% of the eligible
residential market in Texas had observably chosen a retail
electricity provider. In 2012, the ABACCUS report asserted
that 100% of eligible residential customers were
participating in the competitive retail market.
ABACCUS Residential Scores and Rank
Jurisdiction
2015
Score
2015
Rank
2014
Score
2014
Rank
Texas 92 1 92 1
Alberta 70 2 71 2
Pennsylvania 65 3 64 3
New York 61 4 61 4
Connecticut 55 5 55 5
Maryland 54 6 53 6
Maine 52 7 52 7
Illinois 51 8 51 8
Massachusetts 50 9 49 9
Ohio 49 10 49 9
New Jersey 46 11 46 11
District of Columbia 44 12 41 13
Ontario 43 13 45 12
Delaware 39 14 36 14
New Hampshire 37 15 36 14
Rhode Island 37 15 31 16
California 28 17 29 17
Michigan 26 18 27 18
Jurisdiction
2014 Percent
Switched
Texas 64.0%*
Illinois 60.7%
Ohio 53.7%
Alberta 43.4%
Pennsylvania 36.0%
Connecticut 34.7%
Maryland 23.9%
Maine 22.4%
New York 22.8%
New Hampshire 18.5%
Massachusetts 17.9%
District of Columbia 14.2%
New Jersey 13.7%
Delaware 10.5%
Rhode Island 7.3%

5. Commercial and industrial consumers achieve greater control in open markets
• Retail competition is highly successful in the industrialized portions of North America where 13
jurisdictions have very high levels of switching and workable competition
• Retail providers bundle the commodity with valued services and customized solutions; these help
consumers manage the risks and volatility of extreme commodity prices
• Retail providers quickly respond to market conditions and adjust commodity price offerings, thus
creating efficient interactions between supply and demand that do not occur in an administrative or
regulated setting
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 5
ABACCUS 2015 C&I Scores

6. States and provinces that allow commercial and industrial customers to shop
experience high levels of market activity
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 6
Percent of Eligible C&I Loads Taking Competitive
Electric Service from Non-Incumbent Providers ABACCUS C&I Scores and Rank
Jurisdiction
2015
Score
2015
Rank
2014
Score
2014
Rank
Texas 90 1 90 1
Illinois 69 2 68 2
Pennsylvania 69 2 64 4
Alberta 65 4 65 3
New York 64 5 63 5
Maine 62 6 61 6
Maryland 62 6 61 6
Connecticut 60 8 60 8
Ohio 57 9 56 9
Massachusetts 56 10 55 11
New Jersey 56 10 56 9
District of Columbia 53 12 52 12
New Hampshire 51 13 44 15
Delaware 48 14 47 14
Ontario 48 14 44 15
California 46 16 48 13
Rhode Island 43 17 35 17
Michigan 35 18 34 18
Jurisdiction Small* Medium* Large* Total Sales**
Alberta 71.2% - 96.3% 88.2%
Illinois 60.2% 83.1% 93.1% 76.4%
Texas*** 82.5% - 86.8% 76.2%
Ohio 84.9% - 84.6% 74.4%
Pennsylvania 75.7% - 95.6% 68.5%
District of Columbia - 77.5% - 62.3%
Connecticut 69.3% - 86.9% 57.6%
Delaware - 81.8% - 55.5%
New York 67.6% - 83.0% 55.2%
Massachusetts 45.1% 58.5% 87.9% 54.8%
Maine 61.1% - 96.1% 53.2%
Maryland 36.4% 73.0% 94.2% 50.1%
New Hampshire 40.8% 65.1% 86.3% 47.2%
New Jersey 53.4% - 86.5% 41.7%
Rhode Island - - - 33.0%
California**** 1.5% 16.6% 34.2% 12.9%
Michigan**** - - - 12.5%
Ontario - - - NA
Oregon - - - NA
* The definitions for small, medium and large vary by jurisdiction. Some include all nonresidential; others distinguish between
commercial and industrial classifications. The percentages are based on the peak usage of the class of customers, or a year of
electricity sales or a month of electricity sales. See the appendix for the details.
**Percent of total jurisdictional sales, including the residential sector.
*** In Texas, all eligible C&I customers are taking competitive electric service; therefore, 100% of eligible C&I sales is
competitive. To compare jurisdictions in this table, however, the percents indicate customers that no longer receive service
from the incumbent REP. In Texas, this includes approximately 80% of C&I customer sales, that is, those within ERCOT and
within an investor-owned utility’s service territory.
**** In California and Michigan there is a limit on eligible retail sales.

7. Key policy choices shape the competitive landscape of the retail electric sector
Topic Commodity Perspective* Retail Energy Service Perspective
Default Service
Default service is an important choice for
people who are not ready to choose
Default service is a transition mechanism; it
must have an ending date (phase out) to signal
that markets will set prices
Municipal
Aggregation
Aggregation is a good way to quickly lower
the cost of power to many consumers
Individual choice from an array of services is the
primary path to competition and innovation
Distributed
Energy Resources
Distributed energy resources are a power
resource that must pay for T&D services;
the loss of commodity sales due to DER
undermines the recovery of utility
investments
Distributed energy resources are one of many
new options to be encouraged; unbundling of
distribution services could result in a better
allocation of costs and the development of new
services; unbundling could better compensate
resource providers while ensuring utility revenue
recovery
Consumer
Technologies and
Expectations
Regulations should change in response to
problems; use caution so that important
consumer protections are not undone
Regulatory reform must be proactive; change
can facilitate service innovation while
maintaining customer protections
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 7
* Too many electric industry stakeholders have a habit of describing the electric
industry in pure commodity terms, but that language is detrimental to reform

8. Regulatory changes are needed regarding default service, municipal aggregation,
distributed energy resources and consumer access to advanced technologies
• Default Service. The design and implementation of default service is the single most significant issue
affecting the success of competitive retail electric markets
o Recommendation. Each jurisdiction must ensure that default service is a transitional service, that it meets
consumers’ basic needs, and that it closely tracks the cost of power in the wholesale power market. Default
service is not necessary for large C&I consumers
• Municipal Aggregation. People readily understand the concept of “buying groups,” and municipal
aggregation is an effective way for consumers to quickly obtain reductions in power costs
o Recommendation. Municipal aggregation risks becoming an end point, effectively ending reform before
individual choice has a chance to develop. Municipal aggregation requires “opt in” to raise awareness and
encourage customer action
• Distributed Energy Resources. Concerns over utility revenue losses associated with distributed
energy resources reveals an outdated, commodity-centric business mentality. Unbundled electric
distribution utilities will not experience a “death spiral” if they focus on core competencies
o Recommendation. Facilitate distributed energy resources by unbundling distribution services to better allocate
costs and compensate resource providers. New businesses will serve expanding consumer preferences and
capture the revenue growth, even as individual consumers use less of the commodity
• Consumer Access to Advanced Technologies. Consumer access to advanced technologies is
changing the way that consumers transact with businesses. Communications technologies are
changing consumer expectations about service providers in many aspects of their lives
o Recommendation. Regulatory agencies need to update the rules to facilitate new ways for utilities and REPs to
interact with consumers. This include ways to maintain traditional customer protections in a way that does not
inhibit innovation
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 8

9. The most important consumer choices relate to price stability and risk, time-of-
use, payment options and distributed power and storage options
1. Price-risk choices
o Consumer preferences and behaviors regarding tradeoffs in price-risk management (price stability/volatility)
2. Time-of-use choices
o Consumer preferences and behaviors regarding the timing and patterns of use during the day or week
3. Payment choices
o Consumer preferences and behaviors regarding when to pay, where to pay, how to pay, how much to pay, etc.
4. Distributed resource choices
o Consumer preferences and behaviors regarding on-site power production, storage, and other service attributes
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 9
Stage 3: Compete through innovation
Stage 2: Compete on service
Stage 1: Compete on price
Electric Market Transformation
as a Three Stage Process
Commodity in cents
per kWh (most
jurisdictions)
Just beginning
Diverse electric service
choices (numerous
examples in N. Amer.)

10. Price-risk choices
Competitive Choices for Households Classic Consumer Price-Risk Tradeoff
• A risk-averse consumer selects a fixed-
price contract. She takes price certainty
and manages energy usage
• A price-risk manager selects variable
pricing. She accepts price risk and
manages energy contracting
• Which is better?
o Comparing fixed and variable pricing
is not a trivial task; “lower cost” can
only be defined in terms of individual
preferences
o Consumers are exceptionally well
informed about their own tolerance
for risk, the value of their own leisure
time, their own discount rate for
assessing investments and their own
management skills
o Consumer choice promotes economic
efficiency by aligning individual
preferences (and skills) with supplier
expertise
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 10
• Indexed to the electric market or another product
• Variable and month-to-month pricing
• Fixed price for a term of 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36 or 60 months
• Fixed monthly payments
Reliant Energy Predictable 12 Plan

11. TXU Energy Free Mornings & Evenings℠
Time-of-use choices
Competitive Choices for Households
• Daily on- and off-peak pricing
o Prices are fixed and known but change at
different times of the day (“free nights”)
• Day-of-the-week pricing
o Prices fixed and known but change on
different days of the week (“free
Saturdays”)
• Peak time rebates
o Incentive payments for curtailment on
request, typically in response to high
market prices or unexpected event
Consumer Behavior
• Different prices at different times of the day or week may
result in a behavior changes—referred to as load shifting
• Regulated utilities—subject to cost-of-service rate making—
likely charge more when costs and consumer demand are
high (during peaks); however, high prices during periods that
households need more service is punitive
• A carrot approach (“free”) may be more effective than a
stick (“peak pricing”) to change behavior
• Consumers’ willingness to shift usage is best served with a
variety of choices, each suiting particular lifestyles or
behaviors in households
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 11
As of September 2014,
enrollment in TOU options
in Texas had reached
290,000 customers

12. “You turned my
electricity off”
“My electricity
ran out”
Payment choices
Competitive Choices for Households Changes in Consumer Accountability
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 12
A customer disconnected for
failure to pay past-due amounts:
A customer disconnected for
a prepayment balance of zero:
Direct Energy Power-To-Go
• Prepaid service provides convenience and control
• No security deposit; ability to pay off debt
• Frequent updates about the account balance
• No debt created; quick restoration if disconnected
• 15 providers serving several hundred thousand
customers in Texas

13. Distributed resource choices
Competitive Choices for Households Commodity versus Energy Service
• The drivers of change in utility service (distributed
energy resources, energy efficiency, technologies) all
fit well into a consumer-oriented paradigm
• Companies that only rely on the resale of the
commodity should proceed with caution
• Companies that focus on consumer value have
relatively little reason for concern: consumer desires
are growing; total sector revenue will grow even if
consumers self-generate and reduce traditional
commodity purchases
• New companies will bring new technologies and
expertise to the utility sector
• Consumers will reward companies that are attentive
to their needs, including their preferences for on-site
production, storage and control, and more reliability
• The so-called utility “death spiral” is predicted from
insufficient revenues to cover utility investments;
however, there is little cause for concern if utilities
focus on core competencies and if others focus on
consumer value and consumer preferences
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 13
Green Mountain Energy Renewable
Rewards® Buy Back Program

14. Table of Contents for the ABACCUS 2015 Report
Executive Summary
1. Introduction
2. Residential Consumer Findings
3. Residential Choices in a Competitive Retail Electric Market
4. Commercial and Industrial Consumer Findings
5. Policy Choices Shaping the Competitive Retail Electric Sector
6. Policies, Best Practices and Recommendations
Appendix A: ABACCUS Advisory Board and Sponsors
Appendix B: Electricity Industry Terminology by Jurisdiction
Appendix C: Survey of U.S. States and Canadian Provinces
Appendix D: ABACCUS Methodology
Current or prior year ABACCUS reports online
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 14

15. Members of the 2015 ABACCUS Advisory Board*
Public Sector
o Philip Shum, Business Unit Leader, Retail
Markets, Electricity Division, Alberta Ministry of
Energy
o Commissioner Ann McCabe, Illinois Commerce
Commission
o Torsten Clausen, Director of Office of Retail
Market Development, Illinois Commerce
Commission
o Calvin Timmerman, Assistant Executive Director,
Maryland Public Service Commission (retired)
o Commissioner Greg R. White, Michigan Public
Service Commission
o Commissioner Robert F. Powelson, Pennsylvania
Public Utility Commission
o Commissioner Paul Roberti, Rhode Island Public
Utilities Commission
o Chairman Donna L. Nelson, Public Utility
Commission of Texas
Market
o Vicki Sandler, Executive Director, Arizona Independent Scheduling
Administrator Association and President, Wearthy Ideas
o William Massey, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP and Counsel, Compete
Coalition
o Timothy Alan Simon, Consultant and Commissioner Emeritus, California
Public Utilities Commission
o Ron Cerniglia, Director–National Advocacy, Governmental & Regulatory
Affairs, Direct Energy
o Brian Tulloh, Vice President, Public Policy, Energy Future Holdings and TXU
Energy
o Meigs Jones, Associate General Counsel, Green Mountain Energy Company
o Parviz Adib, Principal, Pionergy Consulting
o Robert Reilley, VP Regulatory Affairs, Shell Energy North America
o Justin Courtney, Senior Vice President, Stephens Inc.
o Dave Svanda, Principal, Svanda Consulting
o Stephen C. Littlechild, Emeritus Professor, University of Birmingham, and
Fellow, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge
o Brett Perlman, Principal, Vector Consultants
o Chris Hendrix, Director of Markets & Compliance, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
o Pat Wood, III, Principal, Wood3 Resources
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 15* ABACCUS research is sponsored by companies with a stake in competitive retail energy markets. The ABACCUS report does not
necessarily represent the views of any particular ABACCUS Advisory Board member, state regulatory agency or sponsoring company.

16. Background
How do we do it?
• ABACCUS applies an analytical tool to measure
progress in implementing retail electricity choice
• The methodology sets forth 49 metrics considered
important to the success of retail electricity markets
o 30 relate to residential consumers (and with overlap …)
o 29 relate to commercial and industrial consumers
• Data are collected from the market participants and
rulemaking agencies in U.S. states and Canadian
provinces; points are associated with each response
o Options that promote choice receive up to 10 points
o Zero points are assigned to options that restrict choice
• Weights are assigned to each score, relative to the
importance of the measure, and a weighted-average
score determines the ranking
What are we trying to achieve?
• Price and quality comparisons are an essential
feature of competitive markets; comparisons help us
make sense of our complex world
• ABACCUS provides a framework for comparing many
attributes or dimensions of the industry
• Comparisons are offered at the state and provincial
level in an attempt to sort out what works best and
what can be improved and in recognition of the
importance of policy
• The focus is on rules and practices in the electric
industry as they affect the implementation of retail
electricity choice
• The goal is to assess the progress of states and
provinces toward achieving the goals of electric
restructuring
• We identify innovative approaches, list best practices
and provide recommendations
What is the Annual Baseline Assessment of Choice in Canada and the United States (ABACCUS)?*
• ABACCUS is a scorecard designed to highlight the best market structures, policies and business practices that
support and sustain a high level of market performance and individual consumer choice in the retail electricity
sector. A hallmark of the methodology is the breadth of topics explored. Any focus on a single metric—such as
price—can be misleading. No one metric reflects consumer preferences for electric service or market performance.
© 2015 Distributed Energy Financial Group LLC 16
Current or prior year ABACCUS reports online
* ABACCUS research is sponsored by companies with a stake in competitive retail energy markets. The ABACCUS report does not
necessarily represent the views of any particular ABACCUS Advisory Board member, state regulatory agency or sponsoring company.