It begins with an unsettling discrepancy: Massachusetts residents who believed they were paying for 100% renewable electricity from CleanChoice Energy, Inc. instead received power that was allegedly the same “brown” energy flowing through standard utility lines—just at a far higher cost. According to the detailed Class Action Complaint filed in Massachusetts, thousands of unsuspecting consumers were caught in a scheme that combined inflated electricity rates, questionable marketing tactics, and alleged misrepresentations about green energy.
At the heart of the Complaint is Plaintiff Mark Sommer, a Cambridge resident who says he signed up for CleanChoice in 2019 after seeing (and believing) promises of “100% renewable energy” and a “variable rate” that was supposed to be “based on market conditions and CleanChoice Energy’s costs to provide energy supply service.” Sommer, like many others, swiftly found his bills skyrocketing well above the rates charged by Massachusetts utilities for the same electricity. Further—and more chilling—a deep read of the Complaint reveals that Sommer and other consumers never actually received 100% renewable energy. Instead, they paid CleanChoice’s substantial markup for standard electricity offset by non-transparent Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).
RECs themselves are not illegal; they are widely used in carbon-offset markets. But the way they were allegedly packaged in CleanChoice’s marketing materials may have misled well-intentioned consumers who believed they were directly purchasing “wind and solar power from farms in their region.” The legal complaint charges that CleanChoice’s rate-setting formula and claims of 100% renewable energy were riddled with misrepresentations. More disturbingly, it argues that CleanChoice exploited industry deregulation in Massachusetts to lure eco-conscious consumers with hidden price-gouging and false promises of direct renewable power.
This case is not simply about one electricity supplier in Massachusetts. Rather, it illustrates the consequences of neoliberal capitalism—a system that thrives on deregulation and profit-maximization at the expense of consumer welfare. By analyzing the documented allegations, we can see how deceptive or misleading tactics can flourish when oversight is light, when corporate entities leverage complex energy markets, and when the most vulnerable—low-income residents, seniors, and non-native English speakers—are often the most aggressively targeted.
This exposé will scrutinize the charges against CleanChoice as laid out in the Complaint, unravel the broader context of how energy deregulation was intended to bring more consumer choices but instead, in many cases, paved the way for rent-seeking behavior. Through this lens, we will examine how allegations of corporate greed, corporate corruption, and corporate ethics violations fit into a broader pattern across industries. We will see that the claims about CleanChoice’s marketing, pricing, and repeated run-ins with state regulators are not anomalies: they are indicative of a system where short-term profits can override corporate social responsibility and consumer protections.
In the following sections, this long-form investigation—organized into eleven parts—will highlight the financial toll on families struggling with mounting energy bills, explore the possible health and environmental risks inherent in certain forms of corporate pollution and cost-cutting, and spotlight what the case indicates about wealth disparity and the systemic problems of late-stage neoliberal capitalism. Not least, this investigation will offer a final look at potential reforms and the ongoing fight to hold corporations accountable so that the public interest is not lost to unbridled profit-seeking.
Corporate Intent Exposed
When Massachusetts deregulated its electricity market in 1997, legislators promised greater competition and lower bills. Instead of a single, entrenched utility, newly formed independent energy service companies (ESCOs) would supposedly fight each other for the privilege of serving you electricity. CleanChoice Energy, Inc. stood among this new wave of “green” power suppliers, marketing itself as an eco-friendly alternative: an ESCO that, the Complaint notes, promised “electricity from renewable resources provided by CleanChoice Energy” alongside a monthly rate pegged to prevailing market costs.
But the Complaint tells a different story of how that monthly rate was, in practice, set. Allegedly, CleanChoice’s variable rates were untethered from any normal formula of “market conditions and CleanChoice Energy’s costs to provide energy supply service,” causing plaintiffs like Mark Sommer to see charges consistently double or triple the rate offered by their local utility. Astonishingly, the Complaint details an extreme example during one billing cycle in which Sommer was charged more than 59 cents per kilowatt hour—compared to the utility’s 27 or 28 cents. This pattern, say the plaintiffs, is not a glitch but the predictable outcome of strategic profiteering: if a consumer does not monitor the subtle difference between an “introductory” offer and the subsequently floated variable rate, CleanChoice retains the unilateral power to push rates up.
Yet the harm is not limited to inflated monthly bills. The Complaint maintains that CleanChoice openly markets itself as a supplier of “100% renewable energy,” but in actuality, it purchases the exact same “brown” electricity from the grid as any other supplier. According to the plaintiffs’ allegations, CleanChoice has never built a solar array or wind farm that directly powered a customer’s home. Instead, CleanChoice buys standard electricity from wholesale markets—just like every other ESCO or utility—and then pairs that electricity with RECs. The average consumer who sees the words “100% renewable” might reasonably assume that flipping a light switch in their house draws power directly from a wind farm’s turbine or a solar panel’s array, courtesy of CleanChoice. In truth, the Complaint contends, “the electricity CleanChoice’s customers consume is the exact same electricity their local utility would have provided had the customer not switched to CleanChoice.”
Why does this matter? On paper, purchasing RECs as a form of green offset is a legitimate strategy to bolster the transition to renewables by funding renewable energy projects. But for the typical consumer, the difference between “purchasing renewable electricity” and “purchasing an REC-based offset” is enormous. One confers bragging rights to consumption of truly green power from your local grid. The other is just standard fossil-fueled electricity plus a certificate that renewable energy was produced somewhere else, sometimes out-of-state. It appears that CleanChoice’s marketing was not exactly forthcoming about these nuances, leading the Complaint to accuse CleanChoice of leaning on half-truths and omissions.
The alleged mismatch between marketing rhetoric and actual business practice puts CleanChoice’s corporate ethics into bright relief. Documents referenced by the Complaint describe how the company has faced repeated regulatory complaints and lawsuits in other states, some culminating in settlements involving thousands or millions of dollars in relief for consumers. Illinois, Pennsylvania, and other jurisdictions have probed CleanChoice’s sales and billing tactics. In one reported settlement in Illinois, the state’s Attorney General alleged that CleanChoice systematically failed to provide critical “price to compare” information to consumers—precisely the kind of data that would allow them to see that CleanChoice’s “100% renewable” electricity cost far more than the local utility’s brown energy.
Again and again, the Complaint cites these prior matters to paint a picture of a company engaged in a calculated marketing scheme, one that takes advantage of the general confusion about how electricity is generated, stored, transmitted, and delivered. Notably, the lawsuit also highlights the ways CleanChoice allegedly exploited the earnest environmental aspirations of its customers. By emphasizing “100% renewable,” “wind and solar farms in your region,” and “pollution-free energy,” CleanChoice (the plaintiffs say) tugs at the heartstrings of conscientious consumers, uses the climate crisis as a sales pitch, and then sticks them with bills that keep rising.
If the allegations are true, the system of deregulation and minimal oversight made it all too easy for CleanChoice to refine a narrative that resonates with people who wish to reduce their carbon footprint. The difference between advertised intent—supposedly a “green power revolution”—and actual conduct—profiting from “brown” electricity plus unbundled RECs—could reveal a deliberate pattern that reaps large margins off unsuspecting residents. That difference speaks to how deeply corporate corruption can be embedded in consumer-facing industries that brand themselves as “socially responsible” or environmentally friendly.
The Corporations Get Away With It
Why didn’t regulators see this coming? Why didn’t local and federal enforcement clamp down on such practices, if they are as obvious and exploitative as the Complaint contends? The answer likely lies in the arc of neoliberal capitalism, which, since the 1980s and 1990s, has championed deregulation, free-market competition, and privatization as engines of growth and innovation. In Massachusetts, electricity deregulation arose from a desire to break up monopolies—public utilities that had exclusive domains for distribution and supply. The legislature believed a flourishing marketplace would encourage ESCOs to innovate and lower prices. Instead, we see in the Complaint how that ideal is subverted by the alleged strategy of CleanChoice to exploit consumer confusion and billing inertia.
From a purely economic perspective, the Complaint notes how “market-based” variable rates are seldom truly pegged to transparent wholesale cost. The local utility typically posts publicly available rates that reflect the cost of energy in the wholesale market plus overhead, so consumers can compare. ESCOs like CleanChoice often do not, giving them the latitude to charge more—sometimes far more—than the utility. Thus, while Massachusetts regulators might keep an eye on licensed ESCOs in a general sense, there is no requirement for ESCOs to file their exact monthly rates with a public authority, leaving an opaque black box in which the company can justify any set of numbers as “market-based.”
Regulatory capture also looms large in these contexts. Many states lack the budget or political will to maintain rigorous oversight of the labyrinthine retail energy markets. Politicians who once extolled the virtues of deregulation may not be eager to highlight how this experiment can backfire on consumers. Meanwhile, the complaint suggests that CleanChoice can settle with regulators if things escalate—e.g., in Illinois or Pennsylvania—without significantly changing its core profit model. Because each settlement is often limited to the specific jurisdiction or set of complaints, CleanChoice can continue business largely as usual elsewhere.
The net effect, as alleged, is that the corporation “gets away with it,” profiting from consumer loyalty, confusion, or mere inertia. People sign up once—often during an initial promotional period—and remain locked in with monthly bills on autopay. After all, in the swirl of daily life, not everyone scrutinizes each line item of their electricity bill. By the time they notice the discrepancy or realize that the cost is two or three times higher than it should be, they could already be facing hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in unwarranted charges. Even after that revelation, switching back to the local utility or to another ESCO might require an inconvenient process. This phenomenon reflects one of deregulation’s hidden pitfalls: while it is easy for corporate entities to pivot their rates month to month, it can be cumbersome for individual consumers to constantly compare and switch providers, especially if the switch involves penalty fees, locked-in contracts, or confusing terms.
CleanChoice’s alleged ability to avoid accountability depends not merely on lack of oversight but also on a well-established playbook for “greenwashing.” In this model, a corporation accentuates token efforts at sustainability or carbon offsetting while burying the finer details of whether those efforts truly reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. The Complaint calls this out: if the entire plan is to buy standard electricity and then buy a handful of RECs, the direct environmental benefit to local communities might be marginal. RECs can be sourced from distant states; sometimes they can be outdated, or they can be so cheap that the net effect of purchasing them is negligible. But from a marketing perspective, “CleanChoice” can still claim a veneer of corporate social responsibility: it invests in “100% renewable” offsets, so it is presumably “green.”
The complaint also points to how consumers are easily kept in the dark on these matters. When a CleanChoice salesperson dangles “green power” in front of a buyer who wants to do right by the planet, who among us has time to decipher how regional power grids are structured, or to parse the difference between “bundled renewable electricity” and “unbundled RECs that are matched after the fact”? The alleged dynamic is a set of illusions that keep the consumer from fully understanding the product. If the public cannot parse the data, or cannot easily see the final cost, the corporation effectively “gets away with it.”
The Cost of Doing Business
But… but…. “Aren’t ESCOs allowed to set their rates however they see fit?“, I hear the Adam Smith enjoyers collectively crying out!
Indeed, under free-market principles, a private company can charge a premium if it can persuade customers to pay it. Luxury brands, for example, do that all the time. But as the Complaint underlines, consumers sign contracts with CleanChoice that explicitly state their monthly bill will be “based on market conditions and CleanChoice Energy’s costs to provide energy supply service.” If that is not actually the formula driving the final rate, if in fact CleanChoice is layering on hidden markups to maximize profit, the question becomes whether such conduct is simply classic capitalism or an egregious form of deception and breach of contract.
In the internal logic of late-stage capitalism, certain corporations view civil penalties, regulatory fines, and occasional refunds as a manageable cost of doing business. The Complaint cites how CleanChoice’s history of regulatory entanglements in other states resulted in settlements—but seemingly did not disrupt its core method of operation. While those enforcement actions can cost a company hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, the overall revenue from overcharging countless customers might dwarf such losses. From a purely profit-driven standpoint, the trade-off might still pay off handsomely: if you have, for instance, tens of thousands of customers each paying an extra 10 to 20 cents per kWh monthly, you can easily generate a massive windfall. And if only a fraction of those customers file formal complaints—or if those complaints result in a settlement in a single state—the revenue from the rest of the unsuspecting customers may offset any regulatory penalties.
This dynamic underscores the economic fallout that everyday people experience under corporate structures that place short-term gains above transparent relationships with their clients. According to the Complaint, Mark Sommer’s monthly bills soared compared to the rates that his local utility would have charged, with multipliers sometimes doubling or tripling the baseline. Over time, that cost difference grows painful, especially for individuals living paycheck to paycheck who are under the impression they are paying for something that aligns with their environmental values. Instead of saving money or investing it back into their household, these consumers wind up paying exorbitant margins to a third-party supplier that does not even supply them with the promised form of green power.
The Complaint references how, across deregulated markets, this phenomenon hits hardest among low-income families, seniors, and communities of color—partly because these groups can be disproportionately targeted by door-to-door or direct-mail campaigns. Under the banner of “clean power,” a vulnerable community might think it is making a wise environmental choice, only to be saddled with hidden fees and punishing rates. In the logic of corporate capitalism, though, it is all part of the “cost of doing business.” Deception, confusion, or slick marketing can be rationalized if the revenue from that confusion dwarfs the occasional refunds or negative publicity.
Another central factor is that energy is a necessity, not a luxury. People need electricity to run their homes, heat their water, refrigerate their food, and so forth. This built-in dependency means that, once an ESCO has signed up a consumer, the consumer is unlikely to cut usage dramatically or simply do without. If monthly rates keep climbing, as alleged in the Complaint, the consumer might not discover the discrepancy until the cost has ballooned for months. Then, in the face of immediate bills or a complicated switching process, many remain, paying a “CleanChoice premium” for the same electricity they could have purchased more cheaply from the local utility. This premium—clean or not—constitutes a constant stream of revenue for the company.
Systemic Failures
Far from being an isolated case, the CleanChoice fiasco (as alleged) invites us to reevaluate how well Massachusetts’ deregulated energy market is functioning for everyday people. The complaint states that Massachusetts was at the forefront of energy restructuring, opening the door for a variety of ESCOs to compete with entrenched utilities in the late 1990s. Along with other states like New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois, Massachusetts claimed that competition would promote innovation, improved service, and a downward pressure on prices. Yet the result in many states has been confusion, questionable marketing, and inflated bills—especially for those who can least afford them.
Where are the systemic failures? One is in the form of an oversight gap. Utilities are heavily regulated in how they set and file their rates. ESCOs, on the other hand, may not face the same stringent standards for disclosing monthly or annual rate adjustments, even if states try to impose guidelines. The Class Action Complaint devotes considerable space to the point that the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities does not require monthly rate filings from ESCOs, leaving a potential vacuum for unscrupulous pricing. Another failure stems from insufficient enforcement: even if a company is caught engaging in unfair or deceptive practices, the punishment can be insufficient to deter it. CleanChoice’s prior settlements did not appear to fix the underlying issues, according to the plaintiffs.
Add to this the phenomenon of regulatory capture, where industries gain enough lobbying power to influence or soften legislative rules. Over decades, corporate players often develop close relationships with policymakers. This can happen at high levels or in more subtle ways, as when resources for robust auditing are simply never approved, or when “green” branding garners goodwill in the political arena. The net effect is that consumer complaints about excessive rates or inaccurate marketing may not receive swift, far-reaching relief.
Then we have to consider the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, under which the state’s role in policing markets is deliberately scaled back. If the ideology says private markets can self-regulate, then underfunded or toothless regulatory agencies can become the norm. Companies like CleanChoice can, in that environment, find abundant room to craft marketing messages that promise near-miraculous environmental benefits while quietly delivering unremarkable (or even exploitative) outcomes. The onus for “buyer beware” shifts onto consumers, who do not have the time, expertise, or legal resources to parse complicated energy contracts. By focusing on limited household budgets and green aspirations, an ESCO can exploit well-meaning families who believe they are doing something beneficial for their homes and for the climate.
We might wonder: Could the systemic failures extend to renewable energy markets themselves? The structure of REC credits is meant to incentivize new wind, solar, and other renewable energy projects by monetizing their environmental benefit. However, if an ESCO is simply buying cheap, possibly older RECs from out-of-state wind farms that already existed, that might not move the needle on actual local decarbonization efforts. Nor does that approach truly transform the fuel mix the consumer is using in real time. The entire “commodity” of RECs can thus become an illusory marketing device, a convenient mechanism for companies to label themselves “green” without creating new infrastructure or meaningfully displacing fossil-fuel generation.
Within the context of Massachusetts, the system that was supposed to amplify consumer choice has apparently produced a slew of contradictory or baffling results. Instead of a well-regulated market that fosters corporate social responsibility, wealth disparity might be exacerbated. The Class Action Complaint underscores that thousands of families in Massachusetts have allegedly ended up paying way more for the same electricity that their local utility would have offered at a fraction of the cost. Low-income households can be the first to be targeted and the last to be able to extricate themselves from bad deals.
These interlocking failures—weak oversight, corporate marketing spin, insufficient enforcement mechanisms—reveal a thorough breakdown in the promise that deregulation would deliver better service at lower prices. The CleanChoice case can thus be read as emblematic of how poorly structured or insufficiently policed markets can be captured by companies that prioritize short-term profit over the public interest.
This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
The arguments set out in the Complaint provide a portrait of an ESCO that saw a gap in public understanding of electricity markets, exploited the craving for renewable energy, and capitalized on the complexity of rate-setting. But it would be misguided to treat CleanChoice as a bizarre outlier if these allegations are confirmed. Indeed, the systemic patterns described in the litigation point to a repeated phenomenon: the big differences between the local utility’s “default” supply rate and an ESCO’s “variable” rate, the use of marketing illusions around “green energy,” and the intentional obfuscation of how monthly charges are decided. This reflects the structural logic of certain players in the deregulated energy market.
You can see parallels in other industries wracked by corporate greed—pharmaceutical price-gouging, for instance, or for-profit healthcare companies that exploit regulation gaps. The underlying principle in these patterns is the same: under conditions of deregulation, some corporate actors realize they can maximize shareholder returns through confusion, deception, or artificially high prices. Because governments have stripped away or not fully enforced consumer protections, these corporations face fewer obstacles to extracting large profit margins.
Such conduct is arguably “a feature, not a bug,” in that it emerges from the structural incentives of late-stage capitalism, which privileges short-term profit above all else. If a company can survive public relations crises, pay occasional regulatory fines, and keep going, it can still do so profitably. The entire reason for these companies to exist in the first place is not to deliver a communal or societal good but to turn a profit for owners, investors, or executives. If the best way to do so is to exploit knowledge asymmetry—like complicated energy bills or a specialized financial instrument like RECs—then that is precisely what the system encourages.
The Massachusetts complaint states that once CleanChoice has the “back-end” privileges to bill a customer—because distribution is still handled by the local utility, but the supply portion of the bill belongs to CleanChoice—it retains near-total control over the rates. A consumer might assume that a “variable” rate would track the real-time cost of energy. But the Complaint shows multiple examples from Mark Sommer’s monthly bills where the local utility’s cost dropped or soared within a given span, and CleanChoice’s rate did the opposite. The mismatch was staggering, often well over 100% or even 200% above that utility rate. For CleanChoice, each kilowatt hour marks a margin of pure profit once the baseline wholesale and overhead costs are paid.
Corporate corruption is not always accompanied by a dramatic moment—like, for instance, an “internal memo” revealing unethical intentions. Rather, it can manifest as a series of quiet, incremental decisions that keep profits high at consumer expense. According to the allegations, that is what happened here. CleanChoice set up a model to systematically push variable rates upwards with minimal connection to real wholesale prices, all under the banner of “100% renewable.”
By calling this predation “a feature, not a bug,” we come face to face with the possibility that the system may be operating exactly as many businesses intend. That is, the fault is not necessarily that CleanChoice is incompetent or incompetent at delivering on its promises; the fault is that the entire framework—one that relies on competition to police corporate behavior—has no robust mechanism to prevent such exploitation when it emerges. Therefore, stories like Mark Sommer’s are not aberrations or accidents but the logical outcome of a paradigm that fosters corporate greed.
The PR Playbook of Damage Control
When corporate scandals over price-gouging or deception break into the public sphere, corporations often deploy well-worn PR strategies to mitigate fallout. Although the Complaint does not quote from CleanChoice’s crisis responses specifically, it details that CleanChoice has settled or negotiated with regulatory bodies in multiple states. These settlements are likely accompanied by carefully curated statements that highlight the company’s “commitment” to sustainability and consumer satisfaction.
Typical PR tactics in these scenarios include:
- Framing it as a misunderstanding: The supplier claims it followed all relevant regulations, and that consumers merely did not understand the contract.
- Minor adjustments: If forced to alter marketing language or clarify how RECs work, the supplier can spin it as “increasing transparency,” whereas the underlying price structure remains effectively intact.
- Highlighting philanthropic or charitable efforts: A corporation caught in unethical behavior might emphasize charitable donations or community partnerships—especially if it involves the environment. CleanChoice, for instance, might invest in small local green projects to claim credit for “community impact.”
- Blaming the grid: The ESCO might argue that wholesale prices are volatile, or that distribution is complicated, to muddy the waters around how monthly rates are determined.
The Complaint maintains that for many years, CleanChoice’s approach to “green energy” marketing overshadowed the fact that the company was, in effect, reselling mainstream grid power at a hefty markup. In short, the brand name “CleanChoice,” the stylized logos, and the well-polished claims are prime examples of corporate image over consumer reality—something we see time and again in industries from fast fashion to big tech. Once the allegations become public, however, the same apparatus that once fueled those marketing messages can shift into damage control. We can expect press releases about how this is an “isolated incident” or “dispute,” or that CleanChoice is “cooperating fully with the authorities,” always disclaiming wrongdoing while offering minor concessions.
Nevertheless, the PR dimension does not alter the core allegations in the Complaint, which revolve around how the company’s actual contractual terms differ vastly from the realities of its variable rate pricing and “100% renewable” claims. No matter how effectively a corporation manages the court of public opinion, the facts alleged in a lawsuit do not simply go away. If these allegations hold, we are reminded that an attractive brand identity must never be mistaken for a genuine operational commitment to corporate social responsibility.
Corporate Power vs. Public Interest
“Corporate power vs. public interest” is an old story, told in industries ranging from pharmaceuticals to fossil fuels and beyond. But the CleanChoice case exemplifies this dynamic in an essential-living-commodity arena: electricity. Because power supply is a daily necessity, the societal stakes are high. Unlike optional goods, electricity is not an indulgence; families need it to survive. This makes any alleged deception or gouging far more injurious to the public good than if the product were, say, a premium brand of handbag.
The Complaint’s allegations fit a template: 1) a product crucial to daily life; 2) a deregulated market with an explicit promise of consumer benefit; 3) a novel marketing angle—here, “going green”—that resonates strongly in an era of climate crisis; and 4) an ultimate revelation that the product in question is not what it was said to be and at a much higher cost than necessary. The synergy of these four factors means that the corporation can reap high margins while maintaining a sense of moral righteousness.
The deeper question is: do corporations like CleanChoice truly have any incentive to rein in exploitative pricing if they can get away with it? The neoliberal assumption is that competition will eventually punish unethical or cost-inflating companies. Yet the evidence from this Complaint, as well as parallel findings in other states, suggests that the complexity of electricity markets (and the difficulty for the average consumer to parse them) effectively insulates unscrupulous firms from accountability. If a significant segment of consumers do not realize they are overpaying—or cannot easily switch back to a regulated utility—where is the natural market discipline?
Worse, repeated mention of how communities of color, low-income residents, and seniors are disproportionately affected underscores inequality. If the wealthy realize they are overpaying, they can quickly exit or leverage legal resources. Vulnerable groups, on the other hand, might not have robust channels to navigate complex complaints. This dynamic escalates wealth disparity under the veneer of consumer “choice.” The very system meant to empower citizens to pick a better provider ends up burdening them with higher bills.
When corporate power overshadows the public interest, it is not just about monthly bills. Such a dynamic fosters cynicism toward environmental initiatives, because misrepresentations about “green energy” can undermine trust in legitimate renewable solutions. People may question whether any green claim is real. Those who have been financially burned by an ESCO might recoil from future attempts to invest in green energy. The result is a double loss: consumers pay more, and genuine climate action loses traction.
The Human Toll on Workers and Communities
High electricity bills do more than shrink budgets; they can worsen living conditions, intensify poverty, and jeopardize public health. According to the Complaint, the inflated rates charged by CleanChoice for “renewable” power end up draining resources from households that might already be on tight margins. The knock-on effects could include a choice between paying the electric bill and paying rent, medical bills, or groceries. Families may skip heating or air conditioning to cut costs, with potential health ramifications for seniors or children.
Workers in particular may feel the strain in ways that cascade through their finances. Overburdened by energy bills, employees might put off urgent medical care, or be forced to work extra hours to make ends meet, feeding a cycle of burnout and diminishing quality of life. Even if the monthly difference is “just a few extra cents per kilowatt hour,” that adds up over time, translating into hundreds of dollars that could have gone toward needed items, savings, or debt reduction.
Small businesses or community centers that signed up in hopes of being eco-friendly may face an even bigger impact if they have higher energy usage. The Complaint describes how CleanChoice offers electricity to commercial customers as well. For a small diner or a local nonprofit, an inflated electricity bill can hamper day-to-day operations, potentially leading to staff cuts or the closure of programs that benefit the public.
Meanwhile, the environment that CleanChoice purports to protect also loses out. If consumers become jaded after discovering that they did not truly receive “100% renewable electricity,” they may cut back on future green investments or distrust official climate programs. That erosion of trust is intangible but crucial; it undercuts the moral impetus for large-scale transitions away from fossil fuels. Moreover, local communities that believed they were supporting wind or solar “in your region” see no direct improvement in local air quality or job creation, because the underlying supply, as alleged, is the same old brown energy mix. RECs purchased from out of state or from older facilities do not necessarily create new environmental or economic benefits for Massachusetts communities.
On a broader social level, neighbors or family members may share their negative experiences. This fosters an atmosphere of skepticism toward any alternative power arrangement—even truly beneficial community solar or municipal aggregation programs. The fear of being scammed overshadows real opportunities to build a more sustainable energy future. If a single ESCO can do so much damage through allegedly misleading or inflated pricing strategies, the entire notion of energy choice becomes suspect.
In summary, the human toll extends beyond the monthly electric bill: it touches household stability, mental and physical health, small business resilience, community trust, and the environmental progress that many Massachusetts residents ardently desire. Corporate decisions that might appear as trifling marketing details can ripple into significant harms for everyday people, who are blindsided by the illusions of saving the planet at a premium cost.
Global Trends in Corporate Accountability
The CleanChoice lawsuit is just one piece of a broader puzzle involving global trends in corporate accountability. In many countries, particularly in the Global North, the introduction of free-market principles into utilities once deemed “essential services” has triggered waves of privatizations and partial deregulations. Proponents hail the injection of competition as a means to drive efficiency. Opponents argue that private entities can prioritize profits above universal access or equity, especially for vulnerable populations.
What does accountability look like in this context? Some nations have tried to adopt more stringent rules for labeling energy as “renewable,” requiring real-time matching between consumption and local renewable generation. Others have mandated that any marketer of green energy disclose exactly how the underlying electricity is produced. Still, as the lawsuit claims, such rules can be sidestepped through the complexity of RECs. Regulators in states like New York have discovered that requiring ESCOs to show a monthly side-by-side comparison of the default utility rate can help quell overcharging, but compliance has proven inconsistent, and lawsuits persist.
Consumer advocacy groups worldwide are highlighting that when it comes to corporate ethics in essential goods like water, electricity, or natural gas, we need more robust frameworks than the usual disclaimers of “caveat emptor.” Indeed, if accountability measures fail, entire communities can be subject to inflated or manipulated pricing schemes, as the CleanChoice Complaint contends. This puts pressure on national governments and global bodies to standardize consumer protections, especially around sustainability claims. The phenomenon of “greenwashing” has led to new proposals in the European Union and other regions to define “net zero,” “renewable,” and “offset” more narrowly.
Meanwhile, neoliberal capitalism at a global scale means these issues are not confined to Massachusetts. Utilities in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, after privatization, have sometimes faced the same controversies: selective marketing, hidden fees, and socio-economic inequalities. This is not to suggest that public utilities were always paragons of virtue, but it does imply that profit motives layered on top of essential services create additional complexities for consumer and environmental welfare.
Looking specifically at the CleanChoice story, we see a microcosm of how corporate accountability struggles to keep up with real-time marketing ploys. A company can show the public a glossy website with pictures of solar panels, wind turbines, and smiling families, while behind the scenes, charges for “green power” remain unmoored from the real cost of renewables. If accountability measures don’t evolve rapidly, local attorneys general and consumer advocates might find themselves in a constant game of “whack-a-mole,” chasing one dubious ESCO scheme after another.
Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy
The final chapter in any such corporate scandal must look forward: Where do we go from here? The Class Action Complaint lays out a robust case against CleanChoice, seeking damages for breach of contract, deceptive practices, and unjust enrichment. Yet even if the plaintiffs prevail, the structural vulnerabilities that enabled this alleged deception remain. The following reforms and advocacy paths might offer stronger consumer protections:
- Transparent Pricing Regulations
Regulators could require all ESCOs to publicly file their monthly variable rates and show how these rates correlate to wholesale energy prices and overhead. A real-time comparison tool might let consumers see if CleanChoice’s rate is truly “based on market conditions.” Lack of transparency is one key reason ESCOs can thrive on overcharging. - Tighter Rules on Renewable Claims
States could mandate that any claim of “100% renewable energy” must involve real-time matching or be tied to regionally sourced generation. If an ESCO is merely purchasing generic grid power plus RECs, it should not be allowed to market that electricity as “wind and solar” in a manner that confuses the consumer. A separate “offset-based” label might be more appropriate. - Consumer Education Campaigns
Many consumers remain unaware that the local utility’s default rate might be cheaper and might already include mandated renewable percentages under state law. Nonprofits, state agencies, and local governments could sponsor educational campaigns that highlight key red flags in ESCO contracts, focusing especially on variable-rate pitfalls. - Enhanced Enforcement and Penalties
If companies such as CleanChoice find it cost-effective to settle lawsuits while continuing questionable practices, the deterrent effect of these enforcement actions is undermined. Lawmakers might consider more draconian penalties, including the possibility of revoking an ESCO’s license to operate if found repeatedly engaging in deceptive conduct. - Prohibitions on Variable Rates
Some jurisdictions have outright banned variable-rate contracts for residential customers, citing consistent evidence that such arrangements lead to overcharging. Massachusetts could explore this route—though it would be politically contentious as it contradicts the original premise of deregulation. - Community Choice Aggregation
In some areas, local governments negotiate lower rates on behalf of residents by aggregating them into a single buying group. This approach can incorporate robust renewable content if done carefully. It reduces the risk of aggressive ESCO door-to-door marketing, because people are automatically enrolled in a transparent municipal plan unless they opt out. - Stronger Recourse for Lawsuits
Consumer-friendly class action provisions enable lawsuits like the one against CleanChoice to move forward. Legislatures could further empower individuals to challenge unfair contracts by guaranteeing attorneys’ fees or triple damages for proven wrongdoing.
While these reforms might help address exploitative energy supply deals, they also speak to broader issues of corporate accountability and the precarious position of consumers under neoliberal capitalism. The system encourages businesses to innovate new marketing strategies in the name of competition—but that same system often starves regulators of the resources needed to keep pace. Consequently, unscrupulous companies can proliferate. If the CleanChoice allegations prove true, it underscores the urgency of regulatory modernization in the energy sector.
The question is whether the next wave of solutions will truly center the public interest or will remain vulnerable to new iterations of corporate spin. CleanChoice and similar ESCOs might argue that they only responded to market demand for cleaner electricity options, implying that the real problem is consumers’ misunderstanding. But as the Complaint vigorously alleges, such an argument fails to address the underlying deception about rate calculations and the questionable claim of providing “100% renewable power.” Without strong measures that fix these fundamental failings, the pattern of overcharging and illusions about green energy are likely to continue.
Tom Matzzie (Cleanchoice Energy’s CEO and founder) has a LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/tommatzzie
he also has a Twitter https://x.com/tommatzzie
Tom Matzzie is also shown in this C-SPAN video about an hour in: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/progressive-states-network-gala/172909
outside of this lawsuit filed against CleanChoice Energy, there are also plenty of people on Reddit who had horrible experiences with this company.
📢 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
🚨 Every day, corporations engage in harmful practices that affect workers, consumers, and the environment. Browse key topics:
- 🔥 Product Safety Violations – When companies cut costs at the expense of consumer safety.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations – How corporate greed fuels pollution and ecological destruction.
- ⚖️ Labor Exploitation – Unsafe conditions, wage theft, and workplace abuses.
- 🔓 Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses – How corporations mishandle and exploit your personal data.
- 💰 Financial Fraud & Corruption – Corporate fraud schemes, misleading investors, and corruption scandals.