Just chiming in to back up closetojumping. I have spent unfathomable hours at our company with sales executives who are trying to sell our commodity product on any basis other than price. A significant segment of the population shops for the lowest price energy. But a much larger segment of the population does not. Should they? Probably, but it is a personal choice. I myself would fall into the shop on price category. But entire brands are being built either around 1) higher priced commodity tied to a high quality customer service experience based on the billing side. Not customer service of guaranteeing the lights stay on. 2) higher priced commodity based on some affinity or social justice cause. This could be green energy or any other product packaging. 3) higher priced commodity based on some upfront incentive like a free thermostat, gift card, or some other hook. The list of marketing idea goes on. Many REPs want to sell on lowest price because that is the easiest sale. It makes for a challenging sustainable business in the long run like is demonstrated with Breeze. Company was founded in late 2000 based on articles I saw today, but alas they are now defunct. I don’t know the details of their default but REPs normally do not openly default. Either they fire sale the company or the creditors intervene and take control of the company to avoid dropping customers to POLR. Brands have failed in years prior, just not publicly. I am making the assumption that if Breeze couldn’t firesale their customer book in front of the summer, the company was in particularly dire straights. Sustainable growing energy retailers have to find ways to expand their unit margins. Selling the lowest price commodity is not the path to achieve that. ^^ All of the above does not apply to energy companies based on MLM strategies like Ambit or Stream. Those are different business models.