Utility savings are down and utility cost are soaring.........and there is no end in site.  If I could tell you I could possiblity save you up to 40% on your electric bill.  Would you call me and let me explain.....If it doesn't cost you a dime..................I think this could save you hundreds and thousands of dollars on you utility bill..........I'm I crazy......let me explain.......all you have to do is listen or not...

Deregulated States are as follows: Texas, District of Columbia, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , New Jersey , New York , Oregon , Ohio , & Pennsylvania

Of course there is a catch. You have to call or email me (Norris Streetman) and I'll explain the pros and cons. call me  (918) 313-8309 or send me a email below..........

Deregulation is the general (and slightly misleading) term that we use to describe the changing relationship of government authority to a range of services and activities, from air transportation to (most recently) electrical energy.

For most of the last century, electrical power in North America (and, for that matter, the world) has been generally regarded as a public utility - something that was both extremely important to both citizens and business interests, and which by its very nature implied a "natural monopoly" situation. This led to a state of affairs which generally involved two basic features: first, public ownership (sometimes at the municipal level, sometimes higher) of power generation facilities, subject to strict regulation of prices and terms; and second, vertical integration of the various elements involved in the provision of electrical energy (specifically: power generation, power transmission, power distribution, and customer services). The province of Alberta was something of an anomaly in this respect; rather than creating a provincial crown corporation of the sort that existed in every other province, it relied on a combination of a privately owned company (TransAlta, formerly Calgary Power) and municipal utilities, but it still operated in terms of the model of a "natural monopoly" situation subjected to tight governmental regulation.

But recent years have seen a global sea change in the way that electrical energy is delivered to individual and corporate consumers. The notion of a "natural monopoly" has been subjected to considerable criticism, and policy-makers have reacted accordingly. Europe is firmly committed to a more competitive process for the production and delivery of electrical energy, although this is being handled in different ways by different countries; the United Kingdom has led the way, with France showing the most reluctance. Most Asian countries have moved to deregulation since the Asian economic crisis of the mid-1990s. The United States has lagged behind, although since 1996 utilities have been required to open their transmission lines to competitors. About half of the US states have moved toward electrical deregulation and others are in the process of doing so; Pennsylvania has been arguably the most successful, California clearly the least.

Strictly speaking, "deregulation" is something of a misnomer - everywhere in the "deregulating" world the production and distribution of electrical energy continues to take place in a highly regulated environment - but the term is so deeply entrenched that it is pointless to protest. In fact, what is going on under this label is three different processes, logically separate but today tending to proceed hand in hand. The first is a move away from the long-standing "vertical integration" that combined all four elements (generation, transmission, distribution and customer services) in a single organizational entity; today, the organization that generates power is typically not the organization that transmits it, and a third organization again will usually be in charge of distribution. The second is a commitment to "liberalization" (the term used in Europe) by which we mean opening the electrical energy market to a wide range of sources of power, with a measure of price competition between them. And the third is "privatization" by which we mean the replacement of public ownership by profit-directed private companies. It is the combination of these three elements - even in the context of extensive governmental regulation - that earns the label "deregulation," but there are of course many different ways to combine them.

The global trend toward electrical energy deregulation seems to stem from three different but not unrelated factors.

The first is the phenomenon of the last decade that has generally been described as the "Re-invention of Government." Whatever else this slogan may have been used to justify, it has everywhere referred to a scaling back of what we have been expecting government to do for the last fifty years, and also to a transformation of the modalities through which government tries to accomplish its new reduced (or at lest altered) tasks. Downsizing, outsourcing, privatization - these are the new buzz-words, and they embody a mind-set to which the answer "because government has always done these things this way" is no longer good enough. Part of this is little more than the old suspicion of government bureaucrats in new clothes, and part of it is the consequence of a tax revolt in the offing. The critique is particularly pointed when it involves the government selling goods and services, even in sectors that were once thought of as "natural monopolies" to which public ownership and operation was the fairest solution. The current conventional system is that although the vast electrical transmission grids that link whole continents probably still are legitimate claimants for the status of "natural monopoly," the same is not true of the plans that generate the energy in the first place.

The second is a new enthusiasm for the efficiency and the flexibility of the market system, an idea that has benefitted from several of the major political and intellectual trends of the last decade - "end of the Cold war," "swing to the right," "globalization," and resentment of bloated government, to name only a few. The arguments are easily applied to electrical generation. Competition will bring prices down to marginally more than the costs of production, the costs of production themselves will be contained by real constraint of profit margins, and new capacity will be called forth by temporarily rising prices. Conversely, government owned utilities can hold prices either too high (if they listen to the plant managers) or too low (if they listen to consumers), there will allegedly be no reason to contain costs because consumers or government subsidies will cover them in any event, and investment in new or modernising equipment will be conditional upon purely political priorities and the intricacies of the political budget cycle. And the continental power grids provide a kind of safety net - any temporary difficulties in some corner of the continent can draw upon the excess capacity in the rest of the system.

The third factor is an openness to the potential of new technology. For the last century, electrical generating facilities (hydro-electric, coal-powers, natural gas-powers or nuclear alike) have tended to be very large and very expensive. This means they take a long time to build, even longer because they have a significant impact on the environment that carries its own decision-making delays and difficulties; and it means that they cost enormous sums of money, limiting the number of economic actors who could conceivably have assumed the obligations and the risks. But the promise of this century is "micro-power" - the generation of electricity by small-scale fuel cells and gas turbines. This is not a new technology, but what is new is the efficiencies that have brought them close to commercial reality. (Given the recent surge of natural gas prices, it is ironic that one of the major incentives was the vision of low-cost natural gas-fired micro-plants.)


The combination of these three has created a strong move toward "deregulation" (or "liberalisation") in the supply of electrical energy, one that catches Europe and North America and Asia alike

There are about 50+ Electricity Suppliers, 75 Natural Gas Suppliers, and 100's of Telecommunications Suppliers.  Which Supplier do you choose?

Regardless of which Utility Company you choose, our fee is paid by the Supplier.

Seven – Utility Management Consultants, Ltd. is a professional consulting firm founded at the inception of Energy Deregulation in Texas by a group of Energy Specialists and experienced professionals.  Our mission is simple…to assist companies in reducing their Utility Expenses by using our knowledge of the current marketplace to properly analyze and negotiate your Energy contract and rates.

Many large to midsize companies with national presence have received the benefit of our expertise in cost reduction.  When you outsource your Utility Negotiations to us, we ensure that your pricing is at or below current market conditions!

We will:

·         Properly review this expense by analyzing your past 14-month usage patterns.  Your staff may not have the time or expertise to analyze themselves.  We will correct billing errors and process refunds.

·         We will then professionally negotiate proposals from the most qualified Utility Suppliers and present to you, along with our written recommendation in Executive Summary format.  With our recommendation, you decide which Energy or Utility Supplier to use.

·         We will manage your expense throughout the contract term, renegotiating with the Supplier if applicable, and handle all future Utility Negotiations.

·         YOU NEVER HAVE TO SPEAK TO AN ELECTRICITY OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SALESMAN AGAIN!

 Residential Electric Consumers
A Survey of 15 Deregulated States

All data as of December 2003 except: NY as of Nov 2003; ME, MA, OH+ TX as of Sept 2003; NJ as of December 2002; and VA as of August 2002.

SOURCE: Public Citizen