Feature Articles

My first job out of college was as an Automotive Industry Marketing Analyst for Roadway Express, then the nation’s largest interstate less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier.

I graduated into one of the most transformative periods in American transportation history. I didn’t fully appreciate it at the time, but it would shape how I think about competition for the rest of my career.

For nearly fifty years, the trucking industry had operated under an economic regulatory framework that limited competition and constrained innovation. I joined Roadway just as the company was transitioning into a truly competitive marketplace, becoming part of one of the first marketing teams helping redefine what our company, and our industry, could become.

Almost overnight, our thinking changed. Instead of asking what services regulations allowed us to offer, we began asking what problems we could solve for our customers.

We developed Just-in-Time transportation services for automotive assembly plants. We introduced inbound consolidation centers, supplier “milk run” networks, and some of the industry’s earliest digital freight tracking capabilities. These innovations fundamentally changed how manufacturers managed inventory, reduced logistics costs, and improved supply chain efficiency.

Most of these services would never have been possible under the regulatory framework established in the 1930s. Competition didn’t simply lower freight rates. It unleashed innovation that reshaped American supply chains.

Years later, I entered another industry that was supposedly being “deregulated.”

Retail electricity.

Initially, the comparison seemed obvious. States were opening markets to competition. Customers could choose their energy supplier. New companies were entering the market.

But it didn’t take long to realize something important.

Retail electricity wasn’t truly deregulated.

It was restructured.

Utilities continued to own and operate the poles, wires, substations, and local electric grid. Reliable delivery remains a natural monopoly and should remain regulated.

Competition was introduced only for the energy supply portion of the business.

That distinction has shaped the industry for more than twenty-five years.

Unlike trucking, where carriers competed on relatively equal footing, many competitive electricity markets left regulated utilities deeply embedded in the competitive landscape.

In states other than Texas, utilities continue to procure default supply, establish the Price to Compare, send the monthly bill, control much of the customer data, and remain the brand customers know best.

Competitive suppliers compete, but often without controlling the primary customer relationship.

That structural difference matters.

The structure of the trucking industry encouraged companies to innovate because they had to earn every customer’s business.

Competitive energy suppliers have introduced renewable products, fixed-price plans, digital tools, rewards programs, and better customer experiences. But in many markets they do so while competing alongside a regulated incumbent that still occupies a central role in the customer relationship.

Texas came closer than most states to completing the restructuring.

Transmission and distribution utilities focus on operating and maintaining the electric grid. Retail Electric Providers compete for customers, procure energy, manage risk, develop products, send the bill, and own the customer relationship.

Responsibilities are clear.

Utilities deliver electricity.

Retail suppliers compete for customers.

That structure more closely resembles what occurred in interstate trucking decades ago.

Perhaps the most important lesson from trucking isn’t that regulation should disappear.

It’s that regulation and competition serve different purposes.

The interstate highway system remained publicly owned and regulated.

Trucking companies competed on the highways.

Likewise, the electric grid should remain a regulated monopoly focused on safety, reliability, and resilience.

Competitive suppliers should compete to procure energy, manage risk, develop innovative products, and deliver superior customer value.

For more than two decades, we’ve described competitive electricity markets as “deregulated.”

Perhaps that’s been part of the problem.

The trucking industry was truly deregulated.

Retail electricity was restructured.

Understanding the difference helps explain why the two industries have produced very different competitive outcomes.

More importantly, it highlights a broader lesson.

Markets don’t succeed simply because competition exists. They succeed because they are designed to allow competition to work.

If the goal is vibrant competition that delivers innovation, customer value, and efficient markets, perhaps the next chapter in competitive electricity isn’t about expanding customer choice.

It’s about finishing the restructuring that began more than twenty-five years ago.

Competition works best when competitors compete on equal footing.

Interstate trucking proved that more than forty years ago.

Perhaps it’s time to apply those same lessons to competitive electricity.