Imagine being promised a greener future, only to find yourself paying through the nose for it. That’s the harsh reality for many Massachusetts residents who trusted CleanChoice Energy, a green energy supplier now facing a class-action lawsuit for allegedly overcharging customers. But here’s where it gets controversial: while CleanChoice claims to offer “100 percent clean energy,” the lawsuit argues that the electricity powering homes is no different from what’s provided by traditional utilities—largely sourced from fossil fuels. So, what’s the catch? The company relies heavily on purchasing renewable energy credits, a practice that, while well-established, doesn’t necessarily mean the energy you’re using is as green as advertised.
This isn’t just about one company; it’s part of a larger battle between consumers, regulators, and third-party electricity suppliers. Confrontations have escalated into legislative attempts, fines, and scathing reports from the attorney general’s office. For instance, in September, Massachusetts regulators threatened CleanChoice with a $5.1 million fine for allegedly switching customers to variable rates that skyrocketed over time—some by as much as 214 percent. And this is the part most people miss: while CleanChoice defends its fixed-rate plans, the lawsuit highlights variable rates that have left customers like Ikels feeling exploited. Her December bill? Even higher than before, despite promises of change.
The lawsuit also accuses CleanChoice of misleading marketing, claiming their electricity comes from local solar and wind farms. In reality, the energy mix is the same as everyone else’s, with green investments primarily coming from renewable energy credits purchased across the country. Burkett McInturff, one of the lawyers behind the lawsuit, puts it bluntly: “They’re selling a tomato at the price of a wagyu steak.”
CleanChoice spokesperson Kate Colarulli counters that the company stands by its offerings, emphasizing their role in developing solar farms and financing green projects. But critics argue that the premium customers pay doesn’t always align with the environmental impact. For example, Boston’s municipal electricity supplier offers 100 percent green energy options for just over 16 cents per kilowatt-hour—far less than what some CleanChoice customers are paying.
This debate isn’t confined to Massachusetts. Similar lawsuits against CleanChoice are underway in New York, and politicians like Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell have pushed to ban third-party suppliers from targeting residential customers, especially low-income and non-English-speaking communities. Between July 2023 and June 2024, Massachusetts customers on third-party plans overpaid by a staggering $73 million collectively. Yet, supporters of third-party suppliers argue that better regulations, not bans, could fix the system, allowing consumers to save money by shopping around.
Camila Gomez, a community outreach ambassador for All In Energy, has seen firsthand how these practices impact vulnerable communities. She recalls an event in Lowell where CleanChoice offered free phones and gadgets to people willing to sign up, raising concerns about informed consent, especially among non-English speakers. “Are these customers truly aware of what they’re agreeing to?” she asks.
The legal battles aren’t new for CleanChoice. A previous lawsuit was dismissed after a judge ruled the company’s contracts clearly outlined variable rate factors. However, lawyers in the current case argue their contracts are more robust, making this lawsuit harder to dismiss. Hessann Farooqi of the Boston Climate Action Network calls CleanChoice “one of the most prolific bad actors in a sea of bad actors,” criticizing their premium pricing as unjustified.
So, where do you stand? Is CleanChoice a pioneer in green energy, or just another company profiting off environmental promises? And should third-party suppliers be banned, or can better regulations protect consumers? Let’s hear your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
