Policymakers and special interests in Harrisburg are discussing policy changes that would undermine Pennsylvania’s competitive power market by allowing monopolies to once again generate electricity — all under the guise of ensuring our commonwealth can meet rising demand.

This approach is unnecessary and misguided. It takes away consumer choice and threatens to upend a decades-old system that has ensured reliable electricity for homes and businesses.

So, how did we get here? Artificial intelligence and data centers, along with a broader push to electrify everything from transportation to manufacturing, are increasing power demands on the grid. In Pennsylvania’s competitive energy market, power-generating companies are stepping up to meet the challenge.

Pennsylvania is part of PJM Interconnection, the largest grid operator in the country, serving all or parts of 13 states and the District of Columbia. To ensure sufficient capacity to meet demand, PJM regularly holds auctions where generators sell their electricity to utility companies.

In addition, PJM launched its Reliability Resource Initiative to fast-track the process of quickly adding energy to the grid. PJM selected 51 shovel-ready electricity projects for expedited approval, with 90% expected to be online by 2030. These projects would add 11,793 megawatts to the grid.

These shovel-ready resources — including new and advanced nuclear and natural gas-fired power plants, as well as new battery storage — can come online quickly and provide reliable service. This gives a big boost to the grid’s power supply.

Pennsylvania is a major force in this equation.

According to PJM, our commonwealth has more than enough power to meet its needs through 2032, even before any new supply is added. Pennsylvania is also the top exporter of electricity in the United States, even as carbon emissions from electricity generation continue to decline, according to the Independent Fiscal Office.

Despite this success, special interests want to change the rules for their own benefit.

In 1996, Pennsylvania became one of the first states to restructure its energy market, ending the vertical system that gave utilities a monopoly to generate electricity without competition, allowing shareholders to profit at the expense of consumers.

To replace it, Pennsylvania chose a competitive marketplace. For the first time, ratepayers had a choice where to purchase their electricity and an option to switch suppliers if their bills were too high or their service was subpar.

The system works. Ratepayers and businesses in restructured states like Pennsylvania benefit from a reliable and sustainable electricity market supported by robust competition and consumer choice. Restructured states have experienced slower retail price growth, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and fewer minutes of electricity outages than monopoly utility states.

Newly proposed legislation (H.B. 1272) would dismantle this highly successful competitive energy market by allowing utilities to build and own their own power plants and charge customers for construction costs — something utilities have not been able to do for nearly 30 years.

This represents a dramatic shift. Allowing utility-owned generation in a market-based framework distorts price signals, discourages private investment, and reduces market efficiency. Moreover, it shifts the risks associated with generation from investors to utility ratepayers.

Currently, competitive retail suppliers must innovate, enhance efficiency, lower costs, offer creative renewable energy plans, and manage risk on behalf of consumers — while bearing any cost increases themselves.

Under the proposed legislation, monopoly utilities would enjoy a risk-free financial environment with little incentive to invest in innovation, efficiency, or customer service. Ratepayers would be obligated to subsidize generation projects regardless of performance.

Making matters worse, any policy change that allows Pennsylvania-based utilities to generate power locally could result in our ratepayers subsidizing electricity for other states. In other words, an average Pennsylvania family could be forced to pay for a power plant that sends electricity to a Virginia data center.

The reality is that current law already allows utilities to create subsidiary companies to build new power generation — but that involves risk. Utilities prefer to build generation projects paid for by ratepayers, which is why they are pushing this bill.

As electric demand continues to rise, all new ideas should be considered. But this particular approach has been tried — and has failed.

Pennsylvania’s competitive power market works, generating significant investments, ensuring a reliable grid, and keeping electricity prices close to the national average. There is no reason to rewire a system that is already working.

State Rep. Robert F. Matzie is chairman of the Pennsylvania House Majority Caucus and represents the state’s 16th Legislative District.