I looked online to see if anyone DOES do that, and all I found wasLog In (though I imagine they have similar plans in all the other states) ... and they can only use that if they make less than '150% of the federal poverty "guidelines"'-per-year!
Well, I guess that they don't care. The utility companies are in the business to make money like everywhere else. I don't know why there can't be more alteratives to the traditional electric companies however in more areas. If the utility companies were forced to compete with each other our bills would be a lot less!
Many states do have assistance programs for people who cannot afford to pay for heat, etc. They will help pay a percentage so that you're not at risk for health issues. That being said, why should a business be responsible for eating the cost of utilities for people? Or rather, why would people who have making more money, have to pay more for a luxury item? Having electricity isn't a necessity necessarily....and those who are making less, might not be as cautious with their utility usage if they're not being charged accordingly for it.
Maybe one of us misunderstands the market: I see it as 'positive for both parties' if both parties thrive; you seem to regard the market as more like a 'jungle'---where the poor are good for little more than 'food for the lions.' I don't think it would so-much be "the utility-businesses" eating the cost as it would be 'the utility-fund-managers' (and then only if the total usage of the people exceeds the amount their energy-percentage pays-for). True, it may be a little 'socialist'---all of the people paying for all of the people's energy (one big pot). But not if we regard all the people as our brethren (and sistren).
