If policymakers are serious about “Speed to Power,” they should focus on permitting reform. Yet a coalition of utilities has repackaged a longstanding argument that the best way to speed up transmission development is to curtail competitive bidding for transmission projects in the Midwest and Plains. Their proposal overlooks both the driving causes of project slowdowns and the many benefits of competition.
A monopoly by another name
Nine utilities filed a complaint at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the Grid Acceleration Coalition (GAC), arguing that competitive bidding processes for transmission projects add an unnecessary 16 to 20 months to project timelines. Although framed around the urgent need to build more grid infrastructure as quickly as possible, the heart of the complaint is the familiar regulated-utility position that competition is bad for consumers, despite ample evidence to the contrary. The reality is that incumbents want to control all transmission development, and receive a nearly guaranteed rate of return on their investments.
Utilities previously benefited from a federal right of first refusal (ROFR) that limited competition in transmission development. After FERC largely eliminated those protections in 2011, utilities channelled significant investment into categories of projects that were exempt from competition. Simultaneously, utilities aggressively lobbied Midwestern and Plains states to restore ROFR privileges, to varying degrees of success. If FERC were to grant the relief sought in the complaint, it would amount to a de facto ROFR while accomplishing little to accelerate the buildout of the grid. It would be the wrong remedy to address real grid challenges.
The case against competition is thin
The utility coalition argues that building out the power grid to support U.S. industrial competitiveness is too urgent to slow down with a competitive bidding process. Yet it offers no evidence that competitive projects actually take longer to complete. In fact, analysis from R Street suggests that despite going through solicitation processes, competitively bid projects are generally completed faster than incumbent-built projects.
The GAC complaint also fails to account for other benefits of the competitive process. Independent transmission developers often contribute technical input, alternative designs, and regional planning expertise at their own expense before project awards are granted precisely because they have a credible opportunity to compete. Eliminating or weakening that opportunity would narrow the field of participants and, with it, reduce the diversity, quality, and cost-effectiveness of project proposals. The complaint’s silence on this issue speaks volumes.
The right way to achieve ‘speed to power’
The better path to speed to power is to focus on short- to medium-term powerline improvements and updates coupled with meaningful, interregional transmission development, something GAC members have historically resisted.
Deploying grid-enhancing technologies and advanced reconductoring can unlock additional grid capacity much faster than new construction. These near-term updates can also support more ambitious interregional planning models that strengthen regional ties and expand utilities’ capability to transfer power to each other in emergencies. These levers are the most likely to deliver timely and cost-effective systemwide benefits.
Congressional reform will play a pivotal role not only in advancing these fixes, but also in accelerating project permitting, which is often a far greater source of transmission project delays than competitive solicitation. While natural gas pipelines enjoy federal siting authority to streamline the permitting process, transmission lines must get approvals from every state and county they traverse, creating multiple veto points and potential delays. Efforts to accelerate transmission development should focus on these and other core bottlenecks, not on limiting the competition that has been shown to improve planning outcomes and reduce costs.
