Consumer advocates and state legislators are urging regulators to preserve competitive bidding for new transmission projects, arguing that competition can reduce construction costs and protect electricity customers.
The Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition is highlighting calls from state legislators and consumer advocates for greater competition in the development of electricity transmission infrastructure.
The coalition says competitive bidding can place transmission developers against one another on price, project delivery, technical design and cost-containment commitments. According to ETCC, research indicates that competition can reduce transmission project costs by approximately 30%, potentially avoiding billions of dollars in expenses ultimately recovered from electricity customers.
For electricity customers, the outcome of this debate could influence long-term transmission costs, which are recovered through rates and affect households, businesses and large loads such as EV charging networks.
The announcement comes amid debate over how the United States should procure the large volume of transmission infrastructure required to address rising electricity demand, grid congestion, reliability needs and new industrial loads.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 1000 removed the federal right of first refusal for certain regional transmission projects selected for cost allocation, allowing qualified incumbent and non-incumbent developers to compete. The rule does not require every transmission project to undergo competitive bidding, and many projects remain outside competitive processes.
Consumer Advocates Call for Greater Transmission Competition
| Speaker | Role | Key Point |
|---|---|---|
| David S. Lapp | Maryland People’s Counsel | Competition checks utility monopoly control and lowers customer costs |
| Matt Welch | Texans for Affordable Transmission | Competition shifts cost-overrun risk from ratepayers to developers |
| Todd Stuart | Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group | Competitive bids produced stronger cost containment and lower ROE |
| Brian O. Lipman | NJ Division of Rate Counsel | Competition helps identify lowest-cost transmission solutions |
ETCC’s September 30 announcement brings together statements from consumer representatives in Maryland, Texas, Wisconsin and New Jersey.
David S. Lapp, Maryland People’s Counsel, said competition provides a check on the market power held by incumbent utilities and called for regulatory loopholes that allow transmission projects to avoid competitive bidding to be closed.
“Competition provides a powerful check against utility monopoly control that leads to higher costs for customers,” Lapp said.
Matt Welch of Texans for Affordable Transmission argued that competitive procurement can require developers to compete on price, schedule and innovation while shifting the risk of cost overruns away from ratepayers.
A September 2026 study commissioned by Texans for Affordable Transmission evaluated competitive and non-competitive transmission projects across six US electricity markets. The report estimated that applying competitive procurement to major planned projects in Texas could reduce initial construction costs by $3 billion to $9 billion, with potential lifetime ratepayer savings of $7 billion to $22 billion. The study cautioned that its conclusions were based on a limited number of completed competitive projects, incomplete public data and several modeling assumptions.
Todd Stuart of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group pointed to competitively awarded projects in Wisconsin that included cost-containment measures and lower proposed returns on equity.
Brian O. Lipman of the New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel said competitive construction processes can help identify lower-cost transmission solutions as electricity affordability becomes a greater concern for households, businesses and state governments.
State Lawmakers Urge FERC to Preserve Competitive Processes
The ETCC announcement also includes statements submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by legislators in Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Missouri and Wisconsin.
Forty members of the Iowa Legislature said transmission facilities funded by Iowa ratepayers should be competitively procured, including projects developed to serve data centers and other sources of new electricity demand.
Legislative leaders in Kansas cited their state’s opposition to legislation that would have strengthened incumbent utilities’ control over transmission development. They argued that permanent monopoly rights would conflict with the state’s support for open markets.
In Montana, Daniel Zolnikov, Chair of the Montana Senate Energy and Technology Committee, said reliability and timely infrastructure development are important but argued that limiting competition may not produce the best outcomes for consumers.
Missouri legislators Ben Keathley and Tracy McCreery separately connected transmission procurement to broader electricity-affordability concerns, including the effects of higher utility costs on household finances and state budgets.
Members of the Wisconsin Legislature cited competitive transmission results within the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, arguing that competitive processes can produce cost savings, technology innovation and stronger project commitments.
These statements represent the views of the legislators and organizations quoted by ETCC. They do not constitute a formal finding by FERC that every competitively procured transmission project will cost less or enter service faster.
Cost Savings Remain Central to the Policy Debate
ETCC cites research indicating that competitive transmission procurement can reduce costs by approximately 30% on average. These figures are based on a limited set of completed competitive projects and should not be treated as a universal savings rate for all transmission investments. Its website also cites an analysis of 19 competitively bid projects that reported average savings of 38%. Both figures are used by the coalition to support its policy position.
A May 2026 analysis from the R Street Institute found that completed competitive greenfield transmission projects generally reached service faster than comparable incumbent-developed projects in several electricity markets. However, the researchers also warned that relatively few competitive projects have been completed and that inconsistent reporting limits definitive comparisons.
Not all industry research reaches the same conclusion. A 2024 report prepared by Concentric Energy Advisors for a coalition of incumbent transmission owners questioned whether competitive solicitations had consistently produced their intended benefits and identified challenges in comparing projects and procurement models.
The available evidence therefore supports continued evaluation of competitive outcomes but does not establish a universal savings rate for all transmission projects. Results can vary according to project size, voltage, geography, permitting, financing, procurement design, cost-containment provisions and the accuracy of the initial cost estimate.
FERC Rules Shape Access to Regional Transmission Projects
FERC adopted Order No. 1000 in 2011 to reform regional transmission planning and cost allocation.
Among its provisions, the order required public utility transmission providers to remove federal rights of first refusal for certain facilities selected in regional transmission plans for cost allocation. This opened eligible projects to proposals from non-incumbent developers.
The rule did not eliminate all incumbent advantages or require competition for every local, regional or reliability-driven project. The extent of competitive procurement varies among regional transmission organizations and independent system operators.
The current debate includes the treatment of projects covered by FERC Order No. 1920, which introduced long-term regional transmission-planning and cost-allocation requirements. ETCC has challenged provisions it believes give incumbent utilities preferential access to certain replacement and expansion projects.
Separately, incumbent transmission owners have argued that competitive solicitations can add time to project development when the grid requires rapid investment. ETCC and other competition advocates dispute that claim, pointing to competitive projects delivered on schedule and to cost overruns affecting some directly assigned projects.
Transmission Costs Affect Electrification and EV Infrastructure
Transmission policy has indirect but important implications for electric vehicles and EV charging infrastructure.
Large charging hubs, fleet depots, electric truck corridors, battery factories and data centers can introduce substantial new electricity demand. Meeting that demand may require local distribution upgrades as well as new regional transmission capacity.
The cost of transmission investment is generally recovered through regulated rates or charges allocated to electricity customers. Procurement decisions can therefore influence the long-term cost of supplying power to homes, businesses, industrial facilities and charging networks.
Competitive bidding is one mechanism intended to control those costs, but its effectiveness depends on the design of the solicitation, the quality of competing proposals and whether developers remain accountable for proposed prices and schedules.
ETCC represents 95 companies and organizations across all 50 states, including manufacturers, consumer advocates, electricity customers, policy groups and non-incumbent transmission developers. The coalition advocates for broader use of competitive procurement in US transmission development.
Its latest announcement does not propose a single new regulation. Instead, it compiles statements supporting continued competition as FERC, state governments, regional grid operators and the courts consider how future transmission infrastructure should be planned, awarded and paid for.
For more information, see the ETCC website, the ETCC petitioner statement, the FERC Order 1000 page, the R Street analysis, the Texans for Affordable Transmission study and the Concentric Energy Advisors report.
FAQ: Competitive Electricity Transmission
What is competitive electricity transmission?
Competitive electricity transmission allows qualified developers to submit proposals to build eligible transmission projects. Proposals can be evaluated on factors such as cost, technical design, project schedule, experience and cost-containment commitments.
What does ETCC say competition can save?
ETCC cites research indicating that competitive transmission procurement can reduce costs by approximately 30%. Savings vary between projects, and available studies are limited by the relatively small number of completed competitive projects and inconsistent public reporting.
What is FERC Order No. 1000?
FERC Order No. 1000 is a transmission-planning and cost-allocation rule adopted in 2011. It removed the federal right of first refusal for certain regional transmission projects, allowing non-incumbent developers to compete for eligible projects.
Does every US transmission project undergo competitive bidding?
No. Competitive requirements apply only to certain projects, and many local, reliability, replacement and other transmission investments remain directly assigned to incumbent utilities.
Why do consumer advocates support competitive bidding?
The advocates quoted by ETCC argue that competitive procurement can create price discipline, encourage technical innovation and transfer some cost-overrun risk from electricity customers to project developers.
Is there disagreement over transmission competition?
Yes. Competition advocates point to cost savings and schedule commitments in competitively awarded projects. Some incumbent utilities and industry researchers argue that solicitations can add complexity or delay and that project comparisons do not always show clear benefits.
How is transmission competition relevant to EV charging?
EV charging networks, electric truck hubs and fleet depots increase electricity demand. New demand can require grid and transmission investment, whose costs may ultimately affect electricity rates and the operating cost of charging infrastructure.
