Dispelling Common Misconceptions

At a historic time when massive amounts of capital and megaprojects must be constructed on accelerated timeframes, the open market will provide the best solutions for timely, reliable, cost-effective grid buildout.

Dispelling Common Misconceptions

At a historic time when massive amounts of capital and megaprojects must be constructed on accelerated timeframes, the open market will provide the best solutions for timely, reliable, cost-effective grid buildout.

Competitive Bidding of New Transmission Projects Deliver Results

Myth: Competition prolongs both the transmission planning process and development without clearly delivering cost savings or more innovative delivery.

Reality: Competition delivers unmatched speed & savings.

  • There is no evidence that incumbent utilities can move Order 1000-bid greenfield projects any faster than competitive developers.
 
  • Recent RTO/ISO solicitations show competition has not delayed delivery.
    • Competitive examples:
      • NextEra Energy Transmission (NEET)’s Wolf Creek–Blackberry 345 kV project (SPP) was energized in July 2025, 6 months early
      • LS Power’s LS Power’s Duff-Coleman 345 kV project (MISO) was completed in June 2020, 6 months early.
      • NEET’s Minco–Pleasant Valley–Draper 345 kV project (SPP) had a required 1/1/25 COD and entered service that month.
    • Non-competitive examples:
      • In Nebraska, the “R-Plan” 345kV project was approved in 2013; completion now expected December 2027.
 
  •  Transmission planning and project scoping take time with or without competitive processes. Robust planning and scoping processes, like those used in competitive processes, reduce in-service delays.
 
  • Competition increases schedule accountability whereas bidders often offer firm schedule guarantees with financial penalties which accelerates completion.¹ Incumbent utilities face fewer on-time performance incentives.
    • In 2024, SPP directly assigned $3.2 B of projects to incumbents due to “short term reliability need” thus skipping the competitive process. The project cost overruns are over $2.2 B with the final costs post-energization still likely higher. The cost overrun also only reflects capital construction costs and when factoring in 40-year present value revenue requirement, the cost implication for consumers is even higher. None of the projects included deadline guarantees for start-up.
    • The MISO RIKY, CAISO Humboldt (x2), and SPP Matthewson-Redbud, Lynch-Medanos, and Potter-Beckham projects, all of which were competitively awarded in 2025, included schedule commitments.
 
  • Competition increases project timeline transparency.
    • In the above mentioned SPP directly assigned projects, the timeline for the incumbent to commit to the project and provide a final estimated cost was largely undefined while competitive processes have rigid timeframes and requirements. Competitive bids could have been run in the timeframes that it took for the incumbents to commit to the projects.

Myth #2: Competitive bidding for transmission has not produced meaningful consumer benefits.

Reality Check: In regions where competitive transmission bidding is allowed, the results speak from themselves.

  • RTO/ISO data shows 20–30% lower costs from competitive bids.   
 
  • The mere existence of a competitive bidding process provides the incentive for the incumbent utility to sharpen their pencils on costs and think differently. Alternative tower materials, conductor options, and schedule mitigations can only be challenged for robustness and appropriateness through the competitive process.  
 
  • It is a fundamental economic principle that competition lowers costs for customers.
 
  • Local utility experience can’t overcome the inherent financial incentive to inflate costs to increase profits. Without competition there is no incentive to reduce costs.
 
  • If an incumbent utility is the best suited to build a given line, they should have no trouble winning in an open, fair bidding process.

Myth: Cost caps are illusory, allowing competitive developers to recover costs exceeding their initial winning bid from customers, while the regulated business model keeps customer costs in check.

Reality Check: Competition tends to bring more rigorous 

cost control.

  • Competitive developers bear the burden of proving cost recovery beyond agreed caps; incumbent utilities face few penalties for cost overruns under cost-plus regulation. Risks and costs that are passed onto the ratepayer.
 
  • Even partial cost caps offer stronger consumer protection than incumbent utility projects without any cost containment.
 
  • Incumbent utilities regularly recover overruns with limited FERC and state scrutiny.
 
  • Local utility experience can’t overcome the inherent financial incentive that utilities have to inflate costs to increase profits.

Myth: Only in-state incumbent utilities can be trusted to deliver and reliably operate and maintain grid expansion projects.

Reality Check: Competition delivers the greatest innovation, cost savings, and speed. Outcomes that direct assignments cannot match.

  • Component-level bidding is no substitute for full project competition. Sub-bidding project components like engineering construction does not lead to cost savings in the overall cost, reductions in ROE returns, schedule incentives, etc.
 
  • Developers in all regions but CAISO must be pre-qualified as capable to design, construct, and maintain transmission projects before competitively bidding.  
 
  • All Order 1000 solicitation processes consider project sponsor expertise, experience, and future potential for project execution. If a bidding entity is less qualified, then the competitive process will demonstrate the skillset gap.
 
  • Competitive projects must meet the same National Electric Safety Code and NERC Reliability Standards as directly assigned projects.
 
  • Local expertise rarely improves cost accuracy or feasibility.
 
  • Incumbent-led project selection often prioritizes self-interest over RTO-wide benefits.

Myth: Only RTO/ISO central planners and incumbents can identify the optimal transmission mix.

Reality Check: Competitive developers create cross-market solutions that maximize value for ratepayers.

  • Competitive developers evaluate opportunities across RTO/ISO and utility boundaries, while incumbent utilities—limited by their territorial constraints—typically focus on their retail footprint. 

 

  • Without legacy bias, competition yields more objective and innovative solutions as incumbents are constrained by impacts on their existing business model.

 

  • Diversity of thought is one of the strongest benefits of Order 1000, bringing different ideas from all interested parties, which further strengthens the regulatory backing demonstrating deep due diligence to truly select the best idea.
Myth #1: Competition prolongs both the transmission planning process and development without clearly delivering cost savings or more innovative delivery.

Reality Check: Competition delivers unmatched speed and savings.

  • There is no evidence that incumbent utilities can move Order 1000-bid greenfield projects any faster than competitive developers.
  • Recent RTO/ISO solicitations show competition has not delayed delivery.
    • Competitive examples:
      • NextEra Energy Transmission (NEET)’s Wolf Creek–Blackberry 345 kV project (SPP) was energized in July 2025, 6 months early
      • LS Power’s LS Power’s Duff-Coleman 345 kV project (MISO) was completed in June 2020, 6 months early.
      • NEET’s Minco–Pleasant Valley–Draper 345 kV project (SPP) had a required 1/1/25 COD and entered service that month.
    • Non-competitive examples:
      • In Nebraska, the “R-Plan” 345kV project was approved in 2013; completion now expected December 2027.
  •  Transmission planning and project scoping take time with or without competitive processes. Robust planning and scoping processes, like those used in competitive processes, reduce in-service delays.
  • Competition increases schedule accountability whereas bidders often offer firm schedule guarantees with financial penalties which accelerates completion.¹ Incumbent utilities face fewer on-time performance incentives.
    • In 2024, SPP directly assigned $3.2 B of projects to incumbents due to “short term reliability need” thus skipping the competitive process. The project cost overruns are over $2.2 B with the final costs post-energization still likely higher. The cost overrun also only reflects capital construction costs and when factoring in 40-year present value revenue requirement, the cost implication for consumers is even higher. None of the projects included deadline guarantees for start-up.
    • The MISO RIKY, CAISO Humboldt (x2), and SPP Matthewson-Redbud, Lynch-Medanos, and Potter-Beckham projects, all of which were competitively awarded in 2025, included schedule commitments.
  • Competition increases project timeline transparency.
    • In the above mentioned SPP directly assigned projects, the timeline for the incumbent to commit to the project and provide a final estimated cost was largely undefined while competitive processes have rigid timeframes and requirements. Competitive bids could have been run in the timeframes that it took for the incumbents to commit to the projects.

Reality Check: In regions where competitive transmission bidding is allowed, the results speak from themselves.

  • RTO/ISO data shows 20–30% lower costs from competitive bids.   
  • The mere existence of a competitive bidding process provides the incentive for the incumbent utility to sharpen their pencils on costs and think differently. Alternative tower materials, conductor options, and schedule mitigations can only be challenged for robustness and appropriateness through the competitive process.  
  • It is a fundamental economic principle that competition lowers costs for customers.
  • Local utility experience can’t overcome the inherent financial incentive to inflate costs to increase profits. Without competition there is no incentive to reduce costs.
  • If an incumbent utility is the best suited to build a given line, they should have no trouble winning in an open, fair bidding process.

Reality Check: Competition tends to bring more rigorous cost control.

  • Competitive developers bear the burden of proving cost recovery beyond agreed caps; incumbent utilities face few penalties for cost overruns under cost-plus regulation. Risks and costs that are passed onto the ratepayer.
  • Even partial cost caps offer stronger consumer protection than incumbent utility projects without any cost containment.
  • Incumbent utilities regularly recover overruns with limited FERC and state scrutiny.
  • Local utility experience can’t overcome the inherent financial incentive that utilities have to inflate costs to increase profits.

Reality Check: Competition delivers the greatest innovation, cost savings, and speed. Outcomes that direct assignments cannot match.

  • Component-level bidding is no substitute for full project competition. Sub-bidding project components like engineering construction does not lead to cost savings in the overall cost, reductions in ROE returns, schedule incentives, etc.
  • Developers in all regions but CAISO must be pre-qualified as capable to design, construct, and maintain transmission projects before competitively bidding.  
  • All Order 1000 solicitation processes consider project sponsor expertise, experience, and future potential for project execution. If a bidding entity is less qualified, then the competitive process will demonstrate the skillset gap.
  • Competitive projects must meet the same National Electric Safety Code and NERC Reliability Standards as directly assigned projects.
  • Local expertise rarely improves cost accuracy or feasibility.
  • Incumbent-led project selection often prioritizes self-interest over RTO-wide benefits.

Reality Check: Competitive developers create cross-market solutions that maximize value for ratepayers.

  • Competitive developers evaluate opportunities across RTO/ISO and utility boundaries, while incumbent utilities—limited by their territorial constraints—typically focus on their retail footprint.  
  • Without legacy bias, competition yields more objective and innovative solutions as incumbents are constrained by impacts on their existing business model.
  • Diversity of thought is one of the strongest benefits of Order 1000, bringing different ideas from all interested parties, which further strengthens the regulatory backing demonstrating deep due diligence to truly select the best idea.
/ DOWNLOAD

FERC’S $277 BILLION ELECTRICITY PRICE HIKE

Read How the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s Failure to Enforce Transmission Competition Will Lead to Decades of Electricity Price Inflation for American Consumers.