Washington, D.C. — September 30^th, 2026, The Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition (ETCC) today highlighted growing support from state legislators and consumer advocates across the country for increasing competition in the development of new transmission projects. Research has found that requiring utilities to compete with one another can reduce costs by 30 percent, avoiding tens of billions in higher electricity costs.

Across the country, lawmakers and consumer advocates are increasingly calling for competitive bidding to help control transmission costs, encourage innovation and ensure new projects deliver greater value for ratepayers.

WTAS: Here’s what ratepayer advocates are saying about transmission competition:

David S. Lapp, Maryland People’s Counsel:

“Competition provides a powerful check against utility monopoly control that leads to higher costs for customers. To curb rapidly rising transmission costs, we need to close the regulatory loopholes that enable utilities to avoid competitive processes for building new transmission.”

Matt Welch, Texans for Affordable Transmission:

“Competitive transmission projects put developers head-to-head on price, speed, and innovation, so Texas families and businesses get new lines built more affordably and with cost overruns borne by the companies—not ratepayers. By opening the grid to competition instead of monopoly control, Texas can cut billions in congestion costs, strengthen reliability, and deliver the modern transmission capacity a booming economy needs. The result is lower bills, fewer delays, and a stronger, more resilient electric system for the state’s future.”

Todd Stuart, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group:

“Wisconsin is Exhibit A regarding how competition works. It makes the utilities sharpen their pencils. The winning bids had superior cost containment measures to ensure the lowest cost to ratepayers. The winning bids also had the lowest return on equity.”

Brian O. Lipman, New Jersey Division of Rate Counsel:

“Competition for construction of transmission projects encourages the lowest cost solution.  As we enter a phase where affordability is at the forefront while more transmission is likely needed, it is imperative that we implement a competitive process for the transmission buildout to provide needed infrastructure at the lowest cost possible.”

State legislators have also weighed in directly with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), urging the Commission to preserve competition in the development of new transmission projects:

40 Members of the Iowa Legislature:

“We want to see vigorous competition for any transmission built and funded by Iowa ratepayers to serve any load or reliability need, be it data centers or otherwise. To do otherwise would raise transmission rates — unnecessarily when the project could be competed for — and be inconsistent with President Trump’s recent Ratepayer Protection Pledge’ in which the President pledged to ‘protect American consumers from price hikes due to data center energy and infrastructure requirements.’”

Leadership of the Kansas Legislature:

“As the Kansas Chamber of Commerce succinctly concluded in opposing SB68, ‘[w]e [the Chamber of Commerce] have a hard time trusting that investor-owned utilities are truly looking out in the best interests of ratepayers.’ Kansas is a state that supports freedom and competition — the notion of creating perpetual monopolies in state or federal law is very un-Kansas and the views of our state’s legislative process rejecting such attempts should not dismissed by the Commission.”

Senator Daniel Zolnikov, Chair, Montana Senate Energy and Technology Committee:

“While reliability and timely infrastructure development are critical, limiting competition may not serve consumers as effectively as open, competitive processes. Montana’s experience suggests that competition among qualified providers leads to better outcomes in both cost and innovation. The Legislature’s action reflects that view. More broadly, Montana remains committed to open markets and fair competition.”

Missouri State Representative Ben Keathley:

“Our state legislature has no interest in you enacting an anti-competition mandate to the detriment of our citizens and electric affordability. As a legislator, that is because my constituents continue to express their concerns with electric affordability. They want to see competition continue in the future, because competition is the best way to ensure these large projects are built (and recovered from them) at the lowest cost possible.” 

Missouri State Senator Tracy McCreery:

“Current skyrocketing energy bills are not only affecting household budgets but also the budget for the state of Missouri…Money paid by the state for utility bills mean less money for Missouri to educate our children or pay for (also skyrocketing) health care costs. In such a dismal rate environment to keep costs low as possible for consumers (and the state budget) you need to inject more competition, not less competition, into the process for building transmission.”

Members of the Wisconsin Legislature: 

“Independent analyses and numerous MISO competitive outcomes over the past five years consistently demonstrate a savings of 20–40% or more when utilizing competitive bidding. We’ve also seen increased innovation in technology and siting. The intent of Order 1000 and the use of competition have truly benefited ratepayers. Order 1000 is a key component in maintaining and fostering electricity affordability, including advancing increased industrial competitiveness as well at a time when reshoring manufacturing is a core objective of federal policy.”