A complaint at FERC seeking to limit competition among transmission developers would inject uncertainty into the process and spur regulatory delays, writes Will Hazelip from National Grid Ventures US.
America’s ability to lead in artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and energy innovation depends on something that rarely makes headlines: electric transmission infrastructure.
Electricity demand is rising faster than it has in decades, fueled by data centers and domestic manufacturing, two highly energy‑intensive sectors accelerating electrification. Meeting that demand will require building new transmission at unprecedented speed and scale. But a proposal now before federal regulators risks moving the country in the wrong direction.
A complaint pending at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission seeks to limit or suspend competition among the companies that build new transmission in parts of the Midwest and the Plains. In practice, this would give incumbent utilities the exclusive right to develop many new transmission projects, shutting out other qualified developers and reducing the number of companies able to build critical infrastructure. The complaint’s supporters argue that competition slows projects down. Slower transmission build is a valid concern, but competition is the wrong diagnosis and curbing it is the wrong solution.
Transmission delays are real. But they are overwhelmingly driven by permitting challenges, siting constraints, supply chain limitations and bureaucratic processes. Removing competition will not fix those issues. It will simply reduce the number of companies capable of building the new infrastructure we urgently need. Additionally, disrupting the established competitive frameworks will inject uncertainty into regional transmission development and spur lengthy regulatory delays, when time is of the essence.
In fact, competition is one of the most effective tools we have to accelerate new transmission development. Competitive processes bring additional private capital into the market at a time when electric infrastructure investment needs are measured in the trillions. They also foster innovation, encouraging developers to deploy advanced technologies, optimize project design and deliver cost-effective solutions for customers.
The United States cannot afford to limit participation in new transmission development. Doing so would concentrate responsibility among a smaller set of incumbents, constrain available capital, reduce innovation incentives and ultimately slow the pace of buildout, which could negatively impact the reliability of our grid, our economic growth and our national security. It would also increase long-term costs for consumers by reducing competitive pressure.
There is a better path forward.
Policymakers and regulators should focus on the most significant sources of delay by streamlining permitting processes, improving coordination across regions and enabling developers, both incumbent utilities and competitive entrants, to move projects forward more efficiently. These kinds of targeted reforms can accelerate timelines without sacrificing the significant benefits of competition.
At National Grid, we bring a unique perspective to this issue. We operate as both a regulated utility and a competitive transmission developer. We have built projects under both models, and our experience is clear: speed and competition are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they are complementary and necessary for meeting our country’s energy challenges.
America’s future depends on our ability to build infrastructure quickly, efficiently and at scale. A strong, reliable grid is essential to our economy and fundamental to our national security. We must use every available tool, and every capable developer, to get the job done.
We don’t need less competition to build the grid of the future. We need more because competition is the engine that drives innovation, attracts investment and delivers value for American consumers.