Competitive Transmission Projects Come Online Faster than Incumbent Projects in 4 Regions: R Street

Why It Matters

Faster, cheaper transmission accelerates renewable integration and challenges incumbent utilities’ push to limit competition, shaping future grid‑expansion policy.

Key Takeaways

• Competitive projects 30% cheaper than incumbent builds
• CAISO, ISO‑NE, MISO, SPP finish 20‑30% faster
• PJM incumbents complete lines about 20% quicker
• Utilities claim competitive bidding adds 16‑20 months delay
• Report reviewed 18 competitive transmission projects

Pulse Analysis

Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued Order 1000 in 2011, the United States has allowed independent transmission companies to bid for new high‑voltage lines, aiming to break the monopoly of legacy utilities and accelerate grid upgrades. Proponents argue that open‑access procurement can unlock capital, spur innovation, and align transmission expansion with the rapid growth of wind and solar resources. Critics, however, contend that the solicitation process introduces procedural complexity that could postpone projects critical for reliability. The R Street Institute’s latest analysis provides fresh empirical evidence to evaluate those competing narratives.

The institute examined 18 completed competitive projects and compared them with incumbent‑led builds in the same regions. In the California Independent System Operator, ISO‑NE, the Midcontinent ISO and the Southwest Power Pool, competitive lines reached service 2,000‑2,600 days after need identification—roughly 20‑30 % faster than the 2,800‑3,000‑day timelines of utility projects. Moreover, the cost profile of competitive builds averaged a 30 % discount versus incumbent estimates, even after accounting for typical overruns that affect all developers. Faster, cheaper corridors can lower congestion costs and facilitate the integration of renewable generation.

The report’s conclusions arrive as major utilities such as Entergy and Xcel petition FERC to curtail competitive bidding, alleging a 16‑20‑month delay. R Street’s data suggests those claims may be overstated, at least outside PJM where incumbents retain a timing edge. Policymakers face a choice: reinforce the competitive framework to sustain the observed efficiencies, or revert to utility‑centric models that could slow the rollout of needed transmission capacity. As the nation targets a carbon‑free grid by 2035, the speed and price of new lines will be a decisive factor in meeting that ambition.