Wisconsin lawmakers consider bill to reinstate utility control over transmission projects

Meanwhile, opponents of the bill argued that competitive bidding substantially reduces costs and that reinstating ROFR could face legal challenges.

Josiah Neeley, senior fellow and energy advisor with the Washington, D.C.-based R St. Institute, a non-partisan research organization and think tank, testified against the bill, saying there’s no difference between having a ROFR or a competitive bidding process.

“One question has to do with the division between what is MISO’s role versus what is the role of the Public Service Commission,” said Neeley. “These are ROFRs, these are multi-state projects, these are regional projects, these are MISO projects.”

“So whether you have a ROFR or not, MISO is going to be the one that is determining the need for these projects and setting the parameters,” Neeley said. “The state, whether it’s ROFR or competitively bid, is still going to have a role in terms of siting and other things like that. I do not see a difference in terms of state versus federal versus MISO authority in terms of who’s actually going to be able to be making these decisions.”

Neeley also pointed out that when it comes to cost allocation, these are interstate lines. The cost is going to be regionally shared for these lines, whether you have a ROFR or whether you have a competitive process. “That’s true not only for the construction, it’s also true for the operation and maintenance,” he said.

Additionally, Neeley said that competitive bidding saves 20 percent to 30 percent over non-competitive lines, and ROFR is going to increase costs to consumers. At the same time, he added, cost overruns are as likely or more likely to be larger with a ROFR project than with the competitive bid project.