FERC Order 1000 Under Fire: Utilities Push to Dismantle Competitive Transmission Bidding

Nine of the largest transmission utilities in the Midwest and Great Plains filed a complaint at FERC on April 7, asking the commission to suspend competitive bidding for transmission projects across 18 states (ITC Holdings, April 7, 2026). The filing, docketed as EL26-58-000, is the most direct challenge to Order 1000’s competition requirements since the rule took effect in 2013.

The coalition calls itself the Grid Acceleration Coalition. ITC Holdings Corp is the lead filer. The rest: American Transmission Co, Ameren Services, Cleco Power, Entergy Services, Empire District Electric, Evergy, Oklahoma Gas & Electric, and Xcel Energy Services. Between them, they own or operate the majority of transmission infrastructure in MISO and SPP territory.

Their argument is simple. Competitive solicitation adds 16 to 20 months to transmission project timelines, and that delay is costing ratepayers money at a moment when the grid needs to grow fast (Utility Dive, April 9, 2026).

Two Options, Different Ambitions

The complaint asks FERC to pick one of two relief paths.

Option A is the targeted approach. It would exempt specific regional transmission projects from the Order 1000 solicitation process when the competitive timeline would push delivery past the project’s identified need date. Think of it as a fast-track exception for projects that cannot afford the delay.

Option B is broader. A full five-year pause on Order 1000 solicitation requirements across both MISO and SPP. Every regional transmission project in 18 states would revert to the incumbents who own the existing system.

The coalition frames both options around urgency. They cite the Trump administration’s “Speed to Power” initiative, which is pushing faster permitting and construction for power projects serving data center demand (E&E News, April 9, 2026). The economic argument: eliminating one year of delay could save $150 million to $370 million for every $1 billion in accelerated investment (ITC Holdings, April 7, 2026).

That is a big number. It also assumes the counterfactual: that without competition, projects get built faster and cheaper than they otherwise would.

The competition advocates say that assumption is wrong.

The Other Side Has Numbers Too

The Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition (ETCC) fired back within 24 hours. Their data set covers 19 completed competitive projects, and the pattern they see is the opposite of what the incumbents claim (ETCC, April 8, 2026).

Competitive projects averaged 34% cost reduction compared to initial estimates. Non-competed projects? An average 89% cost overrun.

Break it down by region and the story holds. Six SPP competitive projects lowered costs by an average of 21%. Eight MISO competitive projects lowered costs by 38% (ETCC, April 8, 2026).

NRDC added another layer, pointing to the MISO Long-Range Transmission Planning (LRTP) portfolio. They estimate the LRTP projects will save consumers between $26 billion and $83 billion over their lifespan. Removing competitive discipline from those builds puts those savings at risk (NRDC, April 8, 2026).

Former FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee called the coalition’s approach “throwing the baby out with the bath water” (E&E News, April 9, 2026).

What Procurement Teams Should Actually Watch

This is where the regulatory debate meets physical reality.

The coalition says competitive solicitation adds 16 to 20 months. Some estimates say 18 to 24 months. But equipment lead times already dwarf those numbers. Large power transformers are running 128-week lead times. High-voltage switchgear is in similar territory. Those timelines are measured from order placement, not from when a project gets regulatory approval.

Put differently: the equipment bottleneck exists whether or not a competitive process runs in parallel. Eliminating the bidding timeline does not eliminate the wait for a 345 kV autotransformer. It does change who places that order and when.

That is the real procurement question here. If FERC grants a five-year pause, equipment ordering authority consolidates with nine incumbent utilities. They would control the planning, procurement, and construction of every regional transmission project in MISO and SPP. That concentration could produce bulk ordering efficiencies. It could also produce less competitive pressure on equipment pricing.

If FERC rejects the complaint, the status quo continues. Equipment procurement fragments across whoever wins each competitive solicitation. That means more buyers in the market, smaller individual orders, and potentially longer timelines as winning developers stand up procurement operations for each project.

The MISO-SPP Joint Targeted Interconnection Queue (JTIQ) portfolio is the near-term test case. That is $1.6 billion across five projects enabling roughly 28.6 GW of transfer capability. Those projects need equipment regardless of who builds them. The question is whether the procurement process concentrates or fragments from here.

The Broader Context

This filing does not exist in isolation. FERC is also working through large load interconnection rules that will reshape how data center demand in MISO territory connects to the grid. Congress is debating the REWIRE Act, which would pour more federal money into grid buildout. And Section 232 tariffs are already complicating equipment sourcing for every project in the pipeline.

All of these forces push in the same direction: more transmission investment, faster. The disagreement is over whether speed requires removing competition or whether competition is what keeps costs from spiraling on the way.

FERC will likely take several months to rule on docket EL26-58-000. If the commission grants expedited treatment, as the coalition requests, a decision could come by late summer 2026. Watch for intervenor filings in May, which will signal how other RTOs, state commissions, and competitive developers respond.

What to Do Right Now

If you are sourcing equipment for transmission projects in MISO or SPP territory, do not wait for the ruling. Transformer and switchgear lead times are not getting shorter. Whoever ends up building these projects will face the same 2-to-3-year equipment timelines covered in our analysis of transformer procurement in 2026.

Start tracking the docket. Read the intervenor filings as they come in. And build your procurement timeline around equipment availability, not regulatory outcomes. The regulatory process will resolve itself. The equipment queue will not.

Our Intelligence Reports go deeper, with regulatory tracking, equipment lead time forecasts, and procurement risk analysis for specific MISO and SPP projects. Subscribe to the Transformer Tracker for weekly updates.

Related Reading

• FERC Large Load Interconnection Rules: What Changes for Equipment Procurement. How FERC’s RM26-4 rulemaking affects transformer and switchgear demand.
• Data Center Demand Is Reshaping MISO Infrastructure. The load growth driving transmission urgency.
• The REWIRE Act: Grid Modernization Equipment Procurement. Federal legislation pushing more equipment spending.
• Section 232 Tariff Impact on Grid Equipment. How tariffs complicate sourcing for transmission projects.