Transmission projects built through competitive bidding actually take less time to complete than projects automatically awarded to incumbent utilities, according to new research from the R Street Institute published June 5, 2026. The finding challenges a recent petition by electric utilities asking federal regulators to pause competition for five years, claiming it slows down urgently needed infrastructure projects. Despite the extra time required for the competitive bidding process itself, R Street's analysis found that competitive projects recover quickly and ultimately finish faster than their non-competitive counterparts.
The data reveals substantial time savings across most regions studied. In New England, the median completion time for competitive projects was 251 days shorter than for non-competitive projects. All regions except the Mid-Atlantic saw shorter average times for competitive projects, according to the research. The difference was most dramatic in California, where competitive projects finished an average of 889 days faster than non-competitive projects. In the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) region, which covers much of the Midwest, non-competitive projects were delayed for an average of 215 days, while competitive projects actually came in 204 days ahead of schedule on average. Previous research has shown that competitive projects also cost 20 to 30 percent less than comparable non-competitive projects.
The report finds that non-competitive projects were more likely to suffer unplanned delays, and that delays pose a greater risk for significant setbacks in these projects. The research notes that "competitive projects actually take less time to complete than their non-competitive counterparts" when measuring the full timeline from initial identification of need to the in-service date. The findings directly contradict the utilities' petition to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which argued that implementing a "right of first refusal" policy—where local utilities are automatically awarded projects—would speed up construction.
The report explains that the old business saying about choosing between "good, fast, or cheap" doesn't apply the same way to monopoly utilities as it does to competitive businesses. That adage arose in competitive contexts where companies face real consequences for poor performance across multiple metrics. Monopoly utilities, by contrast, operate in an environment insulated from the consequences of taking too long or spending too much. If an incumbent utility delivers a product that's slower or more expensive than it should be, customers have no alternative. The research warns that transmission planners who try to speed up projects by eliminating competition "may thus end up in the worst of both worlds, with projects that cost too much and take too long."
The findings suggest that FERC should reject the utilities' petition for a five-year pause on competition. Rather than slowing down the construction of urgently needed transmission infrastructure, competitive bidding appears to be the faster path forward—while also delivering the proven cost savings of 20 to 30 percent. Regulators seeking both speed and value for consumers have a clear choice backed by the data.