Midwest public services say they can build better, faster and less expensive regional power lines than competitors outside the state and they should have exclusive rights and without vehicles on these network expansion projects.
Having so far has not succeeded in convincing Wisconsin legislators to grant public services to public services a priority to the construction of regional lines which are linked to their service zones – and with the clock which holds $ 1.8 billion in approved projects – the public services industry in Wisconsin now plays its ACE card.
Hamas to claim transmission projects mapped by the operator of independent system of the continent, the public services led by American Transmission CO. maintain that they will save money from Wisconsin consumers if legislators grant them exclusive rights to grid projects. Reason, they say, implies federal rules for sharing costs that allow them to transfer certain costs to other states.
At first glance, it is a convincing argument intended to influence the legislators in a state already overwhelmed by some of the highest prices of Midwest electricity. But public services have a political problem: free market groups say that the proposal is unconstitutional. And conservative commentators are heat up On the Republican leaders of Wisconsin to support what they describe as a utility “cartel” that uses the political muscle to protect its lawn.
Perhaps the most difficult for public services in Wisconsin is that supposed beneficiaries – consumers – do not buy the argument that costs will not find their way to monthly electricity bills.
Groups such as AARP, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group and Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin (CUB), which represents the interests of individual consumers and small businesses, oppose the legislation. Consumer defenders treat AB 25 And a company bill in the Senate as a Trojan horse, suggesting that public services are motivated by strengthening their own profits that they do not know money for taxpayers.
“The same public services that have increased billions of dollars in recent years, are they now having to save $ 1 billion?” said Todd Stuart, executive director of the industrial group. He said that its members – more than two dozen of the largest powerful users in the state – believe more competition in the energy sector, no less, is the answer.
Consumer groups say they are not opposed to the creation of public services, they just want them to compete in an open process and win the company.
“If public services can provide all these savings, they can also provide it by winning the competitive offer,” said Tom Content, Executive Director of Cub. “And we think they are certainly able to do it.”
The legislation would codify a preliminary grip (ROFR) so that outgoing public services strengthen transmission in Wisconsin. The officials of American Transmission CO. declared that consumer groups were working against their own interest by opposing the legislation.
“It is perplexed that organizations that claim their mission are to protect taxpayers continue to oppose Rofr,” said ATC financial director Mike Hofbauer in a statement. Some of the bills of the bill, he said, have recognized the cost of changing the cost of owners of in-practice transmission, “therefore their position sends a contradictory message on their efforts.”
Propagation cost
A large part of the debate in the Wisconsin implies a study commissioned by ATC which notes that the federal rules of cost sharing give the company a structural advantage over other developers.
In short, the study stipulates that on a transmission project of $ 1.8 billion, the Wisconsin Utilities, can allow consumers of $ 1 billion in the duration of the project if the cost in initial capital is 20% more than that of a competitor outside the state.
The reason is that under the prices approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and administered by the Regional Miso GRID, an outgoing public service attributed to the construction of a regional cost project would attribute a proportional percentage of its existing fixed or general costs linked to its Wisconsin transmission system to new projects. These costs are then distributed in other Miso states.
On the other hand, the company says that a transmission developer outside the state would not have existing general costs to “pass” consumers from other states.
The ATC says that millions of dollars in general fees that could transfer to neighboring states are multiplied by 40 years, which would lead to a billion dollars of consumer savings during this period.
The criticisms, including the industrial group, which responded with its own analysis of an economist and former chief economist of electricity of the State Commission of the State, said that the ATC study is based on erroneous hypotheses. The group claims that Wisconsin consumers would pay more than they would do if public services were required to bid on projects and were encouraged to maintain costs.
ROFR Madness
The control battles at the United States’ grip created more than ten years ago with the historic order of the FERC 1000 which eliminated a federal ROFR policy for the planned transmission projects at the regional level. However, order 1000 very specifically allowed the States to promulgate their own ROFR laws.
Today, at least 10 states have worked ROFR LAWSIncluding the neighbors of Wisconsin Michigan and Minnesota.
But the federal courts have stalled Texas to apply a 2019 law in the state areas not covered by the Electric Lectiability Council of Texas, the state main operator. A federal judge temporarily prevented Indiana regulators from enforcing the law in this state, but a court of appeal in disagreement last week and lifted the injunction. Meanwhile, the 8th circuit confirmed a challenge to the ROFR law of Minnesota.
In Iowa, in the meantime, Governor Kim Reynolds (R) has made a Provision ROFR Part of a broader energy bill than its administration pushes this spring. The state of Hawkeye adopted a ROFR law in 2021, but the Supreme Court of the State judged that it was unconstitutional Based on the process used by legislators to adopt the bill.
Political and legal fighting on ROFR laws have increased in the Midwest while transmission companies are jostling to take advantage of a Miso initiative to develop the regional electrical network. In the past four years, the grid operator has approved more than 30 billion dollars in new regional power lines.
Two -thirds of this amount were approved by the Miso board of directors in December, including two high -voltage transmission projects in the Wisconsin estimated at a cost of $ 1.8 billion. Miso has published requests for proposals for the two power lines in recent weeks with offers scheduled for the end of July and in mid-August, respectively.
The involvement is clear: a ROFR law will grant outgoing public services to work – and millions of dollars in profits. Otherwise, Miso will choose the developer who submits the higher proposal, the cost of which is a key consideration.
“Corrupt-Boggegging”
The check clock on the legislation adopted sparked a political frenzy on both sides of the issue.
The public services of Wisconsin and organized work have worked together to adopt ROFR bills and have the support of economic and local development groups and chambers of commerce which are part of a Alliance on the scale of the State called Wi4rofr.
Meanwhile, consumer defenders have the support of a laundry list of free market groups and conservative commentators who have increased the heat of GOP sponsors of the bill.
Groups such as Americans for prosperity and donors AFP Koch Industries, Maciver Institute, R Street Institute and Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty have produced their own analyzes which indicate that a ROFR law is both bad policy and unconstitutional.
Josiah Neeley, an elder resident at R Street Institute, a conservative reflection group, called the message sent by ATC and other “improper” public services.
“Indeed, what the study says,” said Neeley, “is that if you have a Rofr, it will cost us more to build the line. But it’s ok, because we are going to charge other states.”
The criticism of Neeley and that of the other free market groups is however tamed in relation to the rhetoric of well -known conservative commentators of Wisconsin, who did the pressure on the legislators of the GOP.
In podcasts and columns in the conservative media, they compare public services to drug cartels and refer to the ROFR law as “corrupt fuel”.
Two dozen Wisconsin legislators, all Republicans, contact what they hope to be a higher power to stop the Rofr – President Donald Trump.
“We believe that ROFR legislation is strongly opposed to many decrees published by you and your administration, which has stressed the critical importance of protecting and improving competition to promote innovation and reducing costs,” said the letter.
Fixed: a previous version of this story has misized the name of Josiah Neeley.