Grid Acceleration Coalition Supports Transmission Rules That Deliver Results

FERC comments show broad recognition that speed is essential when building critical transmission projects that drive economic growth and lower customer costs

WASHINGTON, June 25, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- The Grid Acceleration Coalition today reaffirmed its call on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to act quickly to revise federal solicitation requirements as implemented in the Midcontinent System Operator (MISO) and Southwest Power Pool (SPP), which are delaying the buildout of critical transmission infrastructure, increasing customer costs, and undermining the United States' capacity to sustain economic growth and power vital industries. In reply comments filed with FERC, the coalition pointed to broad and growing support — from hyperscalers, organized labor, local economic development organizations, and major industry groups — for a faster, more accountable path to getting critical transmission built.

"The record demonstrates strong support from organized labor, local economic development organizations, hyperscalers and major industry groups for unleashing local electric companies to build the grid infrastructure we need," said Purvi Patel, ITC Holdings Corp. Vice President, Regulatory Strategy and spokesperson for the coalition. "Meanwhile, others continue to defend the status quo even as the urgency of the situation continues to build."

In reply comments filed with FERC, the coalition highlighted what the record makes clear: allowing local companies to build transmission speeds up project delivery and improves customer outcomes. Notably, parties opposing the complaint did not challenge or refute the coalition's data on the obstacles and costs embedded in the current system. Even parties opposing the complaint do not seriously dispute the urgency of the moment, and many acknowledge that solicitations drive delays.

"Federal solicitation rules are delaying the transmission backbone needed to connect customers, support new generation and keep America competitive on a global scale," Patel continued. "The question is not whether delays exist – it is whether we act now to fix them and deliver results for customers."

The coalition's reply comments responded to several parties that advocated for the status quo of federal solicitation requirements. Specifically, the reply comments did the following:

• Highlighted how several parties' cost-savings theory relies on bid prices, not actual final costs. The case for solicitation savings is similar to a "shell game" because proponents point to winning bids below RTO baseline estimates, but bids are only bids and final costs can run far above winning bids.
• Explained how commenters ignored the central delay problem – the 16–20 months spent selecting a developer – and did not disprove the core point that MISO and SPP solicitations create a front-end chokepoint before a developer is even selected.

In addition, the coalition's reply comments addressed a flawed report from the R Street Institute, a Washington D.C.-based think tank, which is supportive of existing federal solicitation requirements. Specifically, those reply comments did the following:

• Noted R Street's reliance on an exceptionally thin sample size that cannot credibly support sweeping claims about the speed of transmission development. For example, R Street's MISO analysis relied on only one completed competitive project, Duff-Coleman, and its SPP analysis compares only four completed or near-completed competitive projects against 13 incumbent projects.

• Documented that R Street presented distorted speed comparisons by using inconsistent timing baselines that made competitive solicitations appear faster than in reality. In SPP, R Street measured directly assigned projects from when a project is first required as part of a planning study, while measuring solicited projects from board approval. In fact, correcting these inconsistencies shows the data does not support R Street's conclusion and instead finds directly assigned projects finish faster.

Since the coalition filed its complaint, the AI and data center power challenge has only become more urgent. Public and private analyses continue to show that data center electricity demand is rising quickly, that grid interconnection and transmission capacity are becoming limiting constraints, and that utilities are under growing pressure to connect large loads while protecting affordability for existing customers.

That makes FERC's decision even more consequential. Every month spent constrained by the solicitation process is a month not spent building the transmission capacity needed to connect new load, unlock generation, relieve congestion and strengthen reliability.

About ITC Holdings Corp.
ITC Holdings Corp. is the largest independent electricity transmission company in the United States. ITC provides transmission grid solutions to improve reliability, expand access to markets, allow new generating resources to interconnect to its systems and lower the overall cost of delivered energy. Through its regulated operating subsidiaries ITCTransmission, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, ITC Midwest and ITC Great Plains, ITC owns and operates high-voltage transmission infrastructure in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. These systems serve a combined peak load exceeding 23,000 megawatt hours along 16,000 circuit miles of transmission line. ITC is based in Novi, Michigan. For further information visit www.itc-holdings.com. ITC is a subsidiary of Fortis Inc., a leader in the North American regulated electric and gas utility industry. For further information visit www.fortisinc.com.

SOURCE ITC Holdings Corp.