However, there are serious considerations regarding the Commission’s proposed amendments relative to rights of first refusal (“ROFR”) that, at the very least, the Commission should address separately and apart from the other provisions of the Proposed Rule.5 Consideration of a Developing Legal Landscape. [...] Recent court decisions underscore the obvious problem with rights of first refusal – primarily, their tendency to stifle competition and innovation in the power sector and transmission line 1 The undersigned’s support for transmission development is not to the exclusion of high priority support for prioritizing distributed energy resources and ensuring responsible transmission siting review proces. [...] Indeed, when courts reviewed challenges to Commission orders finding that ROFRs are contrary to the public interest, courts unanimously sided with the Commission and against incumbents.8 By prioritizing competition, the Commission can contribute to more economical transmission development and increase the buy-in of those paying for it and their government representatives. [...] While the Commission acknowledges competition to develop transmission lines has a sound theoretical basis,14 it argues that in practice, the absence of a ROFR has presented “perverse investment incentives” resulting in overinvestment of transmission in incumbents’ local service territories and underinvestment in transmission benefiting a wider geographic area.15 Thus, the Commission proposes a con. [...] We urge the Commission to act judiciously in ensuring that a final rule reflects the principles of competition and transparency, and at the very least, consider the potential impacts of its proposed conditional ROFR separate and apart from the remainder of the Rule in a separate proceeding.
- Pages
- 6
- Published in
- United States of America
