Yes, Let’s Build the Grid the American Way, Through Competition
Utilities have made several important points about the state of America’s grid. It’s aging, and demands on it are increasing. Now is the time for action. On these issues, we are in full agreement.
Where we differ is not regarding the problem, rather, how to solve it.
As electric companies have correctly pointed out, the average transmission line in this country is more than 40 years old and was built for a different era. They are also correct that reshoring factories, expanding data centers, and electrifying households are placing new and growing demands on a system designed for a different century. New York cannot afford another decade of delays on the infrastructure projects it needs most.
But if the goal is to build faster, build smarter, and do so at a cost that New Yorkers can afford, the evidence favors competition, not expanding the monopolies that have often delivered projects late and over budget.
Building is a core American value, and so is competition. Real progress doesn’t come from giving control to a single entity and expecting everyone else to trust the outcome. Progress comes from testing ideas and letting the best ideas prevail. Building and competing go hand in hand.
This isn’t a coincidence; it’s a result of how the system is set up. When utilities build as monopolies, ratepayers, not shareholders, bear the financial risk of delays and overruns. There is little incentive to control costs because those overruns are usually passed on to customers. Competitive developers, by contrast, must stick to firm price commitments, service date guarantees, and face real financial risk for missed deadlines. New York’s own experience with competitive generation proves this point.
New York has already tested this model, and the results are clear. A 2025 analysis by FTI Consulting found that independent power producers now supply about 75 percent of the state’s electricity at costs roughly 35 percent lower than under the old monopoly model. That difference determines whether the energy transition is affordable for New York families, seniors on fixed incomes, and businesses competing nationwide and globally.
We can agree that it’s this generation’s task is to modernize the grid. But building alone isn’t enough. The difference between projects that deliver lasting value and those that leave ratepayers holding the bag is accountability. Projects succeed when builders face real consequences for missing deadlines or going over budget. They struggle when the risk is quietly shifted to those paying the bills. New York’s real choice isn’t whether to build, but who bears the risk when things go wrong.
We share utilities’ urgency and recognize that permitting delays, aging substations, and underinvestment in the grid threaten New York’s economic competitiveness and reliability. However, New York doesn’t need to give more control to the same monopolies that have repeatedly delivered late and over budget projects at ratepayer expense. Instead, New York should double down on the competitive framework that has already shown it can deliver the infrastructure New Yorkers need, on time, under budget, and at lower cost.
They say America has never been afraid to build, and we agree. But America has also never been afraid to compete. That competitive instinct, more than any single company’s ambition, has produced our best infrastructure. New York doesn’t need a monopoly to build its future; it needs accountability. That’s what competition provides.
Let’s get to it, together, the American way.
