ROFR LAWS ARE BAD FOR COMPETITION AND BAD FOR CONSUMERS
But don’t take our word for it. This is what Ameren has to say about Right-of-First-Refusal laws
Written Testimony of Shawn Schukar, Sr. Vice President Transmission Business Development for Ameren Services Company, before the Kansas House Energy and Environment Committee, February 12, 2016:
“In California (CAISO) and New Jersey (PJM), non-incumbent transmission developers have won competitive transmission projects primarily because they submitted proposals that shift the burden of increased project costs away from ratepayers and onto the non-incumbent transmission developers through cost caps or cost containment mechanisms while demonstrating the ability to safely and reliably build, maintain, and operate the transmission projects.” [emphasis added]
“Without the presence of competition, the shifting of these risks from ratepayers to transmission developers through cost caps and cost containment mechanisms are unlikely to occur.” [emphasis added]
“In addition to protecting customers from actual project costs in excess of projected costs, competition has led to reductions in expected project costs. As mentioned previously, non-incumbent developers have won projects in CAISO and PJM which are currently estimated to provide cost savings between 25% and 60% from the original RTO estimates.” [emphasis added]
“Ameren believes the requirements established by SPP in evaluating reliable and safe operations and maintenance are an effective means of ensuring Kansas residents will receive safe and reliable electric service while benefiting from competition, whether the project is won by a current transmission owner in Kansas or a new competitive supplier.”
“Concerns about the ability of non-incumbent transmission developers to provide safe and reliable service to electricity consumers in Kansas are unfounded.”
“Ameren believes H. B. 2623 (ROFR) will not enhance reliability in the region, but will instead deny consumers the benefits of competition described above.”