In a recent interview with the American Public Power Association, Mark Christie, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, detailed his priorities and discussed his concerns about how FERC approaches transmission incentives.
Christie, who made his comments in a late March episode of APPA’s Public Power Now podcast, began his term as a FERC Commissioner on January 4, 2021, after having been nominated by President Trump in July 2020 and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 30, 2020.
In January of this year, Trump named Christie Chairman of FERC.
When Trump made that announcement, Christie noted that since he arrived at FERC four years ago, he has continually emphasized three priorities and said he would continue to do so.
In the interview with APPA for the podcast, Christie was asked to provide additional details on what those three priorities are.
“As a utility regulator for 20 years, I've always believed that the central purpose of public utility regulation -- and I'm talking about electricity specifically -- is to provide reliable power to consumers at the least cost,” he said.
“That's the purpose of utility regulation because most consumers are taking their electric service from a monopoly,” he said.
“Retail choice -- you know, it exists some places, but by and large in America and around the world, frankly, for that matter, because of the economics of the electric grid it tends to be a natural monopoly, certainly for the wires part, so most people are taking service from a monopoly. “
So the purpose of utility regulation “is to deliver reliable power at the least cost under law. Obviously, you have to comply with the laws.”
So the first two priorities “are built into that core principle that I've had for 20 years and I think is embedded at the core of utility regulation -- that's reliable power, OK, that's number one -- reliable power. Number two, least cost to consumers under the existing law. That's the number two priority.”
The third priority for Christie – “and this will not be any surprise as someone who was many years a state regulator -- I am very, very committed to respecting and deferring to state regulators and respecting their authority and their challenges because we have 50 states in America and everyone has a little bit different challenges. Everybody wants reliable power, of course, but everybody has a little bit different challenges and so a long way of saying my three priorities are reliable power, concern for consumer costs -- making sure those costs are as low as we can get them within the legal framework -- and then respect for the prerogatives of state regulators and respecting their knowledge, because they're on the front lines -- certainly retail regulation.”
Transmission Incentives
Meanwhile, Christie has voiced concerns over the way in which FERC grants transmission project incentives.
In a late January 2025 concurrence to a FERC order, he said that it is “long past time for the Commission to revisit its ‘check-the-box’ practice of granting transmission incentives.”
Christie was asked in the interview to detail what he views as the shortcomings of FERC’s current approach to transmission incentives and if he expects FERC to take action this year on revising its policy related to transmission incentives.
“So let's go back to 2005 when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and it added a Section 219 that called for transmission incentives. So that's there. I understand that, recognize that and FERC obviously has to respect and follow the law,” he said.
“I think though what's happened over 20 years is FERC has created two things.”
First, an “entire array of incentives that go way beyond what the statute necessarily requires,” Christie said.
“And secondly, I think when I say check the box – FERC’s process, I think historically -- instead of looking at evaluating requests for incentives it has become almost automatic if you look at the track record over the last several years and I'm not saying the four years I've been here, I mean I think it goes back for several years.
So I think it shouldn't be a check the box exercise.“
He thinks that before FERC gives an incentive, “at a minimum, there ought to be the transmission developer -- If it's a state regulated TO -- needs to go to the State Commission and get a certificate of public convenience and necessity, a CPCN.”
And “I don't think we ought to be talking about giving FERC incentives until after that process has been completed.”
As a state regulator, “I sat on over 100 CPCN proceedings, so I know that they're valuable and I know that they serve a very important purpose in terms of vetting the projects and not just rubber stamping what comes out of the regional transmission planner, which are not adversary proceedings, they're not.”
Whereas state proceedings, “certainly in Virginia, where adversary in the sense that witnesses had to submit testimony, get on the stand, be cross examined if necessary,” he said.
“It's really about more vetting for projects before hundreds of millions of dollars get spent,” Christie said.
“And, of course, [at] FERC -- I think one of the biggest incentives, it's not even under the Section 219...we give formula rate treatment to transmission developers and they come in with a presumption of prudence, which means when they file for their rate recovery, FERC has given them a presumption that it's prudent.”
When he joined FERC, “I was astounded, because I sat on literally scores of rate cases in Virginia and in every rate case in Virginia and certainly in most states the utility or the transmission developer, if they come in for rate recovery, they have the burden of proof. FERC says -- no, we'll give a presumption of prudence to the developer filing for rate recovery.”
So “anyone who wants to challenge it which is already next to impossible because who's going to come from Minnesota or Idaho or New Mexico to challenge a filing for transmission rate recovery? Who's going to come out to Washington and camp out here for several weeks and try to fight a process at FERC? Particularly, it's already next to impossible from a realistic standpoint.”
Consumer advocates “don't have those resources. And then on top of that, FERC says we’ll give you a presumption of prudence,” the FERC Chairman said.
“I think that's all part of the array of what I've occasionally referred to as FERC candy and I think it needs to be addressed,” he said.
“Now you say when -- I can't tell you when because we can't talk about what we're going to do when, but I think it's an issue that as I’ve said -- I think it's already past time to act, and that's what I've said in several concurrences -- it is past time for FERC to act so I'll just leave it at that.”
In the interview, Christie also offered his thoughts on the state of cyber and physical security in the U.S. energy sector.
He also discussed what prompted FERC this year to launch a review of issues associated with the co-location of large loads such as artificial intelligence-enabled data centers at generating facilities in PJM, including whether the PJM tariff needs to establish rules to create clarity while ensuring grid reliability and fair costs to consumers.
