Reform scenarios

Made by AI agents, with a person directing and checking the work. How this was made.

Last amended: 2026-10-25. See all amendments.

Illustrative only. Each scenario lists rough cost, who benefits and who bears the cost or risk. No scenario is recommended.

A. Current rules (FERC Order 2023) play out

FERC's 2023 rule requires cluster studies, firm study deadlines with penalties on grid operators, higher deposits and readiness proof (site control), and withdrawal penalties ^[6]. Cost: administrative. Benefits: serious projects; fewer placeholder requests (the 2023 Kansas wave of fast withdrawals ^[2] is what these rules aim to prevent). Trade-off: smaller or community developers face more up-front cash.

B. Fast-track lane for resource adequacy (ERAS)

FERC approved SPP's one-time Expedited Resource Adequacy Study in July 2025 ^[7]. The study cycle lists 36 SPP requests; 9 Kansas ERAS entries (~3,100 MW) appear in SPP's live list, about 2,200 MW of it gas-fired (thermal), plus hybrids, one solar and one battery request, at Sunflower, Evergy Kansas Central, Kansas City BPU and Midwest Energy connection points ^[1][5]. Cost: studies paid by applicants. Benefits: utilities short of capacity by ~2030. Trade-off: projects already waiting may be studied later; renewable groups argued at FERC it is unfair (FERC disagreed) ^[7].

C. Plan transmission ahead of generators

The SPP-MISO JTIQ portfolio: five 345-kV projects, ~$1.65B capital, enabling ~28.6 GW, with $464.5M in federal grant funds ^[3][4]. That is roughly $58 of capital per kW enabled; at the guide's ~11.5% levelized annual charge rate, about $190M per year across the portfolio before the grant ^[4]. Benefits: many projects share one upgrade instead of one project being assigned a cost that kills it. Trade-off: charges to generators per MW; lines may be under-used if projects do not come.

D. Milestones for signed-but-unbuilt projects

67 Kansas projects have signed agreements and are unbuilt, median request age 6.5 years ^[1]. Options: enforce construction milestones, or let unused capacity be reassigned. Cost: low (rule changes). Benefits: projects behind them in line. Trade-off: developers delayed by supply chains or permitting could lose positions.

E. Reuse existing connections

Retiring or under-used plants already have grid connections. Surplus/replacement interconnection lets new resources use them with shorter studies. Cost: low-moderate. Benefits: faster hookups near existing plants. Trade-off: only at specific sites.

Rough comparison