Latest news with #ROFR
Hans India
25-05-2025
- Business
- Hans India
Govt aims to harness talent of youth for societal benefit
HYDERABAD: Deputy CM Bhatti Vikramarka stated that the people's government is ensuring employment and livelihood opportunities for unemployed youth in three phases. On Saturday, he inaugurated the Mega Job Fair organised by Singareni Collieries Company at Wyra constituency in khammam district. Speaking to the youth, he emphasized that the government aims to harness the talent of every educated person for societal benefit. The government is working on three-phases on Jobs for unemployed youth. The Telangana Public Service Commission has been restructured, and a job calendar was released. 56,000 government jobs were filled in the first year, and efforts are underway to fill another 30,000. By attracting multinational companies through infrastructure development, job opportunities are being created for lakhs of youth, he said. Self-Employment: Through the Rajiv Yuva Vikasam scheme, Rs 9,000 crore has been allocated to encourage self-employment. On June 2, 5 lakh youths will receive sanction letters. He criticized the previous government (BRS) for not filling 2 lakh vacancies during their 10-year rule and failing to conduct even one Group-1 exam. Many qualified youths were left unemployed, which led to emotional and financial distress among families. The Congress government is now working to provide opportunities through the three-phase plan under Indiramma Rajyam. He also highlighted tribal welfare, stating that under the UPA leadership, the Forest Rights Act (ROFR) granted land rights to tribals. The previous government failed to allow them to cultivate this land. In contrast, the current government has launched the Indira Solar Giri Jal Vikasam scheme with Rs 12,600 crore to help tribals cultivate their lands using solar-powered irrigation, borewells, drip, and sprinkler systems, and free saplings (avocado, palm oil). On education, he announced the construction of 60 Young India Integrated Residential Schools with a Rs 11,600 crore budget, providing quality free education from Class 4 to Intermediate. He stated that such a large-scale education investment is unprecedented in the State history. He noted that Telangana is the only state distributing subsidized rice via ration shops. On women empowerment, he said that while previous governments failed to provide interest-free loans, this year alone Rs 21,000 crore was disbursed. Over 5 years, Rs 1 lakh crore in interest-free loans will be given to make 1 crore women millionaires. For farmers, Rs18,000 crore was allocated for the Rythu Bharosa scheme, the government is paying the insurance premiums, and an additional Rs 500 bonus per quintal is being given for paddy procurement. Drip and sprinkler systems are also being promoted.
Hans India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
All set for CM's visit on May 18
Nagarkurnool: District Collector Badavath Santosh announced that all arrangements have been completed for the visit of Chief Minister Revanth Reddy to Macharam village in Amrabad Mandal of Achampet Constituency, Nagarkurnool District, scheduled on May 18. 'The CM will formally inaugurate the Indira Solar Giri Water Development Scheme, launched to enhance the livelihoods of tribal and Chenchu communities in the Nallamala forest region,' said the Collector. A review meeting was held on Monday at the project site with District Forest Officer Rohit Gopidi, Additional Collector Deva Sahayam, Achampet MLA Chikkudu Vamshikrishna, and other officials to oversee preparations. Speaking on the occasion, Santosh stated that under the scheme, 13 farmers cultivating land under ROFR pattas in Macharam village have had borewells dug across 50 acres as identified by the Groundwater Department. 'Water has been successfully found in all the borewells, and REDCO is swiftly working to provide solar-powered pumps,' he said. Meanwhile, Horticulture Department officials have begun pit digging and marking for the plantation of fruit-bearing trees. The Roads and Buildings Department is preparing the helipad and the main stage for the CM's public meeting. Departments such as Electricity, Panchayati Raj, DTDO, Mission Bhagiratha, and Revenue are actively executing their assigned responsibilities. The Collector urged all concerned departments to work in close coordination to ensure the success of the Chief Minister's visit. Officials present at the review included DRDO PD Chinna Obulesu, DTDO Firangi, Groundwater Department AD Divya Jyothi, DPO Rammohan Rao, Horticulture Officers Venkatesham and Jagan, Mission Bhagiratha Officer Sudhakar, R&B Officers Nagalakshmi and Jalandhar, RWS Officer Hemalatha, and several officials from the Revenue and Forest Departments.
Epoch Times
08-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
I Voted to Eliminate ROFR, and That Was Unwise
Commentary With a new administration, the United States is at the dawn of a second era of energy dominance. Descendants of Pennsylvanians who discovered oil in Titusville now employ sophisticated directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing to produce low cost and environmentally friendly natural gas. The nation is blessed by robust U.S. natural gas production and emerging clean energy and battery storage technologies. The electric industry is prepared to deliver affordable and reliable energy to Americans in an uncertain world. But the U.S. power grid must be expanded and maintained to bring electricity to homes and businesses. The U.S. electric grid is a wonder of the world—700,000 miles of interconnected transmission lines that deliver electricity throughout North America. However, these electric transmission lines are aging and in need of both replacement and expansion. New electric transmission is urgently needed to provide electric service 24/7 in bitter cold and intense heat. In electricity parlance, the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) means the local electric company has the first crack at building certain new regional power lines regulators believe necessary for reliability and affordability. I believe the ROFR is essential to construct and maintain the power grid Americans deserve. From 2006 to 2011, I was a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for regulating U.S. interstate transmission of electricity. In FERC Order 1000 I joined my fellow Commissioners to eliminate the Federal ROFR for new regional transmission lines. My rationale then was a belief in states' rights. Fourteen years later, I admit elimination of the ROFR was unwise. My change in view is informed not just by the recent dismal record of interstate transmission construction in this country. As a former four-term Arizona state senator and elected state utility commissioner, I am acutely aware that state and local governments grant permits to utilities to build transmission lines. In my experience, Americans accept the need for a robust power grid. But having served as an elected official who voted for construction of gas and power lines through peoples' backyards, even where everyone agreed these projects were necessary to keep the lights on, such cases were controversial. Consider the beneficial role played by local as opposed to out-of-state companies. Distribution utilities have built and operated electric transmission facilities for more than 100 years. Why is local important? These companies understand the grid they manage 24/7 every day. They are not only held accountable to the individuals and families they serve, but they are also regulated by state governments zealous about reliability and cost containment. Related Stories 4/21/2025 4/28/2025 Some argue competitive procurement for transmission is better than the ROFR. Perhaps in a perfect world that may be so. Yet even proponents of so-called competitively bid transmission construction acknowledge the tedious process involves undue delay when compared to the local utility. This argument also ignores the fact that utilities competitively bid their work to keep consumer costs low. Competition for labor and materials at the back end of ROFR projects drives costs down. The interminable delays at the front end of the 'competitive' process make their benefits illusory. While competition is the basis of a free market economy, the transmission system in every corner of the U.S. is a regulated monopoly. This is due, in part, to the fact that deployment of new transmission is an immediate societal imperative. When electric affordability and reliability are threatened, competition as an abstract principle is meaningless. Antitrust lawyers in Washington can deal in theory; electrical engineers in the Heartland must keep their customers' lights on. The hard reality is Americans cannot and will not accept unreliable electric service, much less power blackouts. States can and should enact ROFR laws to allow skilled, local U.S. workers to bring new transmission into service to deliver U.S. customers reliable and affordable electricity. From Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
Forbes
05-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The Trump Administration's Overreach Into State Energy Markets
Expected adds to national electric transmission portfolio, National Renewable Energy Lab The new Federalism under President Donald Trump promised fewer federal regulations and less interference in state and local governments. The goals of these White House efforts were to spur a massive development of domestic energy production to power our economy into the digital future. After all, surely the Chinese are not burdened by such policies that slow energy development – and therefore we risk ceding the technological future to them. But ironically, in electricity and hydrocarbon markets, the Trump administration's 'pro-competition' policies are actually holding back energy investments across the board and are counteracting the President's policy goals. For electricity, Trump's Department of Justice has attacked pending bills in Iowa that would allow the incumbent electric utilities a right of first refusal on constructing needed transmission facilities. The DOJ states that allowing such a right of refusal would be anticompetitive but can cite no evidence to support the claim, because there is no such evidence. The White House's arguments against ROFR laws do make for good sound bites, but they also lack an understanding of how ROFR laws actually work. Barring outright and illegal collusion among bidder, a right of first refusal (ROFR) does not restrict competition. The state's electric regulator will offer a contract for new facilities. If there is or are lower bids from new market entrants, a right of refusal allows the incumbent utility the opportunity to match the winning bid. What happens when a new entrant bids low to win a project, and the incumbent refuses to exercise their ROFR rights? Is that a sign that the incumbent, facing the same set of facts and bid requirements, does not think that it can make money building out the project? If the new entrant succeeds, the state wins. If the new entrant fails or runs into cost overruns, then the state loses in terms of time and money. Anyone who has bid out a home remodel knows these perils. Proponents of the ROFR provisions argue that the incumbent is already invested in the business and community. They – literally – know the landscape. New entrants, who are transactional at best, have less at stake and lack the local community ties to hire workers and fully understand the political and regional norms. The debate over ROFR laws is a challenge playing out across America as the different state regulators grapple with an aged and deteriorating electricity transmission system that now also needs a rapid buildout to accommodate new loads from data centers and new wires from the rural areas where wind and solar farms are proliferating. A prime directive of President Trump's administration is to lower energy costs across the nation. With steel, aluminum, and copper prices rising, the buildout of transmission is becoming more expensive by the minute. The states need a free hand to decide on their own which laws, regulations, and rules are appropriate for their markets. The federal government should live up to President Trump's pledge to reduce the overreach of federal regulation into state markets. To do so, one step would be federal regulators backing off on their misguided opposition to state ROFR laws.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Price relief through competition: ending Minnesota's transmission monopoly
Photo by) Minnesota has long prided itself on forward-thinking policies and careful stewardship of resources. Yet for over a decade, a little-known law has been quietly increasing your electric bill while stifling innovation in our energy infrastructure. In 2012, Minnesota passed a 'Right of First Refusal' law for electric transmission lines. While the Vikings stadium deal dominated legislative attention, 216B.246 passed unanimously in both chambers. This law gives incumbent utility companies the exclusive right to build new high-voltage transmission lines that connect to their existing infrastructure. The consequences have been profound and costly for Minnesota ratepayers. Before this law, Minnesota enjoyed electricity rates significantly lower than the national average — about 18% below in 2001 and still 13% lower in 2011. Then came the ROFR law in 2012, and this advantage began eroding rapidly. By 2013, rates were only 6.5% below the national average. The downward trend continued until 2020, when rates were virtually identical to the national average — a mere 0.2% lower. While there have been slight improvements recently, Minnesota is nowhere near its former competitive advantage. This isn't just about losing an economic edge — it's a failure to meet the state's own legal requirements. Minnesota law explicitly mandates that electricity rates should be 5% below the national average. Current rates fail this standard, putting Minnesota in violation of its own energy policy goals. The ROFR law effectively creates a monopoly, allowing incumbent utilities to build transmission projects without facing competition from potentially more efficient, innovative or cost-effective providers. Research consistently shows that competitive bidding on transmission projects reduces costs by 20-30%. In the MISO region (which includes Minnesota), competitively bid projects have yielded overall cost savings of 37% for ratepayers. These aren't small numbers considering the multi-billion-dollar scale of transmission infrastructure. For the average Minnesota family, this could mean significant relief on monthly electric bills. The stated purpose of the ROFR law is often described as protecting consumers and incumbent utilities from 'out-of-state competition.' Instead, it has shielded utilities from any competition, removing incentives to innovate, control costs, or improve efficiency. Under the current law, even if an incumbent utility decides not to build a needed transmission line, alternatives can only be considered after the incumbent formally declines — creating further delays and complications. The timing for action is critical. Without competitive bidding, massive infrastructure investments will be built at monopoly prices, potentially driving electricity rates even further above the statutory requirement. Currently, bills SF434 and HF2553 aim to repeal Minnesota's ROFR law. This repeal represents a crucial opportunity to restore competition, reverse the trend of diminishing rate advantages, and deliver much-needed price relief to Minnesota consumers. Critics may argue that changing the law will create uncertainty. But courts in other states have already shown the path forward. In Iowa, the Supreme Court characterized their ROFR as 'crony capitalism' in 2023. Similarly, Texas courts ruled that ROFRs are 'unconstitutional because they violate the dormant Commerce Clause.' Despite these judicial setbacks, the utility industry continues to push for ROFR laws nationwide. Oklahoma has seen ROFR bills proposed every year for the past four years. Wisconsin is battling to prevent similar legislation. And in Iowa, despite court rulings, new bills have been proposed with the same misleading justifications used when Minnesota's law was enacted. The evidence is clear: Monopoly by statute doesn't work. Competition drives innovation, efficiency, and ultimately, the price relief that Minnesota consumers need. For a state that values innovation, fair competition, and consumer interests, Minnesota's ROFR law is an anomaly that must be addressed. Since its enactment, Minnesotans have watched their electricity rate advantage disappear. It's time for Minnesota to repeal this costly monopoly protection and restore the competitive advantage it once enjoyed. The state's energy future — and the relief on your electric bill — depends on it.
