I heart transmission: Stop defending transmission projects and start championing them

Recent news that the Department of Energy is deciding not to move forward with three proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors made headlines across the energy sector for good reason. While others have already pointed out the disconnect between the DOE’s stated goal of rapidly expanding transmission and its actual decision-making, I can’t help but further highlight how such developments also contradict broader and previously established policy mandates. The news directly references Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s Secretarial Order, “Unleashing the Golden Era of American Energy Dominance.” Section 8 of that order explicitly states that the Department, “will identify and exercise all lawful authorities to strengthen the nation’s grid”, and specifically points to transmission as the backbone of this energy infrastructure. I’ll leave you to your own commentary on such contractions and instead focus on the bigger challenge this news reveals. Because there’s no getting around the fact that dropping these corridors is a step backward on an issue that needs multiple steps forward. To ensure everything else we’re plugging into the grid actually powers on, we need more of these projects, not less. Unfortunately, this news, as well as other recent projects that have been ditched by the DOE, is further proof that major transmission initiatives across the country are being crushed under the weight of political hesitancy and community pushback. It’s something we’re seeing right now in Texas, where lawmakers are calling for a pause on a 765-kV transmission project in response to landowners’ concerns. In explaining how political leaders are thinking about the issue, Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said that the state “must not only prioritize strengthening the grid, but also protect Texas landowners and communities.” That statement captures the crux of the challenge we’re dealing with and is something that needs to be addressed head-on. Because effectively balancing legitimate community concerns with larger energy needs is going to require long-term thinking as well as an understanding of trade-offs. And it’s going to require utility companies to do a better job showing how their work directly sustains modern life and the future of our entire civilization. Understanding the transmission bottleneck There are countless studies to reference, and whether it’s ones that say the grid requires 5,000 miles of new high-voltage lines annually or others that call out how transmission congestion has added billions in wholesale power costs, it’s clear that transmission is an essential element in serving the increase in electricity demand that is coming. While industry analysts can and are quibbling about how much of that demand will actually materialize on the grid, few dispute that the demand is real. That reality has sent data center developers and technology companies scrambling to secure available power. However, reports have detailed why we need transmission infrastructure just as much as we need to expand generation. More and more, the most expensive part of the energy transition is not producing electrons but getting them where they need to go. Transmission assets that were designed to last for decades are being pushed far beyond their intended limits. Without a modern, high-capacity transmission grid, even low-cost generation capacity can be stranded. The fundamental challenge modern utilities face is less about building new generation and more about successfully connecting it to the grid. That last reference shows how large-load customers play a central role, as several high-profile transmission lines are being proposed to support planned data center development. To say that data centers aren’t especially popular with communities is an understatement, and this literal connection is giving many of those communities another reason to push back on transmission projects. That’s exactly what we’re seeing happen across the country. While the current administration’s stance on transmission is complicated, what’s clear is that the challenges in meeting ever-increasing energy demand aren’t about a lack of clean energy options or a continued reliance on legacy assets. It’s about a grid that needs to be updated, which needs the infrastructure required to move power where it’s necessary. While improvements to this current system can and should be made, understanding their limitations underscores why such innovations and technologies can’t be an excuse for building the new transmission that we actually need. You can’t get all the way there with GETs The concept of getting more out of the existing grid is precisely what grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) were designed to do. Whether we’re talking about dynamic line rating hardware, advanced power flow controls, or topology optimization software, these systems maximize the capacity and reliability of current power lines. Regulators have faced pressure to expand grid technology incentives and interconnection automation, and we’ve seen major developments with changes to better integrate these systems. Additionally, utilities understand the value of GETs that can relieve immediate bottlenecks without waiting years for new physical buildouts. But they’re not the only means of increasing the efficiencies of the current system. Learn more about GETs on the Factor This Policycast: Undergrounding high-voltage lines is frequently proposed as a way to avoid visual objections and municipal right-of-way battles that often accompany efforts to build new transmission lines. To say that undergrounding is a preferred solution from multiple perspectives is an understatement because what’s easier than out of sight and out of mind? Unfortunately, while undergrounding eliminates visual impact and reduces exposure to certain weather events, it’s simply not a universal fix. Because underground cables can’t dissipate heat as efficiently as overhead lines, managing that excess heat requires specialized, higher-cost conductors and heavy-duty insulation. As Power Magazine has reported, the complex engineering and ground disturbance required for underground high-voltage lines can drive capital costs several times higher per mile than equivalent overhead construction. Maximizing existing line capacity through GETs and a selective undergrounding strategy are valuable tools. Those efforts need to be undertaken, and for the vast majority of utilities, they are. But these systems and innovations can’t replace new high-voltage overhead lines. They need to be framed as part of an “all of the above” narrative that outlines necessary connections between generation, transmission, and distribution in a way that will be foundational to the entire energy sector. Championing the LongTerm Value of Transmission To say that the cancellations of transmission projects that are in the works are short-sighted barely scratches the surface of the issue. And while those federal cancellations are worth the headlines they’re getting, it’s just as important to understand how the issues are playing out at the state and local levels. Let’s go back to the pushback we’re seeing with a proposal for a high-voltage transmission line in Central Texas. Multiple reports outlined the public opposition that led lawmakers to intervene after a hearing at which roughly 100 people testified. Country singer Tanya Tucker even broke out in song! These details matter, because they illustrate the passion driving local property owners. It underscores the need for utilities and organizations driving these projects to proactively address the rights and concerns of the communities they’ll impact. However, it also needs to be proactively addressed that the broader population depends on those lines for energy security. Hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses will depend on those lines for reliable power. And that fact is what utility leaders and regulators need to highlight more clearly. Landowners naturally want to preserve their setup and surroundings, all of which can be disrupted by the grid’s buildout, which changes the physical landscape. Those concerns are real and deserve fair treatment, but allowing localized opposition to dictate grid policy reflects short-term thinking. The long-term societal value of that transmission capacity needs to be discussed and even championed. It’s the type of shift that needs to be realized on every level, including how these issues are covered by the media. The narrative about transmission is usually dominated by the upfront capital costs rather than the long-term reliability benefits. Take a look at how media framing shapes public perception: - The article referenced above has the headline: “Proposed Transmission Line in Central Texas Leaves No Community Unscathed.” But think about how people might view that story if it were titled, “Central Texas Grid Expansion Sparks Local Debate over Long-Term Energy Value.” And that’s without changing a single thing in the piece that talks about how the line might affect the ecosystem, residents’ health, local property values, and utility prices. - In California, the headline for an article about a 150-mile infrastructure project is all about the cost: “That big transmission line SDG&E wants to build will cost about $1.62B.” But if it were titled, “New Transmission Line Set to Vastly Expand Regional Energy Access” or “Proposed SDG&E Power Line Promises More Reliable, Widespread Energy,” readers would have a totally different perspective. None of these are about those actual articles, stories, or publications, because those headlines reflect genuine consumer anxieties around affordability. The short-term costs are real, but so are the long-term reliability benefits. Being bullish on transmission means taking a long-term view. It means considering the widespread societal benefits of bulk power delivery rather than dwelling exclusively on short-term execution costs. And it means reminding the public what it truly takes to power modern society. Enabling that sort of shift requires an effort that goes far beyond any single article or regulatory filing. So, what does taking the first step look like? It can start with a simple message that we can openly highlight and even literally wear on our chest: I ❤️ Transmission.