WIRES, in collaboration with the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, hosted a briefing highlighting the significant, long-term advantages of investing in electric transmission.

According to WIRES, expanding and upgrading the electric grid will enhance it's resilience and provide billions of dollars in economic, environmental, and consumer benefits throughout its lifespan.

However, investment in new regional and interregional electric transmission has been slow and hampered by complex and costly planning and permitting processes, which can take up to a decade. The panel emphasized the need for transmission to be a central focus of the infrastructure discussion and highlighted the critical economic and societal benefits of a robust high-voltage grid.

While there’s growing enthusiasm for the electrification of the economy, the reality is that the power grid is not yet equipped to handle these expanding demands. To support the future rise in electricity consumption, the grid must become more resilient. This need must be recognized by policymakers, regulators, and the public to enable the continued electrification of the power system.

Hoecker also emphasized that, although the immediate need for additional transmission may not be pressing, we are at a pivotal moment in history that should be used to plan for potential future demand. New technologies cannot replace transmission infrastructure, and in fact, increased transmission capacity will often support these emerging technologies.

When evaluating grid projects, it’s important to assess not only the costs but also the long-term benefits they provide. In the case of transmission, the advantages far outweigh the costs, making it a clear and essential investment for enhancing U.S. infrastructure.

Although transmission projects are large and complex, their costs represent only a small fraction of a typical electric bill. Ultimately, transmission projects are significant undertakings that require 10 to 15 years to develop, but the long-term payoff is undeniable.

Frayer opened the discussion by addressing the report titled “The Truth about the Need for Electric Transmission Investment: Sixteen Myths Debunked.” He explained that while many myths about transmission contain a grain of truth, they are often overshadowed by misconceptions.

One key myth Frayer debunked was the belief that market resource alternatives (MRAs), like distributed generation and energy storage, can replace transmission infrastructure. While MRAs can offer some benefits, they cannot match the scale or versatility of transmission systems.

Despite the high costs of transmission projects, Frayer emphasized that their financial uncertainties can be quantified and managed to avoid poor outcomes. Many projects are also required to meet a benefit-to-cost ratio before they are approved. For example, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) mandates a 3.0 benefit-to-cost ratio for its Multi-Value Projects, ensuring that the benefits are three times greater than the costs.

New transmission benefits everyone, not just the areas receiving power. Source regions, where new transmission lines are built, sink regions, which receive increased access to electricity, and transit regions, through which transmission lines pass, all experience economic advantages.

Moreover, despite the rise of new technologies disconnected from the grid, the grid remains necessary to move excess power from areas of surplus to storage or regions in need. Plaushin pointed out that even a modest increase in transmission costs could significantly reduce other electricity-related costs, such as generation and storage.

Regarding planned power outages for maintenance, Plaushin noted that a more robust transmission grid would make these outages faster and more efficient. She highlighted the issue of economic projects not factoring in reliability impacts, and vice versa. This oversight can lead to an incomplete understanding of a project’s full benefits, causing decision-makers to underestimate its value.

Plaushin concluded by calling for a shift in planning approaches—one that focuses not just on cutting costs today but on long-term benefits and resilience.