Twitter/X

The author argues that regional high-voltage transmission portfolios already…

2026-03-13 · 17:42 UTC ·@1reluctantcog ·1 min read

Brief

Regional transmission is framed as an even stronger investment case in 2026 than it was during the earlier renewables-driven planning cycle. The author says the core economics behind broad cost sharing and FERC Order 1920-style regional planning have not changed; instead, surging AI-related electricity demand makes large transmission portfolios more attractive, even as the political coalition for paying for them appears less consistent.

Why it matters

The author argues that regional high-voltage transmission portfolios already cleared cost-benefit tests 2-3 years ago when justified mainly by renewable integration under the 'No Transition Without Transmission' framing.

Key details

  • New load growth, especially from AI data centers, strengthens the economics of transmission because fixed grid upgrade costs can be spread across thousands of GWh of additional demand.
  • The post cites major planned U.S. transmission spending tied to demand growth: Southern Company at $81 billion over 5 years, PJM approving $12 billion in one tranche, and ERCOT outlining $33 billion in Texas, while warning that transmission cost allocation remains unresolved and ratepayers will likely bear part of the cost.
Source evidence

title: @1reluctantcog: Just 2-3 years ago these types of high-voltage regional transmission portfolios were being planned,...
author: @1reluctantcog
contenttype: tweet
publication: Twitter/X
published: 2026-03-13T17:42:15+00:00
sourceurl: https://x.com/1reluctantcog/status/2032512576060314079

word_count: 212

Just 2-3 years ago these types of high-voltage regional transmission portfolios were being planned, and advocated for, based on their ability to deliver increased renewable integration and deployment ("No Transition Without Transmission", remember?). There was pushback on ratepayer impact, but these were dismissed by many advocates and commentators, because modeling showed these project portfolios comfortably passing cost/benefit thresholds.

Now we have demand growth and it turns out (shocking!) that one of the many benefits of regional high-voltage transmission is enabling demand growth. The already good cost/benefit case is now vastly more attractive because those costs are now shared over thousands of GWhs of new demand.

If it made sense back then, it certainly makes sense now! But where are all the transmission advocates, FERC Order 1920 advocates? What of the concept of widely sharing costs in accordance with widely shared benefits? Has the underlying economic logic of transmission suddenly changed?

Shanu Mathew (@ShanuMathew93)

U.S. utilities plan tens of billions in transmission upgrades driven by AI data center demand. Southern Company: $81B over 5 years. PJM just approved $12B at once. ERCOT: $33B in Texas. Trump pledged tech cos will cover data center costs, but transmission cost allocation remains unsettled and difficult to settle. Ratepayers likely to absorb some share regardless.

— https://nitter.net/ShanuMathew93/status/2032424197620744214#m