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