Congestion Solutions

Transmission congestion costs US electricity consumers roughly $10-20 billion per year. Three categories of solutions exist, and they compete for the same investment dollar.

Build new transmission lines (the supply-side fix). Reconfigure existing lines with advanced conductors, dynamic line ratings, or grid-enhancing technologies (the efficiency fix). Reduce the need for transmission by siting generation closer to load or deploying storage at congested nodes (the demand-side fix). Each addresses congestion through a different mechanism, and each has a different cost, timeline, and political obstacle.

New transmission is the most durable solution but the hardest to execute. A major interstate line takes 10-15 years to permit, site, and build, and faces opposition from landowners, states that bear costs without receiving benefits, and incumbents who profit from congestion. Grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) like dynamic line ratings can increase existing line capacity by 10-30% within months, but they are underused because utilities earn regulated returns on capital spending (new lines) and GETs are operational expenses that do not grow the rate base.

The incentive mismatch. A $50 million GETs deployment could relieve the same congestion as a $500 million new transmission line.

If GETs are 10x cheaper, why do utilities prefer new lines?

Rate-of-return regulation. Under traditional regulation, the utility earns a return on the $500 million line (growing the rate base) but earns nothing on the $50 million operational expenditure. The cheaper solution generates less profit. Performance-based regulation aims to fix this by tying profit to outcomes rather than capital spending.

---