A transmission tower is seen on July 11, 2022 in Houston, Texas. ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas) is urging Texans to voluntarily conserve power today, due to extreme heat potentially causing rolling blackouts.
Brandon Bell | Getty Images
This story is part of CNBC’s “Transmission Troubles” series, an inside look at why the aging electrical grid in the U.S. is struggling to keep up, how it’s being improved, and why it’s so vital to fighting climate change.
Building large-scale transmission lines that carry electricity across the United States has the potential to be an extremely cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also improving reliability of the country’s energy grid.
But the energy grid in the U.S. has developed over decades as a patchwork of thousands of individual utilities serving their own local regions. There is no incentive for energy companies to see the forest for the trees.
“The system we have for planning and paying for new transmission does not adequately value or promote the vital benefits of interregional transmission. Transmission planning does not sufficiently take into account the benefits of a holistic system over the long term,” Gregory Wetstone, CEO of the non-profit American Council on Renewable Energy, told CNBC.
The regulatory framework that has evolved surrounding those local utilities and their electricity transmission processes completely short-circuits when it comes to planning longer, bigger-scale transmission lines.
“Lines crossing multiple states have to receive permits from many local and state agencies, and a single county can block the construction of a new transmission line that would benefit the entire region,” Wetstone told CNBC. “Imagine trying to build the national highway system that we now have if any single county along the way could block the entire project. It simply wouldn’t have been possible.”
The Department of Energy is in the process of conducting a National Transmission Planning Study,to look into all of this. The government’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory are working on executing that work, but the results of that study will not be published for some time, a NREL researcher told CNBC.
Unless the U.S. can modernize its electric grid and update the regulatory processes surrounding construction of new lines, the country’s climate goals will be harder and more expensive to achieve.
Why a macro-grid is a cost-effective climate win
Currently, electricity generation results in 32 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States .To mitigate the effects of global warming, electrical generation needs needs to move from burning fossil fuels, like oil and coal, to emissions-free sources of energy, like wind and solar.
One way of reducing emissions caused by electricity is to build as much clean energy generation as close as possible near to where the electricity is needed.
But building longer transmission lines, to carry wind and solar power from regions where those resources are abundant to the places where demand is highest, would actually be a cheaper way of reducing emissions.
“Multi-regional transmission designs enable the highest reduction in cost per unit of emissions reduction,” James McCalley, an electrical engineering professor at Iowa State University, told CNBC.
There are three reasons why:
Tapping into the most abundant resources. First, large-scale, multi-regional transmission lines — often called a “macro grid” — would connect the most powerful renewable energy sources with the highest demand centers, McCalley said.
“Many mid-U.S. states have excellent wind resources, and the southwest U.S. has excellent solar resources, but the population is insufficient to use them,” McCalley told CNBC. “Population density rises as you get closer to the coasts. Transmission lets you build rich resources and use them at the heaviest load centers.”
Heavy electrical transmission lines at the powerful Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, located in California’s Mojave Desert at the base of Clark Mountain and just south of this stateline community on Interstate 15, are viewed on July 15, 2022 near Primm, Nevada. The Ivanpah system consists of three solar thermal power plants and 173,500 heliostats (mirrors) on 3,500 acres and features a gross capacity of 392 megawatts (MW).
George Rose | Getty Images News | Getty Images
Balancing supply with demand over time zones and seasons. Second, transmission lines that span time zones would let the most effective power generating resources go to the region that needs the power when it needs it. “During the course of a 24 hour period, regions in different time zones peak at different times, and so the best resources in one non-peaking region and be used to supply demand at another peaking region,” McCalley told CNBC.
Similarly, large scale transmission would allow regions to share power generation to meet their annual capacity needs.
“Regions today require that they have total installed capacity equal to about 1.15 times their annual peak load. But the annual peak load occurs at different times of the year for different regions. So multi-regional transmission would enable sharing of capacity,” McCalley told CNBC.
For example, the Pacific Northwest peaks in energy demand in early spring and the Midwest peaks during summer months. They could, if connected, borrow from each other, “enabling each region to avoid constructing new capacity,” McCalley said.
Better reliability. Finally, improved energy sharing would also lead to a more reliable energy grid for consumers.
“After decades of underinvestment, our current grid is ill-equipped to handle the energy transition or increasingly frequent severe weather events,” Wetstone told CNBC. So in addition to making clean energy available cheaply, “a macro grid would also allow for the transfer of energy to prevent blackouts and price spikes during extreme weather events,” Wetstone said.
A 2021 NREL study, “Interconnections Seam Study,” found benefit-to-cost ratios that reach as high as 2.5, meaning for each dollar invested in transmission that connects the major components of the U.S. power grid — the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas — would return up to $2.50.
Here is a visualization from the National Renewable Energy Lab’s “Interconnections Seam Study” showing how transmission lines that connect the major regions of the U.S. power system could allow the US to access more renewable energy and allow regions to balance energy demand.
Graphic courtesy National Renewable Energy Lab
Why the US does not have a macro, cross-regional grid
“Who pays for transmission I think is the biggest problem,” Rob Gramlich, the founder of the transmission policy company Grid Strategies, told CNBC. “It’s a freaking mess,” he said.
Currently, transmission lines that are constructed in the U.S. have to go through a years-long planning, approval and regulatory process where all of the utilities, regulators and landowners determine who benefits and how much each beneficiary should pay.
“Figuring out how to share costs among the many parties that would benefit from (and be impacted by) new transmission can be contentious, as can navigating permitting processes at the county, state, and federal levels along new routes,” explains Patrick Brown, a researcher working on transmission issues at the NREL.
In addition, local stakeholders often dig in their heels in when a new transmission line has the potential to undercut their existing business.
“The majority of new transmission is built for local needs and disconnected from any regional or interregional planning. Not surprisingly, the owners of these local projects seek to protect their transmission and generation earnings from being reduced by less expensive renewable resources that would be brought onto the grid as a result of interregional transmission,” Wetstone told CNBC. “So the broader societal benefits of a larger and more resilient grid are often ignored.”
It will be especially challenging to determine exactly who benefits exactly how much for a transmission line that spans the entire country.
“The system in and of itself is a benefit to the nation,” McCalley told CNBC. “The principle of ‘beneficiaries pay’ is harder to implement in that case.” So there’s no clear answer yet on how a macrogrid line would be paid for.
“My view has been the federal government, in concert with state government, in concert with developers — that it’s got to be a coordinated, complementary division of funds somehow, between those three, and whether it’s 95-5, or 30-30-40 percentage, I don’t know,” McCalley said.
For example, the larger utility companies in the US (like PG&E, American Electric Power Company, Duke Energy, or Dominion) could partner with the companies that make this kind of transmission technology, and with federal power authorities (like the Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration, Southeastern Power Administration and Southwestern Power Administration) to coordinate a macro-grid construction project, McCalley said.
The cooling towers at the Stanton Energy Center, a coal-fired power plant in Orlando, are seen near electrical transmission towers. The facility is projected to convert from burning coal to using natural gas by 2027. U.N. climate talks ended on November 13, 2021 with a deal that for the first time targeted fossil fuels as the key driver of global warming, even as coal-reliant countries lobbed last-minute objections.
Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images
‘Get them in one room’
Despite the current morass of planning and building transmission lines in the U.S., “there are also many ways to overcome these barriers,” Brown at NREL told CNBC.
“Existing rights-of-way can be reused; new federal guidelines could encourage proactive interregional planning and coordination and help identify the highest-priority expansion options; and public engagement and community ownership can help get local stakeholders onboard.”
Regulators ought to be forced to work together, according to Konstantin Staschus, who has been working with transmission for his entire career, both in the U.S. and in Europe.
When the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, one of seven regional planning agencies in the United States, plans transmission line construction plans, it starts with a massive meeting. At the kickoff for its next round of transmission planning, MISO had a three hour planning meeting with 377 people in the meeting.
In the same way all of those stakeholders are pushed together to hash out their differences, so too should that happen for larger scale planning, according to Staschus, who was the Secretary-General of Europe’s transmission planning body, the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, for the first eight years of the regulatory body’s existence, from 2009 to early 2017.
“Get them in one room. Make them plan nationally. Make them redo it every year,” Staschus told CNBC.
“If they do that and if they’re experts — scratch their heads for months, figure out all the data and argue about the assumptions and the cost allocation, and they come with a proposal to their own management and convince them and then the management goes together to the various regulators and convinced them,” then the U.S. will be on a better path, Staschus told CNBC.
“But if you don’t treat it like a countrywide system, you won’t start this process.”
For Johnson of MISO, though, these kinds of idealistic discussions of building a national system come from people who don’t truly understand the challenge of getting a transmission line built even on a regional basis. For instance, the lines might run through entire states that don’t pull energy from that system.
“Those things are going to be far more complicated than what people are aware,” Johnson said. The challenge is not designing a transmission line, Johnson says, the challenge is determining who benefits how much and how much they have to pay.
What Johnson sees as more likely is stronger connections at the seams from one planning region to another. “I think of it kind of like a bucket brigade,” Johnson said, where one region can more seamlessly share power with its next door neighbor.
Jesse Jenkins, who is Princeton professor and a macro-scale energy systems engineer, says that while national-level grids are attractive, these interregional grids are essential.
“I don’t think we necessarily need a continent-scale macro grid, although there are plenty of studies showing the benefits of a such a ‘interstate highways’ system for transmission, so it would be nice to have,” Jenkins said. “What we absolutely need is a substantial increase in key inter-regional long-distance transmission routes. So it’s not all local lines (e.g. within single states). We need a lot of new or expanded/reconductored multi-state corridors as well.”
If the US can’t get national lines built, then interregional lines are better than nothing, agrees McCalley. But emissions reductions will remain more expensive than if we built a national grid.
“If we rely on what we have done in the past, it would be really hard because every state weighs in, and every state gets veto power, essentially. And so that won’t work,” McCalley said.
California’s rollercoaster of an electric bicycle voucher program, designed to make the highly effective transportation alternative affordable for more California residents, has hit yet another bumpy section of track. This time, a “technical issue” is being blamed for the second tranche of vouchers being delayed indefinitely, causing yet another headache for the beleaguered California E-Bike Incentive Program.
The program was set to launch its second round last night, opening its application window for one hour to distribute 1,000 more vouchers worth up to $2,000 off of an electric bicycle.
But program’s operators announced just before the application window was set to close yesterday that the website had experienced technical problems.
Unlike the first round of the incentive program, last night’s application window was designed to last for an hour, giving every eligible California resident who entered the website during the window an equal chance at receiving a voucher. That system was designed as an improvement to the first round, which was widely criticized for its “first come, first served” approach that rewarded fast typing and clicking to exhaust the first 1,500 vouchers in mere seconds.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
However, the timing of the announcement last night meant that many hopeful applicants were left waiting on the website for an hour before learning that the application round was being delayed indefinitely.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, a spokesperson for the California Air Resources Board, which administers the program, said the board is investigating the issues and attempted to troubleshoot the problems “in real time.” The program “ultimately made the decision to reschedule once it became clear that not everyone was able to access the waiting room,” said CARB’s Lindsay Buckley.
It is unclear how many people entered the website during the one-hour application window, but the first round of applications launched last December saw over 100,000 people vying for the limited number of vouchers.
Despite occasional issues like these, such e-bike voucher programs are a powerful motivator for cities and states aiming to shift more trips away from cars and toward sustainable transportation. By directly reducing the upfront cost of an electric bike – often thousands of dollars – these incentives make e-bikes accessible to a broader population, especially lower-income riders who may not be able to afford one otherwise. And unlike subsidies for electric cars, which tend to benefit wealthier households, e-bike voucher programs often deliver a much higher return on investment in terms of mode shift, equity, and emissions reductions.
The benefits don’t stop at access. These programs help normalize e-bike use in urban and suburban areas, accelerating cultural adoption and proving that two wheels can be a practical alternative to four. Cities that have rolled out vouchers, like Denver and San Diego, have seen immediate surges in ridership and have reported that many recipients use their e-bikes as replacements for car trips.
As policymakers look to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and hit climate targets, e-bike vouchers offer a fast, scalable, and cost-effective tool that delivers results where it matters most: in people’s daily lives. Despite California’s own voucher program repeatedly hitting roadblocks, these types of programs have proven invaluable to making real changes in the accessibility of important commuting alternatives to cars.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The first 2022 GMC HUMMER EV Pickup Edition 1 rolls off the assembly line at Factory ZERO (Source: GM)
Donald Trump signed two executive orders today that walked back parts of tariffs he previously imposed on US automakers ahead of a rally in Michigan to mark his first 100 days in office.
The Wall Street Journal first reported today in an exclusive that Trump was “expected to soften the impact of his automotive tariffs, preventing duties on foreign-made cars from stacking on top of other tariffs and easing some levies on car parts.”
Trump signed an executive order making sure the 25% tariffs on vehicles and certain auto parts won’t stack on top of existing aluminum, steel, or Canada and Mexico tariffs. He also gave automakers a credit to help blunt the impact of the 25% duties on imported parts that go into US-built cars.
Trump’s backpedal comes after weeks of meeting with automaker executives, and a week after a coalition that included GM, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai sent a letter urging him to drop tariffs on foreign auto parts due to land in May.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
American Automotive Policy Council (AAPC) president Matt Blunt today said in response to the executive orders, “American Automakers Ford, GM, and Stellantis appreciate the administration’s clarification that tariffs will not be layered on top of the existing Section 232 tariffs on autos and auto parts. Applying multiple tariffs to the same product or part was a significant concern for American automakers, and we are glad to see this addressed. We will review the details of the executive order closely to assess how effectively it will mitigate the impact of tariffs on American automakers, our domestic supply chains and ultimately American consumers.” The AAPC represents Ford, GM, and Stellantis.
Electrek’s Take
The 25% auto tariffs implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act aren’t going anywhere, and most economists say that tariffs will raise car prices and slow auto sales. This White House Fact Sheet is titled, “President Donald J. Trump Incentivizes Domestic Automobile Production.” Where’s the incentive? US automakers are just getting hit with the stick once instead of twice, and they’re thanking Trump for it.
The carrot that worked as an incentive was Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, along with the stability that came with it. All this whiplash is terrible for the US and global economy.
Now is a great time to begin your solar journey so your system is installed in time for those longer sunny days. If you want to make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20 to 30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. –trusted affiliate partner
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
New data suggests that the Tesla Powerwall 3 is significantly disrupting the US solar inverter market.
The home battery pack’s integrated inverter is changing the game.
Tesla acquired its solar business when it bought SolarCity in a controversial deal due to Musk being a large shareholder of both Tesla and SolarCity, and Musk’s cousin led the latter.
The automaker kept the SolarCity operations going for a few years. In fact, it continued until after Tesla shareholders sued Musk over the acquisition, and Musk defended himself by claiming that SolarCity had become an integral part of Tesla.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Shortly after he won the lawsuit, Tesla virtually stopped all operations that came from its SolarCity acquisition, which primarily consisted of residential solar financing and installations.
Tesla even stopped reporting solar deployment. The company’s energy business now consists almost entirely of Powerwall and Megapack deployments.
However, the launch of the Powerwall 3 has indirectly brought Tesla back into the solar business, as the home battery pack features an inverter that works for both solar and storage applications.
EnergySage is a company that matches solar installers with potential buyers, and as a result, it has a wealth of interesting data about the solar industry in the US. Today, it released its Spring 2025 Marketplace report.
In the report, EnergySage revealed that Tesla became the second-most quoted inverter brand in the second half of last year:
Tesla became the most quoted battery brand in H2 2024, occupying 63% of Marketplace share nationwide. Because the Powerwall 3 includes an integrated inverter, Tesla also became the second-most quoted inverter brand. With batteries increasingly being added to solar systems—the national battery attachment rate jumped to 45% in H2 2024, an all-time high—Tesla’s growth was a key driver of the low storage and solar prices seen on EnergySage. In 2025, we are examining whether brand backlash and equipment shortages will affect Tesla’s Marketplace share.
This is also a byproduct of the increased popularity of energy storage systems when deploying new solar systems.
In big solar markets like California and Texas, the majority of residential solar quotes are attached to batteries, and Tesla is not the top quoted brand, thanks to Powerwall 3:
Powerwall was already the preferred home battery pack for many homeowners, and the fact that it now includes a solar inverter has made it even more attractive, as most home energy storage systems in the US are being deployed along with rooftop solar.
The Powerwall 3’s solar inverter integration is pushing solar plus storage costs down quite a bit.
The popularity of the Powerwall 3 has particularly hurt Enphase, a leader in solar inverter. It had 73% of the US market in 2022, and now it is down to 53%.
Despite Tesla driving prices down, Powerwall 3 is not the cheapest battery pack available. Panasonic and EG4 batteries were both priced lower on a per kWh basis than Tesla’s in the second half of 2024, but Tesla won on cost when also replacing the solar inverter.
If you’re interested in installing solar panels and/or batteries for your home, we recommend using EnergySage. You will be able to get quotes without any hassle and only talk to someone when you are ready to move forward. Within minutes, you can get on the path to producing your own power with solar and battery storage, including with Powerwall.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.