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and its National Renewable Energy Laboratory are working on executing that work, but the results of that study will not be published for some time, a NREL researcher told CNBC.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.
Fossil fuels just hit a record low in the US electricity mix last month, while solar and wind soared to all-time highs, according to fresh data from global energy think tank Ember.
In March 2025, fossil fuels accounted for less than 50% – 49.2% – of electricity generated for the first month on record. This beats the previous monthly record low of 51% set in April 2024.
“This clearly demonstrates the growing role of wind and solar in the US energy system,” said Nicolas Fulghum, senior analyst at global energy think tank Ember. “This is a first signal that the US is approaching a tipping point where clean power takes the lead over fossil generation, and where the importance of coal and gas inevitably starts to fade.”
What this means is that clean energy generated more than half – 50.8% – of US electricity for the first month on record. The record was driven by a surge in wind and solar power, which hit a new high of 24.4% of US electricity in March 2025.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
In March 2025, US solar increased an astonishing 37% (+8.3 TWh) compared to March 2024. Wind increased by 12% (+5.7 TWh). Together, wind and solar reached an all-time high, generating 83 TWh of US electricity, 11% higher than the previous record of 75 TWh set in April 2024. Fossil fuel generation fell by 2.5% (-4.3 TWh) compared to March 2024.
The milestone is the result of a long-term decline of fossil generation in the US power sector, with wind and solar growing substantially over the last decade. In March 2015, fossil generation still provided 65% of US electricity generation. Wind and solar generation stood at just 5.7%. Since then, the share of wind and solar power has more than quadrupled.
“Wind and solar power are pushing fossil fuels out of the mix,” said Fulghum. “The reality on the ground is not one of a return to fossil fuels in the US, it’s the continued growth of solar and wind power that will be the dominant driver of electricity generation growth in the US.”
Solar power is set to account for more than half of new generating capacity installed in the US in 2025, with more than a third of new solar panels going to Texas. Solar adoption has exploded in just a decade. In March 2015, solar power accounted for just 1% of US electricity generation. By March 2025, it’s grown to 9.2%.
Last month, Ember published the report “US Electricity 2025,” which covered changes and trends in the US power sector in 2024. Solar was the fastest and largest growing source of electricity in the US in 2024. Wind and solar combined rose to a record 17% of the US electricity mix in 2024, overtaking coal for the first time, which accounted for 15%.
To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check outEnergySage, 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 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get startedhere. –trusted affiliate link*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Lease deals get all the hype, but most people still want to own the car after they’re done making all those payments on it. If that sounds like you, and you’ve been waiting for the interest rates on auto loans to drop, you’re in luck: there are a bunch of great plug-in cars you can buy with 0% financing and at pre-tariff prices this April!
In the end, I went with alphabetical order, by make, so you’ll find out more about Ford and Nissan’s approach to the new market reality when you get to them. And, as for which deals are new this month? You’re just gonna have to read the article. Enjoy!
Acura ZDX
2024 Acura ZDX; via Acura.
Manufactured in Spring Hill, Tennessee, the 2024 Acura ZDX uses a GM Ultium battery and drive motors, but the styling, interior, and infotainment software are all Honda. That means you’ll get a solidly-built EV with GM levels of parts support and Honda levels of fit, finish, and quality control. All that plus Apple CarPlay and (through April 30th) 0% financing for up to 72 months makes the ZDX one the best sporty crossover values in the business.
2023 Chrysler Pacific (it’s the same); via Stellantis.
When the plug-in hybrid version of the Chrysler Pacifica minivan first went on sale all the way back in 2016, it seemed to imply that the old Chrysler Corporation was going to race ahead of the other Big Three US carmakers.
That didn’t happen, but the Pacifica is still the king of cupholders, while the van’s stow n’ go seating, and all the other practical, clever details that add up to remind you Chrysler invented these things – and through April 30th, you can get 0% financing for up to 72 months on 2025 MY examples of this made-in-Canada plug-in hybrid and cover up to 32 miles of your daily driving needs on the clean, pure power of electrons.
In addition to employee pricing, 2024 Mustang Mach-Es continue to offer 0% APR financing for up to 72 months. That offer appears to be stackable with $2,500 in bonus cash, too, and Tesla owners and lessees can also score $1,000 in conquest cash for up to $3,500 off.
GMC HUMMER EV
GMC HUMMER EV Pickup; via GMC of Rochester.
The biggest of the Ultium-based EVs, these Hamtramck, Michigan-built machines are seriously impressive EVs, with shockingly quick acceleration and on-road handling that seems to defy the laws of physics once you understand that these are, essentially, medium-duty trucks. If you’re a fan of heavy metal (and plastic), you’ll definitely want to stop by your local GMC dealer and give the rugged GMC HUMMER EV a test drive.
Honda Prologue
Honda Prologue; via Honda.
Manufactured alongside its GM siblings at the Ramos Arizpe plant in Coahuila, Mexico, the hot-selling Honda Prologue pairs GM’s excellent Ultium platform with Honda sensibilities and Apple CarPlay to create a winning combination.
If you’ve been holding off, we’ve got good news: there’s still a few remaining 2024 models in dealer inventory out there. To make room for the 2025 models, Honda is offering 0% APR for up to 72 months on the remaining 2024s.
The ultra-efficient Hyundai IONIQ 6 is one of the most compelling Model 3 competitors out there – but that could change if the Korean-built sedan gets hit with heavy tariffs. To make sure that doesn’t happen, Hyundai is investing tens of billions of dollars into a US manufacturing base, creating new American jobs and ensuring (kinda) that it can continue to deliver real value to its customers.
Through April 30th, you can get 0% interest on just about every new EV you’ll find on your Kia dealer’s lot (minus 2025 Kia EV6 models). Click the links below to find yours.
Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV
2025 Outlander PHEV; via Mitsubishi.
One of the first three-row plugin cars to hit the market, Mitsubishi’s Outlander PHEV has always presented a strong value proposition with up to 38 miles of electric range from its 20 kWh li-ion battery and room for seven (in a pinch), making it a great “lily pad” vehicle for suburban families who want to drive electric but still worry about being able to find a charging station when they need one.
That might change when the tariffs take full effect, however – so if you’re looking for an affordable 7-passenger plug-in with a great safety rating at a reasonably affordable price, act fast.
Nissan Ariya
2024 Nissan Ariya; via Nissan.
I’ve already said that the Nissan Ariya didn’t get a fair shake. If you click that link, you’ll read about a car that offers solid driving dynamics, innovative interior design, and all the practicality that makes five-passenger crossovers the must-haves they’ve become for most families. Now, Nissan is slashing prices across the line as their competitors are raising theirs, making the case for the Ariya even stronger than before.
With great discounts available at participating dealers, Supercharger access, and 0% interest from Nissan for up to 72 months on both 2024 and 25 MY Ariya EVs.
Toyota bZ4X
Toyota bZ4X; via Toyota.
Built in Toyota City, Japan, the bZ4X EV is a capable, dependable crossover with room for five and Toyota’s reputation for reliability and longevity to boot. With 0% financing and big discounts on both 2024 and 2025 models, the bZ4X might be the best deal on your local Toyota dealer’s lot.
Volkswagen ID.4
VW ID.4; via Volkswagen.
One of the most popular legacy EVs, the ID.4 offers Volkswagen build quality and (for 2024) a Chat-GPT enabled interface. To keep ID.4 sales rolling, VW dealers are getting aggressive with discounts, making this fast-charging, 291 mile EPA-rated range, 5-star safety rated EV a value proposition that’s tough to beat.
This month, get a Volkswagen ID.4 fresh from the company’s Chattanooga, Tennessee assembly plant with 0% financing for up to 72 months plus a $5,000 customer cash bonus on remaining 2024 models to stack with it.
Disclaimer: the vehicle models and financing deals above were sourced from CarsDirect, CarEdge, CarFax, USNews, and (where mentioned) the OEM websites – and were current as of 03APR2025. These deals may not be available in every market, with every discount, or for every buyer (the standard “with approved credit” fine print should be considered implied). Check with your local dealer(s) for more information.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
The Phillips 66 Company’s Los Angeles Refinery in California.
Bing Guan | Reuters
The oil price outlook is being hit with more bearish forecasts on the back of U.S. President Donald Trump’s sweeping and market-hammering tariff announcements. Businesses and investors worry that a trade war and lower global growth lies ahead.
Goldman Sachs on Thursday reduced its December 2025 forecasts for global and U.S. benchmarks Brent crude and WTI by $5 to $66 and $62 a barrel, respectively, “because the two key downside risks we have flagged are realizing, namely tariff escalation and somewhat higher OPEC+ supply.”
The bank also cut its forecasts for the oil benchmarks in 2025 and 2026, adding that “we no longer forecast a price range, because price volatility is likely to stay elevated on higher recession risk.” Analysts at S&P Global Market Intelligence predict that in a worst-case scenario, global oil demand growth could be slashed by 500,000 barrels per day.
JPMorgan, for its part, raised its recession odds for the global economy to 60% for this year, up from a previous forecast of 40%.
Markets were therefore stunned when OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world’s crude oil — along with its non-OPEC allies that together comprise OPEC+ — chose not only to go ahead with its previously held plans to increase oil production, but also to nearly triple the expected increase figure.
Eight key OPEC+ producers on Thursday agreed to raise combined crude oil output by 411,000 barrels per day, speeding up the pace of their scheduled hikes and pushing down oil prices. The group — Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman — was widely expected to implement an increase of just under 140,000 barrels per day next month.
The news pushed oil prices 6% lower.
OPEC+ bullishness and appeasing Trump
Several factors underpin the oil-producing alliance’s decision. One is that the group is bullish on oil demand later in the year, putting it firmly in the minority as investor outlooks sour and fears of a global slowdown worsen.
The eight OPEC+ members behind the production decision cited “the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook” in their statement Thursday, saying that “this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation.”
The statement added that “the gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions.”
Another likely reason for the group’s move has to do with another T-word: the man in the White House, who during his first term in office and from the very start of his second, has loudly demanded that the oil producer group pump more crude to help bring down prices for Americans.
“First of all, this is partly about appeasing Trump,” Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, told CNBC’s Dan Murphy on Friday.
“Trump will be putting pressure on OPEC to reduce oil prices, which reduces global energy prices, to help offset the inflationary impact of his tariffs.”
OPEC officials have denied that the move was made to appease Trump.
Compliance and market share
Meanwhile, as compliance is a major issue for OPEC+ — with countries overproducing crude beyond their quotas, complicating the group’s efforts to control how much supply it allows into the market — the move could be a way to enforce that, according to Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets.
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision.”
Helima Croft
head of global commodity strategy and MENA research at RBC Capital Markets
“We think a desire by the OPEC leadership to send a warning signal to Kazakhstan, Iraq, and even Russia about the cost of continued overproduction underlies the decision,” Croft wrote in a note published Thursday. She referenced the March 2020 oil price war, when Saudi Arabia flooded the market with supply to tank oil prices and forced Russia back into compliance after Moscow initially refused to curb production to help the alliance stabilize prices. The price war caused Brent crude prices to go as low as $15 a barrel.
The production increases are also “an example of OPEC increasing their market share,” Kavonic said, adding that it “ultimately does come at the expense of the United States [shale] patch,” which U.S. producers likely will not be too thrilled about.
What happens next?
OPEC+ appears confident about the market turning a corner in the coming months on the assumption that oil demand will increase in the summer and the tariff wars will be resolved in the coming months, said Nader Itayim, editorial manager at Argus Media.
“These countries are largely comfortable with the $70, $75 per barrel band,” Itayim said.
What comes next depends on the trajectory of the tariffs and a potential trade war. Oil dropping into the $60 range could force pauses or even a reversal in OPEC+ production increase plans, analysts say – although that is likely to be met with resistance from countries like Iraq and Kazakhstan that have long been itching to increase their oil production for their own revenues.
Whatever happens, the group maintains the flexibility to adapt its plans month by month, Itayim noted.
“If things don’t quite go the way they imagine, all it does take, really, is a phone call.”