What Happened?

A report published by Congress' research branch describes unresolved questions about who decides where interstate power lines are built and how their costs are shared, with opponents of some reform proposals warning that costs could shift to consumers without direct benefits. A North American Electric Reliability Corporation study found that 35 additional gigawatts of transfer capacity between regions would improve reliability under the conditions it studied. [](#ngr-9c0f4e4d-7402-4096-b2d6-85ceabd86b8d)

The report covers transmission planning, siting, approval and cost allocation, and frames three unresolved questions for Congress: how much siting authority the federal government should hold over interstate power lines, how broadly to define project benefits when assigning costs to consumers, and whether to mandate minimum levels of transfer capacity between regions.

Right now, most approval authority sits with individual states, meaning a single interstate line can require sign-off from multiple state governments, as well as local or tribal authorities.

Why Does it Matter to Me?

Under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) Order No. 1000, issued in 2011, transmission costs must be allocated roughly in proportion to estimated benefits, and reform proposals would extend that approach to harder-to-quantify benefits such as resilience, which supporters say could unlock useful projects and opponents warn could shift costs to consumers without direct benefits.

Both Sides, Now

Critics of the current system argue that it can let a single state block an interstate power line that neighboring jurisdictions support, while defenders say it protects affected communities and lets governments act in their residents' interests.

Opponents warn that shifting siting decisions to Washington weakens communities' ability to protect their own interests. A 2024 FERC commissioner's dissent cited the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline as a case where consumers paid just over a quarter-billion dollars for a project that never received a state certificate in any of its three states and never broke ground.

Senators Capito, Lee, Whitehouse and Heinrich released a draft of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 on Sept. 30 that would require interregional transmission planning, establish cost allocation principles for interregional transmission planning, and require grid-enhancing technologies for new or modified transmission lines subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction, while the House passed a separate bill, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3062), on Sept. 18, 2025.

What Happens Next?

One concrete pathway, the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor process that would have let FERC exercise backstop siting authority, is currently dormant after the Department of Energy announced in August it would not proceed with designating three proposed corridors.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation found in its November 2024 study that 13 of the 23 regions it examined required no additional interregional transfer capacity under the conditions studied, a finding that could complicate any push for a blanket national capacity mandate.

---

AllCiv makes it easy to stay politically informed and involved.

---

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article