By Ted Thomas

A new attack on regional transmission planning threatens to unravel a decade of progress toward a more reliable, affordable and interconnected electric grid. 

A group of state utility commissioners recently filed a complaint with FERC opposing the cost allocation for a new set of regional transmission projects known as Tranche 2.1 in the MISO region. This 3,631-mile 765-kV backbone portfolio of projects is expected to deliver up to $72 billion in net benefits across the system. 

Their argument? That these projects don’t serve the broader region and should be funded only by the states they physically pass through. It’s an appealing message — no one wants to pay for something they can’t see. But it’s also oversimplified and short-sighted, and it risks undermining the premise of regional planning and cost sharing that keeps the grid reliable and affordable. 

At its core, the complaint misunderstands how regional transmission works. High-voltage transmission lines are not local infrastructure, they are the backbone of the electric grid. They enable power to flow across hundreds of miles, balancing supply and demand in real time and delivering affordable electricity to customers even when local conditions falter. Transmission lines provide shared benefits far beyond state borders. 

This is why MISO — a region with a history of collaboration — created the Multi-Value Project (MVP) framework. When the first round of multi-value transmission projects was approved over a decade ago, they weren’t built just to serve one state or one utility, but to address regional reliability needs, reduce congestion and provide access to low-cost generation across MISO’s 15-state footprint. 

Independent studies later showed those projects will return up to $52.6 billion in benefits over the next 20 to 40 years — benefits that are shared by customers throughout the region and a 20% increase from the original estimate. 

Tranche 2.1 projects follow the same planning logic. Though individual lines may be in specific states, MISO plans them as part of a broader portfolio designed to work together to ease systemwide transmission bottlenecks, enabling cheaper and more reliable electricity to flow across MISO. These projects were approved through a rigorous, transparent regional planning process that evaluated systemwide impacts, not just local needs, and conservatively estimated the benefits of the projects. That’s why MISO’s board agreed these projects should be treated as MVPs and funded accordingly. 

To argue now that these projects should be paid for only by the states in which they’re located is to undermine the premise of regional collaboration. If every state were allowed to pick and choose which projects they want to fund, the grid would be more fragmented and inefficient and less resilient than it already is. Regional transmission planning works only when everyone contributes to — and benefits from — the shared infrastructure we all rely on. 

Moreover, refusing to share costs for regionally beneficial projects will hurt customers in the long run. Without large-scale transmission, we’ll be forced to rely on more expensive local generation, endure greater price volatility and face more frequent reliability challenges as demand grows and extreme weather becomes more common. That’s a cost nobody wants to bear, especially when the alternative is a well-planned, cost-effective solution that has already proved its worth.  

Arkansas is a prime example of how regional planning delivers value. We benefit when low-cost power from elsewhere can flow into Arkansas during times of high demand or generation shortfalls — and vice versa. Regional planning has brought long-term stability to power prices and improved reliability, especially in rural areas that often are more vulnerable to outages and price spikes.  

Despite this, the complaint threatens to erode the regional planning framework, and to do so in the context of a transmission plan that does not even allocate costs to three of the states that filed the complaint, including Arkansas.  

Rather than obstructing new energy infrastructure, we must recognize the urgent need to build for the future and meet demand. FERC should reject this complaint and reaffirm the principles that have made MVPs successful. Tranche 2.1 projects are part of a broader strategy to modernize the grid, reduce costs and ensure a reliable electricity system across the region.  

If we want a grid that works for everyone, we need to keep investing in shared solutions. Transmission isn’t local. Neither are its benefits. Let’s not let short-sighted politics get in the way of smart regional planning. 

Ted Thomas is the founder of Energize Strategies and a former chairman of the Arkansas Public Service Commission.