Why It Matters
Electricity transmission permitting reform is not simply about whether to build more power lines. It involves who gets to decide, and who pays. A new Congressional Research Service (CRS) report covers transmission planning, siting, approval, and cost allocation, with a focus on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC's) jurisdiction.
For Congress, the report frames three unresolved questions. First, how much siting authority the federal government should hold over interstate lines; secondly, how broadly to define project benefits when allocating costs to consumers; and finally, whether to mandate minimum levels of interregional transfer capacity.
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy (DOE) announced in August that it would not proceed with designating three proposed National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETCs), leaving FERC's amended backstop siting authority dormant as of Oct. 4.
Most transmission siting authority currently resides with the states, meaning an interstate line may require approvals from multiple state governments, as well as potentially local or tribal governments. Critics argue this can allow a single state to block a project supported by neighboring jurisdictions; defenders say it protects affected communities and allows governments to act in their residents' interests.
On cost allocation, FERC's Order No. 1000, issued in 2011, requires costs to be allocated roughly in proportion to estimated benefits. Reform proposals would extend that calculus 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.
On interregional planning, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) completed a study in November 2024, directed by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (P.L. 118-5), finding that an additional 35 gigawatts of interregional transfer capacity would improve reliability under the conditions it studied. The need was geographically uneven: 13 of 23 studied regions required no additional capacity, and the largest identified need, 14 gigawatts, was between ERCOT and its neighboring regions. NERC described its findings as "directional insights for supporting system resilience" rather than mandatory construction directives, and its analysis did not evaluate the costs of building new infrastructure.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) amended the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's backstop siting authority in 2021 to address issues identified in earlier lawsuits.
Among the selected 119th Congress proposals the report lists, the Promoting Cross-Border Energy Infrastructure Act (H.R. 3062) passed the House on Sept. 18, 2025, and a draft of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, released Sept. 30 by Senators Capito, Lee, Whitehouse and Heinrich, would require interregional transmission planning, establish cost allocation principles for interregional transmission planning, and require the use of grid-enhancing technologies for new or modified transmission lines subject to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's jurisdiction.
The Bottom Line
The report does not endorse a single legislative path, and it presents debates over federal siting authority, cost allocation, and interregional transfer capacity as unresolved, with proponents and opponents disagreeing on the appropriate federal and state roles and on costs and benefits for consumers. With the NIETC pathway dormant and competing bills having been proposed, the shape of any eventual reform remains an open question for both Congress and the Trump administration.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article