Investing in our energy grid secures reliable, resilient electricity and saves money in the long run. However, state policies working to accelerate these investments — including modernizing our transmission grid or expanding it to connect to new clean energy resources — are often met with concerns about energy affordability. At a time when electricity prices are front of mind for many advocates, policymakers, and constituents, we need to connect the dots between transforming the grid and energy affordability.
We invited a panel of experts to discuss how transmission investments save customers money, alongside best practices and lessons learned for messaging and communications related to transmission as an energy affordability solution. Our speakers included Zach Zimmerman, Research and Policy Manager for Grid Strategies, and Abby Watson, President of The Groundwire Group.
Large Scale Transmission Deployment Saves Consumers Money
Zach Zimmerman, Grid Strategies
Learn more by watching the webinar at 04:36
Zach shared insights from Grid Strategies’ recently-released report, Large Scale Transmission Deployment Saves Consumers Money, produced for Americans for a Clean Energy Grid. His presentation covered the following topics:
- Transmission facts and misconceptions (07:56)
- Transmission is resource agnostic and technology neutral. The grid supports the delivery of electricity from all types of generation, enabling the delivery of the most economical and reliable power wherever it’s needed.
- As a result of large-scale investments, transmission costs on electricity bills may rise, but this increase is much smaller than the savings accrued from the generation portion of the bill. Overall, electricity bills will be lower, since transmission buildout supplements local energy resources by providing access to cheaper generation sources that are further from where the power is being used.
- Consumer benefits of transmission and how it delivers electric bill savings (12:12)
- Economies of scale in high-capacity transmission drive 75 percent savings to consumers over the life of the investment. By moving larger volumes of electricity more efficiently across long distances, higher voltage transmission reduces power losses and minimizes the need for more expensive, piecemeal investments in lower-voltage transmission.
- Large-scale transmission reduces congestion costs, which alone increased energy prices by an estimated $11.5 billion in 2023. Congestion costs occur when the cheapest energy available is unable to be delivered to where it’s needed — for example, due to limited transmission capacity from lower-voltage lines — and more expensive electricity must be dispatched to meet that demand.
- Transmission reduces the need for excess power plant capacity by increasing connection between neighboring areas. When electricity demand peaks in one region, well-planned transmission lines can deliver surplus electricity from a neighboring region, rather than relying on each region to individually invest in new generation.
- Transmission protects against price spikes during extreme weather events. When storms and natural disasters cause unplanned outages from generators and higher-than-anticipated demand, access to neighboring regions’ lower-cost electricity can keep electricity prices down and prevent widespread blackouts.
- Analysis of consumer savings from transmission plans across the country (18:00)
- Transmission expansion could save U.S. households a net $6.3–10.4 billion annually; for every dollar invested in transmission lines, consumers receive between $3.80 to $4.70 in benefits. Planners’ initial analysis of transmission also often underestimates benefits by 20–40 percent.
- Per household, annual net savings from transmission investment are approximately $44–$73, and could rise as high as $200 in savings. High-capacity transmission investments decrease the generation portion of a household’s electricity bill by $92 per year, and only increase the transmission portion by $19.
Effective Messaging for Transmission Investment and Energy Affordability
Abby Watson, The Groundwire Group
Learn more by watching the webinar at 22:49
Abby highlighted lessons learned from working with advocacy and trade organizations focused on transmission planning and investment, particularly related to messaging within a public dialogue about energy affordability and transmission. Overall, it’s essential to underscore that the solution to energy affordability is investment — we need to spend money to build a better system. While this is difficult to discuss at a time when cost of living is skyrocketing, we need to emphasize that the age and fragility of our current grid requires investment now — it’s just a matter of what we invest in. Best practices for messaging around this include:
- Tell a story or use an analogy. Abby walked through an analogy comparing our aging transmission grid with a beloved old car that, although tempting to repair in bits and pieces, is at the end of its life; it’s more cost-efficient and smarter overall to buy a new car than to wait until the old one falls apart.
- Make it stick. Shift away from delivering facts and more toward something that your audience can relate to. For example:
- Have you ever put off making a big investment because you wanted to save money, only to end up spending more in the long run?
- We don’t think much about our power grid, but it’s a lot like the state of our roads and bridges. We’ve put off major investments for years, and now they’re in rough shape.
- If we have to invest in replacing and upgrading our systems, would you rather invest in the latest technology, or double-down on old technology?
- Center the exciting solutions. Structure your counterpoints to end with something that delivers emotion. Abby explored counterpoints to various major objections to transmission investment, related to high energy bills, uncertainty related to generation sources, and concerns about renewable energy.
Q&A
Hear the full Q&A by watching the webinar at 37:37
- Can you compare and contrast the need for, and savings from, investments in large-scale transmission buildout, as opposed to investment in local, distributed energy resources?
- Do estimated transmission savings for ratepayers change at all when talking about regions without an RTO/official centralized planning body?
- I have found in my communication work that “grid reliability” is very intangible for people. It only really works after power outages, storms, etc. Can you give an example of how to make it more real for people when talking about grid reliability?
- In your experience, who needs the most convincing as to the efficacy of investing into our energy system? Is it consumers, providers, others?
- Given that the estimates of household savings are on average, what factors affect the amount of savings that each household would actually see on their utility bills?
