With a requirement for the U.S. to get 100% of its electricity from carbon-free resources by 2050, transmission developers see promise in the sweeping draft climate bill released last week by House Democrats. But some grid policy experts think the bill falls far short on transmission, an integral component of any successful decarbonization strategy.

Among its many provisions, the 622-page proposal would direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to issue a rule that improves interregional transmission planning across the grid operators it oversees. Recognizing that fully decarbonizing the electricity sector will require adding huge amounts of renewable energy to the grid, the bill aims to pave the way for new high-voltage transmission lines needed to move clean energy from where it is generated in usually more remote regions to population centers.

"If we're going to be looking at [renewable portfolio standards], especially a federal one, we need to recognize that there needs to be transmission to facilitate that energy," said Nina Plaushin, vice president of regulatory and federal affairs for ITC Holdings Corp. ITC is the largest independent electricity transmission company in the U.S. with high-voltage transmission infrastructure in Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.

Section 212 of the proposed bill would specifically require FERC to issue rules within a year and a half that "emphasize" the importance of synchronizing transmission planning processes, cost-benefit analyses, and cost allocation methodologies between neighboring regions.

"From ITC's perspective, it's very positive that this section is in the bill, and the reason why it needs to be in this bill, and the reason why this is important, is because it can take up to 10 years to plan and build a major transmission facility," Plaushin said in an interview following the bill's release.

Plaushin noted that FERC Order 1000, issued in 2011, aimed to encourage interregional transmission planning among regional transmission organizations and independent system operators. In addition to detailing certain cost allocation principles, the order requires all FERC-jurisdictional utilities to participate in regional and interregional electric transmission planning processes.

Since it was issued, however, Order 1000 has not produced a significant amount of interregional transmission lines that span more than one RTO or ISO.

For example, a 2018 analysis by S&P Global Market Intelligence found that very little transmission built-in organized markets since 2010 has spanned multiple regions, with most of that new capacity built between the Southwest Power Pool and Midcontinent ISO. A more recent WIRES Group-sponsored study released last month identified six interregional transmission projects currently being developed across grid seams, but the report also found that significant barriers persist with regard to interregional planning.

"Order 1000 interregional processes have not materialized to facilitate broader integration across markets," the report said.

"It's just not really yielding results," Plaushin added, "and so what you see in this legislation ... is sort of this recognition that we need to restart this process."

'A real disconnect'

Meanwhile, former FERC Chair Jon Wellinghoff, who headed the commission when it issued Order 1000, offered a harsh critique of the draft bill's approach to facilitating more interregional transmission.

"Order 1000 does everything that Section 212 proposes to do, and unfortunately, large parts of Order 1000 are still unimplemented," Wellinghoff said in a recent interview.

Before directing FERC to require more interregional planning, Wellinghoff argued that Congress first needs to give the commission the authority it needs to develop and implement a national transmission plan.

"You can't just have FERC be ordered to have the RTOs engage in some transmission planning in some random fashion," said Wellinghoff, who now serves as CEO of the consulting firm GridPolicy Inc. "It has to be coordinated with and tethered to the overall provisions of the bill and that's where they really failed, and I think they failed miserably in that regard."

Wellinghoff added that he sees "a real disconnect" between Section 212 and the rest of the draft bill. "You can't start at the back end, you've got to start at the front end," he said.

According to Wellinghoff, a successful national transmission plan would first identify green corridors required for the delivery of high-value renewable resources from areas like the windy Midwest and sunny Southeast to more populous load centers on the coasts. Without identifying specific routes, such a plan would detail specific methodologies for siting transmission along those corridors such as using existing or abandoned railroad rights-of-way to install underground high-voltage, direct-current lines, he said.

"You'd do an overall general comprehensive plan, and then you'd let the RTOs ultimately develop the details of what are the actual specific site lines in these corridors," Wellinghoff explained.

As a model to build on, Wellinghoff pointed to the SOO Green Renewable Rail project: a 349-mile underground transmission project under development by Direct Connect Development Co. LLC that will run along the route of an existing railroad, linking Iowa and Illinois. The 2,100-MW, 525-kV high-voltage, direct-current transmission line will run from Mason City, Iowa, to the Chicago metropolitan area, linking the MISO and PJM Interconnection markets.

"Ultimately, Congress has to send a signal by putting very aggressive provisions in the law and revising Section 212 in a way that gives FERC some very specific and strong direction that they want them to, in essence, put together a national plan and make sure that plan gets implemented to ensure that we can have a low-carbon economy," he said.

Section 212 is also modeled after standalone pieces of legislation introduced separately by Rep. Debra Haagan, D-N.M., and Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. Haagan's bill has yet to be referred to a committee, while Heinrich's companion bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.