A Study Funded by National Grid Puts Transmission Savings at $15.3 Billion Through 2050
- Analysis Capacity & Wholesale Markets Policy & Markets
Marin Holt
- 0
- 7 minutes read
- Maximum customer savings: $15.3 billion through 2050
- Base case net present value: $12.4 billion
- PJM share, base demand case: $6.7 billion
- High-value projects modeled: 12
- Benefit to cost ratio, unconstrained base case: 1.77
A new study puts customer savings from targeted transmission construction across the Eastern Interconnection at up to $15.3 billion through 2050. CERA Consulting, the consulting arm of S&P Global, wrote it. National Grid, the Electricity Customer Alliance and Converge Strategies paid for it. The sponsors released it on 1 September 2026. It covers the Northeast, PJM, the Southeast, MISO South and the Southwest Power Pool.
The Data
The $15.3 billion headline is the high end. In the unconstrained base demand case, the study reports $12.4 billion of net present value at a 1.77 benefit to cost ratio. It names 12 high-value transmission projects in that case and 13 in the high-demand case.
PJM takes the largest regional share at $6.7 billion in benefits over 40 years. SPP and MISO South follow at $1.9 billion each. The Southeast gets $851 million and the Northeast $393 million. Across the system, the study reports a return of up to $1.89 for every dollar invested.
The demand case behind those numbers is large. The study models 374 TWh of new demand and 45 GW of new peak load by 2035. Data centers, manufacturing and electrification drive the growth. Half of it lands in two regions, PJM and ERCOT.
What It Means
Interregional lines carry the value. The study finds savings two to three times higher when interregional projects sit alongside regional ones than when regions build alone. That finding argues against the way transmission actually gets planned. Regional planners answer to regional stakeholders. No single region wants to pay for a line whose benefits land next door.
The Gap
The coverage reports two different PJM numbers and defines neither. One account gives PJM $6.7 billion in benefits over 40 years. Another gives PJM $9.8 billion of net present value at a 2.1 benefit to cost ratio. Both trace to the same report. Benefits and net present value are not the same measure, so the two figures need not conflict. Neither account says which it used, and PJM is the region carrying the argument.
The funding goes unaddressed as well. National Grid owns transmission assets and earns a regulated return on the transmission it builds. A study that finds transmission underbuilt pays its sponsor. That does not make the modeling wrong. It does mean the scenario choices, and the demand forecast above all, deserve scrutiny that an independent study would not need.
Why It Matters
Affordability now drives electricity politics, and both sides claim it. Transmission owners argue that more wires lower bills. Opponents argue that transmission spending is what raises them. This study answers with a 40-year net present value. That is not what a ratepayer reads on a monthly bill. The near-term rate effect of building 12 projects goes unstated, and that is the number the argument will turn on.
Critical Perspective
Half the modeled growth sits partly outside the grid that was studied. The study covers the Eastern Interconnection, namely the Northeast, PJM, the Southeast, MISO South and SPP. The demand case then puts half the growth in PJM and ERCOT. ERCOT belongs to the Texas Interconnection and is not one of the studied regions. A reader is left to work out how much of the 374 TWh the modeled projects could actually serve.
The sponsors also own the answer. National Grid earns a regulated return on the transmission it builds, and the Electricity Customer Alliance argues for transmission expansion. A study they paid for finds transmission underbuilt in every scenario. The modeling might still be sound. But a result that never turns against its sponsor tells a reader little about where the real uncertainty sits.
The affordability claim rests on a discount rate, not on a bill. The savings are net present value through 2050, and PJM’s share is counted as benefits over 40 years. Ratepayers judge monthly bills. Transmission enters rates as it is built, while the benefits arrive across decades. The coverage gives no capital cost for the 12 projects and no near-term rate path, which is the half of the ledger this argument turns on.
