browse Browse

pac.dog pac.dog / CRS reports

R47627 — Electricity Transmission Permitting Reform: Issues and Legislative Proposals

Reports · published 2026-04-27 · v12 · Active · crsreports.congress.gov ↗

Read
HTML · PDF
Authors
Ashley J. Lawson · Ashley J. Lawson
Report id
R47627
Summary

Permitting reform for energy infrastructure continues to be a topic of interest in Congress. Some Members of Congress are particularly interested in the processes for planning, siting, approving, and paying for electricity transmission lines (referred to as transmission permitting in this report). Proponents of transmission permitting reform generally identify two main desired outcomes: (1) increased use of wind and solar energy and (2) improved electric reliability and resilience. Debate has focused on perceived hurdles to the development of large interstate electricity transmission lines, which are broadly viewed as being supportive of these two desired outcomes. One perceived hurdle is the process for siting electricity transmission lines (i.e., approving their route and authorizing construction). Currently, most electricity transmission siting authority resides in the states. A transmission line crossing state lines may require approvals from multiple state governments along the line’s path. Critics argue that the current framework adds time to the transmission development process and can allow a single state to block a transmission project that is supported by neighboring jurisdictions. In 2005, Congress gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), limited authority to site some transmission lines under certain circumstances, but this authority was never used. Congress amended FERC’s siting authority in 2021. DOE and FERC have taken steps to implement this revised authority, but the process remains unfinalized. Some transmission permitting reform proponents would further amend this authority, for example, by granting siting authority for all large interstate transmission lines to FERC. Debate centers around the appropriate roles of federal and state governments over electricity transmission line siting. Some would have the federal government take a larger role, while others would preserve the status quo. A second perceived hurdle is the allocation of electricity transmission line costs to consumers. A central tenet for electricity regulators is that the beneficiaries of new electricity infrastructure should pay for that infrastructure (sometimes referred to as the cost causation principle). Under current practice, transmission beneficiaries are typically identified using easily quantified factors such as delivery of lower-cost electricity to a particular utility service territory. Costs for transmission development are allocated exclusively to these identified beneficiaries. Some transmission permitting reform proponents would additionally consider benefits that may be difficult to quantify, such as resilience. A key point of debate is the appropriate balance of costs and benefits for consumers. Some believe that identifying a broader set of benefits and beneficiaries would encourage development of beneficial transmission lines that might not be identified using current cost allocation practices. Others believe that changing cost allocation practices could increase costs for consumers without providing direct benefits. A third perceived hurdle is the planning process for multistate electricity transmission lines. Since 2011, FERC has required some planning within transmission planning regions as well as coordination between regions. Some stakeholders believe FERC requirements have been ineffective at encouraging large interstate electricity transmission lines. Some transmission permitting reform proponents would strengthen requirements for interregional transmission planning and infrastructure development. Some proposals would additionally require minimum levels of interregional transfer capacity to allow larger electricity transfers between regions. Key points of debate are costs and benefits for consumers and the appropriate roles of federal versus state and local governments in determining electricity transmission needs. Some believe a stronger federal policy supporting interregional electricity transmission could potentially lower costs for consumers and improve reliability and resilience. Others believe the current process sufficiently identifies benefits for consumers and allows state regulators greater say in transmission development. This report lists and summarizes bills in the 119th Congress addressing these and other aspects of electricity transmission development and regulation. An appendix compares selected proposals from the 118th Congress.

Bills cited (21)

Curated by CRS — every bill listed in this report's relatedMaterials. Edge type cited_in_report, gold confidence.

pac.dog is a free, independent, non-partisan research tool. Every candidate, committee, bill, vote, member, and nonprofit on this site is mirrored from primary U.S. government sources (FEC, congress.gov, govinfo.gov, IRS) and each state's Secretary of State / election commission — no third-party data vendors, no paywall, no editorial intermediation. Citations to the originating source are on every detail page.