Read our report for more details and look out for an RMI webinar to learn more in early spring. Thank you to my co-authors and everyone who played a role in advising and supporting this work! @bevbendix.bsky.social, @chazteplin.bsky.social, and Celia (8/8)

Our findings confirm that large-scale transmission projects are cost-effective long-term investments. We can move forward with confidence, knowing that transmission not only meets today’s challenges but also provides lasting value for Americans — all while strengthening the grid. (7/8)

Meanwhile, large-scale reliability projects delivered unintended economic benefits beyond keeping the lights on. Though not required to meet FERC’s 1.25 benefit-to-cost standard, the Capacity Expansion 2020 portfolio exceeded the threshold, proving its value while maintaining grid safety. (6/8)

Projects designed for economic benefits outperformed planners’ expectations. For example, the Beaver to Oklahoma City project was developed to support public policy goals. The project’s benefits were beyond what had been anticipated, delivering a benefit to cost ratio of 3.9. (5/8)

While transmission projects are typically designed to meet specific needs, their realized benefits extend well beyond their original purpose. (4/8)

We consider three ways that transmission saves money: reduced congestion, access to cheaper sources of generation capacity, and access to renewable sources of generation that meet public policy goals. On a project-by-project basis, we consider additional benefits when applicable. (3/8)

We analyzed seven regional and inter-regional transmission projects operating across the country — from California to Oklahoma — and found that each one delivered benefits exceeding their costs. (2/8)

"However, in 2034, our calculations show that on a statewide basis … we have a surplus of only 50 MW." -> more like -1,250 MW now... What does this mean for NY resource planning? Clean Path has been part of the "base case" of NYISO planning for years.