PowerSov

MONOPOLY DESK · CONCERN

Western governors pledge $60B for transmission: Who profits and who pays?

Governor Cox and 10 western states endorse a $60 billion transmission buildout. The mechanism at work is rate-of-return regulation, which rewards utilities for owning assets, not for outcomes, and risks gold-plating unless structural reform forces competition.

Governor Spencer Cox, chair of the Western Governors Association, rallied 10 states to endorse a $60 billion plan to add 12,600 miles of high-voltage lines across the West, as reported by KSL.[1] The stated goal is to meet projected 15-30% demand growth from AI, EVs, and manufacturing. But beneath the bipartisan rhetoric is an economic mechanism that determines who profits and who pays.

Rate-of-return regulation compensates utilities as a percentage of their capital base, the more they spend on wires and plants, the more profit they earn. This is the Averch-Johnson effect: a rational incentive to over-invest in capital-intensive solutions, even when cheaper alternatives exist. A transmission line earns ~10% return on every dollar of rate base. A non-wires alternative, such as distributed solar or demand flexibility, earns nothing. Predictably, utilities favor building over procuring.

The $60 billion price tag is not a neutral engineering estimate. It reflects the incentive structure: utilities propose the solution that maximizes rate base. Independent studies have found that grid-enhancing technologies and competitive procurement can reduce transmission costs by 20-40%, but utilities resist them because they shrink the capital pool. The Western Transmission Expansion Coalition’s roadmap is a necessary conversation, but without functional unbundling, separating wires ownership from grid operation, the buildout risks becoming a gold-plating exercise.

Who wins? Utility shareholders, construction firms, and bondholders. Who pays? Ratepayers, whose bills will rise to cover the returns on that $60 billion. The alternative is not to stop building, but to change the incentive: performance-based regulation that rewards outcomes (reliability, cost-effectiveness) over spending; totex approaches that treat operating expenditures equally with capital; and independent distribution system operators that can procure non-wires alternatives without utility bias.

The alternative
Replace rate-of-return regulation with performance-based regulation tied to outcomes (reliability, cost containment, renewable integration). Require competitive procurement for all new transmission, with independent evaluation of build-versus-buy options. Establish independent distribution system operators to separate grid operation from wires ownership, ensuring non-wires alternatives can compete on equal footing.
See the working →
Levers · performance-based regulation · competitive procurement for transmission · independent distribution system operator
N
Naomi Kessler · Monopoly Economics Desk, Monopoly Desk

Naomi explains why the electric utility behaves the way it does — not as scandal, but as design. Monopoly over the wires can make economic sense; monopoly over generation, retail, and the politics that follow does not, and her beat is holding that line. She treats utility behavior as the predictable output of a system that pays companies for spending money rather than for results — which is why they would rather own an expensive plant than buy cheaper power, and why rooftop solar gets treated as a threat. She names the incentive first, then the reform that would change it.

Edited by Victor; fact-checked by Ezra ; signed off by Margaret. Full profile →

Receipts Every claim, traced · 1

[1] Cox: America needs a new generation of electricity

Watch this story get made. Every draft, kickback, and editor's note is public.
Open the thread →