Power lines in a snow-covered forest. (shutterstock/travelarium.ph)

A Grid Bigger Than the Weather 

Share this link on Facebook

Share this page on X (Twitter)

Share this link on LinkedIn

Share this page on Reddit

Email a link to this page

Extreme weather shows that the reliability and affordability of electricity and national security remain at risk without stronger interregional transmission.

For years, leaders across the US power sector have called for a grid that’s “bigger than the weather.” In late 2024, the North American Reliability Corporation (NERC)—the nation’s grid reliability watchdog—joined the chorus, highlighting that a lack of transmission capacity between grid regions threatens reliability, especially during extreme weather conditions. Reliability, however, is more than just a technical benchmark of grid performance. It is also a measure of whether customers are truly getting the quality of service they’re paying for. Millions of Americans lost power during the recent Winter Storm Fern, and tens of thousands remain in the dark after more than a week. The next shock for these customers may come in the form of their power bill later this year.  

Transmission Is the Difference Between Price Stability and Crisis 

January’s winter storm underscores the critical role transmission plays during grid emergencies—both in maintaining reliability and shielding customers from the price shocks that accompany severe weather.  Over the first storm weekend, strong winds in Kansas and Oklahoma drove power prices sharply lower while neighboring Midwestern states faced sky-high prices because they did not have access to these cheap resources. At 8:20 a.m. on Saturday, January 24, real-time electricity prices in Nebraska—typically averaging $30-50 per megawatt-hour (mWh) annually—spiked to about $108 per megawatt-hour (mWh). Nearby Missouri saw prices skyrocket to nearly $2,000/mWh. Affordable power was available just across the border, but insufficient transmission capacity prevented it from reaching the customers who needed it most at a time when electricity was essential for survival.  

Winter Storm Fern is part of a concerning trend in the energy sector. In 2021, Winter Storm Uri triggered widespread blackouts for Texas families, communities, businesses, and even military installations. Just one year later, thousands of homes in Tennessee and Kentucky lost power during Winter Storm Elliott on Christmas Eve. This is all preventable. In each case, the problem was not necessarily a lack of generation, but a failure to move electricity to where it was urgently needed.   

Grid Reliability Is a National Security Imperative 

This problem extends far beyond homes and businesses. The hidden costs of grid disruptions are not fully captured by outage statistics and utility bills—they also manifest as threats to our national security. As the former Senior Director of System Resilience at our nation’s largest grid operator, PJM, and as a 24-year Army veteran, I’m acutely aware of the risk that lack of grid reliability poses to our national security. Over the last half-century, the US military has become increasingly dependent on domestic installations tied to the commercial power grid to support force projection and combat operations overseas. Over 98 percent of the nation’s domestic military installations rely on the bulk power system. During Uri, 12 of 15 critical military installations in the state of Texas lost power, along with over 4.5 million people, according to the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.   

“Each additional gigawatt of transmission connecting the Texas grid (ERCOT) and the Southeast could have saved nearly $1 billion while keeping the heat on for hundreds of thousands of families.” The Midwest and Great Plains regions weathered that same storm with far fewer outages precisely because they had more robust transmission ties to neighboring regions—importing over 13,000 megawatts (MW) of power when they needed it most. Texas, by contrast, could only import about 800 MW. The difference was catastrophic. The combined impacts on civilians, business, and the military are unacceptable—and entirely preventable.  

Winter Storm Elliott was a similar story. A single gigawatt (GW) of additional transmission capacity between Texas and the Tennessee Valley Authority would have provided nearly $95 million in value over just five days. One GW of additional transmission from the mid-Atlantic into the Carolinas—where families experienced Christmas Eve blackouts—could have delivered over $80 million in value by helping keep the lights on. Across the board, modest investments in interregional transmission would have yielded tens of millions of dollars in savings during that single storm.  

The Case for Interregional Transmission Is Financial and Strategic 

The value of interregional transmission during extreme weather is twofold. 

First, it improves reliability, making it far more likely that customers’ lights and heating stay on during dangerous conditions. 

Second, it lowers costs—both immediately during emergencies and over the long term as overall electricity demand continues to grow. These benefits combine to address the energy security risks that affect the United States from the home front to the battlefield, and time is of the essence.  

In Texas, ratepayers are still paying off $2.1 billion in costs from Winter Storm Uri—and they will continue to do so for decades. By contrast, every dollar invested in an interregional transmission line in the southeast would have bought customers about $1.56 in benefits during Winter Storm Elliott alone. NERC has identified the need for an additional 35 GW of transmission capacity to keep the lights on. And with updated load growth forecasts, even this estimate is likely conservative. These transmission lines will pay for themselves, both financially and in lives saved.  

Federal leadership is essential to make this happen. Today, the average transmission line takes between seven and 10 years to permit. And that’s just the average—in extreme cases, lines can take as long as 17 years to overcome permitting challenges. Comprehensive permitting reform, including a requirement that grid operators plan and build more interregional transmission, is critical to keeping the lights on and sustaining economic growth.  

With families already facing higher energy bills, every transmission project deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny is healthy, given the scale of investment required and the fact that many costs are ultimately borne by utility customers. But the fundamental question for customers is unavoidable: how much is electricity worth if it cannot be guaranteed when the weather is bad and you need it most?  

The economic signals are clear, and weather patterns are not improving. Every winter storm, summer heat wave, and extreme weather event reinforces the same conclusions: a more connected grid is essential for delivering affordable, resilient power and meeting the nation’s national security needs. Federal, regional, and state leaders all have important roles to play, and now is the time to act. 

About the Author: Jonathon Monken

Jonathon Monken is a senior partner at Converge Strategies, a consulting company focused on the intersection of energy resilience and national security, where he advises senior executives and public leaders on strengthening energy resilience and mitigating risk. Jon’s approach to measuring risk, developing strategies, executing exercises, and building incident playbooks is grounded in Jonathon Monken’s 20+ years of experience in national security, public safety, emergency management, military readiness, and critical infrastructure protection. 

Jon holds an MBA from Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management and a Bachelor of Science from the United States Military Academy. 

© The National Interest