Build Transmission Along Highways

  Issue Briefing  

Learn (just enough) about this no-brainer solution to do something about it.

Clear Ask to Policymakers:

States should make it easier to build new transmission lines along highways.

THE PROBLEM
We’re not expanding the U.S. power grid fast enough.

“The grid” is the network of power lines that criss-cross the country, delivering electricity from where it’s generated to where it’s needed. High-voltage transmission lines are the backbone of the power grid, efficiently transmitting large amounts of electricity across long distances.

We urgently need more transmission to:

  • 🚦 Bring new clean energy projects online.

  • 🌡️ Keep electricity reliable during extreme weather.

  • 📈 Keep electricity affordable as demand rises.

How urgent is urgent? Experts say grid capacity should expand 57% by 2035 and at least 200% by 2050. Yet, over the last decade, growth has averaged just 1% per year. 

A key reason we’re not building transmission fast enough is that the process is complicated, often contentious, and can take a decade or more. We cannot continue to delay urgently needed infrastructure—we need to accelerate the energy transition.

A SOLUTION
Let’s build transmission lines along highways.

One powerful, streamlined way to accelerate grid buildout is to site new transmission lines along existing highways — a strategy known as co-location, where infrastructure shares a common corridor. One state is already doing this, some states have introduced legislation, and some don’t have anything in the works (yet!). A state-by-state breakdown is below.

This approach is already working in practice!

Enter: Wisconsin’s Badger Coulee Transmission Line. By running along an existing highway corridor, this 180-mile transmission line avoided 300–400 land use agreements (or “easements”) with private landowners, and it was completed in 8 years, compared to the 10-20+ years it takes to develop other major transmission lines. 

If co-location is a total no-brainer… 

  • ✅ Build faster by using land that’s already in public use.

  • ✅ Avoid property rights disputes and NIMBY opposition, since fewer private landowners are affected.

  • ✅ Streamline permitting, because fewer agencies and approvals are involved.

  • ✅ Limit environmental and cultural impacts by avoiding untouched or sensitive areas.

  • ✅ Build 1:1 where transmission is needed most—and interstate highways are already there.

…how do we make this a reality? 

Many states still have explicit prohibitions against utility infrastructure along highways. Others face institutional inertia or lack coordination between agencies. To overcome these barriers, state legislators need to pass laws that: 

  1. ⛓️‍💥 Lift prohibitions within the Department of Transportation (DOT) so transmission lines are allowed along highways.

  2. 🤝 Direct DOT to team up with developers and regulators to create a clear permitting process, so developers can actually get approvals and states can create an enabling environment for the transmission buildout we urgently need.

For a deep deep dive into these barriers, jump to the ‘Why isn’t everyone doing this?’ section.

There are many shades of grey around co-location laws; the details and roadblocks vary widely across states (jump to this section to dive into why), but one crystal clear fact: only Wisconsin has successfully built a major transmission line along an interstate highway! Which means: there’s a lot each of us can do to make this powerful solution happen in our own states.

👇 Use this embedded tool to see if your state has transmission-related legislation:

What’s happening in your state (below!) informs how to tailor your outreach with a “clear ask” to each of your policymakers.

OUR ROLE
What can we do about it?

As constituents, our job is to:

  1. Put no-brainer solutions (like building transmission lines along highways) on the radar of our elected officials.

  2. If there is active legislation in our state, enthusiastically support it (find out below).

  3. Always make clear that we expect a clean, reliable power grid.

  • Passing and implementing legislation takes years. So, how do we start moving the needle?

    • Get helpful resources circulating among elected officials

    • Secure co-sponsorships or votes on  legislation

    • Get the various stakeholders (legislators, DOTs, PUCs, utility companies) to get in touch with one another on the topic.  

    • Connect enthusiastic lawmakers with experts. 

    • Follow up to get real answers (Circling back! Bumping to the top of your inbox!). A friendly nudge applies pressure to hold them accountable, and the answer helps us better understand our state’s policy landscapes and become ever more productive advocates.

STOP! You know enough to take meaningful action.

Curious and want to learn more? Cool, scroll on!

Quick links to navigate this Issue Briefing (or just keep scrolling!)

(Above) Overview & State-specific | Talking points  | Co-location benefits | Barriers | Transmission 101 | Reasons to expand | Other reforms | Policymaker resources | Learn more

Top Talking Points

Choose the framing that resonates best with your policymaker. Learn more about meeting your rep where they are here.

“Building transmission lines along highways would…”

For climate obstructionists:

  • 📈 Keep power reliable and avoid rolling blackouts, because more transmission capacity lets us scale up supply to meet demand.  

  • 🌎 Keep America’s economy competitive, as data centers for AI and cloud computing drive up demand for new electricity. While other world powers move quickly, we can’t afford to bottleneck innovation.

  • 🏠 Avoid infringing on private property rights, because they would be built on land owned by the state. No more land easements or eminent domain fights. 

  • ✂️ Reduce red tape, because developers get permits from a single state agency (the Department of Transportation), rather than a patchwork of federal, state, and local governments.

For climate champions:

  • 🍾 Unblock clean energy, because right now, lack of transmission capacity is one of the biggest bottlenecks to bringing more renewable energy online. 

  • 🚧 Avoid building new infrastructure through historically overburdened communities or environmentally sensitive areas.

  • 🌩️ Keep power reliable, as climate change-fueled extreme weather events put more stress on the grid.

  • Help us electrify our vehicles, homes, and heavy industry, because we need more transmission in order to scale up supply to meet demand.

Two states leading the way…

Wisconsin offers a policy pathway to replicate:

In 2003, the Wisconsin State Legislature passed Act 89 with three key components:

✅ Lifted the ban on transmission co-location

✅ Explicitly affirmed that the state’s new policy is to site transmission lines along existing infrastructure corridors over new “greenfield” development.

✅ Directed the relevant state agencies to develop a permitting process.  

A few years later, the Department of Transportation (WisDOT) and the Public Service Commission (PSCW) signed a “cooperative agreement” – a set of ground rules for how the two agencies would plan, coordinate, and resolve differences when siting and permitting transmission lines. This agreement created trust and a strong working relationship, and it's a big reason why Act 89 has been so successful.

Minnesota shows there’s momentum today:

Last year in Minnesota, the state legislature passed a bundle of climate policies that included lifting the ban on co-locating transmission lines along highways. Polling showed the idea is overwhelmingly popular with voters (77% support, 4% oppose), and the policy got bipartisan support from state legislators in the committee process. 

Minnesota’s co-location win is being celebrated in clean energy circles as a rare and visionary step, and other states are watching closely. Indeed, there’s active legislation introduced in IL, CO, and IA – with support from both sides of the aisle – , and several other states are considering doing the same.

Co-location = scaling & streamlining

👉 The “ideal” transmission system is a near-perfect match with existing interstate highways!

In 2016, through a nationwide analysis and modeling, National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL)  mapped out where new transmission lines are most needed to keep power affordable and reliable and to bring renewable energy online. Those are the black lines below. 

Here’s the cool part: Notice how NREL’s map is nearly a 1:1 to match with existing interstate highways (blue lines). That means if we built transmission lines along interstate highways, we would create NREL’s ideal grid. With just these co-located transmission lines,the  grid could support an energy mix of85% renewable energy.

Source: NGI consulting

Streamlined process.

A key reason we’re not building transmission fast enough is that developers (usually utility companies) have to go through a siting and permitting process that is complicated and often contentious. Siting refers to selecting a route for the transmission line and negotiating with private landowners. Permitting involves obtaining approvals from various local, state, and federal agencies. In many cases, this siting and permitting process involves over a dozen government agencies, several hundred private landowners, and can take a decade or more. 

Co-location dramatically simplifies the siting and permitting process in the following ways:

  • The land around highways is public land, owned and managed by state Departments of Transportation (DOTs). This allows transmission developers to work with just one land owner, instead of the typical patchwork of private citizens, county governments, multiple federal agencies, and more. 

    For each private landowner, of which there are often hundreds, developers need to negotiate land writes through land easements - or payment for use of their land. If necessary, the state occasionally steps in and invokes eminent domain to acquire the land on behalf of the developers. .

    When it comes to government-owned land, each municipality or agency has a different permitting process and requires different environmental reviews, sometimes with lengthy public hearing processes in addition to the public hearing process carried out by the state to authorize  the final route for the transmission line.

  • In addition to working with fewer government agencies, co-location streamlines the permitting process because the existing  highway already disturbs the natural ecosystems and cultural resources, which means that new transmission lines might qualify for “categorical exclusions” from federal and state environmental review permits. Since the land is owned by the state, transmission developers also don’t need to get land-use permits from local governments.

  • Every permit and land easement opens the door for impassioned citizens to shut down the entire transmission line. NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”)opponents can sue the developer or the government agency who issued the permit, pass ballot measures blocking construction (see Maine, for example), or delay the process through disruptions in public hearings.

    Siting a transmission line along a highway is far less contentious, because it doesn’t require development on new land, it doesn’t impact as much private property, and there are simply fewer players involved. Public input is still encouraged and thoughtfully considered in public hearings, but they’re usually conducted by the state government, and in a way that holistically balances the costs and benefits of the project overall, rather than the costs and benefits for a specific landowner or town.

Curious to learn more about transmission siting and permitting? Check out these reports from Americans for a Clean Energy Grid and the National Council on Electricity Policy.

Why Isn’t Everyone Doing This?

If siting transmission lines along highways is such a win, then why aren’t more states doing it? The answer is a frustrating mix of outdated policies, cultural inertia, operational gaps, and yes, some legitimate (though easily addressable) concerns.

  • Until 1989, the federal government prohibited utility infrastructure — including transmission lines — from being sited along interstate highways. During that time, many state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) adopted matching restrictions, because as the legal owners of highways, they were tasked with maintaining them according to federal standards

    Today, although the federal ban has been lifted and the U.S. DOT now encourages transmission co-location, many state DOTs still maintain explicit bans or internal policies that discourage it. Instead, state DOTs must evolve from an “ownership” mindset to a stewardship mindset, where they see these land corridors as more than just their roadways, but rather as multi-use infrastructure corridors that serve 21st-century needs. Unfortunately, given administrative inertia, state DOTs have been resistant to make this shift voluntarily. Instead, legislation is needed. 

  • The state DOT’s core mission is to ensure the safety and reliability of our nation’s roadways. Co-locating transmission lines raises a number of understandable concerns, but each can be addressed through basic planning and engineering. 

    • What if we need to add a new exit, but a transmission line is blocking the route? Share your expansion plans with the transmission developers during the planning stages. 

    • What if a semi-truck accidentally drives into a transmission tower? Specify that transmission towers be set back from the roadway. 

    • Could the power lines create enough charge to electrocute someone? Properly ground any metal infrastructure (i.e. bridges) – or just don’t build transmission lines near them. 

    These solutions exist and are already being deployed in Wisconsin, but they require trust, communication, and formalized protocols to scale across the country.

  • Even in states where the Department of Transportation is open to siting transmission lines along highways, one final barrier often remains: DOTs typically lack the internal capacity to site and permit transmission projects. Their staff doesn’t have expertise in transmission lines, they’re not used to hiring for that expertise, they don’t have a process for coordinating with other government agencies, etc. 

    In these cases, what’s missing is  the infrastructure of implementation. That’s why legislative action matters: a clear directive from the state legislature can require DOTs to create permitting pathways and develop the guidance needed to make co-location a real option for developers.

    For example, Wisconsin established permitting processes across jurisdictional lines at the direction of the legislature, enabled by a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation.

Transmission 101

Image sources: NEED.org Electricity (2023); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Federal Energy regulatory Commission (FERC)

  • Transmission refers to the long-distance, high-voltage power lines that form the backbone of the U.S. electricity grid. These lines carry electricity from where it's generated (like a wind farm in Wyoming or a hydro dam in Washington) to where it's used (like towns and cities). 

    Think of transmission like the interstate highway system for electricity — moving power efficiently across long distances. Transmission lines operate at high voltages (usually 230kV and above) to reduce losses during long-distance travel. The electricity then gets “stepped down” to lower voltages by substations, before reaching homes and businesses via local “distribution” lines

  • “The grid” is actually three  major “interconnections” — massive grid networks that are only minimally connected to each other:

    1. Eastern Interconnection – east of the Rockies

    2. Western Interconnection – most western states

    3. Texas Interconnection (ERCOT) – operates mostly independently within the state of Texas

    Within each of these three grids, power is managed by Independent System Operators (ISOs) or Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). These entities oversee regional electricity markets and are responsible for planning new transmission lines within their territory. Some parts of the grid are not part of an ISO or RTO, and in those areas, power is managed by the utilities directly. Learn more about regional power markets here.

    There are 7 ISO/RTOs in the U.S., including:

    1. MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator)

    2. PJM (Mid-Atlantic)

    3. CAISO (California)

    4. NYISO (New York)

    5. ISO-NE (New England)

    6. SPP (Southwest Power Pool)

    7. ERCOT (Texas)

What’s wrong with our current grid? 

There’s a growing mismatch between the 21st century demands on our grid and what it can actually deliver.

  • From the 2000s through the 2010s, it looked like America’s demand for electricity had peaked. But starting in 2021, demand began to tick up, and it’s projected to increase by 50% in the next 25 years. This trend is driven by the electrification of vehicles and buildings, which shifts heating, cooking, and transportation away from fossil fuels and onto electricity, and by rapid growth in data centers, particularly for AI and cloud computing. Ultimately, the power grid is limited by physics: We simply can’t move enough electricity from Point A to Point B on our current grid. We need more transmission lines to meet rising demand.

  • Climate change makes extreme weather events more frequent and more intense. From hurricanes to heat waves to winter freezes to wildfires, extreme weather events mean that people demand more energy (i.e. turning on the air conditioner during a heat wave), while the power plants and transmission lines simultaneously under-perform in the less-than-ideal conditions (i.e. a cold snap knocks out gas plants). Together, unusually high demand and unusually low output mean more rolling blackouts and expensive energy bills if affected regions can’t import electricity. We need more transmission lines to create the redundancy that keeps power reliable.

  • The clean energy transition is underway, but renewable energy sources like wind and solar farms or hydroelectric dams are often located far from the cities and industrial areas that use the most electricity. Without the long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines to connect these energy generation sources to the grid and to export the energy to the regions of the grid that need it most, we can’t bring the projects online. Indeed, transmission constraints are a top reason why new clean energy projects aren’t getting built faster. Developers across the country have already secured land, financing, and permits — but are stuck in what’s called “the interconnection queue,” waiting for permission to connect to the grid. There are 2,000 gigawatts of generation and storage in the queue — the same capacity as the entire U.S. gridtoday – which you can visualize here: interconnection.fyi.

    In fact,  slow grid build-out is one of the biggest threats to meeting national and state-level climate targets. Modeling by Princeton’s REPEAT Project has shown that the full benefits of recent federal climate legislation (like the Inflation Reduction Act) depend on expanding transmission capacity by at least 2.3% per year. Yet in the last decade, growth has averaged just 1% per year.

  • Just like highways for cars, transmission lines can get congested – i.e. they’re transmitting as much electricity as they can each second, and they can’t transmit any more. This pushes consumer prices up, as utilities in many markets pass on transmission congestion charges — fees associated with navigating crowded parts of the grid

    Moreover, there are relatively few transmission lines that connect the regions of the grid. When those lines are congested, it means one region with higher-than-normal demand won’t be able to import enough power. When this happens – even for a couple of hours on a hot summer afternoon, for example – rid operators fire up  older,  less efficient, and usually fossil fuel-based backup generators. On the flip side, many regions have periods of the day where they generate more power than they need, often via cheap renewables. If the transmission lines are too congested, they can’t export this cheap, clean power, and grid operators are forced to turn off (or ‘curtail’) those solar farms, wind farms, etc. When consumers are forced to buy dirty, expensive power and are blocked from clean, cheap power, prices go up and lack of transmission capacity is to blame.

A smart start, not the whole solution.

There will always be instances in which co-location just isn’t practical — maybe the route is too indirect, or there are no highways that run from a generation source to a population center. Even if every state started building new transmission lines along highways tomorrow, we’d still need deeper reforms.

  • Siting transmission lines along highways is a no-brainer, but it’s not a standalone fix. There will always be instances in which co-location just isn’t practical — maybe the route is too indirect, or there are no highways that run from a generation source to a population center. Even if every state started building new transmission lines along highways tomorrow, we’d still need deeper reforms. 

  • Better planning, both within regions of the grid and between regions of the grid. Right now, most regions score very poorly on the ambition and coordination of their planning processes. Most only analyze electricity demand within the next few years (despite the fact that transmission lines take decades to build), and they only consider the transmission needs within their region – or sometimes only a specific utility company’s service area. Instead, planning should be conducted across a much longer time horizon and with consideration given to the transmission needs between regions. In 2024, the federal government issued a series of planning best practices that address many of these concerns, and gave the regional grid operators until June 2025 to implement them. These regulations, called FERC Order 1920, go a long way, but its future is uncertain and compliance isn’t a given.

  • Clearer expectations for who should pay. Another reason transmission projects stall — especially large, multi-state ones — is because stakeholders can’t agree on how to allocate costs. Utility companies and state governments within the region are expected to contribute funds according to the benefit they receive. This arrangement makes sense, but benefits are surprisingly hard to quantify. Consider a hypothetical transmission line that runs from rural Nevada where lots of solar is generated to the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area where lots of data centers consume power. Washington state should definitely contribute to the construction costs, since the end users of the electricity live there. But neighboring states are also benefitting from the new transmission line, because the expanded grid in their region makes power cheaper and more reliable. So how much should they pay? There needs to be a federally-established “best practice” to give states a blueprint, which FERC Order 1920 also does, but it hasn’t gone into effect yet, and its future remains uncertain.

  • Most of the poles and wires that comprise our grid were built in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, and those that were built more recently usually use the same technology. We are running ChatGPT on a grid that was built before fax machines were mainstream. Policymakers need to promote the adoption of new technologies, like “reconductoring,” where old lines are simply swapped for new, high-capacity conductors that can carry up to 3x the electricity. We also need to promote the adoption of “Grid-enhancing technologies (GETs),” like sensors and software that monitor line health and optimize how much power flows through the system in real time.

Elected leaders need to see case studies, data, and other technical information to draft smart policies for their states.

As constituents, we can hand them some of that useful information!

You made it to the end and are more than equipped to take action!