Christopher Hailstone has spent decades at the intersection of energy management and grid security. As a seasoned expert in electricity delivery and renewable integration, his perspective on how we move power across state lines is invaluable in an era of shifting regulatory landscapes. Today, he shares his insights on the landmark Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision regarding transmission cost recovery between the Midcontinent Independent System Operator and the PJM Interconnection. The conversation explores the technical and economic complexities of building a massive 765-kV backbone across the Midwest, the debate over competitive bidding for high-stakes infrastructure, and the necessity of interregional connectivity to ensure a resilient energy future.
When a grid operator requires infrastructure in a neighboring territory to support a 765-kV backbone, how does that change the traditional approach to cost recovery and regional planning?
This situation fundamentally challenges the traditional “not in my backyard” mindset of utility planning by forcing us to look at the grid as a single, interconnected organism rather than a collection of separate silos. When MISO approved its Tranche 2.1 plan in late 2024, it wasn’t just a local upgrade; it was the birth of a 765-kV backbone designed to stabilize the entire Midwest region. Because this high-voltage line physically needs to cross into PJM’s territory, we saw FERC step in on August 14, 2026, to approve a cost allocation framework that finally addresses these border-crossing complexities. We are seeing a massive commitment here, with Exelon’s Commonwealth Edison slated to build nearly $904 million in projects to support this vision. It takes the abstract concept of interregional cooperation and turns it into concrete, steel, and high-tension wire that keeps the lights on for millions of people across state lines.
There has been significant pushback from coalitions arguing for competitive bidding for these projects; why is the decision to bypass that process for the ComEd and Duke Ohio segments so pivotal?
The tension between price competition and the sheer urgency of grid reliability has never been more palpable than it is right now. Groups like the Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition argued that opening these projects to a bidding process would save money, but the reality is that MISO simply doesn’t have the legal authority to run a competitive selection process inside PJM’s footprint. FERC recognized this jurisdictional hurdle and prioritized the execution of the project over a protracted bidding war that could have stalled construction for several years. For the $5.3 million in projects assigned to Duke Ohio, and the much larger ComEd portion, this decision ensures that we do not let administrative red tape jeopardize our fundamental infrastructure. When you are standing in a substation hearing the deep, constant hum of transformers, you realize that a delay of even six months can be the difference between a resilient summer and a season of rolling brownouts.
Why is the interregional aspect of transmission becoming such a central focus for commissioners, and what specific benefits does a project like this offer beyond simple power delivery?
We are moving toward a period where transmission planners make interregional connectivity a more regular and intentional feature of their work rather than a last-ditch effort during a crisis. As Commissioners Judy Chang and David Rosner pointed out, these facilities are designed to slash congestion costs and make resource integration far more efficient across the board. By linking MISO and PJM more tightly, we are essentially building a safety net that can mitigate the devastating impacts of extreme weather events that have become all too common in the Midwest. The ability to shift power seamlessly across these borders allows us to speed up the connection of new demand and all types of energy resources that our modern economy craves. It is about the peace of mind that comes from knowing the grid has the flexibility to handle a sudden surge in demand without breaking a sweat.
What is your forecast for interregional transmission development?
I expect we will see a rapid acceleration in these types of cross-border agreements as more operators realize that isolation is no longer a viable strategy for grid reliability. We will likely see more expansive plans that do not just stop at a utility’s edge but proactively seek out the most cost-effective solutions in neighboring footprints. The $904 million investment we are discussing today is just the beginning; the next few years will be defined by a massive build-out of high-capacity lines that unify our national energy landscape. For the readers, this means a more robust and secure energy future where the source of your power might be hundreds of miles away, but the delivery is more reliable than it has ever been in the history of the American grid.
