Public Record Service

Energy and permitting policy, read from the public record.

Register entry No. 0005ReportFR Doc. 2026-13844

DOE releases draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study for comment, 91 FR 42429

The Office of Electricity's 112-page draft, required every three years under Federal Power Act section 216(a), puts load growth at the center of transmission need. Unlike the 2023 study, it publishes no national percentage estimate of future build-out, and its own notices give two different comment deadlines.

Entered by
Public Record Service
Date
Sources
7 cited

Summary

The cover of the document carries the words “Draft for Consultation and Public Comment” and the date July 2026 [2]. The Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity published a notice of availability for the draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study at 91 FR 42429 on July 9, 2026, opening public comment through September 8 [1]. The study is the triennial review of “electric transmission capacity constraints and congestion” required by section 216(a) of the Federal Power Act, as amended by section 40105 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act [1, 2]. Gilbert C. Bindewald III, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity, signed the notice on June 30 under delegated authority [1].

What the record shows

The draft runs 112 pages, with a separate supplemental volume on methods and data [2, 3]. It defines transmission need the way section 216(a)(1)-(2) does: “the existence of present or expected electric transmission capacity constraints or congestion in a geographic area” [2]. DOE says the draft rests on publicly available operational data and a review of more than 120 recently published reports, and that its purpose “is not to prescribe particular solutions” [2].

The executive summary opens by listing five executive orders, among them EO 14262 on grid reliability and EO 14270 on zero-based regulatory budgeting, before turning to data [2]. The findings fall into four groups.

Historical build. Between 2016 and 2024, about 85,000 circuit-miles of new, upgraded or rebuilt lines rated above 69 kV were energized, and from 2016 through 2023 the yearly total ran between 8,700 and 12,500 circuit-miles [2]. Incumbent utilities built 98% of those miles [2]. In the chapter on investment, reliability drove 38% of circuit-miles, aging infrastructure 20%, load growth 17% and generation 13%; congestion and public policy each drove less than 1% [2]. The executive summary rounds the reliability share to “approximately 40%” [2]. Two-thirds of new circuit-miles were at 69 or 138 kV, and 4% were at 500 kV or above [2].

Congestion. Citing Grid Strategies, the draft puts national congestion costs at $11 billion in 2023, down from $21 billion in 2022, when gas prices and Winter Storm Elliott pushed them up [2]. Most of that cost falls in 5% of hours, during periods of day-ahead to real-time price spreads, high net load, cold weather and high intermittent output [2]. A footnote warns that most of the Western Interconnection and parts of the Southeast are “possibly underrepresented” because they lack consolidated market data [2].

Where the value is. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analyzed 65 links using locational marginal prices [2]. Links from ERCOT to neighboring regions showed differentials of $31 to $48 per MWh averaged over 2012 to 2023, and WestConnect-to-SPP links $18 to $33 [2]. The highest within-region values were New York City to the rest of NYISO, at $17 to $18 per MWh, and inside NorthernGrid South, at $15 [2]. For the Southeast, which has no organized market, the draft uses two new methods that both average near $10 per MWh and identify Southern Company to Florida, Duke Energy to PJM, and TVA to MISO South as the highest-value links in 2022 and 2023 [2]. The supplemental volume says the underlying national laboratory study is “forthcoming” and supplies its production cost modeling methods [3].

Future need. Regional plans point to load growth as “the main driver of future transmission need” [2]. The draft cites MISO’s $21.8 billion Tranche 2.1 portfolio with a 765 kV backbone, $7.7 billion in SPP’s 2024 assessment, and Texas’s $33 billion in 765 kV Permian Basin projects [2]. It reports projections of data center demand reaching more than 400 TWh by 2030 in the highest cases and a FERC range of 13 to 55 GW of data center peak growth by 2030 [2]. Across 20 regions, needs are sorted into reliability and resilience, congestion within regions, transfer limits between neighbors, and resource adequacy through interregional transfer [2].

Where does the 2026 Needs Study sit in the process?

Section 216(a)(1) requires the study every three years, in consultation with affected states and Indian tribes [2]. The last one was published in October 2023 [1, 5]. The notice says DOE has given states, Tribes and regional reliability entities a consultation draft and is doing “additional outreach” [1]. DOE’s announcement adds in-person roundtables across the country in the summer of 2026 and an informational webinar already posted [4].

The study feeds a second step. Under section 216(a)(2), the Secretary must issue a report at least every three years that “may designate as a national interest electric transmission corridor” an area facing constraints or congestion that hurts consumers [2]. The draft says DOE will weigh the 2026 results when “issuing any final NIETC designation reports within the statutorily mandated three-year window,” and that corridor status lets DOE and FERC use federal financing and permitting tools [2]. The notice adds that the study will also guide DOE’s use of “other authorities and funding related to electric transmission” [1].

How does the 2026 draft compare with the 2023 study?

The 2023 study, issued after the infrastructure law required DOE to look at expected as well as existing needs, synthesized six capacity expansion studies into national medians for 2035 [5]. It found within-region transmission would need to grow 20% under moderate load and clean energy growth, 64% under high clean energy growth, and 128% under high load growth [5]. For interregional transfer capacity the medians were 25%, 114% and 412% [5].

The 2026 draft takes a different route. Chapter VII draws on two national modeling efforts, NREL’s 2024 Standard Scenarios and DOE’s National Transmission Planning Study, and concludes that “the need is substantial” through 2050 [2]. It gives no national percentage, gigawatt or circuit-mile figure for future need, and the 2023 scenario labels built on clean energy growth do not appear [2, 5]. The chapter ends with a caveat: projections are “rapidly evolving in 2026,” so the modeling studies “may not accurately reflect the current landscape of future energy markets” [2].

The comment period opened July 9 [1]. DOE says it will review comments and fold them into the final study “as appropriate” [4]. The draft states that the final version will be prepared under the information quality provisions of section 515 of Public Law 106-554 [2]. No date for the final study is given.

What the record does not show

One deadline or two. The Federal Register notice says comments are due by midnight EST on September 8 [1]. DOE’s own announcement, released the same day, says September 7 [4]. Neither document addresses the gap.

The consultation draft. The notice says states, Tribes and reliability entities received a consultation draft [1]. That version and any responses to it are not in the public record, so how the public draft differs from it cannot be checked.

A national number. Because the draft gives no aggregate figure for future transmission need, there is no direct way to compare its conclusion with the 2023 medians [2, 5]. Chapter IV also says Chapter VII “provides the current total regional transmission capacity (terawatt-miles)” from the two modeling studies; the two-page Chapter VII in the public draft contains no such figures [2].

Corridors. The draft does not name any area as a candidate corridor, and it gives no date for the next section 216(a)(2) designation report beyond the statutory three-year window [2]. The per-region summary of needs appears only as a figure, with sources in the supplemental volume [2, 3].

Internal figures. The reliability share is 38% in the body and “approximately 40%” in the summary [2]. One passage counts 21 study regions where the executive summary and another passage count 20 [2]. These may be settled in the final version.

The Southeast analysis. The congestion values for the Southeast and Florida come from a laboratory report that had not been published as of July 9 [3].

Positions on the record

The only public statement on the draft so far comes from DOE. Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Catherine Jereza said in the announcement that “Electricity demand is accelerating faster than anything we’ve seen in decades,” and that the study “makes it clear that we must work together with local communities, industry, states, Tribes, and regional reliability entities to meet this moment with clear direction for transmission planning” [4].

The draft frames its audience broadly. It says the study “is not meant to displace” utility and Order No. 1000 regional planning, but suggests planners treat its findings as a basis for scenario studies with longer horizons and for evaluating projects “as part of proposed project portfolios rather than evaluating benefits on an incremental project-by-project basis” [2]. It also suggests states could use the findings in their siting and approval processes [2].

Trade press coverage on July 9 relayed DOE’s findings. The American Public Power Association reported the release and the 60-day comment period, quoting DOE’s statement that the findings “consistently support better transmission planning and investment decisions” [6]. T&D World reported the same findings, including the 5% concentration of congestion hours and MISO’s 2024 portfolio as the largest in U.S. history [7].

DOE had published no comments from utilities, state commissions, Tribes or developers as of July 9; the window runs to September 8 [1].

Reading-room questions

Questions readers bring to this record, answered from the documents cited below.

When are comments due on DOE's draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study?
The Federal Register notice says comments must reach NeedsStudy.Comments@hq.doe.gov by midnight EST on September 8, 2026 [1]. DOE's July 9 announcement gives September 7, so filing by the earlier date avoids the question [4].
Does the 2026 Needs Study designate any National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors?
No. The draft says DOE will consider its results and other information when issuing any final corridor designation reports under FPA section 216(a)(2), but it designates none itself [2].
What does the draft Needs Study say is driving new transmission need?
Load growth. The draft names data centers, domestic manufacturing and large industrial loads, and calls load growth the main driver of future need in regional plans, ahead of aging infrastructure, retirements and new generator interconnections [2, 4].
How is the 2026 draft different from the 2023 Needs Study?
The 2023 study gave median national estimates for 2035, such as a 412% increase in interregional transfer capacity under high load growth [5]. The 2026 draft summarizes two national modeling studies without a comparable national figure and cautions that published models may not reflect current conditions [2].
Which regions does the draft say have the most congestion value?
Links crossing market seams score highest, led by ERCOT's ties to neighbors at $31 to $48 per MWh averaged over 2012 to 2023, then WestConnect to SPP at $18 to $33 [2]. Within regions, New York City to the rest of NYISO and NorthernGrid South rank highest [2].

Note on sourcing

This report draws on the public draft and its supplemental material as posted on July 9; DOE says the final study may change in response to comments. The Federal Register notice sets the comment deadline at midnight EST on September 8, 2026, while DOE's announcement of the same day says September 7; the Federal Register date is used here as the operative one, and DOE had not reconciled the two as of publication. The consultation draft that DOE says it shared with states, Tribes and regional reliability entities has not been made public. DOE had published no comments on the draft as of publication. The Southeast congestion figures rest on a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and National Laboratory of the Rockies study that DOE describes as forthcoming.

Sources

  1. Notice of Availability of Draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study and Request for Comment, 91 FR 42429 (FR Doc. 2026-13844)Federal Register (Department of Energy), July 9, 2026 · federalregister.gov
  2. National Transmission Needs Study, Draft for Consultation and Public CommentU.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, July 9, 2026 · energy.gov
  3. National Transmission Needs Study: Supplemental Material, Draft for Consultation and Public CommentU.S. Department of Energy, Office of Electricity, July 9, 2026 · energy.gov
  4. DOE's Office of Electricity Publishes 2026 Draft National Transmission Needs Study to Strengthen America's GridU.S. Department of Energy, July 9, 2026 · energy.gov
  5. National Transmission Needs Study (final, 2023)U.S. Department of Energy, October 2023 · energy.gov
  6. DOE's Office of Electricity Publishes 2026 Draft National Transmission Needs StudyAmerican Public Power Association, July 9, 2026 · publicpower.org
  7. DOE Study Finds Significant U.S. Transmission Expansion Needed to Meet Growing Electricity DemandT&D World, July 9, 2026 · tdworld.com

Subject headings

Cross-references

Other register entries filed under the same subject headings.

  1. No. 0018 · Record of decision · 2 shared headingsDOE and Montana DEQ issue final EIS for North Plains Connector HVDC line, DOE/EIS-0568
  2. No. 0031 · Floor order · 1 shared headingSenate order sets Nov. 9 cloture vote on motion to proceed to H.R. 2347, the vehicle for a permitting package
  3. No. 0023 · Report · 1 shared headingDOE asks for input on foreign grid-equipment limits under E.O. 14421, 91 FR 57322