Planning and Implementing An Extra-High Voltage (EHV) Electric Transmission Grid on a national scale are paramount if we are to transform our energy future. But what is our energy future? Renewables? Nuclear? Clean coal? Demand response? Energy efficiency? Distributed generation? It's all of the above.

Can we wait for all the answers to build the grid we need? Did President Eisenhower wait to determine where communities and industries would grow before he launched our interstate highway system? We must take action now to build the interstate EHV grid for two reasons: it takes such a long time to site and build transmission, and we are struggling today to contend with our grandfathers' grid.

Some say wait until we know what our energy future will be. I say planning is more art than science. Good planners know you cannot measure mud puddles (our evolving future) with micrometers. There really is low risk of over-building transmission given the length of time it takes to move from concept to setting tower foundations. Let's review some of the things we know about our energy future, or at least things I consider probable.

• Supply: 1) Renewables will grow substantially with wind potential in the heartland and off-shore, and solar potential in the Southwest and on rooftops; 2) Nuclear will take time, but it will occur; 3) Gas will be a player; 4) Older plants will retire; 5) Coal will maintain a substantial position in the energy equation, especially in anticipation of cleaner technologies; 6) Demand response and energy storage will take time.

• Demand: 1) Population will increase; 2) The U.S. economy will grow again with disposable income rising; 3) Energy efficiency will make a good dent, but it is not the panacea — the advent of light beer only caused more beer to be consumed; 4) Transportation sector will grow in electrification; 5) Carbon emissions legislation will likely cause further electrification of industrial processes; 6) Large population centers will not move.

• Infrastructure: 1) The current transmission system was largely built after WWII, with most being developed in the 1960s and 1970s; 2) Transmission development has not kept pace with demand since the 1970s, nor was it intended to handle the larger markets that have developed since the 1990s; 3) Billions of consumer dollars are wasted each year in congestion costs; 4) T&D systems are aging, not as smart as we would like and inefficient with losses exceeding 300 billion kWhs per year.

Given all of these “knowns” and “probables,” why can't we plan a nationwide grid? Enter, my friends, into the world of politics, where mud puddles are plentiful and micrometers are abandoned for fire hoses to make new puddles.

One impediment is the belief that an interstate grid overlay — new EHV interconnected with the existing grid — will enable coal, and any new investment should be restricted to green electrons. Logistically, transmission should be fuel-neutral to enable whatever energy future a state, region or nation desires. By the time the grid is enhanced, emissions legislation will be in place.

Another impediment is the notion that today's grid is adequate, and demand response, distributed generation and energy efficiency will save the day. Well, our grid is aging and needs replacement. The development of a national EHV overlay will help us upgrade or retire existing assets while making the grid much more efficient. Remember that Eisenhower's interstate highway legacy created more efficient long-haul highways, while smaller roadways were upgraded for efficient local use and others, such as portions of U.S. Route 66, were retired.

Yet another impediment is cost allocation: Who pays? The nation has a hodgepodge of cost-allocation regimes. Transmission is much less than 10% of a customer bill, and revenue requirements from additional infrastructure would only add a small amount to the percentage, yet would help control prices by expanding markets. Why not spread transmission costs by energy use across broad regions? It works in Texas.

But perhaps the greatest impediment is siting. Transmission was born in an era of local utilities serving local needs. In the middle of the last century, the U.S. recognized the growth in gas demand in the northeast with supplies in the south and established FERC as authority over siting of interstate gas pipelines to connect the two regions. FERC has successfully sited about 13,000 miles of pipelines. Why can't siting of EHV electric transmission in the national interest follow the same course?

If we believe our nation will continue to be a beacon of economic opportunity and prosperity, we must believe that electricity will be used to its fullest. If this is to happen, we must love transmission. So, toss the micrometers, stop feeding the mud puddles and begin to plan the grid, streamline cost allocation and support siting on a wider scale. Let's change our grandfathers' grid to our grandchildren's grid. Easier said than done, but I'm an optimist and an engineer.

Michael Heyeck is senior vice president of transmission for American Electric Power, responsible for AEP's 11-state transmission system and transmission business opportunities.