The draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study says additional transmission is needed for data-center load, manufacturing, industrial electrification, new generation interconnection, new load interconnection and congestion relief. DOE opened a 60-day public-comment period, with comments due Sept. 7, 2026.

The document is an assessment of transmission needs, not a final federal transmission plan. It does not order specific projects, authorize construction or provide funding. Its findings are intended to inform regional and interregional planning as grid operators respond to changing patterns of electricity demand and generation.

Demand is rising in several parts of the grid

DOE’s study covers the U.S. transmission system and identifies needs across MISO, the Southwest Power Pool, PJM Interconnection, ERCOT, NYISO, NorthernGrid, WestConnect and ISO-New England.

The report identifies NYISO, NorthernGrid South and MISO as areas with high potential for within-region transmission that could reduce congestion costs. Congestion is concentrated in roughly 5% of hours, according to the study, but those periods can create significant challenges for moving electricity through constrained parts of the system.

The draft also says interregional links can improve reliability and resilience while increasing the grid’s ability to meet demand growth. Those links can connect separate regional systems, although the study itself does not approve any particular project.

DOE says MISO, SPP, PJM and ERCOT have recently approved some of their largest transmission portfolios. MISO approved its largest-ever U.S. transmission portfolio in 2024, according to the department.

Large-load connections are already a federal focus

The study follows a separate Federal Energy Regulatory Commission action announced June 18. FERC ordered all six regional grid operators to justify or reform tariffs governing interconnections for large users, including data centers, manufacturing facilities and other energy-intensive customers.

FERC said faster interconnection must be accompanied by consumer protections and clear cost allocation. The commission’s action reflects a central issue raised by rapid load growth: connecting new facilities can require changes to the grid, and regulators must determine how those costs and risks are assigned.

The Associated Press reported that the FERC vote had national implications for energy-hungry artificial-intelligence data centers and raised questions about effects on ratepayers. The DOE study similarly treats data-center demand, industrial expansion and electrification as transmission-planning issues rather than isolated facility decisions.

What happens next

DOE is accepting public comments through Sept. 7, 2026. The department also plans summer 2026 roundtables with communities, tribes, states and regional reliability entities before preparing a final study.

Those steps could add feedback from the people and institutions affected by proposed transmission development, but the packet does not identify a final list of projects, a construction schedule or projected changes to consumer bills.

For now, the draft establishes the federal government’s assessment of where transmission expansion may be needed as electricity demand changes. Any specific projects, funding decisions, tariff changes or consumer-cost effects would require later actions outside the study itself.

The draft 2026 National Transmission Needs Study examines the United States electric-transmission system and was released with a 60-day public-comment period. The Energy Department said comments are due September 7, 2026.

The study is not a final federal determination. It identifies needs and provides information for planning, infrastructure investment and reliability decisions, but it does not itself authorize construction or guarantee funding for specific transmission projects.

What the draft identifies

The Energy Department’s Office of Electricity said the study addresses high-impact transmission needs, capacity constraints and congestion affecting national planning. The assessment covers multiple regional transmission organizations and independent system operators, including the Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Southwest Power Pool, PJM Interconnection and ERCOT.

Those systems manage or coordinate electricity transmission across broad areas of the country. Their inclusion reflects the national scope of the draft, rather than a decision approving one project or one regional plan.

The department identified several forces behind expected future transmission needs. Data centers are increasing electricity demand in some areas, while domestic manufacturing and other large industrial loads are also adding pressure. The study additionally points to economic growth as a driver of future grid requirements.

Transmission lines move electricity between generators and the communities and businesses that use it. When available transmission capacity is limited or congestion develops, moving power across regions can become more difficult. The draft’s findings are intended to help inform decisions about how the system should be planned as demand changes.

Why reliability is part of the question

The draft arrives as federal officials are also tracking broader reliability conditions. A May 29, 2026, assessment from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provided national context on reliability, generation retirements and summer grid conditions.

FERC’s assessment said generators planned to retire 8.1 gigawatts between summer 2025 and summer 2026. That figure is separate from the Energy Department’s draft transmission study: it describes planned generation retirements in FERC’s reliability assessment, not approved transmission construction or a forecast of immediate outages.

Together, the two federal documents provide context for why transmission planning is receiving attention. The DOE draft focuses on constraints and future needs, while the FERC assessment addresses reliability conditions, generation retirements and the summer outlook. Neither document, on its own, guarantees a particular project or establishes that consumers’ electricity rates will rise.

Regional plans cited by DOE

The Energy Department said MISO, SPP, PJM and ERCOT are among the major regional systems that have approved or pursued large transmission portfolios. DOE also said MISO approved its largest-ever U.S. transmission portfolio in 2024.

Those examples show that some regional planning activity is already underway, but they do not convert the draft national study into construction approval. The study’s role is to identify national transmission needs and help inform future planning and investment decisions.

For households and businesses, the practical significance is forward-looking. Decisions made through transmission planning can affect the reliability of electricity service, where new generation and large electricity users can connect, and how infrastructure investment is evaluated. The draft does not specify that it will directly increase electricity rates or guarantee new transmission projects.

What happens next

The public-comment period runs for 60 days, with comments due September 7, 2026. The Energy Department plans to review the submitted comments before issuing a final study.

Until that review is complete, the document remains a draft. Its findings may shape future discussions about transmission planning, grid reliability and investment as data centers, manufacturing facilities and other large users seek more electricity, but the next formal step is the comment process rather than immediate construction.

DOE announced the opportunity on July 23, 2026, under funding notice DE-FOA-0003634. Full applications are due by 5 p.m. Eastern time on September 22, 2026. The department expects to make up to 16 awards, with selection notifications anticipated in December 2026.

What DOE wants to fund

The solicitation covers cost-shared research, development and deployment projects across three topic areas: Enhanced Resource Utilization and Production Technologies, Resilient Infrastructure Technologies Enhancement, and Hydrocarbon Infrastructure Test Sites.

Projects may address technologies for turning stranded, flared or contaminated oil-and-gas resources into usable products. DOE also lists advanced materials, equipment and infrastructure components intended to improve the reliability of compressors, valves, piping, storage tanks, coatings and alloys used in energy production and delivery.

A third area focuses on digitalization and test sites. Examples include continuous monitoring systems, advanced analytics, artificial-intelligence-supported digital twins and tools for optimizing hydrocarbon infrastructure operations.

The funding notice is a solicitation for proposals. It is not an announcement that projects have already been selected, built or shown to increase production.

Who can apply

Eligible applicants include institutions of higher education, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, and Indian Tribes.

DOE expects to make up to 16 awards totaling as much as $65.5 million in federal funding. Awardees must provide at least 20% cost sharing under this opportunity. In practical terms, that generally means contributing at least one dollar for every four federal dollars supporting an approved project, subject to the detailed requirements in the full funding notice.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory coordinates much of the Hydrocarbons and Geothermal Energy Office’s research and development procurement activity. Applicants must use the submission system or systems specified in the full solicitation and complete any required registrations before filing.

What it means for households

The announcement does not immediately change gasoline prices, heating bills, electricity rates or natural-gas service. It also does not impose a new production requirement or change federal oil-and-gas regulations.

If funded projects perform as intended, they could support longer-term work on resource utilization, operational efficiency, infrastructure reliability and monitoring. Any broader effects would depend on which proposals DOE selects, the results of field testing and whether the technologies are adopted beyond demonstration sites.

For now, the direct public consequence is that federal research and demonstration funding is available to eligible applicants. The competition itself is not a completed federal investment and does not establish a measured change in domestic production or consumer energy costs.

What happens next

Full applications are due September 22, 2026, at 5 p.m. Eastern time. DOE’s funding notice lists December 2026 as the expected timing for selection notifications, while the department’s solicitation pages show the opportunity as open and accepting applications.

The next major developments will be the application deadline, DOE’s selection decisions and any later announcements identifying awardees, funding amounts, project locations and technical results.

Until those steps occur, the announcement should be understood as an open federal funding opportunity—not as a completed investment, a new production mandate or an immediate consumer-price measure.

Sources

• DOE funding announcement
• NETL solicitation listing

The stipulation was filed in Thakur v. Trump, Case No. 3:25-cv-04737-RL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. DOE said that, with one exception, the grants involved states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election and had two Democratic-caucusing senators.

The filing is new evidence in an active legal dispute. It is not a final court ruling that the cancellations were unlawful.

What DOE stipulated

DOE accepted, solely for purposes of the litigation, that the 284 grants in the October termination tranche were not selected based on programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction or performance-based factors.

The department also accepted that the inclusion of the grants was based solely on whether the recipient’s location or a place of performance was in a so-called blue state or non-blue state. DOE further stipulated that the resulting differential treatment lacked a rational connection between the recipient’s location or place of performance and the department’s agency priorities.

The stipulation says the political identity of a grant recipient’s state was not part of DOE’s Portfolio Review Process. It also says program offices had proposed terminating similarly situated grants in both blue and non-blue states, while the grants proposed for termination but not included in the October tranche were associated with non-blue states under the definition used in the filing.

Those statements are concessions by DOE in this case. They do not amount to a criminal finding, a fraud finding or a final judicial determination.

How that differs from DOE’s public explanation

On Oct. 1, 2025, DOE announced the termination of 321 financial awards supporting 223 projects. The department said the action would save approximately $7.56 billion for taxpayers and followed a thorough, individualized financial review.

DOE said the projects did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable or would not provide a positive return on taxpayer dollars. The announcement said the awards had been reviewed case by case under a policy intended to identify waste, safeguard taxpayer funds and support affordable, reliable and secure energy.

The figures in the two records are not identical. The July 15 stipulation addresses 284 grants selected for the October termination tranche. DOE’s October public announcement referred to 321 awards supporting 223 projects and approximately $7.56 billion. The broader dollar figure should not be attributed only to the 284 grants in the stipulation.

What projects and recipients were affected

The canceled awards covered a range of clean-energy work, including battery manufacturing, hydrogen technology, electric-grid upgrades and carbon-capture projects. Recipients included universities, companies, utilities, state agencies and other organizations. The records do not establish that every canceled award involved the same technology, recipient type or location.

Associated Press reporting identified affected projects in 16 states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. The court stipulation, however, is framed around recipient location and place of performance and includes one exception to the pattern.

What the filing means legally

The stipulation was an agreement to avoid the ordinary discovery process in claims against DOE. In exchange for withdrawing discovery requests, DOE agreed to produce a signed spreadsheet covering grants it identified as involving University of California researchers and to make the factual stipulations described in the filing.

The spreadsheet is expected to include information such as award numbers, recipients, amounts awarded, amounts remaining, termination dates, reinstatement dates, statutory authorities and the agency priorities or legal bases DOE identified for the terminations. The agreement gives plaintiffs seven days after production to raise technical errors or omissions with the department.

That material could help the plaintiffs challenge individual grant cancellations, but the stipulation itself does not decide the merits of the case. Further court action will be needed on the legality of the terminations and on any disputes over reinstatement or other relief.

What grant recipients should watch

Universities, companies, state agencies and other award recipients should track the case docket and any agency-produced grant data for project-specific information. A recipient’s grant may have a different termination date, legal basis, status or reinstatement history than other awards in the broader October announcement.

The dispute also reaches beyond clean energy. It raises a broader question about whether federal grant decisions must be tied to documented statutory, programmatic and performance criteria or may turn on the political geography of the recipient.

The next important developments are likely to come from court rulings, disputes over individual grant status and any changes to federal grant-management rules. For taxpayers and grant applicants, the practical issue is whether agencies can show a consistent, reviewable reason for deciding which awards receive or lose federal support.

Sources

• DOE court stipulation in Thakur v. Trump
• DOE announcement of October 2025 grant terminations
• Associated Press report