Transmission Planner: The Game

Balance cost · reliability · sustainability to power the city

Win: deliver the MW target in the scorecard · stay under the GHG cap · then raise Customer Happiness (RFPs add bonuses after approval).

Educational puzzle: place generation, draw transmission paths to the city, and meet procurement RFPs. Concepts align with NERC contingency thinking and FERC interconnection (ERIS/NRIS) tradeoffs.

📚 Why this game exists

Trade cost, emissions, and resilience

Every placement mirrors a real planning tension: cheap vs. firm power, clean vs. dispatchable, and meshing the grid so one outage does not drop the city. Submit to see why your score landed where it did.

FERC Order 2003 / LGIP NERC TPL-001-5 ERIS NRIS N-1 Contingency Withdrawal Penalty RFP & Procurement Grid Economics
Hover a tile to inspect…
🧠 Knowledge Check — Test What You Learned

Three questions drawn from the real-world concepts behind this game. Select an answer to see the explanation.

📖 Transmission Planner — Rules & Real-World Guide

🎯 Objective

You are the Transmission Planner for a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). Your job is to build a generation & transmission portfolio that delivers effective MW to the city at least equal to the demand target shown in the scorecard (legacy grid delivery plus a 5-year forecast gap) while staying within environmental and budget limits. When you submit your plan, the State Utility Commission (standing in for FERC) reviews it against four customer pillars.

Hard Fail Conditions (Plan Rejected):
  • Delivered MW below the scorecard target — Blackout risk. FERC reliability standards require generation adequacy before any plan is approved.
  • GHG output above the cap shown in the scorecard — EPA Clean Air Act violation. Projects exceeding emission thresholds cannot receive interconnection approval.

🗺️ The Grid — Terrain & Land Costs

Every tile has a terrain type that affects land acquisition cost, construction cost, and permitting complexity. This mirrors the detailed cost studies required under FERC’s pro forma LGIP.

TileBase Land CostReal-World Analog
🟩 Open Land$5MStandard right-of-way acquisition — easements negotiated under state condemnation law. Low environmental review burden.
⛰️ Mountain$25MHigh civil construction cost (tunneling, switchyards at elevation). LGIP Facilities Study must account for terrain-driven network upgrades.
🌱 Wetland$35MSection 404 (Clean Water Act) permits + EPA mitigation banking. Among the highest permitting costs & timeline risks in the LGIP process.
🏙️ City / Load CenterN/AThe load pocket. Generators cannot be sited here — mirrors urban land use restrictions and fire/safety codes that prohibit large generation in dense load centers.
🏠 Residential$15M baseEminent domain proceedings required (+$40M surcharge). FERC Order 1000 directs planners to consider landowner impacts; state siting boards often require community hearings for lines through residential areas.

⚠️ Tiles in Columns 12–15 (urban fringe) carry an additional siting surcharge ($5M–$20M) and community impact penalty — reflecting the higher land values and opposition that generation projects face in suburban corridors near cities.

⚡ Generators & Interconnection Service

Each generator type has a Capacity Factor (CF) — the fraction of nameplate capacity actually delivered on average. This is the core input to FERC’s Deliverability test.

📐 What is Capacity Factor?

Capacity Factor = average actual output ÷ nameplate capacity, expressed as a percentage. A 300 MW wind farm at 30% CF delivers only 90 MW on average because wind doesn’t blow constantly. In contrast, a 500 MW coal plant at 90% CF delivers 450 MW because it runs almost continuously. CF is why you need far more nameplate MW of wind or solar than coal to serve the same load — and why Battery Storage pairing is so valuable for renewables.

  • Coal 90% CF → 500 MW nameplate × 0.90 = 450 MW effective
  • Natural Gas 80% CF → 400 MW × 0.80 = 320 MW effective
  • Wind 30% CF → 300 MW × 0.30 = 90 MW effective (or up to 210 MW with +0.4 Battery boost)
  • Solar 20% CF → 150 MW × 0.20 = 30 MW effective (or up to 135 MW with +0.4 Battery boost)
AssetNameplateCFEff. MWGHGReal-World Notes
🏭 Coal500 MW90%450 MW1,000Base-load plant that runs almost continuously. GHG-intensive — one plant nearly hits the full regulatory cap. Being retired under EPA Clean Air Act Section 111 rules.
🔥 Natural Gas400 MW80%320 MW400Fast-ramping “bridge fuel” and peaker plant near load. Reliable peak MW delivery. Moderate GHG limits clean-energy portfolio flexibility.
💨 Wind300 MW30%90 MW0Variable resource — output depends on wind availability. Low CF is the primary driver of the ERIS vs NRIS choice for wind developers.
☀️ Solar150 MW20%30 MW0Highest intermittency due to day/night cycles. Cheapest per nameplate MW. Battery pairing boosts CF up to 90% cap, transforming a 30 MW asset into up to 135 MW effective.
🔋 Battery Storage0 MW direct0Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) store surplus renewable energy and discharge during peak demand. Place adjacent (8-tile radius) to Wind or Solar for +0.4 CF boost. Common in paired storage+renewable LGIP interconnection requests.

📋 ERIS vs. NRIS — The Interconnection Service Choice

When you place a generator, you choose its interconnection service type. This is drawn directly from FERC’s pro forma Large Generator Interconnection Procedures (LGIP):

ERIS — Energy Resource IS
  • Curtailable service — the ISO/RTO may reduce output during congestion.
  • Only a fraction of effective MW (ERIS credit; currently 85%) counts toward meeting city demand.
  • No surcharge — cheaper upfront.
  • Best for variable renewables where curtailment is already baked in.
  • Real LGIP: ERIS requires only a Feasibility Study + System Impact Study; no network upgrade obligation for the interconnection customer.
💰 NRIS — Network Resource IS
  • Firm, non-curtailable service — generator must be treated as a network resource.
  • 100% of installed MW counts toward city demand.
  • +$35M surcharge (network upgrade cost allocation).
  • Best for dispatchable generators expected to serve firm load.
  • Real LGIP: NRIS triggers a full Deliverability study and may require the customer to fund network upgrades to maintain system reliability under N-1 contingency.

🔌 Transmission Lines

Select the Line tool and click & drag to route transmission from a generator to the City. Only generators connected to the City via a continuous line path contribute MW to your score.

  • Base cost: $5M per segment + terrain land cost adder.
  • Mountain/Wetland segments cost significantly more — reflecting right-of-way acquisition, environmental permits, and civil construction on difficult terrain.
  • Residential routing: Lines through house tiles incur a community impact deduction (−3 pts per segment) on top of doubled land cost. This mirrors the public opposition and Section 106 historic-property consultation required when lines cross residential areas.
  • Proximity multiplier: Lines through the near-city corridor (cols 6–15) cost more — reflecting the premium for urban ROW.

💡 Strategy tip: Route north or south around mountains via the open bypass corridors. Wetlands are expensive but passable. The cheapest path is rarely the most direct one — just like real transmission planning.

📊 Scoring Pillars (Customer Happiness)

Your final grade is a weighted average of four pillars, reflecting the multi-objective balancing act every Transmission Planner faces:

PillarWeightHow it’s scoredReal-World Basis
Affordability40% 100% at $700M total CapEx → 0% at $1,400M (reference scale). FERC cost allocation rules (Order 1000) require that transmission costs be allocated commensurate with benefits. Ratepayers pay for network upgrades through transmission rates — cost is the #1 public concern in most state rate cases.
Reliability30% 0 if demand not met; 60 base + up to 25 for redundant city feed points + up to 25 for N-1 contingency survivability. NERC Reliability Standards (TPL-001 through TPL-004) require planners to demonstrate the system survives single-contingency (N-1) and select double-contingency (N-2) events without cascading failure.
Sustainability20% Linear from 0 GHG (100%) to 1,500 GHG (0%). State renewable portfolio standards (RPS), EPA Clean Air Act Section 111 emission performance standards, and increasingly, FERC’s own consideration of carbon pricing in wholesale markets drive GHG as a key planning constraint.
Community Impact10% Starts 100; deductions for generators near residential tiles, lines through houses, and siting in the suburban corridor. FERC environmental review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and state siting authority proceedings all require analysis of community & visual impacts. Coal/Gas incur a 1.5× multiplier for air quality & noise.

Portfolio Expansion mechanics

Delivered MW is computed with a max-flow model: each line segment has a static thermal limit (230 kV style). Multiple parallel paths can share flow toward the load. If injections exceed what the network can carry, you see congestion (curtailment).

Reading line flow numbers (max-flow)
  • What used / 450 MW means: Each segment shows how many megawatts of the segment’s thermal rating are used in the max-flow solution (Order 881–style simplification).
  • Not economic dispatch: The game does not simulate merit order or “coal first, gas backup.” Every connected plant is a source in one max-flow; flows show feasible delivery to the city subject to line limits, not real-time fuel dispatch.
  • Why some segments show 0: Stubs or branches that are not used to carry power toward the load center in the solution can read 0 / 450 even though lines exist (there is no separate westward “export” load).
  • Multiple plants, shared corridor: If combined effective injection exceeds what a shared path can carry (450 MW per segment in this model), delivered MW is capped by the bottleneck and the rest is curtailed (see scorecard congestion). Flow may split across parallel routes; on one corridor you might see a partial load on an upstream tie (e.g. 130/450) and a saturated span closer to the city (450/450)—that reflects shared thermal limits, not one plant acting as “backup” for the other.

Order 881 (simplified): ratings are fixed in-game (no ambient-adjusted derates). Real-world lines sag in heat; this teaches the same limit idea without seasonal math.

CAPEX vs OPEX: utility-owned plants add to rate base and shareholder return; PPAs avoid CapEx and help customer bills but add resource-adequacy risk in the reliability score.

Order 2023 (cluster studies): placing many solar farms triggers a one-time cluster study fee for shared network upgrades.

Coal retirement: erasing a legacy coal plant with the Erase tool does not apply the withdrawal penalty and flags surplus interconnection at that site (cheaper solar).

🛡️ N-1 Contingency Analysis

At submission, the game runs a NERC TPL-001 style N-1 analysis: it simulates losing each individual transmission line segment one at a time and checks whether the remaining grid can still deliver enough MW (about 93% of city demand) after each outage, using the same max-flow rules as normal operation.

  • If your grid survives all single-line outages → full +25 reliability bonus.
  • Partial survival (e.g., 6 of 8 outages survived) gives proportional credit.
  • A single radial line with no redundancy fails every N-1 test.

In real planning, ISOs must show that no single contingency causes load shedding exceeding defined thresholds — this is the fundamental reason transmission systems are built with meshed topology rather than radial spurs.

💡 Strategy tip: Build at least two independent transmission paths to the city (redundant feed points) to earn the ★ Redundant bonus on top of your N-1 score.

🏗️ Substations

Substations are key nodes in the transmission network where voltage is stepped up or down, and where multiple lines converge. In the game there are two types:

🟡 Pre-Existing Substations
  • 1–4 substations are pre-placed on the map each game (shown as gold squares).
  • Cannot be removed — they represent inherited infrastructure.
  • Routing a line through them gives a 50% line segment cost discount.
  • Real-world: These reflect substations already in the regional transmission network that interconnecting generators can leverage to reduce upgrade costs.
🔵 Player-Built Substations
  • Build a new substation on any Open Land tile for $80M.
  • Shown as cyan squares.
  • Same 50% line cost discount as pre-existing substations once built.
  • Overload rule: A substation with all 4 directions (N/S/E/W) active incurs a +$25M surcharge — mirroring the cost of transformer bank upgrades when a node becomes a congestion bottleneck.
  • Can be erased with the Demolish tool (subject to withdrawal penalty).

💡 Strategy tip: Place a substation in the middle of a long mountain or wetland crossing to cut routing costs by up to 50%. A single substation can pay for itself after just 2–3 line segments.

In real FERC proceedings, a generator’s Interconnection Facilities Study identifies which existing substations can accept new load. If no existing substation is nearby, the interconnection customer must fund a new switching station — typically $50M–$150M depending on voltage class.

⚠️ Queue Withdrawal Penalty

Demolishing a generator with the Erase tool triggers a 20% withdrawal penalty on the sunk costs already paid for that asset (base CapEx + land cost + any NRIS surcharge + eminent domain).

  • The penalty amount is added permanently to your Total CapEx — you cannot get it back.
  • You still lose the generator’s MW contribution, but pay the penalty on top of already-spent capital.
  • Example: A $100M natural gas plant on a $25M mountain tile with NRIS (+$35M) = $160M sunk. Demolishing it costs an extra $32M withdrawal penalty.
Real-World Basis — LGIP §4.4 Queue Withdrawal:

FERC’s pro forma LGIP requires that developers who withdraw from the interconnection queue reimburse the Transmission Provider for study costs and any network upgrade work already initiated. Withdrawal fees typically range from 20–25% of the estimated network upgrade costs. This creates a commitment mechanism that deters speculative queue entries and helps RTOs maintain accurate system planning data.

💡 Strategy tip: Plan your generator siting carefully before committing — expensive terrain choices compounded by the withdrawal penalty can severely harm your Affordability score.

📋 Utility RFP Cards

At the start of each game, the State Utility Commission issues two Request for Proposals (RFPs) — drawn randomly from a pool of seven procurement mandates. These are displayed in the Active RFPs sidebar panel throughout the game.

When your plan is approved, any RFP conditions you’ve met earn bonus points applied on top of your four-pillar Customer Happiness score (capped at 100%):

RFP CardConditionBonusBonus Type
🌱 Clean Power RFP≥ 300 MW nameplate from connected Wind + Solar+15 ptsSustainability
🛡️ Reliability Commission RFPN-1 contingency score ≥ 80%+10 ptsReliability
💰 Cost Efficiency BidTotal CapEx ≤ $450M$60M creditAffordability (recalculated)
♻️ Zero-Carbon MandateGHG output < 200 units+15 ptsSustainability
🤝 Community PartnershipCommunity Impact score ≥ 80+15 ptsCommunity
⚡ Firm Capacity RFPAll generators on NRIS interconnection service+10 ptsReliability
🔁 Redundancy Standard≥ 3 independent city feed points+15 ptsReliability

RFP bonuses are displayed in the result modal after plan submission. If your plan is hard-rejected (MW below demand or GHG over cap), RFP bonuses are shown as missed — the plan must be approved first.

Real-World Basis — Competitive Procurement & FERC Order 2003:

FERC Order 2003 standardized competitive interconnection procedures. Many state utility commissions issue RFPs — legally binding procurement solicitations — specifying preferred resource attributes (e.g., zero-carbon, firm capacity, local employment). Winning developers must meet RFP conditions to receive a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Failing to meet conditions can result in disqualification, contract renegotiation, or financial penalties — directly mirroring the “bonus if met, nothing if not” mechanic in the game.

🎫 Grade Scale

GradeCustomer HappinessVerdict
S≥90%Exemplary — meets all objectives with minimal impact. Real-world equivalent: project clears FERC review with no mitigation required.
A75–89%Strong plan. Minor cost or community trade-offs. Typical of well-optimized merchant projects.
B60–74%Acceptable. Noticeable trade-offs in one pillar. Common in constrained regions.
C45–59%Marginal. Multiple pillars underperforming. Plan may face public opposition or rate-case challenges.
F<45%Poor. Significant ratepayer harm. Real-world equivalent: plan remanded by state commission for redesign.
RejectedN/AHard fail — blackout risk or EPA violation. Plan rejected by the State Utility Commission.

💡 RFP bonuses can push your score above a grade boundary. A B-grade plan (63%) meeting two RFP cards could become an A (75%+) — incentivizing alignment with procurement mandates even when the base plan is solid.