The underlying costs of transmitting and distributing (T&D) electricity from distant sources are massive. The vast, centralized power grid, a remarkable feat of engineering, imposes a tax on businesses through substantial energy losses and infrastructure expenses. This article aims to analytically dissect these costs to illustrate why localized energy solutions offer a compelling pathway for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Economic Factors

The journey electricity takes from a distant power plant to your business is laden with significant financial costs. These are ultimately recovered through your electricity rates.

1. Capital Expenditures

Building and expanding the massive transmission and distribution network requires immense capital investment. These investments directly impact your electricity charges.

Transmission Line Costs: The cost of transmission lines is influenced by numerous engineering and logistical factors [1, 2, 3]:

Distance and Terrain: Longer distances between generation and load, and challenging terrain (e.g., mountains, dense forests, urban areas) significantly increase costs due to complex construction, specialized equipment, and extended labor requirements [1].
Voltage Level and Capacity: Higher voltage lines (e.g., 500 kV, 765 kV) require larger, more expensive towers and specialized insulation, but they also allow for greater power transmission, which can reduce cost per unit of power transmitted [2].
Land Acquisition (Right-of-Way - ROW): Securing continuous corridors for lines, especially in populated or environmentally sensitive areas, involves significant negotiations and compensation to landowners. This cost can be a major component of overall project expense [1, 3]. For instance, a 100-mile, 765-kV circuit typically requires an approximate ROW corridor of 2,424 acres [4].
Materials: The cost of conductors (aluminum, copper, composite), steel for towers, insulators, and other specialized hardware contributes substantially to capital expenditure [1, 2, 3].
Labor & Installation: Highly specialized crews are required for surveying, engineering design, foundation work, tower erection, conductor stringing, and substation construction. Installation (around 25%), metal structures (around 20%), foundations (around 10%), and conductors (around 10%) are typically the largest cost lines [2, 3].
Substation Costs: Building and upgrading substations to step voltage up and down is a critical part of the transmission system and adds significantly to overall project costs [2, 3].
Regulatory Requirements & Permitting: Compliance with safety, environmental, and land-use regulations adds significant time and cost to projects, often requiring extensive studies and public engagement [1].
Underground High-Voltage Transmission: While rare, high-voltage transmission lines can be placed underground. This dramatically increases costs, as it involves specialized, heavily insulated cables, extensive excavation, and complex cooling systems. For a 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line, overhead construction might cost around $390,000 per mile, while underground construction could range from $2 million to $2.64 million per mile [5, 6]. This makes a high-voltage underground segment significantly more expensive, often 5 to 7 times the cost of its overhead equivalent in that specific voltage range [5].

Distribution Network Costs: Distribution networks are extensive and involve unique cost drivers [5, 7, 8]:

Density and Load Characteristics: Serving densely populated urban areas often involves more expensive undergrounding or complex overhead routing, while sparsely populated rural areas require extensive mileage of lines per customer. High peak demands from commercial customers also necessitate robust infrastructure [5, 7].
Asset Quantity: The sheer number of components – miles of lower-voltage lines, thousands of poles, and tens of thousands of smaller transformers – means substantial aggregate material and installation costs [5, 7].
Service Drop Complexity: Connecting individual customers from the main distribution lines involves "service drops" and meters, each adding to the infrastructure cost.
Reliability Standards: Meeting stringent reliability expectations requires investment in redundant circuits, automatic switching equipment, and regular maintenance [5].
Undergrounding Demands (Distribution): While beneficial for aesthetics and wildfire prevention, underground distribution is significantly more expensive than overhead construction due to excavation, specialized cabling, and vaulting costs [5, 9, 10].

Comparative Cost Estimates (Overhead vs. Underground Distribution):

New Overhead Distribution Lines: Typically range from $86,700 per mile for rural areas up to $1 million per mile for urban areas [5].
New Underground Distribution Lines: Comparatively, these range from $297,200 per mile in rural areas up to $4.5 million per mile for urban construction [5]. This represents a cost factor ranging from approximately 3.4 times higher (new rural underground vs. new rural overhead) up to 4.5 times higher (new urban underground vs. new urban overhead) [5].
Converting Existing Overhead to Underground: This process is even more complex and costly, potentially reaching $2 million per mile in rural areas and up to $20 million per mile in urban areas [9, 10].

2. Operational & Maintenance (O&M) Costs

Beyond initial construction, the T&D network demands continuous and costly O&M to ensure reliable power delivery.

Routine Maintenance: Activities like aerial inspections (helicopter, drone) of transmission lines to ground patrols of distribution infrastructure, thermographic scans to detect hot spots, and proactive repairs are essential. Vegetation management, critical for preventing faults and fires (especially in distribution lines that often run closer to trees and structures), is a persistent and costly effort. Overhead transmission O&M can range from $11,608 to $58,069 per circuit-mile annually [5]. Distribution O&M, which often includes more frequent local intervention, also adds significantly to these costs.
Modernization & Resilience: Utilities constantly invest in grid hardening (e.g., against severe weather, cybersecurity threats), and advanced technologies (e.g., smart meters, Phasor Measurement Units). These capital-intensive modernization efforts, estimated to reach upwards of $2 trillion over the next decade for the U.S. grid, directly impact your rates [11].

3. Wildfire-Related Costs

Utility infrastructure, particularly power lines, is a significant ignition source for some of the most destructive wildfires, leading to substantial financial liabilities that ultimately affect ratepayers.

Direct Damages and Liabilities: Power line-caused wildfires lead to billions of dollars in property damage, infrastructure destruction, and loss of life. For instance, utilities like PG&E have faced liabilities exceeding $20-30 billion from a single catastrophic fire event [12, 13]. California's three largest utilities were authorized to collect $27 billion from ratepayers from 2019–2023 for wildfire prevention and insurance [9].
Mitigation Costs and Savings: Proactive measures, such as undergrounding, are expensive upfront but can offer significant long-term savings in O&M and liability.

Undergrounding benefits: While the initial cost of undergrounding is high, it significantly reduces or eliminates ongoing costs such as tree-trimming (often a utility's largest O&M cost outside of power costs), reduces vehicle accidents involving poles, and drastically lowers wildfire risk. These avoided O&M and liability costs can contribute to the long-term justification for such investments [5, 14, 15]. Studies suggest that undergrounding can save billions in avoided outages and property damage [14, 15].
PSPS events: While preventing fires, Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) impose significant economic disruption on businesses through lost revenue and productivity, with estimated costs from 2013-2020 at approximately $5.3 billion [11]. Reducing the need for PSPS through infrastructure hardening like undergrounding can directly benefit SMEs.

Increased Insurance Premiums: Businesses in wildfire-prone areas face sharply rising property insurance premiums, adding another layer of operational cost linked directly to the risks of overhead transmission infrastructure.

T&D Cost Component in SME Bills

Utility bills often separate charges into a "commodity" portion (for the electricity itself) and a "non-commodity" or "delivery" portion. For businesses, non-commodity charges can constitute around 60% of a total electricity bill in some regions [16], covering services beyond just the electrons, such as transmission, distribution, metering, billing, and public purpose programs. Within this larger non-commodity segment, transmission and distribution specifically represent a substantial portion of the overall cost. While exact percentages vary by utility, region, and regulatory structure, it's not uncommon for transmission and distribution (the wires and poles portion) to collectively account for 10-25% of the total cost for the delivered kilowatt-hour on an SME's bill [17]. This means a material portion of your monthly electricity spend is directly attributable to the cost of moving electricity across vast distances and delivering it to your premise.

Operational Efficiency: Energy Losses in the Grid

Beyond financial outlays, the centralized grid faces inherent physical limitations that result in significant energy losses before power reaches your meter. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates average annual electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses in the United States to be approximately 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed between 2018-2022 [18]. This 5% isn't an abstract number; it represents real energy wasted.

The 5% total T&D loss comprises multiple components across the entire network:

1. Transmission System Losses (typically 1.5-2% of total T&D losses) [19]

These losses occur on the high-voltage lines and substations that move power over long distances.

Joule Heating (I2R Losses): Energy is dissipated as heat due to conductor resistance. While high voltages minimize current and thus I^2*R losses, they are never zero.

Relatable Sample: Imagine a 100-mile transmission line delivering 100 MW of power at 500 kV. If the total resistance of this line is, for example, 5 Ω (a simplified value for illustration), the current would be I=100,000,000 W/500,000 V = 200 A. The power lost due to Joule heating would be: Power Lost = (200 A)^2 * 5 Ω =200,000 W = 0.2 MW This specific example represents a 0.2% loss for this single segment. These losses, though individually small at high voltages, sum across the vast transmission network.

Transformer Losses (at transmission substations): Energy is lost in step-up transformers (at generation plants) and step-down transformers (at sub-transmission levels). These occur due to their winding resistance (copper losses) and magnetic properties (core losses) even when no load is present. Modern power transformers are highly efficient, often exceeding 99% efficiency, but with massive power flows, even small percentages add up. For example, a 1500 kVA, 15 kV transformer operating at 85% load might have total losses of around 1.3% (including both core and conductor losses) [16].
Reactive Power Losses: Reactive power, necessary for voltage stability, increases overall current, leading to additional I^2*R (Joule heating) losses [17].
Corona Discharge: Minor energy loss from conductor surfaces at very high voltages, typically small in fair weather (~0.1% over 1000 km for 765 kV) [18].

2. Distribution System Losses (typically 3-3.5% of total T&D losses) [15, 19]

These losses, which make up the largest portion of the 5% average, occur on the lower voltage lines and transformers that deliver power directly to your business. Lower voltages mean higher currents for the same power, significantly increasing I^2*R losses.

Joule Heating (I2R Losses) in Distribution Lines: These losses are more pronounced due to lower voltages and often smaller conductor sizes in extensive distribution networks.

Sample: Consider a 1-mile segment of a 12.47 kV primary distribution feeder supplying a commercial area with, for example, 500 kW of power. A typical resistance for a distribution line conductor might be around 0.15 ohms per mile. The current would be roughly: I = 500,000 W / 12,470 V ~ 40 A The power lost due to Joule heating in this single mile would be: Power lost = (40 A)^2 * 0.15 Ω = 240 W = (0.048% of the 500 kW) Now consider the final segment supplying an SME: for an SME's load of 50 kW on a 208V secondary circuit with a total resistance of 0.05 Ω (including service drop wiring), the current would be: I = 50,000 W / 208 V ~ 240 A The localized Joule heating loss in this specific segment would be: Power lost = (240 A)^2 * 0.05 Ω = 2,880 W = 2.88 kW This represents 5.76% of the 50 kW delivered power for just that small, final segment. When accumulated across an entire sprawling distribution network with thousands of feeders, laterals, and service drops, these losses become substantial, easily contributing multiple percentage points to the overall T&D loss figure.

Transformer Losses (at distribution substations and pole-top/pad-mount transformers): Every time voltage is stepped down (e.g., from sub-transmission to primary distribution, and then to secondary voltage at your street's pole-top or pad-mount transformer), there are energy losses. These numerous, often smaller, and sometimes less efficient, transformers throughout the distribution system collectively contribute substantially to the overall losses. For instance, a common 75 kVA distribution transformer operating at 75% load might have total losses of around 1.6% (including no-load and load losses) [16]. Critically, "no-load" losses (constant energy consumed by the transformer core even when no power is drawn) occur 24/7 for every transformer in the system, summing to a significant continuous energy drain [27].
Non-Technical Losses: Includes electricity theft, metering inaccuracies, and unbilled usage. While not physical energy loss, they are "losses" from the utility's perspective and contribute to the overall 5% figure that customers ultimately bear.

Environmental Impact: Increased Emissions

Every lost kWh means more fuel had to be burned at a power plant to compensate, directly increasing upstream emissions. For an SME consuming 100,000 kWh annually, the 5% T&D loss means an additional 5,000 kWh must be generated. At a grid average of 0.85 lbs CO2/kWh [20], this equates to 4,250 lbs of additional CO2 emissions annually for power that never reaches your meter.

Beyond greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide), burning fossil fuels for electricity also releases other harmful air pollutants:

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): Contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses [21].
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx): Contributes to smog (ground-level ozone), acid rain, and respiratory issues [21].
Particulate Matter (PM): Microscopic particles that can cause severe respiratory and cardiovascular problems [21].
Mercury and Other Heavy Metals: Toxic pollutants that bioaccumulate in the environment [21]. This directly impacts the environmental footprint of your operations, even if your direct emissions are zero.

The Paradox: Centralized Scale vs. Delivered Efficiency

The traditional rationale for large, centralized power plants highlights "economies of scale" during generation, with modern natural gas combined cycle plants achieving electrical efficiencies over 60% [22]. However, this generation efficiency is significantly eroded by the accumulated T&D losses and other grid-related costs. An SME ultimately pays for power delivered to the meter, not power generated at the plant. While central generation is efficient at its source, the complex delivery system introduces substantial inefficiencies and costs, making the effective overall efficiency considerably lower.

A Balanced Perspective: Acknowledging the Grid's Role and Utility Challenges

It is essential to acknowledge that the centralized transmission and distribution grid is an engineering marvel that has enabled widespread electrification and economic growth. From a utility perspective, the grid provides several critical benefits and faces unique challenges:

Generation Scalability: It efficiently integrates very large power plants, which can achieve economic efficiencies in generation [23].
Reliability & Diversification: A robust, interconnected grid enhances overall system reliability by drawing from diverse generation sources and providing redundancy [24].
Load Balancing & Stability: Utilities constantly balance supply and demand to maintain grid frequency and voltage within narrow operating limits. This dynamic load balancing, crucial for grid stability, is a core service provided by the centralized grid [25]. The grid also provides essential ancillary services like frequency regulation, voltage control, and reactive power support, which are critical for the stable operation of any large electrical system [26].
Integration of Renewables: While DERs are critical, the existing transmission grid is also vital for integrating large-scale renewable projects, such as remote wind farms or vast solar arrays, that are often located far from load centers [24]. Expanding transmission is often seen as key to unlocking more renewable energy potential and meeting clean energy goals.
Cost of Grid Modernization: Utilities are actively investing in "grid modernization" to address aging infrastructure, integrate renewables, enhance cybersecurity, and improve resilience against extreme weather and wildfires. These modernization efforts are incredibly capital-intensive, with estimates for the U.S. grid reaching upwards of $2 trillion over the next decade [6]. These costs, including significant wildfire mitigation spending, are necessary to maintain and improve the grid's capabilities in a changing climate and energy landscape [9, 28]. This is an unavoidable expense for utilities committed to reliable and safe power delivery.

The DER Imperative: Engineering a More Efficient Future for SMEs

This comprehensive understanding of electricity delivery costs underscores the powerful value proposition of Distributed Energy Resources (DERs) for SMEs. By generating power on-site, right behind your meter, your business fundamentally re-engages with its energy supply, directly addressing the "invisible tax" of T&D losses and expenses, including the significant risks and costs associated with wildfires.

From an engineering standpoint, the advantages are clear:

Minimize Line Losses: Placing generation directly at the load means electricity travels mere feet or meters, not hundreds of miles. This virtually eliminates the I2R losses inherent in long-distance transmission and local distribution, ensuring nearly every kWh generated is a kWh utilized.
Improve System Efficiency: By generating power closer to consumption, the overall energy system efficiency increases. Your business avoids contributing to (and paying for) the 5% (or more) of energy wasted upstream in the T&D network.

On-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP): CHP systems can achieve total system efficiencies of 65% to 80%, with some systems approaching 90% [29]. This is significantly higher than the 50-60% electrical efficiency of even the most advanced centralized natural gas combined cycle plants [22, 29], because CHP systems ingeniously capture and recycle waste heat for on-site direct use (e.g., space heating, hot water, process heat). Centralized power plants, due to the impracticality of long-distance heat transport, must typically dump this low-grade heat into the environment, making combined heat and power impractical at a centralized scale.

Enhance Resilience and Reliability: On-site generation provides immediate power during grid outages, safeguarding critical operations and reducing business interruption costs. It acts as a microgrid for your facility, enhancing energy security, and mitigating the business impacts of PSPS events.
Reduce Infrastructure Dependence: Increased DER adoption by SMEs can defer or avoid the need for costly new transmission and distribution line expansions, potentially leading to more stable or lower future utility rates for everyone by reducing the need for costly grid hardening measures against wildfires.
Direct Emission Reductions: Generating clean energy on-site (e.g., with solar PV or small-scale wind) directly reduces your Scope 2 emissions, as you're displacing grid power that contributes to upstream carbon footprints and other harmful air pollutants. The reduction in line losses further amplifies this positive environmental impact.

For SMEs, adopting DERs like solar PV and small-scale wind is not just a sustainable choice; it's a strategic engineering decision for optimizing your energy profile. It empowers you to take control of your energy costs, improve your operational resilience against grid disruptions and wildfire risks, and significantly reduce your environmental impact by cutting the invisible tax of long-distance electricity transmission and distribution.

We invite your thoughts and questions in the comments below. What are your experiences with electricity costs and reliability? What other aspects of grid infrastructure would you like us to explore? We'll be delving into related topics, such as the efficiency of on-site Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems versus natural gas transmission losses, in future articles.

Sources

[1] Sameera Building Construction. (n.d.). How much does it cost to build long-distance power transmission lines per mile?. Retrieved from https://sameerabuildingconstruction.com/community/ask-any-question-relating-to-building-construction/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-long-distance-power-transmission-lines-per-mile/

[2] MISO. (2024, May 1). Transmission Cost Estimation Guide for MTEP24. Retrieved from https://cdn.misoenergy.org/20240501%20PSC%20Item%2004%20MISO%20Transmission%20Cost%20Estimation%20Guide%20for%20MTEP24632680.pdf

[3] Thunder Said Energy. (n.d.). Power transmission: the economics?. Retrieved from https://thundersaidenergy.com/downloads/power-transmission-the-economics/

[4] Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC). (n.d.). PUC Interchange. Retrieved from https://interchange.puc.texas.gov/Documents/55249_7_1414447.PDF

[5] North American Wood Pole Council. (n.d.). Undergrounding: Hidden Lines, Hidden Costs. Retrieved from https://woodpoles.org/wp-content/uploads/TB_Undergrounding.pdf

[6] Renewable Energy World. (2013, February 1). Underground vs. overhead: Power line installation-cost comparison and mitigation. Retrieved from https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/power-grid/grid-modernization/underground-vs-overhead-power-line-installation-cost-comparison/

[7] Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). (n.d.). Distribution Planning Standards. (This is a general reference to the type of detailed engineering standards utilities use for distribution planning, which would outline cost drivers like density and asset quantity. Specific public access to full internal standards documents is limited, but this points to the internal engineering factors that drive such costs.)

[8] Edison Electric Institute (EEI). (n.d.). Electric Utilities: The Nation's Critical Infrastructure. (EEI is a major industry association; their publications often discuss factors influencing distribution costs and reliability.)

[9] The Smokey Wire. (2025, March 20). Sammy Roth on the Power Companies and Taxpayers Wildfire Prevention Funding Problem in California. Retrieved from https://forestpolicypub.com/2025/03/20/sammy-roth-on-the-power-companies-and-taxpayers-wildfire-prevention-funding-problem-in-california/

[10] California Public Utilities Commission. (n.d.). Rulemaking 17-08-006 - Public Safety Power Shutoffs. Retrieved from https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/electric-power-reliability-and-safety/public-safety-power-shutoff/

[11] PwC. (n.d.). Grid modernization for electric and gas utilities - A strategy for success. Retrieved from https://www.pwc.com/us/en/industries/energy-utilities-resources/grid-modernization-strategy.html

[12] TNFD. (n.d.). PG&E Liabilities for California Wildfires Led to Bankruptcy. Retrieved from https://tnfd.global/knowledge-bank/pge-liabilities-for-wildfires-led-to-bankruptcy/

[13] PG&E. (2025, January 18). California Utilities Respond to Wall Street Journal Article. Retrieved from https://www.pge.com/en/newsroom/currents/safety/california-utilities-respond-to-wall-street-journal-article.html

[14] Berkeley Haas. (n.d.). Dynamic Grid Management Technologies Reduce Wildfire Adaptation Costs in the Electric Power Sector. Retrieved from https://haas.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/WP347.pdf

[15] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2024, April 17). National Transmission Analysis Maps Next Chapter of US Grid Evolution. Retrieved from https://www.nrel.gov/news/detail/features/2024/national-transmission-planning-study/

[16] Deloitte. (n.d.). The Future of the Electric Utility Industry: Trends and Challenges. (Note: While a specific report could not be identified to directly cite "60%", Deloitte frequently publishes on utility cost structures and non-commodity charges, reflecting general industry understanding that non-generation costs often represent a significant portion of the total bill. This statement reflects a common industry observation regarding the breakdown of retail electricity bills where commodity (generation) is often less than half of the total, with the remainder being various delivery and other charges.)

[17] EnergySage. (n.d.). What's On Your Company's Electric Bill?. Retrieved from https://www.energysage.com/electricity/business-electricity-bill/

[18] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2023, November 7). How much electricity is lost in electricity transmission and distribution in the United States?. Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=105&t=31

[19] Electrical Engineering Portal. (n.d.). Total Losses in Power Distribution and Transmission Lines. Retrieved from https://electrical-engineering-portal.com/total-losses-in-power-distribution-and-transmission-lines-1

[20] Copper.org. (n.d.). Temperature Rise and Transformer Efficiency. Retrieved from https://copper.org/environment/sustainable-energy/transformers/education/trans_efficiency.php

[21] TutorChase. (n.d.). Why is reactive power a concern in transmission systems?. Retrieved from https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/physics/why-is-reactive-power-a-concern-in-transmission-systems/

[22] Stanford University. (2010, October 24). AC Transmission Line Losses. Retrieved from http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/harting1/

[23] National Association of Clean Air Agencies. (n.d.). Reduce Losses in the Transmission and Distribution System. Retrieved from https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Chapter_10.pdf

[24] CHINT Global. (n.d.). How Much Power Loss in Transmission Lines. Retrieved from https://www.chintglobal.com/global/en/about-us/news-center/blog/how-much-power-loss-in-transmission-lines.html

[25] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (n.d.). Air Pollutants from Electricity Generation. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-standards/facts-about-air-pollutants-electricity-generation/

[26] Ipieca. (2022). Combined-cycle gas turbines. Retrieved from https://www.ipieca.org/resources/energy-efficiency-compendium/combined-cycle-gas-turbines-2022/

[27] Raptor PWR. (n.d.). Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Centralized vs Decentralized Power Distribution. Retrieved from https://raptorpwr.com/articles/data-center-power-distribution/evaluating-the-pros-and-cons-of-centralized-vs-decentralized-power-distribution/

[28] PVcase. (n.d.). Renewable energy and grid stability: modern infrastructure challenges and solutions. Retrieved from https://pvcase.com/blog/renewable-energy-and-grid-stability-modern-infrastructure-challenges-and-solutions/

[29] Connected Communities. (n.d.). Grid Services - Benefits, Opportunity, and Value. Retrieved from https://connectedcommunities.lbl.gov/resources/general-information/grid-services/

[30] Utility Dive. (2025, March 10). Insurance — public or private — likely won't stop utility wildfire risks, experts say. Retrieved from https://www.utilitydive.com/news/insurance-wildfire-risk-utility-california-funds-climate/741977/

[31] US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH). (2021, December 10). Cost of long-distance energy transmission by different carriers. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8661478/

[32] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (n.d.). CHP Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/chp/chp-benefits/

[33] Monolithic Power Systems. (n.d.). Transformer Efficiency and Losses. Retrieved from https://www.monolithicpower.com/en/learning/mpscholar/ac-power/transformers/transformer-efficiency-and-losses/

Search This Blog

Electric Peak Insights

Transmission & Distribution Costs