For decades, the electricity industry has built power grids to handle a handful of peak-demand hours each year. The rest of the time, the infrastructure sits idle. Now a coalition of tech and energy companies is arguing that this approach is broken and wasteful.
The US power grid is so underused that better utilisation could save American consumers over $100 billion over the next decade, according to Utilize, a newly launched coalition that includes Tesla, Google, and Carrier as founding members. The coalition also includes Renew Home, Sparkfund, SPAN, and Verrus.
The argument is straightforward. The US electric grid operates at just 53% of its total capacity on average, according to a Duke University analysis of 22 regional power systems. A Stanford University study of the Western US grid found that even during peak periods, most transmission lines were carrying only 18 to 52 percent of their available capacity. This underutilisation drives up costs for everyone.
The core argument behind Utilize is straightforward: electricity costs are driven by the ratio of grid infrastructure cost to the electricity sold over it. If the grid sits idle most of the year, built to handle a few peak-demand hours that rarely come, consumers pay more per kilowatt-hour than they need to.
The Tech Giants Have Clear Incentives
The coalition's membership reveals powerful commercial interests. For Google, the motivation is direct: the company's AI data centre buildout is driving enormous electricity demand, and it spent $4.75 billion acquiring energy infrastructure for data centres last year and recently triggered 1.9 GW of clean energy development for a single Minnesota data centre.
Tesla's energy division has become its fastest-growing business, with energy storage revenues climbing to $12.7 billion in 2025, up 27% year-over-year. The company deployed a record 46.7 GWh of energy storage in 2025 and is ramping a new Houston Megapack factory targeting 50 GWh of annual output by end of 2026.
That alignment matters. Tesla wants to sell more Powerwalls, Megapacks, and grid services. Google needs cheaper, faster grid connections for its data centres. Carrier wants to sell more efficient HVAC systems that can participate in demand response. They all benefit from a grid that runs closer to capacity rather than sitting idle.
From Coalition to Policy
Utilize is not just publishing research papers. The coalition already has a legislative win on its record: Virginia's SB 621/HB 434, which passed with bipartisan support and now awaits Governor Abigail Spanberger's signature. The bill is a first-in-the-nation requirement that major utilities quantify how much of the grid is actually being used and incorporate those metrics into State Corporation Commission planning and regulatory review.
Sunlight on actual grid usage could change everything. Once regulators have hard data on underutilisation, the case for reform becomes harder to resist. An increase in utilisation will enable economic growth by allowing new electricity consumers to connect to the grid more quickly. With the right policy frameworks, distributed energy resources can reduce costs for customers while strengthening grid reliability.
The Real Question: Whose Problem Are We Solving?
Here is where the story becomes complex. Utilize argues for wider adoption of battery storage, solar panels, smart electrical panels, and heat pumps that can adjust their demand in response to grid conditions. These technologies can shave peak demand and fill valleys, using the existing infrastructure more effectively. The logic is sound.
But the coalition's membership exposes an uncomfortable truth: the biggest winners from this shift are the companies that sell and deploy these technologies. Tesla benefits from more battery installations. Google benefits from faster grid access for its energy-intensive data centres. Carrier benefits from demand response equipment sales. The consumer cost savings may be real, but they are a secondary benefit for some members.
Utilize says it will advocate for policies that encourage more widespread adoption of the new technologies, which also benefit those involved. That sentence carries weight. The group's language avoids the word "lobbying," and its structure as a coalition adds distance between commercial interests and policy advocacy.
The Australian Connection
Australia's energy regulators are already grappling with similar problems. The Australian Energy Market Commission has been modernising grid connection rules to accommodate the rapid growth of renewable energy and distributed resources. The rise of artificial intelligence is driving unprecedented demand for data centres in Australia, with some facilities potentially requiring as much electricity as small cities. The challenge is identical: the grid needs to handle new demand faster, and relying on traditional transmission infrastructure upgrades takes too long and costs too much.
Utilize's argument has merit, and the maths adds up. But readers should recognise what is really happening: a well-funded coalition of companies that profit from grid modernisation is reshaping the regulatory framework to favour technologies they produce and deploy. That does not make their argument wrong. It does mean you are watching commercial interest and public benefit move in the same direction. Whether they stay aligned when real trade-offs emerge is worth watching.