Methodology and Evidence
We separate confirmed facts from assessment, and open decisions from closed ones.
PolicySight tracks what changed, who controls the next consequential decision, and whether the specification is still influenceable.
How claims are labeled
- Confirmed fact
- Utility, regulator, legislature, ISO or RTO, DOE or FERC, or company primary material.
- PolicySight assessment
- An analytical conclusion drawn from those facts.
- Unverified
- Commercially useful information not established in available evidence, such as incumbent supplier, approved vendor list, EPC assignment, or procurement date.
Scoring model
- Policy, regulatory or planning trigger20
- Commercial exposure20
- TS technical fit20
- Timing and influenceability15
- Economic, ROW or structure pressure10
- Buyer accessibility5
- Evidence quality10
Priority bands
- 85 to 100Active pursuit
- 70 to 84Pursue / qualify
- 55 to 69Prepare / monitor
- Below 55Exclude
A procedural fact can override a numeric score. A technically attractive project that is explicitly on hold is not an active procurement.
Evidence labels
- Confirmed fact
- Established by a utility, regulator, legislature, ISO or RTO, DOE or FERC, or company primary material.
- Company reported fact
- Reported by the utility or company in its own primary materials.
- PolicySight assessment
- An analytical conclusion drawn from confirmed facts, including scoring, ranking, and recommended action.
- Inference
- A reasoned conclusion that still requires account level diligence.
- Unverified
- Commercially useful information not established in available evidence, such as incumbent supplier, approved vendor list, EPC assignment, or procurement date.
Evidence standard
- Opportunity triggers are anchored to dated utility filings, ISO planning documents, statutes, or federal agency materials.
- Enacted laws, planning concepts, and funding announcements carry distinct labels.
- Project approval and procurement status are stated independently.
- Open specifications are distinguished from open procurements.
- Supplier, shortlist, EPC, and procurement details remain Unverified unless established by evidence.
Commercial cautions
Cautions and rejected opportunities
Mesa to Laguna Bell 230 kV #2
An advanced conductor project that does not qualify as a presumed open sale. See the qualification discipline example for the full reasoning.
Julian Hinds to Mirage
A real 47 mile HTLS project, but CAISO says cost rose from $76M to $178M and the project is on hold. Do not forecast active revenue.
Pardee to Santa Clara and Santa Clara to Vincent
SCE planning concepts, not Board approved CAISO projects by those names.
AEP Texas portfolio mileage
The roughly 2,800 miles are not 2,800 miles of advanced conductor.
DOE SPARK
SPARK does not yet provide a verified public recipient list.
Conventional reconductoring
Can be a false positive if the conductor is already specified and the project is near construction.
Qualification discipline example
REJECT AS PRESUMED OPEN SALE / QUALIFY ONLY IF SUBSTITUTION PATH EXISTSMesa to Laguna Bell 230 kV #2
- Scope
- Approximately 4.9 miles of advanced conductor reconductoring.
- Estimated cost
- $41M to $56M.
- In service target
- 2032.
- Specification status
- Public project materials are already comparatively specific about the planned conductor configuration.
- Substitution rights
- Not verified.
Why PolicySight rejects it: An advanced conductor project is not automatically a TS Conductor opportunity. When competitor specification risk is already high and no substitution path is verified, pursuing it consumes engineering effort that belongs on projects where the decision is still open.
Mesa to Laguna Bell sits outside the fifteen ranked targets and carries no numeric score. It does not meet the threshold for an open commercial opportunity.
- CAISO Board Approved 2025 to 2026 Transmission PlanISO planning document
- SCE SB1006 Advanced Conductors and Grid Enhancing Technologies StudyUtility filing
Evidence pathway labels
These labels identify who controls the next step, where the decision sits, and when engagement can still matter.
TS capability context
- High ampacity reconductoring
- Company reported capacity increases within existing rights of way, used where the capacity requirement is defined and a new corridor is not available.
- Structure avoidance
- Lower conductor weight and controlled sag at temperature reduce structure modification and replacement scope, which is where installed cost is usually decided.
- Schedule and outage performance
- Company reported project references describe compressed schedules on existing corridors, relevant where outage duration drives project cost.
- Utility deployment references
- Company reported deployments including SRP in Phoenix, Montana Dakota Utilities Napoleon to Heskett, and Basin Electric Neset to Northshore.
Primary source register
California utility filings and ISO planning
Verifies: Dixon Landing / East San Jose scope, engineering status, the 3,000 A advanced conductor requirement, the data center load trigger, and project milestones.
Verifies: Load growth findings, approved project set, TL623C analysis, Julian Hinds to Mirage status, and California planning context.
- CAISO 2025 to 2026 Transmission Plan, Appendix H ProjectsISO planning documentBoard approved, 2026 cycle
Verifies: TL623C formal scope, the $5.4M cost estimate, the 136 MVA normal rating target, and the advanced conductor versus standard rebuild alternative.
- SCE SB1006 Advanced Conductors and Grid Enhancing Technologies StudyUtility filing2025 studies, public version
Verifies: SCE candidate screening plus the Pardee to Santa Clara and Santa Clara to Vincent HTLS reconductoring concepts and ratings.
- California SB1006Current law
Verifies: The statutory framework requiring utility study of advanced conductors.
- CPUC GO 131 E reporting programRegulatory authority guidance
Verifies: The quarterly reporting mechanism through which California utility project scopes and milestones become public.
Federal funding and financing
Verifies: Up to $3.26B in closed financing, roughly 100 transmission projects, and roughly 2,800 miles of construction, rebuild, and reconductoring work.
- DOE American Electric Power environmental reviewsAgency process
Verifies: Project level environmental review records that help reconstruct which portfolio segments are named and how far along they are.
Verifies: The roughly $1.9B program scale, the explicit advanced conductor reconductoring priority, and the anticipated selection and award timing.
Virginia statute and code
Verifies: That advanced conductors are written into the Virginia utility planning framework, and the enacted statutory text.
- Virginia Code Title 56, Chapter 24Current law
Verifies: The codified utility planning and certificate provisions the new language sits inside.
Colorado statute and rulemaking
Verifies: The requirement for Colorado PUC rules obliging regulated utilities to consider advanced transmission technologies in 10 year plans, plus sponsors and committees of reference.
- Colorado PUC rulemaking processAgency process
Verifies: The procedural pathway through which HB26 1081 implementation rules would be proposed and commented on.
Federal planning backdrop
- FERC Order No. 1920 compliance filings scheduleRegulatory authority guidance
Verifies: The federal long term regional planning compliance timeline that forms the backdrop to state and utility planning changes.
TS Conductor corporate and case study evidence
- TS Conductor corporate siteCompany reported
Verifies: Product line, ampacity claims, and stated installation characteristics.
- TS Conductor case study, SRP Phoenix ROW reconductoringCompany reported
Verifies: A reported capacity increase inside an existing right of way on a compressed schedule.
Verifies: A completed utility deployment reference for rebuild and reconductoring work.
- TS Conductor project, Basin Electric Neset to NorthshoreCompany reported
Verifies: A second utility deployment reference for high capacity line work.