I don't disagree with this.  But if you were asked why the consumers couldn't build solar or wind (or micro-hydro, where possible) and avoid the power lines by having extremely local micro-grids (which I have argued elsewhere will not happen, so this is just hypothetical), how would you answer it?  Unless the lines are buried underground, you have esthetic damage to the landscape - clear-cutting trees, effects on water and land quality, electromagnetic transmission effects, etc.  Plus you have to secure the substations, which North Carolina is showing is not trivial.  This isn't argue against the transmission builds, but those in a situation where there is major opposition to any builds have to answer these questions, and it would be helpful to learn answers to use with them.

There are many alternatives to new transmission,

1. Energy Efficiency: California has a milder climate than Italy and 1/3rd less people yet uses only 6% less electricity

2. I read somewhere that NREL did a study that showed California could get 70% of its electricity from rooftop solar. That was back when solar panels were about 18% efficient. With 22% efficiency available now and 25-30% coming, why isn't California getting serious about behind the meter solar not just on roofs but over carparks, railroad stations, agri-voltaics etc. California has 50% more people than Australia and less than half the behind the meter solar. A successful program could actually reduce the amount of grid supplied electricity

3. Better utilisation of existing transmission.

a) Californias 10GW of hydro generates 14.5 TWh of electricity per year 17% CF, floating solar or adjacent wind and solar could triple the utilisation of transmission to those facilities

b) Restringing existing transmission lines with advanced carbon fibre cored conductors which can double the capacity of the lines and reduce sag in hot weather reducing fire risk

c) using virtual transmission with storage at the load and or generating ends of the lines to