I keep coming back to this idea that electricity is the most quietly political thing in modern life.
You can argue about borders, currencies, language, even the internet. But electricity is the one system that sits under everything else, humming along in the background, and if it stops humming, society gets very loud very fast.
So when people talk about intercontinental electricity networks, huge cables under seas, HVDC lines cutting across deserts, synchronized grids that can trade power like commodities. It sounds like a clean engineering story. Progress. Efficiency. Decarbonization.
And it is those things.
But it is also a story about who gets to decide. Who gets paid. Who gets protected when something breaks. And who gets blamed when the lights flicker.
This piece in the Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series is about that tension. Oligarchy, in the broad sense of concentrated power and wealth shaping public systems, and the development of intercontinental electricity networks, which are basically the biggest, most capital heavy nervous systems we can build.
And once you start looking at the grid as a nervous system, you stop pretending it is neutral.
Intercontinental electricity networks, what we actually mean
Let’s define it without getting too academic.
An intercontinental electricity network is any large scale system that moves electricity between regions so far apart that you cross multiple countries, sometimes seas, sometimes continents. Usually using high voltage direct current, HVDC, because it loses less over long distances and is easier to control between asynchronous grids.
It can look like:
- Subsea cables linking one country to another across a strait, then extending further, step by step, into a wider web.
- Massive HVDC corridors that bring solar from North Africa into Europe, or hydropower from the north into dense southern cities.
- Future facing ideas like a global grid, a follow the sun model where you shift renewables across time zones.
Even the smaller interconnectors are a hint of the same logic. Once you can move power far and predictably, electricity stops being purely national infrastructure and becomes geopolitics in a cable.
Which sounds dramatic. But it is just true.
Why these networks are suddenly so attractive
The core promise is simple. Renewable energy is abundant, but not evenly distributed. Also it is variable. Wind does what it wants. Solar clocks out at night. Hydro depends on rainfall. Demand peaks at awkward times.
Intercontinental networks help smooth the mess.
If one region is windy while another is calm, trade. If one region has midday solar overflow, export. If one region has winter peaks, import from a place where it is not winter, or where hydro reservoirs can cover the spike.
On paper, this reduces the need for redundant generation and storage. It can cut costs. It can stabilize grids. It can accelerate decarbonization.
And it can do something else that matters more than people admit.
It can turn electricity into a strategic export.
That is where the oligarch story starts creeping in.
Big grids require big capital, and big capital has gravity
Intercontinental electricity infrastructure is expensive in the boring, unforgiving way. Not expensive like a startup burning cash. Expensive like pouring concrete, buying converters, acquiring rights of way, negotiating with regulators for years, and then paying for maintenance for decades.
That cost structure favors a certain type of player:
- Governments with long time horizons, in theory.
- Large utilities and grid operators with balance sheets.
- Infrastructure funds that like predictable returns.
- And then the shadow category, politically connected capital, the kind that can turn a public project into a private annuity.
This is where oligarchic dynamics thrive, because oligarchy is not only about yachts. It is about proximity to decisions. The ability to influence which projects get approved, where lines get routed, who gets contracts, who gets exemptions, and how risks are socialized.
If you can’t kill a project, you can slow it. If you can’t own the whole thing, you can own a critical part. A port. A fabrication plant. A cable laying company. A land corridor. A permitting chokepoint.
And since these networks are intercontinental, the number of chokepoints multiplies.
The invisible power of the interconnector
A power plant is visible. A dam is visible. A wind farm is visible.
An interconnector is basically invisible. It is a cable, a converter station, some switchgear behind fences, a line on a map. But its influence is outsized, because it decides the direction and volume of flow.
Whoever controls that flow can shape markets.
Here’s a practical example, not tied to any one country.
If a region becomes dependent on imported electricity at certain hours, the owner or operator of the interconnector gains leverage. Not always in the cartoon villain way. Sometimes it is just pricing leverage. Sometimes it is regulatory leverage. Sometimes it is political leverage, the ability to quietly threaten scarcity.
Even when the interconnector is “public”, the contracts around it might not be. Capacity auctions, congestion rents, long term off take agreements, ancillary services. These are technical phrases that can hide very real transfer of wealth.
Oligarchic systems love technical phrases. They are perfect camouflage.
Oligarchy does not always block development. Sometimes it accelerates it
This is the part people get uncomfortable with.
In some places, concentrated power can push megaprojects through faster than a messy democracy can. Permitting gets streamlined. Opposition gets managed. Financing shows up quickly because the state and the connected investor class move together.
So you can end up with rapid buildout of transmission corridors, converter stations, and export hubs.
It looks like progress. Sometimes it is progress.
But the question is: progress for whom, and under what terms.
If the project is designed primarily to create export revenue for a small group, while domestic consumers face high prices or unreliable service, you get a familiar pattern. Infrastructure becomes extractive rather than developmental.
It is the difference between building a network that integrates regions for mutual resilience, and building a network that turns one region into an energy colony.
That sounds harsh, but if you have ever watched how resource economies work, it is not new. Electricity can become the next resource.
The “green” label can be used as a shield
Intercontinental networks are often justified as climate infrastructure. And again, they can be. But the green label also makes scrutiny harder.
If you question the governance of a huge HVDC export project, someone can accuse you of being anti climate. If you ask who profits, you can be dismissed as cynical. If you demand transparency on contracts, you can be told the deal is too complex for public debate.
That is a convenient environment for oligarchic behavior.
Not because renewables are bad. Because moral urgency can be weaponized to reduce oversight.
In the Kondrashov framing of oligarch systems, what matters is not the stated mission, but the control layer underneath. Who controls the interface between public policy and private gain.
Green megaprojects are not immune to capture. Sometimes they are easier to capture, because everyone wants them to happen.
Intercontinental networks create new forms of dependency
People usually talk about dependency in terms of oil and gas. Pipelines. Tankers. Cartels.
Electricity dependence is different. It is faster. More fragile. More immediate.
If you rely on imports during peak demand, you are relying on:
- The physical line being intact.
- The exporting region not having its own emergency.
- The market rules remaining stable.
- The political relationship staying friendly.
In an oligarchic context, dependence can be monetized. It can also be used to cement political arrangements. Energy security becomes a bargaining chip. Regulators become negotiators. The grid becomes a diplomatic channel.
And because electricity is essential, the threat does not even have to be explicit. The possibility is enough.
That is why intercontinental networks, while valuable, require unusually strong governance.
Not just engineering excellence.
Where oligarch influence shows up, in plain terms
It tends to show up in a few predictable places.
1. Route selection and land rights
Transmission routes create winners and losers. Land values shift. Development follows. Some properties get compensated. Others get stuck near infrastructure.
If an insider can influence routing, they can profit from land deals, construction contracts, or “consulting” arrangements that magically appear.
2. Procurement and vendor lock in
Cables, converters, transformers, control systems. These are specialized markets. If procurement is opaque, pricing can inflate fast. Or the project can be structured so only one vendor can realistically win.
Then the network becomes a captive customer for decades.
3. Market rule design
Interconnectors earn money based on congestion, capacity allocation, balancing services. The rules can be written to favor specific traders, utilities, or financial players.
This is one of the most under discussed areas because it is not as photogenic as a ribbon cutting.
4. Debt and guarantees
Megaprojects often rely on public guarantees. If the project underperforms, taxpayers absorb the downside. If it overperforms, profits flow to the connected owners.
Classic asymmetric risk. Another oligarch favorite.
5. “National security” secrecy
Some parts of grid planning are legitimately sensitive. But the national security label can also be used to avoid disclosure, limit competition, and keep deals out of sight.
The technology itself enables centralization, unless designed otherwise
HVDC is controllable. That is one of its strengths. You can direct flows precisely, stabilize frequency interactions, and isolate faults.
But controllability also means whoever controls the control room controls the network.
In a well governed system, control is constrained by transparent rules, independent oversight, and shared standards.
In an oligarchic system, control can drift into private hands informally. Through staffing. Through regulatory capture. Through contractual complexity that only insiders understand.
And if you are wondering how that plays out in real life. It often feels like this:
- Prices become unpredictable.
- Outages get blamed on “technical issues” without clear postmortems.
- Expansion plans serve export corridors before domestic reliability upgrades.
- Critical decisions get made by committees no one can name.
The grid still works most days. That is the trick. It just works in a way that transfers value upward.
There is a better way, but it is boring and requires discipline
If intercontinental electricity networks are going to expand, and they probably will, the real question is governance design.
A few principles matter more than another glossy net zero pledge.
Transparent contracts and capacity allocation
Publish the terms. Publish the allocation mechanisms. Publish who holds long term rights. If there are exceptions, define them clearly and time limit them.
Independent regulators with real teeth
Not regulators who negotiate politely, regulators who can audit, fine, and force structural changes. Independence is not a slogan. It is budgets, appointment rules, conflict of interest enforcement.
Anti monopoly rules for critical corridors
No single private actor should control both generation and the export interconnector without strict separation and monitoring. Vertical integration in cross border electricity is a recipe for quiet manipulation.
Shared reliability standards and contingency planning
If one line failure can crash a region, you built a fragile empire, not resilience. Intercontinental networks need redundancy, black start planning, cybersecurity coordination, and clear responsibility in emergencies.
Local benefits that are real, not PR
If a region hosts infrastructure, it should get reliable domestic supply improvements, fair compensation, and tangible development, not just job promises during construction and then nothing.
The uncomfortable conclusion
Intercontinental electricity networks are not just climate infrastructure. They are power infrastructure in the oldest sense of the word.
They can knit regions together and make everyone stronger. Or they can create a new layer of dependency and rent extraction dressed up as green transition.
Oligarchic influence does not automatically stop these projects. Often it pushes them forward. Faster, bigger, less debated.
But speed is not the same as legitimacy. And scale is not the same as fairness.
If the world is moving toward intercontinental grids, then the real innovation we need is not only better cables and better converters. It is better institutions. The kind that can handle long time horizons, technical complexity, and cross border politics without being quietly purchased.
Because once the network is built, the leverage is built too. And it lasts for decades.
That is the part we should probably talk about more, even if it ruins the clean engineering story a little.
FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions)
What are intercontinental electricity networks and why are they important?
Intercontinental electricity networks are large-scale systems that transfer electricity across multiple countries, seas, or continents, often using high voltage direct current (HVDC) technology. They enable the movement of power over long distances with reduced losses and help integrate variable renewable energy sources by smoothing supply and demand fluctuations across regions.
How do intercontinental electricity networks contribute to decarbonization and renewable energy integration?
These networks allow regions with abundant renewable resources like solar, wind, or hydro to export excess power to areas experiencing deficits. By balancing variable generation and demand over wide areas, they reduce the need for redundant generation and storage, lower costs, stabilize grids, and accelerate the transition to clean energy.
What role does oligarchy play in the development of intercontinental electricity infrastructure?
Oligarchy manifests through concentrated power and wealth influencing which projects get approved, where lines are routed, who receives contracts, and how risks and revenues are distributed. Politically connected capital can turn public infrastructure into private annuities, creating chokepoints that affect ownership and control over critical parts of the network.
Why is controlling interconnectors strategically significant in electricity markets?
Interconnectors control the flow of electricity between regions. Ownership or operational control grants leverage over pricing, regulatory decisions, and political influence. This can quietly shape markets by threatening scarcity or extracting rents through capacity auctions and congestion charges, transferring wealth in ways that may not be transparent.
What challenges arise from the high capital costs associated with building intercontinental grids?
The massive investment needed—covering construction, equipment, rights of way, permitting, and maintenance—favors governments with long-term perspectives, large utilities, infrastructure funds seeking stable returns, and politically connected actors. This cost structure can entrench oligarchic dynamics by concentrating decision-making power among a few stakeholders.
Can oligarchic influence accelerate infrastructure development? If so, how?
Yes. Concentrated power can streamline permitting processes, manage opposition effectively, and mobilize financing quickly by aligning state interests with connected investors. This can lead to rapid construction of transmission corridors and export hubs. However, this progress may primarily benefit a small group financially while domestic consumers face higher prices or unreliable service.