How Can South Korea Solve Its Power Grid Conflicts? Insights on Community Participation and Profit Sharing

Rising tensions in the Middle East are a clear warning. For South Korea, which depends heavily on imported energy, a stable power supply is no longer merely an industrial concern—it is a matter of national security. With energy-intensive sectors such as semiconductors and artificial intelligence (AI) data centers driving national competitiveness, building a reliable power grid is an urgent, nonnegotiable priority.

In the National Assembly, lawmakers broadly agree on the need for roughly 73 trillion KRW in power-grid investment and financing through 2028 (approximately 54.8 billion USD). Yet on the ground, projects are meeting another barrier: local opposition and siting disputes over transmission towers and lines are delaying major work. That even key projects, such as the Donghae–Singapyeong transmission line, are stalled shows grid expansion is not only a technical or budgetary issue.

The core problem is clear. Although the grid is public infrastructure serving the entire country, its burdens fall disproportionately on certain regions and residents. Villages and landowners where transmission towers are sited face property restrictions, altered living conditions, and psychological stress. Compensation is often one-off and of limited effect. If we cannot answer the question, “Why must our community or our land shoulder this?” conflicts will keep recurring. We need to change our approach—from compensating sacrifice to sharing benefits. Rather than suppressing conflict, policy should build understanding through meaningful participation.

As one alternative, I propose a “special participation framework for power projects.” Current rules grant exemptions only to transmission lines of 345 kV and above. In practice, however, land under lower-voltage lines and the sites used for towers bear the same burdens on property rights. These landowners should receive comparable exceptions—such as priority grid-connection rights—when they participate in power projects. If affected landowners or nearby residents take part in distributed-generation projects like solar and energy storage systems (ESS), permitting should be eased and grid connections prioritized. Treating landowners as energy producers rather than mere compensation recipients would reduce conflict and increase acceptance.

We should also consider a resident-participation profit-sharing model, where local residents hold equity stakes in grid projects or receive a share of revenues. International experience shows this approach can lower conflict and accelerate project delivery. Given the delays and social costs caused by disputes, proactive incentives are a more efficient choice. The longer projects are delayed, the more fragile the power supply becomes and the more national industrial competitiveness erodes—losses that ultimately translate into higher costs.

The power grid is the circulatory system of the national economy. But people live where those arteries run. Policies that ignore their lives cannot endure. Grid disputes are not mere complaints; they are policy failures.

We must change direction: from sacrifice to participation, from exclusion to sharing. When landowners and local residents are stakeholders, solutions become visible. The Lee Jae-myung administration’s energy policy should meet this test. Framing grid expansion as coexistence rather than sacrifice is the necessary choice now.