I actually hadn’t thought of the question that way despite looking at Singaporean, UK, Moroccan, Tunisian, Canadian, etc., etc., etc. interconnections and grids over the past few years. But it’s an excellent question, and I love those.
Let’s compare and contrast Ontario in Canada and France. They are both dominated by nuclear generation on their grid. In the case of Ontario, it also has a lot of hydroelectric, and while it was one of the first jurisdictions to intentionally shut down coal generation, more natural gas is burnt and renewables were stopped dead since 2018. That province is badly stuck in a mindset that neighboring jurisdictions’ electricity and distribution grids are last resorts, not primary resorts.
Europe lost track of strategic energy interdependence, and built an energy economy since the late 1990s on large flows of natural gas from Russia, a country which was clearly devolving away from being a trusted neighbor since the early 2000s. They didn’t adequately hedge against the increasingly rogue state and as such had a bit of a crisis which made them reassess.
Considering the historical and political relationships and the political situation inside of linked countries can avoid projects being completed but suffering from no benefits due to massive disruption at one end or the other. Consider also the hedging both within the project and within the larger context for disruptions.
Any project which at least doesn’t consider Chinese HVDC components is not doing itself any favors, and jurisdictions without significant HVDC experience which refuse to work with Chinese products, the USA being a primary case in point, will have higher project risks and likely higher costs, both of which will require management.