In a Utility Dive opinion piece published Feb. 21, 2025, GridLab technical education director Cassady Craighill argued that the United States is sitting on a near-term fix for its interconnection backlog: reusing the grid connections that already exist at aging power plants. Citing research from GridLab and the University of California, Berkeley, the piece says about 800 GW of clean energy projects could be plugged into the interconnection infrastructure at more than 1,000 existing thermal plants, with roughly another 200 GW available by 2030 — a combined figure the author describes as roughly equivalent to today’s total US installed generating capacity.

The piece points to regulatory movement already underway: FERC approved a PJM Interconnection proposal to update its surplus interconnection rules, the Southwest Power Pool expanded its surplus interconnection service, MISO is cited as having roughly 4,000 MW in its queue tied to the approach, and Xcel Energy and PacifiCorp have used it to deploy solar and storage in the Western Interconnection. The author estimates the approach could avoid about $200 billion in new infrastructure spending.

Executive Summary

Interconnection — the process of getting a new power plant physically and contractually attached to the transmission grid — has become the binding constraint on US electricity supply. Queues run years long, and the network upgrades assigned to new projects can cost more than the projects themselves. Surplus interconnection sidesteps much of that by letting a new resource share the interconnection rights of a generator that is already connected but rarely runs. The op-ed’s analogy is a mall leasing out floor space it is not using.

The economics are straightforward and, on their face, hard to argue with. The op-ed states that thermal plants around the country operate at less than 20% capacity factor — meaning their transformers, substations and transmission ties sit idle most of the year while fully paid for. Adding solar or batteries behind that same connection point uses an asset ratepayers have already funded, and it puts new supply on sites that have land, water rights, roads and a local workforce.

What makes this worth tracking rather than simply celebrating is the gap between a tariff change and an energized megawatt. FERC has approved rule updates and several RTOs have created surplus interconnection products, but surplus service is typically subordinate to the host generator’s rights — which raises real questions about how bankable it is. The measure that matters over the next two years is not technical potential; it is signed interconnection agreements and steel in the ground.

Reusing the Wire Is Cheaper Than Building the Wire

When a developer requests interconnection the conventional way, the grid operator studies what the addition does to power flows across the network and assigns the developer a share of any upgrades required — new transformers, reconductored lines, sometimes entirely new substations. Those studies take years, the cost estimates move as neighboring projects drop out, and the resulting bill routinely kills otherwise viable projects. Surplus interconnection changes the question being asked. Instead of “what does the network need in order to accept this plant,” the question becomes “can the connection already built at this site accommodate another resource behind it.” That is a far narrower study.

The physical logic rests on capacity factor — the share of the year a plant actually generates versus its theoretical maximum. A gas peaker rated at 500 MW that runs a few hundred hours a year still holds a 500 MW connection to the grid for all 8,760 of them. The op-ed’s claim that US thermal plants collectively operate below 20% capacity factor is the entire basis of the opportunity: the wire is the scarce asset, and it is mostly empty. Pairing an underused thermal plant with solar or storage also has a seasonal complementarity argument in its favor, since gas units are most exposed during extreme winter conditions.

The winners here are specific and identifiable. Owners of aging coal and gas plants hold something the market now prices very highly — a permitted site with an existing grid connection — and surplus interconnection lets them monetize it without retiring the host unit first. Developers who can strike site deals with incumbents get to skip the queue. Ratepayers benefit if new low-marginal-cost output displaces expensive thermal running hours. The parties with less to gain are developers holding greenfield land with no interconnection position, who now compete against rivals with a structural head start.

The Capacity Number Deserves an Asterisk

The article’s framing moves between two different units in a way readers should catch. It says surplus interconnection “could nearly double the generation in the United States by 2030,” then notes that 1,000 GW “is roughly equivalent to the installed generating capacity in the United States today.” Those are not the same claim. Capacity is how much a fleet can produce at one instant; generation is how much energy it delivers over a year. A gigawatt of solar produces materially less annual energy than a gigawatt of combined-cycle gas, so 1,000 GW of predominantly solar and storage nameplate would not double US electricity output. The technical potential figure may well be sound; the doubling-of-generation phrasing overstates what it means.

A second asterisk applies to the nature of the interconnection right itself. Surplus interconnection generally gives the new resource conditional access that is subordinate to the host generator — if the existing plant dispatches, the newcomer may have to back down. That is exactly what makes the study process fast, because nothing new is being promised to the network. But conditional output is harder to finance than firm output. Lenders and offtakers price curtailment risk, and how each RTO defines the sharing arrangement will determine whether these projects clear investment committees or stall at the term-sheet stage.

None of this is a reason to dismiss the analysis, and it is worth being explicit that this is an advocacy piece from an organization that works on clean energy deployment. The underlying mechanism has been endorsed by a notably broad coalition — the op-ed notes the PJM proposal was backed by utilities, clean energy advocates, environmental groups and independent power producers alike, and frames the concept as consistent with Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s “energy addition” order and his stated aim to “expand energy production and reduce energy costs.” Broad support is meaningful evidence. It is not the same as evidence about deliverable megawatt-hours, and the op-ed does not publish the methodology behind either the 800 GW estimate or the roughly $200 billion in avoided infrastructure costs.

Why Data Center Developers Should Be Paying Attention

The load growth story running through the entire US power sector — data centers, electrification, reshored manufacturing — is currently gated by interconnection, not by the availability of generating equipment on paper. The op-ed puts the tension plainly: clean electricity sits in queues waiting for new interconnection while utilities turn away technology companies seeking power for new data centers. Both problems have the same root cause, and surplus interconnection addresses it from the supply side without requiring a new transmission corridor to be sited, permitted and built.

Timing is what makes this relevant to infrastructure buyers right now. Utility Dive has separately reported that GE Vernova’s gas turbine backlog reached 116 GW with reservations being taken for 2031 deliveries — a queue of its own, and one that no regulatory filing can shorten. Against that, a solar-plus-storage installation behind an existing interconnection point is one of the few supply options with a realistic path to energization inside a typical data center construction cycle. Sites with existing grid rights have become a category of real estate in their own right.

Demand-side discipline is tightening at the same time, which cuts both ways. Exelon has told investors there is a “high probability” its data center load pipeline falls about 40%, to 11 GW, as transmission security agreements screen out speculative projects; and PJM’s market monitor found data center load accounted for 9% of PJM wholesale costs so far in 2026. For operators, the message is that speculative queue positions are losing value while genuinely deliverable power is gaining it — which is precisely the arbitrage surplus interconnection targets.

From Tariff Language to Energized Megawatts

The real test of this proposal is administrative, and it is already running. FERC’s approval of PJM’s updated surplus rules, SPP’s expanded service, MISO’s cited pipeline and the Xcel and PacifiCorp deployments are the input side of the ledger. The output side — interconnection agreements executed, projects financed, capacity energized — is what will show whether surplus interconnection is a structural unlock or a niche product used by a handful of vertically integrated utilities that happen to own both the host plant and the new resource.

Three implementation details will decide it. First, whether host plant owners have any incentive to lease their surplus to a third party that would compete against them in the same market, or whether uptake concentrates among owners developing on their own sites. Second, how curtailment and cost allocation are written into each RTO’s tariff, since that determines financeability. Third, how the process interacts with queue reform generally — a fast lane only stays fast if it does not fill up with the same volume of speculative requests that clogged the main queue.

There is also an honest limitation worth stating: surplus interconnection reuses capacity at fixed points on the network. It does not move power between regions, relieve congestion between load pockets and generation, or serve load that happens to be nowhere near a retiring coal plant. It is a complement to transmission expansion, not a substitute for it, and the strongest version of the argument is the modest one — that it is among the very few levers that can add meaningful supply inside a few years rather than a decade.

Background

Interconnection is the regulated process by which a new generator joins the transmission grid. In most of the country it is administered by regional transmission organizations — PJM in the mid-Atlantic, MISO across the Midwest, SPP in the central plains — under rules set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Over the past decade those queues have swelled with far more proposed projects than can be studied, and the network upgrade costs assigned to individual developers have grown large enough to cancel projects outright. Queue reform has been a central FERC preoccupation as a result.

Surplus interconnection service is a tool within that framework rather than a workaround of it: it allows an existing interconnection customer to make unused portions of its connection rights available to another resource at the same point. GridLab, a nonprofit that provides technical analysis on grid and clean energy questions, has advocated for wider use of the mechanism alongside researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. The urgency behind that advocacy is the load growth now arriving from data centers, electrification and manufacturing — the first sustained increase in US electricity demand in roughly two decades.

Source: Leveraging surplus interconnection could unleash 800 GW of energy the US needs today — a Utility Dive opinion piece by GridLab’s Cassady Craighill, published Feb. 21, 2025, citing GridLab and UC Berkeley research on reusing existing grid connections at underused thermal plants.

PJM Interconnection, the grid operator serving 65 million people across 13 states and Washington, D.C., announced on July 14, 2026 that its most recent Base Residual Auction procured 138,318 megawatts of generation capacity. Clearing prices reached the administrative price cap, a repeat of the prior year’s outcome.

PJM framed the result as evidence that work continues to address rising electricity demand, much of it attributed to data center growth across the footprint.

Executive Summary

A capacity auction is how PJM pays generators today to promise they will be available to deliver power on a future peak day. When the clearing price hits the ceiling PJM has set, it is a signal that the market wanted more supply than the rules allowed the price to fully reflect — a shortage indicator, not an equilibrium.

Hitting the cap two auctions in a row matters because it flows directly into wholesale capacity costs and, eventually, into retail bills across the PJM footprint. It also intensifies a policy fight that has been building for two years over how quickly new generation and transmission can be brought online, and who pays when large new loads — principally hyperscale data centers — arrive faster than steel in the ground.

For infrastructure buyers, the announcement is less a surprise than a confirmation: the tightest capacity market in the country remains tight, and the pricing signal is being absorbed by the cap rather than fully expressed.

What A Price Cap Actually Tells You

Capacity markets are designed so that when supply is comfortable, prices fall toward the cost of the cheapest available resource, and when supply is tight, prices rise to attract new plants. An administrative cap truncates that signal. Reaching it once can be an artifact; reaching it in consecutive auctions suggests the underlying scarcity is not being cleared by the response the market is meant to induce. The 138,318 MW procured is a large number in absolute terms, but the relevant question is whether it comfortably covers forecast peak demand plus a reserve margin — a figure PJM’s release, as summarized, does not itself quantify.

For laypeople: think of it like surge pricing that has been capped. The price you see at the cap does not tell you how badly buyers wanted more; it only tells you they wanted at least that much.

The Data Center Load Question

PJM has attributed a substantial share of demand growth in its footprint to data centers, particularly in Northern Virginia. That is now the operator’s stated framing again. The harder analytical question is how much of the queued data center load is firm, contracted, and in-service on the schedules developers publish, versus speculative interconnection requests that may never energize. Both PJM and independent analysts have wrestled with this in prior filings; the July 14 announcement does not, on its face, resolve it.

The commercial implication for hyperscale and colocation operators is straightforward: capacity charges are one line item in a total cost of occupancy that also includes energy, transmission, and increasingly, direct contributions to generation and grid upgrades. A cap-clearing auction reinforces the case operators have already been making internally for behind-the-meter generation, long-term power purchase agreements, and site selection outside the most constrained pockets of the PJM zone map.

Winners, Losers, And Who Pays

Existing generators inside PJM that cleared at the cap are the immediate financial beneficiaries, especially dispatchable units — gas, nuclear, and coal — whose availability is worth more in a tight market. Load-serving entities and, downstream, ratepayers absorb the cost. New entrants would benefit if they could build fast enough to catch the price signal, but interconnection queue timelines and permitting realities have historically meant the response lags the signal by years.

Politically, a second consecutive cap-clearing auction gives ammunition to every side of the ongoing PJM reform debate: to state officials who want more say over siting and cost allocation, to consumer advocates concerned about bill impact, and to developers who argue the queue and market design still under-reward new supply. The July 14 release is a data point in that debate rather than a resolution of it.

What This Means For Infrastructure Buyers

For enterprises evaluating where to put the next tranche of compute, storage, or connectivity assets, the auction outcome is best read as a durable signal rather than a one-off. Capacity cost is now a meaningful variable in PJM site selection, alongside latency, fiber, water, and property tax. Buyers with flexibility on geography can price the delta against neighboring interconnections; buyers anchored to the PJM footprint for latency or customer proximity should assume elevated capacity charges are the baseline case for the next several delivery years, not an anomaly.

Background

PJM Interconnection was formed in its modern regional transmission organization structure in the late 1990s and is regulated by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It runs the wholesale energy market, the capacity market, and the transmission planning process for a footprint that stretches from northern Illinois through the Mid-Atlantic. Its capacity market, known formally as the Reliability Pricing Model, was introduced in 2007 to create a forward price signal intended to attract and retain generation.

Over the past two years, the combination of surging data center load, retirements of older coal and gas units, and slow build-out of new resources through the interconnection queue has tightened the supply-demand balance. That tightening is the backdrop against which two consecutive cap-clearing auctions must be read.

Source: PJM Capacity Auction Procures 138,318 MW of Generation Resources as Work Continues To Address Growing Electricity Demand — PJM Inside Lines announcement summarizing the results of the most recent Base Residual Auction, dated July 14, 2026.

IEEE Spectrum reported on June 25, 2026, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — the U.S. agency that oversees the interstate power grid and wholesale electricity markets — aims to cut the queues that data centers face when seeking grid connections, while also containing electricity bills. The syndicated item carries only the headline, so the specific mechanism, docket, and timeline are not detailed in the material available here.

The framing itself is significant: the regulator is treating slow grid interconnection and rising consumer power costs as a single, linked problem — the two pressures the AI data center boom has placed on the U.S. electric system.

Executive Summary

According to the report, FERC is moving to shorten the waits that large new loads — chiefly AI data centers — endure before they can connect to the grid, and to do so in a way that limits the impact on ordinary electricity bills. Interconnection is the process by which a new generator or major customer is studied, assigned any needed grid-upgrade costs, and physically wired into the transmission system; the backlog of these requests is widely regarded as one of the tightest bottlenecks on U.S. data center growth.

Why it matters: hyperscale operators can erect a building in 18 to 24 months, but securing hundreds of megawatts of firm grid power can take far longer, and utilities in several regions have quoted multi-year waits. At the same time, household and business electricity prices have become politically charged in data-center-heavy regions, with debates over how much of the grid buildout ordinary ratepayers should fund. A federal move that credibly addresses both — speed and cost — would be the single biggest regulatory lever on how fast AI infrastructure can actually energize.

What is and is not substantiated: the available source confirms the regulator’s stated aim but not the instrument. Whether this is a formal rulemaking, a policy statement, or guidance to grid operators — and whether it is binding — cannot be determined from the headline alone, and readers should weight it accordingly until the underlying FERC documents are public.

Why the Interconnection Queue Is the Real Bottleneck

Every large project that wants to plug into the high-voltage grid — a solar farm, a gas plant, or increasingly a gigawatt-scale data center campus — must file an interconnection request and wait for engineering studies that determine what upgrades the grid needs and who pays for them. By the end of 2023, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory counted roughly 2,600 gigawatts of generation and storage capacity waiting in U.S. queues — more than double the nation’s entire installed generating fleet — with typical waits stretching toward five years from request to operation.

Data centers sit on the demand side of this equation, and large-load interconnection has historically been even less standardized than the generator process, handled utility by utility and state by state. For AI operators, the queue — not chips, land, or capital — is frequently the schedule-defining constraint. That is why a federal regulator signaling it wants to compress these timelines matters more to data center delivery dates than most technology announcements.

Two Goals in Tension: Faster Hookups and Lower Bills

Cutting queues and cutting bills pull in different directions, and the report’s pairing of them is the most analytically interesting element. Connecting multi-hundred-megawatt loads quickly often requires transmission upgrades whose costs, under traditional utility ratemaking, are spread across all customers. Consumer advocates in several data-center-heavy states have argued that households are subsidizing the grid expansion that serves hyperscale computing; utilities and data center operators counter that large, steady loads can spread fixed grid costs over more sales and put downward pressure on rates.

Both claims can be true depending on how cost allocation is structured — which is precisely the kind of question FERC decides. Mechanisms observers have debated in recent years include dedicated large-load rate classes, requirements that data centers fund their own upgrades or bring their own generation, and co-location arrangements that place computing directly at power plants. Which of these, if any, the regulator is now advancing is not specified in the available source.

What a Federal Regulator Can — and Cannot — Fix

FERC has a track record here: its Order 2023 overhauled the generator interconnection process, replacing first-come-first-served study lines with clustered, first-ready-first-served batches, backed by deposits and readiness requirements to flush speculative projects from the queue. Extending comparable discipline to large loads would be a logical next step, and FERC has also been drawn into the co-location debate through disputes over data centers sited at existing power plants.

But the agency’s jurisdiction has hard edges. States control retail rates, generation siting, and most permitting; regional grid operators run their own study processes; and no order can conjure the transformers, turbines, and skilled crews that are in genuinely short supply worldwide. A FERC action can remove procedural delay — often years of it — but the physical buildout still moves at the pace of supply chains and state approvals. Expectations should be calibrated to that split.

Winners, Losers, and What to Watch

If queue reform for large loads materializes and works, the clearest beneficiaries are hyperscalers and data center developers with projects stalled behind study backlogs, along with the transmission engineering firms and equipment suppliers that would see demand pulled forward. Utilities face a mixed outcome: faster load growth boosts their invested capital base, but tighter federal timelines and cost-assignment rules constrain how they manage it. Generation developers could gain if load and supply requests are studied more coherently together.

The unresolved variable is the ratepayer. If the regulator pairs faster interconnection with cost rules that make large loads bear the upgrades they cause, the political friction around data center power could ease; if speed comes without that discipline, bill impacts could intensify the local backlash that has already slowed projects in several markets. The details — still unpublished in the material available here — will determine which scenario unfolds.

Background

FERC is the century-old independent agency that governs the U.S. interstate grid, and interconnection reform has been its defining workstream of the 2020s. After two decades of essentially flat electricity demand, AI data centers, manufacturing, and electrification pushed load growth back onto utility planning maps around 2023–2024, colliding with queue backlogs that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory measured at roughly 2,600 gigawatts of waiting capacity by the end of 2023. Order 2023 tackled the generator side of the problem; large loads — the data centers themselves — remained governed by a patchwork of utility and state processes.

Through 2024 and 2025, disputes over co-locating data centers at power plants and over who pays for grid expansion made large-load policy one of the most watched dockets in U.S. energy. The June 2026 report places FERC’s next move squarely in that lineage: an attempt to standardize and speed how the grid absorbs its biggest new customers without letting the cost land on everyone else’s bill.

Source: U.S. Regulator Aims to Cut Data Center Queues and Electricity Bills — IEEE Spectrum report, June 25, 2026, on FERC’s effort to speed data center grid interconnection while containing consumer electricity costs.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — the U.S. agency that oversees the interstate transmission grid — has issued a decision on how data centers and other very large electricity loads interconnect to that grid, according to a June 21, 2026 Utility Dive analysis distilling the ruling into six takeaways. The decision lands in the middle of the defining constraint of the AI buildout: data center campuses now requesting hundreds of megawatts, and in some cases gigawatts, of power from a grid whose connection processes were never designed for loads of that scale.

Executive Summary

For most of the grid’s history, connecting a new factory or office park was a routine utility matter. AI-era data centers broke that model: single campuses now ask for as much power as a mid-sized city, and the question of how — and how fast — they plug into the high-voltage grid has escalated from a paperwork exercise into a national policy fight. FERC’s decision, as covered by Utility Dive, speaks directly to that question of large-load interconnection.

Why it matters: ‘speed to power’ has become the number-one site-selection criterion in the data center industry, ahead of land, fiber, and even tax incentives. Any FERC ruling that clarifies the rules of the road for large-load interconnection reshapes where capital flows — which utilities and regions can credibly promise fast connections, which co-location strategies (siting data centers next to power plants) remain viable, and who pays for the grid upgrades these loads trigger. The six-takeaways framing of the trade-press coverage signals a decision with multiple moving parts rather than a single yes/no outcome; the specifics of each takeaway are not enumerated in the source material available to us, and we flag that plainly in the gaps below.

Why the Grid’s Referee Stepped Into the Load Line

FERC regulates the interstate transmission system and the wholesale power markets that run on it, while states regulate retail electric service. Data centers sit awkwardly across that seam: they are retail customers, but at gigawatt scale their connections have unmistakable effects on the interstate grid — congestion, reliability margins, and the cost of upgrades shared across entire regions. That is why disputes over large-load and co-located interconnection have been climbing toward FERC for the past two years, most visibly in the PJM region (the 13-state mid-Atlantic grid operator), where fights over siting data centers behind the meter at existing power plants forced the commission to examine the rules directly.

The deeper issue is asymmetry. FERC’s Order 2023 overhauled how new generators queue up to connect — moving to clustered, first-ready-first-served studies — but no equivalent standardized federal framework existed for very large loads. Each utility and regional grid operator improvised its own process, producing wildly different timelines and study requirements. A FERC decision on data center interconnection is significant precisely because it addresses that gap: it tells utilities, grid operators, and developers what the referee expects when a gigawatt-class customer knocks on the door.

Speed to Power Is the Whole Ballgame

In today’s market, the scarce input for AI infrastructure is not chips or capital — it is energized megawatts on a firm date. Interconnection timelines of four to seven years for large loads in constrained markets have pushed developers toward workarounds: co-locating next to nuclear or gas plants, contracting for on-site generation, or chasing secondary markets with spare grid headroom. Every one of those strategies is priced off the baseline question of how long a conventional grid connection takes, which is exactly the variable a FERC interconnection ruling moves.

The economics cut both ways. Clearer, faster, more standardized processes would compress project timelines and reduce the option value of exotic workarounds. But greater rigor — more demanding studies, firmer cost-allocation rules, or requirements that large loads demonstrate readiness — could slow the most speculative requests. That would be a feature, not a bug, for grid planners: utilities report far more requested data center load than will ever be built, as developers file duplicate requests across multiple territories, and ‘phantom load’ distorts forecasts and infrastructure spending that ratepayers ultimately fund.

Winners, Losers, and the Cost-Allocation Question

Watch three constituencies. Hyperscalers and large developers benefit from any added certainty, even if the rules tighten — sophisticated players with real projects and balance sheets clear readiness screens that speculative filers cannot. Utilities in load-growth regions gain a firmer basis for the tens of billions in transmission investment that data center demand justifies, but inherit whatever process obligations the decision imposes. Existing ratepayers have the most at stake and the least voice: the central distributive question in every large-load proceeding is whether the data center pays the full cost of the grid capacity it triggers or whether some of it socializes into everyone’s bills.

There is also a competitive-geography effect. Interconnection friction has been quietly redistributing the data center map away from saturated hubs like Northern Virginia toward regions marketing surplus grid capacity. A federal ruling that harmonizes how large-load requests are handled would narrow the arbitrage between jurisdictions — good for national planning coherence, less good for regions whose pitch was procedural speed rather than physical capacity.

What a Six-Takeaways Ruling Usually Signals

When the trade press needs six takeaways to summarize a decision, the outcome is rarely a clean win for any single party — it typically indicates a framework ruling that resolves some questions, defers others to compliance filings or regional processes, and draws jurisdictional lines that will themselves be tested. Readers should treat the decision as the start of an implementation phase, not the end of the argument: FERC orders of this consequence routinely draw rehearing requests and appellate challenges, and the practical effect on connection timelines will depend on how grid operators and utilities translate the ruling into tariff language over the following months. We note candidly that the source material available for this article does not enumerate the six takeaways themselves; the analysis here reflects the well-documented context of the proceeding rather than the order’s specific holdings.

Background

The road to this decision runs through two years of escalating conflict between the AI buildout and the grid. FERC’s Order 2023 modernized interconnection for generators but left large loads without a standardized federal process. Then the co-location fights began: high-profile disputes in the PJM region over siting data centers behind the meter at existing power plants — including the commission’s closely watched 2024 rejection of an expanded arrangement at a nuclear station — pushed FERC to open proceedings examining large-load and co-located interconnection directly. Meanwhile, utility load forecasts, flat for two decades, turned sharply upward on data center demand, making the question of how these loads connect one of the most consequential in U.S. energy policy.

Utility Dive, the trade publication behind the six-takeaways analysis, is a widely read source of daily coverage of the U.S. electric power sector, and its framing of commission orders is a common first read for industry professionals tracking regulatory developments.

Source: 6 takeaways from FERC’s data center interconnection decision — Utility Dive’s June 21, 2026 analysis of the commission’s ruling on how large loads connect to the grid.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the U.S. regulator overseeing the interstate power grid, will direct grid operators to expedite applications from AI data centers seeking to connect to the grid, according to a June 20, 2026 report by Tom’s Hardware. The acceleration comes with a condition: the regulator says projects should supply their own generation — or agree to cut their electricity usage during periods of high grid demand.

Executive Summary

The reported directive addresses the single biggest bottleneck in data center development today: the interconnection queue, the waiting line through which any large new electricity load or generator must pass before it can legally draw power from, or feed power into, the transmission grid. In many U.S. regions those queues stretch for years, and AI campuses — which can demand as much electricity as a small city — have made the backlog dramatically worse.

What makes this move notable is the trade embedded in it. Faster processing is not being offered unconditionally: FERC’s position, as reported, is that projects should either bring their own power (on-site or contracted generation) or operate as flexible, curtailable loads that stand down when the grid is stressed. That reframes the AI data center from a passive consumer the grid must accommodate into a participant that shares responsibility for reliability. If it holds, it changes the economics and design assumptions of every large AI campus now on the drawing board.

The Queue Is the Product

For AI infrastructure developers, time-to-power has replaced land and even chips as the scarcest input. A completed building with racks installed earns nothing while it waits for a utility to study, approve, and build its grid connection — a process that in congested regions can take longer than constructing the facility itself. Regulatory action that compresses that timeline is therefore worth real money, arguably more than most tax incentives, because it pulls forward the date revenue-generating capacity comes online.

That is why a procedural order from FERC — an agency most people have never heard of — can matter more to the AI buildout than headline-grabbing chip announcements. FERC governs how regional grid operators (organizations such as the regional transmission organizations that dispatch power across multi-state footprints) process connection requests. Changing the rules of that process changes the pace of the entire industry.

Bring Your Own Power: A Bargain, Not a Gift

The reported condition — supply your own generation or curtail during peak demand — is the substantive part of the story. Grid operators’ core fear about hyperscale loads is that they consume enormous amounts of firm capacity that would otherwise cushion the system during heat waves and cold snaps, shifting reliability risk and infrastructure cost onto ordinary ratepayers. Requiring new AI loads to arrive with their own generation, or to behave flexibly, directly answers that objection.

For developers, both paths carry cost. On-site or contracted generation — gas turbines, fuel cells, nuclear offtake agreements, renewables paired with storage — adds capital expense and lead time of its own, since turbines and grid-scale equipment face multi-year supply backlogs. Curtailment, meanwhile, cuts against the way AI facilities have traditionally been designed: as always-on loads running training jobs around the clock. Flexible operation is technically feasible — training workloads can checkpoint and pause in ways that, say, a hospital cannot — but it requires software, contractual, and financial engineering that most operators have not yet done at scale. The likely outcome is a two-tier market: operators who can credibly flex or self-supply get to the front of the line; those who cannot wait.

Winners, Losers, and the Ratepayer Question

The clearest beneficiaries are well-capitalized operators already investing in dedicated generation — those signing nuclear and gas supply deals or building on-site plants — because the rule converts their spending into queue priority. Equipment suppliers for on-site power and battery storage also gain a policy tailwind. The relative losers are speculative developers whose business model was to secure a grid connection cheaply and monetize the queue position, and smaller operators without the balance sheet to self-supply.

For utilities and consumers, the reported framework is a partial answer to a live political controversy: who pays for the grid upgrades AI demands. A bring-your-own-power norm reduces, though does not eliminate, the risk that residential customers subsidize hyperscale growth. It is worth saying plainly, however, that the source is a brief news report of an intended order — the actual allocation of costs, the definition of “high demand,” and the enforcement mechanics will be determined by the order’s text and subsequent proceedings, none of which are detailed here.

Implementation Risk Is Real

FERC directives to grid operators are not self-executing. Regional operators must translate them into tariff filings; utilities and states — which retain jurisdiction over retail service and much of the distribution system — must accommodate them; and contested provisions frequently end up in rehearing requests or federal court. The gap between an announced intention to expedite and shovels moving faster can be measured in years. Developers should treat this as a favorable signal about regulatory direction, not a schedule they can finance against yet.

Background

FERC oversees the U.S. interstate transmission system and the wholesale markets that regional grid operators run. Its interconnection rules were designed for an era of predictable load growth; the AI boom broke that assumption, as individual campuses began requesting power on the scale of heavy industry and queues swelled nationwide. Through 2025 and 2026 the agency has faced mounting pressure from developers wanting faster connections, utilities worried about reliability, and consumer advocates worried about who pays — with disputes over co-locating data centers at power plants becoming a flashpoint. The reported expedite-but-self-supply directive is best read as FERC’s attempt to satisfy all three constituencies at once: speed for developers, reliability protection for operators, and cost containment for ratepayers.

Source: US energy regulator to order grid operators to expedite AI data center applications (Tom’s Hardware, June 20, 2026) — report that FERC will direct grid operators to fast-track AI data center interconnection, conditioned on self-supplied power or peak-demand curtailment.

The U.S. Department of Energy has publicized a ‘Speed to Power’ effort focused on accelerating electric grid capacity for artificial intelligence data centers. Coverage surfaced via a DOE.gov item aggregated in June 2026, framing the initiative as a federal response to grid delays constraining large AI compute buildouts.

Executive Summary

DOE’s ‘Speed to Power’ is positioned as a program to compress the timelines that stand between AI data center projects and the megawatts they need to operate. The core problem it targets is well documented: interconnection queues, transmission siting, and new generation approvals routinely take years, while proposed AI campuses are being sized in hundreds of megawatts to multiple gigawatts.

The materials available at publication are thin on operational specifics, but the signal itself matters. When a cabinet department brands an initiative around ‘speed,’ it typically foreshadows a package of permitting guidance, loan-program alignment, and coordination with grid operators and states. For hyperscalers, colocation developers, and utilities, even a directional federal posture reshapes how projects are staged and financed.

Why Power, Not Chips, Is Now the Bottleneck

For roughly two decades, data center growth was gated by capital, land, and semiconductor supply. In the AI era, the binding constraint has shifted to electricity: the ability to interconnect large loads to a transmission system that was not planned for gigawatt-scale campuses on short timelines. Interconnection studies, transmission upgrades, and new generation each carry multi-year lead times, and they must line up in sequence. A federal ‘Speed to Power’ framing is an acknowledgment that no single utility or state can solve this alone.

For laypeople: ‘interconnection’ is the technical and legal process by which a new large customer — or a new power plant — is allowed to plug into the grid. It requires engineering studies to confirm the grid can handle the flows without instability, and often triggers upgrades that the requester helps fund. Queues at major U.S. grid operators have grown into the thousands of projects.

What a Federal ‘Speed’ Program Can and Cannot Do

DOE has real levers: loan guarantees through the Loan Programs Office, coordination authority on transmission corridors, research funding, and convening power with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), regional transmission organizations, and state public utility commissions. It can also fund studies that let utilities pre-position upgrades rather than wait for individual customer requests. Those tools can meaningfully shorten some timelines.

What DOE cannot do unilaterally is override state siting authority, compel a utility’s integrated resource plan, or bypass the rate cases that determine who pays for new transmission. If ‘Speed to Power’ is largely exhortation and coordination, its impact will depend on whether FERC rulemakings and state commissions move in parallel. If it comes with binding funding conditions or new categorical permitting pathways, the effect could be larger — but those details are not visible in the source material.

Winners, Losers, and the Cost Question

The clearest beneficiaries of a faster interconnection regime are hyperscale operators and AI-focused developers with projects already in queue, along with the utilities serving load-growth regions such as Northern Virginia, central Ohio, and parts of Texas and the Southeast. Independent power producers with dispatchable capacity — gas, nuclear, and storage-paired renewables — also stand to gain if new generation approvals accelerate.

The harder question is cost allocation. Grid upgrades funded to serve very large single customers can, under some tariff structures, socialize costs onto residential and small commercial ratepayers. Consumer advocates and several state commissions have already begun pushing back on that outcome. Any federal ‘speed’ initiative that does not address who pays risks trading one delay — engineering queues — for another: contested rate cases and political backlash.

Background

Electricity demand in the United States was essentially flat for over a decade before roughly 2022, when a combination of AI compute growth, domestic manufacturing reshoring, and electrification began pushing utility load forecasts sharply higher. Data center power demand has become the most visible driver, with major hubs in Northern Virginia, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and the Southeast reporting multi-gigawatt pipelines.

The U.S. Department of Energy sets national energy policy, administers loan programs for energy projects, funds research through the national labs, and coordinates with independent regulators including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It does not directly permit most power plants or transmission lines — those authorities generally rest with states and regional grid operators — but its convening role and funding levers give it meaningful influence over the pace of buildout.

Source: Speed to Power – Department of Energy (.gov) — DOE-branded initiative framed around accelerating grid capacity for AI data centers.

Politico reported on June 18, 2026 that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — characterized in the piece as “not the old sleepy agency” — is diving into the escalating fight over how data centers connect to the U.S. power grid. The report frames the once low-profile regulator as an increasingly active and decisive player in disputes over data-center interconnection, the process by which large new electricity loads are studied, approved, and physically wired into the grid.

Executive Summary

The headline itself is the story: a Washington energy regulator that historically operated far from public attention is now central to one of the most consequential infrastructure questions of the decade — how, where, and on what terms the data centers powering artificial intelligence get their electricity. Politico’s framing, that FERC is no longer “the old sleepy agency,” signals that the commission is taking an assertive posture in interconnection disputes rather than leaving them to utilities, regional grid operators, and states to sort out.

For the data-center industry, this matters because grid access — not land, capital, or chips — has become the binding constraint on new capacity in many U.S. markets. Whatever rules FERC shapes for connecting very large loads will influence project timelines, cost allocation, and site selection across the country. The report we are working from is a headline-level summary rather than a full text, so the specific proceedings, orders, or disputes Politico describes are not detailed here; our analysis focuses on why FERC’s posture matters and what remains to be confirmed.

Why the Grid Regulator Suddenly Matters to AI

FERC regulates interstate electricity transmission and wholesale power markets — the high-voltage backbone of the grid — and oversees the regional transmission organizations that run much of it. For decades that made it consequential mainly to utilities and power traders. The AI buildout changed the audience. Data centers are now proposing loads measured in the hundreds of megawatts and even gigawatts, on par with heavy industry or small cities, and connecting loads of that size raises exactly the questions FERC referees: who gets studied first, what upgrades are required, and who pays for them.

The “sleepy agency” framing in Politico’s headline captures a real shift in stakes. When interconnection was routine, the rules governing it were obscure. When interconnection becomes the gating item for a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, the same rules become front-page policy — and the body that writes them becomes a power broker whether it seeks the role or not.

The Interconnection Bottleneck Is the Business Story

Interconnection — the engineering and contractual process of plugging a new generator or large customer into the grid — has become notorious for multi-year queues in many U.S. regions. For data-center developers, an interconnection timeline is effectively a revenue timeline: a site that cannot energize cannot sell capacity. That is why disputes over queue rules, study procedures, and arrangements such as co-locating data centers directly at power plants (sometimes called behind-the-meter siting, where the load connects at the plant rather than through the wider grid) have turned into hard-fought regulatory battles.

How FERC resolves these fights will shape winners and losers. Clear, faster federal rules would favor developers with strong utility relationships and sites near existing capacity. Restrictive or unsettled rules push projects toward states and utilities perceived as easier to work with, toward on-site generation, or toward markets abroad. Utilities and existing ratepayers, meanwhile, have a direct stake in ensuring that grid upgrades driven by data-center demand are paid for by the companies that cause them rather than spread across household bills — a cost-allocation question that sits squarely in FERC’s lane.

An Assertive FERC Cuts Both Ways

An engaged regulator is not automatically good or bad news for the industry. On one hand, federal clarity could standardize how very large loads are treated, reducing the state-by-state and utility-by-utility uncertainty that currently complicates siting decisions. On the other, active federal scrutiny can slow novel deal structures — such as dedicated supply arrangements between power plants and data centers — while the commission works out reliability and fairness implications for everyone else on the grid.

It is also worth noting what FERC does not control. Siting of the data centers themselves, retail electricity rates, and most generation permitting remain state matters. So even a maximally assertive FERC is one decisive player among several, and the practical outcome for any given project will depend on how federal interconnection policy interacts with state regulation and utility planning. The Politico headline tells us the referee has taken the field; the source available to us does not detail which specific calls it is making.

Background

FERC traces its lineage to the Federal Power Commission, created in 1920, and has long operated as a technical regulator of interstate power transmission, wholesale electricity markets, and natural-gas infrastructure. Its rules govern the regional transmission organizations — such as PJM in the mid-Atlantic — that manage the grid across much of the country, and its interconnection procedures determine how new generators and, increasingly, very large customers plug in.

The agency’s rising profile tracks the AI-driven surge in electricity demand. After roughly two decades of flat U.S. power consumption, forecasts turned sharply upward in the mid-2020s as hyperscale data centers multiplied, and disputes over connecting them — including high-profile fights over siting data centers directly at power plants — began landing at FERC’s door. The June 2026 Politico report captures the resulting role reversal: an agency once known mainly to energy lawyers is now a decisive venue for the infrastructure economics of AI.

Source: ‘Not the old sleepy agency’: Energy regulator dives into fight over data center connections — Politico’s June 18, 2026 report on FERC’s growing role in data-center interconnection disputes.

Federal energy regulators have approved a plan to accelerate grid interconnection for AI-focused data centers, according to reporting from The Hill dated June 18, 2026. The action is aimed at shortening the multi-year waits large new electric loads currently face before they can plug into the U.S. transmission system.

Executive Summary

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) — the U.S. agency that oversees interstate electricity transmission — has cleared a policy pathway to speed how quickly new AI data centers can connect to the grid. Interconnection, the technical and legal process of joining a large customer or generator to the transmission network, has become one of the tightest bottlenecks in the buildout of AI infrastructure.

The decision matters because power, not chips or real estate, is now the binding constraint on where and when hyperscale AI campuses can come online. Faster interconnection could unlock stalled projects and shift competitive dynamics among regions, utilities, and cloud providers. It also raises pointed questions about cost allocation, reliability, and fairness to existing ratepayers that the underlying reporting does not fully resolve.

Why Interconnection Became the AI Bottleneck

Modern AI training campuses can draw hundreds of megawatts — the equivalent of a small city — from a single site. Under standard interconnection procedures, utilities and regional grid operators must study how such loads affect voltage, congestion, and reliability before allowing them to energize. Those studies, layered on top of transmission upgrades that can take years to build, have produced queues stretching well beyond the planning horizon of any AI product cycle. A FERC-blessed fast-track pathway signals that regulators now view the status quo as economically untenable for a strategically important sector.

For laypeople, the shorthand is this: getting a large factory or data center plugged into the high-voltage grid is not like flipping a switch. It requires engineering studies, contracts, and sometimes new wires or substations. Cutting that timeline is powerful — and, if done badly, risky.

Winners, Losers, and Regional Reshuffling

Hyperscalers and colocation developers with shovel-ready sites near existing transmission capacity are the most obvious beneficiaries. So are utilities in regions with headroom on their networks, which can now court AI load with a credible speed-to-power pitch. Conversely, developers whose projects depended on being ahead in a strict first-come, first-served queue may see their positional advantage erode if fast-track criteria reward readiness or strategic importance over queue date.

Regional grid operators — PJM in the Mid-Atlantic, ERCOT in Texas, MISO in the Midwest, and others — will translate the federal signal into local tariffs and procedures. Expect divergence: some markets will move aggressively, others cautiously, producing a patchwork that data center site selectors will have to navigate carefully.

Reliability, Ratepayers, and the Fairness Question

Speed has trade-offs. Interconnection studies exist to protect the grid from destabilizing new loads and to fairly allocate the cost of network upgrades. Compressing that process invites two legitimate concerns: whether reliability margins are being quietly thinned, and who ultimately pays for the transmission investments that AI campuses require. If costs are socialized to residential and small-business ratepayers, expect political blowback from consumer advocates and state regulators, some of whom have already pushed back on hyperscaler-driven rate designs.

A fair reading of the policy shift is that it is neither a giveaway nor a threat on its face — the details of eligibility, cost allocation, and reliability safeguards will determine whether it holds up. Those details are precisely what the initial reporting leaves thin, and they warrant close scrutiny from all sides, including industry proponents.

Background

The U.S. electric grid was largely built for a world of predictable, gradually growing demand. The arrival of AI training and inference at scale has upended that assumption, with individual campuses requesting more power than some entire industrial parks. At the same time, transmission construction has slowed under permitting, siting, and supply-chain pressures, producing interconnection queues that in some regions exceed the total installed capacity of the grid itself.

FERC has spent recent years working through a series of reforms to modernize interconnection procedures, including changes to generator queue processing. Extending similar urgency to large loads such as AI data centers marks a notable expansion of that agenda and reflects the growing recognition that power access is now central to U.S. competitiveness in artificial intelligence.

Source: Regulators greenlight plan for quick AI data center grid connections – The Hill — U.S. federal regulators approved a plan to accelerate grid interconnection for AI data centers.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the top US energy regulator, is pressing the nation’s grid operators to overhaul the rules governing how large data centers connect to and draw power from the electric grid, according to a Reuters report dated June 17, 2026. The push targets the regional transmission organizations that manage most of the US high-voltage grid, and lands in the middle of an unprecedented wave of AI-driven electricity demand.

Executive Summary

According to Reuters, FERC is urging grid operators to rewrite their rules for connecting large data center loads — the procedures, studies, and cost arrangements that determine how quickly a gigawatt-scale computing facility can plug into the transmission system and on what terms. The report frames this as a directive from the regulator to the regional grid operators rather than a finished rule, which means the substance will be worked out in filings, stakeholder processes, and likely litigation over the months ahead.

Why it matters: interconnection has become the single biggest bottleneck in the AI infrastructure buildout. Chips can be bought and buildings can be raised in quarters; grid connections for very large loads are quoted in years. Whoever writes the rules for large-load interconnection — how costs are allocated, whether data centers can co-locate with power plants, and what reliability obligations big loads must accept — will effectively set the pace and geography of AI data center construction in the United States. A FERC push to standardize those rules is therefore one of the most consequential regulatory developments the industry has seen this cycle, even before its details are settled.

Interconnection Is Now the Gating Factor for AI Capacity

For most of the grid’s history, the hard problem was connecting new generators; large customer loads arrived gradually and were absorbed through routine utility planning. AI has inverted that. Individual data center campuses now request hundreds of megawatts — in some cases more than a gigawatt, roughly the draw of a mid-sized city — and they request it on construction timelines the traditional load-forecasting process was never designed to handle. Grid operators have responded with a patchwork: some regions created special large-load study tracks, others applied generator-style queue rules to loads, and others negotiated case by case. A federal push to overhaul and presumably harmonize these rules is a recognition that the patchwork itself has become a source of delay and dispute.

For data center developers and their tenants, the near-term effect of any rule rewrite is uncertainty, but the medium-term prize is predictability. A standardized process — with defined study timelines, transparent cost estimates, and clear rules on what a large load must commit to — would let operators of digital infrastructure make siting decisions on engineering and economics rather than on which utility territory offers the friendliest ad hoc deal.

The Fights Underneath: Co-Location, Cost Allocation, and Curtailment

Three unresolved disputes sit beneath any large-load rule overhaul. First, co-location — siting a data center directly beside a power plant and buying its output behind the meter. The arrangement can bypass years of transmission upgrades, but regulators and utilities have questioned whether such configurations pay their fair share for the grid that still backs them up; FERC itself has been wrestling publicly with co-location frameworks since high-profile disputes over data centers sited at nuclear plants in the PJM region. Second, cost allocation: when a multi-hundred-megawatt load triggers new transmission lines or substations, someone pays — the developer, the utility’s general ratepayer base, or some blend. Consumer advocates in several states have argued that ordinary households risk subsidizing AI growth; developers counter that they routinely fund dedicated upgrades. Third, flexibility and curtailment: grid operators increasingly want large loads to accept interruption or demand-response obligations during system stress in exchange for faster connection. Each of these is a genuine economic contest between reasonable positions, and the Reuters report does not indicate which way FERC is leaning on any of them.

Winners, Losers, and the Federal–State Seam

If the overhaul produces faster, standardized large-load interconnection, the clearest winners are hyperscale cloud and AI companies with capital ready to deploy, and the transmission-rich regions able to absorb them. Utilities gain too, if the rules convert speculative or duplicative connection requests — a real problem, since developers often file in multiple territories for the same project — into firm, financially committed ones. The pressure lands on grid operators, which must rewrite tariffs under regulatory deadline while managing record demand growth, and potentially on smaller data center operators, if new rules impose financial-commitment thresholds sized for hyperscalers.

There is also a jurisdictional seam worth watching. FERC governs wholesale markets and the interstate transmission system, but retail electric service and most siting decisions belong to the states, and Texas’s ERCOT grid sits largely outside FERC’s reach altogether. A federal overhaul can standardize how regional operators study and connect big loads, but it cannot by itself resolve state-level fights over who pays or where facilities are built. Buyers should expect a more legible federal process layered over a still-fragmented state landscape, not a single national rulebook.

Background

FERC, created in its modern form in 1977, oversees the interstate transmission system and the wholesale power markets run by regional grid operators. Its interconnection rules historically focused on generators — culminating in a 2023 queue-reform order aimed at the enormous backlog of power plants awaiting connection. Large customer loads, by contrast, were left mostly to individual utilities and states, an arrangement that held until AI demand broke it.

From roughly 2024 onward, gigawatt-scale data center requests, contested co-location deals at nuclear plants in the PJM region, and warnings from grid operators about record demand growth pushed large-load interconnection onto FERC’s docket. The June 2026 push reported by Reuters is the continuation of that arc: the federal regulator moving from case-by-case dispute resolution toward pressing for systematic rules on how the grid absorbs the AI buildout.

Source: Top US energy regulator pushes grids to overhaul data center power rules — Reuters, June 17, 2026, reporting FERC’s push for grid operators to rewrite large-load interconnection rules.

PJM Interconnection, the regional grid operator serving 13 states and the District of Columbia, announced on June 16, 2026 via its Inside Lines publication that its overhauled generator interconnection process is delivering results. The announcement, titled “New Interconnection Process Delivers,” signals that the reformed study framework — approved by federal regulators in 2022 to replace PJM’s clogged first-come, first-served queue — is now moving projects through review at a pace the old system could not match.

Executive Summary

Interconnection is the process by which a new power plant, battery, or other resource gets studied and approved to plug into the transmission grid. For years it has been one of the most stubborn bottlenecks in American energy: PJM’s legacy queue accumulated thousands of speculative and serious projects alike, with study timelines stretching years and many projects withdrawing before ever being built. In 2022, PJM won federal approval to replace that serial queue with a cluster-based, “first-ready, first-served” model that studies projects in batches and requires financial commitments up front to weed out placeholders.

PJM’s declaration that the new process “delivers” matters because the region is simultaneously facing surging electricity demand — driven prominently by data center growth in markets like Northern Virginia, the largest data center concentration in the world — alongside the retirement of older generation. Whether new supply can be connected fast enough is now a first-order question for grid reliability, electricity prices, and the pace of digital infrastructure buildout.

The announcement is a progress marker rather than a finish line: clearing studies is a necessary step, but megawatts only matter once projects secure equipment, financing, and construction — stages the interconnection process does not control.

Why the Queue Became the Grid’s Chokepoint

Under the old regime, PJM studied interconnection requests one at a time in the order received. That design worked when a handful of large plants applied each year, but it collapsed under the modern development model, in which developers file many speculative requests — often for renewables and storage — and decide later which to build. Each withdrawal forced restudies of everyone behind it, compounding delays. The result was a backlog measured in years, and a paradox: enormous volumes of proposed generation on paper, with comparatively little of it reaching commercial operation.

The reformed process attacks this structurally. Projects are studied together in clusters, network upgrade costs are shared across the cluster rather than assigned by queue position, and developers must post deposits and demonstrate site control to stay in. “First-ready, first-served” replaces “first-in-line,” which changes developer incentives from claiming a place early to being genuinely prepared. This is a governance fix as much as an engineering one — and PJM’s announcement suggests the incentive redesign is doing its job.

The Collision With Data Center Demand

PJM’s territory includes the densest data center market on the planet, and the region’s load forecasts have swung from decades of flat demand to sustained growth. That reversal makes interconnection speed a commercial issue for the digital infrastructure industry, not just a utility concern: a data center campus is only as viable as the power that can reach it, and new generation stuck in study limbo tightens capacity markets and pushes up costs for every large power buyer.

For data center operators, colocation providers, and their customers, a functioning interconnection pipeline is upstream of everything — site selection, lease pricing, and expansion timelines. If PJM can convert its backlog into energized projects, it relieves pressure on the supply side of an equation that has recently been dominated by demand headlines. If it cannot, the alternatives — demand curtailment, delayed retirements of aging plants, or higher capacity prices — all carry costs that eventually land on tenants and end users.

From Cleared Studies to Steel in the Ground

A cleared study is not a power plant. Projects that emerge from PJM’s process with signed interconnection agreements still face equipment lead times — transformers and high-voltage gear remain constrained industry-wide — plus financing, permitting, and supply chain realities. Historically, a large share of queued projects never get built, so the headline metric that matters over time is commercial operation dates, not study completions.

It is also worth noting the source here: this is PJM’s own publication reporting on PJM’s own reform. That does not make the claim wrong — grid operators publish detailed queue statistics that independent analysts scrutinize closely — but a self-assessment titled “Delivers” should be read as a progress report from the institution being measured. The durable test is whether independent queue data shows sustained throughput across successive study cycles, and whether new entrants, not just legacy backlog projects, move through on predictable timelines.

Background

PJM Interconnection, headquartered in Pennsylvania, is the largest regional transmission organization in the United States, coordinating the grid and wholesale power markets from the Mid-Atlantic into the Midwest. Like other U.S. grid operators, PJM saw its interconnection queue swell dramatically through the early 2020s as renewable, storage, and gas projects applied faster than its serial study process could handle, prompting a FERC-approved overhaul in 2022 that shifted to clustered, readiness-based studies and a phased transition to work off the backlog.

The reform arrived just as PJM’s demand outlook inverted. After years of flat load, forecasts turned sharply upward on data center growth and electrification, while older coal and gas plants moved toward retirement — making the speed at which new resources can connect a central reliability and cost question for the region, and a closely watched variable for the digital infrastructure industry that depends on PJM power.

Source: New Interconnection Process Delivers — PJM Inside Lines, PJM’s June 16, 2026 self-published update on the performance of its reformed generator interconnection process.