Interconnection QueueEdit

The interconnection queue is the formal, centralized process by which proposed electricity generation and certain demand-side resources assess and obtain access to the transmission grid. Administered by the regional operators that oversee the grid, the queue determines when and how a new facility can connect to the system, what upgrades are needed, and who pays for them. In broad terms, the queue sits at the intersection of market incentives, regulatory oversight, and engineering feasibility, shaping how quickly new capacity can come online and how reliably the grid can accommodate it.

The interconnection process is carried out under the oversight of regional authorities and federal regulators. In practice, the queue operates within a framework that involves the Independent System Operators and Regional Transmission Organizations, which coordinate transmission planning and operation. These entities work under the broader jurisdiction of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and they interact with state and local permitting regimes. The result is a patchwork of regional rules, timelines, and cost rules, all aimed at ensuring that new resources can be added to the grid without compromising reliability or imposing excessive costs on customers.

Interconnection queue: structure and process

The role of ISOs and RTOs

ISOs and RTOs administer the interconnection queue within their footprints. They maintain the official list of applicants, track study results, and coordinate the sequencing of projects through the various study stages. Because transmission planning and system stability are regional concerns, the queue is inherently regional, even as it shares a common objective: to map out the upgrades and costs required for new capacity to connect to the grid. See Independent System Operator and Regional Transmission Organization for related concepts.

Steps in the interconnection process

Interconnection request: A project submits a formal request to connect to the grid, beginning the queue position and initiating a screening process. See interconnection for general background on how projects evaluate grid access.
Screening and feasibility: Early screens assess basic feasibility and potential impacts on nearby facilities, identifying obvious constraints and rough cost estimates.
System Impact Study (SIS): A more detailed analysis evaluates how the project would affect voltage, line loading, stability, and other network performance issues.
Facilities Study: This step specifies the upgrades needed to physically accommodate the project, along with a more precise cost and schedule.
Interconnection Agreement and upgrades: The developer signs an agreement and, subject to completing milestones and securing financing, construction proceeds with the upgraded network features.

Costs and cost allocation

Upgrades identified in the process can be substantial. Cost responsibility is typically allocated to the interconnecting project, though there are mechanisms in some markets for shared or pooled improvements that benefit other customers or future projects. The way costs are assigned affects project economics and can influence the willingness of developers to pursue certain resources, especially in regions with long or uncertain upgrade timelines. See cost allocation and transmission planning for related topics.

Queue backlogs and timelines

A common point of contention is the backlog of projects waiting to be analyzed and upgraded, with queues that may extend over several years in some markets. Backlogs can slow the deployment of new capacity and complicate financing decisions for developers and lenders. The situation arises from a combination of factors, including the volume of proposed projects, environmental and siting reviews, and the pace of transmission planning and upgrades. See grid reliability and permitting for larger context on why these timelines matter.

Impacts on investment, reliability, and price

From a market-oriented perspective, the interconnection queue serves three core aims: it protects reliability by ensuring that grid upgrades accompany new capacity; it provides pricing signals about the true cost of integration; and it preserves a level playing field so various resource types can compete on a transparent basis. Proponents argue that a predictable, rules-based process helps attract private capital by reducing regulatory and engineering risk. Opponents point to delays and cost escalation when projects line up behind a long list of others, potentially raising overall system costs if needed capacity is delayed or oversold as a result of uncertain upgrades. See grid reliability and electricity market for related discussions.

The queue also interacts with broader policy goals, including the deployment of renewable energy, energy security, and regional economic development. In markets where renewable resources are a growing share of new capacity, some argue that the queue’s pace must align with transmission expansion and grid modernization to avoid bottlenecks. Critics contend that regulatory friction can impede efficient investment, while supporters emphasize the necessity of careful planning to prevent reliability issues and avoid wasteful stranding of assets. See renewable energy and transmission planning for further context.

Controversies and reforms

Debates over timelines, fairness, and incentives

First-come, first-served versus performance-based sequencing: Some stakeholders favor a simple, chronological approach to sequencing to reward early projects; others favor performance criteria that reward projects that are closest to ready-to-build or that minimize interference with existing customers. Each approach has implications for investment risk and grid planning.
Reliability versus speed: Advocates for quicker processing argue that time is a major cost to developers and to consumers, particularly when delays curb the deployment of cost-effective resources. Critics of rapid processing warn that insufficient analysis can create reliability gaps or lead to stranded upgrades later on.

Role in renewable energy integration

As policy aims push more capacity toward non-emitting resources, the interconnection queue becomes a focal point for debates about how best to scale up clean generation without destabilizing the grid. Proponents say the process, if well-managed, can accommodate growth in wind, solar, and other clean resources while maintaining dependable service. Critics claim the current structure incentivizes delays or mispricing, hampering clean energy competition and increasing long-run costs.

Reform proposals

Streamlined studies and timelines: Proposals aim to shorten the duration of screening, SIS, and Facilities studies, while preserving essential engineering rigor.
Clearer cost-causation and sharing: Reform ideas focus on making who pays for upgrades more predictable and economically rational, potentially reducing cross-subsidies and uncertainty for investors.
Transmission planning alignment: Some reforms seek tighter coordination between interconnection studies and long-term transmission planning to ensure upgrades are planned and funded in a coherent manner.
Federal and state permitting coordination: Critics argue that permitting, environmental reviews, and siting at multiple government levels create friction that spills into the queue; reforms often call for streamlined processes and clearer jurisdiction to reduce redundancy while protecting environmental and community concerns.

Woke criticisms and counterarguments

Progressive critiques commonly emphasize equity concerns, insisting that the benefits of new grid capacity should reach a broad set of communities and that ratepayers should not bear disproportionate costs. From a market-based perspective, proponents argue that reliability, cost containment, and transparent rules are the core protections for all customers, and that reform should focus on predictable, objective standards rather than redistribution-by-policy. Where critics claim the process is biased against low-income or rural communities, supporters respond that accuracy, transparency, and timely upgrades are the practical best defenses of affordable electricity for all customers. In this framing, criticisms that rely on broad ideological labels can obscure specific inefficiencies in the process, and targeted reforms that improve efficiency and clarity are more likely to deliver concrete value.