Fascinating and crucial data. Would be interesting to know the Why behind the different grid regions and why some solve all your criteria relatively quickly and others do not: political, regulatory, engineering....
Great question, Laurie. Let’s contrast ERCOT, which you’re familiar with, and PJM and MISO.
ERCOT’s interconnection queue moves faster than any other region in the U.S., and the reasons map directly to structural design choices.
Single-state jurisdiction eliminates the layered approval problem. In PJM or MISO, you’re dealing with FERC oversight, multiple state commissions, and multi-state cost allocation disputes.
ERCOT reports to PUCT and the Texas legislature — one political jurisdiction, one set of rules.
Energy-only market design removes the cost allocation fight. This is the big one. In RTOs with capacity markets, every new interconnection triggers arguments about who pays for network upgrades — because those costs get socialized across ratepayers in multiple states.
It’s like trying to split a dinner check at a table of 15 strangers who all ordered differently.
In ERCOT, generators largely bear their own interconnection costs. No socialization fight means no multi-year stakeholder litigation over cost allocation.
No federal transmission planning overlay. FERC Order 2023 is trying to reform interconnection queues nationally, but ERCOT sits outside FERC’s transmission jurisdiction.
So while PJM and MISO are retrofitting their processes to comply with new federal rules — adding procedural layers — ERCOT can iterate on its own queue process without waiting for federal rulemaking cycles.
Cluster study process is simpler. ERCOT moved to a screening approach that can process large batches of applications more efficiently.
Other ISOs have serial study processes where each project waits in line and earlier withdrawals force restudies of everything behind them.
The tradeoff is reliability risk. The ease of interconnection is part of why ERCOT’s queue has exploded with speculative data center applications.
Fast queue entry doesn’t mean fast grid buildout when the transformer lead times and transmission infrastructure can’t keep pace.
Fascinating and crucial data. Would be interesting to know the Why behind the different grid regions and why some solve all your criteria relatively quickly and others do not: political, regulatory, engineering....
Great question, Laurie. Let’s contrast ERCOT, which you’re familiar with, and PJM and MISO.
ERCOT’s interconnection queue moves faster than any other region in the U.S., and the reasons map directly to structural design choices.
Single-state jurisdiction eliminates the layered approval problem. In PJM or MISO, you’re dealing with FERC oversight, multiple state commissions, and multi-state cost allocation disputes.
ERCOT reports to PUCT and the Texas legislature — one political jurisdiction, one set of rules.
Energy-only market design removes the cost allocation fight. This is the big one. In RTOs with capacity markets, every new interconnection triggers arguments about who pays for network upgrades — because those costs get socialized across ratepayers in multiple states.
It’s like trying to split a dinner check at a table of 15 strangers who all ordered differently.
In ERCOT, generators largely bear their own interconnection costs. No socialization fight means no multi-year stakeholder litigation over cost allocation.
No federal transmission planning overlay. FERC Order 2023 is trying to reform interconnection queues nationally, but ERCOT sits outside FERC’s transmission jurisdiction.
So while PJM and MISO are retrofitting their processes to comply with new federal rules — adding procedural layers — ERCOT can iterate on its own queue process without waiting for federal rulemaking cycles.
Cluster study process is simpler. ERCOT moved to a screening approach that can process large batches of applications more efficiently.
Other ISOs have serial study processes where each project waits in line and earlier withdrawals force restudies of everything behind them.
The tradeoff is reliability risk. The ease of interconnection is part of why ERCOT’s queue has exploded with speculative data center applications.
Fast queue entry doesn’t mean fast grid buildout when the transformer lead times and transmission infrastructure can’t keep pace.