The current approach to interconnecting new clean energy resources to the grid is too slow, thwarts competition, and costs too much. As of 2024, the average wait time to connect a new generator to the grid was 55 months, more than double the average wait time from a decade ago. This has created a logjam of nearly 2,300 GWs of new generation stranded in interconnection queues, waiting for studies and construction of network upgrades to get their new energy supply to market. At a time when U.S. electricity demand is surging, it is clear that the generator interconnection process is outdated and no longer sufficient for meeting the needs of the nation.
This is hardly surprising. The interconnection process was designed over two decades ago for a grid dominated by thermal plants who wanted to ensure they could deliver full output during peak conditions when prices were generally highest. Outside of a few pumped hydro-storage plants, the idea of generating electricity off peak to be used via battery storage near loads on peak was merely an academic theory. In other words, the interconnection process was designed around making sure everyone could stay online during the worst hour of the year, rather than making sure we also could capture the value of the unprecedented cost declines of renewables and storage. As a result, we are seeing energy projects stall out right when we need new supply to come online more than ever.
Recent load growth forecasts suggest that the US could be adding over 160 GW of new electricity demand by 2030, more than three times the entire peak demand of California. In response to this rapid growth, FERC has signalled their intent to act on the Large Load Interconnection Docket by June 2026. In the last 6 months, FERC has already approved large load interconnection processes detailed in SPP’s High Impact Large Load (HILL) proposal and PJM’s rule changes to allow for colocation of generation and load. We expect that some version of “flexible load” interconnection will be the next 3D puzzle that will need to be solved by the industry.
However, despite the growing recognition of the need for change, we still lack a consensus on the best way to make flexible interconnection happen. Utilities and grid operators have pursued various interconnection process reforms, including automated analysis and increased staffing, but the industry needs guidance on how to fundamentally re-think interconnection and transmission planning such that resource additions can maintain pace with rapid demand growth while keeping the lights on.
Introducing Flex & Invest, an initiative dedicated to defining and implementing a “flexible, fast, and lower cost interconnection process for both generation and load, combined with proactive investment in a new macro grid”. To kick it off, GridLab hosted a day-long convening in March to workshop a new interconnection paradigm. We invited 23 industry practitioners from research groups, consulting firms, developers, philanthropic foundations and academic groups to brainstorm a new framework for the future of interconnection and transmission planning. Over eight hours, conversations generated dozens of ideas spanning regional geographies and federal-level reform, with several key takeaways rising to the forefront:
- All resources, including demand, have resource adequacy (RA) value and should be properly accredited. The current system often undervalues the contribution of clean resources to RA while overstating the reliability of thermal plants. This is introducing market distortions that lead to record-setting capacity prices as well as threats to reliability by masking the true resource adequacy position of the system.
- Linking interconnection studies to deliverability and capacity value is a policy choice. This linkage is a major reason interconnection studies have become so burdensome. This choice was made during a time when grid modeling software and techniques needed the simplification of a “deliverability” concept to ensure there was adequate headroom for all supply to reach all demand centers at all times. We no longer need this simplification. Challenging this core assumption opens up an opportunity for a framework in which capacity accreditation and deliverability are evaluated separately from interconnection itself.
- Reliability and deliverability are not synonymous. We do not need to ensure that every car has its own lane on the freeway so that there is never traffic. We can allow complementary resources to share transmission capacity while conducting more robust and sophisticated modeling to ensure all customers retain access to energy during critical periods.
- A consensus on operational parameters is key. Mutually agreeable terms and controls between grid operators, resource developers, and demand centers are essential for unlocking flexibility behind the point of interconnection. With recent innovations around storage and colocation, we are fast approaching a world where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between a “generator bus” and a “load bus.”
- Learn from successful, real-world examples. ERCOT utilizes a “Connect & Manage” approach, while SPP relies on a “Consolidated Planning Process.” Both are real-world models for the kind of interconnection process worth striving for. It is important to ensure these systems are well understood and to evaluate what it would take to scale them in new geographies.