The PJM Interconnection generation queue is finally moving again after years of uncertainty and delays. It’s no secret that PJM needs more electrons- fast- and the transmission operator hopes a new “fast track” proposal will help address the reliability challenges posed by the recent swarm of large load additions (data centers) to its system.
On June 9, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved PJM’s request to create its Expedited Interconnection Track (EIT), a temporary fast-track interconnection process designed to bring large “shovel-ready” generation projects online more quickly. The EIT process will be a separate, expedited interconnection pathway, conducted outside the normal PJM interconnection process. PJM’s intention was to create an independent queue to fast-track a limited number of large projects that could otherwise get caught up in the normal slog.
PJM previously estimated that it needs approximately 15,000 megawatts (MW) of new capacity to address its identified capacity deficiency. The EIT will allow up to 10 projects greater than 250 MW unforced capacity (UCAP) to proceed per year. The projects can be of any fuel type, including storage, but they must be sponsored by a PJM state and interconnected within the sponsoring state. PJM also requires EIT projects to be “capacity resources,” meaning they must request capacity interconnection rights at the same time as their EIT application. Finally, PJM stipulated that EIT projects must achieve commercial operation within three years of submitting an application.
PJM expects EIT projects to complete a generation interconnection agreement (GIA) within 10 months of submitting a complete EIT request. The grid operator will accept EIT requests on a rolling basis until the 10-project limit per calendar year is reached. Additionally, PJM anticipates that the application review process will take roughly 60 days, including any scoping meetings with the project developer, transmission owner, and affected system operator.
Once PJM has determined that an EIT request is complete and valid, it will begin the study process, which it expects to take roughly 180 days. Next, PJM states that the parties will be able to execute the interconnection agreement within 10 months of submitting a completed application.
PJM argues that this consolidated timeline would only be achievable with its stipulation that highly developed projects can enter, allowing it to streamline studies and avoid delays associated with underdeveloped projects. PJM also requires that EIT projects demonstrate 100% site control for the generating facility, interconnection facilities, and interconnection switchyard at the time of application submission. Additionally, the EIT project must submit a $500,000 study deposit and a $15,000-per-MW readiness deposit, which PJM argues will help screen for projects most likely to reach commercial operation.
Infocast Transmission & Interconnection Summit 2026
Transmission planning, interconnection reform, cost allocation, and grid investment take center stage in Washington, D.C., June 23–25, 2026, as industry leaders work through the challenges of meeting rising power demand.
Register now and secure your spot among critical policymakers, senior executives, senior stakeholders, and leading experts at the forefront of efforts to meet the needs of the energy transition.
Not everyone is convinced PJM’s new EIT process will actually solve the problems PJM is trying to address, and FERC included comments from EIT supporters and opponents in its filing.
Some have opposed PJM’s primary siting authority requirement, arguing that many states have split siting authority between state and municipal authorities, or among multiple local units or state agencies, which could complicate the determination of the primary siting authority.
Other protestors disagreed with the 250 MW UCAP project threshold, which some felt was an arbitrary limit; others complained that it favors large projects over smaller ones, and that renewable energy and storage projects would struggle to meet the threshold. Some public-interest organizations and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argue that while the 250 MW UCAP stipulation may lead to more large projects being studied, those same large projects are more likely to face network upgrade or supply chain delays.
Other commenters worried that 10 months would not be enough time to review transmission projects, which could result in less thorough reviews and fewer opportunities for public input.
FERC acknowledged these concerns, but emphasized that its role in the process is to determine whether PJM’s proposal is reasonable, not whether better alternatives exist.
