Engineering Papers⌕ Search
Home/Archive/DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI · 3008763

Queued Up: 2025 Edition – Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2024 [Slides]

Rand, Joseph [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Manderlink, Nick [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Zhang, Steven [Interconnection.fyi (United States)]·Talley, Chris [Interconnection.fyi (United States)]·Gorman, Will [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Wiser, Ryan H. [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Seel, Joachim [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Kemp, Julie Mulvaney [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Jeong, Seongeun [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]·Kahrl, Fredrich [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Electric transmission system operators (ISOs, RTOs, or utilities) require proposed power plants seeking to connect to the transmission grid to undergo a series of impact studies before they can be built. This process establishes what new transmission equipment or upgrades may be needed before a project can connect to the system and assigns the costs of that equipment. The lists of projects in this process are known as “interconnection queues”. In collaboration with interconnection.fyi, Berkeley Lab compiled, aggregated, and cleaned interconnection queue data from >50 transmission grid operators (7 ISO/RTOs and 49 non-ISO balancing areas), which collectively represent ~97% of currently installed U.S. electric generating capacity. The dataset includes requests submitted to queues through the end of 2024, and only includes requests seeking to connect to the transmission grid (not distribution-connected or behind-the-meter projects). The files below include both a PDF report and an Excel data file. The PDF report analyzes interconnection data and metrics through the end of 2024. The Excel data file includes (a) the full project-level interconnection queue dataset through 2024, (b) a codebook (data dictionary) describing each data field, and (c) 35 additional tabs featuring tables summarizing a range of interconnection metrics. Key highlights from the Queued Up: 2025 Edition (featuring data through 2024) include: • As of the end of 2024, there were ~10,300 projects actively seeking grid interconnection in the U.S., representing 1,400 GW of generation and approximately 890 GW of storage. • Historic withdrawal rates alongside relatively fewer new requests resulted in a 12% decrease in total active queue volume compared to the prior year. • Active natural gas capacity (136 GW, +72% year-over-year) increased in 2024, while solar (956 GW, -12%), storage (890 GW, -13%), and wind (271 GW, -26%) capacity decreased. • 408 GW of capacity already has a draft or executed interconnection agreement (IA) but has not yet reached commercial operations. • The time projects spend in queues before reaching COD is increasing. For the regions with available data, the median duration from IR to COD has doubled from <2 years for projects built in 2000-2007 to over 4 years for those built in 2018-2024. • Ultimately, most of this proposed capacity will not be built. Only 13% of capacity that submitted interconnection requests from 2000-2019 had reached commercial operations by the end of 2024; 77% of that capacity had been withdrawn and 10% was still active. • FERC Order 2023 and various other reforms are being implemented. These are important measures to reduce interconnection bottlenecks and enhance grid system reliability, but it is too early to measure and assess their full impact. • New additions for the 2025 edition include: (a) additional detail on data processing and gaps; (b) updates on interconnection reforms; (c) new analysis on interconnection agreements, and more.

Explore related subjects

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Rand, Joseph [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Manderlink, Nick [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Zhang, Steven [Interconnection.fyi (United States)], Talley, Chris [Interconnection.fyi (United States)], Gorman, Will [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Wiser, Ryan H. [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Seel, Joachim [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Kemp, Julie Mulvaney [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Jeong, Seongeun [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)], Kahrl, Fredrich [Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States)]. 2025-12-01. Queued Up: 2025 Edition – Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2024 [Slides]. https://doi.org/10.2172/3008763

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

DOE OSTI2027

Nodal capacity expansion planning with flexible large-scale load siting

We propose explicitly incorporating large-scale load siting into a stochastic nodal power system capacity expansion planning model that concurrently co-optimizes generation, transmission, and storage expansion. The potential operational flexibility of some of these large loads is also taken into account by considering them as consisting of a set of tranches with different reliability requirements, which are modeled as a constraint on expected served energy across operational scenarios. We implement our model as a two-stage stochastic mixed-integer optimization problem with cross-scenario expectation constraints. To overcome the challenge of scalability, we build upon existing work to implement this model on a high performance computing platform and exploit scenario parallelization using an augmented Progressive Hedging Algorithm. The algorithm is implemented using the bounding features of mpisppy, which have shown to provide satisfactory provable optimality gaps despite the absence of theoretical guarantees of convergence. We test our approach and assess the value of this proactive planning framework on total system cost and reliability metrics using realistic testcases geographically assigned to San Diego and South Carolina, with datacenter and direct air capture facilities as large loads.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2027

From zonal to nodal capacity expansion planning: Spatial aggregation impacts on a realistic test-case

Solving power system capacity expansion planning (CEP) problems at realistic spatial resolutions is computationally challenging. Thus, a common practice is to solve CEP over zonal models with low spatial resolution rather than over full-scale nodal power networks. Due to improvements in solving large-scale stochastic mixed integer programs, these computational limitations are becoming less relevant, and the assumption that zonal models are realistic and useful approximations of nodal CEP is worth revisiting. Here, this work is the first to conduct a systematic computational study on the assumption that spatial aggregation can reasonably be used for ISO-scale CEP. By considering a realistic, large-scale test network based on the state of California with over 8000 buses, we find that well-designed small spatial aggregations can yield good approximations but that coarser zonal models may result in large distortions of investment decisions, e.g., capacity under-investment of up to 41% for the lowest resolution model considered.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-facility analysis using metered power data to quantify MRI energy use and utility bill costs across scanner operating modes

This study quantifies the energy consumption of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners across discrete operating modes during routine clinical workflows, based solely on electrical power measurements. Although previous studies have investigated MRI energy consumption within single hospitals or specific clinical settings, this research provides a broader and more systematic analysis. Researchers analyzed electrical power data and applied a previously developed semi-automatic method for identifying MRI operating modes using load duration curves for 20 MRI scanners across four different U.S. healthcare facilities, encompassing outpatient, inpatient, and mixed-use clinical settings. A key innovation is the inclusion of localized hourly utility rates to estimate costs, a parameter absent in prior literature. Key findings indicate significant variability in energy and cost profiles between weekdays and weekends. Scanner characteristics, including magnet strength, manufacturer, vintage, location, and clinical setting, influenced average daily energy consumption and power thresholds for operating modes. Notably, the clinical setting of a scanner predominantly determines its energy use. For example, the scanners in outpatient facilities consumed more energy. The breakdown of energy usage and costs by operating modes showed scanners spend between 61% and 93% of their time in nonproductive modes, with one outlier spending 34%. Average daily energy use for the scanners in the study ranged from 160 to 1069 kWh, with energy costs ranging from $\$$9 to $\$$149. This study uses an existing framework to quantify MRI energy behavior, leading to insights that can enable improved performance and cost savings across different healthcare environments.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗