Active capacity in interconnection queues by generator type, 2014-2025. (From Excel data file).

2,600 GW in Queue: Time-to-Power Is the New Location Advantage

Grid Stress, Storms and Resilience Economics

June 16, 2026•4 min read

Time-to-power now decides site value. With ~2,600 GW in the U.S. interconnection queue and a median five-year wait, sites with firm grid capacity or credible behind-the-meter plans win. FERC’s June 2026 approval of SPP’s CHILLS creates a seven-year provisional path for large loads—if they can tolerate curtailment. Underwrite sites by quantifying time-to-power and designing for on-site generation, storage, and interconnection flexibility.

By Keith Reynolds | Publisher & Editor, ChargedUp!

Home | All Stories

What is Time-to-Power?

The expected time from site control (or LOI) to energization of sufficient, reliable capacity to run at the planned load—via firm grid service, provisional/curtailable service, or behind-the-meter (BTM) generation and storage.

Practical scope includes utility studies, interconnection steps, equipment lead times, permitting, and construction.
Decision rule: model the shortest credible path among firm grid, provisional/curtailable grid, or BTM—and carry curtailment and capex risk explicitly

How big is the U.S. interconnection queue in 2026?

Approximately 2,600 GW are in the queue, with the median wait near five years (per Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory).

Queue attrition: nearly 80% of projects withdraw before COD; only ~19% of capacity requesting interconnection (2000–2019) reached COD by end of 2024 (LBNL).
Cost exposure: interconnection upgrades can consume ~30–37% of project budgets.
System cost: delays impose large consumer losses annually (RMI); long timelines are now a market feature, not a footnote.

Is the queue a temporary backlog?

No. Its structural. Planning processes were built for flat demand; load is rising.

From 2005–2020, U.S. consumption grew ~0.1% annually; EIA projects commercial-sector growth of ~4.5% in 2027.
CenterPoint Energys large-load queue rose from ~1 GW to ~8 GW in a single year (late 2023 to late 2024).
MISO projects peak load growth from ~121 GW (2025) to ~163 GW (2035), ~35%—with 8–14 GW of new data centers expected in 2026–2027.

What did FERC approve with SPP's CHILLS in June 2026?

A seven-year, provisional, curtailable service option for large loads to use available transmission capacity in SPP while permanent firm service and upgrades are developed.

Approval date: June 5, 2026. Program: Conditional High Impact Large Load Service (aka CHILLS).
Tradeoff: earlier energization in exchange for curtailment during grid emergencies and structured obligations.
Implication beyond SPP: a regulatory template other RTOs can adapt if it proves workable at scale (White & Case analysis).

Which site traits now price in a competitive advantage?

1) Secured, firm grid access

Evidence: executed interconnection agreement, energized substation, and headroom above current load.
Value: quantifiable in months-to-occupancy and, for mission-critical loads, in avoided revenue loss.
Check: proximity to capable feeders, dual-feed options, utility letters of intent, and protection settings aligned with planned load profile.

2) Behind-the-meter generation and storage

Solar + storage sized to base load and peak shaving can materially reduce queue dependency.
Shorter interconnection pathway vs. grid-scale; often permitted locally with fewer studies.
Design for: islanding-ready switchgear, export-limiting controls, and space for incremental storage blocks.

What proactive owners are doing now?

Designing for optionality—so power can arrive by any viable path.

Right-size electrical rooms, busways, and switchgear for future load, dual-source, and islanding capability.
Specify transformer and gear with microgrid-ready protection and controls; pre-wire conduits for PV, storage, and EV charging.
Reserve pads and easements for gensets/batteries; confirm crane paths and noise buffers now, not later.
Initiate interconnection early—even if BTM is phase one—to preserve long-term headroom.
Lock equipment slots with vendors; lead times are part of time-to-power.

Related: This argument runs through both the Mideast Energy War series and the Energy-Equity Connection white paper at ChargedUpPro. Buildings that control their own power supply are insulated from the geopolitical risk premium, the rate case calendar, and the interconnection queue simultaneously. Securing power access—through queue position, executed grid agreements, or on-site generation—is no longer an energy strategy. It is a site strategy.

The Rocky Mountain Institute's analysis is direct: interconnection reform is not optional for the United States to meet its AI infrastructure ambitions. Until that reform materializes at scale, the competitive advantage belongs to sites and owners who have already solved the power access problem.

Time-to-power is the new location advantage. The queue is the new constraint that defines it.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does time-to-power mean in site selection?

It's the expected time from site control to reliable energization at the planned load, via firm grid service, provisional/curtailable service, or behind-the-meter generation and storage. It includes utility studies, interconnection, permits, equipment lead times, and construction.

How long are interconnection waits in 2026?

Across the U.S., the median time from interconnection request to commercial operation is near five years, with large-load categories such as AI data centers sometimes facing much longer timelines under current conditions.

What is FERC's CHILLS program and who can use it?

CHILLS (in the Southwest Power Pool) is a seven-year provisional, curtailable service for large loads to access available transmission capacity while permanent firm service and upgrades are built. Participants accept curtailment risk during grid emergencies.

Does behind-the-meter power avoid the queue?

It doesn't eliminate all interconnection steps, but BTM systems typically follow a shorter, more local process than grid-scale interconnection. When sized for base loads and peak shaving, they can materially reduce timeline risk.

What practical steps reduce time-to-power risk?

Start utility engagement early, design electrical rooms and switchgear for future capacity and islanding, reserve space for BTM assets, lock equipment lead times, and evaluate provisional options like CHILLS where available.

Sources

Keith Reynolds

Back to Blog