On June 26, 2025, PJM convened its Interconnection Process Subcommittee (IPS) to provide critical updates on the ongoing evolution of its interconnection process, with a sharp focus on improving transparency, streamlining project timelines, and incorporating stakeholder feedback. The meeting covered updates to surplus interconnection service procedures, decision-making milestones, construction performance metrics, and feedback from developers in Transition Cycle 2 (TC2).
Key Topics and Takeaways
Surplus Interconnection Service (SIS) Update: PJM announced a meaningful expansion of its Surplus Interconnection Service process. The revisions, brought into alignment with FERC Order 2023, now allow both existing and proposed generating facilities to apply surplus capacity from existing interconnection rights—even in cases where new physical facilities are involved. This marks a shift from previous restrictions, creating a more accessible and efficient path for developers to utilize available grid capacity without triggering additional studies or network upgrades. The updated SIS process is designed to operate independently of active interconnection queues and will follow an expedited review timeline. These changes are expected to benefit storage developers and hybrid resource portfolios in particular, offering new flexibility in siting and market participation.
TC2 Kick-Off Feedback and Coordination: PJM gathered and reviewed feedback from stakeholders following recent TC2 (Transition Cycle 2) kick-off calls. Participants generally appreciated the proactive outreach but requested greater clarity around timeline expectations, data deliverables, and inter-phase communication. Concerns included the complexity of navigating deliverability timelines and the importance of early and consistent information sharing. PJM acknowledged the feedback and committed to refining communication protocols ahead of subsequent phases of the transition.
Interim Deliverability Requirements: A critical reminder was issued regarding deadlines for meeting interim deliverability requirements. Projects that fail to satisfy these obligations risk losing key deliverability rights, which could affect commercial viability. Developers were urged to ensure that all documentation and study results are submitted in time to preserve their place in the interconnection timeline.
Tracking Construction Metrics: PJM provided an update on interconnection construction metrics, offering stakeholders a view into ongoing project execution and potential bottlenecks. By sharing average timelines and component-level insights, PJM aims to increase transparency around post-study delays and support more realistic scheduling across the developer community. This data-driven approach is intended to improve accountability and identify systemic issues before they result in commercial setbacks.
Agreement Negotiation and Decision Point III (DP3) Requirements: PJM continued its effort to clarify expectations around the final phase of project execution—Agreement Negotiation and Decision Point III (DP3). Two versions of the presentation were shared, including post-meeting revisions to improve developer understanding. The discussion centered on ensuring that developers are fully aware of their responsibilities during the negotiation period and have sufficient clarity on what PJM will provide during each stage. The process seeks to reduce delays by aligning stakeholders on expectations well before formal agreements are signed.
Interconnection Cycle 2: Schedule and Structure: A detailed timeline for Transition Cycle 2 (TC2) was presented, outlining key dates for application deadlines, study phases, and milestone deposits. PJM emphasized the importance of adhering to the defined windows for withdrawals and decision-making to avoid delays in the broader study process. The clear scheduling structure is designed to give developers greater predictability and help them align internal project resources accordingly.
Developer Feedback on TC1 Milestone Enhancements: The session concluded with a discussion of industry feedback regarding milestone adjustments made during Transition Cycle 1 (TC1). Several companies expressed concerns about the predictability of deadlines, especially in light of the cumulative effect of study phase delays. Developers asked for more flexibility, streamlined communications, and assurance that study timelines would be honored. PJM acknowledged the concerns and noted that ongoing refinements to the interconnection process would aim to balance predictability with the need for rigorous reliability analysis.
Looking Ahead
This IPS meeting underscored PJM’s continued push toward a more transparent and developer-friendly interconnection process. The changes to the SIS process, combined with refined milestone timelines and feedback loops, reflect PJM’s responsiveness to industry needs. As new resource types and market demands continue to evolve, consultants and developers will need to stay closely engaged with these procedural changes to ensure project viability and competitiveness. The next IPS meeting is expected to revisit key themes from TC2 and continue discussions on deliverability and agreement finalization.
Work with ZEG to Navigate PJM with Confidence
At ZEG, we help developers and investors interpret shifting PJM frameworks, plan with confidence, and secure cost-effective interconnection outcomes. We offer tailored support for interconnection studies, model validation, and grid impact assessments, ensuring your project is technically sound, compliant, and grid-ready. Contact us to secure your project’s success.
View Meeting Materials here.
