Preparing for PJM Generation Interconnection Cycle 1: Requirements, Risks, and How ZEG Can Help
Author: Mike Tabrizi
PJM is preparing to open Generation Interconnection Cycle 1, the first full cycle under its reformed, annual cluster-based interconnection process. With an application deadline of April 27, 2026, developers who begin preparing now will be in a materially better position to manage risk, preserve optionality, and avoid costly surprises later in the process.
Cycle 1 represents a fundamentally different interconnection framework—one that places greater emphasis on readiness, commercial maturity, and upfront technical accuracy.
What Will Be Required to Enter PJM Cycle 1
At a minimum, projects seeking entry into PJM Cycle 1 should be prepared to submit:
- A fully executed Application and Studies Agreement (ASA)
- All required study and readiness deposits
- Demonstrated site control consistent with PJM tariff requirements
- Complete and accurate technical data submitted through PJM’s NextGen portal
Projects that treat these as “check-the-box” items risk delays, rejections, or downstream restudies. Under the new process, deficiencies at submission are more likely to have real schedule and financial consequences.
Why Early Technical Work Matters
Under the legacy serial queue, developers often waited for PJM studies to surface major constraints. In the new cluster process, that approach is increasingly risky.
Early-stage prospective and “shadow” studies can help develop a view on:
- Expected exposure to major network upgrades
- Deliverability constraints driven by updated methodology
- Sensitivities to RTEP baseline assumptions
- Potential impacts from affected system conditions
Identifying these issues early, before capital is heavily committed, allows developers to resize, reposition, or reprioritize projects while options are still open.
Interaction with Transition Cycle #2 and RTEP Uncertainty
PJM Cycle 1 does not exist in isolation. Available capacity and system conditions may shift as Transition Cycle #2 (TC2) continues to evolve. A significant number of TC2 projects have already withdrawn, many due to:
- Pre-existing system violations
- Changes in deliverability study methodology
- Timing mismatches between interconnection studies and RTEP planning cycles
The way these withdrawals propagate into PJM Cycle 1—whether through freed capacity, revised constraints, or study assumptions—will vary by zone and voltage level. Developers who understand this interaction will be better positioned to assess real versus perceived risk.
Lessons Learned from Transitional Cluster #1
Many developers experienced the importance of this multi-dimensional landscape during Transitional Cluster #1 (TC1), when some projects saw their COD pushed toward 2030 due to RTEP-contingent upgrades. (See our article on Interim Deliverability Study)
For PJM Cycle 1, understanding
- Approved RTEP 2024 upgrades
- Pending and likely RTEP 2025 baseline projects
- How PJM incorporates these into interconnection studies
will be critical to managing schedule risk and setting realistic expectations with potential investors and offtakes.
Key Milestones to Watch: PJM Cycle 1
While PJM will continue refining its schedule, several near-term milestones are already clear:
- Now: Perform early risk screening using the latest planning models and the status of prior clusters. This is the right time for an initial go / no-go decision.
- Late June – Late July 2026: Refresh analysis using PJM’s published Cycle 1 Phase I models. This is a key decision point before 50% of Readiness Deposit #1 becomes at risk.
- End of 2026 (DP1): First indication of network upgrade scope, enabling deeper queue attrition and sensitivity analysis.
Navigating NextGen and Transitional Rules
NextGen remains new to many developers. Projects designated as “AH2+” must be resubmitted as new applications under PJM Cycle 1, with specific and sometimes non-intuitive rules governing:
- Transitional CIR
- Capacity Interconnection Right (CIR) transfers
- Data migration and resubmittal requirements
Missteps here can lead to delays or forced resets—issues that are entirely avoidable with proper preparation.
How ZEG Supports Developers in PJM Generation Interconnection Cycle 1
ZEG is a boutique grid interconnection and transmission advisory firm focused on helping developers make informed decisions before and during PJM’s interconnection process.
Our support typically includes:
- Early-stage prospective and shadow studies tailored to PJM methodology
- Deliverability risk screening and upgrade cost exposure analysis
- Review and preparation of technical inputs for NextGen submissions
- Strategic guidance on RTEP interactions, study assumptions, and timelines
- Independent reviews to support internal investment and go / no-go decisions
We do not replace PJM’s studies, and we do not promise outcomes. Our role is to help developers understand risk earlier, ask the right questions, and avoid preventable surprises as they enter PJM Cycle 1.
Final Thoughts
With PJM Cycle 1 approaching, strategic preparation is a differentiator. Developers who invest time now to understand system risk, submission requirements, and process interactions will be better positioned to protect capital and maintain schedule flexibility. If Cycle 1 is on your roadmap and you are looking for a thoughtful, technically grounded sounding board, ZEG is happy to help. Contact us to get started.
