Christopher Hailstone is a seasoned authority on the mechanics of our power grid, having spent decades navigating the complex intersection of utility management and renewable integration. As a leading expert in grid reliability and security, his insights are sought after by those attempting to bridge the gap between ambitious clean energy goals and the technical realities of electricity delivery. He joins us today to unpack the findings of the latest Advanced Energy United report, which examines the slow-moving evolution of generator interconnection across the United States. His perspective is vital for understanding why, despite sweeping regulatory changes, thousands of megawatts of potential energy remain stuck in administrative limbo.
This conversation explores the shifting landscape of grid operator reforms following the landmark Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order 2023. We delve into the regional disparities between operators like CAISO and PJM, the unintended consequences of fast-track policies that favor traditional utilities, and the persistent physical bottlenecks—such as supply chain disruptions and permitting delays—that administrative reform alone cannot fix. Hailstone also highlights the need for continuous, iterative improvement through automation and smarter planning to ensure the grid can handle the next generation of energy resources.
While many grid operators are now implementing cluster studies and enforceable timelines, why hasn’t this translated into faster processing speeds for new interconnection requests?
It is a classic case of the administrative machinery finally moving, but the gears being so rusted that the output hasn’t quite accelerated yet. The report released on June 23, 2026, makes it clear that while we are seeing “significant progress” in policy adoption, there is simply no evidence yet that the actual time a project spends in the queue has shortened. We have shifted toward cluster studies, which group projects together to analyze their impact on the grid simultaneously, but the sheer volume of requests is staggering. These new “gating policies” are designed to push viable projects to the front and force less realistic ones to exit, yet the backlog remains a massive hurdle. We are essentially implementing what the industry calls “yesterday’s best practices” through FERC Order 2023, and it takes time for these systemic changes to clear the multi-year traffic jam of projects that were already in line.
How are specific regions like the Southwest Power Pool and California ISO setting themselves apart from others that are still struggling with “incomplete” or “incremental” progress?
The landscape across the seven major U.S. grid operators is remarkably uneven, creating a patchwork of efficiency across the country. According to the assessment, the Southwest Power Pool and the California Independent System Operator are the frontrunners, showing “promising improvements” by integrating more sophisticated scoring and planning processes. In contrast, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator is noted for “incomplete progress,” while the Electric Reliability Council of Texas is only managing “incremental” steps forward. Other major players like PJM, ISO New England, and the New York ISO are meeting what the report calls “expected progress,” which essentially means they are doing just enough to stay compliant with federal mandates. This divergence is critical because it determines where developers will put their money; if one region can guarantee a study timeline while another remains a black hole of uncertainty, the capital will naturally flow toward the more predictable operator.
The report highlights a certain tension regarding fast-track policies; how do these shortcuts potentially disadvantage independent producers or cleaner fuel types?
The introduction of one-time fast-track processes in regions like MISO, PJM, and SPP was intended to be a pressure-relief valve, but it has created a visible friction between different types of energy developers. There is a documented concern that these accelerated pathways are being used by resources that are disproportionately utility-affiliated and fossil-fuel-heavy compared to the average project in the standard queue. This creates a discriminatory environment where independent power producers, who are often bringing innovative clean energy projects to the table, are left in the slow lane while traditional utilities snag the limited “headroom” or system capacity. It is a zero-sum game in many parts of the grid; if a fast-tracked fossil plant takes up the existing capacity, a more sustainable wind or solar farm might be hit with millions of dollars in network upgrade costs just to connect. AEU’s stance is clear: it is far better to improve the efficiency of the entire queue for everyone rather than offering “special treatment” that skews the market.
Even if the administrative queue were perfectly efficient, what physical “on-the-ground” challenges like supply chain or permitting issues remain the true deal-breakers?
We often talk about interconnection as a paperwork problem, but once a generator interconnection agreement is signed, the real physical struggle begins. Even with a streamlined process, projects are frequently delayed by the agonizingly slow pace of network upgrades, which are the physical construction projects—like new substations or high-voltage lines—needed to support the new power. We are currently seeing a perfect storm of supply chain constraints where lead times for essential equipment like large power transformers can stretch into years. Permitting remains another massive bottleneck, as local and federal approvals for transmission lines can be tied up in litigation or bureaucratic red tape for a decade or more. The report correctly points out that until we improve the reporting and execution of these network upgrades, the “paper” approval of a project is just a small victory in a much longer war.
Moving forward, what advanced strategies like automation or zonal scoring could help grid operators transition from simply complying with Order 2023 to truly innovating?
To move beyond the basic requirements of FERC Order 2023, grid operators must embrace a culture of continuous, iterative improvement that leverages modern technology. One of the most impactful moves would be the widespread adoption of automation to speed up the complex technical studies that currently take months of manual engineering work. We also need to see more regions adopting structures like CAISO’s zonal scoring or SPP’s Consolidated Planning Process, which essentially sets a predictable entry fee for projects to connect to pre-planned transmission infrastructure. There is also a huge opportunity in updating processes for replacing aging, retiring plants with new resources that can make use of the existing capacity already built into the system. Identifying the most cost-effective solutions for reliability violations, rather than just the easiest ones, will save rate-payers billions and allow for a much denser integration of new energy sources.
What is your forecast for the future of grid interconnection?
I expect that the next three years will be a period of “painful transition” where we see a high rate of project withdrawals as the new gating requirements finally force developers to put up significant capital or exit the queue. While this will look like a contraction on paper, it is actually a healthy thinning of the herd that will leave only the most viable, well-funded projects standing. By late 2027, the regions that have successfully automated their study processes and aligned their transmission planning with interconnection requests will see a marked decrease in wait times, potentially dropping from the current five-to-seven-year averages down to three years. However, the physical reality of the grid—the steel, the copper, and the transformers—will remain the ultimate speed limit. We will likely see a surge in “behind-the-meter” and “co-located” storage projects as developers try to bypass the need for massive network upgrades by maximizing the efficiency of existing connection points.
