The North American Interconnection Queue, Mapped

Interconnection queue position has become the single largest determinant of new data center site value in 2026. The same physical parcel with executed interconnection capacity is worth multiples of the same parcel without it. The challenge for buyers and developers is that 'queue position' is a deceptively simple metric — the actual viability of a queued site depends on which ISO, which queue cluster, and a handful of process-specific variables that aren't visible from the headline number.

Queue length by ISO

Across the major North American ISOs, the queue picture varies dramatically. Headline numbers from each ISO's published queue lists as of Q1 2026:

• ERCOT: Approximately 200+ GW in the active queue across generation and load, with new large-load (75MW+) submissions running 30-48 months to executed agreement. Cluster studies move faster than PJM but slower than they did in 2022.
• MISO: Reform-era process with cluster studies on annual cycles. New large-load submissions run 42-60 months. The queue cluster size has grown materially, slowing study throughput.
• PJM: Functionally closed for new large-load submissions through the 2028 cluster window. Existing queue position is a real asset; new submissions face uncertain timelines.
• SPP: Faster than MISO and PJM but smaller market. 36-48 months typical for new large load.
• CAISO: 48-60+ months on new submissions; constrained by transmission and generation interconnection backlogs that interact.
• NYISO: Smaller market, queues are shorter (24-42 months) but transmission constraints limit where load can actually energize.
• ISO-NE: Constrained, similar to NYISO; gas pipeline constraints add complexity.
• WECC outside CAISO: Highly variable by sub-region; Arizona and Nevada queues running 36-54 months.

Why queues got long

Three factors compounded into the current state. First, the volume of new load submissions has more than tripled since 2021 across most ISOs, driven by data center, EV, and electrification load growth. Second, FERC Order 2023 reformed the queue process toward cluster studies, which is structurally better in the long run but caused transitional backlog as ISOs migrated. Third, the underlying transmission capacity hasn't expanded; new load triggers transmission upgrade requirements that themselves take 5-10 years to plan, fund, and build.

The cluster study reform deserves more attention. Under the old serial process, a single problematic submission could hold up everything behind it. Cluster studies analyze a batch of submissions together and assign cost responsibility for transmission upgrades pro-rata. The math is fairer and the throughput is higher, but the transition required ISOs to clear backlogs of legacy submissions in parallel with running new cluster cycles. PJM is still working through this; ERCOT and MISO are further along.

What 'queue position' actually means

Being in the queue is necessary but not sufficient. A queued submission can fail to advance for several reasons that aren't visible from the position number alone. The diligence question on any queued site is: where in the study process is the project, what are the gating issues, and what's the realistic energization timeline?

1. 01Phase 1 / scoping study complete: project knows what transmission upgrades may be required. Useful but preliminary.
2. 02Phase 2 / system impact study complete: cost allocation for upgrades has been calculated. This is the inflection point — projects that get past Phase 2 with manageable upgrade costs typically advance; projects with multi-hundred-million-dollar upgrade allocations often withdraw.
3. 03Phase 3 / facility study complete: detailed engineering and final cost allocation. Projects at Phase 3 are close to executing an interconnection agreement.
4. 04Interconnection agreement executed (LGIA/IA): the actual milestone that matters for resale value. Site has confirmed approved capacity and a financial commitment to the upgrades.
5. 05Construction milestones: the project has actually built or is building the substation interconnection.

Buying a queued site — what to ask

If you're evaluating a transaction where queue position is part of the value, ask these questions before you write a price:

• What study phase has the project completed and when was the most recent study update?
• What are the assigned transmission upgrade costs and who is responsible for them?
• What deposits has the developer posted to maintain queue position, and what's the refund structure if the project withdraws or transfers?
• Is the queue position transferable to a new owner, and what's the ISO process for assignment?
• What's the relationship between the queued capacity and the realistic load needs of a buyer — is this an exact match or does the buyer need to amend?
• What's the historical attrition rate in this specific cluster — are similar projects advancing or withdrawing?

Where to look for fast-energization opportunities

If you have flexibility on geography, certain corridors and substation areas offer materially better energization timelines than the headline ISO numbers suggest. These are areas where existing transmission has headroom, where utility capacity expansions are already funded and underway, or where existing brownfield generation interconnects can be repurposed for load.

• ERCOT West Texas: Permian Basin and Big Country corridors with significant gas generation headroom; specific substations with executed agreements are tradeable assets.
• MISO South: Louisiana and Mississippi with retiring coal capacity that can be load-converted; gas-heavy generation mix supports new load.
• SPP: select substations with existing generation and limited current load; the queue is shorter but the buyer pool is also smaller.
• Specific Arizona corridors (APS service territory) with completed transmission expansion projects.
• Repurposed retiring fossil plant sites where the interconnection infrastructure exists and can be modified for load.