PJM's queue stopped rewarding being first: what "first-ready, first-served" actually asks you to prove

What changed, in PJM's own words

PJM describes the reform as "a comprehensive reform of the PJM interconnection process, designed to more efficiently and timely process New Service Requests by transitioning from a serial 'first-come, first-served' queue approach to a 'first-ready, first-served' cycle approach". The reforms sit in FERC Docket No. ER22-2110, and FERC approved the filing conditionally, "subject to two compliance filings".

The dates PJM gives are specific: the new Tariff Parts VII and IX have an "Effective Date of Jan. 3, 2023", and "The Transition Date was July 10, 2023". Those are the two dates that decide which rules a project sits under, and they are the first thing to establish about any project already in the process.

One thing the page does not give is the year of the FERC order. It says "On Nov. 29, FERC issued an order conditionally approving PJM's interconnection process reform filing" and names no year. The effective date of 3 January 2023 brackets it, and this guide is not going to assert a date its source omitted. If the order date matters to a contract, read the docket.

Readiness is a deposit and site control, and site control is the hard half

PJM names the two requirements plainly: "It is suggested that you become familiar with the Readiness Deposit and Site Control requirements for the new process." The deposit is a cheque. Site control is a land position, and it is the one that takes months to assemble.

The standard is not "we have an option on a parcel". PJM's own condition is that "All provided Site Control meets requirements of Tariff Part VII Section 302 and Section 309, including acreage requirements for the MW size and technology of the project". Two consequences follow. The acreage bar SCALES with the project, so shrinking a project does not automatically shrink the evidence you owe, and the technology matters, so a battery and a solar farm of the same nameplate are not asking the same question.

This guide does not quote the acreage figures, and that is deliberate: they are in the Tariff, and the Tariff is the authority. What is quotable is the shape of the requirement, which is enough to know whether your land package is in the right order of magnitude before you pay anyone to check.

The gen tie easement rule is the detail that catches people

A generating facility is rarely adjacent to the substation it connects to, and the line between them, the gen tie, crosses land somebody else owns. PJM phases the evidence for it across decision points rather than demanding all of it up front.

At Decision Point 1, per PJM's guidance, "easement between the developer's Generating Facility to the boundary of the land owned by the TO must be provided, if connecting to an existing TO owned substation", and separately that "Easement evidence is required for 50% of the gen tie distance between the Generating Facility Site and either the Interconnection Substation boundry or the boundry of TO owned land". PJM's spelling of boundary is its own.

Half the distance at DP1, and PJM says the remainder "will need to be provided at DP3". Developers do not have to show easement across the Transmission Owner's own land at DP1, and perpendicular crossings of the TO's right of way are also not required at that point. Those are real reliefs and they are specific, which is why reading the current guidance beats reasoning about it.

The planning consequence: the gen tie route survey and the easement negotiation belong in the schedule before the queue application, not after it. A project that applies with 40% of its gen tie under easement has bought a decision point it cannot clear.

Where to get the detail, and why it moves

PJM points at one forum: "The Interconnection Process Subcommittee (IPS) is the forum in which PJM will be discussing process implementation and providing updates." It also notes training videos for project developers on its training resources page. Process implementation detail is discussed in a stakeholder subcommittee, which means it changes between meetings, which means a guide is the wrong place to look for the current number.

Use this piece for the shape and the sequence. Use the IPS materials and the Tariff for the figures, and re-check them at the point of spending money rather than at the point of planning.

This is PJM, not the United States

PJM is one market. It happens to be the densest one for data centres, which is why it is worth a guide of its own, but nothing here transfers automatically.

ERCOT runs a different interconnection process under a different regulator, and Texas is where a large share of new storage is going. We have not described it here, and the reason is worth stating: as measured on 2026-09-17, ERCOT's site refuses automated requests, and so does FERC's. Two of the three primary sources for a genuinely national guide cannot be read by this method at all, so writing one would mean writing from memory. A PJM guide that says it is a PJM guide is more useful than a national guide that is quietly a PJM guide.