PJM Reopens Queue, 811 Projects Add 220 GW, Gas Dominates and Maryland’s Clean‑Energy Goals at Risk

Why It Matters

The composition of PJM’s interconnection queue directly influences the generation mix for a region that supplies power to 67 million customers across 13 states. A surge in natural‑gas projects threatens to cement fossil‑fuel reliance at a time when states like Maryland are legislating aggressive clean‑energy targets. The queue’s outcome will affect investment flows, carbon emissions, and the feasibility of meeting legally binding decarbonization deadlines. Moreover, the PJM case illustrates how procedural bottlenecks can erode renewable pipelines, creating a legacy effect that extends beyond the immediate market. Policymakers and grid operators nationwide will watch PJM’s handling of Cycle 1 as a benchmark for balancing speed, fairness, and climate objectives in interconnection processes.

Key Takeaways

• PJM reopened its interconnection queue after a four‑year pause, receiving 811 project applications totaling ~220 GW.
• Natural‑gas proposals dominate with 105.8 GW (≈55% of total capacity), while solar and wind together account for only 19.5 GW.
• Maryland’s 100% clean‑energy by 2035 target faces a potential shortfall due to the queue’s gas‑heavy tilt.
• Over 300 GW of renewable projects were backlogged in 2022; 74% withdrew during the four‑year suspension.
• Stakeholders urge PJM to prioritize renewable studies in Cycle 1 to keep state climate goals on track.

Pulse Analysis

PJM’s decision to reopen the queue was inevitable—grid operators cannot indefinitely stall interconnection reviews without risking reliability gaps. However, the composition of the new applications reflects a market that has adapted to the regulatory vacuum created by the queue’s closure. Data‑center expansion and the relative certainty of gas‑fuel contracts have made natural‑gas projects more attractive to developers, especially when the interconnection study process favors large, bundled studies over numerous smaller renewable projects.

For Maryland, the timing is particularly problematic. The state’s clean‑energy statutes are among the most ambitious in the nation, and the loss of a substantial renewable pipeline forces policymakers to either accelerate alternative clean‑energy procurement or rely on carbon‑offset mechanisms that may not satisfy public or legal scrutiny. The PJM queue thus becomes a proxy battle between entrenched utility interests—who benefit from the cost‑plus, capacity‑based compensation structures for gas plants—and climate advocates pushing for a rapid transition.

Looking ahead, PJM’s handling of Cycle 1 will set a precedent for how regional transmission organizations balance market efficiency with climate imperatives. If PJM can streamline studies for the remaining renewable backlog while still processing the influx of gas projects, it may demonstrate a workable hybrid model. Conversely, a continued bias toward fossil‑fuel interconnections could trigger regulatory pushback, potentially prompting state legislatures to impose stricter interconnection criteria or to develop parallel state‑level clean‑energy procurement pathways. The stakes extend beyond Maryland, offering a cautionary tale for any grid operator navigating the intersection of market dynamics and climate policy.