Data centers, advanced manufacturing, and other drivers of economic growth are increasing demand for electricity across the U.S. Meeting that demand will require new sources of electric power—and quickly. Unfortunately, the grid operators responsible for connecting power supplies to the grid face outdated regulations and often lack the technology or incentives to bring new power online.
PJM, the country’s largest regional grid operator, recently removed a 750-megawatt project from its current interconnection study cycle after flagging several technical and procedural defects. The decision will likely delay the project by at least 14 months, costing consumers a valuable new energy supply to meet surging demand. Oklo, the project developer, says it could fix the reported problems, but PJM argues that the rules give developers only one chance to correct deficiencies and Oklo is out of chances.
The dispute involves more than a single project. Oklo proposes combining advanced nuclear reactors, fuel cells, and natural gas into a single 750-megawatt project, but PJM’s interconnection rules were not designed for that combination. According to Oklo, PJM’s project application process lacked an appropriate category for the project’s fuel cells, forcing Oklo to use a workaround. In short, the outmoded rules are not flexible enough to accommodate new generation combinations or evolving technologies.
Oklo claims it addressed initial concerns but was subsequently removed after PJM found more issues. PJM says that allowing multiple rounds of corrections would slow the entire interconnection queue. And that is a legitimate concern. But it only emphasizes the need for grid operators to anticipate new technologies and have clear ways to evaluate them before problems arise.
To assist that effort and prevent unnecessary project delays, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) should set broader performance standards for how grid operators handle interconnection applications, particularly for projects using unfamiliar technologies or configurations. Operators like PJM should identify problems early and give developers a reasonable opportunity to fix them, including holding timely technical meetings when projects use unfamiliar technologies or configurations. Grid operators should also prepare for new generation technologies before projects reach the interconnection queue and ensure that their rules and procedures are flexible enough to account for rapid innovation. FERC should require more transparency when projects are rejected or removed from a study cycle, and projects improperly removed should be restored to their original place in the queue.
PJM has strong incentives to avoid approving projects that could threaten grid reliability because it will be blamed if something goes wrong. But the risks and costs of delaying a viable project are less visible and do not fall on PJM, even when delays reduce electricity supply and raise consumer prices. That imbalance naturally encourages over-caution.
For years, the cost of that caution was negligible and easy to overlook. Electricity demand across much of the country was relatively flat, and grid operators were largely integrating familiar forms of generation. Those days are over.
Artificial intelligence and data centers are driving up electricity demand in parts of the country. Advanced manufacturing and electrification could push electricity use even higher. Energy sector developers are investing in new ways to meet that demand, including small modular nuclear reactors, fuel cells, longer-lasting batteries, and new combinations of power generation technologies. And that’s good.
As demand and innovation accelerate, PJM and other regional grid operators must adapt. The current system must improve and the risks of connecting new energy sources must be managed. Federal and regional rules and incentive structures have to change so that viable generation can come online. America cannot afford unaffordable electricity, and the price of a megawatt should not rise simply because old rules reject new power.
This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy
SOCIALISM..! High Prices…Reduced Availability…
Nightmare..!
And armies of boring, low IQ bureaucrats!
Remind me again, what are the electricity prices in China, the free market, Central Government controlled generator and distribution network.
I am typing this in a free market, capitalist controlled country, presently at a coal fired generation site, that is sitting idle while the more expensive wind and solar are in use.
And the reason is that the electricity market is not a free market.
Someone help me understand this. Am I to understand that this facility has already been built and was in line to be connected to the grid? Now it is being refused because it is new technology? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? If that is the case who approved the construction and why would they approve a facility that can’t be hooked to the grid? How could new technology be a bigger concern than a facility that goes down every night or under cloudy conditions or when the wind doesn’t blow? I don’t get it.
It’s called progress.
It should be “progressive”. Everything that is progressive increases costs, and has the opposite impact that was promised.
A fuel cell produces DC. To connect to the grid, the DC has to be converted to AC using inverter which also has to synchronize this AC to grid AC frequency.
A nuclear power plant has a thermal efficiency of only 30% A CCGT power system has a thermal efficiency of 63%. Since the US has abundant supplies of nat. gas, there no need to build nuclear power plants.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says I never deserve a downvote because I always post the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I forgot to mention that fuel cell grade hydro is expensive and has low energy density.
fuel cell grade hydro is expensive – even worse, it does not exist.
“hydro” was a typo and it should have been “hydrogen”. Some fuel cells have an electrolyte consisting of water and potassium hydroxide. The water would be of high purity.
I do not know what fuel the fuel cells were planned to use, but one class of them is based on molten carbonate and can be powered by natural gas. Catalysts, heat and steam strip off the hydrogen to power the fuel cell and then CO2 is exhausted.
I suppose if there is an abundant supply of horses, there is no need for motor vehicles. And yet, here we are.
The statement you made, “there no need to build nuclear power plants.” is not valid, hence the down votes.
Natural gas requires infrastructure that nuclear does not. There will be sites that cannot adapt to natural gas power.
Your conjecture fails the null hypothesis test.
No the interconnection application queue is choked with hundreds of speculative hoped for projects. That is likely why PJM could not handle a radical new design, which in reality might not even be viable.
Last I heard the wind and solar applications added up to more capacity than PJM’s peak demand. Utter nonsense. Happily PJM is working to get baseload conventional gas fired power approved quickly.
Thanks David.
When does the Federal subsidies for wind and solar farms end? The developers are subsidy miners, and this is probably why there is a rush to file applications for the farms.
This project is not built yet. Advanced nuclear reactors are still in development and gas combustion turbines have long lead times, with years of production already under contract.
Supply side has many sides. Each one a potential chokepoint with a price tag.
California imports roughly 29% of the electricity used in the state. Massachusetts imports almost 70% of its electricity. Germany imports most of its energy, mostly in the form of LNG. What these 3 locations have in common is very expensive utilities because they fell for the green lies.
Oystercatcher Solar located just south of Italy Texas just off interstate 35 is a 1,000 acre solar farm. The solar farm was scheduled to go on line by March 2026, though its still not hooked up. One unusual item is all the panels face east/north east, instead of south. Go figure.