Data freshness
Stale (45d old, as of Apr 2, 2026)
Data as of: Apr 2, 2026
Market Comparison
PJM vs ERCOT: Data Center Power
Texas (ERCOT) and PJM (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia) are the two dominant ISO markets for data center power. They differ in queue process, study timelines, capacity market structure, and large-load policy. This comparison uses evidence from both queues, not generic market narratives.
Data sources for this comparison
ERCOT
Source: ercot-queue-public-mirror
Truth class: curated_fact | Source tier: public_mirror_of_official_gis
Data as of: 2026-04-02 | Rows: 1,846
PJM
Source: pjm-interconnection-queue
Truth class: direct_fact | Source tier: official_public_export
Data as of: 2026-04-25 | Rows: 9,251
Queue evidence freshness
Texas (ERCOT): source freshness and process posture
Public summary from the queue evidence bridge. Full row-level evidence, exports, and decision memos stay inside the paid pack/watchlist flow.
Coverage
1,846 rows
1,846 timing signals · 0 change events
Confidence: Medium
Latest-change teaser
ERCOT Spot Price rose 16.8% in ERCOT Houston. ERCOT Houston hub spot prices increased 16.8% week-over-week due to higher demand and lower wind output.
Last change date: Feb 24, 2026
Source contract
ERCOT public mirror of official GIS queue data
Source slug: ercot-queue-public-mirror
Truth class: Curated Fact
Source tier: Public Mirror Of Official Gis
Limitation language
ERCOT queue evidence uses a secondary public mirror of official ERCOT GIS data. Use it as screening-grade decision support only; it does not guarantee parcel-level MW, utility-certified serviceability, interconnection timing, permitting outcomes, or power availability.
Need the row-level evidence?
The paid pack/watchlist includes shortlist rows, source appendix, exports, and decision-memo fields.
Queue evidence freshness
Ohio / PJM: source freshness and process posture
Public summary from the queue evidence bridge. Full row-level evidence, exports, and decision memos stay inside the paid pack/watchlist flow.
Data freshness
Aging (22d old, as of Apr 25, 2026)
Data as of: Apr 25, 2026
Coverage
9,251 rows
9,251 timing signals · 0 change events
Confidence: High
Latest-change teaser
PJM Capacity Price declined 5.7% in PJM Western. PJM Western hub capacity prices declined 5.7% as new generation came online.
Last change date: Feb 24, 2026
Source contract
PJM Planning API interconnection queue export
Source slug: pjm-interconnection-queue
Truth class: Direct Fact
Source tier: Official Public Export
Limitation language
PJM queue evidence comes from the official public Planning API export. Use it as screening-grade decision support only; it does not guarantee parcel-level MW, utility-certified serviceability, interconnection timing, permitting outcomes, or power availability.
Need the row-level evidence?
The paid pack/watchlist includes shortlist rows, source appendix, exports, and decision-memo fields.
Comparison dimensions
Queue depth
ERCOT
1,846 entries (public mirror)
PJM
9,251 entries (official export)
PJM has a larger total queue, but not all entries are large-load or data-center-related.
Study process
ERCOT
Connect-and-manage historically; recent reforms adding structure
PJM
Structured three-phase study (feasibility, system impact, facilities)
PJM offers more predictable timelines; ERCOT historically offered faster but less predictable paths.
Source quality
ERCOT
Curated fact (public mirror of official GIS)
PJM
Direct fact (official public export via Planning API)
PJM data is direct official; ERCOT uses a curated public mirror until direct MIS ingestion is operational.
Large-load policy
ERCOT
Evolving — new large-load study requirements and process changes
PJM
Established — queue reform has defined study timeline expectations
Both ISOs are adapting to unprecedented data center demand.
Transmission dependency
ERCOT
Varies by zone — Far West and West zones more transmission-constrained
PJM
Varies by zone — Virginia/Maryland corridor historically congested
Transmission-led dependencies are the single largest energization risk in both markets.
Capacity market
ERCOT
Energy-only market — no capacity payments
PJM
Capacity market with resource adequacy requirements
PJM capacity market affects economics and generator behavior but does not directly determine interconnection timeline.
Limitations of this comparison
- Queue depth comparison is not apples-to-apples — project types and categorization differ between ISOs.
- ERCOT data uses a public mirror (curated fact), while PJM data is direct official. Confidence levels differ.
- Neither queue position nor study phase guarantees energization timing.
- This comparison covers ISO-level market factors. Sub-market and county-level comparisons require the Time-to-Power Pack.
- Screening-grade comparison. Does not replace detailed market-specific engineering or financial analysis.
Deep-dive into each market
Texas Time-to-Power Pack
Full ERCOT queue-linked shortlist with county-level ranking and timing evidence.
Ohio / PJM Time-to-Power Pack
Full PJM queue-linked shortlist with study phase tracking and county-level screening.
Speed-to-Power Watchlist
Track queue changes in both ERCOT and PJM — study completions, withdrawals, and status shifts.