Data freshness
Aging (22d old, as of Apr 25, 2026)
Data as of: Apr 25, 2026
PJM Queue Intelligence
PJM Large Load Data Centers
PJM manages the interconnection queue for the largest RTO in the US, covering Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and surrounding states. With 9,251 tracked rows, understanding study phase progression and large-load concentration is critical for data center siting.
Source and data quality
Source: pjm-interconnection-queue
Truth class: direct_fact — official PJM public data export
Source tier: official_public_export
Validated rows: 9,251
Data as of: 2026-04-25
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.
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.
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.
PJM queue signals for data center siting
Study phase progression
Feasibility, system impact, and facilities study completion status for each queue entry.
Capacity and project type
MW capacity, fuel type, and project classification for large-load filtering.
Transmission owner mapping
Which transmission service providers serve each queue entry — important for service agreement negotiation.
Geographic distribution
State and county attribution for queue entries, enabling sub-market screening.
Queue position and age
When projects entered the queue and how long they have been in study — a proxy for process velocity.
Interconnection agreement status
Whether projects have signed agreements, indicating late-stage readiness.
PJM vs ERCOT queue differences
PJM uses a more structured study process with defined phases (feasibility, system impact, facilities), while ERCOT historically offered connect-and-manage shortcuts. PJM queue timelines tend to be longer but more predictable. Both markets now face unprecedented large-load demand from data centers.
See full PJM vs ERCOT comparisonLimitations
- Queue entry does not guarantee interconnection approval or energization.
- PJM study timelines are subject to change as reform proposals are considered.
- County attribution depends on project-reported locations, which may be approximate.
- This is screening-grade decision support, not a substitute for PJM-specific engineering studies.
- Capacity market and resource adequacy constraints may affect actual energization independent of queue status.