Skip to content
← All retrospectives

PJM · New Jersey

The same pattern as Hatfield, at a different node.

Essex 230 kV

Eight requests: the project that reached operation was filed as three separate requests, while the two largest single requests withdrew.

Built
3
Withdrawn
5
Still in queue
0

The queue record

Every interconnection request the dataset records at this point of interconnection, in filing order.

Interconnection requests recorded at this point of interconnection, with request date, capacity and outcome.
RequestedProjectTechnologyCapacityOutcome
2007-02-13(unnamed)Gas633 MWWithdrawn2007-11-01
2007-09-19(unnamed)Gas178 MWWithdrawn2012-05-30
2007-09-19(unnamed)Gas205 MWWithdrawn2009-07-28
2007-11-21Newark Energy CenterGas625 MWBuilt2015-06-29 · 7.6 yrs
2008-04-30(unnamed)Gas100 MWWithdrawn2008-12-09
2011-06-28(unnamed)Gas705 MWWithdrawn2013-11-20
2011-08-08Newark Energy CenterGas35 MWBuilt2015-06-29 · 3.9 yrs
2012-06-21Newark Energy CenterGas45 MWBuilt2015-06-29 · 3.0 yrs

What the record shows

  • Newark Energy Center appears three times in the queue — 625 MW, 35 MW and 45 MW — filed across 2007 to 2012, and all three reached commercial operation on the same day, 2015-06-29.
  • The largest single request at this node, 705 MW filed in 2011, withdrew in 2013. The second largest, 633 MW filed in 2007, withdrew within nine months.
  • Five of the eight requests at this node withdrew; the three that were built belong to one project.
  • This repeats the pattern at Hatfield 500 kV, where the project that reached operation was also filed as three separate requests.

What a decision record would have to make explicit

  • Filing one project as several interconnection requests is common across the PJM nodes in this set. That it is common says how the queue record is structured, not that the approach makes a project more likely to be built.
  • The dataset does not record filing strategy, so whether the multi-request pattern was deliberate cannot be established from this record.
  • Withdrawal reasons, study costs and upgrade assignments are not in the public queue record and remain unknowns.

What this does and does not show

This is a reading of a public dataset, not a customer case study: no engagement, customer or client is involved. The dataset records outcomes — what was built, what withdrew, and when — but not why any project withdrew, so no cause is attributed here. Nothing on this page claims GridVision predicted, influenced or would have changed any outcome, and a pattern at one point of interconnection does not generalise to another.

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Queued Up: 2026 Edition — project-level interconnection queue dataset. Interconnection requests through year-end 2025. Used under CC BY 4.0; attribution to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and GridTracker.