Getting interconnection reform right: How Congress can strengthen BAAJA’s Consolidated Planning Process
The following blog is part of a series examining specific provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA). Clean Air Task Force is taking a close look at the bill to identify opportunities to strengthen its provisions, address potential gaps, and improve its effectiveness in meeting the country’s energy needs reliably and affordably.
As electricity demand grows and discussions around permitting and energy infrastructure continue, improving the process for connecting new generation to the grid will be increasingly important to meeting the country’s energy needs. CATF’s new report on interconnection queue reform does a deep dive into key principles necessary for getting new energy resources online more quickly and efficiently, and evaluates how several existing planning processes measure up to these ideals. The analysis offers a practical framework for policymakers, regulators, and grid operators to reduce unnecessary delays, improve planning, and make more efficient use of existing grid infrastructure.
Provisions in the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) point toward a better interconnection framework. In particular, the bill’s consolidated planning provisions align with CATF’s view that linking interconnection planning with transmission planning processes will improve system outcomes. However, providing additional resources and clearer direction to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is needed to improve the odds of implementing BAAJA successfully, particularly given the challenges facing independent agency action in a post-Slaughter, post-Loper Bright, and post-Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) world.
We therefore recommend that Congress build on existing BAAJA text to provide FERC with more detailed direction to implement policies most likely to improve interconnection outcomes. Below, we outline suggested improvements with explanations for each. These recommendations are intended to provide extra detail and clarity for FERC, transmission planners, and courts, increasing the odds that this critical reform will succeed in unlocking stalled interconnection queues.
***
The draft BAAJA bill text as of November 5, 2026, includes a short provision requiring a “Consolidated Planning Process” (CPP), as a new section 318 in the Federal Power Act. The bill text provides that within 18 months of its enactment, FERC must issue a rule requiring each transmission planning region to “file a consolidated interconnection and regional transmission planning process that –
- Jointly evaluates electric transmission facilities and the generating capacity reasonably anticipated to be needed to meet future forecasted demand and forecasted generation over the next 20 years;
- Routinely identifies and publishes resource and fuel-neutral planned interconnection locations for generating capacity and an upfront, fixed, zonal, per-megawatt cost for each planned interconnection location; and
- Establishes a streamlined generator cluster study process with a single decision point, meaningful and nonrefundable financial security, and withdrawal penalties sufficient to deter speculative projects.”
Transmission planning regions would be required to submit their consolidated planning process to FERC within two years of the bill passing and would be required to update the plan at least every two years.
This provision may be intended to model the Southwest Power Pool’s (SPP’s) own Consolidated Planning Process, which we rated highly when we evaluated it in our report against key interconnection reform principles. When applying those same principles to BAAJA’s provision, we find the provision needs additional specificity to receive the same high marks. CPP is a detailed program that combines holistic, scenario-based long-term transmission and interconnection planning. The combined program assesses how numerous factors will influence transmission and interconnection needs, evaluates the costs and benefits of potential solutions, and sets procedures for project selection and cost allocation. SPP’s program essentially combines, streamlines, and improves the transmission and interconnection planning requirements under FERC Orders 1920 and 2023. BAAJA’s CPP, in contrast, currently lacks the same level of detail. As a result, the program’s impact will depend on FERC’s discretionary implementation (and, to the extent FERC’s action under the provision is ever challenged, the discretion of a reviewing court).
Our research shows that transmission and interconnection planning should ideally be consolidated and co-developed. The BAAJA CPP provision is in an entirely separate section from, and makes no reference to, BAAJA’s regional and interregional transmission sections. It also does not reference existing 20-year transmission and interconnection planning requirements under FERC Orders 1920 and 2023 – nor the SPP CPP itself. Rather, it mandates that FERC issue a new rule meeting BAAJA’s specific requirements – creating the possibility of an additional, specialized process added to all the others, instead of streamlining multiple existing planning processes into one combined process.
Additionally, unlike the more comprehensive language found in BAAJA’s other transmission provisions, the BAAJA CPP establishes three broad requirements but leaves all necessary details on how to meet these requirements to FERC.
For example, BAAJA’s CPP provision does not explicitly require transmission providers to use Order 1920 long-term transmission planning in their consolidated plans. It also contains a number of essential yet undefined terms such as “evaluates,” “reasonably anticipated,” “forecasted,” and “planned interconnection location,” and does not require the study of interconnection needs per se. Subparagraph (2) (see above) does not actually require the planned interconnection locations to be informed by the results of the evaluation in subparagraph (1), nor does it provide any basis for selecting the locations or allocating their costs. And while planning regions must “routinely” identify planned interconnection locations, that timeline is unbounded. Because most transmission owners profit by building more, not less, they have strong economic incentives to minimize the efficiency of transmission and interconnection processes. Consequently, BAAJA CPP’s lack of detail and clear requirements enables incumbent transmission owners to legally comply with its requirements through a bare minimum of effort that largely preserves the status quo.
These examples illustrate a broader issue with BAAJA’s approach given institutional constraints: insufficient detail may hinder implementation of an otherwise well-intended provision. Particularly in the context of the energy system, certainty that survives administrations is critical, as building out the grid takes years and involves long-term planning. To provide that certainty, laws must use clear, specific language that mandates good planning practices; otherwise, consumers and industry will not be able to rely on it. Recent Supreme Court decisions underscore this point.
After Loper Bright,1 courts (rather than agencies with subject matter expertise) interpret ambiguous language in statutes. As a result, Congress must—even moreso now than before Loper Bright—use unambiguous, precise language in statutes or risk ceding the law’s core meaning to the judiciary. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter2 called into question the independence of agencies like FERC, which has maintained some core policy consistency across administrations. Indeed, even before Slaughter, FERC has seen wide swings in policy-based rulemaking between administrations that have had significant impacts on the energy system, such as the expansion of Minimum Offer Price Rules that artificially elevated the capacity market prices of state supported clean energy generation in 2018 and 2019 that were rescinded in 2021. To avoid policy swings in areas that require long-term certainty and durability, Congress must provide agencies with concise, unambiguous instructions that limit discretionary interpretation.
Congress can strengthen the current Consolidated Planning Process section with just a few edits. Below is a sample redline, followed by explanations of the edits.
‘‘(a) CONSOLIDATED GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION PLANNING.—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section as the ‘Commission’) shall issue a rule requiring each transmission planning region (as defined in section 225(a)) to file a:
(1) consolidate interconnection and Order 1920 regional transmission planning into one process that—
‘‘(A) no less than every 3 years, as part of the Order 1920 planning process, jointly evaluates electric transmission facilities and interconnection needs necessary to efficiently and rapidly connect the generating capacity reasonably anticipated to be needed to meet future forecasted demand and forecasted generation over the next 20 years; and
‘‘(B) routinely uses this joint evaluation to identifyies and, assess, and select locations on the grid for interconnection facilities that maximize the efficient connection of multiple generating resources, and annually publishes these locations as resource and fuel-neutral “planned interconnection locations” for generating capacity, and an upfront, fixed, zonal, per-megawatt cost for each planned interconnection location, before the interconnection application window opens; and
‘‘(2) an amended interconnection application process with establishes a streamlined generator cluster study process with a single decision point, meaningful and nonrefundable financial security, and withdrawal penalties sufficient to deter speculative projects.
Explanation of suggested redline edits:
First, given that the purpose of consolidated planning is to efficiently combine long-term transmission planning and interconnection planning, Congress should clarify that planners must use the existing Order 1920 long-term planning to evaluate transmission and generation, such that it is all one “consolidated” process—as SPP does. This clarifies that transmission providers should not create a separate transmission planning process, as the current draft suggests.
Second, Congress should set firm planning intervals, rather than using the more open-ended term, “routinely.” A 3-year requirement mirrors the SPP CPP cycle, which does a consolidated transmission and interconnection planning evaluation (using 1920) every 3 years.
Third, in new subparagraphs (A) and (B) above, it is critical to require use of the combined planning process to identify and select the planned interconnection locations, which the current draft does not connect. Such a disconnect opens the door for transmission providers to minimize the number of interconnection points or place them in a way that favors some resources or customers over others, independent of holistic system needs.
Fourth, because the current version does not define “planned interconnection location,” it is not clear what that term means and leaves it up to FERC or planners to decide. We therefore propose defining “planned interconnection locations” in paragraph (B) as “locations on the grid that most efficiently connect multiple generating resources.”
Fifth, we also propose clarifying that planned interconnection locations should be updated and published annually. This mirrors SPP’s CPP, which updates its planned interconnection locations as part of its annual CPP-10 (10-year planning horizon) process. It is important to require planning regions to identify and update these locations at set intervals, since interconnection application periods are often annual.
Sixth, Congress should explicitly require upfront costs to be set and published before the interconnection application opens—which is a central feature of SPP’s process. Ensuring applicants know whether they can meet the requirements of interconnection is a core need to speed connection and lessen queue withdrawals.
Finally, new subparagraph (2) recognizes that the interconnection application process itself will be separate from consolidated interconnection and transmission planning. Putting the number (2) here (and a (1) above) means FERC is still directed to issue one rule, but transmission planning regions are directed to do two things: (1) submit one consolidated Order 1920-based transmission and interconnection planning process; and (2) submit an amended interconnection application process.
* * * *
Our suggested edits follow from decades of litigation experience demonstrating that every word matters when it comes to building durable policies that all stakeholders can rely on and safely invest in—a goal we all share. As our report details, consolidated planning by organizations like SPP and CAISO can dramatically improve interconnection planning and implementation. Making this a national requirement would be a massive win for everyone—but only if we get it right.
CATF looks forward to working with Congress, FERC, and other stakeholders to advance these recommendations and develop an interconnection framework that gets new energy resources online more efficiently, makes better use of existing grid infrastructure, and helps meet the country’s growing energy needs.
