Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2026
Bottom line
The 'Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act' requires RTOs and ISOs to provide a new, expedited interconnection service for energy-only generation, potentially accelerating new power projects but shifting congestion management to operational measures.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Power Act to mandate that Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) offer a new 'basic access service for energy-only delivery.' This service streamlines the interconnection process for new generating facilities by limiting studies to those necessary for reliable grid connection, explicitly excluding requirements for deliverability or congestion-related curtailment. It aims to accelerate the deployment of new energy projects by providing a faster, less costly initial path to grid access.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the current interconnection queue process is a significant bottleneck, delaying critical energy projects, particularly renewables. This bill would streamline the process by focusing on reliable interconnection, allowing projects to come online faster, contribute to grid decarbonization, and enhance reliability, while reducing the financial burden on developers for costly deliverability upgrades that may not be immediately necessary.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that by decoupling interconnection from deliverability, the bill could exacerbate grid congestion, leading to increased curtailment of generation and potentially higher operational costs for RTOs/ISOs to maintain grid reliability. They may also raise concerns about creating market inefficiencies if too much 'energy-only' generation is added without corresponding transmission upgrades.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(b)
Mandate to Offer Basic Access Service
This provision makes it 'unjust and unreasonable' for Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs) not to offer 'basic access service for energy-only delivery' starting one year after the bill's enactment. This effectively mandates that these grid operators create and provide this new type of interconnection service to generating facilities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this mandate is crucial to address current interconnection bottlenecks, which are significantly delaying critical energy projects. It forces RTOs/ISOs to adopt a more flexible approach to grid access, accelerating the deployment of new generation.
Critics contend
Some RTOs/ISOs might argue that such a mandate could complicate grid planning and operations, potentially leading to unforeseen reliability challenges or increased operational costs if not carefully implemented, without sufficient time for adaptation.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for faster grid access for new generation against the potential for increased operational complexity and congestion management challenges for grid operators.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(c)
RTO/ISO Tariff Filing Requirements
RTOs and ISOs are required to submit tariff revisions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) within 180 days (with a possible 180-day extension) to establish the new basic access service. These revisions must include a study process, grant specific interconnection rights, define service conditions, and provide a clear pathway for projects to transition to other interconnection services.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(d)
Streamlined Interconnection Study Process
This section defines a streamlined evaluation process for basic access service requests. It limits studies to those necessary for reliable interconnection (thermal, voltage, short-circuit, stability) without requiring studies for deliverability or congestion-related curtailment. It also mandates that operationally manageable constraints be handled through measures like redispatch or curtailment, rather than requiring new transmission facilities. The evaluation must be completed within one year.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(f)
Service Conditions and Upgrade Cost Allocation
Basic access service for energy-only delivery may be subject to congestion-related curtailment. Crucially, construction and cost responsibility for upgrades are limited to those identified as necessary for reliable interconnection, explicitly excluding upgrades solely for increasing deliverability, reducing congestion, or satisfying deliverability screens. This means new generators are not responsible for broader system upgrades.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(h)
Option for Independent Interconnection Studies
Interconnection customers requesting basic access service can elect to have their evaluation conducted independently, outside of grouped study processes (like cluster studies). RTOs/ISOs cannot condition basic access service on participation in or completion of these grouped studies, nor can they delay independent evaluations pending grouped study outcomes.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(j) and (k)
FERC Oversight and Pro Forma Tariff Development
FERC must act on RTO/ISO tariff proposals within 180 days, either accepting them or fixing rates, terms, and conditions. Additionally, FERC is required to revise its pro forma open access transmission tariff within 18 months to integrate basic access service, establishing benchmark timelines, transparency standards for constraints, and other necessary policies to ensure consistent implementation.
Defines 'basic access service for energy-only delivery' as interconnection service that permits a generating facility to inject power up to an approved level, subject to evaluation and specific conditions. This definition is fundamental to the bill's entire operational scope.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(a)(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to define key terms upfront for clarity and consistent interpretation.
Case for: Supporters would argue that a precise definition is necessary to ensure clarity and avoid misinterpretation of the service's scope, preventing disputes and ensuring consistent application across different grid operators.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the definition itself, but its implications for grid operations, market design, and project viability are central to the overall debate surrounding the bill.
Estimated impact: Establishes the foundational parameters for potentially thousands of new generation interconnections, influencing their technical and economic viability.
Requires that an evaluation for basic access service *assume* that any identified grid constraints will be managed through operational measures, such as redispatch, curtailment, operating limits, and remedial action schemes. Facilities or upgrades can only be identified if operational measures *cannot* maintain compliance with applicable reliability standards.
Section 2, adding FPA Sec. 224(d)(4)
Why it matters:Technical detail necessary for defining the study scope and the operational philosophy underpinning the 'energy-only' service.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential for the 'energy-only' concept, ensuring that projects aren't held up by costly transmission upgrades for issues that can be managed through existing grid operations, thereby accelerating interconnection.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision could lead to an over-reliance on curtailment and redispatch, potentially increasing operational costs for RTOs/ISOs and reducing the economic efficiency of the grid by frequently idling otherwise available generation.
Estimated impact: Could significantly increase the frequency of operational interventions (curtailment, redispatch) for managing grid congestion, impacting market prices and generator revenues.