Translate project announcements and interconnection-queue totals into a defensible view of future operating supply.
Power projects are often counted too early. An interconnection request says that a developer has entered a study process; it does not say the project is financed, built, synchronized or generating. FERC's Order No. 2023 explainer distinguished the final rule, compliance filings and later implementation [1], while Berkeley Lab's 2024 queue study described queues as an indicator of developer interest and found that many projects historically withdrew [2]. EIA's datasets then provide the crucial operating distinction: Form EIA-860 describes generator status and capacity, while Form EIA-923 records generation [3]. Those three records support a stage-gate rather than a single pipeline number.
Use six mutually exclusive stages
Classify each project as announced, queue-requested, study-complete, financially committed, under construction, or operating. Add a seventh state, withdrawn or cancelled, so attrition remains visible. Never let a project occupy two stages in the same snapshot. For hybrids, record generation and storage components separately because their megawatts are not interchangeable.
The evidence standard rises at every gate. A developer release can support announced status. A queue identifier and submission date support queue-requested. Executed interconnection agreements, site control, major permits, financing notices and construction evidence support later gates. Operating status requires a commercial-operation record or generator-status data; actual generation requires metered output. FERC noted that implementation follows approval of provider compliance filings [1]. A rule's effective date therefore should not be treated as proof that every regional process changed on that date.
- Store MW nameplate, MW deliverable and MWh generated as separate fields.
- Keep target operation dates as developer estimates until independently recorded.
- Carry withdrawals in the denominator when evaluating historical conversion.
Build the decision table
For each project, show the present gate, evidence date, next gate, dependency, expected date range and confidence. Portfolio totals should be reported by stage, not as one pipeline sum. Berkeley Lab's end-2023 study found that only 19% of projects in an older, observable cohort had been built by the end of 2023, and that completion times had lengthened [2]. That historical conversion rate is a warning against treating queued capacity as a forecast; it is not a universal haircut for every region or technology.
Worked example, explicitly hypothetical: a regional list contains 6 GW announced, 4 GW with queue IDs, 2.4 GW with completed studies, 1.5 GW financed, 1.1 GW under construction and 0.7 GW operating. The correct briefing is not '6 GW coming.' It is '0.7 GW operating, 1.1 GW in physical delivery, and 1.3 GW between completed study and construction.' If the decision is a 2028 procurement, use project-level milestones and ranges. If it is today's supply adequacy, use operating capacity and measured generation only.
Separate capacity from energy
Nameplate MW measures a machine's rated capability, not what it produced or when it was available. EIA-860 includes in-service dates, status and capacity; EIA-923 covers generation and fuel use [3]. Join those datasets only with stable plant and generator identifiers, and preserve revisions. For an operating asset, compare monthly generation with feasible output over the same hours. For a queued asset, do not calculate a capacity factor at all.
The decision gate should answer one question: what evidence would change the resource from optional to dependable for this use? For a procurement team that may be an executed interconnection agreement and construction financing. For a grid operator it may be synchronized operation and performance testing. Publish both the gate and the unresolved dependency so readers can update the conclusion without rebuilding the analysis.
Take it into the meeting
- Report project megawatts by stage instead of as one pipeline total.
- Require operating records before calling capacity available.
- Use measured generation, not queue capacity, for current supply claims.
Sources & boundaries
Source statements are attributed; the decision process is Signal Atlas analysis. Examples marked hypothetical are teaching inputs, not observed outcomes.
- Historical queue completion rates are not universal project probabilities.
- Regional rules, milestones and data quality differ.
- The hypothetical portfolio is illustrative and not a forecast.
- Explainer on the Interconnection Final RuleFederal Energy Regulatory Commission · Source publication: not established · Retrieved 2026-09-19
Order No. 2023 process stages Difference between rule effectiveness, compliance filings and implementation Interconnection-study backlog context
- Queued Up: 2024 Edition, Characteristics of Power Plants Seeking Transmission Interconnection As of the End of 2023Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · Source publication: not established · Retrieved 2026-09-19
Queues as developer-interest indicators Historical withdrawal and completion rates Longer completion timelines for built projects
- Survey-Level Detailed Data FilesU.S. Energy Information Administration · Source publication: not established · Retrieved 2026-09-19
Form EIA-860 generator status and capacity fields Form EIA-923 operating generation fields Separation of planned capacity from measured output