For most energy and large-load projects, the binding constraint is not technology or capital. It is a place in line to connect to the grid. How the queue works and what it does to a venture.
Ask an energy founder what their biggest risk is and you will often hear technology or capital. Ask a developer who has actually built something and you will hear interconnection.
Generating power is solved. Getting permission to connect it to the grid — or to draw a large new load from it — is the constraint that decides which projects happen and when.
How the queue works
A project seeking to connect submits a request and enters a queue. The grid operator studies what the addition does to the system, whether upgrades are required, and who pays for them. Study, restudy, and a cost allocation that can arrive far larger than expected.
Three structural features make this slow:
Studies are sequential and interdependent. Your study assumes projects ahead of you get built. When one withdraws, assumptions change and studies get redone — which is why a queue position can move backwards in time.
Speculative requests clog the line. Filing has historically been cheap relative to the option value of a position, so queues fill with projects that will never be built, and real projects wait behind them.
Upgrade costs are unpredictable until studied. A project can be economic at the start of the process and uneconomic at the end, because it drew the assignment for a transmission upgrade.
Reforms have aimed at this — cluster studies that batch projects, stricter deposits, readiness requirements to keep speculative entries out. They help. They have not made the constraint go away.
Why this now affects companies that are not energy companies
The queue used to be a developer's problem. Large-load growth changed that.
Any venture whose business requires significant new power on a specific timeline — a data centre, an electrified industrial process, a fabrication facility — is now exposed to the same constraint. "We will need forty megawatts by 2028" is a statement about a queue, not a procurement.
This is why on-site generation, storage and behind-the-meter arrangements have become strategically interesting. They are ways of not waiting.
What it means for a venture
Queue position is an asset. For developers it is often the most valuable thing on the balance sheet, and it should be diligenced like one: what position, what stage, what upgrade cost assigned.
Timelines are set by someone else. A plan built on an assumed connection date is built on a forecast the company does not control.
Where you build matters more than what you build. Regional differences in queue length, available capacity and process are large enough to determine viability. Siting is a first-order decision.
Questions worth asking
Is there a queue position, at what stage, and what has been studied?
What upgrade costs have been assigned, and what is the exposure if they change?
What happens to the model if connection slips two years?
Is there a path that avoids the queue — on-site generation, existing interconnected capacity, a brownfield site?
That last question is where a lot of the current innovation sits. The companies moving fastest are often the ones that found a way around the line rather than a better place in it.
The read
Energy ventures are usually underwritten on technology and cost curves. The binding constraint is frequently administrative — a study process, a cost allocation, a position in a queue.
A founder who understands that builds a different company: sited deliberately, hedged against delay, and where possible designed not to need permission at all.
In person
Come see the Alliance in person
Members meet at our summits, fireside chats and coffee chats — smaller rooms than the name suggests, and the conversations are the point. Founders can also enter our next pitch session.
Tell us what interests you and we will send details on the next one.
Summit calendarFireside chatsPitch sessionsThe Alliance Dispatch