Many American power plants are stuck in a dysfunctional express lane. Energy Resource Interconnection Service, or ERIS was created to give generating facilities a faster, leaner way to connect to the grid without waiting in the main queue. Instead, in many markets, ​​ERIS today places fast-trackers on the same slow schedule as projects in the main line. When new, highly competitive generation cannot be connected to the grid in a timely way, a key affordability and efficiency opportunity is left on the table.

The distinction between ERIS and its busier counterpart, Network Resource Interconnection Service (NRIS) is an important one, and relates to the grid’s capacity to handle newly generated power. With NRIS, developers want full, firm access to the grid, so the grid operator studies what new infrastructure must be built so the plant can inject power even when the system is stressed. This creates increased certainty for the generator, backed by detailed studies and upgrades, but also more cost and longer timelines; ERIS is supposed to be different.

When a generator joins the ERIS queue, it agrees to be turned down, or curtailed, when the local grid is under strain. It doesn’t demand firm injection rights at all times. In principle, that flexibility should allow operators to study ERIS projects under lighter criteria, because the plant can be dialed back rather than forcing the grid to be rebuilt around it. That should mean fewer required upgrades, faster interconnection and lower costs than NRIS. 

But ERIS is failing to deliver these advantages today. Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Duke University have shown that ERIS projects are increasingly facing similar upgrade costs and multi-year wait times as NRIS ones. Some of that reflects a genuine decline in unused capacity on our existing infrastructure, but it also reveals a deeper flaw in how energy‑only projects are studied.

When transmission providers study a non-firm project, they often use highly conservative planning assumptions, treating ERIS resources as if they must deliver even when grid capacity is scarce. In other words, they model ERIS projects as always needing to be accommodated, and then identify and assign major network upgrades to make that possible. That approach runs counter to the fundamental purpose of ERIS: to manage scarcity by curtailing flexible resources, not by asking flexible participants to unnecessarily upgrade the system. 

>>>READ: A Consumer-First Framework for Transmission Reform

There is a more efficient way to handle these constraints, and it’s called operational redispatch. Redispatch is simply when grid operators turn some plants up and others down so electricity flows keep the equipment operating within safe limits. If an ERIS plant sits behind a constraint, the operator can run generation on closer to where power is needed—on the other side of the constraint—and temporarily turn the ERIS plant down. When such a bottleneck isn’t present, the ERIS plant runs and displaces more expensive generation.

Texas’ grid shows what an operationally grounded, energy‑only approach can look like. The ERCOT “connect and manage” model allows new generators to interconnect quickly as long as baseline reliability standards are met, without requiring them to fund large transmission upgrades just to begin delivering power. Economic congestion and operational constraints are managed through redispatch, curtailment, and market signals. This framework has allowed the Lone Star State to connect more generation than any other major U.S. region, while keeping average electricity prices among the lowest in the country. Nonetheless, the state’s reliability and planning debates underline why broader consumer-first grid policy remains imperative.

Congress now has an opportunity with the Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act, introduced by Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM), to ensure that energy-only does not translate into energy-never in FERC‑regulated markets. The bill paves a path forward on ERIS by directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish a true energy-only service option. This offering should define clear study assumptions focused on reliability, limit when ERIS projects can be assigned upgrade costs, and study projects independently to ensure efficient application processing. In exchange for accepting curtailment risk, ERIS developers should enjoy cheaper, faster access to the grid where it’s available. That trade is squarely in the interest of consumers, as long as the costs of any necessary upgrades are fairly allocated to the customers and projects that actually benefit, rather than quietly shifted onto captive ratepayers.

>>>READ: Closing the Local Project Loophole: the Case for Competitive Transmission

To be sure, none of this replaces the need to upgrade and expand the broader power grid. New high-voltage transmission that links regions and interconnections remains vital to keeping electricity both affordable and reliable over the long term. But reforming the Energy Resource Interconnection Service process can help inject competition into power prices across the United States while making better use of the equipment that ratepayers have already paid for.

With new electricity demand on the horizon, getting affordable generation online quickly has to be part of the solution. Fixing ERIS is an early, sensible way to move the needle. Congress should give FERC the direction it needs to reopen this fast track, so competitive projects can get onto the grid and help lower utility bills for American households and businesses.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.