Massachusetts Interconnection Queue: 605 Projects

Massachusetts had 605 projects in its interconnection queue on June 11, 2026, carrying 81.3 GW of proposed capacity. But here is the catch that shapes every other number on this page: all 605 of those projects carry no published status. That is not a sign every project is healthy and active — it is a feed convention, and it deserves a careful read.

A queue position is a request to connect to the grid, not a built, approved, or financed project. Queues are aspirational, and a large share of entries withdraw before construction. This report is a cross-sectional snapshot of one sealed day — no trends.

Massachusetts holds 605 queued projects worth 81.3 GW, with no published status on any of them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Massachusetts raises more questions than answers, so we lead with them.

Q: What does "no published status" actually mean here?
A: ISO-NE, the New England grid operator that runs the Massachusetts queue, does not publish a status field we can read. So all 605 projects land in our "unknown" bucket — 100.0%. Unknown is not the same as active.

Q: Does 0.0% withdrawn mean no Massachusetts projects have dropped out?
A: No. The 0.0% withdrawn figure is a feed artifact. Because ISO-NE publishes no status, we cannot see which projects withdrew — not that none did. Treat it as missing data, not a survival rate.

Q: So how many of the 605 are real, advancing projects?
A: We cannot say from this feed. The honest answer is that 605 is the count of filings on record, and their statuses are unknown. A queue position is a request to connect, not a built or approved project.

Q: How big is the typical Massachusetts project?
A: The median is 25 MW — by far the smallest among the states in this edition, reflecting a queue weighted toward distributed and mid-scale projects rather than giant plants.

Q: What is the largest project in the queue?
A: A 345 kV AC line at 1,600 MW. As the name suggests, the biggest entry is transmission infrastructure, not a single generator. The full operator-level view is in the ISO-NE interconnection queue report.

Q: Can these numbers be reproduced?
A: Yes. The June 11, 2026 snapshot is content-hashed and sealed, so the 605-project count and the 100.0% unknown share are fixed and auditable.

Massachusetts Queue at a Glance

With the caveats stated plainly, here is the state slice. Read every status figure through the no-published-status lens above.

The status split deserves its own table, because it is the whole reason this report carries so many caveats. Read it as a map of what the feed does and does not tell us, not as a health report on the projects.

Every one of the 605 projects lands in the unknown row. The 0.0% in the withdrawn and still-in-queue rows is not a finding — it is the absence of a status field, rendered as zeros. Any analysis that quotes a Massachusetts withdrawn rate from this snapshot is quoting missing data.

The standout is the 25 MW median against an 81.3 GW total — Massachusetts files small and often. The single largest entry, a 345 kV AC line at 1,600 MW, is a transmission element, underscoring how different the New England queue looks from the utility-scale generation queues out West.

A 25 MW median is roughly a fifth of California's 110 MW and an eighth of Texas's 201 MW. That gap is structural, not incidental. New England's grid is dense, its land is expensive, and much of its near-term clean-energy growth comes from distributed solar, community storage, and a handful of very large offshore projects rather than the sprawling utility-scale plants that fill western queues. The median tells you the center of gravity sits with the small projects; the 1,600 MW transmission line and the offshore wind filings are the outliers that pull the capacity total up to 81.3 GW.

For a developer or analyst, the implication is that the Massachusetts queue rewards a different read than a western one. Counting projects overstates how much capacity is moving, because so many entries are small; counting capacity overstates how many are advancing, because the unknown-status problem hides attrition. Neither headline alone is safe. The honest summary is 605 filings, 81.3 GW of gross nameplate ambition, and a status field we simply cannot see.

The median Massachusetts queued project is 25 MW, the smallest among states in this snapshot.

The Fuel Mix

Group the 605 projects by technology and a balanced, storage-and-solar-leaning picture emerges. Fuel labels are our keyword bucketing of differing vendor categories.

Solar leads on count at 173 projects and a 28.6% share, but its capacity is tiny — just 1,830 MW — confirming those are small distributed installations. Battery Storage tells the opposite story: 166 projects packing 24,706 MW, far more megawatts per project. The large "Other" bucket — 165 projects, 24,905 MW — reflects offshore and mixed-technology filings that do not map cleanly to a single fuel, which is common in New England. Wind's 47 projects carry an outsized 20,595 MW, consistent with offshore wind scale.

The capacity-per-project contrast is the most useful thing in this table. Solar's 173 projects average a fraction of a megawatt-class plant each, while wind's 47 filings carry nearly as much total capacity as solar and storage combined. That is the offshore signature: a small number of very large marine projects sitting alongside a long tail of rooftop and community-scale solar. The two nuclear filings showing 0 MW are a final reminder that the feed's capacity field is sometimes blank — another reason to read every Massachusetts number as a floor on information, not a complete picture.

It is also why the fuel split here is less clean than in the western states. When a single "Other" bucket holds 165 projects and 24,905 MW — more capacity than solar and nearly matching storage — the keyword bucketing is doing heavy lifting. New England's offshore and hybrid filings resist tidy categorization, so we report the Other bucket honestly rather than forcing those projects into a fuel they do not cleanly belong to.

Methodology

Source: Public ISO/RTO interconnection-queue listings, via the US Tech Automations grid-queue clock (sealed daily, content-hashed). The scope is generation and storage projects sitting in the interconnection queues of the U.S. grid operators (ISOs and RTOs) that publish a machine-readable queue, as captured by US Tech Automations' sealed daily grid snapshots. This is a census of the published queues, not of every project on every grid in the country.

All figures are computed directly from US Tech Automations' sealed daily grid-queue snapshots; nothing is estimated, modeled, or extrapolated.

Vendor fuel and technology labels differ by ISO and are grouped into Solar, Battery Storage, Wind, Natural Gas and Other by keyword. Status taxonomies differ too; we group them into withdrawn, operational, still-in-queue, and unknown. Massachusetts is the clearest case of why this matters: ISO-NE publishes no readable status, so all 605 projects fall into unknown and the withdrawn rate reads 0.0%. That is a feed artifact, not a claim that nothing withdrew. ISO-NE's statewide withdrawn rate of 0.0% in our snapshot reflects the same gap.

Reminder on the disclaimer: a queue position is a request to connect, not a built, approved, or financed project. We make no forecast that any queued capacity will be delivered.

How the clock seals each snapshot:

1. Collect each ISO feed. Across this edition, 5 ISOs spanning 28 states.

2. Normalize labels. Map vendor fuel and status fields onto shared buckets; where status is absent, mark unknown.

3. Bucket fuel and status. Sort every project, preserving the unknown designation honestly.

4. Seal the snapshot. Hash the normalized day and append it to the immutable ledger.

Put Grid Data to Work

Even with unknown statuses, the Massachusetts queue is useful — if read carefully. Offshore wind and storage developers can use the 47 wind filings (20,595 MW) and 166 battery filings (24,706 MW) to size the competitive field in a region defined by offshore ambition.

Transmission planners should note that the largest entry is a 1,600 MW 345 kV AC line — the queue here is as much about wires as generation, which is unusual among the states in this edition.

Analysts and policy teams must not mistake 100.0% unknown for fully active; the 605 count is filings on record, nothing more, and any headline that converts it into a pipeline of advancing projects is overreaching what this feed can support.

There is a deeper point here about working with imperfect public data. The Massachusetts feed does not publish status, so a single snapshot cannot tell you which projects are advancing.

What a sequence of snapshots can tell you is which projects appear, persist, change capacity, or vanish over time — and a project that quietly drops out of the feed is, in practice, a withdrawal the ISO never labeled. Reconstructing attrition from the comings and goings of filings is the only honest way to recover status from a status-blind feed, and it requires watching the queue continuously rather than reading it once. That, in the end, is the difference between a one-off snapshot and a continuous monitoring system.

US Tech Automations automates the monitoring that makes a status-blind feed workable: tracking which of the 605 filings appear, change, or disappear day to day even when the ISO publishes no status field. Teams can build that into their stack via our agentic workflows platform, and the sealed snapshots live at https://permits.ustechautomations.com.

For the national picture, see the US interconnection queue index, and for the storage segment specifically — Massachusetts's 166 battery filings in context — the battery storage interconnection queue.

Source: US Tech Automations Research — computed from the sealed daily interconnection-queue snapshot, June 11, 2026.