LandGate’s Transmission Planning Models Explained
- LandGate
- 9 minutes ago
- 14 min read
To de-risk capital deployment, evaluate land viability, and successfully connect high-load additions or generation assets, energy and data center developers must look beyond simple geospatial proximity to transmission lines. They must analyze the underlying grid mechanics through transmission planning models.
In this guide, we break down how transmission planning models are used for data center site selection and generation interconnection, detail key regional model standards (MMWG, MTEP, SSWG, RTEP), and present a comprehensive directory of the 189 transmission planning models integrated directly into LandGate's vertical intelligence software and AI Data Agent.
Why LandGate's Transmission Planning Model Library Leads the Industry
Most site selection platforms stop at proximity, like how close a parcel sits to a line or substation. That's a starting point, not an answer. Whether a site can actually be energized depends on what's underneath that line: the study year, the scenario, the series, and whether the corridor is already carrying committed capacity on paper. That's the layer LandGate models directly, and it's where our library separates from anything else available to developers.
Full national coverage, not a sample. LandGate ingests base cases from all 10 U.S. ISOs and RTOs (CAISO, ERCOT, FRCC, ISO-NE, MISO, NYISO, PJM, SERC, SPP, and WECC) rather than the two or three regions most platforms treat as a proxy for the whole country. A site in SPP territory gets the same modeling rigor as one in PJM.
Planning and queue models, not just planning models. Of the 189 models in the library, 170 are standard planning-cycle base cases and 19 are queue-cycle cases – including MISO's GI-DPP definitive planning phase models and PJM's transition-cycle (TC Phase) queue reform models. Most platforms stop at the annual planning base case. LandGate also tracks the queue-specific cases that determine how a project actually moves through interconnection, which is what the data developers and their transmission counsel actually need in diligence.
Full scenario depth, not a single snapshot. Every ISO models more than Summer Peak, and so does LandGate - Light Load, Minimum Load, Shoulder, and storage-specific charging/discharging scenarios (ERIS, SHAW, SHHW, WINNF) are all in the library, up to 9 scenarios deep in MISO and PJM alone. That range matters for storage and hybrid resources, where the binding constraint often isn't peak conditions at all.
Up-to-date data as each ISO publishes. LandGate's transmission planning model library spans series from 2020 through 2025 and forecast horizons out to 2039, refreshed as each region releases its next series, so a site screen reflects the newest available system assumptions, not a stale base case from several study cycles ago.
Transmission Planning Models by ISO and RTO
Every ISO and RTO runs its own electric planning process, on its own cycle, with its own naming conventions. Below is a breakdown of how each major U.S. region builds and organizes its planning models along with tables that list each of the transmission planning models currently available in LandGate's platform, organized by ISO/RTO, study series, scenario, and study year.
California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
CAISO runs its Transmission Planning Process (TPP) annually, developing models in coordination with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Energy Commission (CEC). CAISO performs the transmission analysis, while the CPUC supplies forward-looking resource portfolios and the CEC supplies demand forecasts. CAISO's planning models are built around Summer Peak conditions and typically span a 10-year horizon, with recent series covering study years out to 2039 across its full ISO footprint, including PG&E, San Diego, and Southern California sub-regions.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
CAISO 2026 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
CAISO 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
CAISO 2026 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
CAISO 2029 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
CAISO 2034 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
CAISO 2039 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2039 | Planning |
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT)
ERCOT's near-term planning models are developed by the Steady State Working Group (SSWG), which produces seasonal and future load-flow base cases used in ERCOT's annual Regional Transmission Plan (RTP). ERCOT's model set is unusually granular by scenario: recent series include not just Summer, Winter, Fall, and Spring Peak cases but Minimum Load (MIN) and High Renewables Minimum Load (HRML) conditions, reflecting ERCOT's need to plan for periods of high wind and solar output alongside periods of peak thermal demand.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
ERCOT 2025 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Planning |
ERCOT 2026 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
ERCOT 2027 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
ERCOT 2028 High Renewables Min. Load | 2024 Series | High Renewables Min. Load | 2028 | Planning |
ERCOT 2028 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
ERCOT 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
ERCOT 2030 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
ERCOT 2031 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2031 | Planning |
ERCOT 2026 Fall Peak | 2025 Series | Fall Peak | 2026 | Planning |
ERCOT 2026 Spring Peak | 2025 Series | Spring Peak | 2026 | Planning |
ERCOT 2026 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
ERCOT 2027 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
ERCOT 2027 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2027 | Planning |
ERCOT 2028 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
ERCOT 2029 HRML | 2025 Series | HRML | 2029 | Planning |
ERCOT 2029 MIN | 2025 Series | MIN | 2029 | Planning |
ERCOT 2029 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
ERCOT 2030 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
ERCOT 2031 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2031 | Planning |
ERCOT 2032 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2032 | Planning |
Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC)
FRCC builds its planning models through the same MMWG process used across the Eastern Interconnection, supplemented by its own Load Forecast Data Base (LFDB) methodology for winter cases. FRCC's models are organized around Summer and Winter Peak scenarios across the entire ISO footprint, with study years currently extending out to 2033.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
FRCC 2026 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
FRCC 2026 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2026 | Planning |
FRCC 2027 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
FRCC 2027 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2027 | Planning |
FRCC 2028 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
FRCC 2028 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2028 | Planning |
FRCC 2029 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
FRCC 2029 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2029 | Planning |
FRCC 2030 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
FRCC 2030 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2030 | Planning |
FRCC 2031 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2031 | Planning |
FRCC 2031 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2031 | Planning |
FRCC 2032 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2032 | Planning |
FRCC 2032 Winter Peak | 2022 Series | Winter Peak | 2032 | Planning |
FRCC 2033 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
Independent System Operator - New England (ISO-NE)
ISO-NE's planning models are developed under the ERAG MMWG process alongside its own internal planning cycles, and include a wider set of load-level scenarios than most regions - Summer Peak and Winter Peak, but also Light (L), Medium (M), Shoulder High (SH), and Evening Peak conditions, reflecting New England's increasingly complex net load shape as behind-the-meter solar and electrification shift the timing of system peaks. ISO-NE's most recent series extend planning horizons out to 2035.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
NEISO 2028 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
NEISO 2033 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
NEISO 2025-26 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2025 | Planning |
NEISO 2025 L | 2024 Series | L | 2025 | Planning |
NEISO 2025 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Planning |
NEISO 2029-30 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2029 | Planning |
NEISO 2029 M | 2024 Series | M | 2029 | Planning |
NEISO 2029 SH | 2024 Series | SH | 2029 | Planning |
NEISO 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
NEISO 2034-35 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2034 | Planning |
NEISO 2034 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
NEISO 2027 Evening Peak | 2025 Series | Evening Peak | 2027 | Planning |
NEISO 2030 Evening Peak | 2025 Series | Evening Peak | 2030 | Planning |
NEISO 2035 Evening Peak | 2025 Series | Evening Peak | 2035 | Planning |
Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO)
MISO's primary planning vehicle is the MISO Transmission Expansion Plan (MTEP), an annual process that evaluates the transmission system against reliability, economic, and public policy criteria over a 10-year (and increasingly 20-year) horizon, coordinated with the NERC MMWG for external system representation. MISO's model set is the most scenario-diverse in this dataset, including Summer Peak and Summer Light Load cases alongside a cluster of Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS) thermal charging/discharging scenarios and shoulder-season (SHAW, SHHW) and winter (WINNF) conditions built specifically to test storage and hybrid resource performance, which is a direct reflection of the volume of battery storage in MISO's interconnection queue.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
MISO 2025 Summer Light | 2023 Series | Summer Light | 2025 | Planning |
MISO 2025 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Planning |
MISO 2028 SHAW | 2023 Series | SHAW | 2028 | Planning |
MISO 2028 SHHW | 2023 Series | SHHW | 2028 | Planning |
MISO 2028 Summer Light | 2023 Series | Summer Light | 2028 | Planning |
MISO 2028 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
MISO 2028 WINNF | 2023 Series | WINNF | 2028 | Planning |
MISO 2033 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
MISO 2026 Summer Light | 2024 Series | Summer Light | 2026 | Planning |
MISO 2026 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
MISO 2029 SHAW | 2024 Series | SHAW | 2029 | Planning |
MISO 2029 SHHW | 2024 Series | SHHW | 2029 | Planning |
MISO 2029 Summer Light | 2024 Series | Summer Light | 2029 | Planning |
MISO 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
MISO 2029 WINNF | 2024 Series | WINNF | 2029 | Planning |
MISO 2034 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
MISO 2027 Summer Light | 2025 Series | Summer Light | 2027 | Planning |
MISO 2027 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
MISO 2030 SHAW | 2025 Series | SHAW | 2030 | Planning |
MISO 2030 SHHW | 2025 Series | SHHW | 2030 | Planning |
MISO 2030 Summer Light | 2025 Series | Summer Light | 2030 | Planning |
MISO 2030 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
MISO 2030 WINNF | 2025 Series | WINNF | 2030 | Planning |
MISO 2035 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2035 | Planning |
MISO DPP 2025 Shoulder Charging 2030 | 2025 Series | ERIS Thermal - Shoulder Charging | 2030 | Queue |
MISO DPP 2025 Shoulder Discharging 2030 | 2025 Series | ERIS Thermal - Shoulder Discharging | 2030 | Queue |
MISO DPP 2025 Summer Discharging 2030 | 2025 Series | ERIS Thermal - Summer Discharging | 2030 | Queue |
MISO GI-DPP-2021 Summer Peak | Stage 2 Phase 1 Final | GI-DPP-2021 Summer Peak | 2026 | Queue |
New York Independent System Operator (NYISO)
NYISO develops its planning models under the ERAG MMWG framework, with its own Reliability Planning Process layered on top. NYISO's scenario set centers on load probability: Summer 50-50 and Summer 90-10 cases represent median and high-probability peak load conditions respectively, alongside Summer Light Load and Winter cases, with current series extending study years out to 2035.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
NYISO 2028 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
NYISO 2028-2029 Winter | 2022 Series | Winter | 2028 | Planning |
NYISO 2028 Summer Light Load | 2022 Series | Summer Light Load | 2028 | Planning |
NYISO 2033-2034 Winter | 2022 Series | Winter | 2033 | Planning |
NYISO 2033 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
NYISO 2025 - 2026 Winter | 2025 Series | Winter | 2025 | Planning |
NYISO 2025 Summer 50-50 | 2025 Series | Summer 50-50 | 2025 | Planning |
NYISO 2026 - 2027 Winter | 2025 Series | Winter | 2026 | Planning |
NYISO 2026 Summer 50-50 | 2025 Series | Summer 50-50 | 2026 | Planning |
NYISO 2026 Summer 90-10 | 2025 Series | Summer 90-10 | 2026 | Planning |
NYISO 2026 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2026 | Planning |
NYISO 2030-2031 Winter | 2025 Series | Winter | 2030 | Planning |
NYISO 2030 Summer 50-50 | 2025 Series | Summer 50-50 | 2030 | Planning |
NYISO 2030 Summer 90-10 | 2025 Series | Summer 90-10 | 2030 | Planning |
NYISO 2030 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2030 | Planning |
NYISO 2035-2036 Winter | 2025 Series | Winter | 2035 | Planning |
NYISO 2035 Summer 50-50 | 2025 Series | Summer 50-50 | 2035 | Planning |
PJM Interconnection (PJM)
PJM's planning models feed its Regional Transmission Expansion Plan (RTEP) process, which identifies transmission upgrades over a 15-year horizon and has explicitly cited data center-driven load growth as a primary driver behind recent baseline project approvals. PJM has the largest and most complex model set in this dataset with 45 models spanning five study series back to 2020. This includes standard Summer and Winter Peak cases, Light Load and Shoulder scenarios, and a distinct "TC Phase 3" model family tied to PJM's transition-cycle interconnection queue reforms, which restructured how new generation and storage projects are studied and modeled.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
PJM TC Phase 3 Light Load | 2020 Series | TC Phase 3 Light Load | 2027 | Queue |
PJM TC Phase 3 Summer Peak | 2020 Series | TC Phase 3 Summer Peak | 2027 | Queue |
PJM 2027 TC 1 Phase 3 Light Load (Series 2022) | 2022 Series | Light Load | 2027 | Queue |
PJM 2027 TC 1 Phase 3 Summer Peak (Series 2022) | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Queue |
PJM 2024 Summer Light Load | 2023 Series | Summer Light Load | 2024 | Planning |
PJM 2024 Summer Peak (Series 2023) | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2024 | Planning |
PJM 2024 Winter Peak | 2023 Series | Winter Peak | 2024 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Summer Light Load | 2023 Series | Summer Light Load | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Summer Peak (Series 2023) | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Winter Peak | 2023 Series | Winter Peak | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2028 Spring Min Load | 2023 Series | Spring Min Load | 2028 | Planning |
PJM 2028 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
PJM 2028 Summer Shoulder | 2023 Series | Summer Shoulder | 2028 | Planning |
PJM 2028 Winter Peak | 2023 Series | Winter Peak | 2028 | Planning |
PJM 2033 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
PJM 2033 Winter Peak | 2023 Series | Winter Peak | 2033 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Summer Light Load | 2024 Series | Summer Light Load | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Queue |
PJM 2025 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2025 | Planning |
PJM 2026 Summer Light Load | 2024 Series | Summer Light Load | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2026 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2026 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2028 TC 2 Phase 1 Light Load | 2024 Series | Light Load | 2028 | Queue |
PJM 2028 TC 2 Phase 1 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Queue |
PJM 2028 TC 2 Phase 1 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2028 | Queue |
PJM 2029 Spring Min Load | 2024 Series | Spring Min Load | 2029 | Planning |
PJM 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
PJM 2029 Summer Shoulder | 2024 Series | Summer Shoulder | 2029 | Planning |
PJM 2029 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2029 | Planning |
PJM 2034 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
PJM 2034 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Winter Peak | 2034 | Planning |
PJM 2025 Queue AG1 | 2025 Series | Summer peak | 2025 | Queue |
PJM 2026 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2026 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2026 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2026 | Planning |
PJM 2027 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2027 | Planning |
PJM 2027 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
PJM 2027 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2027 | Planning |
PJM 2030 Spring Min Load | 2025 Series | Spring Min Load | 2030 | Planning |
PJM 2030 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
PJM 2030 Summer Shoulder | 2025 Series | Summer Shoulder | 2030 | Planning |
PJM 2030 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2030 | Planning |
PJM 2035 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2035 | Planning |
PJM 2035 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2035 | Planning |
Southeast Reliability Corporation (SERC)
SERC Reliability Corporation's transmission planning region builds its base cases through the MMWG process, with scenario coverage spanning Summer Peak, Summer Light Load, Summer Shoulder, Spring Minimum Load, and Winter conditions. SERC's footprint covers much of the Southeast, and its current model series extends planning horizons out to 2035.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
SERC 2027 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SERC 2027 Winter | 2022 Series | Winter | 2027 | Planning |
SERC 2032 Summer Peak | 2022 Series | Summer Peak | 2032 | Planning |
SERC 2032 Winter | 2022 Series | Winter | 2032 | Planning |
SERC 2026 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2026 | Planning |
SERC 2026 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
SERC 2026 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2026 | Planning |
SERC 2027 Summer Light Load | 2025 Series | Summer Light Load | 2027 | Planning |
SERC 2027 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SERC 2027 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SERC 2030 Spring Min Load | 2025 Series | Spring Min Load | 2030 | Planning |
SERC 2030 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
SERC 2030 Summer Shoulder | 2025 Series | Summer Shoulder | 2030 | Planning |
SERC 2030 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2030 | Planning |
SERC 2035 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2035 | Planning |
SERC 2035 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2035 | Planning |
Southwest Power Pool (SPP)
SPP develops its planning models through its Integrated Transmission Planning (ITP) process, drawing on the Detailed Study Information Set (DSIS) and Model Development Automation Group (MDAG) processes for model assembly. SPP's scenario set is more compact - Summer Peak, Winter Peak, and Light Load - but its series history in this dataset runs deepest, with study series dating back to 2021 and extending out to 2035.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
SPP DSIS 2021 Summer Peak 2027 | 2021 | Summer Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP DSIS 2021 Winter Peak 2027 | 2021 | Winter Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP DSIS 2022 Summer Peak 2027 | 2022 | Summer Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP DSIS 2022 Winter Peak 2027 | 2022 | Winter Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP DSIS 2023 Summer Peak 2027 | 2023 | Summer Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP DSIS 2023 Winter Peak 2027 | 2023 | Winter Peak | 2027 | Queue |
SPP 2026 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2026 | Planning |
SPP 2027 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SPP 2029 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
SPP 2034 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
SPP 2027 Light Load | 2025 Series | Light Load | 2027 | Planning |
SPP 2027 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SPP 2027 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2027 | Planning |
SPP 2028 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
SPP 2030 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
SPP 2030 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2030 | Planning |
SPP 2035 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2035 | Planning |
SPP 2035 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Winter Peak | 2035 | Planning |
Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC)
WECC coordinates base case development across the Western Interconnection to support both its own reliability assessments and individual planning coordinators' processes, including CAISO's. WECC's models in this dataset cover Summer Peak and Heavy Winter conditions, with study years extending out to 2036.
Model Name | Series | Scenario | Study Year | Model Type |
WECC 2028 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2028 | Planning |
WECC 2029 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2029 | Planning |
WECC 2033 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2033 | Planning |
WECC 2034 Summer Peak | 2023 Series | Summer Peak | 2034 | Planning |
WECC 2029-2030 Winter Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
WECC 2030 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2030 | Planning |
WECC 2035 Summer Peak | 2024 Series | Summer Peak | 2035 | Planning |
WECC 2031 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2031 | Planning |
WECC 2035-36 Winter Peak | 2025 Series | Heavy Winter | 2036 | Planning |
WECC 2036 Summer Peak | 2025 Series | Summer Peak | 2036 | Planning |
Why Transmission Planning Models Matter for Data Center and Renewable Energy Developers
Interconnection queues across the U.S. are backed up by years, in some cases beyond a decade, largely because the transmission system hasn't kept pace with the volume of new load and generation requesting to connect to it. Transmission planning models are the mechanism by which ISOs and RTOs decide where to invest in new lines, upgrades, and substations to relieve that pressure, which means they're also a leading indicator of where future interconnection will get easier, and where it won't.
This matters for two overlapping audiences. Data center developers need to know whether a site's local transmission zone has enough headroom, or planned upgrades, to support gigawatt-scale load growth without a multi-year network upgrade process. Solar and BESS developers need the same information from the generation side, because whether a point of interconnection sits in a zone with available hosting capacity or one already flagged for constraints in the latest planning cycle.
The crossover is where it gets interesting: data center load growth is now one of the primary drivers cited in PJM's, MISO's, and other RTOs' own planning reports for new transmission investment. Developers on both sides of the meter are increasingly competing for headroom in the same corridors, which makes understanding the underlying planning model data a shared necessity rather than a niche technical exercise.
Turning Planning Model Data Into Site Selection Decisions
Reading a transmission planning model directly requires specialized software and, in many cases, a confidentiality agreement with the ISO or RTO - these are typically Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII), with distribution restricted to registered market participants and their consultants. That's a meaningful barrier for developers who need this intelligence early in site screening, well before they're deep enough into a project to justify that level of engagement with an individual RTO.
LandGate's platform is built to close that gap by translating the infrastructure signals these models are designed to capture into data layers developers can query directly during site selection:
Subtransmission infrastructure data, including hosting capacity and available transfer capability (ATC), showing where the local grid already has room versus where it's constrained
Proposed transmission line data, tracking planned corridors and upgrades before they're built - the same projects that emerge from processes like PJM's RTEP or MISO's MTEP
Interconnection queue data, showing what's already competing for capacity at a given point on the system
Natural gas pipeline, delivery point, and offtake capacity data, for developers evaluating behind-the-meter gas as a bridge while grid interconnection queues clear
Geothermal, comparable land transaction, and environmental report layers, rounding out the site diligence picture beyond the wire
Instead of requesting individual ISO base cases and building out a manual GIS overlay, developers can use LandGate's AI Data Agent to run natural language queries against this data directly, and get back a ranked list of sites rather than a stack of raw power-flow files.
