ERCOT's "connect and manage" model has moved non-firm generator interconnection to the center of reform debates. Less examined: most US regions instead offer a non-firm option called Energy Resource Interconnection Service (ERIS). Has it worked? I’m pleased to share two new companion preprints I co-authored on this topic in my capacity @DukeU with Prof. Dalia Patino-Echeverri, @whgorman, Fredrich Kahrl, Joachim Seel, & @rand_joseph. Together, the papers provide the most comprehensive assessment of ERIS to date: the first statistically robust empirical comparison of ERIS and NRIS outcomes, paired with a systematic review of how ERIS is implemented. 📄 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝟏: 𝐈𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲-𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠? 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚 Drawing on a novel dataset of over 4,500 interconnection cost studies and 36,000 interconnection requests, we find that ERIS has not delivered a durable cost or speed advantage. Its historical cost advantage is largely a "threshold effect" that appears only when a project avoids network upgrades altogether. As grid saturation has cut the share of zero-cost ERIS outcomes from roughly 80% to 10%, that advantage has largely evaporated, and developer demand has contracted in step. 🔗 ssrn.com/abstract=6881698 📄 𝐏𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝟐: 𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐄𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲-𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 Reviewing six ISOs and three major vertically integrated utilities, we document wide and often poorly understood variation in study methods, cost allocation, and procurement rules, showing how regions range from managing congestion through real-time operations to triggering network upgrades during interconnection. 🔗 ssrn.com/abstract=6870718 Notably, both papers conclude that the issue is not the concept of energy-only interconnection – which remains economically sound – but how it has been implemented: restrictive study assumptions that require upgrades for congestion that could instead be handled through operational redispatch. We hope these serve as useful resources as stakeholders and researchers continue to evaluate these issues, and very much welcome feedback!