RAND: "How Much More Power Can the U.S. Grid Provide for AI?"
It turns out that more is possible.*
From the RAND Corporation, April 20:
Projections and Policy Implications for 2030
Key Findings
There are plans to add a total of 151 gigawatts (GW) of
front-of-the-meter (FTM) and 149 GW of behind-the-meter (BTM) nameplate
capacity by 2030. After project completion rates, retirements, and
resource reliability are accounted for, these additions translate into
approximately 82 GW of additional net available capacity — about 33 GW
from FTM resources and 49 GW from BTM resources that reduce peak grid
demand.
Most planned FTM additions are concentrated in the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), while BTM capacity is more evenly
distributed across ERCOT, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator,
and regions without centralized market operators.
The anticipated growth in electricity demand
from artificial intelligence (AI) is large, rapid, and geographically
concentrated. Because of uncertainty about which planned generation
projects will be completed, it is difficult to assess whether future
U.S. grid capacity will keep pace with demand from AI
data centers. An additional challenge lies in translating announced
nameplate capacity into comparable estimates of reliable power that can
meet large, inflexible loads to support data center power needs.[1]
Nameplate capacity is the maximum theoretical output of a power-generation facility as specified by the manufacturer.
These factors complicate efforts to estimate how much additional power capacity the United States is likely to have by 2030.
Estimating Additional Power Capacity
A team of RAND researchers estimated how much additional power
capacity the United States is likely to have by 2030 by translating
planned electricity supply resources into a common measure of reliable
capacity. For front-of-the-meter (FTM) resources,[2]
Front of the meter
refers to energy systems that are connected to the utility grid and
supply electricity to a broad area, typically including large-scale
generation and storage facilities.
the researchers analyzed
planned generation and storage projects based on independent system
operator (ISO) interconnection queues and federal generation data and
applied historical completion rates by region and technology.[3]
ISOs
operate and run the regional electric transmission grids, ensuring
transmission access, planning, operation, and dispatch of energy.
This process adjusted for resource contributions to reliability and
accounted for planned retirements to estimate net additions to grid
capacity.
Behind the meter
refers to energy systems located on the customer's side of the utility
meter. These systems generate, store, or manage electricity without
passing through the meter that measures power consumption from the grid.
such as customer-sited solar and battery storage, the researchers
relied on national deployment projections through 2030 and converted
projected nameplate capacity into effective capacity using the same
framework as in FTM.[5]
Effective capacity
is a technology-agnostic reliable capacity. It is determined by
capacity accreditation factors and used by energy planners for resource
adequacy assessment.
Using this approach, the researchers estimated how much BTM resources could reduce peak grid demand and free up capacity for large loads, such as AI data centers.
Estimates of Front-of-the-Meter and Behind-the-Meter Net Availability Capacity
The researchers found that the United States could add approximately 82 gigawatts (GW) of net available capacity by 2030,[6]
Available capacity
refers to the researchers' estimate of future, deliverable, and
aggregated power. It is estimated from active and anticipated energy
projects seeking interconnection to the grid and builds on effective
capacity by adding completion rate, losses, and deliverability. More
information can be found in the glossary of the accompanying research
report, Assessing the United States' Additional AI
Power Capacity by 2030: Estimating Short-Term Increases in Electricity
Generation and the Ability to Meet Growth in Power Demand.
consisting of 33 GW from FTM resources and 49 GW from BTM resources; see Table 1.
Table 1. Front-of-the-Meter and Behind-the-Meter Available Capacity Additions by Region, 2025–2030 (GW)
Region
FTM
BTM
Combined
CAISO
(1.2)
3.6
1.9
ERCOT
59.0
10.0
69.0
NE-ISO
3.3
1.0
4.3
MISO
(12.0)
11.0
(0.8)
NY-ISO
0.4
3.3
3.6
PJM
(5.3)
4.7
(0.7)
SPP
(1.7)
3.5
1.8
All other regions
(9.4)
12.0
2.7
Total
33.0
49.0
82.0
NOTE: CAISO = California Independent System Operator;
ERCOT = Electric Reliability Council of Texas; MISO = Midcontinent
Independent System Operator; NE-ISO = New England Independent System
Operator; NY-ISO = New York Independent System Operator; SPP = Southwest
Power Pool. Negative FTM values
(shown in parentheses) indicate that the expected additions to
available capacity are less than the reductions in available capacity
from expected retirements. Numbers might not add up to totals because of
rounding.
Figure 1 illustrates how planned FTM generation and storage projects are translated from 1,086 GW of nameplate capacity into the estimated 33 GW
of net available capacity after project attrition, retirements of
existing plants, and differences in resource contributions to
reliability are accounted for.
Figure 1. Method to Translate Planned Front-of-the-Meter Projects to Data Center Power Need
