When Accelerated Growth Overwhelms Utility Operations

A mid-sized eastern utility faced an interconnection challenge with solar and other distributed generation applications increasing, exposing deep operational improvement opportunities across every process.

Voyage Advisory specializes in these high-stakes operational transformations, helping utilities turn interconnection backlogs into streamlined processes that accelerate the clean energy transition while protecting reliability and stakeholder trust.

Synopsis

When Distributed Energy Resource (DER) applications (e.g. solar, wind, etc.) started increasing, a utility company thought it could manage the growth with its existing processes. Developer friendly net-energy billing (NEB) policies put in place by the state and Public Utility Commission (PUC) led to a sort of solar farm development gold rush. The overwhelming capacity started showing challenges throughout the end-to-the-end process.

Engineering reviews and grid studies that should have taken weeks stretched into months due to lack of complete information. Witness and energization testing, the final step before projects could go live, had high failure rates – sometimes sending projects back to square one and extending project timelines. Customers frequently contacted the team by phone and email because they lacked online tools to track project status and had no visibility into their projects.

The same customer and project data was required to be entered manually into multiple systems by different people. Mistakes compounded. Timelines slipped. Complaints mounted.

With the public utility commission paying attention and key deadlines approaching, the leadership team knew they needed help, and they needed it fast.

The Transformation plan

The utility brought in a management consulting team with one goal: fix everything. Not band aids. Not quick patches. A complete operational transformation. The scope was daunting, processes spanning four complexity levels of interconnection, from small residential solar to multi-megawatt commercial projects. Over 75 team members across 17 different job roles needed to change how they work.

The consultants spent the first several months just understanding the current state processes and associated opportunities. They mapped every process end-to-end. They interviewed engineers, coordinators, project managers, customer service reps, IT staff, and executives. They shadowed people doing their actual work, not just reading procedure manuals. The team analyzed data, evaluated systems, and cataloged every friction point.

When the dust settled, they found 177 distinct opportunities for improvement. Some were quick fixes – standardized checklists, email templates, and better handoff protocols. Others required major work on technology platforms, process redesigns, and organizational restructuring. The team prioritized ruthlessly, implemented quickly, and measured everything.

The Results

After fourteen months, the utility achieved transformative results by resolving 171 of the 177 identified opportunities, a 94% completion rate, with the remaining 6 requiring long-term technology and financial policy changes. Witness test pass rates improved dramatically from below 25% to over 90%. The team redesigned processes across four complexity levels of interconnection, from small residential solar to multi-megawatt commercial projects. Customers benefited from clearer communication and more predictable timelines throughout the interconnection journey. More importantly, the utility did not just fix problems; they built capabilities. Process ownership, continuous improvement cycles, cross-functional collaboration, and knowledge management updates. These were not consulting deliverables that would gather dust in a shared drive. These were living practices that would keep driving improvements long after the consultants left.

2. Industry Implications

This utility's story is not unique. It is playing out at utilities across the country, some more visibly than others. The distributed energy resources sector is experiencing explosive growth while simultaneously being challenged by its own interconnection processes. Understanding the broader industry context helps explain why operational transformation has moved from 'nice to have' to 'existential necessity.

The $1.2 Trillion Market Opportunity

The global distributed energy resources market is projected to reach $1.2 trillion by 2034, up from $337 billion in 2024. That is a compound annual growth rate of 13.3%, the market will triple in ten years. This is not exaggerated or speculation. This is based on actual project pipelines, government policy commitments, corporate sustainability goals, and declining technology costs.

What is driving this growth? Technology costs keep falling. Solar panel prices have dropped 90% since 2010. Battery storage costs are down 80% in the same period. Grid-scale projects that were economically marginal five years ago are now profitable without subsidies. Add supportive policy frameworks like the Inflation Reduction Act, state renewable portfolio standards, and corporate sustainability commitments, and you get sustained, decades-long growth.

Add supportive policy frameworks like the Inflation Reduction Act, state renewable portfolio standards, and corporate sustainability commitments, and you get sustained, decades-long growth.

The technology mix is evolving too. Solar photovoltaic systems will represent 38% of total DER capacity by 2034, but battery energy storage is the real rocket ship, growing at 19.2% annually. Wind projects account for 25% of capacity, concentrated in regions with strong, consistent wind resources. The geographic distribution matters – Asia-Pacific currently holds 42% market share driven by China and India's aggressive capacity targets. North America has the fastest growth rate at 19.2% Compounded Average Growth Rate (CAGR), fueled by IRA incentives and state mandates.

First-Mover Advantage: Utilities that get their DER operations correct now will capture value multiple times over. They will have lower operational costs with efficient processes and automation. They will attract and retain better talent because people want to work at well-run organizations. They will enjoy favorable regulatory treatment because commissioners appreciate utilities that solve problems before being forced to. Everyone else will spend years and millions catching up while competitors establish market leadership.

Data Sources: Allied Market Research, "Distributed Energy Generation Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report" (2024); Precedence Research, "Distributed Energy Resource Management System Market Report" (2024); Global Growth Insights, "Distributed Energy Resources Market Analysis" (2024). Market valuations represent aggregated capacity across solar PV, wind, battery storage, and other distributed generation assets globally.

Project Timelines Keep Growing

If queue size is the symptom, timeline growth is the disease. The median time from interconnection request to commercial operation has reached up to 4.8 years – up 166% from the 1.8-year baseline in 2000-2007. And the trajectory continues upward. Some regions are now averaging over five years.

Breaking down where time gets lost reveals the bottlenecks. Initial screening, which took 2-3 months in 2010, now consumes 6-9 months. System impact studies, the longest single bottleneck, stretch from 6-9 months historically to 12-18 months today. Facilities’ studies grew from 4-6 months to 9-12 months. Interconnection agreement negotiations expanded from 3-6 months to 6-12 months. A new bottleneck emerged after 2020: construction approval, now taking 3-6 months where it barely existed before.

Why does this matter so much? Four to five years is long enough for fundamental project economics to change. Technology specifications become obsolete, battery system spec'd in 2020 would be two generations old by 2025. Power purchase agreements expire before projects clear approval. Financing commitments evaporate as lenders lose patience. Tax equity investors move to other opportunities. By the time a project finally gets approved, the world has moved on.

The Timeline Itself Kills Projects: This is not a minor inconvenience. Four-year timelines transform interconnection from a regulatory requirement into an economic death sentence. Projects that would be viable with 12-month timelines become impossible with 48-month timelines. The wait itself, not the technical requirements, has become the primary barrier to clean energy deployment.

Data Sources: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "Historical Interconnection Timeline Data" (2024); S&P Global Market Intelligence, "Processing Time Analysis by Stage and Region" (2024); U.S. Department of Energy, "Interconnection Innovation e-Xchange (i2X)" timeline database (2024). Timeline measurements represent median duration from initial interconnection request submission to commercial operation date across all project types and ISO/RTO regions.

Interconnection Costs Have Exploded

While projects wait years for approval, costs keep climbing. Average interconnection costs have increased fivefold since 2000. Solar projects now average $167 per kilowatt, up from $25/kW two decades ago – a 5.7× increase. Wind projects hit $138/kW (5.5× increase). Even conventional gas projects, which face simpler interconnection requirements, have grown from $15/kW to $51/kW (3.4× increase).

Why are costs rising so fast? Hosting capacity saturation means early projects connect cheaply while later projects trigger expensive upgrades. The cost-causer-pays model forces one project to fund infrastructure that benefits many future projects. Decades of deferred grid investment have created compounded upgrade needs. More sophisticated analysis requirements for DER integration add study complexity and cost. Limited engineering resources drive longer study timelines and higher consulting fees.

Some states are fighting back with cost reforms. Massachusetts' Community Interconnection Pathway implemented pro-rata cost sharing, which unlocked 679 MW of previously stalled projects. New York's Cost Sharing 2.0 caps utility cost recovery at 2% annually while projects pay pro-rata shares rather than full costs. California limits developer cost increases to 125% of initial estimates. The federal Inflation Reduction Act provides a 30% tax credit for eligible interconnection costs. This helps, but they do not solve the underlying problem.

Economic Viability Barrier: Interconnection costs now represent 10-15% of total project capital for solar, up from 2-3% two decades ago. Projects quoted above $1,000/kW become economically impossible regardless of energy market conditions, technology costs, or policy support. This cost escalation is pricing viable clean energy projects out of existence entirely.

Data Sources: Thunder Said Energy, "Cost of Grid Interconnection" (March 2024); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "Empirical Trends in Interconnection Costs" (2024); National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), "Interconnection Cost Studies and Network Upgrade Analysis" (2024). Cost data represents average interconnection expenses per kilowatt of nameplate capacity across completed projects in each time period. Extreme cost data compiled from publicly available interconnection study reports.

Technology Solutions Are Racing to Market

Amid all this dysfunction, one bright spot emerges: technology solutions are maturing rapidly. The Distributed Energy Resource Management Systems (DERMS) market is projected to reach $3.7 billion by 2034, up from $751 million in 2025. That is 19.2% annual growth, nearly double the DER market overall. Why? Because utilities are desperate for operational help, and early adopters are proving the technology works.

3. Challenges for the regional Utility Organization

As interconnection requests for renewable generation began surging, this utility initially believed its current workflows would suffice. State regulators and the PUC had enacted attractive compensation structures that triggered a wave of project development. The flood of applications soon exposed bottlenecks across the entire intake-to-energization lifecycle.

Technical assessments that normally concluded in a matter of weeks dragged on for months, stalled by incomplete application materials. Final interconnection activities involving inspection and commissioning failed at alarming rates, often forcing developers to restart the entire cycle. Applicants bombarded staff with inquiries because no digital portal existed to track progress. Meanwhile, personnel across departments manually re-key identical information into separate databases. Errors multiplied. Schedules deteriorated. Frustration escalated.

As regulatory scrutiny intensified and critical milestones loomed, executives recognized they required outside expertise immediately.

Key Challenges Identified

Process breakdowns occurred in all areas of the end-to-end process. Applications arrived through multiple uncoordinated channels, with up to 75% bouncing back for missing or incomplete information. Handoffs between teams were informal, workflow steps were triggered by manual emails. Engineers used individual methods to log their work instead of standard checklists, making quality inconsistent and knowledge transfer exceedingly difficult. Witness tests failed 70% of the time because readiness criteria were unclear and developer pre-testing was inadequate. Previous technical decisions were not documented anywhere searchable, forcing engineers to re-analyze scenarios colleagues had already discussed.

Benchmarking against industry standards and peer utilities revealed performance gaps. This utility's engineering reviews took three to five times longer than comparable utilities. Their witness test success rate of 30% compared poorly to industry leaders who achieve 85-90%. Application completeness rates lagged. These comparisons helped build the case for change with skeptical stakeholders.

Technology problems compounded operational challenges. Customer information lived in one system, geographic data in another, documents in SharePoint, engineering work in spreadsheets, project tracking in Smartsheet’s and real project history in email. The same data got entered manually into multiple systems by different people at different times. Customers had zero visibility into application status and contacted customer service repeatedly for updates. Resources did not match workload – staff were either overwhelmed during spring application surges or looking for work during winter slowdowns. Critical expertise lived in a few people's heads, creating single points of failure. Customer complaints to the state commission were climbing and timeline unpredictability made planning impossible for everyone involved

4. Phased Approach toward Improvement

The Voyage Advisory team ran four phases over 17 months. Discovery and current state mapping (months 1-5) documented all interconnection processes, involved 75+ staff, and found 177 improvement opportunities sorted into quick wins, in-flight items, and future state work. Deployment (months 6-17) worked and improved 171 opportunities through parallel workstreams in process redesign, maximized use of technology, training, and governance, hitting 94% completion and creating capabilities that transformed the organization.

Phase 1: Project Kickoff and Discovery

1 Month Task | Interviews | Role ownership process capture | Information Gathering

The project kickoff aligns stakeholders on objectives, scope, timelines, governance, and ways of working, establishing clarity at the outset of the engagement. Stakeholder interviews then provide insight into current operations across leadership, operational, and frontline roles, focusing on workflows, handoffs, pain points, and gaps between documented processes and actual practice. Together, these activities create a clear understanding of the current environment and inform next-step improvement efforts. The team was able to learn and identify some key challenges and opportunities to help drive future state improvement.

Phase 2: Current State Mapping and Documentation

4 Month Task | Process Mapping + Documentation = Understanding Reality

Next, the team began by documenting the current state and discovered that all 10+ end-to-end processes were stalled in various inboxes: either awaiting responses that never materialized or being routed to the wrong personnel. The team ran focused workshops with subject-matter experts on all phases of the process, along with supporting processes: Application & Intake, Engineering Reviews & Studies, Planning and Construction, Energization Testing, Disputes, Change Requests, etc. These sessions surfaced solutions that frontline staff had been wanting to implement for years but lacked the authority, resources, or expertise to pursue. Capturing this institutional knowledge proved invaluable for solution design.

Our teams also worked together to map the customer journey from initial interest through energization.

Where did customers get confused?
What information did they need that was not available?
When did they call customer service, and what did those calls reveal about process gaps?

The team then overlaid regulatory timelines and critical decision points onto this journey map, identifying where mandatory approval periods, permitting requirements, and compliance milestones created bottlenecks or customer confusion. This outside-in perspective, enriched with regulatory context and time-based constraints, complemented the inside-out process mapping. Our team interviewed both small and large developers who were currently working with this organization at the time to gather these insights.

Process mapping at Voyage Advisory shows how work actually flows end to end, from the first trigger to completion, across people, systems, and handoffs. It shows who does the work, what steps are performed, where decisions happen, and how information and systems interact. The goal is to capture how the process operates today, not how it should work, so we can spot performance gaps.

Voyage Advisory uses process mapping to create a shared view of current operations and find bottlenecks, rework, delays, and failure points. It reveals handoff breakdowns, unclear ownership, manual workarounds, system gaps, and duplicated effort. This baseline then supports future state design, automation, and policy changes that fix real problems instead of imagined ones.

Actual Client Process Map

The team established performance baselines across critical metrics: cycle times by interconnection level, application completeness rates, engineering review duration, witness test success rates, and customer complaint volumes. This data revealed where to focus first and would later be used to measure whether improvements actually worked.

Phase 3: Opportunity Roadmap

1 Month l Opportunity List Data | Prioritization and Optimization l Roadmap for Improvement

Opportunity list analysis is a consulting practice used throughout an engagement to systematically document problems, inefficiencies, and improvement ideas as work is observed. Documentation occurs across each phase to capture both operational pain points and meaningful opportunities for improvement. Each item is recorded in clear, practical terms that describe what is not working, who is impacted, and why it matters, creating a shared, fact-based view that supports sound prioritization and a credible transformation roadmap. Although used in the discovery interviews and other phases of current process mapping and future state improvement activities, it sets the foundation for building a path toward transformation.

With 177 opportunities identified, the team could not tackle everything at once. The joint team conducted seven opportunity workshops to brainstorm solutions, validate priorities, and build consensus on the path forward. They developed prioritization criteria balancing multiple factors: business impact, implementation effort, resource requirements, dependencies, risk, and timeline to value.

This analysis sorted opportunities into three buckets.

Quick Wins (27 opportunities) offered high impact with low effort – standard checklists, email templates, basic dashboards. These could be implemented in weeks and would build credibility for larger changes.
In-Flight items (34 opportunities) had medium complexity and team members started on during the discovery phase – role clarifications, communication protocols, data cleanup.
Future State opportunities (116 opportunities) required complete redesign and technology changes – process automation, system integration, customer portals.

Phase 4: Deployment

12 Month Task l Workstream Development l Redesign and Improve

Phase 4 deployed 171 opportunities in 12 months through five parallel workstreams: process, technology, training, customer experience, and governance. Result: 94% completion rate, with 171 of 177 opportunities successfully resolved. The remaining 6 opportunities were identified as long-term strategic initiatives dependent on major technology infrastructure changes and executive-level financial policy decisions extending beyond the project scope.

What Consultants Do in Deployment

Deployment is where consultants shift from analysis to execution. They coordinate multiple workstreams at once. They time quick wins (months 1-2) to prove the concept works while bigger solutions (months 3-12) get built. The job is keeping pieces coordinated, working through pushbacks, fixing problems, and keeping executives focused. By the end of the transformation, the organization has moved from "here's what should change" to "here's how we operate now.”

In the Deployment phase, redesign moved beyond documenting the current state to actually fixing broken processes. Workshops brought together the people doing the work to redesign their workflows step by step. These sessions identified what slowed things down, where handoffs failed, and how to rebuild processes for speed and clarity. The result: clearer roles, faster cycle times, and processes that work for the people using them daily.

Current state processes get messy over time. People create workarounds to get things done. Regulations change, and requirements get adjusted. Systems get added without removing old ones. What once worked becomes a tangle of inefficiencies.

Future state design fixes this by bringing subject matter experts into the room to rebuild processes from scratch. These workshops are where real work happens. Engineers, coordinators, and managers debate what is broken, brainstorm solutions, and redesign workflows together. They know where the problems are because they live with them daily. The best improvements come from people who actually do the work, consultants drive and guide to make it successful.

The future state will analyze and make adjustments that are driven by the people and the current challenges and factors that are creating the present state bottleneck factors. Getting brilliante SMEs in the room to debate, brainstorm, and recreate is the exciting and the true essence of improvement within the organization.

5. Results and Accomplishments

Seventeen months after kickoff, the transformation hit 94% completion (171 of 177 opportunities resolved). The numbers tell only part of the story. The utility changed how it operates, how people work, and how customers experience interconnection. The engagement-built capabilities that outlast consultants: processes people use, technology they trust, skills they apply, and structures that sustain performance.

Level 1 Process Redesign Application & Intake

Established new Intake Coordinator role for seamless customer experience
Built automated email templates with identified triggers
Streamlined materials procurement and internal upgrade processes
Created Planner template for consistent information exchange
Improved customer experience with better stakeholder communication

Level 2 Process Combination L1 & L4

Created new process for projects under 250Kw
Built Common Exceptions list and defined testing parameters for 250Kw+
Established construction timeline guidelines
Designed developer checklist

Level 3 Process Low Volume Projects

Integrated efficiencies from L1, L2 & L4 processes
Developed thresholds for L3 studies
Enhanced customer experience with “what to expect?” document
Improved process flow with export control double-check activities

Level 4 Process Redesign Four Main Sections

Application & Intake: Integrated L1 efficiencies, built pre-scoping checklist
Planning/Design/Engineering: Established 90-day activity timing, design closeout meetings
Pre-Construction: Built PM vs. CM responsibility matrix
Witness Testing: Redesigned COC through PTO process for successful outcomes

Change Request Process Customer & Utility Commission

Improved customer experience and root cause understanding
Established governance structure and escalation guidelines
Identified key communication points and metrics to track
Built supporting documentation and lessons learned process

Dispute Process MPUC Compliance

Created Dispute Lead position with expanded Legal team role
Ensured right stakeholders involved at right time
Built email templates and KPI dashboards
Created logging and documentation templates
Established lessons learned review process

Policy & Procedure Updates Internal Processes

Built detailed Project Reconciliation procedure manual
Reconciled all open opportunities from current state
Updated payment guidelines, overdue payment policies, NEB extensions
Created form letters and templates for customer communication
Designed DG Coordinator reference form for Legal team best practices

More importantly, the utility did not just fix problems; they built capabilities. Process ownership, continuous improvement cycles, cross-functional collaboration, and knowledge management updates. These were not consulting deliverables that would gather dust in a shared drive. These were living practices that would keep driving improvements long after the consultants left.

This case proves something important: DER operations can be transformed when you tackle processes, technology, and people simultaneously. Not one at a time, all three together. The roadmap exists. The tools work. Now it is about execution.

6. Conclusion

The distributed energy resources sector presents utilities with a stark choice: transform operations proactively on your terms or be forced to transform reactively under regulatory mandate. The industry data leaves no room for ambiguity with a $1.2 trillion market growth, 2,600 GW interconnection queues, 4.8-year timelines, fivefold cost increases, 13% project completion rates. These are not temporary disruptions. They represent fundamental market restructuring.

This case study shows that complete operational transformation is achievable within 17 months when three elements work together: process redesign, future technology, and change management. Not sequentially, simultaneously. The utility resolved 94% of identified opportunities, achieved close to 100% witness test success, maximized integrated technology platforms, and built sustainable continuous improvement capabilities.

The path forward requires five strategic actions: make technology core to operations, build continuous improvement muscle, transform customer experience, establish clear governance, and take change management seriously. These are not theoretical recommendations. They are proven practices from 17 months of hands-on transformation.

More fundamentally, success requires sustained executive commitment. Transformation efforts fail when leadership attention shifts to other priorities. Successful utilities maintain focus through 18-24-month transformation cycles and beyond into continuous improvement mode. This requires discipline, patience, and belief that operational excellence creates competitive advantages, not just cost reduction.

The window for voluntary transformation is closing. Utilities that move decisively now will capture competitive advantage through operational excellence, superior customer experience, better talent retention, and favorable regulatory treatment. Those who delay will find themselves scrambling to catch up under regulatory mandates while competitors establish market leadership.

The business case is compelling. The roadmap is proven. Technology exists and works. Early movers are achieving transformational results. Now it is a question of organizational will and execution capability

7. Strategic Imperatives for Utility Leaders

6 Non-negotiable success factors for DER transformation

Work Together Across Functions
Effective outcomes rely on collaboration between customer service, engineering, operations, and IT. Regular cross-functional coordination and shared metrics ensure that the needs of all customer types, whether homeowners or developers, are consistently met.
Establish clear governance and decision rights
Ambiguity in decision-making causes delays. By setting clear approval rules based on project size and customer type, you streamline decisions and empower staff to oversee routine issues consistently.
transform customer experience
Often, customer frustration comes from not knowing what is happening. Capture customer updates, realistic timelines, and self-service options that fit both individual homeowners and large-scale developers. This reduces calls and builds trust.
EMBED CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CAPABILITIES WITHIN PROCESS FLOWS
To keep performance strong over time, build a habit of continuous improvement. Assign clear process owners and hold regular reviews tailored to the needs of different customer segments, like homeowners and developers.
Make Technology core to your operation
Improving processes alone can only take you so far. By using integrated workflow platforms that serve both homeowners and large developers, you reduce manual tasks and create a clearer, more efficient operation.
Take change management seriously
Successfully adopting new processes and technology depends on good management changes. Provide role-specific training and support so each team member, whether collaborating with homeowners or developers, feels confident and avoids

Written By: Roger LaGrone