The energy transition has a coordination problem. CHARGED is solving it.

The solutions that could unlock the next wave of grid-connected resources — flexible interconnection, virtual power plants, program harmonization — are not technically out of reach. They break down in the space between stakeholders: in the absence of shared data, shared vocabulary, and a process that enables genuine exchange rather than performance. What’s been missing isn’t expertise. It’s facilitated gatherings to collaboratively design solutions across interest groups.

CHARGED has cracked that code.

ComEd: Turning DERMS from a Friction Point into a Shared Design

When ComEd sought to implement a DERMS-based flexible interconnection program in Illinois, the technical path forward was reasonably clear. The stakeholder path was not. Developers had concerns about curtailment risk and control architecture. Community advocates worried about who would bear costs and who would capture benefits. The utility had its own operational requirements that weren’t always legible to outside parties.

In March 2025, CHARGED facilitated a three-day in-person workshop with ComEd and local stakeholders specifically designed to surface those friction points and work through them. Rather than presenting a finished plan for comment, ComEd walked participants through the technical considerations in real time, and CHARGED facilitated stakeholders in identifying where they had flexibility and where they had hard constraints. The result was a shared understanding of what the program needed to accomplish for each party — and a clear path to a design that worked across those requirements. CHARGED then supported ComEd in integrating that feedback through the program’s Fall 2025 rollout.

One data point that traveled into later workshops: ComEd’s program showed that a well-designed DERMS deployment can support 30 to 60 megawatts through flexible interconnection, with some projects demonstrating curtailment rates as low as 0.0019% in practice. That kind of real-world evidence, surfaced through a facilitated process and then shared across the CHARGED network, is exactly the infrastructure of trust that makes subsequent programs easier to design.

Massachusetts: Forging Consensus Across Utilities, Developers, and Regulators in Two Days

Massachusetts faced a version of the coordination problem with an added layer of complexity: three major utilities — National Grid, Eversource, and Unitil — each with their own systems and processes, all needing to land on compatible flexible interconnection approaches at the same time. Developers needed to plan across service territories. Regulators needed a policy framework that could accommodate both. The ITC safe harbor deadline for existing queue projects added real urgency for stakeholders.

CHARGED convened a two-day workshop bringing together utilities, developers, advocates, and other stakeholders to work through the design together. The facilitated process produced genuine convergence on questions that had been contested.

Parties who arrived with different views found workable common ground. The remaining open questions — how flex analysis interacts with ITC safe harbor qualification, how to structure escrow mechanisms, whether to pursue tariff changes or interim regulatory approvals — were clearly named and handed forward as defined next steps rather than unresolved ambiguity.

When shared progress encourages more shared progress, who will define solutions to these questions is already clear.

Ameren Illinois: Building FlexIX from the Ground Up

Ameren Illinois has been a CHARGED partner since early 2025, when the team ran ten virtual workshops to gather input from solar developers and EV customers — keeping the two groups separate to make sure each was fully heard. That groundwork fed directly into Ameren’s regulatory filing at the end of 2025 and set the stage for what came next.

In May 2026, Ameren hosted a two-day working session to design the next phase of Flexible Grid Connection alongside the people who will actually use it. Day one focused on scheduled flexibility — agreeing in advance on when customers can and can’t draw from or send power to the grid. One theme came up repeatedly: operational reality has to be baked in from the start. A school bus fleet has to charge before the buses run. A scheduling system that ignores that isn’t a real solution.

Day two tackled real-time flexibility, where the utility responds to live grid conditions rather than a fixed schedule. The room aligned on a curtailment targets consistent with what ComEd has already established, and the financing conversation was among the most valuable of the two days: a developer walked Ameren’s team through exactly what a lender needs to see before approving a project. Having that exchange face to face immediately clarified what information Ameren needs to provide.

Ameren left with concrete outputs and target timelines: updated hosting capacity maps by year-end, scheduled flex offerings at priority locations within 12 months, and real-time dynamic flex within three years.

Beyond Zoom

Across these three workshops, and the broader CHARGED portfolio, a consistent picture is emerging of what collaborative design actually unlocks.

For developers, the most valuable output is early certainty. Access to hosting capacity data, curtailment study assumptions, and schedule options before submitting a formal application allows investment decisions to be made with real information rather than assumptions. Projects that would have stalled waiting for a study result or halted when an upgrade cost arrived unexpectedly, can instead be sized and financed with confidence.

For load customers, the programs surfaced something that utilities don’t always anticipate: operational constraints that are non-negotiable. A school district’s buses have a departure time. A fleet operator’s vehicles have a daily energy requirement. “Zero capacity” during a morning window is not a viable option, regardless of what the grid study says. Getting those constraints on the table early, in a structured format that allows the utility to design around them, produces programs that customers can actually use.

For the grid and for ratepayers, the math is straightforward. Every project that connects through a flexible agreement rather than requiring a substation upgrade is avoided capital expenditure that doesn’t flow to ratepayers. At 30 to 60 megawatts per program and with programs now active or in development across Illinois, Massachusetts, and Colorado, the cumulative impact is material.

Scaling Up.

What the ComEd, Massachusetts, and Ameren workshops demonstrate is that the gap is closeable. It requires the right structure, the right mix of voices, and a facilitation approach that keeps the process moving toward shared outcomes rather than entrenched positions. It requires utilities willing to share their technical constraints openly and developers willing to share their financing requirements honestly.

The programs being built through CHARGED convenings are not theoretical. They are moving toward tariff filings, hosting capacity map updates, and DERMS deployments on defined timelines. The stakeholders who helped design them are the same ones who will use them — which is the most reliable mechanism available for ensuring that they actually work.