Five lessons to streamline V2G Advocacy
The case for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) is compelling: millions of mobile batteries helping utilities manage demand, strengthen resilience, and make better use of the grid while creating new value for vehicle owners. But commercial success will depend on whether customers can connect these vehicles to the grid through processes that are predictable, affordable, and based on actual V2G behavior.
Interconnection procedures will determine whether a customer-ready product ever reaches scale. For twenty years, advocates have worked on modernizing technical screens, timelines, costs, equipment requirements, and utility processes for connecting solar and energy storage to the grid. That experience provides a record of meaningful progress and a clear warning about the market consequences of waiting for reactive regulation.
Looking back on this work offers practical lessons about where reform efforts stall, how change can gain traction, which jurisdictions could be strong targets for building momentum, and what types of messaging is compelling to utilities and regulators. In this article, we discuss five key lessons that V2G can borrow from efforts to streamline interconnection of solar and storage.
Lesson 1: Twenty years of interconnection regulation has created a patchwork, not a playbook.
Two decades ago, the federal government attempted to harmonize interconnection regulations as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The law required state utility regulators to open proceedings to consider the adoption of interconnection standards based on a model code. The result fell well short of a uniform national framework. Only thirty-seven states opted to regulate how utilities connect customer-owned generation to the grid, and few do it well.
While each state’s interconnection regulations are unique, there is one common thread: they remain dated until they impact customers and regulators are forced to act. This has led to fits and starts in states where solar has seen rapid expansion. This reactive pattern to interconnection reform serves as a cautionary tale for V2G applications.
Freeing the Grid, an effort by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council and Vote Solar to evaluate the effectiveness of state interconnection regulations, illustrates just how fragmented and outdated our approach is across the U.S. In 2026, only one state—New Mexico—earned an “A,” and only eight others scored a “B.”
Freeing the Grid also identifies only four states—Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Oregon—that have enacted best practices for interconnecting traditional energy storage systems. Given this regulatory landscape, we should expect many of the same procedural and technical challenges that hamper the interconnection of traditional energy storage will impact V2G unless changes are enacted in jurisdictions across the country.
Lesson 2: The cultures of utilities and their regulators favor proven solutions over innovation.
Exporting EV power to the grid means interacting with complex infrastructure that is operated based on the principles of safety, reliability, and affordability. Most electric utilities have been so successful at delivering on these tenets that Americans take for granted that they will be provided with the energy they need at all hours of the day.
That predictability is built on a risk-averse corporate culture that is based on hierarchical business models, clear responsibilities, and standard procedures that limit disruption when personnel change. That culture is also cautious about innovation. Most utilities would rather be late adopters than first to market.
Utility regulators often share a similar preference and are reluctant to force a utility to do something new if there is a possibility it will impact safety and reliability.
The growth of customer-owned solar and storage has advanced innovation in ways that have tested the traditional utility business model and frustrated both clean energy advocates and utilities. Advocates have long voiced exasperation at how long it takes to initiate utility changes to advance customer interests and state energy goals. Meanwhile, many utilities have expressed frustration with a lack of appreciation for the complexity of their work and the real consequences of making mistakes with the grid.
The lack of regulatory uniformity across the U.S. has contributed significantly to this dynamic. With each state left to manage its own interconnection challenges, utilities and regulators may feel as though they are the first ones wrestling with a difficult topic, even if they are fifth or tenth.
One of the most effective ways to advance solar and storage interconnection has been to connect a state-specific challenge with a solution already tested elsewhere. Sometimes, this means referencing baseline practices, such as those in the IREC Model Interconnection Procedures. In other cases, states like Hawai’i that have been at the leading edge of implementation adopted requirements that provide utilities and commissions elsewhere with a proven path forward.
Lesson 3: Small jurisdictions can create national models for change.
With so many interconnection challenges to address, organizations seeking to implement a national strategy have long wrestled with how to most effectively prioritize states for their work.
Fittingly, market potential has been a common consideration in this process. Larger states with a combination of financial incentives, favorable legislative edicts, and high energy costs, such as California, often dominate this list. States with acute interconnection challenges that are restricting markets also attract attention.
An often-underappreciated approach is targeting small jurisdictions where tight-knit networks can drive rapid and effective change that serves as a model for other states.
For example, in 2025 the District of Columbia Public Service Commission was able to move quickly to stand up its Temporary Conditional Interconnection Program in just a few months as a response to the impacts of federal tax credit recission on customer-owned solar projects. Oregon used D.C.’s example to advance similar changes. Efforts like these demonstrate that a workable solution in one jurisdiction can give regulators elsewhere the confidence and precedent to act.
Progress in smaller jurisdictions can also influence change more directly. Investor-owned utilities often belong to a parent company that operates across several states. For example, Exelon operates electric utilities in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, D.C., and Illinois. Neighboring mid-Atlantic jurisdictions frequently learn from one another, and affiliated utilities may support changes that allow them to align business practices across operating companies. A targeted win in some of these smaller states can therefore impact change more than the size of the market might suggest.
Lesson 4: Solving difficult interconnection problems requires strong relationships and an understanding of how key institutions work.
When things get difficult with interconnection reform (and they often do!), it is helpful to step back and remember that—as unwieldy as they can be—utility and regulatory processes need people to operate. Understanding the key people in these organizations and the things they need to do their job well provides key insight into how to find opportunities for collaboration.
Frontline utility staff are often the first to identify technical or procedural barriers to interconnecting new technologies. Since their work depends on established operating procedures, resolving those barriers usually requires someone with authority to recognize the solution as serving a broader utility priority. A proposal is more likely to succeed when it is both workable and aligns with utility interests.
Forming strong relationships becomes even more important when an issue cannot be resolved directly with a utility and ends up in front of a regulator. Determining the most effective path to resolution depends on understanding both the limits of informal negotiation and the cost of a formal proceeding. Informal dispute resolution can be an effective step, as it brings the right people to the table to discuss possible solutions. Even if this effort doesn’t resolve the issue, it can still clarify the nature of the dispute and reveal the opportunities and risks of pursuing formal regulatory action.
Ultimately, utilities and regulators are essential partners for companies that are interconnecting V2G. Relationships built with utility staff and regulators before a dispute arises can help build the trust and shared understanding that is needed when things become more challenging.
Lesson 5: Technical arguments gain traction with regulators when they are tied to outcomes that matter.
Interconnection regulation is technical and bureaucratic. This makes it easy to focus on very specific details that are contributing to interconnection challenges. In doing so, we often lose the context and put decisionmakers in a position where the status quo looks most attractive.
A current example is the approval process for meter socket adapters (MSAs), which are equipment installed between a utility meter and its enclosure. MSAs can reduce the cost of connecting solar, storage, or EVs to the grid. Although these devices meet a nationally recognized safety standard and are already used in other jurisdictions, utilities often raise concerns about safety for workers and house wiring. That puts regulators who rarely specialize in equipment standards in the position of adjudicating a technical dispute. If the response of MSA advocates is only focused on technical details, maintaining the status quo can be quite attractive to the regulator.
A much stronger approach is to focus on the impact of the regulator’s decision. Approving MSAs can save customers more than $1,000 per installation and remove a barrier to widespread use of energy storage that can lower system costs for all utility customers. Connecting the approval of MSAs to energy affordability gives decisionmakers a reason to move beyond the status quo and take a closer look at the technical merits of the dispute.
As utilities and regulators determine how EV batteries should connect to the grid, they will weigh technical considerations. The many jurisdictions that have not yet modernized their rules for energy storage may be inclined to wait until customer complaints rise to the level where action is needed. A proactive V2G interconnection strategy must make clear the impacts of delayed accessibility to valuable grid services, lost opportunities to manage system costs, and avoidable barriers to a technology that could make energy more affordable for everyone.
Twenty years of interconnection reform give V2G a clearer roadmap for success
If there is anything the last 20 years of interconnection regulation has taught us, it is that waiting for interconnection problems to disrupt a market is far more costly than preparing for them. V2G gives us an opportunity to take a different path by building upon successes in states that have taken early action, identifying jurisdictions that are ripe for building momentum, strengthening the relationships needed to navigate difficult conversations, and keeping the public benefit at the center of the conversation. The technology may be new, but the work required to bring it to scale is not. The question is whether we will learn from the last two decades to avoid yesterday’s barriers becoming tomorrow’s bottlenecks.
