The US interconnection queue is a graveyard. Across 9 ISO/RTOs, projects routinely withdraw after sitting in queue for years. But the risk isn't evenly distributed — it's concentrated in who is developing the project.
We built a database of 6,593 unique energy project developers by resolving entity names across 47,594 interconnection queue entries. Then we scored each developer on their completion rate: what percentage of their projects actually reach operational status.
The results are stark.
Completion rate distribution
Among developers with 3+ projects (a minimum threshold for meaningful data), the completion rate distribution is heavily skewed toward zero:
Over half of developers with meaningful portfolios have never completed a project. This includes SPVs (special purpose vehicles) created for single projects that were later abandoned, as well as legitimate companies that simply failed to execute.
The top performers
These developers have the highest completion rates among those with 10+ projects in the queue:
| Developer | Type | Projects | Completion Rate | Capacity (MW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coldwell Solar | Independent | 34 | 100% | 38 |
| Renewable Solar | Independent | 33 | 100% | 58 |
| Pickett Solar Construction | Independent | 24 | 100% | 25 |
| Ameresco | Independent | 17 | 100% | 39 |
| Engie Services US | Major IPP | 14 | 100% | 22 |
| Basin Electric | Independent | 12 | 100% | 1,240 |
| Forefront Power | Mid-Platform | 82 | 96% | 170 |
| Borrego Solar Systems | Mid-Platform | 55 | 92% | 207 |
| Hunt Energy Network | Independent | 17 | 87% | 517 |
| NYPA | Independent | 10 | 80% | 2,932 |
Pattern: the best performers are mid-size specialists. Forefront Power (82 projects, 96% completion) and Borrego Solar (55 projects, 92%) are both mid-platform companies that focus on community and commercial solar. They're not the biggest, but they deliver.
Developer types
We classified developers into five categories based on their portfolio characteristics:
| Type | Count | Avg Completion | Total Projects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent | 6,121 | 22.0% | 21,749 |
| Mid-Platform | 199 | 11.1% | 6,885 |
| Major Utility | 136 | 24.8% | 6,399 |
| Major IPP | 111 | 18.8% | 2,598 |
| PE Fund | 26 | 19.2% | 179 |
Major utilities have the highest average completion rate (24.8%), which makes sense — they have the balance sheets, interconnection expertise, and long-term planning horizons to see projects through. Independent developers average 22%, dragged down by the massive number of single-project SPVs that never get built.
The surprise is mid-platform companies at 11.1%. These are companies large enough to manage multiple projects but with high withdrawal rates, possibly due to speculative queue submissions or portfolio pruning strategies.
The worst withdrawal rates
Some entities in the queue appear to have been created solely for speculative purposes:
| Developer | Projects | Withdrawal Rate | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Osborn Wind Energy | 10 | 100% | Independent |
| Little Bear Solar 4 LLC | 10 | 100% | Independent |
| EDPR CA Solar Park VI | 10 | 100% | Independent |
| Transenergie US | 10 | 100% | Independent |
| Titan Development | 10 | 100% | Independent |
Many of these are SPV names (special purpose vehicles) — LLCs created for specific project applications that were later dissolved. This is normal in energy development, but it's a signal that investors should look for the parent entity, not just the queue applicant name.
What this means for investors
Developer track record is one of the strongest predictors of whether a project will reach completion. Our investability scoring weights it accordingly:
- Grade A developers (high completion, multiple successes) get a significant score boost
- 100% withdrawal rate is an automatic red flag
- New/unknown developers aren't penalized but don't get the track record bonus
The scatter plot above shows the relationship between portfolio size and completion rate. The sweet spot is the upper-right quadrant: developers with both high completion rates and meaningful project counts. These are the partners investors should target.
Methodology
Developer names were extracted from 47,594 interconnection queue entries across 9 ISOs. Entity resolution normalized 6,332 name variants into 6,593 canonical entities using pattern matching, alias grouping, and web verification. Completion rate = operational projects / (operational + withdrawn). Projects still active are excluded from the denominator.
Explore developer profiles via the API
Search developers, view track records, filter by tier and technology. 6,593 developer profiles with completion rates, capacity, and portfolio data.
Explore the API