Verify interconnection collateral facts before they reach the borrowing base.
Run an independent Interconnection Collateral Verification Review over the provider rules, project/security evidence and documented changes behind a collateral schedule—then feed the reproduced facts and exceptions into the credit or portfolio system you already use.
Independent interconnection collateral verification, not a replacement lending platform.
The first deliverable is an Interconnection Collateral Verification Review: reproduce factual balances and documented changes, preserve provider/project evidence, and surface only the exceptions a reviewer needs to act on. The underlying moat is interconnection-specific evidence: effective provider-rule versions, project/security provenance, documented balance-event traces and explicit fail-closed gaps. Existing interconnection, project-finance and private-credit systems keep their jobs; verified facts can feed the existing credit or portfolio system.
Resolve the rule stack
ISO/RTO or balancing authority, TO/TSP/utility, tariff or BPM version, queue-process version, executed agreement requirement and any sourced facility-specific override.
Reconcile the security
Cash, LOC, surety or supported security; draws, releases, study-cost offsets, replacement instruments, evidence age and missing-document exceptions.
Export lender-ready evidence
CSV/API-shaped tape plus JSON evidence packet containing rule IDs, provider snapshot hashes, project-document hashes/locators, balance trace, provider fact and separate lender-policy treatment.
Coverage built around provider stacks, not six logos.
Centralized rules are never assumed to answer facility-specific questions. ERCOT/Oncor is deliberately fail-closed unless sourced project terms provide the missing fact.
MISO + Ameren reference TO
DPP/BPM and milestone-security facts with source-version selection.
PJM + Dominion reference TO
Current Manual 14H readiness-deposit logic and explicitly qualified adverse-study events.
SPP + Evergy reference TO
Attachment V conditional retention/refund patterns and security forms.
Idaho Power
Cluster-process deposits, readiness progression and multiple accepted security forms.
CAISO + PG&E
Current CAISO tariff financial security plus PG&E transmission interconnection requirements.
ERCOT + Oncor
SGIA/TSP financial-security requirement with project-document terms required for refundability.
One row for the spreadsheet. Full provenance behind it.
The normalized tape is compact enough for lenders' existing models, while the evidence packet preserves the rule and document trail needed to reproduce the result.
provider_stack: PJM-DEV-2026
verified_balance: 1,000,000
refundability: partially_refundable
provider_status: verified
applied_rule: PJM-M14H-R04-2026-05-20
loan_policy: eligible
policy_haircut: 0.50
eligible_collateral: 500,000
source_hashes: sha256:…
Designed to integrate
- Spreadsheet / CSV import
- JSON/API payloads
- Generic ABL collateral engines
- Project-finance and project-management systems
- Interconnection workflow platforms
Intentionally outside scope
- Lien perfection or priority
- Assignment enforceability
- Bankruptcy treatment
- Disputed tariff/refund rights
- Credit or financing recommendations
Independent verification first. Recurring monitoring only after it earns a cadence.
Interconnection Collateral Verification Review — entry diagnostic. A bounded exception/re-performance review of the factual evidence behind an existing schedule. Entry diagnostic pricing is discovery-dependent; there is no default cold price.
Portfolio Verification Shadow — $15,000–$18,000 current hypothesis. If the workflow is truly recurring, run up to 25 positions across two covered provider stacks beside the current process for one refresh cycle. This tests recurring labor/scaling, changed-item review and exception value. Underwriting, legal review, servicing and the system of record remain unchanged.
This is not a fixed cold proposal. The buyer conversation must first establish recurrence, current burden, economic ownership and a measurable acceptance protocol.
Economic + procurement gate: quantified buyer value is necessary, but value alone is not sufficient. Before a paid operating test, identify the verification authorizer, contractual payer, economic bearer and a viable procurement/security path. If the current process is already cheaper, the value cannot support the price, or the contracting/security path is uneconomic, reject the paid pilot rather than force a deployment.
See the synthetic verification reviewRead the data & decision boundaryRequest a workflow comparison.
Tell us who you are and where interconnection-security evidence creates repeat work. We will start with the synthetic/redacted sample—not a request for project documents.
Do not submit confidential project, borrower, lender, security, agreement or personal data through this form. Business contact requests are retained for up to 90 days for follow-up.