Hawaii is a good example of a state with updated interconnection practices that have not been reflected in the state’s interconnection tariffs (i.e., Commission-approved utility documents that specify the interconnection requirements and process). Based just on Hawaii’s interconnection rules in its statewide  tariff, the state received a “C” grade, which means that it has adopted some best practices, but should plan to update its rules to streamline and improve the interconnection process. However, utility practices, in some cases, differ from what is included in Hawaii’s statewide rules. For example, utility Hawaiian Electric Company utilizes hosting capacity analysis as part of the penetration screen in its Initial Technical Review rather than the 15 percent of peak load screen that is in the tariff.¹ If this change in technical screening method had been incorporated into the rules, HI would have received a higher grade. These types of discrepancies between the written provisions in statewide interconnection rules and actual implementation can lead to a lack of clarity and transparency for interconnection applicants, particularly in states with more than one regulated utility, and underscore the importance of having up-to-date rules that reflect current practices and requirements for all utilities.