Share:
Grid availability has been the limiting factor for renewables projects in the UK for years. It has been clear for some time that, with the boom in projects going through development, the current grid queue system is not viable long term. This stems from the general view that projects should confirm connection costs, and ideally secure grid capacity, as a first stage in the development cycle. Delays, uncertainty, and the large number of potentially more speculative grid applications (often called ‘zombie projects’) have created a bottleneck, slowing progress for viable wind, solar, and battery energy storage system (BESS) developments that could be delivered and start to make a more rapid and meaningful impact on the UK energy capacity.
In response to this situation, OFGEM and the newly created National Energy System Operator (NESO) are overhauling the queue process to prioritise projects that are ready to proceed and align with national energy priorities, and for the first time ever, setting out regional capacity targets. The introduction of a gated queue management process—with Gate 1 and Gate 2 assessment stages — aims to cut down delays and ensure that the most credible projects move forward faster.
For onshore renewable developers, these changes introduce both opportunities and risks. Understanding how the new system works, how to secure a Gate 2 connection, and how these reforms might affect your project timeline is critical for ensuring success in this evolving landscape.
Is grid reform necessary?
For years, grid connections in the UK have followed a “first-come, first-served” approach, where projects are placed in a queue based on the date of their offer, rather than their viability or ability to progress. This has led to several major issues:
- Oversubscription: Too many projects in the queue (currently estimated at 739GW in total across both distribution and transmission) make it impossible for the grid to accommodate them all within reasonable timeframes.
- ‘Zombie Projects’: Many applications have been speculative and are being accumulated by early-stage developers into portfolios to try and sell on, or have stalled due to issues that have cropped up after the initial phases. In many cases they don’t have any land secured for the development and a significant number haven’t progressed planning works, lack financial backing, or even clear timelines for development and delivery, yet they take up grid capacity.
- Strategic misalignment: Up until now, any development was treated equally in any area regardless of technology, with its connection date dependent solely on when it applied for grid. This has led to a lot of similar projects in geographical areas which does not provide balance and have potentially triggered ‘unnecessary’ network reinforcement. The new CP30 approach provides targets for a spread of technologies in each transmission and distribution area, increasing with time and minimising the need for reinforcements where possible.
- Delays and cost overruns: Because of the long queue, developers have faced long waiting times for new connection dates and increasing grid costs as projects progress. Many developers have accepted flexible connections where possible that mean they may get curtailed, reducing revenues. All of these compromises have the potential to make once viable schemes stall or fail entirely.
Even within specific technologies, there is a disparity between what technologies have been calculated to be needed to meet our 2030 and 2035 goals. The first draft of this published by NESO goes some way to highlight the key differences between applications submitted and modelled requirements overall:
Source: NESO
It should be noted that this only looks at the next 10 years, and the methodology for how we develop the capacity required to meet our legally binding 2050 targets is still yet to be made clear.
That aside, across the industry an improved system for applying for and managing grid consents has been hoped for and regularly requested, reorganising the connections queue fairly and effectively is extremely complex to deliver and manage, so the fact that NESO has been tasked with unpicking this specific challenge is broadly appreciated. We are seeing some of the first changes now in the way we are applying for grid connections, and guiding our Clients through the new connections process & timelines.
Understanding the new grid connection process – first ready, first needed, first connected
The task to revise the current grid queue and allocation process is a large one, and has been passed onto NESO as their first major challenge. The new grid connections system that has been laid out aims to prioritise projects that are truly viable, aligned with the aim of getting the most renewable capacity online, as quickly as possible, and prioritised in the areas where it will do the most benefit.
The gated assessment process
The new framework introduces two key criteria to determine whether projects are ready, and also whether they are aligned with the newly developed strategic needs of the network:
Readiness criteria:
- Land rights: Evidence that the site has been secured.
- Planning permissions: Applications submitted, or ideally, planning approvals obtained.
- Financial viability: Proof of secured funding or a credible investment plan.
Strategic alignment criteria:
- Technology type: Prioritisation of key technologies like onshore wind, solar, and BESS.
- Zonal location: Emphasis on areas where specific technologies would benefit the grid network plans.
- System benefits: Preference for projects that enhance grid stability, reduce congestion or improve energy security.
The intention is to reorder the queue to enable projects that meet these criteria to move forward faster, while those that don’t meet these criteria face a higher risk of delaying their grid connection dates or losing their connection altogether.
Locational targets
For the first time, the UK grid will have a process where there are capacity targets for different technologies in specific regional areas. This is to try and balance the geographical spread of different technologies to provide better balance at both transmission and distribution scale. In practical terms, this means that although any technology can apply to be connected at any location, priority will be given to technologies where there is capacity in their technology pot. This means that in a location oversubscribed with wind and BESS applications, a new solar project may find its grid connection accelerated, whilst a new BESS project might find itself at the back of the queue.
Gate 1 vs Gate 2: what it means for your project
Projects are now assessed and classified as Gate 1 or Gate 2, which significantly impacts their timescales to connect to the grid.
Gate 2 projects
Projects that meet both the readiness and strategic alignment criteria will qualify for a Gate 2 offer, which provides:
- A confirmed connection date, giving certainty on when the project can connect.
- A defined connection point, specifying the location for grid access.
- A queue position, ensuring prioritisation for grid connection.
Gate 1 projects
Projects that fail to meet one or both sets of criteria will receive a Gate 1 offer, which includes:
- An indicative (not confirmed) connection date, meaning there’s no firm timeline for grid access.
- Fewer site-specific details, making future planning more difficult.
- A higher risk of delays, as Gate 2 projects will take priority over them.
For projects within Gate 1, there are opportunities to improve as they can be reassessed in later rounds if they strengthen their readiness and alignment. Therefore, securing Gate 2 status is crucial to ensuring project viability and securing investor confidence. If your project finds itself within Gate 1, it will face greater uncertainty and financial risk until it can progress.
NESO provided a helpful schematic outlining how this queue reordering system could work, to determine which projects will be brought forward to within Phase 1 (projects to be connected before 2030) and those that could have connections in Phase 2 (2030-35) or beyond:
Source: NESO
All of this change will take time to enact, so the below timeline has been developed to understand some of the key milestones:
Source: SPEN
Project protections
But what if your project currently has a connection date in 2025/2026 and you are progressing with the development? How does all this affect the project and will it result in a change? The short answer is no, but if your project is within these windows then it is essential to understand the protections laid out for a ‘significantly progressed’ project. These ultimately fall into four categories:
Technology-specific impacts
Each of the technologies has different potential considerations based on the capacity that has been built, applied for or put into planning. Additionally, the regional strategies apply a further complexity. Given the number of iterations we’ve looked at the impacts on solar, onshore wind and BESS at distribution scale (typically projects less than 100MW) to see how they are affected:
Onshore wind
Source: UKGov Clean Power 2030
The UK Government’s Action Plan that builds on the NESO approach highlights that onshore wind as a key technology for net-zero, meaning that wind projects meeting strategic criteria should be well-positioned. Their numbers show that only about half of the onshore wind that we need to meet the 2030 target has already been built, with a further 15% committed or under construction.
If we look at the numbers in more detail, we can see that the biggest opportunities for wind are going to be in England at the distribution scale. This is not a surprise, as the legacy of planning restrictions has meant a gap in recent onshore wind development. This also shows that Scotland is potentially oversubscribed with onshore projects based on the number that have had planning permissions submitted or accepted.
Source: Regen
Given the lengthy time required to obtain planning permission, there will be a lag in a lot of projects coming through to fill this English wind gap. Recent policy shifts are expected to ease planning barriers, but developers still face challenges in securing local approvals.
Developments in Scotland will potentially see a race to obtain protected connections or secure Gate 2, as the numbers would indicate that the capacity targets are already more than covered by those projects already submitted into planning. It will be interesting to see if the offshore industry is able to deliver the capacity and at the pace they have promised, as if not the onshore projects will be well placed to fill any gaps they leave.
Solar
Source: UKGov Clean Power 2030
Likewise for solar PV, the installed capacity and committed installs under the UK Government numbers show that less than half the amount needed have been constructed or are committed.
Source: Regen
If we look at a more granular level, we can see that across the country the amount of gird applications that have been made for solar schemes are in total at, or just above, what is required for meeting the capacity over the next ten years. There is a huge question as to how many of those projects that have not submitted for planning will actually be taken forward as many of those are likely to be stalled or uneconomic.
Some areas, such as D6 (Midlands, south Wales and the South-West), have a huge capacity target to meet, and are likely to need new projects to come forward achieve this. In other areas, the potential for new developments is much smaller. All of this means the priority in solar over the next few years will be to clear out the unviable projects from the queue in order to understand where the capacity gaps are going to be for new sites to come in.
Battery Energy Storage (BESS)
Source: UKGov Clean Power 2030
BESS installations are probably the biggest disparity between current and planned capacity. The figure above shows that we need much more capacity than has currently been installed. However when we look at the regional statistics and the pipelines of projects in development, the picture is quite different.
Source: Regen
BESS is likely the clear loser in the planned CP30 grid reform as in almost every area the amount of projects already with planning exceeds the 2035 targets. This compounds the issues felt over the last year with falling revenue projections meaning value of battery projects dropping rapidly as battery developers seek to offload their projects and the number of buyers still in the market has diminished.
We still anticipate many of these projects to be built out, and they will need to be to meet the targets, but it goes to show that the original appetite to develop BESS was more than the market can take. While this is perhaps a good time for those that have the long-term strategy and financial backing to pick up AND develop these projects, the analysis mostly shows the over-extension of the battery development market.
Hybrid / co-located projects
Co-located schemes are not explicitly covered under CP30, and as such they will be treated as separate applications. This is important because a large swathe of the solar projects have applied to co-locate BESS schemes on their sites, but often as a backstop or possible future value add. In the case of the grid reform the solar and BESS elements will now be treated separately against the CP30 caps and are likely to get different grid connection dates. We therefore predict that, given the other issues with consideration of collocated BESS and devaluation of the markets most sites will either drop the BESS element entirely as part of an advancement request, or accept the split connection dates in the hope that it adds a small future value to the project as an option.
What should developers do now?
- Check milestones for progressed projects with connection dates for 2026: These projects should have protection but only if they have met their milestones, so don’t risk your project slipping due to missing key dates. If projects are delayed in meeting milestones, then all effort should be made to ensure good lines of communication are maintained with the relevant network operator so they can understand project programme and likely completion dates, as we are hopeful that there will be some room for judgement calls to be made.
- Prioritise project readiness: For projects with later connection submit planning, secure land rights, and clarify milestones as early as possible to improve chances of Gate 2 approval.
- Engage with NESO & DNOs: Maintain proactive communication with grid operators to keep them informed of project progress against a shared programme, ensure a clear understanding of connection requirements and keep informed on future policy changes.
Final thoughts: A new era for UK grid connections
These grid connection reforms represent a fundamental shift in how renewable projects will secure access to the grid going forward. While the new process introduces the need for greater discipline and transparency, it also means developers must be more strategic, better prepared, and engaged to navigate the evolving system. The burden of evidence needed has also increased, and the need for technical advice is therefore much higher to navigate these complexities.
For those developers who are able to adapt effectively, these reforms offer a pathway to progress some projects faster, improved investment certainty on others, and hopefully a more predictable development pipeline. However, failing to meet the readiness or alignment criteria could result in long delays, financial devaluation of the portfolio, and even project cancellation.
For support with developing your solar, onshore wind or BESS project contact us today.
