Connections reform – going further
Blog
- Jack Presley Abbott
- Deputy Director – System Planning and Connections
- Publication date
- Industry sector
- Distribution Network
- Transmission Network
Related links
July saw a number of big energy announcements by the new Government:
- a new Mission Control tasked with accelerating the UK to clean power by 2030
- the introduction of Great British Energy, a new publicly owned company which will own, manage and operate clean power projects
- a lift on the ban for onshore wind projects in England
These announcements have put the spotlight ever more firmly on the need for connections reform. With the queue now at 725GW across transmission and distribution, more needs to be done to meet Net Zero objectives. Delays in connecting customers exceed five years, taking connection dates well beyond 2030 and making it clearer than ever that we need to act now.
In this blog, we discuss the main points from July's Connections Delivery Board, which focused on how the proposals for reform can go further. The minutes will be available on the Energy Networks Association Connections Delivery Board webpage.
Data to support the proposed reforms
As we discussed in last month's blog, ESO issued developers with a Request for Information (RfI) to understand the impact that the proposals to reform the connections process would have and whether they will go far enough. In other words, will they result in a suitably slimmed down queue of viable and progressing projects that the energy system needs for Net Zero?
The ESO presented the results of the RfI at the meeting. Whilst we must exercise caution around the figures, given that not all developers in the queue responded, the data indicates that the new combined transmission/distribution queue resulting from the introduction of the proposed reforms could be somewhere between 240 to 460GW. The data also indicates that the technology makeup of the new queue will not align with what the energy system is forecast to need in 2030 or even 2050, in particular for significantly oversubscribed solar and storage projects.
The RfI results therefore show that the current proposals may not sufficiently reduce the queue size and may not enable material improvements to the connection dates of viable, Net-Zero-aligned projects. In addition, it could hinder progress towards the Government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030. Is it right that we now explore options for how the proposals can go further to ensure we connect projects that are ready and necessary for the system?
The Board explored two options, which are outlined below.
Go further option 1: Technical or technology criteria
The ESO’s ideas on potential options include introducing:
1. technical restrictions about what projects can connect to transmission or distribution networks at specific voltages
2. limits on how much of each technology type can connect each year, in certain locations, in alignment with the strategic energy needs of GB
The first option discussed was about potentially adding technical or technology requirements. The basic principle here would be to introduce additional criteria that projects must satisfy to enter the new queue, in addition to the current proposed readiness criteria which requires the demonstration of land rights and planning permission submission. These additional criteria would act to reduce the new queue further.
Additional criteria could also be introduced to prioritise projects based on technical requirements or technology type. This would have the effect of reordering the new queue so that projects that align with the technical or technology requirements are connected first, in line with the broad principle of “First ready and needed, first connected”.
Both approaches have the potential to ensure Great Britain has an efficient and suitable mix of generation technologies that work in harmony with each other to efficiently deliver a Net Zero power system.
The Board gave clear directions that ESO, with support from Ofgem and the Government, should continue to develop a shortlist of options and report back to the Board in September with details of how they would work in practice. The Board broadly supported focusing on aligning any technical or technology criteria with the Government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030. Finally, the Board encouraged ESO to take a transparent and consultative approach when developing proposals, particularly given the tight timescales.
Go further option 2: Financial criteria
The Board also discussed introducing financial criteria which projects in the queue could be required to meet. This could involve additional fees, charges or securities for projects in the queue beyond those currently included within the TM04+ design. The idea is to strengthen the need for projects to demonstrate viability through financial commitments, ensuring only viable, committed projects can remain in the queue.
These financial criteria could be instead of – or in addition to – the technical or technology criteria discussed above. The Board gave clear instructions to ESO to continue to work on potential options and to do so alongside the options for technical or technology criteria so they can all be considered together.
Maximising existing capacity
Queue reform on its own will not result in improvements to connection timescales. The Board also discussed initiatives from the Transmission Owners and ESO to maximise the use of existing capacity to enable greater number of connections. The board was supportive but have asked for a clearer quantification of these initiatives’ benefits, especially in comparison to expediting new network build.
Next month
It is encouraging to see the ideas developing, and the Board looks forward to seeing them worked on further and at pace over the coming weeks. Given the refocus of Government towards a new 2030 clean power mission, it is now more critical than ever that a new connections process can deliver the right projects in the right places as quickly as possible.
The Board will not meet in August due to the summer holiday period, but we will continue to work with ESO through this period to better understand the proposals and how they may be embedded into the regulatory landscape. Progress must and will continue at pace. We look forward to seeing worked up recommendations brought to the next meeting in September.