The grid connection has become a bottleneck in an accelerated energy transition. Despite increasing expansion figures for renewable energies, numerous projects are at risk of failing because the connection to the electricity grid is missing or is significantly delayed due to regulatory and technical hurdles.

For plant operators, this means that completed projects are not allowed to feed into the grid, surcharges lose their effect and legal uncertainty characterises the entire process.

Overbuilding instead of waiting

The possibility of concluding flexible grid connection agreements introduced by the legislator at the beginning of this year now enables the „overbuilding“ of grid connection points, so that renewable energy systems and battery storage systems from different operators can be connected together at a grid connection point even if the nominal output of all systems exceeds the connection capacity available at this grid connection point.

In our consulting experience, such flexible grid connection agreements have considerable potential for the effective utilisation of - currently partially limited - grid connection capacities and already play a very significant role in practice today:

They enable optimum utilisation of the grid connection point, which is usually only used to a limited extent due to the volatile - i.e. fluctuating - feed-in of renewable energies. Photovoltaic systems and wind turbines have different times of full feed-in due to the different requirements for wind strength and hours of sunshine. By concluding flexible grid connection agreements as part of this „cable pooling“, grid connection points can be utilised more efficiently, which can lead to considerable cost and time savings. The practical relevance also increases in conjunction with battery storage systems that can temporarily store the energy generated.

Where are the regulatory priorities?

It is clear that the drafting and negotiation of such flexible grid connection agreements is tricky. The contracting parties must consider the following points in particular:

Permissibility and scope of the superstructure:

• How far may the installed capacity exceed the grid connection capacity and under what conditions is curtailment or flexibilisation legally permissible?

Distribution and settlement mechanisms:

• Who decides on the reduction of feed-in in the event of grid bottlenecks and how does this relate to a voluntarily agreed limitation of feed-in capacity? How are transparency, co-determination rights and fair participation mechanisms between the connected system operators guaranteed?

Liability and risk allocation:

• Who bears the economic risk for feed-in limitations or grid perturbations - the grid operator or the system operator - and to what extent claims for damages or compensation are excluded or provided for

Classification under remuneration and subsidy law:

• How does the flexible use of the grid connection affect EEG remuneration, direct marketing and possible market premiums, especially if the system operator is not allowed to feed in the entire installed capacity at all times?

What needs to be done?

In our opinion, the conclusion of a transparent and appropriate grid connection agreement that is designed to meet the interests of the parties involved is a key element in accelerating the expansion of renewable energies. This also enables the grid operator to fulfil its - legal - obligation to connect to the grid better and faster and to bridge any delays in connection due to the grid expansion still to be carried out.

Project developers should therefore seek dialogue with the grid operator at an early stage and examine the possibility of a flexible grid connection agreement. The earlier the contractual framework conditions are established, the earlier there is planning certainty for all parties involved and the better delays in the course of the project can be absorbed.