The Commission for Regulation of Utilities (“CRU“) has issued a decision to allow a single contracted Maximum Export Capacity (“MEC”) at a connection point to be dynamically shared between multiple generation and/or storage units behind the connection point.

The decision is available here: Decision on Sharing Maximum Export Capacity (MEC) behind a Single Connection Point.  It follows the CRU’s 2025 consultation, which we looked at here: Potential Impact of Hybrid Connection Proposal on Priority Dispatch.

Scope

The decision applies to “Hybrid Co-located Projects”. The CRU defines these as projects that combine multiple forms of generation and/or storage technologies behind a single defined connection point to the distribution or transmission network where the generation units for the different technologies are individually sub-metered and registered, and operate independently of one another for market, settlement, and dispatch purposes.

The scope of the decision does not extend to “Integrated Hybrid Projects”. The CRU defines these as projects that combine multiple forms of generation and/or storage technologies utilising multiple primary energy sources behind a single defined connection point where the generating units for the different technologies are registered and operate as a single unit for market, settlement, and dispatch purposes.

While this scope was anticipated, it limits full realisation of the benefits of co-location (or “hybridisation”, a term proposed in the EU Grids Package, which we look at here: EU Grids Package). For example, the fact that dispatched down energy cannot yet be redirected to co-located storage limits potential benefits. The CRU notes the considerable feedback in relation to energy sharing and states that it will engage with the System Operators (“SOs”) further on this.

Also important to note is impact on priority dispatch status. The CRU indicates that further technical assessment is required but that, pending the development of appropriate arrangements and clarifications, sharing of MEC would likely result in the loss of priority dispatch status for existing units. As we commented previously, this may well deter such projects from applying to become Hybrid Co-Located Projects. Further, the decision does not yet accommodate sharing MEC across synchronous and non‑synchronous units. The CRU expects the SOs to work towards solutions to manage these issues.

Decision

The key change offered by the decision is that a project can apply to add another technology type to their connection with no increase in MEC. Without the decision, a project seeking to install further technologies must apply to the SO for increased MEC or split fixed portions of the MEC between units. Each generation unit type will continue to be separately registered in the Single Electricity Market and designated in TSO operational systems according to individual technology type.

Further requirements introduce some operational and market risk for individual projects, which consultees hope will be addressed by further refinement of technical and market rules and systems. Combined export cannot exceed MEC, and the site must have a control/tripping mechanism to ensure the MEC is not exceeded. The party managing market interactions would manage the allocation of the shared MEC between technologies (including in relation to availability of units and market commitments relating to active power and system services). The market participant would be responsible for determining how each unit’s declared availability is capped to ensure that combined export does not exceed MEC.

Process

• Existing projects would apply for approval to share MEC through the Modifications to Generation Connection Offers process.
• New Hybrid Co-Located Projects or existing projects converting to Hybrid Co-Located Projects wishing to increase MEC would apply for grid capacity through the ECP-GSS process (which we looked at here: New Connection Policy for Onshore Generators and Storage).

Next steps

Notwithstanding comments on scope (above), the policy represents a step forward which may help to increase capacity factors and support system-level efficiencies.

However, much of the detail is to be worked out via an Implementation Roadmap (to include timelines) to be published by the SO. The CRU states that it will monitor delivery and require quarterly progress updates.

Arrangements to enable multiple legal entities to share a single connection point will be considered under a separate workstream, following enactment of the Private Wires Bill.