Access to the public electricity grid remains the critical bottleneck for the implementation of renewable energy projects, battery storage systems, data centres and other electricity-intensive projects. Flexible connection agreements (FCAs) are intended to provide a remedy: they enable grid connection despite limited capacity by contractually limiting the permitted feed-in or offtake capacity at the grid connection point. However, there has been only limited uptake of this instrument to date, as the constraints associated with FCAs remain difficult to assess and only a few standards have emerged thus far. Initial experience nevertheless suggests that FCAs could become an important building block for enabling faster grid connections.
Background and legal framework
FCAs are grid connection agreements with flexible feed-in or offtake conditions. Grid operators and plant operators agree that the maximum active power feed-in – or, as the case may be, offtake – at the grid connection point may be limited under certain conditions. In contrast to redispatch measures, this limitation is not imposed unilaterally during ongoing operations, but is instead contractually agreed from the outset. For plant operators, this provides greater planning certainty; however, unlike redispatch, there is no compensation for limiting the feed-in or offtake in this way.
The statutory basis for FCAs is set out in two provisions that entered into force in February 2025: section 8a Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, “EEG”) and section 17(2b) Energy Industry Act (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz, “EnWG”). Both are based on requirements under European law. The provisions have different scopes of application: section 8a EEG applies to renewable energy installations and governs how their feed-in capacity may be limited. Section 17(2b) EnWG also covers all other grid users, such as battery storage systems or data centres, and allows for both feed-in capacity and offtake capacity – i.e. the withdrawal of electricity from the grid – to be limited. The objective of both provisions is to make more efficient use of existing grid capacities. Projects are to be connected to the grid more quickly, without having to await full grid expansion in every case.
FCAs are closely linked to another new instrument: cable pooling (Netzüberbauung). This enables several installations to be connected to a common grid connection point – even where their combined installed capacity exceeds the permanently available connection capacity at that point (for more on cable pooling, see: Cable pooling now an option for renewable energy grid connections in Germany | Gleiss Lutz).
Contractual terms and basic models
The law prescribes which provisions must be included in an FCA. These include, in particular, the extent of the limitation of feed-in or offtake capacity, the timing and duration of the limitation, the technical requirements for complying with the capacity limits, as well as responsibilities and liability. Where a renewable energy installation or an electricity storage system is to be connected to a grid connection point to which another installation is already connected (cable pooling), additional aspects must be agreed, including the consent of the existing grid user, shared responsibilities and joint and several liability.
In terms of contractual design, three basic models can currently be distinguished:
- Static (preventive): Feed-in and/or offtake capacity is permanently capped at a fixed upper limit. There is no need to demonstrate on a case-by-case basis that the limitation is necessary to maintain grid stability. This model is relatively straightforward to plan and technically manageable, but may place greater constraints on the economic utilisation of the installation, as the agreed limit applies irrespective of the prevailing grid conditions. Given its static nature, the limitation can only address permanently existing capacity constraints; the flexibility offered by other models is not available here. It is therefore particularly suitable in grid connection scenarios where an already fully utilised connection is to be (temporarily) overbuilt.
- Dynamic (preventive): The grid operator specifies time-dependent capacity limits based on prior experience and projections, which may vary depending on the relevant period. This model allows existing grid capacity to be utilised more efficiently, but places greater demands on the quality of projections as well as automation, IT interfaces and the technical controllability of the installation. Defined time windows allow for a degree of flexibility that would not otherwise be available. Unlike the fully dynamic model, however, the fixed time windows still allow plant operators a degree of predictability from both a planning and commercial perspective.
- Fully dynamic (event-based): In principle, the plant operator has the connection’s entire installed capacity at its disposal. However, depending on current grid load, the grid operator can demand a reduction down to a contractually defined lower limit based on specific events and without predefined time windows. The conditions under which a bottleneck is deemed to exist are defined in the FCA, although the wording is sometimes very abstract. From the grid operator’s perspective, this model allows more efficient use of capacity irrespective of projections, but it shifts considerable management and revenue risks to the plant operator and therefore requires particularly careful assessment and contractual design.
For plant operators, the chosen model largely determines how well the installation remains commercially viable. Static limits reduce complexity but may also permanently curtail potential earnings. Dynamic or rule-based models place greater demands on technical implementation, data availability, operational processes and the contractual distribution of risk. In addition, with dynamic models there is considerable uncertainty as to how much use the grid operator will actually make of its option to restrict electricity use – this makes it more difficult to plan revenues and assess the commercial viability of the installation.
FCAs in practice to date
Although FCAs have been legally possible since early 2025, discussion and implementation of the model in practice are only now really gaining momentum. Many grid operators have had little experience with the legal, technical and operational aspects to date; in some cases, internal processes are still being established. From a negotiation perspective, the current market situation is ambivalent: on the one hand, grid operators are not yet locked into tried and tested contractual structures, so well-prepared plant operators can actively contribute practical solutions. Concluding an FCA with an inexperienced grid operator will require tactical finesse. On the other hand, some grid operators are already making widespread use of FCAs, in some cases even without any specific grid-related reason.
With the publication of a first model agreement, the Wind and Solar Energy Agency (Fachagentur Wind und Solar) provided an impetus for practice in late May 2026. The model is structured as a two-page basic agreement between grid operator and plant operator and follows a modular approach: it contains core provisions that are needed irrespective of the specific FCA structure as well as optional elements for a variety of scenarios, such as temporary or permanent FCAs and various ways of limiting active power. The Agency intends to publish two more model agreements by the end of 2026 to address cable pooling scenarios: one regulating the relationship between the grid operator and multiple plant operators and the other regulating the plant operators’ relationship among themselves. In addition, some grid operators have announced that they will shortly be providing their own model FCAs. It is therefore to be expected that the topic will gain momentum in the coming months and that more FCAs will be concluded.
Forward
