By the end of November 2026, Germany’s transmission system operators (“TSOs”) will have announced the results of the first cycle of the assessment procedure for allocating grid connection capacity based on project maturity. The first criteria-based allocation procedures at distribution network level are also underway and will end in spring 2027. Given the significant oversubscription of the available grid-connection capacity, some applicants are likely to receive no allocation or less capacity than requested. Those affected should consider their options as soon as the results are published, while project developers should already be aligning their projects with the relevant selection criteria to improve their prospects in future cycles.
The new maturity-based procedure in brief
Grid operators are gradually replacing the traditional “first-come, first-served” approach of their grid connection procedures with “first-ready, first-served” and other criteria-based models. Rather than being prioritised by date of submission, applications are accepted and reviewed against minimum criteria in fixed cycles, with available capacity awarded on the basis of project maturity (or other specified criteria) where demand exceeds availability. The four transmission system operators 50Hertz, Amprion, TenneT and TransnetBW led the way by introducing a joint maturity-based procedure for grid connections for battery storage systems, data centres, electrolysers and other large-scale consumers with effect from 1 April 2026 (see our previous updates here and here). The application window for the first cycle ran from 1 April to 30 June 2026. The results are now imminent, with the TSOs having announced that applicants with admissible applications will be notified by 30 November 2026 at the latest whether they can be offered a grid connection reservation. Successful applicants have until 31 December 2026 to accept the offer by paying a project implementation security deposit of EUR 1,500 /MW.
At distribution network level, criteria-based procedures have been introduced by the E.ON subsidiaries Bayernwerk Netz, E.DIS Netz and Schleswig-Holstein Netz and by Netze BW (see our previous update here). E.ON’s distribution network operators opened their first application phase on 12 October 2026, and feedback is expected on 15 March 2027. Netze BW plans to accept applications between 1 November and 31 December 2026, with awards due in March 2027.
In the first cycle of the TSO maturity-based procedure, 347 applications were submitted across Germany, representing a cumulative capacity of around 156 GW. The number of available grid connection points is limited, however, and few will be operational before 2029. In addition, a substantial proportion of the capacity available over the next ten years or so is likely to be allocated in the first cycle, potentially leaving only newly created or released capacity for subsequent cycles.
Grid connection – the legal position
Obligation to connect: System operators must connect energy generation facilities and energy storage systems to the grid on reasonable, non-discriminatory and transparent terms (section 17 Energy Industry Act (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz, “EnWG”)). The law does not prescribe a specific procedure for allocating grid connection capacity. The Bundesnetzagentur (“BNetzA”) confirmed in its decision of 4 May 2026 (BK6-25-287) that the choice of allocation procedure generally lies within the system operator’s discretion until capacity is bindingly allocated.
Connection right limited to the existing grid: As a rule, the right to a grid connection under section 17 EnWG extends only to technical connection to the existing grid, i.e. to a connection line up to the point where it joins the existing network. There is generally no right to grid expansion. While some argue that an indirect right to grid expansion may arise where necessary and reasonable to expect of the system operator in satisfying its connection obligation, the scope of this right remains disputed. In any event, operators are not required to “bring the grid to the installation”. Reflecting this, the TSOs’ maturity-based procedure stipulates that applications will only be considered within the limits of the available capacity, with projects that cannot be accommodated carried over to the next cycle.
Demonstration of lack of capacity: A system operator refusing a grid connection due to insufficient capacity must demonstrate that the connection is impossible or unreasonable for operational, economic or technical reasons. The refusal must be issued in writing and state the reasons. Applicants may request detailed information on the expansion works necessary to enable the connection and their costs. Temporary constraints may also justify a refusal.
EEG installations: Renewable energy installations within the scope of the Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz, “EEG”) are largely exempt from the new maturity-based procedures and enjoy priority connection under section 8 EEG 2023 even if optimisation, reinforcement or expansion of the grid is necessary to accommodate the electricity generated (see section 12 EEG). This may change, however, since the bill on Germany’s Grid Package introduces the concept of “grid areas with limited capacity”, in which new renewable energy installations would no longer have a right to connection but only to conclude a grid connection agreement coupled with a partial waiver of redispatch compensation. In addition, the draft EEG 2027 would introduce a peak-shaving mechanism that limits the grid connection right for wind energy installations to 280 W/m² of rotor swept area from 1 January 2027. Both proposals may yet be amended during the legislative process (we reported on the Grid Package and the EEG 2027 here).
Preparing for criteria-based grid connection procedures – aligning projects with the relevant criteria
Project developers should start preparing their projects at an early stage for upcoming maturity-based or other criteria-based connection procedures. In particular, we recommend taking the following steps:
- Identify the relevant system operator and applicable procedure: Based on the location of the project site and the intended voltage level, project developers should first identify which system operator is responsible and whether it has already introduced a criteria-based procedure or plans to do so in the near future. If so, they should carefully review the published procedural rules, particularly the minimum requirements, the individual criteria and their weighting, the required supporting documentation and the application deadlines. Procedures may differ between system operators and may also change from one application cycle to the next. Even if the responsible system operator has not yet announced such a procedure, it can be expected to introduce a comparable criteria-based procedure in the future. It is therefore worthwhile, even in such grid areas, to monitor criteria-based procedures that have already been introduced elsewhere.
- Assess compliance with criteria and identify potential improvements: In a criteria-based procedure, project developers should assess their project’s current score for each criterion and identify where improvements can be made with reasonable effort. The main areas for improvement are as follows:
- Land availability: A mere declaration of exclusivity or intent will generally receive a lower score than a signed lease or purchase agreement. It may therefore be worthwhile to convert existing arrangements into binding agreements as soon as possible and secure the land rights needed for the connection route early on, for example through concession agreements or easements.
- Permit strategy: The more advanced the permit status, the higher the score. Project developers should establish early on whether the site is permissible under planning law, involve the approval authority from the outset and, where appropriate, submit preliminary building applications or permit applications well before the next cut-off date.
- Financial viability: Project companies that do not yet have their own track record often receive lower scores for criteria such as corporate substance, creditworthiness and financing. Scores can be improved, for example, by increasing equity capital, obtaining letters of comfort or guarantees from the parent company, or securing financing commitments. Project developers should check the procedural rules in advance to determine which supporting documents the system operator will accept.
- Use insights gained from the current application cycle: Applicants whose requests were unsuccessful or only partially successful in the current cycle should keep their application in place for the next cycle, updating and improving it as necessary. The reasons given by the system operator for rejecting an application – in particular, the points awarded for each criterion and the relevant points threshold – can help identify where improvements are needed. This applies regardless of whether the applicant also takes legal action to challenge the decision.
Maturity-based procedure – what should you do if your application is rejected?
The appropriate course of action depends on the circumstances of the individual case – particularly the outcome communicated by the system operator and the reasons given: an offer for the requested capacity, an offer for reduced capacity, no offer in the current application cycle, or exclusion for failure to meet the minimum requirements. Applicants have until 31 December 2026 to accept full or partial offers by paying the project implementation security deposit; otherwise, the offers will lapse. In the event of a full or partial rejection, we recommend taking the following steps:
- Review the reasons given: Applicants should check whether the rejection is accompanied by a complete statement of reasons in text form, particularly regarding the points awarded for each criterion, the applicant’s ranking and the relevant points threshold, the available capacity at the requested grid connection point and, where capacity is insufficient, the necessary grid expansion measures and their costs. If this information is missing or incomplete, a detailed written statement of reasons should be requested from the relevant transmission system operator (TSO).
- Review procedural options: In the event of a full or partial rejection, the available options include initiating special abuse proceedings before the competent regulatory authority and pursuing civil law remedies:
- Special abuse proceedings (section 31 EnWG): Affected parties may apply to the competent regulatory authority (either the Bundesnetzagentur or – on the regional level – the relevant state regulatory authority, depending on the individual circumstances) to have the system operator’s conduct reviewed in special abuse proceedings. Applications may be submitted by anyone whose interests are substantially affected by that conduct; economic interests are sufficient. There is no fixed deadline for submitting an application. However, as the abuse proceedings are generally intended to provide protection against current adverse effects, we recommend submitting the application as soon as possible after the rejection – ideally before the deadline of 31 December 2026 for binding acceptance of offers. The application must describe the conduct objected to and explain in detail why there are serious doubts as to its lawfulness. The regulatory authority must generally issue a decision within two months (this period may be extended by a further two months) and, where a grid connection has been unlawfully refused, may order the grid operator to provide the connection (section 30(2) EnWG). Crucially, the authority has its own powers of investigation and information-gathering (sections 68 and 69 EnWG): it can require the TSO to provide grid data to which the applicant itself does not have access. Decisions of the regulatory authority may be appealed to the competent Higher Regional Court within one month.
Civil court proceedings: In addition, claims for remedial action, injunctive relief and – where the TSO is at fault – damages may be brought before the civil courts.
If the regulatory authority has issued a final and binding decision in the abuse proceedings finding that the TSO has committed an infringement, the civil court is bound by that finding; initiating proceedings before the regulatory authority also suspends the limitation period. In practice, it may therefore be advisable to pursue abuse proceedings first and bring civil law claims afterwards.
- Prepare arguments: Applicants may object to both the procedural rules themselves and the TSO’s decision in their individual case. These two approaches can be pursued in parallel. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the following objections may be raised in particular:
- Failure to apply the published criteria correctly: In practice, this is the most promising basis for challenging a decision. If the system operator departs from its own procedural rules when awarding points or assesses comparable supporting evidence differently, this may constitute unlawful unequal treatment (section 30(1), no. 3 EnWG). This could be the case, for example, if the TSO awards a lease or purchase agreement no more points than a mere exclusivity declaration, undervalues the progress made in the permit process, or treats projects with identical scores differently. Criteria that leave room for discretion are particularly open to challenge – for example, whether a proposed route is considered “feasible in principle”.
- Insufficient evidence of capacity constraints: The burden of proving that a connection is impossible or unreasonable lies with the system operator (section 17(2) EnWG). It is not enough to merely assert that the available capacity is overbooked; the operator’s capacity assumptions can be assessed for plausibility using publicly available grid development plans, among other sources.
- Procedural deficiencies and transparency: Failure to provide a statement of reasons in text form, to supply information on grid expansion despite a request to do so, or to communicate adequately may constitute a breach of section 17 EnWG.
Conclusion
For many projects, the results of the first allocation cycles under the maturity-based procedure will determine whether they can be implemented over the coming decade. Applicants should therefore review responses from system operators as soon as they are received, request a robust statement of reasons, and consider at an early stage whether special abuse proceedings or civil law remedies are appropriate. The new, significantly more complex assessment criteria offer greater scope for legal challenges than the previous first-come, first-served approach. At any rate, project developers should establish which procedure the system operator responsible for their project site applies and align their projects with the relevant criteria from the outset, particularly in terms of land availability, permit strategy and financial viability.
Forward
