Market Views, Data Centre | DLA Piper: From Free Grid Access to a Scarce Resource and a Maturity Regime

Ongoing maturity assessments

The grid company's duty to connect is limited by available capacity. Capacity in the current transmission grid and large parts of the planned grid is fully reserved. The connection process currently consists of a detailed and ongoing maturity assessment. The aim is to distinguish between projects that are likely to be realised and those that merely tie up future capacity.

From 1 January 2025, all requests for new or increased capacity of 1 MW or more will be subject to an ongoing maturity assessment. Grid companies must cancel or scale back reservations if the project no longer meets the maturity criteria. These new requirements also apply to older requests, reservations and queue positions, and are therefore relevant to all parties awaiting connection.

Once a project is deemed mature, it may be granted a capacity reservation if there is available capacity; otherwise, it will be placed in the capacity queue. However, a capacity reservation is not the same as grid connection. Grid connection takes place once a connection agreement has been entered into. The connection agreement sets out the parties’ rights, obligations and terms. A reservation requires ongoing progress, whilst the connection agreement formally confirms the right to connect to the grid.

New and stricter requirements from 1 July 2026

Fornybar Norge has recently put forward a proposal to revise the ‘Best Practice for Maturity Assessments’ for consultation. In addition, Statnett has put forward proposals to tighten its maturity criteria for projects over 100 MW for consultation. The planned implementation date for the changes is 1 July 2026, once Statnett and Fornybar Norge have aligned their proposals and consultation input. The requirements are organised around five main themes.

Project description

The maturity assessment relates to a specific project whose character cannot change. A concrete project description is required, covering the intended use of the capacity, and a site plan including schematic drawings of the customer’s own grid facilities. The revised Best Practice requires that the site plan links the facilities to the power requirement and the power budget. For projects exceeding 100 MW, a significantly higher level of detail will be required from 1 July 2026, including professional, to-scale drawings of the necessary buildings, facilities, roads and grid facilities, as well as a site plan at the correct scale. For projects in the queue or with a reservation that do not yet have a project description in place, this must be submitted within six months of the new requirements coming into force on 1 July 2026.

Actual capacity needs

Actual capacity needs must be project-specific and described in a power budget supported by power profiles. From 1 July 2026, the link between the site plan and the power budget will be tightened. The power budget must clearly show how sub-components or modules add up to the total power requirement. For a data centre, this means demonstrating the relationship between IT load, cooling, ventilation, auxiliary systems and build-out phases, rather than simply specifying a total MW volume.

Location and status of relevant permits and agreements

From 1 July 2026, projects exceeding 100 MW must have secured rights to the relevant land through a purchase or option agreement, a lease or an expropriation permit. For necessary permits, documentation of contact with the authorities and the expected timing of approval must be submitted. As the proposed tightening is currently formulated, the correct land-use designation in the municipal land-use plan (Nw.: arealplan) is required, meaning that merely initiating a rezoning process is no longer sufficient for larger projects. Statnett will clarify whether an adopted detailed zoning plan (Nw.: reguleringsplan) is required or whether it is sufficient for the project to comply with the land-use objective of the municipal master plan. The revised Best Practice requires a start-up meeting to be held, with minutes taken, where rezoning is required, and not merely a statement that the process has been initiated.

Financing plan

The revised Best Practice requires milestones for when funding is to be secured. “Reasonably secured” has been replaced by a requirement for funding to be secured up to the investment decision. For projects of 100 MW or more, a qualified estimate of the capital requirements for all phases is required. The financing plan must be linked to the milestones in the progress plan, and it must be documented that capital up to the next decision point is secured, for example through a board resolution or loan commitment. For investors, this is a significant change, as project maturity is linked to actual access to capital and not merely to the financing strategy.

Binding progress plan

The progress plan is the backbone of the maturity regime and must include dates for decision points, the start of construction, necessary permits, agreements, financing, construction phases and a realistic connection date. From 1 July 2026, Statnett proposes to reduce the maximum period from the maturity date to the connection date from ten years to six years for projects of 100 MW or more, with exceptions only in special cases. Relevant exceptions may include cases where connection is not possible earlier due to the need for grid reinforcements, or for innovation projects requiring further development. However, this change does not apply to projects with an existing reservation or queue position.

Obligation to withdraw or reduce reserved capacity in the event of loss of maturity

Another change of practical importance is that, from 1 January 2025, grid companies will be under a statutory obligation to withdraw queue positions or reserved capacity in the event of significant changes or deviations for which the market participant is directly or indirectly responsible.

Statnett proposes clearer criteria for what constitutes a significant deviation that triggers the obligation to cancel reservations for projects exceeding 100 MW:

• For circumstances for which the customer is directly responsible (such as the conclusion of agreements or financing) – a delay of more than one year is considered a significant deviation
• For matters for which the customer is indirectly responsible (such as necessary permits) – a delay of more than two years is considered a significant deviation

The relevant party has limited control over planning processes and administrative processing times, but this is nevertheless regarded as a matter for which the party is indirectly responsible. Significant delays in, for example, planning processes may therefore result in a loss of maturity.

Any withdrawal may be referred to the Energy Regulatory Authority (RME), and RME’s decision may be appealed to the Energy Appeals Board. However, such an appeal process may take several years. Since cancelled capacity is normally made available to others whilst the appeal process is ongoing, any change following an appeal may, in reality, be of little value.

Recently, a number of reservations and projects in the queue have been withdrawn as a result of loss of maturity, including data centre projects. RME’s practice shows that significant investments are not necessarily sufficient to retain the capacity reservation if progress on the original project comes to a standstill, thereby causing the basis for maturity to cease to exist. As grid companies are obliged to monitor the progress of all projects going forward, a significant number of projects are likely to lose their reservations due to insufficient progress.

From 1 January 2026, a provision has been introduced allowing for a downward adjustment of the maximum permitted power offtake in existing connection agreements in exceptional cases. This would apply, for example, where there is a significant discrepancy between actual offtake and the maximum limit, and the customer has no concrete plans to utilise additional capacity within a reasonable timeframe. It remains to be seen how this discretionary authority will be exercised by the grid companies, but the provision may clearly have implications for some operators who have access to more capacity than is currently in use. This is not uncommon for data centre operators.

Implications for data centre projects

The grid queue has become more dynamic, and the value of a queue position or capacity reservation depends on the project’s ability to continuously documents its ability to be realised.

Statnett’s proposal entails stricter maturity requirements for projects exceeding 100 MW:

• More detailed requirements for the project description
• A clearer link between the site plan and the power budget
• Stricter documentation of land rights and requirements for the correct designated use in the land-use plan
• The financing criterion has shifted from a general plan to a clearer requirement for actual ability to obtain financing

In addition, clear thresholds are being introduced for what is considered a significant deviation in the case of one-year and two-year delays, respectively, for projects over 100 MW. Examples of changes that could result in a loss of maturity:

• Change of location
• Significant deviations from the progress plan
• Delays in concluding key agreements that postpone the investment decision
• Lack of necessary permits
  
  

For projects over 100 MW that are in the capacity queue, Statnett proposes a deadline for the land to be zoned for that purpose no later than two years after the implementation of the new requirements. In a land-use planning context, two years is a short time, and this is therefore a tightening of the criteria that could potentially affect many data centre projects.

There is a need for earlier clarifications, more documentation and, consequently, less scope for securing capacity on the basis of an insufficiently developed project basis. At the same time, RME’s practice shows that grid companies are not free to make the maturity regime so strict that it excludes complex projects.

These are tightening measures that reward realistic projects that can be implemented in accordance with the original progress plan. For other projects, the tightening measures entail a risk of losing all or part of the capacity that has been reserved or is held in the queue.

Team