Britain’s connections system is under strain. Demand is rising fast. New homes, commercial sites, EV charging, electrified heat, storage and generation all need timely connections. Yet many customers still face delays and uncertainty.
That is why the Ofgem connections end-to-end review matters. Done well, it can make connections reform real for customers. It should mean clear information early, fewer surprises during delivery, and dates that people can plan around.
From the Independent Networks Association (INA) perspective, three things matter most: open, usable data, end-to-end accountability, and a level playing field that supports competition and competitive delivery.
If customers can’t see the system, they can’t plan
The queue is part of the problem. The bigger issue is the lack of clarity around it.
Customers need clear answers to basic questions:
- Can I connect?
- Where can I connect?
- When can I connect?
They also need to know why. That requires data that is accurate, complete and kept up to date.
Better data should lead to better choices
The goal is not “more data”. The goal is better decisions.
The Ofgem connections end-to-end review should support better decisions at the start of a project. It should also cut wasted effort in the system.
Customers should be able to do early checks before they apply. They should be able to see:
- available capacity
- local constraints
- key assumptions (including curtailment and outages)
- queue position and milestone status
This supports an early “go/no-go” decision. It helps customers refine their design early. It can also help them choose the right route, including firm or flexible options, where relevant.
Data also supports competition. Competition works best when the facts are clear and shared. Independent providers need access to the same core information and assumptions behind decisions, including how curtailment is calculated and what upstream limits apply.
We do not need one single tool or format. But the underlying data must be consistent, machine readable and easy to use.
Milestones must measure quality, not only speed
Speed matters. But speed without quality causes problems later.
A faster offer that lacks key detail can lead to redesign, disputes and delay after investment decisions have been made.
That is why performance measures should track not only how quickly key steps happen, but also how complete and reliable the outputs are at each stage.
This matters most at the hand-offs. Delays often happen between DNOs, TOs and NESO, and between incumbents and independent providers. Customers cannot be left waiting months for surveys, transmission assessments, or the information needed to progress.
Connections should be managed as one end-to-end project. Dependencies should be visible. Responsibilities should be clear and fairly allocated.
A connection date should be something customers can trust
Customers invest based on dates and contracts. If dates can move late in the process, confidence falls and costs rise.
Stronger Guaranteed Standards of Performance (GSoP) can help, but they need careful design:
- they should be proportionate and focused on what each party can control
- they should avoid unintended impacts in contestable markets
- where delays are caused upstream, accountability should sit with the party that caused the delay
We also support exploring energisation windows and opt-in routes to earlier dates. These can help, but only if they reduce uncertainty, with clear assumptions and credible delivery plans.
A “good offer” should be the norm
If we want fewer disputes and faster delivery, we should define what “good” looks like and expect it consistently.
A connection offer should normally include:
- clear technical detail (such as point of connection and route plans)
- a transparent breakdown of works and costs
- key assumptions and reinforcement triggers
- realistic dates and milestones
- visibility of constraints, outages and curtailment where relevant
This is not about adding bureaucracy. It is about cutting back-and-forth and avoiding late changes.
A particularly urgent gap is timely access to network charges information, including EHV charging transparency for projects such as major industrial sites, solar farms, onshore wind and battery storage. When customers cannot see likely cost drivers early, they cannot compare options properly and competition is weakened.
Reform must include independent networks
Independent networks deliver real benefits for customers by competing on service, agility and delivery. But contestable markets only work if independent providers can access the same essential information flows and routes to resolution as incumbents.
As the Ofgem connections end-to-end review moves forward, Ofgem should be clear about scope and ensure reforms support competition and innovation. Independent networks should be included in the right delivery forums and workshops.
What success looks like
Connections reform will succeed when customers can say:
- “I can see what is possible before I spend serious money.”
- “I know who is responsible when something slips.”
- “My date is credible.”
- “I can compare options fairly, including competitive delivery models.”
That is the prize: a connections system that supports growth, accelerates net zero, and rewards delivery.
The INA will continue working with Ofgem, network companies and stakeholders to make sure these reforms land in a practical, competitive and customer-focused way.
