as operations and maintenance across a larger asset base, which is part of why the UK has built what is, by some measure, the largest operational battery fleet in Europe (European BESS Index, 2026) . The IDNO model has also given developers, network owners, and off-takers more commercial and technical latitude in design and supply- chain choices than a conventional, single-region distribution licence typically allows. Crucially, it also allows private investment into the UK electricity network, helping expand what it is possible to build and connect. Europe does not need a carbon copy of the IDNO licence, but it has been a significant success. Ofgem granted the first licences in 2004; as of August 2026, there are 27 licensed IDNOs ( Ofgem, 2026a ), and together they connect around 80% of new homes in England ( INA, 2025 ). The underlying principles of the IDNO concept would travel well. An EU equivalent might be founded on giving independent operators enough commercial and technical flexibility to connect demand and storage assets behind a single point, within states’ existing regulatory regimes, rather than trying to harmonise every national framework into one European model before anything gets built. Individual member states could adopt a lighter touch version of this without a full IDNO-style licence. Rather than attempting to harmonise how entire networks are remunerated, a regulator could instead introduce a distinct connection or network tariff specifically for independent, co-located operators. That alone would capture much of the IDNO model’s practical benefit: clearer investment signals, competition for assets, and pressure to optimise pricing for the customer, without requiring the kind of pan-European regulatory harmonisation that would take years to negotiate. Behind-the-meter storage as the accelerator Taken together, this forms a practical argument for behind-the-meter and co-located storage as the fastest route to the tripartite agreement’s targets. It does not depend on a fresh wave of primary legislation, and it works within existing member-state frameworks rather than against them. Reducing the net capacity a project needs
from the wider grid reduces both the cost and the lead time of the connection, which is the single biggest driver of how quickly a storage project actually gets built. This is already proven in practice in the UK, where Eclipse is delivering microgrid and private network projects that combine co-located generation, demand, and storage behind a single connection point. Elsewhere in Europe, the model is still taking shape: developers are progressing co-location and behind-the-meter connections on active projects in Germany, France, and other EU markets. However, their underlying connection agreements and commercial structures are the same ones that make co-located battery storage possible, and there is no technical barrier to adding storage to sites built this way. With the increased use of flexibility to balance networks, demand itself is becoming more useful to network planners. Large flexible loads such as data centres or manufacturing plants can in principle turn down or defer their consumption during system peaks and offer that flexibility back to the network as an ancillary service. That complements co-located storage, so when planned together, co-located storage and flexible demand can take pressure off the wider transmission network rather than adding to it. It is important to clarify that none of this makes storage a complete substitute for new transmission capacity. Some grid reinforcement is unavoidable, and the Tripartite Agreement’s targets will not be met by co-location alone. However, behind-the-meter is a meaningful part of the solution, and one that is already available within the regulatory tools most member states already have, rather than years away pending a fresh round of EU-wide legislation. The Tripartite Agreement gives Europe’s storage ambitions a shared direction. Now we just need to accelerate how quickly individual projects connect to the grid. Behind-the-meter and co-located solutions are not the whole answer, but they are solutions developers, network operators, and regulators can act on today. VIEW REFERENCES Dr Graeme Hutchison enquiries@eclipsepower.co.uk
www.decarbonisationtechnology.com
8
Powered by FlippingBook