Flexible Connection Agreements (FCAs), also known as flexible grid connection agreements, have been gaining prominence at the latest since the revelation of the „Network packets 2026“increasingly in focus. They enable PV systems and battery storage systems (BESS) to be quickly connected, providing a pragmatic solution to the so-called. Redispatch reservation through network overlay. The bilateral agreements with the grid operator offer new opportunities and at the same time entail risks.
What are FCAs?
A Flexible Connection Agreement is a individually agreed contract between a distribution network operator (DNO) or a Transmission system operator (ÜNB) and operators of PV systems, BESS or similar systems. The goal is to Bypassing network bottlenecks. It includes the framework for the grid connection of electrical capacities, the conditions for limiting and controlling the feed-in and withdrawal from the transmission or distribution grid.
Unlike a classic „fixed“ grid connection, where full capacity is guaranteed in both directions at all times, FCAs exchange fixed grid rights for a faster realized network access. This also allows more plants to be connected earlier. The price plant operators pay for this is lower revenue if the connection capacity is reached at certain times. This threatens a throttling or shutdown of the plants.
Why are FCAs relevant?
Non-firm grid connection agreements are emerging as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to traditional firm access for the integration of renewable and distributed energy sources. Flexible connections can reduce connection costs by up to 80 % reduce and halve lead times while ensuring they reliably expand the grid's capacity. In Germany, an additional driver is present: Germany's grid operators face a Shortfall of over 720 GW for outstanding connection applications Large-scale battery storage compared to – that is nine times the annual peak load of the transmission network. To overcome this deficit, FCAs will become the standard.
How do FCAs technically work?
FCAs limit grid access through caps for import/export, ramp rate restrictions, and limitations on participation in system services. These bilateral agreements between the grid operator and the connected customer define flexible capacity limits for feed-in or withdrawal. either static or dynamic. This makes it possible to establish connections even in areas where full network capacity is not (yet) available. Control is often handled by digital systems: Active Network Management (ANM) systems monitor network conditions in real time and dynamically allocate available capacity to connected users in response to changing bottlenecks.#
What FCA models are there?
In literature and pilot projects, there are generally four main models for non-firm grid connections:
- Capacity-constrained FCAs: Fixed upper limits for performance.
- Time-limited FCAs: Restrictions during specific hours.
- Dynamic Operating Envelopes: Real-time Adjustments.
- Fully flexible, access-based connections: Market-based capacity sharing.
Legal framework for FCAs
The corresponding set of rules has already been adopted by the European Union, and in Germany § 17 (2b) of the German Energy Industry Act (EnWG) The legal basis for FCAs. Since no binding nationwide standards currently exist, FCA contracts are mostly individual. However, they must specify, in particular, the maximum fixed feed-in and withdrawal, as well as additional flexible capacities - differentiated by time blocks within the year - and the applicable grid fees for both types of capacity. Furthermore, the term of the agreement and an expected date for full fixed connection must be stated.
Opportunities & Risks of FCAs
Opportunities: FCA-based connections make some projects possible in the first place or unlock significant capacity. Historical data shows up to 29 % more energy for feed-in systems and 65 % more for consumption systems. According to a 2025 EWI study, even higher figures are expected for Network overlay possible with PV and BESS.
Risks: Even minor restrictions by an FCA can reduce the earning potential of a plant or limit the usability of the entire system. Ramp rates, for example, have a direct impact on Control energy- Or short-term capacity constraints on the release Power trading.
Depending on the model, the effects vary greatly: static or highly restrictive regulations can noticeably burden profitability, while predictable or dynamic restrictions are often much easier to integrate. For large PV-BESS projects, it is therefore crucial that the FCA is technically soundly modeled in advance, economically conservatively evaluated, and clearly contractually regulated.
FCA vs. Solid Network Connection in Comparison
| Feature | Standard connection fester | FCA (flexible) |
| Capacity design | Always for full performance | limited (in time/dynamically) |
| Capacity utilization | Underutilization due to 100% feed-in and withdrawal sizing | High average capacity, avoidance of static buffers through dynamic models |
| Connection and Approval Time | 1 up to 4 or 5 years if network expansion is necessary | 6–12 months |
| Expansion costs | Network operator plans for full capacity, possibly with backup control center. | Excessive expansion is avoided – costs are reduced by 50–80% |
| Flexibility | Low | Agreed (by mutual agreement) |
| Suitable for | Uncritical locations | Capacity-constrained grid areas according to Grid Package 2026 |
| Legal basis | EnWG Standard | EEG § 8 a, EnWG § 17 para. 2 b |
| Cash flow security | High (fixed performance) | Drosselrisiken (Low Risk) |
| Financial viability | Simple, but expensive | Complex, but doable with experts |
FCAs as a bridging solution
A direct comparison with the classic fixed grid connection highlights the key advantages and disadvantages of FCAs. While they enable entry into congested grids and accelerate projects, they shift a significant risk to the system operator: typical contracts regulate fixed capacity (guaranteed), flexible capacity (temporarily variable), term, triggers for restrictions (e.g., grid congestion), and the grid operator's forecasting and information obligations.
Conclusion & Outlook
FCAs are not a substitute for grid expansion, but an efficient interim solution for accelerating the energy transition. With uniform standards and better predictability, they could become the standard for PV and BESS projects and reduce the 720 GW backlog.