Methodology & data use
Short version: we use public data only, and we never ask you for commercially sensitive information.
What we do
We collect published registers and datasets, clean and join them (for example, linking a CfD unit to its grid connection entry), and present the result with screens and scenario tools. Where a match or a classification is uncertain, we say so.
What we do not do
- We do not ask for, buy or hold commercially sensitive or confidential data.
- We do not scrape private sources or anything behind a login.
- We do not sell information about our subscribers.
Sources and licences
| Source | Licence |
|---|---|
| Low Carbon Contracts Company (CfD Register); DESNZ publications | Open Government Licence v3.0 |
| National Energy System Operator (TEC Register and other datasets) | NESO Open Data Licence |
| Elexon BMRS | BMRS data licence terms |
| Distribution network operator open data (UK Power Networks, SP Energy Networks, Electricity North West, SSEN Distribution) | CC BY 4.0 |
| Northern Powergrid open data | Northern Powergrid Open Data Licence v1.0 |
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Supported by National Energy System Operator (NESO) Open Data.
How we score
Every score is a sum of simple, published rules applied to public register fields. No machine learning, no hidden inputs, no private data. Each project page lists exactly which rules fired.
All scores are indicative. They are editorial judgements, not calibrated predictions, and are not legal, financial or investment advice. Weights will change as we learn; changes will be logged here.
Inputs
- NESO TEC register (13 october 2026), 2,225 entries: status, Gate, connection site, MW, MW Effective From, project number.
- LCCC CfD Contract Portfolio Status, 612 units: round, technology, status, expected start, capacity.
- Our weekly snapshots of both, for change history.
- DESNZ AR8 Price and Pot Notice (6 July 2026) for administrative strike prices.
Date-slip risk (0–100, higher = more likely the connection date moves)
| Rule | Points |
|---|---|
| First, the stage. Built projects score 0. Projects that are under construction, generating, past a final investment decision or holding a CfD or investment contract already have their grid connection agreed, so for them we score delivery risk: is the build running late? Everything else is still in the connection queue, so we score queue risk: is it likely to keep its place and date? Connections reform (Gate 1 and Gate 2) only affects the queue score. We work out the stage from the TEC register, the matched CfD and a short list of facts for major projects, each taken from GOV.UK, NESO, Ofgem or the developer. Where a sourced fact and the register disagree, the sourced fact wins: for example, a project the developer says is still commissioning is scored on delivery risk even if the register already shows it as Built. | |
| Delivery: energised / under construction / FID or CfD | 5 / 10 / 15 |
| Delivery: connection date passed while unbuilt (grows with months late, max 25) | 10–25 |
| Delivery: CfD awarded, Milestone Requirement not yet confirmed / matched CfD terminated | 5 / 25 |
| Queue: Scoping / Awaiting Consents / Consents Approved (or DCO granted) | 30 / 20 / 10 |
| Queue: Gate 1 under connections reform / no reform position shown / Gate 2 | 15 / 5 / 0 |
| Queue: connection date already past / no connection date | 25 / 10 |
| Queue: oldest quarter of applications still without consent | 10 |
| Queue: holds a CfD award / matched CfD terminated | −10 / 20 |
| Queue: change of 500 MW or more; connection site with ≥15 / ≥6 other unbuilt entries | 5; 15 / 8 |
| Queue: customer company not found on Companies House | 5 |
| Each recorded change to the connection date in our snapshots (max 30 queue, 20 delivery) | 10 / 5 |
Every score lists its three main drivers and a confidence level: high where a sourced fact supports the stage, medium where the registers agree on it, low where the stage rests on the register status alone.
Readiness (0–100, higher = more mature)
| Rule | Points |
|---|---|
| TEC status: Built / Under Construction / Consents Approved / Awaiting Consents / Scoping | 100 / 80 / 55 / 30 / 10 |
| Gate 2 offer (not built) / FID or construction shown by a sourced fact | +10 / +25 |
| TEC shows Built but a sourced fact says the project is still commissioning: scored as under construction | 80 |
| Some MW already connected (not built, or still commissioning) | +10 |
| CfD units: LCCC status Live post-FIC / Live pre-FIC / Pre-Start / Pre-MDD / Terminated | 100 / 90 / 75 / 50 / 0 |
| CfD unit whose matched TEC entry is built or under construction | +10 |
CfD-eligibility fit (TEC entries without a CfD)
A rough check of whether an entry has the shape of a CfD applicant. It is not an eligibility decision: qualification turns on the Allocation Framework and the rules, which this does not assess.
| Rule | Points |
|---|---|
| Plant type includes a technology with an AR8 administrative strike price (offshore/onshore wind, solar, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal) | 40, else score 0 |
| Capacity 5 MW or less where a >5 MW threshold applies | −30 |
| Consents Approved or Under Construction / Awaiting Consents (planning proxy) | 30 / 12 |
| Connection date between now and 2031 / later | 20 / 5 |
| Gate 2 marker | +10 |
| Already holds a CfD or Built | n/a or 0 |
Opportunity screen
Applied to TEC entries not built, under construction, past a final investment decision or holding a live CfD. Entries scoring 40 or more appear in the screener.
| Rule | Points |
|---|---|
| Connection date passed without being built | 30 |
| Oldest quartile of Project Number (a proxy for application age, an assumption) and still pre-consent | 20 |
| Change of 300 MW or more | 15 |
| Gate 1 under connections reform | 10 |
| Connection date 2035 or later | 10 |
| Matched CfD terminated, or past its expected start while still Pre-Start | 15 |
| 20% of date-slip risk | 0–20 |
Matching CfD units to TEC entries
The CfD register and the TEC register share no common identifier, so we link them by comparing each CfD unit with likely TEC entries.
- Names. We compare the distinctive words in each name, ignoring generic ones such as "wind farm". Contract tranche labels in CfD names ("Phase 1", "P2", "AR6 A", "CfD Unit A") are set aside, because they split one project's contract rather than name a different project. Common short forms are expanded ("EA3" is East Anglia Three).
- Qualifiers must agree. A different project number (Hornsea 1 vs Hornsea 3), direction (South West vs South East), letter (Dogger Bank A vs C) or an extension vs the original project counts against a match, however similar the rest of the name.
- Size, technology and location. A contract larger than the whole connection is treated as implausible. The technology must be compatible, and a shared connection site or matching connection type adds weight.
- Whole projects. Several TEC entries can be stages of one project; a CfD unit is linked to all of them.
- Close calls are left unlinked. If a second project scores almost as well as the best one, we do not guess; the unit stays unlinked until the evidence settles it.
- Checked links. A short list of links is set by hand, each with a public source (GOV.UK, LCCC or the developer), for cases the rules cannot settle, such as Hinkley Point C, East Anglia TWO and the Hornsea projects. The same list can rule out a pairing that names alone suggest but no source supports.
- Linked at project level. Where a contract is split into tranches and the TEC register splits the project into several entries, nobody publishes which tranche uses which entry. We then link the contract to the project as a whole and label it "linked at project level".
Accepted automatic links are labelled high, medium or low confidence according to how strongly the evidence agrees.
| Match rate | This method | Previous (name substring) |
|---|---|---|
| All CfD units | 161 / 612 (26%) | 124 / 612 |
| Transmission-connected CfD units | 141 / 191 (74%) | 101 / 191 |
| Confidence split | high 112, medium 21, low 2, checked by hand 26 | |
Most distribution-connected CfD units (mainly smaller solar) are not in the TEC register at all, so a low overall rate is expected. A manual check of a sample found that most errors are in the low band and with phased offshore projects (a phase matched to a sibling platform). Unmatched transmission units include projects registered under abbreviations (e.g. "EA3") and tidal berths.
Queue position
The public register does not publish NESO's queue order. We show the entry's rank by MW Effective From (ties by project number) among not-yet-built entries at the same connection site, and nationally. Treat it as orientation only.
Known limitations
- Change history starts with our first snapshot on 2026-10-15; "repeated date slips" will only show once weekly snapshots build up.
- The TEC register covers transmission-connected and large embedded projects only.
- Phased projects are not de-duplicated.
- Gate markers may lag the reform process.
Limits
Registers lag reality and sometimes contain errors. Figures are a snapshot of the latest published data. Check primary sources before relying on any figure.