Battery Innovation Programme: Battery Skills Initiatives

Battery Innovation Programme: Battery Skills Initiatives

Status of this opportunity

Innovate UK’s Battery Innovation Programme: Battery skills initiatives competition is closed. The official UKRI opportunity page gives a closing date of 18 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time and marks the opportunity “Closed.” The linked Innovation Funding Service (IFS) brief says this competition is now closed and records its assessment and project-start timeline. Neither official competition page announces a replacement application window for this skills initiative. This page is therefore a historical reference to the 2026 call, not an invitation to apply. A future Battery Innovation Programme competition in another subject area should not be treated as a successor skills round.

The official UKRI page identifies Innovate UK as the funder and describes the purpose as establishing or scaling regional skills initiatives for battery manufacturing and its supply chain. The IFS brief explains that the competition was funded through the Battery Innovation Programme by the Department for Business and Trade and delivered by Innovate UK. The rules and figures below describe that closed round only; any future opportunity may use different amounts, eligibility conditions, themes, and dates.

2026 call at a glance

The total competition fund and an individual project’s request are different limits. The £3.7 million figure was the overall amount available across selected projects. Each proposal’s eligible grant request normally had to fall between £440,000 and £1.2 million. An applicant outside that range had to seek approval by email at least 10 working days before the competition closed; without approval, the brief said the application would be ineligible.

What the competition was intended to support

The call addressed regional workforce capability in battery manufacturing and its supply chain. It was designed to support practical training initiatives connected to identified skills gaps, regional demand, qualifications, job roles, employers, and delivery infrastructure. The IFS brief expected funded projects to build on existing assets, accelerate workforce growth, establish models and key performance indicators, define roles and qualifications, demonstrate strong partnerships, respond to evolving skills needs, include equality, diversity and inclusion, and set out a sustainable model aligned with national needs.

The scope included production skills for battery manufacturing, electrochemical cells and materials, cross-sector applications, the battery value chain, second use, and recycling. It could also cover battery research and development technicians, scale-up workers, maintenance and engineering roles, and quality control and assurance in production environments. Eligible project costs could include training equipment and facilities, digital tools, trainer development, access to facilities, training consumables, and some outreach or inclusion activities. The brief excluded creating or delivering new project-specific STEM programmes, although collaboration with existing STEM programmes was in scope. All initiatives were expected to be established and delivering training within the funded period.

The competition offered two distinct themes:

• Establish was for a new regional training initiative focused on national qualifications at levels 2 and 3. Proposals were expected to show strong insight into current and future regional workforce needs, developed with industry and grounded in real demand. They also needed alignment with regional electrification strategies, support from influential partners, a consortium reflecting the local skills ecosystem, accessible facilities and trainers, a learner pathway, and a plan for long-term commercial sustainability.
• Scale was for scaling existing battery skills provision or creating scalable provision that met regional and commercial needs. Training had to align with nationally accredited levels 2 to 5. Applicants had to identify skills gaps, work with existing provision where appropriate, demonstrate proven industry demand, and show how delivery would grow during the first two project years and reach commercial outcomes from the third year onward. The competition would not fund new level 2 and 3 regional training facilities under Scale if they duplicated the Establish theme.

Applicants had to select the correct theme. The brief warned that an out-of-scope application could not be transferred to the other theme and would not be sent for assessment. The call was competitive, and the limited budget meant that a high-scoring proposal was not guaranteed funding. The brief’s 66% estimate was based on experience with similar competitions and was not an individual applicant’s probability or a guarantee of award.

Who could lead and how collaborations worked

The lead applicant could apply alone or lead a collaboration, but the lead organisation had to be UK registered and belong to one of these categories: academic institution, RTO, charity, not-for-profit, or public sector organisation. It is not accurate to read “UK registered organisations can apply” as meaning every type of organisation could lead. A business could participate as a collaborating partner, but could not lead this competition under the published lead-organisation rules.

Funded collaborating organisations had to be UK registered. The brief listed businesses of any size, academic institutions, charities, not-for-profits, public sector organisations, and RTOs as possible funded partners. The lead invited partners through IFS, and each partner entered its own project costs. To qualify as a funded collaboration, the lead and at least one other organisation had to claim funding, explain the collaboration and its structure, and keep any single partner’s share at or below 70% of total eligible costs.

The brief allowed non-funded partners whose costs were covered from their own resources; these could include UK, EU, or other non-UK organisations. Non-UK non-funded partners could carry out work in their home countries and exploit results outside the UK, while funded organisations had to carry out project work in the UK and intend to exploit project results from or in the UK. Subcontractors were permitted. An overseas subcontractor required a detailed explanation of why a UK contractor could not be used, evidence of UK contractors approached, and the reasons they could not undertake the work. A lower price alone was not sufficient justification.

Each eligible lead organisation could lead one application and could be a collaborator in two further applications. An organisation not leading an application could collaborate in any number. These were rules for this closed competition and should not be assumed to apply to another call.

Grant size, duration, and finance rules

The requested grant had to be between £440,000 and £1.2 million, and the project had to last 36 months. Projects had to start by 1 December 2026 and end by 30 November 2029. The start date had to be the first day of a month. Applicants could not begin work until Innovate UK approved the Grant Offer Letter; delays during project setup could affect the start date.

The grant request was subject to organisation type and the nature of the funded activity. For commercial or economic activity classed as industrial research, the brief set maximum grant rates of 70% of eligible costs for micro or small organisations, 60% for medium organisations, and 50% for large organisations. The grant recipient had to fund the balance of its eligible costs. Research organisations undertaking non-economic work could share up to 70% of total eligible project costs. Within that share, eligible RTOs, charities, not-for-profits, public sector organisations, and research organisations could receive up to 100% of eligible costs; an academic institution could claim up to 80% of full economic costs using the Transparent Approach to Costing method. These rules made the request amount a project-level eligible grant request, rather than a promise that every applicant would receive the maximum percentage.

The competition was funded under the Subsidy Control Act 2022, with State aid rules applying in limited circumstances. Innovate UK said it would conduct financial viability and eligibility checks after the application stage and could take prior conduct into account, including sums owed to Innovate UK or UKRI. It also listed prior non-compliance, failure to exploit an earlier funded project, or an overdue independent accountant’s report as grounds that could prevent an award. These checks mattered alongside the proposal’s training plan and budget.

Original timeline

The IFS brief published this sequence for the 2026 competition:

• The IFS timeline lists 20 April 2026 as the opening date; the UKRI summary page instead lists 7 May 2026 at 9:30am UK time. Both dates are retained here because the official pages differ.
• The online briefing event was listed for 14 May 2026.
• Applications closed on 18 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time.
• Applicants were to be invited to interview on 1 July 2026.
• The interview panel was scheduled to start on 7 September 2026 and end on 10 September 2026.
• Applicants were to be notified on 24 September 2026.
• Projects could start from 1 December 2026, subject to project setup and approval of the Grant Offer Letter.

These dates describe the completed competition process and do not create a current application period. UKRI’s opportunity page continues to identify the call as closed. The wider Battery Innovation Programme includes other activities, but a separate activity is not evidence that this skills competition has reopened.

How applicants applied in the closed round

Applications were submitted through the Innovation Funding Service. The lead was responsible for making sure the information was correct, the proposal met eligibility and scope, every application section was complete, and collaborating partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions. Applicants could reopen a submitted form before the deadline, but they had to resubmit it before the deadline for it to count.

The original application had three parts:

1. Project details: assemble the team in IFS; enter the project title, start date, and duration; and prepare the project summary, public description, and scope response. The summary, public description, and scope answer each had a 400-word limit. The scope answer needed to identify Establish or Scale and explain how the project matched that theme.
2. Application questions: answer the questions on applicant location, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export control, Trusted Research and Innovation, project theme, and delivery location. The scored questions asked about need or challenge, vision, approach, team and resources, business model and outcomes, added value and impact, and costs and value for money. Applicants could not include website addresses or URLs in their answers. The IFS brief specified supporting PDF appendices for selected scored answers, with page and file-size limits shown in the relevant questions.
3. Finances: each organisation entered its own costs and funding information. Academic applicants used the Transparent Approach to Costing method for the eligible full economic cost treatment. The requested grant, eligible costs, partner contributions, subcontractor costs, and value for money had to be consistent across the application.

Before submission, a lead needed to check the project duration and start-date rules, the grant request, the organisation categories, UK delivery and exploitation conditions, collaboration structure, cost shares, subcontractor rationale, and the selected theme. Those are historical instructions, not steps for an open application today. Anyone considering a later competition should use its own IFS page and guidance rather than reusing this application checklist as current rules.

What a strong proposal needed to explain

The competition asked applicants to connect a demonstrated regional workforce need to a credible training response. A useful proposal would show evidence from employers and existing provision, explain why current pathways did not meet the need, and identify the roles and qualification levels the initiative would serve. It also needed to explain how the project supported regional priorities and the broader electrification landscape.

Delivery detail mattered. Applicants needed to describe the training activities, methods, facilities, equipment, trainers, operational structure, partner responsibilities, and access to resources. The team section asked for relevant experience, industry and public-sector relationships, partner commitments, and recruitment needs. A proposal had to show how learners would move through training and toward relevant jobs, and how the initiative would promote battery-sector careers while integrating inclusion into its design and delivery.

The business model was a central part of the call rather than an optional add-on. Establish applicants were asked to explain the initiative’s long-term commercial sustainability after the funded period. Scale applicants were expected to reach commercial outcomes from the third project year. Applications had to set out a roadmap, how outcomes would be measured, what the public funding enabled, what other investment or support routes had been considered, and how each partner would finance its contribution. Applicants were expected to show value for money for the project team and taxpayer.

The brief used a portfolio approach and reserved the right to adjust allocations in exceptional circumstances. As a result, a persuasive proposal had to be both eligible and a good fit with the desired mix of technologies, markets, and locations. Funding remained conditional on the competition process; a strong score alone did not guarantee an award.

What to check for a future skills call

This archive can help an organisation understand the type of evidence the 2026 competition sought, but it cannot establish eligibility for a future round. If Innovate UK announces another battery skills opportunity, begin with that new official brief. Check whether the lead categories, partner rules, project amount, funding rates, qualification levels, themes, and start and end dates have changed. Confirm the new application portal and its current question set before preparing appendices or entering budgets.

For a proposal with similar aims, early planning could include mapping regional employers and battery supply-chain activity; documenting demand by role and qualification level; checking existing training provision and avoiding duplication; identifying a lead with appropriate status and delivery reach; agreeing partner responsibilities and costs; and setting measures for enrolment, completion, accreditation, progression, and workforce outcomes. The future competition’s own guidance would determine which of these plans were eligible and how they should be presented.

Official links

• UKRI opportunity page
• Innovation Funding Service competition brief

The official UKRI page is the concise record of funder, total amount, deadline, and lead-organisation summary. The IFS page holds the fuller scope, project eligibility, financial rules, application process, and timeline for the closed 2026 competition. Check those official pages for any published change before relying on archived details.