Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power

Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power

UK’s maritime industry is one of the few sectors where decarbonisation requires both vehicle technology and infrastructure at the same time. The Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power (ZEVI 2) competition is designed around that reality: it funds clean maritime technologies that have to work in real operations and remain operational for years after the grant window closes. The official call states it is funded jointly by Innovate UK and the Department for Transport, with a total competition budget of £150,000,000 and a clear emphasis on real-world deployment.

The important thing about this opportunity is that it is not a short-lived prototype grant. It is explicitly tied to a three-year demonstration period where funded vessels and infrastructure must be used in the market environment. That makes this more suitable for teams with strong engineering capacity and delivery systems than for those still in conceptual studies.

At a glance

What this funding is (and is not)

The official UKRI page and the linked competition brief state that this call is part of the UK SHORE programme, which supports clean maritime innovation aligned with the UK maritime decarbonisation strategy. The aim is to help accelerate deployment-ready technologies and systems that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in shipping and related port/marina infrastructure.

In plain terms, this is a demand-oriented competition. You are not just asking for research money to explore a concept; you are being assessed on your ability to deliver technology and infrastructure that can be demonstrated in real conditions.

What this means in practice:

• You must propose a solution that can operate in actual maritime environments.
• Your demonstration cannot be an indefinite conceptual plan.
• The project must be able to run on a real operating schedule, with evidence around demand and utilization.
• The review system evaluates delivery quality, technical readiness, and economic feasibility under non-subsidy-supported operation after the funded period.

The phrase in the brief is very clear: successful projects must demonstrate that they can function for three years after the grant period without continued grant support. That is stricter than many innovation competitions that stop at prototype milestones.

Why this is useful for 2026–2027 planning

This call has several details that make it highly useful for teams targeting the 2026/2027 cycle:

1. Freshly published and open timeline: The opportunity opened in March 2026 and has a concrete 2026 close, with interview notification into 2027.
2. Clear 2027 implementation path: If you win, project work starts on or after 1 April 2027, which matches planning windows for teams finalizing funding stacks and procurement.
3. Technology area remains policy-relevant: Electric shipping is being linked to broader transport decarbonisation policy, and the DfT linkage means strategic alignment with public-sector priorities is real, not optional.
4. Funding scale supports meaningful delivery: Total eligible costs and grant caps indicate this is for substantial projects, not micro-grants.
5. Three-year demonstration requirement: This is rigorous and ideal if your team already has a late-stage development pipeline.

The opportunity is not ideal for very early-stage academic ideas that have no commercialization plan, no vessel or infrastructure plan, or no clear deployment pathway.

Who should apply, and who should not

This call is best for organisations that can coordinate engineering, production, infrastructure integration, and demonstration governance.

Best-fit applicants

• UK-registered industrial applicants (businesses) that can lead a collaborative consortium.
• Companies with either existing vessel operations, vessel manufacturing knowledge, or port-related deployment capability.
• Teams including at least one ship owner/manufacturer/operator and one infrastructure owner/operator.
• Consortia that can show a real commercial pathway and credible utilization model.
• Organisations willing to manage partner onboarding on the Innovation Funding Service and deliver substantial documentation before closing.

Profiles to avoid

• Academic-only leads (academic institutions cannot lead or work alone).
• Projects with only incremental fossil-fuel efficiency improvements.
• Teams proposing hybrid propulsion systems that are not 100% battery electric under the relevant strand.
• Projects centered on marine ecology, animal welfare testing contexts, or non-TRL deployment work without hard demonstration outcomes.
• Groups planning to use many non-UK subcontractors without a documented UK-first procurement rationale.

One line from the competition makes this explicit: ineligible organisations and proposals are screened strictly and applications outside eligibility are not assessed.

Eligibility and technical scope (what to verify before drafting)

Before drafting anything, cross-check your team against explicit constraints in the Innovation Funding Service brief.

Core eligibility

• Collaborative format required.
• Lead must be a UK-registered business.
• Lead must collaborate with UK registered partners covering ship and infrastructure roles.
• Total eligible project cost must lie between £6 million and £60 million.
• Requesting grant must be no more than £30 million, and no single participant can receive more than £20 million.
• Project must be structured to start by 1 April 2027.
• All project activity funded by the grant must be claimable up to 31 Dec 2029.
• Projects must include a non-funded three-year demonstration ending no later than 31 Dec 2032.

In-scope technical focus for the electric power strand

Your project must focus on at least one central theme in this strand:

• 100% battery electric new build or retrofit vessels plus matching charging infrastructure, including port energy infrastructure;
• novel, innovative, commercially viable shore power systems and associated energy infrastructure with vessel upgrades.

The brief also lists priority themes (including multi-vessel and multi-user solutions), but all applications need to satisfy the central theme.

Hard “out of scope” points

The program explicitly excludes:

• conventional fossil-fuel optimization as the primary focus;
• funded fossil-fuel-related costs;
• hybrid electric/vs fossil propulsion in this electric power strand;
• non-innovative shore power solutions;
• marine conservation/ecology-only projects.

This filtering is strict. Teams often fail not because the technology is weak but because the scope statement drifts into unrelated maritime efficiency work.

Capacity and delivery rules

The program caps how many applications your business can lead. A single business can lead on one application across all three ZEVI 2 strands and one CMDC 7 lead, with limited additional participation conditions. This is a major planning constraint for groups with multiple UK entities.

The call also flags delivery capacity. If you are already running other Innovate UK projects, the evaluator can weigh whether you can realistically manage another large programme.

Location and procurement constraints

A key practical risk is relying on overseas suppliers. The call allows overseas subcontractors only under justification. For offshore work, every overseas choice must be documented with evidence that suitable UK contractors were considered and could not be used for reasons other than price.

This is not a mere paperwork preference; it is a funded project value-for-money check.

Application process and timeline (what you must prepare now)

Think of the process as three phases:

1. Application prep and submission (up to 16 Sep 2026)
2. Assessment + interviews (late Oct to Dec 2026)
3. Notification and implementation (Jan 2027 onward)

Submission requirements and platform

Applications are handled through the Innovation Funding Service. The UKRI page says this is the full competition host and includes the direct competition page where you start an application.

Your application must include four sections:

• Project details
• Application questions
• Finances
• Project impact

Not all sections are scored equally, and the process explicitly warns that all questions (except a set of non-scored early ones) matter for assessors.

A practical workflow that reduces risk:

• Lock consortium list early and invite all partners before they finalize costing.
• Confirm legal and operational registration status for each partner.
• Fix scope first with evidence from the brief’s central themes.
• Prepare one clean “one-voice” strategy statement linking the vessel and infrastructure components.
• Draft finance assumptions around the eligibility constraints and keep costs within allowable categories.

Important dates you should track

From the competition brief:

• 26 Mar 2026: opens.
• 16 Sep 2026: closes.
• 28 Oct 2026: invites to interview.
• 23 Nov–4 Dec 2026: interviews.
• 4 Jan 2027: notifications.
• 1 Apr 2027: expected start for awarded projects.

Many applicants lose time because they underestimate post-closure workload. The 1 April 2027 start date is fixed by timeline, so contracting and procurement dependencies should be synchronized around it.

Key compliance actions before submission

• Confirm support package from each partner on cost-sharing and delivery roles.
• Verify permits/licence posture where relevant.
• Prepare TR&I/export-control responses if your work has dual-use or strategic implications.
• Run one final scope check with [email protected] before the final submission period if your classification is not obvious.
• Ensure the application team includes a person with final responsibility for each major decision block: technical plan, finance, legal/compliance, demonstration operations.

Review process, interview readiness, and common failure points

Competition design here is two-step: initial assessment then interview. The interview score can supersede earlier scoring, so performance matters beyond document quality.

What is assessed

The brief states scored questions begin after initial non-scored admin items. This means:

• you still must answer every question, even if not scored;
• non-compliance can still remove you early;
• scored responses can materially influence shortlist progression.

Common applicant errors include:

• Using weakly scoped proposals that straddle alternative-fuel or other strands;
• Applying as a near-fossil solution with token electric components;
• Failing to demonstrate that shore-power systems are commercially viable and not merely novel;
• Not proving utilization demand and infrastructure access use cases.

Interview readiness traps

Successful applicants are expected to manage a 40-minute presentation, no web links, with clear evidence and defensible delivery milestones.

Requirements observed:

• up to 9 attendees;
• all attendees available for published interview slots;
• presentation in PowerPoint; no embedded web links.

This means you need a narrative that is technically deep but easy to score under interview scrutiny.

To prepare effectively:

• Translate each scored question into one slide cluster;
• Carry one-page evidence appendices that map claims to compliance checkpoints;
• Prepare a concise answer for “what happens after grant ends,” because demonstration outcomes are mandatory.

Financial planning and project structuring

The financial shape is unusual enough to force explicit planning:

• Total project cost range is bounded.
• Grant amount is capped at both project and participant level.
• Funding is not open-ended and not renewable during the staged demonstration.
• Applicants must justify cost categories and avoid ineligible items (working capital, commercial stock, costs outside live project period, contingencies, etc.).

Given this, teams should model scenarios:

• Base case: full grant contribution with realistic UK-owned supply chain and staffing.
• Lower grant case: what happens if grant allocation is reduced.
• Delay case: consequences if start date slips due to approval or setup constraints.

The brief also notes that startup companies must still show exploitation pathways and UK IP anchoring. If you position your project as a public procurement-led solution, include procurement pathway evidence and commercial rollout assumptions.

Practical prep checklist for applicants

1) Scope check

Write your one-paragraph scope statement and validate against the phrase “100% battery electric” and “novel commercially viable shore power.” If the sentence can be understood by someone not in your team, your scope is likely clean.

2) Consortium structure

Make sure your consortium map explicitly identifies:

• lead business (UK registered);
• vessel/shipowner/manufacturer partner;
• infrastructure owner/operator partner;
• non-funded partners and their role, if any.

3) Evidence pack

Prepare before final writing:

• technical architecture and readiness level;
• port/route utilization data and demand assumptions;
• safety and regulatory pathway;
• TR&I and export-control checks (if relevant);
• MCA engagement plan where vessel systems are involved.

4) Submission hygiene

The application is strict on formatting and content control:

• Do not include URLs in scored responses.
• Ensure partner sections are complete before final submission.
• Keep submission files named and sized per constraints.
• Track internal approvals and sign-off deadlines at least one week before the close.

5) Post-assessment readiness

Because interviews come after invite and can dominate the score, pre-build your deck and rehearse with cross-functional partners. A team that performs well in the interview can recover from modest wording issues in the written application if core technical validity is strong.

FAQ for applicants

Is this only for manufacturers?

No. It is collaboration-led and explicitly open to business-led consortia with ship and infrastructure participants.

Can academic institutions apply?

They can participate as collaborators, but they cannot lead or work alone.

Can non-UK organisations be involved?

Yes, as non-funded collaborators in certain cases, but lead and core collaboration requirements are UK-registered and UK-first in nature.

Is there any explicit funding ceiling for each participant?

Yes. Maximum total grant request is £30,000,000 per project, with no more than £20,000,000 to a single participant.

Are both vessel and infrastructure costs funded?

Yes, if they are within the eligible categories and consistent with the electric power strand scope.

Can I reuse a previous Innovate UK application?

A previous submission that reached assessment can sometimes be reused with limited differences; the brief allows re-application under specific conditions.

What makes an application ineligible?

Wrong strand, out-of-scope proposal, missing collaborative conditions, or unmet eligibility/funding constraints can make an application ineligible before scoring.

Official links

• UKRI funding opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/zero-emission-vessels-and-infrastructure-two-electric-power/
• Innovation Funding Service competition brief: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2435/overview/592ea5c1-f713-4654-bb5e-d6894cd06d86
• DfT/UK SHORE context (Maritime Decarbonisation references): https://www.gov.uk/
• Support email: [email protected]
• Support phone: 0300 321 4357 (Mon–Fri, 9am–12pm and 2pm–5pm UK time)

Final verdict

Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power is a high-commitment, high-bar competition for teams that can execute and demonstrate clean maritime solutions, not just design them. Its strongest point is that it aligns funding with implementation and post-funding commercialization readiness. Its biggest risk is scope mismatch and collaboration complexity.

If your organisation already has a vessel or maritime energy pathway, existing engineering contractors, and an operationalized consortium model, this call is worth pursuing. If you are still exploring whether electric maritime systems should be your first line of work, this is not the right round. The review and interview process rewards readiness, deployment evidence, and supply-chain realism more than aspirational wording.