Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power

Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2: Electric Power

This page is a historical reference to the 2026 Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure 2 (ZEVI 2) Electric Power competition. Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), ran the competition with the Department for Transport (DfT). UKRI marks the opportunity closed. Its page records the extended deadline as 17 September 2026 at 11:00am UK time, after technical issues on the Innovation Funding Service. The IFS competition record gives 18 September 2026 at 11:00am. No successor round is announced on the official UKRI opportunity page or the IFS record checked for this update. This archive is not an open application opportunity.

ZEVI 2 formed part of the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) programme. It aimed to support development, build, deployment and operation of clean maritime technology in real operating conditions. The Electric Power strand focused on 100% battery-electric vessels and related charging, as well as novel, commercially viable shore power and associated port energy infrastructure. Awards were intended for projects with an operational demonstration plan, rather than feasibility studies without a route to deployment.

The competition offered a share of up to £150 million across ZEVI 2. Each project had to combine build and deployment activity with a subsequent three-year demonstration that would continue without grant support. The scale and duration made the call suited to delivery consortia with vessel, infrastructure and operational capability already aligned.

At a glance

What the competition funded

The UKRI page and IFS competition brief place ZEVI 2 within UK SHORE and describe its goal as developing, deploying and operating innovative clean maritime solutions in a real-world environment. The Electric Power strand was one of three strands in ZEVI 2. The other strands addressed alternative fuels and vessel energy efficiency. Proposals had to fit the right strand because the competition instructions warned that applications submitted to the wrong one would be ineligible.

The Electric Power strand covered two related routes:

• Development and build of innovative 100% battery-electric vessels, new build or retrofit, and accompanying charging infrastructure.
• Novel, innovative and commercially viable shore-power systems, related port energy infrastructure, and any necessary accompanying vessel upgrades.

The proposal had to build, deploy and operate its technology in a representative real-world environment. The call therefore asked for more than a technical concept. A project needed a practical deployment setting, relevant partners and a plan for operating the funded assets. The demonstration requirement connected the grant-funded build phase to ongoing use of the equipment after the grant period.

The funded period was followed by a non-funded three-year demonstration. Projects had to start by 1 April 2027, claim grant funding by 31 December 2029, and complete the demonstration by 31 December 2032. These are delivery obligations for awards from this closed call, not dates for submitting an application today.

Who could apply and what limits applied

The competition was open to collaborations only. A lead applicant had to be a UK-registered business and work with other UK-registered organisations. The collaborating organisations needed to bring the capabilities required by the proposed solution. Depending on the project, that could include vessel design or operation, ship ownership, equipment manufacture, port operations, charging, shore-side energy infrastructure and demonstration management. The specific partnership needed to make sense for the scope being proposed.

The Electric Power strand did not make every maritime electrification project eligible. A battery-electric proposal needed to meet the 100% battery-electric definition for its vessel solution. A shore-power project needed to be novel, innovative and commercially viable, with relevant energy infrastructure and vessel changes where required. A proposal focused on another ZEVI strand, ordinary non-innovative shore power or conventional fossil-fuel efficiency would not satisfy the Electric Power scope simply because it included some electrical equipment.

The financial boundaries were substantial:

• Total eligible project costs had to be between £6 million and £60 million.
• The maximum total grant request was £30 million per project.
• No more than £20 million of the grant could be allocated to one participant.
• Funded work had to fit within the competition’s project and grant-claim timetable.

These limits affected consortium design as well as the budget. Each partner’s work, requested funding and delivery responsibilities had to be coherent. A large project also needed to show that the lead and partners could manage procurement, engineering, permissions, installation and operations in parallel. The total fund of £150 million was available across the competition; it was not a guaranteed award for every eligible proposal, and the competition could not fund every application.

Applicants also needed to plan for the unfunded demonstration. A costed installation plan alone would not explain who would use the vessel or infrastructure, who would maintain it, or how it would remain in operation after grant funding. The three-year requirement made site access, demand, operational ownership, safety and commercial continuation important parts of a credible delivery case.

The application and assessment process in the 2026 round

Applications were submitted through the Innovation Funding Service (IFS). The lead applicant created the application, set up the application team and invited collaborators to complete their assigned parts. The IFS form had four sections: project details, application questions, finances and project impact. The lead was responsible for checking that every section was complete, partners had accepted the terms and conditions, the proposal met the scope and eligibility rules, and the final application was submitted before the deadline. An application could be reopened after submission, but the lead had to resubmit it before the competition closed. The competition route is now closed.

The project details section captured the team, project title, proposed start date and duration, research category, project summary, public description and scope. The summary was limited to 400 words and had to explain the innovation clearly enough for IFS to assign appropriate assessors. The public description also had a 400-word limit and was intended for publication if the project received funding, so applicants were told not to include commercially sensitive material there. The scope response needed to show a direct fit with the Electric Power strand; an out-of-scope application would not proceed to assessment.

The application questions covered the project and its expected impact. The brief required applicants to answer every question and prohibited website addresses or links in answers. It also required a project plan or Gantt chart appendix in PDF format, no larger than 10 MB and no longer than two A4 pages, to support the schedule. Applicants had to complete financial information for each organisation and describe the project impact. The application included both unscored eligibility questions and scored questions; the competition brief specified which answers were scored. A lead therefore needed to coordinate partner inputs, cost and funding requests, and supporting material before marking the application complete.

After submission, the IFS process included initial assessment and an interview stage for shortlisted applicants. The IFS timetable listed invitations to interview for 28 October 2026, an interview panel period from 23 November to 4 December 2026, and notification on 4 January 2027. Interview candidates were to present for no more than 40 minutes using a presentation of at most 41 slides, followed by panel questions. Those are the published milestones for the closed 2026 competition, not an indication that applications or interviews remain open.

The official records list the following dates for the 2026 round (with the closing-date discrepancy explained above):

• 26 March 2026: competition opened.
• 17 September 2026 at 11:00am UK time: extended closing date shown on the UKRI opportunity page; the IFS overview records 18 September 2026 at 11:00am.
• 28 October 2026: applicants were due to be invited to interview.
• 23 November to 4 December 2026: interview panel period.
• 4 January 2027: applicants were due to be notified.
• 1 April 2027: project start deadline.

The official records disagree about the final day. UKRI’s opportunity page says the closing date was extended to 17 September 2026 at 11:00am UK time because of technical issues on the Innovation Funding Service. The IFS competition overview records 18 September 2026 at 11:00am. This archive uses 17 September in its deadline field because that is the extended date stated on UKRI’s opportunity record. The later date remains noted here because it appears in the IFS record; it should not be read as evidence that applications remain possible. UKRI currently marks the opportunity closed, and no successor round is announced there.

The assessment process included written assessment followed by an interview stage for shortlisted applicants. An applicant needed to satisfy eligibility and scope before its technical and commercial case could be considered. Strong answers would explain what would be built, why the technology fit the Electric Power strand, how the partners would deliver it, and what evidence supported real use after installation. Teams also needed an answer for how operation would continue after the grant period because the demonstration did not receive grant funding.

For a future call with similar requirements, a disciplined preparation sequence would be to:

1. Confirm consortium roles and invite all partners into the application system early enough for them to provide information.
2. Check each organisation’s registration, role and funding request against the live eligibility rules.
3. Agree whether the proposal concerns battery-electric vessels and charging or shore power and port energy infrastructure.
4. Connect the technical plan to a named operating context, delivery schedule and demonstration plan.
5. Build the project budget within the applicable cost and grant limits, checking every partner’s figures.
6. Review the final application against the latest official guidance rather than copying an archived answer.

These are planning lessons from the structure of the 2026 call, not a claim that another competition is open. Any future ZEVI or maritime funding competition may use different rules, dates, costs or application questions.

Delivery planning and evidence

A deployment proposal of this size needed to connect engineering decisions to the operating environment. The partners had to describe how a vessel and its charging or shore-power systems would work together, who would use the assets, and how the project would move from build into normal operations. A credible timetable also had to account for procurement, installation, commissioning, regulatory approvals, site readiness and any dependencies between vessel and port work.

Useful evidence for a project of this type included a clear technical architecture, build and integration plan, route or port use assumptions, evidence of demand, site access, safety and regulatory planning, and partner commitments. Where vessel systems were involved, applicants needed to understand the relevant maritime approvals. For shore-side equipment, the delivery case depended on site conditions, grid or energy arrangements, charging requirements and the operating needs of vessels using the facility.

The partnership needed to assign responsibility for technical delivery, finances, legal and compliance matters, and demonstration operations. The intended users and operators could not be left implicit. The project also needed to explain how the assets would be maintained during the unfunded three-year period, what costs that would involve and what commercial or operational route could sustain their use.

Financial planning had to cover the whole project. Eligible project costs and grant limits constrained the funded work, while the demonstration still needed people, maintenance and operating arrangements after the grant. A useful internal review would test whether the schedule remained workable if procurement or approvals took longer than expected, and whether the consortium could continue if expected utilization developed more slowly than planned. These checks are particularly relevant to large infrastructure projects where vessel delivery and shore-side readiness depend on one another.

Applicants also needed to check the competition’s current rules for cost eligibility, partner participation, application limits, procurement and any restrictions on subcontracting. Those detailed conditions belong to the archived IFS brief and may change in a later competition. This page therefore preserves the central project limits and scope without presenting an incomplete paraphrase as a substitute for the official guidance.

Common scope and delivery risks

The Electric Power scope was narrow enough that classification mattered. A project could be technically ambitious and still fall outside the strand if its primary purpose matched another strand or if the vessel did not meet the battery-electric definition. Shore-power proposals needed to explain their innovation and commercial viability. Teams needed to avoid treating a conventional equipment installation as innovation without explaining what new capability the project would demonstrate.

Operational evidence mattered alongside technology. A proposal was stronger when it could show where a vessel would sail or berth, what charging or shore-power arrangement it would use, which organisations controlled the infrastructure and how the demonstration would represent real operating conditions. Without those details, a three-year demonstration could look like an aspiration rather than a funded project outcome.

The overall project also had to be deliverable within the timetable. Vessel build, infrastructure construction, grid or site work, permissions and commissioning can involve different organisations and schedules. If one element slipped, the other could be stranded or underused. Clear dependencies, named owners and a practical risk response were therefore central to the project plan.

Finally, the unfunded demonstration required a credible continuation model. Teams needed to state who would operate and maintain each asset and how use would be supported after grant funding stopped. This could involve commercial revenue, operational budgets, service agreements or other commitments, depending on the project. The relevant point was to make continuation plausible and supported by partners rather than assuming a future grant would cover it.

FAQ about the archived competition

Can I still apply to this round?

No. UKRI marks the opportunity closed, and the listed closing date has passed. The IFS record preserves the competition brief and its application details. This page is a historical record, not an open call.

Has another round been announced?

No successor round is announced on the official UKRI opportunity page or the IFS record checked for this update. Check UKRI and Innovate UK for a later announcement before planning an application.

Was the competition only for vessel manufacturers?

No. It was collaboration-led and covered vessel, charging, shore-power and port energy infrastructure projects. The appropriate partners depended on the proposed project and the official eligibility rules.

Could an academic institution lead?

The lead had to be a UK-registered business. Other organisations could contribute within the collaboration, subject to the official participation and funding rules.

How large could a project be?

Eligible project costs had to be £6 million to £60 million. Grant requests were limited to £30 million in total and £20 million for any single participant.

What did Electric Power cover?

The strand covered 100% battery-electric vessels and accompanying charging infrastructure, or novel, innovative and commercially viable shore-power systems with related port energy infrastructure and vessel upgrades.

Why do the official records show different closing dates?

UKRI records the extension to 17 September 2026 at 11:00am because of technical issues on IFS. The IFS overview records 18 September 2026 at 11:00am. This page uses UKRI’s extended date in the deadline field and preserves the IFS date as a documented discrepancy. The competition is closed either way.

Official sources

• UKRI opportunity page: current status, funders, total competition fund, eligibility summary and the extended closing date.
• Innovation Funding Service competition overview: archived Electric Power scope, project eligibility, grant limits, delivery milestones, application stages and its recorded closing date. The overview currently does not resolve directly, but its indexed official record remains available in search results.
• Innovate UK contact details shown in the competition brief: [email protected]; 0300 321 4357. These are retained as source details, not confirmation that a later call is open.

Final note

The 2026 ZEVI 2 Electric Power competition offered large collaborative grants for teams able to build and operate battery-electric vessels, charging systems or innovative shore-power infrastructure. Its defining commitment was a real-world demonstration after grant funding ended. The application period has passed and UKRI marks the opportunity closed. Neither official page checked lists a successor round. Keep this page as a record of the 2026 requirements. If UKRI or Innovate UK publishes another competition, use that new brief for its deadline, scope, award limits and application process.