Grid connection is increasingly becoming a key planning consideration for new data centres and expansions. Flexible grid connection agreements, or FCAs, are emerging as one possible approach. But what does a flexible connection mean for the actual operation of a data centre, and what technical requirements need to be met to ensure that the agreed flexibility can be provided reliably? In this eco interview with Tobias Schreiner and Frederik Drewes, founders and Managing Directors of Loadwise GmbH, we discuss the practical implementation of FCAs, experiences from other European markets and the question of where the flexibility potential of a data centre actually lies.
Grid connection is increasingly becoming the decisive factor for new data centre sites and expansions. In your view, how is this situation already changing data centre planning today, and what new requirements does this create for operators?
In Frankfurt and Berlin, as well as in many other regions across Germany, available connection capacity is limited until the mid-2030s. As a result, the question of where to locate a site is shifting from the availability of land to the availability of grid capacity. What is fundamentally changing for operators is an assumption that had been taken for granted for decades: that the full contracted capacity would be reliably available around the clock at the grid connection point. With flexible grid connection agreements (FCAs), this will become a shared capacity in future: part of the capacity is guaranteed, while another portion may be restricted by the grid operator. The figure relevant for planning is then no longer the maximum connection capacity, but the proportion of it that a site genuinely requires at any given hour.
Flexible grid connection agreements (FCAs) are seen as one way of enabling new connections despite limited grid capacity. What technical and operational capabilities must a data centre have to ensure that the agreed flexibility can be reliably maintained during ongoing operations?
The starting point lies with the operators, and there is still potential to make greater use of the data already available. Data centres continuously generate measurements relating to energy, cooling and emergency power, which can increasingly be used for more advanced analysis. Forecasting a site’s own electricity consumption for the coming hours and days offers further potential. Combining such a forecast with a quantification of the site’s own flexibility – in other words, determining how much power demand can be shifted and for how long – makes it possible to manage a flexibility commitment in a targeted and reliable manner. This is precisely what we are working on at Loadwise: forecasting site consumption and quantifying the available flexibility. Both generally build on existing building services systems and require no new hardware. In future, this will be complemented by integration with battery storage.
The approach to grid congestion and flexible connection models varies across Europe. What developments are you observing in other markets, and what lessons can Germany learn from them?
Ireland is the toughest case. In December 2025, the regulatory authority there decided that new data centres with a capacity of 10 MVA or more must demonstrate access to their own generation or storage capacity on-site or nearby, corresponding to the requested connection capacity, and must also cover 80 per cent of their annual consumption through new renewable energy projects. In Belgium, the approach centres on the connection itself. Since this year, the grid operator Fluvius has been offering flexible connection contracts, allowing several hundred businesses currently on the waiting list to be connected to the grid before grid expansion is completed. There are two lessons for Germany: flexibility at the connection point is not a uniquely German issue, but one that needs to be considered across different locations and markets. More binding frameworks or comparable instruments are also emerging in other markets. For the attractiveness of a location, therefore, what matters is less the fundamental level of requirements than how predictable, transparent and efficient the respective procedures are.
In your view, where does the greatest flexibility potential lie in a data centre, and what role can storage, emergency power, local generation, cooling or even the computing load itself play?
There is no general order of priority. How much a site can contribute depends on its configuration – including storage or uninterruptible power supply (UPS) systems, emergency power capacity, local generation and thermal inertia. It also depends on the operator’s willingness to carry out targeted upgrades, for example by installing battery storage. This is precisely what we are working on: identifying this potential for each individual site and making it accessible through software. In our view, the computing load itself is not part of this, at least not as a primary source of flexibility. In colocation in particular, the load belongs to the customer and is committed under SLAs.
What needs to change in the interaction between data centre operators, grid operators and the energy system so that data centres can be connected to the grid more quickly while maintaining reliability in future?
An operational framework jointly defined by grid operators and data centre operators is needed – and such a framework does not yet exist. Flexible grid connection agreements are currently negotiated on a case-by-case basis. This is costly for both sides and produces outcomes that cannot readily be compared. We would like to see standardised agreements, together with transparency about available grid capacity at a local level, as already exists in Belgium. Proven flexibility at facility level should also be recognised in the connection process rather than being treated solely as a right of the grid operator to curtail capacity. Conversely, this means that operators must make their flexibility measurable and verifiable.
