Funding opportunity: Zero emission vessels and infrastructure round two: electric power

Funding opportunity: Zero emission vessels and infrastructure round two: electric power

Key details

This opportunity is part of ZEVI 2, one of three strands of the broader Clean Maritime portfolio. It is explicitly for applicants that can build, deploy and operate clean maritime solutions in real operational settings, and it is tightly structured around post-build real-world demonstration. The funding pool is common across ZEVI 2, with this Electric Power strand specifically focused on zero-emission electric propulsion and shore-side infrastructure.

What this opportunity is and what it funds

The competition is jointly delivered by Innovate UK and the Department for Transport. It sits inside the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) effort and supports decarbonisation in maritime transport through scalable technology development and deployment.

The scope for this strand is clear: it funds projects that develop and build:

• 100% battery electric vessels and related charging infrastructure
• Novel and commercially viable shore power systems and related energy infrastructure at ports, including enabling vessel upgrades

The UK public guidance places strong emphasis on demonstrator outcomes, not only technical milestones. A key phrase in the competition logic is that successful projects must demonstrate technology for three years without funding support. In practice, this means the competition is not about pre-commercial prototypes alone; it is about proving operability, reliability, usage intensity, and commercial relevance over a sustained period.

The same competition page also states that this is part of a UK SHORE suite of interventions and is tied to the UK Government’s Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy. For teams that want to work in a real-application market context, this is important: funders are looking for projects that strengthen UK capability and supply chains, not only scientific novelty.

A practical interpretation of “in scope” here is that the project concept should sit at the intersection of:

• high-value engineering execution,
• infrastructure integration, and
• operational data generation that can survive post-award scrutiny.

If the proposal is mostly conceptual or does not describe representative use in a real environment, it will usually be rated weaker.

Eligibility and team setup

The competition is collaboration-only. The lead applicant must be:

• a UK-registered business of any size,
• running a collaborative project with other UK-registered organisations.

The most important nuance is that academic institutions cannot lead or work alone. You can involve universities and research organisations in a consortium, but lead responsibility must stay with industry. The UKRI/IFS publication text requires the collaboration to include appropriate roles and at least one eligible additional organisation in the costs model. Applicants have to invite all collaborators on IFS so each partner can enter costs and impact responses.

The UK lead must align with the maritime ecosystem:

• UK-registered ship owner, manufacturer, or operator involvement,
• UK-registered infrastructure owner/operator involvement (for example, port, harbour, marina, inland waterway authority or windfarm).

This is not decorative wording. It is used to avoid submissions that do not truly anchor the demonstration in UK operations.

Collaborator classes are broad beyond the lead:

• business,
• academic institutions,
• charities,
• not-for-profits,
• public sector,
• research and technology organisations.

Non-funded partners are allowed and may be UK, EU, or other overseas organisations. If they carry out non-funded work, their costs can still count in total eligible costs. But funding control and grant award accountability still need to align with a UK-led structure.

A recurring issue in this competition family is confusion over who counts as a collaborator versus who remains non-funded partner. The distinction matters because the lead and lead-collaborator model is where compliance is checked most strictly. Ineligible collaborations or incorrect partner configuration frequently fail before scoring.

Budget constraints, funding rates, and cost discipline

From the competition briefing, total project eligible costs are constrained to between £6 million and £60 million. The total grant request ceiling is £30 million, with no participant receiving more than £20 million.

This is a high-stakes envelope. Teams usually treat the grant limit as a planning target, then discover they need to rebalance technical scope because the project model does not support sustained commercial demonstration.

The competition page provides a standard funding rate architecture for industrial research and experimental development:

• up to 70% for micro/small organisations,
• up to 60% for medium organisations,
• up to 50% for large organisations.

Research organisations and RTO/charities/public-sector teams have separate treatment for eligible research activity, and a 100% of eligible costs can apply in specific contexts, with Je-S related pathways for academic-style cost reporting.

Regardless of size, three financial guardrails are operationally critical:

1. No scope creep after submission. Your request can only be awarded within the limit you submit; there is no automatic uplift if costs rise.
2. Capital and operating costs are both scrutinised for eligibility. The brief distinguishes eligible capital costs and includes explicit exclusions such as contingencies and working capital for commercial production.
3. Costs must not be used to artificially shift short-term economics. The guidance indicates projects should not seek to reduce vessel operating costs below the cost of comparable fossil-fuel operations using grant support alone.

In practical terms, your finance section should model three linked outcomes:

• short-term build viability,
• project-level economic realism during funded phase,
• post-funding demonstration sustainability.

A very common weakness is presenting a technically credible build but underestimating infrastructure operating costs during demonstration. Because the funded period ends before demonstration does, teams need to show how performance data will continue to be collected after funding through normal operations.

In-scope versus out-of-scope: electric-power specifics

For this strand, scope is narrow in technical terms and broad in deployment setting.

In-scope work generally includes:

• development and build of 100% battery-electric maritime platforms,
• charging infrastructure suitable for maritime operations,
• shore power systems that are novel and commercially viable,
• related infrastructure and vessel modifications enabling practical operation.

The competition page also states that projects must be submitted to the correct strand. Submitting to this Electric Power strand when the proposal is not clearly 100% battery-electric related risks automatic exclusion. The guidance explicitly says an out-of-scope submission will not be sent for assessment.

Out-of-scope categories to watch:

• projects that are essentially fossil combustion upgrades,
• conventional optimisation that does not deliver commercially viable clean-mobility outcomes,
• projects that are too disconnected from ship-side and port-side deployment,
• proposals that are not operationally demonstrable over the required timeline,
• solutions that cannot explain why the vessel/infrastructure package is novel and commercially viable.

A useful drafting discipline: when writing Scope, include a one-paragraph “technology-to-operation map” that links every claimed innovation to a specific vessel use case, route profile, port interaction, and energy pathway. This map is what reviewers use when evaluating whether your in-scope claims are real.

Application process and timeline

The application is submitted via the Innovation Funding Service (IFS) at apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk.

The published milestone list gives a practical timeline:

• Competition opens: 26 March 2026
• Competition closes: 16 September 2026 (11:00am UK time)
• Invite to interview: 28 October 2026
• Interview panel starts: 23 November 2026
• Interview panel ends: 4 December 2026
• Applicants notified: 4 January 2027
• Project starts from: 1 April 2027

This timeline is not only administrative; it affects project design. Since the start date is fixed by competition terms, your build and demonstration schedule must be consistent with procurement, build, sea trials, and readiness by 2030 demonstration entry.

IFS applications are split into four sections:

1. Project details,
2. Application questions,
3. Finances,
4. Project Impact.

The guidance also imposes a strict instruction: you should not include website URLs in application answers. That condition appears as an ineligibility risk if ignored.

Before submitting, the lead must ensure:

• all information is accurate and complete,
• proposal meets eligibility and scope,
• all sections are fully completed,
• all partners have finished required sections and accepted terms.

Applications can usually be reopened and resubmitted until the deadline, which gives teams a window for internal governance review and final compliance checks.

What to prepare before you start writing

The most successful submissions begin with a document set before platform entry. At minimum:

1. Technical and commercial architecture

Prepare an explicit architecture showing:

• energy topology (battery, charging, and grid or energy management architecture),
• vessel operational profile,
• port integration approach,
• expected use profile across seasons,
• failure and redundancy plans.

2. Compliance documentation

At minimum, align on:

• lead registration details,
• partner legal names and registrations,
• roles and R&D category mapping,
• permit/licensing plan,
• export control and sanctions checks.

3. Finance with defensible assumptions

You should build finance tables for at least two scenarios:

• baseline build-and-demonstrate cost,
• conservative downside scenario in case delivery risks reduce utilization.

Both should keep the project under the £60m eligible-cost upper boundary, while preserving the demonstration obligations after funded closure.

4. Evidence package for key claims

Use evidence for:

• current operational need,
• technical readiness,
• partner capability,
• UK value chain impact,
• commercial pathway after demonstration.

Where the application asks for evidence on permits and capacity, include explicit documents or named processes, not just a statement of intent.

5. Reviewability of operational data

Because this competition is demonstration-heavy, your monitoring plan should be measurable:

• what will be measured,
• where data collection occurs,
• who owns validation,
• data quality checks,
• reporting frequency during three-year demonstration.

The project will be expected to provide continuous evidence over the demonstration period for performance and environmental impacts.

Scoring risks and common mistakes

Mistake 1: wrong strand submission

If your solution is not clearly electric-power focused and 100% electric-vessel delivery with charging/shore power, this strand is likely wrong and the system can reject eligibility.

Mistake 2: weak demonstration narrative

Many proposals overfocus on build milestones and underdefine demonstration intensity, utilization, or operator adoption model. The scheme explicitly requires representative real-world operation and sustained usage. If a reviewer cannot see clear demonstration logic, score will be capped.

Mistake 3: budget design not reflecting post-funding reality

Some proposals optimise only for funded costs and ignore post-award costs, making the programme seem financially unrealistic. Since funding ends at the close of project costs and demonstration continues unfunded, this is a major weakness.

Mistake 4: misconfigured consortium

Teams often submit academic-heavy consortiums with weak UK shipowner/port/infrastructure links. The guidance explicitly requires lead/lead partner structures tied to maritime operations and UK infrastructure participants. A technically strong technology can fail here.

Mistake 5: ineligible or poorly justified subcontracting

Overseas subcontracting is possible but must be justified. The guidance requires demonstration that UK alternatives were considered and that there is a value-for-money rationale. Blanket statements (“cheaper overseas” alone) are not sufficient.

Mistake 6: underestimating conduct/portfolio constraints

The process can exclude applications for prior conduct issues or unresolved obligations to Innovate UK. Teams should conduct an internal compliance check before closing so that past obligations, arrears, or reporting failures are addressed early.

Review lens: what successful applications usually do better

A strong ZEVI 2 Electric Power submission is typically coherent in four ways:

1. Scope precision

   • It clearly explains why the proposal is Electric Power rather than a different ZEVI strand.
   • It identifies how each technical package drives GHG reduction and operational viability.

2. Consortium logic

   • Lead and partners each have clearly defined work packages.
   • Roles are consistent with funding constraints and project governance.

3. Evidence chain

   • Claims in summary and scope are consistently supported with test plans, data points, and implementation evidence.
   • Permits, legal, and operational approvals are addressed rather than hand-waved.

4. Post-funding sustainability

   • The project includes credible operating models for the 3-year unfunded demonstration,
   • including data capture, operator engagement, and failure-handling strategy.

Because the competition is a real-scale decarbonisation mechanism, it rewards teams that combine engineering credibility with operational execution discipline.

FAQ

Is this opportunity fully open and current?

The UKRI listing is marked Open. Always verify status in IFS because the government pages can update close dates or support links.

Who is the best-fit applicant?

UK organisations leading practical, collaborative clean-marine projects, especially those with vessel and port infrastructure context, are best positioned. Single-party conceptual proposals are disfavoured.

Can an academic institution lead?

No. Academic institutions cannot lead or work alone in this competition. They can collaborate as part of a broader consortium.

Can non-UK partners be included?

Yes, as non-funded collaborators or subcontractors under strict justification and role definitions. UK-registered organisations are the baseline for the funded collaboration model.

Can I include vessels and infrastructure from different ports or regions?

Yes, if the architecture supports a single coherent demonstration strategy and remains in scope. The official publication asks for representative real-world operations, so operational logic across geography must remain coherent.

What evidence is required for permit readiness?

You do not need to claim full permits are completed at submission, but you must show permit pathways are understood, realistic, and linked to start date. You should identify missing permits and procurement risk mitigation.

Can I contact Innovate UK before submitting?

Yes. They provide both email ([email protected]) and phone support (0300 321 4357). Official guidance recommends contacting support around 15 working days before close for best support quality and at least 10 working days before close if you need strand clarification.

Are interviews mandatory?

Most shortlisted applications go through the interview-based review process. For this competition, interview outcomes can override earlier scores, so interview readiness is important.

Official links and practical next step

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/zero-emission-vessels-and-infrastructure-two-electric-power/
• Innovation Funding Service competition page: https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2435/overview/592ea5c1-f713-4654-bb5e-d6894cd06d86
• Department for Transport maritime decarbonisation context: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/maritime-decarbonisation-strategy

If you are planning to apply, the immediate next actions are:

1. Open the IFS “Summary,” “Eligibility,” “Scope,” and “Dates” pages first and freeze your interpretation before draft.
2. Lock your consortium and lead roles.
3. Build a demonstration plan before draft sections 1 and 2 of the application.
4. Align funding assumptions to the published limits.
5. Draft the “Why we are the right team now” evidence block and cross-check every numeric claim before final submission.

This competition is large, operationally serious, and implementation-focused. The strongest submissions do not only present advanced technology; they present a pathway that can run, collect data, and deliver measurable reductions in real marine operations over the required full timeline.