Supply chain constraints are reshaping the project design process in the UK. But that is not the sole reason that the utility-scale solar development process has evolved, says Patrick Doyle, United Kingdom country director at Andalucia-headquartered renewable energy services provider Elmya.
This requires that multiple possible delivery pathways be assessed in parallel, with resilience and flexibility being increasingly important design criteria.
Doyle will join a panel at the Clean Power 2030 Summit, incorporating the UK Solar Summit 2026, in London at the end of this month, to discuss how developers and service providers are changing their approaches in response to supply chain constraints.
The CP2030 Summit brings together policymakers, developers, investors and network operators to address the whole-system approach needed to meet the UK government’s Clean Power 2030 target. View the agenda and book tickets to get involved.
Solar Power Portal: Have supply chain constraints fundamentally changed the way utility-scale solar projects are designed today compared to five years ago?
Patrick Doyle: Yes, the way projects are designed has changed, but not purely because of supply chain constraints.
The technology itself has evolved significantly. Module outputs continue to increase, inverter technology has advanced, and many of the design assumptions that were common five or ten years ago have changed. That naturally affects how projects are optimised.
At the same time, the delivery environment has become more complex. ESG requirements, supply chain transparency, responsible sourcing and traceability now play a much greater role in procurement decisions than they did a few years ago. It’s no longer just about selecting the most technically suitable equipment at the best price.
Lead times and availability also have a greater influence on project strategy. Developers increasingly need confidence that equipment, resources and delivery partners will be available when required, which can affect decisions much earlier in the project lifecycle.
The industry is delivering larger and more ambitious projects than ever before, while drawing from a finite pool of expertise and resources. As a result, successful project design today is about much more than technical optimisation alone.
How are extended lead times for inverters, transformers and BESS components affecting early-stage design choices?
One phrase you hear regularly being required to help improve projects in the industry is “earlier engagement,” and while that is very important, I often think the more critical challenge is earlier decision-making and commitment.
Many projects already involve extensive engagement between developers, investors, advisers and contractors. The difficulty is that key procurement and delivery decisions are often made later than the programme would ideally allow.
Longer lead times mean projects need certainty earlier than they once did. Engineering, procurement and manufacturing all rely on timely decisions if delivery milestones are to remain realistic.
This isn’t simply an EPC, ICP or contractor challenge. It requires alignment across the entire project team, from developers and IPPs through to lenders and technical advisers.
The earlier there is clarity around contractor selection, equipment strategy and overall delivery approach, the greater the opportunity to manage programme risk effectively. So, for me, the solution isn’t just earlier engagement, it’s earlier commitment.
What does ‘parallel design exploration’ mean in practice, and why is it becoming essential?
Traditionally, projects would often identify a preferred technical solution and then optimise around it.
Today, projects often need to assess multiple design and delivery pathways in parallel.
That could involve evaluating different inverter architectures, comparing equipment suppliers, considering alternative transformer arrangements or assessing different storage technologies. The objective is not simply to find the technically strongest solution, but to ensure there are credible alternatives if market conditions change.
As discussed earlier, supply chain considerations now influence design decisions far more than they once did. As a result, resilience and flexibility have become increasingly important design criteria alongside performance and cost.
How do you manage the complexity of evaluating multiple equipment scenarios simultaneously?
It starts with understanding what the client is ultimately trying to achieve.
Every project has different drivers. For some, the focus is on the lowest CAPEX. For others, it’s long-term energy yield, LCOE, programme certainty or maximising installed capacity. Those priorities essentially influence how technology options should be assessed.
Having a strong in-house engineering capability and a clear understanding of current and future market conditions allows us to evaluate multiple scenarios efficiently and identify the most appropriate solutions for each project.
Along with this experience and in-house engineering capability, the tools available today make it less onerous to compare technical and commercial outcomes than ever before, but the real value still comes from experience, market awareness and understanding how different technologies perform in practice, not just in simulations or an Excel spreadsheet.
Ultimately, successful design is about balancing technical performance with the realities of delivery.
Are supply chain constraints affecting UK utility-scale solar projects differently from other European markets?
The UK faces many of the same challenges seen across Europe, but some factors can have a more pronounced impact here. Brexit has undoubtedly added complexity, particularly around access to skilled labour and specialist engineering resources, while the wider skills shortage remains something the industry needs to address collectively.
Competition within certain parts of the supply chain also remains an important topic, particularly where project requirements, qualification criteria or delivery expectations naturally reduce the competition. In some cases, the industry unintentionally creates its own constraints by narrowing the available pool of suppliers or contractors.
At the same time, expectations continue to rise. The industry rightly expects higher ESG standards, greater transparency, more granular reporting and robust quality assurance, while also seeking faster delivery and competitive pricing.
Individually, those objectives are entirely achievable. The challenge comes when we expect all of them simultaneously, without accepting that there may be implications for cost, programme or both.
One of the discussions I’m looking forward to having at the UK Solar Summit is how we continue raising standards while ensuring projects remain commercially viable and deliverable at the pace required to achieve net zero ambitions.
What impact will these issues have on developers building to complex timescale requirements?
The biggest challenge for developers working to ambitious delivery programmes is managing certainty in an increasingly constrained market.
Alongside all of the supply chain considerations we’ve discussed, the industry is also delivering more renewable energy projects than ever before. Utility-scale solar projects are becoming larger, more technically complex and more frequent, while a significant pipeline of major infrastructure and DCO projects is also moving closer to construction.
That creates pressure across the entire delivery ecosystem, from equipment manufacturers and logistics providers through to EPC contractors, ICPs, specialist subcontractors and skilled engineering resources.
The key question is not whether projects can be delivered, but how early the right decisions are made to enable successful delivery.
As referenced earlier, the sooner developers commit to procurement strategies, delivery partners and project programmes, the greater opportunity there is for contractors to secure manufacturing capacity, invest in resources and strengthen their supply chains. That ultimately reduces risk for everyone involved.
As with any infrastructure project, risk rarely disappears through delay. Time and again, it simply becomes more difficult, and more expensive, to manage later in the programme.
Has this complexity always existed? If so, has it worsened under current conditions?
Complexity has always existed in project delivery, but the nature of that complexity has changed considerably.
Historically, challenges were often centred around engineering, construction timelines and technical execution. Today, projects must navigate a much broader range of requirements, including ESG compliance, supply chain transparency, more complex planning conditions, ecological constraints, stakeholder expectations and increasingly detailed procurement requirements.
At the same time, many projects are being developed on more challenging sites. Whether that’s environmental or ecological sensitivities, archaeology impacts, access restrictions, flood risk considerations or complex grid connection requirements, there are often more factors that need to be considered before construction even begins.
The industry has also raised its own standards, which is a positive development. We expect higher levels of quality, reporting, assurance and accountability than ever before. However, those expectations inevitably require additional time, resources and/or investment.
I often come back to the classic project management triangle: time, cost and quality. In simple terms, you can usually optimise two of the three, but rarely all three at once. Every project wants to be delivered quickly, at the lowest possible cost and to the highest possible standard. The reality is that trade-offs exist, and everyone involved in project delivery needs to recognise that, not just the EPCs and ICPs who are often expected to absorb the risk.
The most successful projects are those where expectations, objectives and delivery strategies are aligned from the outset. Once everyone understands the priorities, decision-making becomes clearer and project outcomes tend to improve.
Ultimately, the challenge facing the industry today isn’t complexity itself. It’s ensuring that expectations evolve at the same pace as the realities of delivering increasingly complex projects.