Supply chain constraints are reshaping the project design process in Britain. But that’s not the only reason the utility-scale solar development process has evolved, says Patrick Doyle, UK country director at Andalusia-based renewable energy services provider Elmya.
This requires multiple possible delivery paths to be assessed in parallel, with resilience and flexibility being increasingly important design criteria.
Doyle will join a panel at the Clean Energy Summit 2030which includes 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 discuss the whole systems 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 simply because of supply chain constraints.
The technology itself has evolved significantly. Module output continues to increase, inverter technology has advanced, and many of the design assumptions that were common five or ten years ago have changed. This obviously affects the way projects are optimized.
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 purchasing decisions than they did just a few years ago. It is no longer just about selecting the most technically suitable equipment at the best price.
Lead times and availability also have a greater influence on the project strategy. Developers increasingly need confidence that equipment, resources and delivery partners will be available when needed, which can influence decisions much earlier in the project lifecycle.
The industry is delivering bigger and more ambitious projects than ever before, while drawing on a finite pool of expertise and resources. As a result, successful project design today is about much more than just technical optimization.
How do longer lead times for inverters, transformers and BESS components influence early-stage design choices?
A phrase you often hear that is needed to help improve projects in the sector is “earlier commitment,” and while that is very important, I often think the key challenge is earlier decision-making and commitment.
Many projects already involve extensive collaboration between developers, investors, advisors and contractors. The difficulty is that important purchasing and supply decisions are often made later than the program would ideally allow.
Due to the longer lead times, projects require certainty sooner than before. Engineering, purchasing and manufacturing all depend on timely decisions if delivery milestones are to remain realistic.
This is not just an EPC, ICP or contractor challenge. It requires coordination across the entire project team, from developers and IPPs to lenders and technical advisors.
The sooner there is clarity on contractor selection, equipment strategy and overall delivery approach, the better the chance to effectively manage program risk. So for me the solution is not just prior engagement, but prior engagement.
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 optimize around it.
Nowadays, projects often have to assess multiple design and delivery processes in parallel.
This may include evaluating different inverter architectures, comparing equipment suppliers, considering alternative transformer arrangements, or assessing different storage technologies. The goal is not simply to find the technically strongest solution, but to ensure that there are credible alternatives as market conditions change.
As previously discussed, supply chain considerations now have much more influence on design decisions than in the past. 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 customer is ultimately trying to achieve.
Every project has different drivers. For some, the focus is on the lowest CAPEX. For others it is about long-term energy yield, LCOE, program security or maximizing installed capacity. These priorities essentially influence how technology options should be assessed.
Our strong in-house engineering capabilities and a clear understanding of current and future market conditions allow us to efficiently evaluate multiple scenarios and identify the most suitable solutions for each project.
Together with this experience and in-house technical capabilities, the tools available today make it less difficult to compare technical and commercial results 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 reality of delivery.
Are supply chain constraints affecting UK utility-scale solar projects differently to other European markets?
Britain faces many of the same challenges as across Europe, but some factors may have a more pronounced impact here. Brexit has undoubtedly added complexity, especially when it comes to access to skilled labor and specialist technical resources, while the wider skills shortage remains something the sector must address collectively.
Competition within certain parts of the supply chain also remains an important issue, especially where project requirements, qualification criteria or delivery expectations naturally reduce competition. In some cases, the industry inadvertently creates its own constraints by reducing 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 detailed reporting and robust quality assurance, while also seeking faster delivery and competitive pricing.
Individually, these goals are completely achievable. The challenge comes when we expect them all at the same time, without accepting that this may impact cost, program, or both.
One of the discussions I’m looking forward to at the UK Solar Summit is about how we continue to raise standards while ensuring projects remain commercially viable and deliverable at the pace needed to achieve net zero ambitions.
What impact will these issues have on developers building to complex timescale requirements?
The biggest challenge for developers working on ambitious delivery programs is managing assurance in an increasingly constrained market.
In addition to all the supply chain considerations we 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 are also moving closer to construction.
That puts pressure across the entire supply ecosystem, from equipment manufacturers and logistics providers 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 previously mentioned, the sooner developers commit to procurement strategies, delivery partners and project programs, the greater the opportunity for contractors to secure production capacity, invest in resources and strengthen their supply chains. This ultimately reduces the risk for everyone involved.
As with any infrastructure project, risk rarely disappears due to delay. Time and time again, it simply becomes more difficult and expensive to manage later in the program.
Has this complexity always existed? If so, has this worsened under current circumstances?
Complexity has always existed in project execution, but the nature of that complexity has changed significantly.
Historically, challenges have often centered around engineering, construction timelines, and technical execution. Today, projects must meet a much broader range of requirements, including ESG compliance, supply chain transparency, more complex planning conditions, environmental constraints, stakeholder expectations and increasingly detailed procurement requirements.
At the same time, many projects are being developed in more challenging locations. Whether it be environmental or ecological sensitivities, archaeological impacts, access restrictions, flood risk considerations or complex grid connection requirements, there are often more factors to consider before construction even begins.
The sector 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, these expectations inevitably require additional time, resources and/or investments.
I often return to the classic project management triangle: time, costs and quality. Simply put, you can usually optimize two of the three, but rarely all three at the same time. Every project wants to be delivered quickly, at the lowest possible costs and to the highest possible standard. The reality is that trade-offs exist, and everyone involved in project delivery needs to recognize that, not just the EPCs and ICPs who are often expected to take on the risk.
The most successful projects are those where expectations, objectives and implementation strategies are aligned from the start. Once everyone understands the priorities, decision making becomes clearer and project results typically improve.
Ultimately, the challenge facing the industry today is not complexity itself. It ensures that expectations evolve at the same pace as the reality of delivering increasingly complex projects.
