What can investors do when energy storage capacity, grid connection or a storage-based power project is rejected or restricted in Turkey? A 2026 guide covering EMRA decisions, TEIAS connection opinions, preliminary licenses, objections, administrative lawsuits and compensation claims.

Turkey’s electricity storage market has expanded rapidly, but the rapid growth of battery projects has also created a new category of disputes: energy storage capacity allocation disputes.

For foreign investors, obtaining land, financing and battery technology is not enough. A storage-based wind or solar project ultimately depends on access to the electricity system and the regulatory approvals necessary to develop and operate the project.

This makes grid capacity one of the most valuable—and contested—elements of an energy storage investment in Turkey.

The scale of the issue is significant. By July 2026, Turkey had received 5,968 preliminary-license applications for storage-based electricity generation projects representing approximately 260 GW of proposed capacity. Around 33.3 GW of capacity had been allocated through the transmission-system process, while 568 active storage-based projects representing approximately 28.6 GW remained after projects that failed to satisfy their obligations were removed. (Anadolu Ajansı)

For investors whose projects are rejected, allocated less capacity than expected, lose previously allocated capacity or face an unfavorable grid-connection opinion, the key question becomes:

Can the capacity decision be challenged, and can the investor protect the project while the dispute continues?

The answer depends on which authority made the relevant decision, the legal nature of the decision and the stage reached by the project.

Why Energy Storage Capacity Creates Legal Disputes

Electricity-storage investments are heavily dependent on available transmission and distribution capacity.

Two commercially similar projects may therefore receive very different outcomes depending on their proposed connection points.

An investor may possess:

Suitable Land + Strong Wind or Solar Resource + Battery Technology + Financing

but still be unable to develop the project because sufficient grid capacity is unavailable.

For this reason, foreign investors should treat grid capacity as a regulatory asset requiring independent legal and technical due diligence.

Who Determines Grid Connection Capacity?

Several institutions can become relevant depending on the project.

EMRA is responsible for the licensing framework, while the transmission-system operator and relevant distribution companies participate in evaluating connection and system-use issues.

Under EMRA’s current licensing procedure, once a preliminary-license application reaches the relevant evaluation stage, an opinion concerning connection and system use is requested from the relevant transmission and/or distribution operator.

The network operator determines its connection-capacity opinion and communicates it through the regulatory process. (EPDK)

Therefore, a capacity dispute may involve more than one administrative or technical decision.

Identifying the exact contested act is the first step in developing a legal strategy.

What Is a Negative Connection Opinion?

A negative connection opinion can effectively prevent a proposed generation project from progressing.

EMRA’s current licensing guidance expressly provides that preliminary-license applications can be rejected where a positive opinion concerning connection to and use of the transmission or distribution system cannot be established under the applicable framework, unless the relevant alternative contemplated by the rules applies. (EPDK)

This means a connection decision is not merely a technical document with no legal consequences.

It can determine whether a multimillion-euro energy investment proceeds at all.

Investors Have a Short Period to React to Connection Opinions

Timing is particularly important.

Under the current licensing procedure, the connection and system-use opinion submitted to EMRA is communicated to the applicant.

The applicant then has 10 business days to either accept the opinion and submit the relevant commitment or submit its objections together with the reasons.

If the applicant does neither, it is deemed to have accepted and committed to the connection and system-use opinion. (EPDK)

For foreign investors, this creates an important procedural rule:

Do not wait until the preliminary-license application is finally rejected before examining an unfavorable connection opinion.

The first objection opportunity may arise much earlier.

What Can Be Challenged?

An energy-storage capacity dispute can arise from several different situations.

For example, an investor may challenge or seek legal review concerning:

Negative Connection Opinion

Capacity Reduction

Preliminary-License Rejection

Removal of Storage Capacity

Cancellation of Preliminary License

Refusal of License Amendment

Failure to Extend a Project Completion Period

Unequal Treatment of Competing Projects

Incorrect Technical Capacity Calculation

Incorrect Application of Regulatory Criteria

The appropriate remedy depends on the exact decision.

Storage Capacity Allocation and Preliminary Licenses

Storage-based generation projects typically require the investor to move through a preliminary-license process before obtaining the final generation license.

The preliminary-license stage is not merely procedural.

During this period, the project company must complete substantial development work, which can include obtaining land rights, zoning approvals, preliminary project approval and taking the required steps toward connection and system-use agreements. (EPDK)

Consequently, losing capacity after substantial development expenditure can cause major financial damage.

What If Capacity Is Allocated to Another Investor?

Competition for limited grid capacity can create disputes between applicants.

Where multiple wind or solar preliminary-license applications seek connection to the same connection point or region, the current licensing framework provides for a competition mechanism to determine which projects may connect within the announced capacity. (EPDK)

An unsuccessful investor should therefore determine whether:

the correct capacity was used,

the applicable selection procedure was followed,

all competing projects satisfied eligibility requirements,

technical criteria were applied consistently,

and the final decision complied with the governing rules.

A disappointed commercial expectation alone is not sufficient to overturn a regulatory decision.

The investor needs an identifiable legal, procedural or factual defect.

Incorrect Grid Capacity Calculation

Some disputes concern the technical basis of the capacity decision itself.

An investor may believe that the transmission infrastructure has greater capacity than the figure used in evaluating its application.

Such cases normally require close coordination between lawyers and electrical engineers.

The legal team may examine the administrative process while technical experts analyze:

Transformer Capacity → Substation Capacity → Transmission Constraints → Short-Circuit Limits → Congestion → Existing Allocations → Planned Network Investments → Connection Configuration.

A technically unsupported legal challenge is considerably weaker than one demonstrating exactly why the capacity calculation may be incorrect.

Capacity Reserved but Later Lost

An even more serious problem arises where the investor initially obtains a favorable regulatory position but subsequently loses the project or allocated capacity.

This can occur where the project company fails to satisfy regulatory obligations within the applicable period.

The consequences can be severe because investors may already have spent substantial amounts on:

land,

engineering,

environmental studies,

consultants,

financing,

equipment reservations,

and development personnel.

The July 2026 market figures demonstrate that this risk is real: projects were removed from the active storage-project pipeline after failing to complete applicable obligations, reducing active preliminary-licensed capacity below the amount initially allocated. (Anadolu Ajansı)

Failure to Meet Preliminary-License Obligations

A preliminary license gives the investor an opportunity to develop the project, but it also imposes deadlines.

EMRA’s licensing framework requires preliminary-license holders to complete specified development actions within the preliminary-license period. (EPDK)

Failure can place the project at risk.

Foreign investors should therefore maintain a regulatory deadline matrix showing:

Requirement → Responsible Party → Deadline → Application Date → Current Status → Evidence of Completion.

This can become crucial evidence if a later dispute arises.

Project Completion Period Disputes

Storage projects can also encounter disputes concerning project completion deadlines.

This became particularly visible in 2026.

A publicly disclosed case involving standalone electricity storage facilities showed that an investor’s application for extension of the facility completion period was rejected, resulting in removal of storage facilities from its supply license. The investor objected to the decision; after the objection was rejected in March 2026, it filed proceedings before the administrative courts. (Kap)

This provides an important practical example:

An adverse storage-related regulatory decision can progress from regulatory objection to judicial challenge.

Investors should therefore preserve their legal position from the first administrative stage.

Can an EMRA Decision Be Challenged?

Potentially yes.

EMRA decisions are administrative acts and may be subject to judicial review under Turkish administrative law where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.

The court does not simply reconsider whether another commercial outcome would have been preferable.

The legal challenge normally concerns whether the administrative act complies with the law.

Potential grounds can involve:

Authority → Form → Procedure → Legal Basis → Factual Basis → Purpose → Proportionality.

The exact grounds depend on the disputed decision.

Regulatory Objection Before Litigation

Where the applicable procedure provides an objection mechanism, the investor should use it carefully.

The objection should not consist merely of a statement that the investor disagrees with the decision.

A strong objection should identify:

the contested decision,

the relevant regulatory provisions,

the technical error,

the factual evidence,

the project’s existing rights,

and the precise remedy requested.

In connection-opinion cases, the 10-business-day response period makes early preparation particularly important. (EPDK)

Administrative Lawsuit

Where an adverse final administrative decision cannot be resolved through the regulatory process, the investor may consider an annulment action before the competent administrative court.

The purpose is to obtain judicial review of the legality of the administrative decision.

Depending on the dispute, the investor may argue that the decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable regulations, materially incorrect technical assumptions, procedural irregularities or another legally relevant defect.

The administrative file becomes central evidence.

Request for Suspension of Execution

A final judgment can take time.

For an energy project, waiting until the end of litigation can sometimes make the victory commercially meaningless.

Imagine that a disputed capacity decision prevents a project from moving forward while:

land options expire,

financing commitments terminate,

equipment prices increase,

or regulatory deadlines continue running.

The investor may therefore need to consider whether the conditions exist for seeking interim suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative act.

Such relief is not automatic.

The statutory requirements must be satisfied and the circumstances of the specific case must support the request.

Why Interim Protection Can Be Critical

Consider a storage-based solar project whose preliminary license is cancelled.

The project company files an administrative action.

If the cancellation continues producing all of its effects during years of litigation, the project may lose the practical ability to proceed even if the investor eventually succeeds.

Accordingly, the litigation strategy should address not only:

“Can we ultimately win?”

but also:

“How can the project be preserved until the court decides?”

This distinction is particularly important for infrastructure investments.

Can the Investor Claim Compensation?

Potentially, depending on the circumstances.

If an administrative decision is ultimately found unlawful and causes quantifiable loss, compensation issues may arise under Turkish administrative law.

However, compensation is not automatic merely because an investor disagrees with a capacity decision.

The investor generally needs to establish the relevant legal basis together with causation and actual loss.

Potential damages in a major storage project could involve:

Development Expenditure → Financing Costs → Land Costs → Contractor Claims → Equipment Cancellation Costs → Lost Project Value → Other Proven Losses.

The recoverability of each category requires separate analysis.

Evidence for a Capacity Allocation Lawsuit

Evidence should be preserved before the dispute becomes litigation.

Important documents can include:

Preliminary-License Application

Storage Application

Connection Application

Connection Opinion

Capacity Allocation Documents

EMRA Decisions

Correspondence With Network Operators

Technical Studies

Grid Analysis

Substation Information

Land Agreements

Environmental Documentation

Zoning Applications

Bank Guarantees

Financing Documents

EPC Documents

Battery Supply Agreements

Project Development Expenditure

A foreign investor should maintain a complete chronological regulatory file.

Technical Expert Reports

Energy-capacity litigation can involve highly technical questions.

An investor challenging a connection decision may need expert analysis explaining why the technical assumptions used in the decision are allegedly incorrect.

The strongest case may therefore require both:

Administrative-Law Analysis + Electrical-Engineering Analysis.

Lawyers should not attempt to substitute legal argument for technical evidence where the dispute fundamentally concerns grid capacity.

Equal Treatment of Investors

Another possible issue is inconsistent regulatory treatment.

Suppose two projects possess materially comparable technical characteristics but one receives capacity while another is rejected.

That does not automatically prove unlawful discrimination.

There may be legitimate technical differences.

However, the rejected investor should examine whether the applicable criteria were applied consistently and objectively.

If materially identical cases received different treatment without a legally sufficient reason, this can become relevant to judicial review.

Changes to Capacity After Application

Projects can also be affected by regulatory changes introduced after substantial development work has begun.

This raises difficult questions concerning legitimate expectations, acquired rights, transitional provisions and the temporal application of regulatory rules.

The investor should determine exactly what legal status had been obtained before the change.

There is an important difference between:

Submitting an Application

Receiving a Capacity Allocation

Obtaining a Preliminary License

Obtaining a Generation License

Completing Construction

The investor’s legal position generally becomes more developed as the project moves through these stages, but each dispute must be analyzed under the specific applicable rules.

Foreign Investors and Investment Treaty Protection

Major foreign investors may also consider whether an extreme regulatory measure raises issues under an applicable investment treaty.

This requires careful analysis.

An unfavorable capacity decision does not automatically constitute expropriation or a treaty violation.

However, where a qualifying foreign investment is affected by arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise treaty-inconsistent state conduct, international investment protection may become relevant.

The analysis should consider:

Investor Nationality → Corporate Structure → Applicable Treaty → Protected Investment → Government Measure → Domestic Remedies → Treaty Standards → Arbitration Clause.

Treaty analysis should be conducted before restructuring the investment after a dispute has already arisen.

Buying a Storage Project With Allocated Capacity

Foreign investors acquiring existing storage projects should treat the project’s capacity position as a central due diligence item.

The buyer should verify:

Who Received the Capacity?

For Which Project?

At Which Connection Point?

For How Many MW?

What Storage Capacity Is Required?

Has the Preliminary License Been Issued?

Have All Obligations Been Completed?

Are Any Deadlines Approaching?

Are There Pending Objections or Lawsuits?

A seller’s statement that the project “has 100 MW capacity” is not sufficient.

Capacity Allocation Does Not Equal a Completed Project

Investors should distinguish carefully between:

Capacity Allocation → Preliminary License → Development Rights → Generation License → Construction → Acceptance → Commercial Operation.

Each stage contains different risks.

A project with allocated capacity but substantial outstanding preliminary-license obligations should not be valued in the same way as an operating storage-based generation facility.

Due Diligence on Capacity Disputes

If the target company has previously challenged a regulatory decision, the buyer should obtain the complete dispute file.

This includes administrative objections, technical reports, petitions, court decisions and correspondence.

The buyer should also determine whether an adverse judgment could result in loss of the project’s capacity or preliminary license after closing.

That risk should be addressed in the SPA.

Seller Warranties

The acquisition agreement can contain specific representations concerning capacity.

Depending on the transaction, the seller may be asked to confirm that:

the disclosed capacity was validly allocated,

the project has complied with applicable obligations,

no undisclosed capacity challenge exists,

no cancellation proceeding is pending,

and all material regulatory correspondence has been disclosed.

Generic “all permits are valid” language may be insufficient for a high-value storage project.

Capacity Dispute as a Condition Precedent

Where a project is already involved in a material capacity dispute, the buyer may refuse to close until the issue is resolved.

For example:

Final Capacity Confirmation → Preliminary-License Continuation → Closing.

Alternatively, the transaction can use deferred consideration.

The buyer can pay part of the purchase price only after the disputed capacity becomes legally secure.

Example: Negative Connection Opinion

A foreign investor develops a storage-based solar project.

The application receives an unfavorable connection opinion because the relevant network capacity is considered insufficient.

The investor believes the technical assessment ignored a recently completed network reinforcement.

Because the current procedure gives the applicant 10 business days to object to the connection opinion, the investor should immediately prepare a combined technical and legal objection rather than waiting for the application to be rejected. (EPDK)

Example: Storage Capacity Removed After Missed Deadline

A storage project obtains an important regulatory position but fails to complete required obligations within the applicable timetable.

Capacity is subsequently removed.

The investor argues that circumstances outside its control prevented timely completion.

The legal team should examine the regulatory deadline, extension rules, force-majeure arguments, evidence of compliance attempts and reasoning underlying the administrative decision.

Example: Extension Application Rejected

A company seeks additional time to complete standalone storage facilities.

The regulator rejects the extension and removes the facilities from the relevant license.

The investor first objects and then commences administrative proceedings following rejection of that objection.

A publicly disclosed 2026 storage dispute confirms that this type of procedural route is already being used by investors in practice. (Kap)

Example: Foreign Buyer Acquires a Disputed Storage Project

A foreign infrastructure investor proposes acquiring a 200 MW storage-based wind project.

The seller claims that the capacity is fully secured.

Due diligence reveals an unresolved administrative challenge affecting 50 MW.

The buyer should value:

150 MW Undisputed Capacity

separately from:

50 MW Disputed Capacity.

The disputed portion can be addressed through deferred consideration, escrow, specific indemnities or a closing condition.

2026 Storage Market Context

The enormous difference between requested storage-based generation capacity and ultimately active preliminary-licensed capacity illustrates why capacity rights are commercially valuable.

By July 2026, approximately 260 GW of applications had been submitted, while around 33.3 GW had been allocated, and active preliminary-licensed projects represented approximately 28.6 GW after cancellations associated with unmet obligations. (Anadolu Ajansı)

Foreign investors entering the Turkish storage market should therefore treat capacity as a scarce regulatory resource rather than assuming that a technically feasible project will necessarily obtain grid access.

Major Red Flags in Storage Capacity Investments

Foreign investors should investigate carefully where there is no written capacity confirmation, an unfavorable connection opinion, disputed grid calculations, an approaching preliminary-license deadline, incomplete development obligations, a pending cancellation proceeding, an extension application awaiting determination, administrative litigation, capacity shared with another project, inconsistencies between MW figures in different documents or a seller valuing disputed capacity as fully secured capacity.

Any of these issues can materially affect investment value.

Energy Storage Capacity Dispute Strategy

When a capacity problem arises, the investor should act in the following sequence:

Identify Decision → Identify Decision-Maker → Calculate Deadline → Preserve Administrative File → Obtain Technical Analysis → File Regulatory Objection Where Available → Evaluate Interim Protection → File Administrative Proceedings Where Appropriate → Preserve Evidence of Loss → Protect Project Contracts and Land Rights.

Speed is critical.

In particular, the current connection-opinion procedure can require an investor to respond within only 10 business days. (EPDK)

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can an energy storage capacity decision be challenged in Turkey?

Potentially yes. The available remedy depends on the authority, nature of the decision and procedural stage of the project.

2. Can an investor object to a negative connection opinion?

Yes. Under the current licensing procedure, the applicant can submit a reasoned objection to the communicated connection and system-use opinion within 10 business days. (EPDK)

3. What happens if the investor does not object within that period?

Under EMRA’s published procedure, the applicant is deemed to have accepted and committed to the connection and system-use opinion if it does not respond as required. (EPDK)

4. Can a preliminary-license application be rejected because of insufficient grid capacity?

Yes. Lack of a favorable connection and system-use position can lead to rejection under the applicable licensing framework. (EPDK)

5. Can EMRA decisions concerning storage projects be challenged before administrative courts?

Potentially yes. A 2026 publicly disclosed storage case confirms that an investor filed administrative proceedings after its objection to an adverse EMRA decision concerning standalone storage facilities was rejected. (Kap)

6. Can an investor request suspension of an adverse decision?

Where the applicable statutory requirements are satisfied, interim judicial protection may be considered. Whether suspension is available depends on the particular administrative act and circumstances.

7. Can compensation be claimed for an unlawful capacity decision?

Potentially, but the investor must establish the applicable legal requirements, including the relevant unlawful administrative conduct, causation and recoverable loss.

8. Is a capacity allocation the same as a generation license?

No. Capacity allocation, preliminary licensing, final licensing, construction and acceptance represent different stages of project development.

9. What should a foreign investor check before buying a storage project?

The investor should independently verify the capacity allocation, connection point, preliminary license, storage obligations, regulatory deadlines, project-development status and any pending administrative disputes.

10. What is the most important step after receiving an unfavorable capacity decision?

Immediately identify the applicable procedural deadline. Waiting can cause the investor to lose an objection or litigation opportunity before the technical merits of the case are ever considered.

Legal Support for Energy Storage Capacity Disputes in Turkey

Energy storage capacity can represent a substantial part of the economic value of a Turkish renewable-energy project. Losing that capacity can therefore transform an otherwise viable wind, solar or BESS investment into a stranded development project.

Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign investors, international energy companies and renewable-energy developers with energy storage and regulatory disputes in Turkey. Firat Fesih Kaya can assist with capacity allocation disputes, connection-opinion objections, preliminary-license disputes, EMRA proceedings, administrative litigation, interim protection, energy-project acquisitions and regulatory due diligence.

For foreign investors facing an adverse decision, the critical approach is: identify the contested regulatory act immediately, preserve the deadline, combine legal arguments with technical grid evidence and protect the project while the dispute is pending.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile Phone: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya / Ankara, Turkey