Winning a clean maritime grant is not the end of the funding question. In most cases, it is where the harder part starts.
That is what ZEVI makes clear. The UK is no longer talking about maritime decarbonisation as a distant policy aim. It is putting money into vessels, charging systems, shore power, bunkering and real operating demonstrations. For operators, ports and technology suppliers, that changes the finance problem. The issue is no longer just how to win a competition. It is how to fund the work that sits before, around and after it.
For businesses in the UK clean maritime sector, that usually means thinking about grants and R&D tax relief together. That is where specialist support can make a difference. In clean maritime, businesses are often managing grant-backed demonstrators, port or infrastructure partners, and privately funded technical work at the same time. Firms such as FI Group by EPSA help connect those strands, combining grants roadmapping, in-year R&D tax support, pre-submission reviews and, where relevant, international coordination across more than 20 countries. For finance leaders, that usually means a clearer view of timing, evidence requirements and funding options as projects move from development into deployment.
ZEVI is built for deployment, not lab-stage research
ZEVI is not a concept-stage programme. It is aimed at projects that are already well advanced and now need to prove they can work in service.
That is a material distinction. Early-stage R&D funding often backs technical feasibility. ZEVI is aimed much closer to the point where technical questions meet operational reality. That means vessel-side technology has to work alongside shoreside infrastructure, and consortia have to think about supply, demand, delivery, reporting and operating risk at the same time.
The structure of ZEVI makes that plain. The first round supported build and set-up through to March 2025, with demonstration costs then running on into March 2028. ZEVI2 is larger again, with up to £150 million available for projects that can develop, deploy and operate clean maritime solutions in a real-world environment over a three-year period. The programme spans electric vessels and shore power, alternative fuels and associated infrastructure, and vessel energy efficiency. It also expects projects to be ready for demonstration by the end of 2029, then operate without further grant support through to the end of 2032.
That is not abstract innovation funding. It is deployment funding.
Grants and R&D tax relief do different jobs
A lot of confusion starts when both are treated as versions of the same thing. They are not.
Grants are forward-looking. They help pay for work that needs to be built, trialled or demonstrated. In a sector like maritime, that often includes equipment, infrastructure, partner activity and the cost of getting a project into a live environment.
R&D tax relief works differently. It supports qualifying technical work after the spend has already happened and been recorded. It is tied to the activity carried out, the uncertainty being addressed and the eligible costs sitting behind that work.
That difference matters in clean maritime because these projects are capital-heavy, slow-moving and operationally messy. A port electrification programme, for example, may have grant-backed deployment activity sitting alongside software work, integration work, control systems engineering, testing, redesign and technical problem-solving that is funded separately. Treating the whole programme as one grant question is where businesses often start to lose ground.
The old answer on subsidised projects is no longer enough
This is where plenty of finance teams are still working off old assumptions.
Under the previous SME R&D scheme, subsidised expenditure created obvious problems. Businesses got used to hearing a simple message: if the project received a grant, the tax position became difficult or unattractive.
That history still shapes decisions today. But the current rules need a more careful reading than that.
For accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2024, the UK moved to the merged R&D expenditure credit scheme and Enhanced R&D Intensive Support. Under that reformed structure, the old SME subsidised expenditure restriction was not carried across in the same way. That means the presence of a grant does not automatically kill the wider R&D tax story.
That does not mean businesses can be casual. It does not mean the same cost can simply be used twice without thought. It does mean the old blanket answer is out of date. Maritime companies now need to look at the actual workstreams, how costs have been allocated, who bore the technical risk, and what evidence exists to support the claim.
For firms running grant-backed demonstrators alongside privately funded development, that is a meaningful shift.
ZEVI winners show how the market is actually moving
The most useful thing about ZEVI is that it shows what the sector looks like when funding gets close to real deployment.
Bibby Marine’s ZEVI-backed electric service operation vessel is one example. It brings together a vessel operator, a port, technical partners and assurance capability in one programme. That is not just a boat project. It is an operating model, an infrastructure question and a commercial test.
Port of Aberdeen’s shore power work makes the same point from the other end. Ports may lead the asset investment, but the outcome still depends on vessel compatibility, berthing patterns and a commercial case that works beyond the grant window.
The ZENOW project from RS Electric Boats points to a different part of the market again: networked workboats supported by charging infrastructure and repeatable operating data, rather than a single isolated demonstrator.
Then there is the alternative fuels strand. SEA-KIT’s hydrogen vessel and refuelling infrastructure, and Cummins’ methanol retrofit work, both show that ZEVI is not just about electrification. It is a route into real operational learning on fuel production, storage, bunkering, retrofit and vessel integration.
Artemis Technologies is also worth watching. It has been backed through UK SHORE, but it has also attracted private finance as it moves further towards production. That is probably the more realistic path for much of the sector. Public funding may get the technology into a meaningful trial or demonstrator. It rarely funds the whole commercial journey.
Where clean maritime businesses still get this wrong
The biggest mistakes are usually organisational.
- They treat the grant as the strategy. The team wins funding, works to the grant timetable, and only later realises that the commercial runway, technical evidence and post-grant spend were never properly mapped.
- They track spend too broadly. Once costs are dumped into one project code, it becomes much harder to separate grant-funded activity, privately funded technical work and later commercial delivery.
- They keep using old tax logic. Some teams still assume a grant makes the R&D tax claim too risky to pursue. Others swing too far the other way and assume the whole programme qualifies. Neither approach is robust.
- They leave evidence too late. By the time the tax return is being prepared, the engineering team has moved on and nobody wants to reconstruct what uncertainty existed, what changed, who did what, and why the work qualified.
In maritime, those problems get worse because projects are rarely owned by one function. Finance, engineering, delivery teams, operators, ports and external partners often all hold different parts of the picture.
What a joined-up funding plan looks like
The businesses that handle this well usually do four things from the start.
- They split the programme into real workstreams. One for the grant-backed demonstrator, one for the wider technical roadmap, and one for the commercial roll-out that follows.
- They code costs properly. Not perfectly, but well enough to distinguish funded build activity from separately funded technical development.
- They capture technical evidence while work is live. Test plans, failures, redesigns, engineering decisions and uncertainty logs should not be reconstructed at year end if they can be recorded during delivery.
- They give ownership to both finance and engineering. The tax story cannot sit with finance alone, and the engineers should not be left guessing how HMRC expects the work to be described.
That is the point most discussions on “non-dilutive funding” miss. This is not really about stacking pots of money. It is about building a finance model that matches how maritime decarbonisation projects actually get delivered.
The sector is moving into a more demanding phase
UK SHORE, ZEVI and CMDC now form a visible pipeline rather than a one-off set of competitions. That changes the commercial reality for the sector.
Maritime decarbonisation is not moving on a software timeline. It is infrastructure-heavy, consortium-led and expensive to test properly. Projects often need years of technical and operational learning before they look routine enough for wider roll-out. Public funding can move some of that work forward. It cannot remove the need for a proper finance plan.
That is why the strongest businesses in this market will probably not be the ones that are best at filling in grant applications. They will be the ones that can link grant funding, technical delivery, evidence capture and tax treatment into one coherent plan.
Where FI Group by EPSA fits
For businesses trying to line up grants and R&D tax relief across the same programme, FI Group by EPSA works on innovation incentives through a joined-up governance approach, helping companies separate funded and unfunded work, reduce internal burden, and build cleaner evidence trails across delivery and finance teams.
FAQs
Is ZEVI basically an R&D grant?
Not in the usual sense. ZEVI is much closer to deployment than early-stage research. It is aimed at technologies and infrastructure that need to work in a real operating environment.
Can a company still claim R&D tax relief if part of the project received a grant?
Potentially, yes. The old SME subsidised expenditure rules shaped a lot of market thinking, but the merged scheme changed the position. The right answer now depends on the work done, the cost treatment and the evidence behind it.
Why is this particularly difficult in maritime?
Because the projects are capital-intensive, long-cycle and multi-party. A single programme may involve operators, ports, infrastructure owners, technology suppliers and outside engineering firms, all working to different constraints.
What should finance teams be tracking from day one?
At a minimum: grant-funded scope, match funding, separate technical workstreams, decision points, test activity, failures, redesigns and who bore the risk of the R&D activity being carried out.
Does every engineering change after a demonstrator qualify for R&D tax relief?
No. Some post-demo work will still involve genuine technical uncertainty. Some of it will just be commercial roll-out or implementation. The distinction needs to be made carefully and supported with evidence.
Official sources
- Maritime Decarbonisation Strategy
- Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure competition
- Zero Emission Vessels and Infrastructure competition winners
- ZEVI2: Electric Power competition listing
- Clean Maritime Demonstration Competition Round 4 announcement
- CMDC7: Deployment Trials competition listing
- HMRC guidance on the merged R&D scheme and ERIS
- HMRC manual material on subsidised expenditure and current claim requirements
- HMRC guidance on additional information forms and claim notification