From Yellow Pages to Digital ID: the Future of Screening

How is MHHS impacting the energy workforce?

For several years, industry planning has included the Market-wide Half-Hourly Settlement (MHHS) as part of the larger UK energy market reform. The deadline for May 2027 remains in place, and with central systems achieving readiness in 2025, meters are now being integrated into the new settlement model. To continue operating under the current settlement arrangements, organisations are currently figuring out how to integrate their current platforms into the MHHS infrastructure. Jump to: MHHS reaches far beyond settlement Where programmes are feeling the strain How hiring conversations are evolving Broadening where capability comes from Preparing for MHHS workforce demand MHHS reaches far beyond settlement The majority of the definitions surrounding MHHS emphasise the transition from estimated usage to precise, half-hourly readings. That description merely reflects the result. The underlying shift is how this change in settlement is supported. Electricity consumption is measured every 30 minutes based on actual data, not on profiles or estimates. Systems designed for periodic updates now need to handle continuous streams of information, with far less tolerance for delay or discrepancies. Data flows between organisations and needs to stay consistent at every stage to prevent errors in settlement. This is where energy system integration becomes essential. As information no longer sits within a single platform or team, effective coordination is required across independently managed systems, each presenting unique constraints around data formats, settlement timings, and the validation processes prior to submission. The act of consumption itself evolves into a more dynamic experience. Metrics like average household electricity consumption or average UK home electricity consumption are no longer fixed reference points. Data collected every half hour reveals how usage varies throughout the day, directly influencing forecasting models and operative decisions. Where programmes are feeling the strain MHHS programme teams are scaling while still working through the intricacies that only emerge as systems begin interacting. Dependencies between internal platforms and central MHHS infrastructure are becoming clearer during testing, where data needs to be exchanged, validated, and accepted within defined time windows. Data handling stands out as a significant pressure point. Half-hourly settlement depends on precise, high-frequency data streams, which existing systems are not always designed to support. In many cases, such pressure leads to projects for reworking parts of the architecture instead of simply building upon existing infrastructure. Especially relevant where data infrastructure and quality have been identified as potential risks within the transition to MHHS. The settlement and billing processes still need to function smoothly, even as new strategics are introduced and tested alongside them. This means operational teams are working within both models at once, adding to the existing workload for processes that already depend on a small pool of specialists. How hiring conversations are evolving With the rise in delivery activity, demand for specific skillsets is becoming easier to pinpoint. There has been a noticeable uptick in hiring for programme leadership, data engineering, and settlement expertise. Roles focused on data governance and system integrations are also gaining traction as organisations move further into managing migrations and various phases. How those roles are defined is starting to influence how quickly they can be filled. Some roles heavily rely on hiring criteria based on prior experience in the energy market, which can unexpectedly limit the candidate pool. As a result, roles frequently stay open for extended periods or fill at a slower pace than programme timelines permit. This places additional pressure on existing teams and slows progress in areas where specialist expertise is already stretched Many of the required capabilities are not exclusive to the energy sector, although they are frequently presented that way during hiring processes. Some organisations are already adjusting how they approach these challenges. Rather than focusing only on direct sector experience, they are bringing in people who have delivered comparable programmes in other environments. Broadening where expertise comes from Financial services platforms handle high volumes of transactional data, making accuracy, reconciliation, and auditability essential. Telecoms programmes oversee infrastructure transformation throughout distributed networks, often coordinating system upgrades while minimising interruptions to live services. In large technology environments, integration teams routinely connect platforms with different data structures, handling mismatches in format, latency and validation rules. These examples align closely to the types of challenges encountered in MHHS delivery: Data engineers who have honed their skills with high-volume transactional systems can apply that expertise to half-hourly data flows. Data governance specialists bring experience in managing data quality and resolving validation exceptions where information does not meet required standards. Programme managers who are used to coordinating complex infrastructure or digital programmes are well-versed in managing dependencies across multiple teams and timelines. Integration specialists often move between sectors, applying their expertise to connect systems that were not originally intended to work together. Transitioning into the energy sector still requires onboarding and familiarity with the operating environment. However, they allow organisations to access capabilities that would otherwise fall outside conventional hiring standards without causing additional delivery delays. There is also increasing interest in structured development routes. Training programmes are being used to build skills in areas experiencing increased demand during phases like testing and migration and the transition into live systems. Preparing for MHHS workforce demand Workforce planning needs to adapt and evolve with the MHHS programme rather than sit alongside it. Each phase presents its own unique set of requirements. Mapping these changes in advance helps reduce reliance on reactive hiring, especially in areas where onboarding takes time. This also allows for different ways of structuring delivery. Some roles are better suited to permanent teams. Others can be delivered through specialist contractors or outcome-based models depending on the nature of the work. Align workforce planning to delivery phases MHHS delivery doesn’t place consistent pressure on the same roles throughout. Workforce demand shifts as programmes move forward, and planning needs to reflect that progression rather than treating hiring as a single, static requirement. In the early stages, work tends to centre around architecture and settlement design. Solution architects define how systems will connect and business analysts translate regulatory requirements into process and system changes. Settlement specialists are also closely involved here, reworking existing processes and identifying where adjustments are needed. As programmes move to system integration testing (SIT), demand shifts. The emphasis moves from design to validation, with data engineers and integration specialists becoming more central as data moves between systems and needs to hold up under settlement conditions. Bringing these systems together safely requires the expertise of both the test managers and environment leads to ensure seamless coordination. The later stages bring different pressures. The rise in migration activity drives a greater need for professionals skilled in data alignment and reconciliation to make sure records match across systems. Operational teams tasked with billing and settlement processes are gearing up to implement innovative strategies while maintaining existing processes. Some roles require continuity where knowledge of settlement processes needs to be retained. Others are more concentrated within specific phases. By structuring workforce delivery around these stages, organisations can bring in support where needed, without the need to expand teams across the entire programme. Delays tend to surface once systems interact at scale Successful integration hinges on coordination across teams working within defined settlement timelines. Delays in one area can quickly affect others. Migration then adds further pressure. Transferring meters and associated data into the new model demands both continuity and accuracy. When additional support is not in place early enough, existing teams absorb the extra workload, which can hinder progress and raise the chances of errors in settlement outputs. MHHS delivery depends on how teams are built MHHS sits within a wider energy market reform, with multiple organisations in the sector progressing through delivery at the same time and often drawing on the same types of experience. The overlap is already influencing the speed of team construction and the onset of progress slowdowns. Identifying these overlaps earlier allows organisations to bring in the right experience before timelines are affected. Once programs reach the integration or migration stages, there is less flexibility to resolve gaps without slowing delivery. This is why workforce delivery is starting to shift. Delivery is less about the technology itself and more about the teams having the right capacity and expertise in place to carry programmes through. Broadening the methods of talent assessment and exploring new avenues for sourcing talent, including bringing in transferable skills from adjacent sectors, can enhance MHHS delivery. The organisations that move with more certainty here tend to be the ones that have built teams to be able to handle the complexity and scale of the change required.

Why nuclear education isn’t translating into job-ready talent

The UK government’s recent overhaul of the nuclear system has moved focus toward faster build timelines and lower costs, with regulatory changes designed to remove delays that have historically slowed projects down. In parallel, the Nuclear Skills Plan increasing investment in nuclear education, particularly at postgraduate level, with the aim of strengthening the long-term talent pipeline needed to support this acceleration. This points to an assumption that if more people are trained, the workforce challenge will ease. But conversations across the nuclear industry suggest something more complex. Talent exists and interest in nuclear careers is growing, but there is a disconnect between how talent is developed and how the industry actually operates. As well as narrowed perceptions of the nuclear industry causing potential candidates to rule themselves out long before they’ve ever replied. The nuclear skills gap starts at entry level The nuclear sector continues to face a well-documented skills shortage and ageing workforce, increasing pressure on how new talent is developed. While universities produce strong academic foundations, particularly in engineering and physics, graduates are entering nuclear careers with a gap in exposure to the environments they are expected to work in. Nuclear is highly regulated and dependent on site-specific or procedural knowledge. New entrants need time to their translate academic knowledge into real-world capability and operational readiness in these safety-critical environments. That gap reflects the nature of the industry itself. As Rani Franovich, VP of Regulatory Strategy at Deep Fission noted during our conversation, much of that understanding is built through hands-on experience alongside operators, technicians, and safety teams on site. Nuclear careers are wider than STEM alone Access to nuclear careers is narrower in perception than it is in reality. The way nuclear careers are positioned still leans heavily on nuclear engineering pathways or specialised scientific roles. Whereas Nuclear projects operate as large-scale infrastructure programmes. As Rani Franovich, noted, “It takes a village to operate a nuclear power plant.” That village includes: Construction and skilled trade workers Regulators and policy specialists Project delivery teams Safety and compliance professionals Commercial and support functions When careers are framed too narrowly, large sections of the workforce never see themselves in the industry at all. Many potential candidates are ruling themselves out long before they ever apply. Making the talent shortage just as much an awareness gap as it is a skills gap. Interest in nuclear industry jobs isn’t translating into applications For many, nuclear still feels like a closed field. Highly technical, highly specialised, and only accessible through very specific academic routes. If someone doesn’t see a direct match between their background and that perception, they tend to rule themselves out without exploring further. That decision is often made before roles are fully understood and transferable skills are even considered. As Miguel Trenkel-Lopez put it, this isn’t a pure skills shortage. It’s a communication and awareness gap between what the industry needs and how those opportunities are understood. People with relevant experience in construction, infrastructure, project delivery, or other regulated environments don’t always recognise that their skills apply. At the same time, employers continue to look for candidates who already understand nuclear, reinforcing the idea that prior industry experience is a requirement rather than something that can be developed. The result is a mismatch on both sides. Talent exists and workforce demand exists. But they are not connecting early enough in the process. Nuclear capability is built through experience Nuclear capability isn’t something people arrive with fully formed. As Rani noted earlier, it’s developed over time through doing the job and gaining exposure to the operating environments. Jenifer Avellaneda’s path into nuclear reflects that. Her degree was in sustainable development engineering, not nuclear engineering. Her early exposure came through policy work at the International Atomic Energy Agency, followed by a transition into a technical role in probabilistic risk assessment. As Jenifer puts it, “you don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to come and work within the industry… We’re a super team here. Everybody’s welcome.” She describes a process of continuous learning, supported by mentors and hands-on experience. That pattern holds across roles. Supervised operations with simulation-based exercises and emergency drills as well as exposure to real systems build the level of judgement required in nuclear environments. The main obstacle into building this capability is creating clearer, more accessible entry points that reflect how the industry actually develops talent. That includes early careers routes with structured training in operating environments and lateral entry from adjacent sectors through structured reskilling and deployment models. If hiring continues to focus primarily on those already within the sector, the nuclear industry risks overlooking talent that is already capable, just not yet positioned within it. Nuclear career pathways are non-linear by design Once people enter nuclear, movement across roles, organisations and even sectors is common. Careers don’t follow a fixed path. They evolve through exposure and experience as opportunities show up across the nuclear programmes. That flexibility is built into the industry itself. As Rod Baltzer, Chief Executive Officer at Deep Isolation highlights, many of the skills required in nuclear already exist in adjacent sectors. Areas like oil and gas, construction, infrastructure, defence and other regulated environments all develop capabilities that translate directly into nuclear settings, from drilling and site operations to project delivery and technical oversight. This cross-sector movement is how the industry builds capability at scale. What can feel like a fragmented or unclear entry point is how the workforce is developed. The challenge is that hiring often doesn’t reflect that. Roles are still scoped around prior nuclear experience, even when the capability needed could be developed on the job. A large portion of viable talent remains outside the sector. Oversimplifying energy systems is distorting the nuclear industry narrative The way energy is taught has a direct impact on how nuclear is perceived. In many cases, education reduces energy systems to a simple classification: renewable or non-renewable. That framework is easy to teach. It is also misleading. Miguel Trenkel-Lopez highlights how this binary is introduced early, shaping how young people think about energy before they understand the system as a whole. Nuclear energy in particular is frequently misrepresented when it is grouped too simply into “non-renewable” alongside fossil fuels in the same category. Without acknowledging, lifecycle emissions, fuel efficiency, waste management, and its role in decarbonisation. It is interconnected, shaped by geography, infrastructure, policy, and demand. Renewable doesn’t always mean sustainable The term “renewable energy” is often treated as automatically “sustainable”, but the two are not the same. Miguel points to examples where renewable energy can become unsustainable, depending on how it is delivered: “Renewable isn’t the same as sustainable biomass, for example, becomes unsustainable if forests aren’t replanted, and even solar can fall short if its materials or labour practices are harmful. True sustainability goes beyond labels; it’s about long-term environmental impact, resource use, and people and the wider supply chains.” When considering whether an energy source is sustainability depends on a broader set of factors including: Long-term environmental impact Resource extraction and supply chains Land use and ecosystem balance Labour practices and social responsibility This wider picture is rarely reflected in early education. The result is a generation entering the workforce with a simplified view of energy, and nuclear positioned incorrectly within it. Why careers in nuclear need reframing The assumption that more education will solve the workforce challenge is understandable. It’s just not enough on its own. Across the industry, there is no single point of failure. What shows up instead is a gap between how people are developed, how roles are described, how hiring decisions are made, and the experience people need to be job-ready from day one. Capability in nuclear builds over time. It comes from exposure to real systems, and learning alongside experienced teams on site. Yet many entry points are still positioned as if that experience needs to exist before someone even gets through the door. This all continues to present nuclear careers as to narrow who sees it as an option. People with relevant backgrounds in construction, commercial, supply chain, infrastructure, or other regulated environments often don’t recognise their place in the sector. The work isn’t out of reach. It just needs to be described in a way that connects to what they already do. Shifting that starts with how roles are framed and how entry routes are designed. More clarity around where someone fits. More openness to adjacent experience. Better visibility of the types of roles that exist across nuclear programmes. A closer reflection of how capability is actually built once people are inside the industry. The talent is already there. It just isn’t finding its way in. Hot off the Grid Rullion’s Hot off the Grid series brings these perspectives from in-depth discussions with professionals working across the nuclear industry. From regulation and operations to education and early careers, the same themes continue to surface. You can explore these in more detail through our YouTube series.