CfD Allocation Round 7 Tier 2 Dispute Determinations – Key Trends and Takeaways

Introduction

Ofgem published its Allocation Round 7 ("AR7") Tier 2 dispute determinations on 16 December 2025, with one further determination following on 23 January 2026. The determinations concerned over 30 CfD units across a range of technology types, including solar, onshore wind, offshore tidal stream and wave energy projects. Of these, the vast majority saw the Authority uphold the Delivery Body's non-qualification determination. Only three appeals were successful, with the Authority overturning the Delivery Body's decision in respect of Rhigos Solar Limited, Harmony OM Limited (Old Malton Solar Farm) and Mor Energy Limited. 

The determinations reveal a number of recurring themes that are of practical importance to developers preparing applications for future allocation rounds. We summarise the key trends below, together with commentary on several noteworthy individual determinations.

Background

The Electricity Market Reform Delivery Body is responsible for assessing prequalification applications for the Contracts for Difference scheme and issuing decisions. Where an applicant disagrees with a Delivery Body decision, it may request a review by the Delivery Body (a Tier 1 dispute). Following a Tier 1 review, the applicant may ask Ofgem to consider the decision and make a determination (a Tier 2 dispute). In considering a Tier 2 dispute, Ofgem reviews whether the Delivery Body correctly applied the Contracts for Difference Regulations and the Contracts for Difference Allocation Framework when making its decision, based on the evidence that was available at the time.

The strict evidential gateway: Regulation 20(2)(c) and the prohibition on new evidence

The single most prominent theme across the AR7 determinations is the Authority's consistent and rigorous enforcement of Regulation 20(2)(c) of the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014 (the "Allocation Regulations"), which prohibits the introduction of any documentary evidence at the Tier 1 review stage that was not provided with the original application. In a significant number of appeals, applicants had obtained the relevant evidence (for example, a VAT group membership confirmation from HMRC, a signed connection agreement, or a letter from the planning authority acknowledging commencement of works) after the application closing date and attempted to submit it at the review stage. The Authority consistently held that Regulation 20(2)(c) prevented the Delivery Body from considering such evidence and that the review process is not a mechanism for applicants to correct material omissions in their original applications. 

The determination in respect of Pines Burn Wind Farm LLP is illustrative: the Delivery Body itself accepted that the evidence submitted at review stage "would have been sufficient to meet the requirements for Schedule 5", but confirmed that it could not be accepted as new documentary evidence prohibited under Regulation 20(2)(c). The Authority agreed, reinforcing the principle that applicants bear the onus of providing all required evidence at the point of application. 

VAT group registration: a persistent pitfall

A notable cluster of appeals concerned the failure to provide adequate evidence of VAT registration by applicants that were members of VAT groups. The issue typically arose where the applicant submitted a VAT certificate in the name of the representative member of the VAT group (rather than the applicant itself), without providing additional documentation to evidence the applicant's membership of that group. 

Several applicants raised substantially identical grounds of appeal, arguing that the Delivery Body's approach was discriminatory against VAT group members and citing the Authority's AR6 decisions in Damsongreen Energyfarm Limited and Park Hill Extension Limited as precedent. However, the Authority distinguished those earlier cases, noting that the AR7 Contract Allocation Framework had been updated since AR6 to address the practical difficulties with group VAT certificates by requiring the applicant company's name to appear on the certificate. The Authority also noted that the Delivery Body's published Guidance for AR7 specifically directed applicants to request a revised group VAT certificate from HMRC if their name did not appear on the existing certificate.

The Gam Capital Limited determination (GM Preston Solar) raised a different variant of the VAT issue: the applicant submitted a VAT certificate in the name of a different company entirely (GM Preston Solar Limited), which did not match the applicant's name (Gam Capital Limited). The correct certificate was only obtained after the application closing date and submitted at review stage. The Windy Standard 1 Repower Limited determination similarly involved a VAT group registration issue, compounded by the fact that the HMRC confirmation letter was only issued after the application had been submitted. 

The lesson for developers is clear: where an applicant is part of a VAT group, it must ensure that the VAT certificate provided with its application names the applicant specifically as a group member, or alternatively request a revised certificate from HMRC well in advance of the application deadline.

Connection agreement issues: form, content and timing

Connection agreement deficiencies were another major category of non-qualification across the AR7 determinations, manifesting in several distinct ways.

Unsigned or incomplete connection agreements. A number of applicants submitted unsigned connection offers, variation letters, supplemental agreements or deeds of novation rather than a signed or countersigned connection agreement as defined by Regulation 25(6). The Authority repeatedly confirmed that a "connection agreement" within the meaning of Regulation 25(6) means "an agreement (including a countersigned offer) to connect to… the national transmission system… or the distribution system, entered into by the operator of the relevant system". Unsigned offers, variation letters that do not stand as freestanding agreements, and deeds of novation referencing (but not containing) a bilateral connection agreement were all held to be insufficient. 

The Wickham Hall Solar Battery Limited determination is noteworthy in this respect. The applicant submitted a variation letter from UK Power Networks as its connection agreement, arguing that it "rationalised" earlier historic connection offers into a single updated document. The Authority held that the variation letter alone did not constitute a connection agreement as defined by Regulation 25(6) and that the full connection agreement was not before the Delivery Body. 

Target Commissioning Date and connection date misalignment. Schedule 5 of the Contract Allocation Framework requires that the Target Commissioning Date specified in an application appears on or after the connection date specified in the connection agreement. Several applicants fell foul of this requirement where the connection date in their agreement post-dated the Target Commissioning Date they had entered in their application.

The Uisenis Wind Farm determination raised an interesting interpretive question about what constitutes the "connection date" where a connection agreement specifies multiple milestone dates. The applicant argued that an earlier completion date for certain preparatory user works (1 September 2028) should be used instead of the final completion date (31 December 2030). The Authority rejected this, finding that the earlier works were "primarily priming the site for future construction work" and that the CfD unit would not at that point be able to connect to a transmission or distribution system. 

The impact of NESO's Gate 2 process. The determinations for Craigluscar Solar and Windy Standard 1 Repower highlighted the practical difficulties caused by the timing of NESO's Gate 2 to Whole Queue (G2TWQ) connections reform process. Both applicants found themselves in a position where their connection agreements reflected transitional or provisional dates pending completion of the Gate 2 process, which had not concluded before the CfD application deadline. The Authority was sympathetic to the difficulty but held that it could not look beyond the contractually agreed position and that the requirements of the Allocation Regulations and Allocation Framework must be applied as they stand. 

Planning consents: the new requirement for evidence of commencement

AR7 introduced a new requirement in Schedule 5 of the Allocation Framework requiring applicants whose planning consents had passed their expiration date to provide evidence that the issuing authority had either granted an extension or acknowledged that work had commenced. This change was communicated via the AR7 Launch Event and the Delivery Body's AR7 Changes Overview Guidance. 

A significant number of applicants were caught out by this new requirement. A number of determinations all turned on the failure to provide evidence from the issuing authority acknowledging that works had commenced under an expired planning consent. 

Several applicants argued that it was not common practice for local planning authorities to provide such acknowledgement letters and that there had been insufficient time between the new requirement becoming known and the application deadline. However, the Authority consistently held that the onus is on applicants to provide the required evidence in the form specified and that the requirements were clearly communicated. 

Geographic coordinates: contrasting outcomes

Issues with geographic coordinates featured in several determinations, with notably contrasting outcomes depending on the specific circumstances.

In Rhigos Solar, the Authority overturned the Delivery Body's decision, finding that the applicant had provided sufficient information — including coordinates and a map — for the Delivery Body to identify the CfD unit's location and complete the Schedule 5 checks. The Authority held that the Delivery Body should have been able to verify the site location from the information before it.

Similarly, in Harmony OM Limited (Old Malton Solar Farm), the Authority overturned the non-qualification determination where the applicant had corrected an inversion of coordinates through the review process. The Authority found that the corrected information provided in the review notice was sufficient for the Delivery Body to verify the site coordinates and that the Delivery Body had the required information to make a determination. 

By contrast, in Sirius Ecodev (Tealing), the non-qualification was upheld where a Section 36 Consent submitted with the application did not match the extreme boundaries provided in the application and on the map. The Authority held that this was not a clerical error capable of correction and that the Regulations do not provide a mechanism for applicants to change the details of their application at the review stage. 

The MeyGen PLC determination involved a particularly complex coordinate issue across three CfD units relating to a tidal energy project. The applicant acknowledged that a clerical error had occurred in the portal entry for the westerly coordinate, but the attempted correction at review stage itself contained a further discrepancy (referencing -3.134 rather than the -3.143 shown on the map). The Authority found that the ambiguity had not been resolved and upheld the non-qualification. 

Noteworthy individual determinations

The Oaklands Farm Solar Limited determination raised a point specific to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, where the applicable planning consent takes the form of a Development Consent Order ("DCO") rather than a standard planning permission. The applicant had failed to provide a copy of the DCO itself with its application, instead submitting only the decision letter. The Authority upheld the non-qualification, finding that the DCO is a distinct document from the decision letter and that its provision was required for the Delivery Body to carry out the full range of Schedule 5 checks. 

The Worcestershire Solar 1 Limited appeal raised the question of whether a deed of novation, which transferred the rights under a bilateral connection agreement from one party to the applicant, could satisfy the connection agreement requirements. The Authority held that reference to the existence of a connection agreement in a separate deed was insufficient; the applicant was required to provide the underlying connection agreement itself. The applicant also raised novel procedural points, including that the AR7 Review Guidance was issued after applications had closed and that unexpected character limits in the Delivery Body's review portal had restricted its ability to present arguments. The Authority held that neither of these matters affected the underlying requirements of the Regulations and Contract Allocation Framework. 

The Mor Energy Limited determination concerned an application for a tidal stream project at the Morlais site off the coast of Anglesey. The appeal raised questions about the sufficiency of leasing documentation where the applicant was not itself a party to the Crown Estate headlease but operated under a sub-leasing arrangement through a berth allocation. The Authority overturned the non-qualification, finding that the explanatory letter provided by the applicant — together with the headlease and assignment documentation — was sufficient to satisfy Regulation 27(2) and the relevant Schedule 5 checks. Notably, the Authority sought clarifications from both the Delivery Body and DESNZ, and confirmed that the Allocation Framework had been specifically updated for AR7 to accommodate applicants operating subject to offshore sub-leasing arrangements. The determination is a welcome clarification for developers operating in tidal and other offshore sectors where complex Crown Estate leasing structures can exist.

The MeyGen determination is notable both for its scale, covering three CfD units in a single determination and for its treatment of the new planning consent commencement requirement in the context of Scottish planning law. The applicant argued that a formal letter from the planning authority was not required under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and that the statutory Notifications of Initiation of Development it had submitted should be treated as evidence of acknowledgement. The Authority disagreed, holding that the notices of initiation stated the applicant's intention to commence development rather than constituting confirmation from the issuing authority that work had commenced. The Authority also rejected the argument that the Delivery Body's approach in AR7 was inconsistent with previous rounds, noting that the commencement evidence requirement was a new addition for AR7. 

Practical implications for future allocation rounds

The AR7 determinations reinforce several practical points for developers preparing CfD applications for the upcoming Allocation Round 8

• The application itself is the determinative moment. The Delivery Body and the Authority will assess qualification based solely on the evidence provided with the original application. The review and appeal processes are not opportunities to cure material deficiencies or submit evidence that was not available at the application stage. 
• Developers should engage proactively with third parties (including HMRC, network operators and planning authorities) well in advance of the application deadline to ensure that all required documentation is in hand. The determinations demonstrate that delays by HMRC in processing VAT group registrations, or by NESO in completing the Gate 2 process, will not excuse non-compliance with the application requirements. 
• Developers should pay close attention to the specific form of evidence required by the Allocation Regulations and the Allocation Framework, including any changes introduced for the relevant allocation round. The AR7 determinations show that close but not quite right evidence (such as unsigned connection offers, variation letters, deeds of novation, or notices of initiation of development) will not be accepted as a substitute for the prescribed documentation. 
• Developers should carefully cross-check all data entered into the application portal against the supporting documentary evidence, particularly geographic coordinates. Minor data-entry errors can have significant consequences and may not be correctable at the review stage where the correction itself introduces further ambiguity.