What can we learn from Ofgem’s non-qualification determinations from AR7? 

Ofgem has published its final determinations on projects that sought a Tier 2 review having been refused qualification for the Allocation Round 7 (AR7) Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme.  

For developers preparing for future allocation rounds, these determinations provide a valuable body of precedent.  

Below, we distil the key lessons emerging from Ofgem’s decisions, set out practical guidance on how to mitigate qualification risk, and offer advice on what developers should do differently to help secure qualification as AR8 opens in July this year. 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Review 

Applications for an allocation round are assessed for qualification eligibility by the Electricity Market Reform Delivery Body (the Delivery Body). Their decisions can be reviewed by request of the project by the Delivery Body (Tier 1) and further reviewed by Ofgem (Tier 2) who consider the Delivery Body’s decision and make a determination. 

Overall Picture 

AR7 has been notable not just for the level of competition, but for the volume and consistency of Ofgem determinations upholding non‑qualification decisions.  

A review of those determinations reveals a clear and increasingly settled approach to CfD qualification: this is a document‑driven, rule‑bound process with very limited tolerance for evidential gaps, inconsistencies or post‑submission corrections. 

What are the key themes? 

1. Qualification is an evidential test, not a merits assessment 

2. Review and appeal are not safety nets 

3. Grid connection evidence is key 

4. Explicit planning consents are needed 

5. VAT registration and corporate evidence is not enough 

6. Zero tolerance for inconsistency in maps and coordinates 

7. Do not rely on the clerical error exception. 

1. Qualification is an evidential test, not a merits assessment 

A consistent theme across AR7 determinations is Ofgem’s emphasis on Regulation 17(4) of the CfD Allocation Regulations: the burden rests entirely on the applicant to provide, with its application, all information necessary for the Delivery Body to determine qualification. 

Ofgem repeatedly rejected arguments that: 

• the project was substantively eligible; 

• the missing information could be inferred from other documents; 

• the Delivery Body already “knew” the relevant facts; or 

• refusal to qualify was disproportionate given the project’s viability. 

The message is clear. If compliant documentary evidence is not properly uploaded and assessable at application close, the application is at serious risk regardless of the underlying quality of the project. 

Practical takeaway: treat the CfD application as a closed evidential record. Assume there will be no opportunity to remedy omissions after submission. 

2. Review and appeal are not safety nets 

Many AR7 applicants sought to rely on the review and appeal processes to correct shortcomings in their original submissions. Almost without exception, those efforts failed. 

Ofgem has adopted a strict interpretation of Regulation 20(2)(c): new documentary evidence cannot be introduced at review stage, even where the document existed prior to submission or the omission arose from an innocent administrative mistake. 

Appeals, in turn, are not second‑chance qualification exercises. Ofgem’s role is limited to determining whether the Delivery Body’s original decision was lawful and consistent with the Regulations not whether the outcome was fair or commercially sensible. 

Practical takeaway: developers should assume that qualification success or failure will be determined at first instance only. Review and appeal should be seen as exceptional, not remedial. 

3. Grid connection evidence: “countersigned or it didn’t happen” 

Grid documentation was one of the most common points of failure in AR7. Ofgem has been unambiguous in its expectations: 

• the connection agreement itself must be provided 

• it must be complete and legible 

• it must be properly countersigned 

• it must clearly relate to the specific CfD unit and location 

• the connection date evidenced in the agreement must align with the project’s Target Commissioning Date. 

Attempts to rely on: 

• unsigned offers; 

• later variations without the original agreement; 

• email correspondence with a network operator; or 

• logical arguments that a contract “must” exist, 

were consistently rejected. 

Practical takeaway: ensure the full, countersigned connection agreement including any necessary variations and the original offer is uploaded as part of the application. Explanations are not a substitute for executed documents. 

4. Planning consents: explicit evidence is required, even where practice says otherwise 

AR7 has confirmed a notably high evidential threshold in relation to planning consents, particularly where expiry or commencement is in issue. 

Where a planning consent could theoretically have expired, Ofgem has required explicit documentary evidence from the issuing authority confirming either: 

• that construction commenced in time; or 

• that the consent has not expired. 

This applies even where: 

• commencement is obvious on the ground; 

• statutory notices have been served; 

• planning portals show works as commenced; or 

• local planning authorities do not routinely issue formal acknowledgement letters. 

In multiple cases, applicants argued unsuccessfully that such documentation was unnecessary, unavailable or inconsistent with normal planning practice. 

Practical takeaway: if acknowledged commencement or confirmation of non‑expiry may be required, obtain it in writing from the relevant authority well in advance of the application window and upload it with the application. 

5. VAT registration and corporate evidence: explanations are not enough 

Applicants operating through group structures or VAT groups encountered difficulty in AR7. Ofgem made clear that: 

• where Schedule 5 requires a VAT certificate or similar corporate evidence, that document must explicitly name the applicant entity; and 

• explanations of group arrangements or assertions that alternative documents were unavailable at the time will not cure a failure to provide compliant evidence. 

Certificates or confirmations obtained after application close were treated as inadmissible new documentary evidence. 

Practical takeaway: corporate and VAT structuring issues should be identified early, with sufficient time allowed to obtain applicant‑specific confirmation from HMRC or other authorities before submission. 

6. Maps and coordinates: zero tolerance for inconsistency 

Several AR7 applications failed due to relatively small discrepancies between: 

• coordinates entered in the application form; and 

• coordinates shown on the accompanying map. 

Ofgem treated inconsistencies, transposed digits and ambiguous corrections as substantive failures, not clerical errors, particularly where attempts to correct one error introduced new uncertainty. 

Practical takeaway: adopt a single source of truth for coordinates and carry out thorough cross‑checks between all spatial information submitted with the application. 

7. What counts as a “clerical error” or not 

AR7 provides helpful clarity on the narrow scope of permissible clerical corrections. Generally, issues capable of correction are limited to minor presentational or formatting defects where the underlying compliant evidence was already properly submitted. 

By contrast, missing documents, unsigned agreements, or evidence obtained after submission are not clerical errors, even if the omission was accidental. 

Practical takeaway: if compliance depends on a document, assume that document must be present, complete and correct at submission. Do not rely on the clerical‑error exception. 

Preparing for future allocation rounds 

AR7 shows that CfD qualification is less about the underlying strength of a project and more about whether the application fully and clearly proves compliance on paper. Based on the determinations, the following overarching principles may help: 

• Do the groundwork early: All key consents, rights and supporting material should be in place and checked well before the application window opens. Collect the documents and evidence as you go, keep it organised and easy to find, check for discrepancies, submitting more is better than less. 

• Treat the CfD application as a one-shot submission: Assume there will be no opportunity to clarify, correct or supplement the application once it is submitted. Be as full, complete and accurate as you can be first time. 

• Check the evidence, not just the project: Build in a final sense‑check focused solely on whether the documents do exactly what the rules require, and whether they tie together cleanly. A fresh pair of eyes (or a team of eyes) can identify holes that the team on the application may not be seeing. 

• Assume a strict reading of the rules: If there is any ambiguity, expect Ofgem to take the cautious interpretation rather than allowing room for judgment. Stick to satisfying the wording of the requirements as closely as possible. 

In short, CfD qualification can be won or lost on documentation. Strong projects will not make up for missing or unclear evidence and being careful and disciplined in preparation can significantly reduce qualification risk in future rounds. 

If you would like to discuss how these points apply to a particular project or an upcoming CfD application, please contact our Energy & Infrastructure team.