Capacity Market: Proposed changes for Prequalification 2026

Closes 27 Nov 2025

This service needs cookies enabled.

Further improvements to Capacity Market Administration and Delivery Assurance

57. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a definition of “waste” into the CM Rules?
58. Do you agree with the proposal to use the definition of “waste” found in Article 3(1) of the Waste Frame Directive, as modified by Article 5 and Article 6 of the Directive?
59. If you disagree with the proposed definition of “waste”, please provide any alternate suggestions.
60. Are there any other GTCs that you think should be further defined in order to clarify the Rules and reduce uncertainty for market participants and Delivery Partners?
61. Do you think that the proposal to add a definition of “waste” into the CM Rules will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.
62. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to clarify Rule 2.3.3(b)?
63. Do you agree that the De-rating Factor for the Transferee CMUs should be set at the same level as the T-1 Auction for the Delivery Year relevant to the trade?
64. If you disagree, please provide an alternative solution.
65. Do you think that the proposal to amend Rule 2.3.3 will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.
66. Do you agree with the proposal to suspend Capacity Payments to Capacity Providers that are being terminated because of an Insolvency Termination Event at the point of the Termination Notice being issued?
67. Do you think the proposed amendment will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.
68. Do you agree with the proposal to amend Rule 8.3.3(f)(i) to clarify the timeline for the submission of information to EMRS after submitting a completed Metering Assessment?
69. Do you think the proposal will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.
70. Do you agree with the government’s proposal to amend the approximate timetable in Rule 2.2.2 to align more closely to the scheme’s operational timetable?
71. Are there any activities not currently mentioned in the proposed amended Rule 2.2.2 that should be included in the indicative timetable? Are there any events currently mentioned in Rule 2.2.2 that should be removed?
72. Do you think that the proposed change to Rule 2.2.2 will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.
73. Do you agree with the proposal to add a new Rule allowing the Delivery Body to extend the deadline to submit a Prequalification Application if there was a severe IT issue that renders the prequalification process impossible or unfair to all Applicants?
74. Do you agree that this extension should be instigated by the Delivery Body rather than the Secretary of State? If not, please provide details.
75. Do you agree that any extension should be fixed for a certain amount of time to provide industry greater certainty? If not, please provide details.
76. What are your views regarding the option for a further extension beyond an initial period of 5 working days? Do you think such a decision should be taken by the Delivery Body or Secretary of State?
77. Do you agree that an extension should only be considered if the severe IT issue occurred in the last 2 weeks of the Prequalification Window and remained a severe issue for a period of 24 hours or longer?
78. Do you think there are any unintended consequences of adding a new Rule allowing the Delivery Body to extend the deadline to submit a Prequalification Application if there was a severe IT issue that renders the prequalification process impossible or unfair to all Applicants? If so, please provide details.
79. Do you agree with the proposal to amend the definition of Long Stop Date to clarify to Capacity Providers that secure a one-year Capacity Agreement for a New Build CMU or Refurbishing CMU in the T-4 Auction will have a Long Stop Date of the start of the first scheduled Delivery Year, aligning to the process for the T-1 Auction?
80. Do you think there will be any unintended consequences of amending the definition of Long Stop Date to clarify this? If so, please provide details.
81. Do you agree with the proposals to amend the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 to align with the implementation of MHHS and ensure that the CM is adhering to legislation?
82. Do you agree with the proposals to amend the Electricity Capacity (Supplier Payment etc.) Regulations 2014 to remove references to the now outdated processes regarding the standstill period?
83. Do you think there are any unintended consequences of amending the Regulations to align with the implementation of MHHS? If so, please provide details.
84. Are there any other additional Regulations or CM Rules that you believe the government should consider changing to ensure that the CM is adhering to legislation and continues to function?
85. Do you agree that a Termination Fee of category T4, set at £15,000/MW, is an appropriate fee level for Termination Events 6.10.1(o) and 6.10.1(q)? If not, please provide an alternative fee category/level.
86. Do you think there will be any unintended consequences of increasing the Termination Fee level for these Termination Events? If so, please provide details.
87. Do you agree that further clarifying the information needed in the progress reports and engagement with Capacity Providers who fail to submit them is an appropriate way of resolving this issue?
88. Do you agree that a standardised construction progress report will improve the quality of reports submitted and make it simpler for Capacity Providers to submit reports by the relevant deadlines?
89. Do you have views on the suitability and effectiveness of a penalty regime or the introduction of mandatory Independent Technical Expert reports on compliance with this Rule? What would an alternative option look like?