Capacity Market December 2024 Consultation and Call for Evidence - Consultation on CM Rules modernisation and consumer-led flexibility - Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

1. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to Rule 3.11 to introduce a Directors’ Declaration and Summary Statement to enable a Capacity Market Unit to change their Opt-out status when new operational information is available? Please provide reasons with your answer.

This question refers to section 4.2. of the Consultation

Yes No

2. Do you agree that the Directors’ Declaration to change Opt-out status should be treated as part of the Application to prequalify for the first Capacity Auction that the Unit would have been excluded for if no change of status was made? Please provide reasons with your answer.

This question refers to section 4.2. of the Consultation

Yes No

3. Do you think that any additional information or supporting evidence should be provided in addition to the Directors’ Declaration and Summary Statement to allow a Capacity Provider to change its Opt-out status and participate in CM auctions? Please detail these and provide reasons with your answer.

This question refers to section 4.2. of the Consultation

Yes No

4. Do you agree with the proposed amendment to Rule 7.5.1(ra)? Please provide reasons with your answer.

This question refers to section 4.4. of the Consultation

Yes No

5. Do you think that the proposed change to Rule 7.5.1(ra) will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.

This question refers to section 4.4. of the Consultation

Yes No

6. Do you agree with the proposal that the Delivery Body should not prequalify units when they become aware that the unit would not prequalify if the Application was considered afresh before the First Bidding Window? Please provide additional reasons for your answer.

This question refers to section 4.6. of the Consultation

Yes No

7. Do you think that this proposed clarification to Rule 4.4.3A will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.

This question refers to section 4.6. of the Consultation

Yes No

8. Do you think that this proposed clarification to Rule 4.4.3A will have any unintended consequences? If so, please provide details.

This question refers to section 4.8. of the Consultation

Yes No

9. Do you agree that the word “following” in 4.5ZA refers only to changes to Generating Technology Class in the 2017/18 auctions rather than to every auction since that point and that the rule is therefore obsolete? If not, please provide an explanation

This question refers to section 4.8. of the Consultation

Yes No

10. Do you think the proposed changes will have any unintended consequences or alter other Rules not mentioned in the consultation? If so, please provide details.

This question refers to section 4.8. of the Consultation

Yes No

11. Are there any other additional redundant Rules or Chapters that you believe the government should also consider removing due to them no longer being applicable?

This question refers to section 4.8. of the Consultation

Yes No

12. Do you agree with the proposal to correct the incorrect reference to Rule 3.15.6(b) in Exhibit ZA?

This question refers to section 4.10. of the Consultation

Yes No

13. Do you think the proposed correction to Exhibit ZA will have any unintended consequences or alter other Rules not mentioned in the Consultation? If so, please provide details.

This question refers to section 4.10. of the Consultation

Yes No

14. Are there any other Rules which you think contain drafting errors that you believe the government should also consider addressing by way of Rules amendments?

This question refers to section 4.10. of the Consultation

15. Do you agree with the proposed temporary rule change to operational requirements for Existing Generating CMUs which are mothballed? Does this proposal create any unintended consequences?

This question refers to section 4.12. of the Consultation

Yes No

16. Do you agree with the proposed amendments to the Rules (including Rule 3.9.3 and 3.10.1) to require similar Demand Side Response Capacity Market Unit components to be collated into a single business model or plan at Application?

This question refers to section 5.2. of the Consultation

Yes No

17. Are there any unintended consequences from the proposed amendments?

This question refers to section 5.2. of the Consultation

Yes No

18. Do you agree with the introduction of the proposed separation period?

This question refers to section 5.4. of the Consultation

Yes No

19. If you disagree with the proposals, please provide supporting detail of your disagreement and provide alternative solutions where possible.

This question refers to section 5.4. of the Consultation

20. Do you agree that the proposed TF1 termination fee of £5,000/MW for unproven Demand Side Response (DSR) Capacity Market Units which fail to provide a DSR Test Certificate will enhance delivery assurance for DSR capacity agreements?

This question refers to section 5.6. of the Consultation

Yes No

21. Please provide the reasoning behind response to question 20 and supporting evidence where appropriate. If you disagree, please provide suggestions and evidence for alternative methods that could be considered.

This question refers to section 5.6. of the Consultation

22. Do you foresee any unintended consequences to the proposal under section 5.6 or believe a more effective solution exists for improving delivery assurance?

This question refers to section 5.6. of the Consultation

Yes No