Ofgem Rejects a Connection Change That Lost Its Replacement Rules

Ofgem’s October 7 decision on transmission connections turns on a missing companion rule. CMP330/374 could remove existing contestability provisions from the Connection and Use of System Code, but the replacement legal and operating arrangements were contained in CMP414. NESO withdrew that companion proposal in June. Approving the remaining change would therefore leave the intended expansion without its governing framework.

Construction Choice and Asset Responsibility

Contestability concerns who can deliver eligible connection works. Under the arrangements described in the decision letter, a user can, with the relevant transmission owner’s agreement, build and transfer connection assets up to two kilometers long. The original reform sought to widen the opportunity for connecting users to construct their own assets, potentially increasing choice over delivery.

That construction choice is only part of the transaction. A connecting customer may arrange the works, while a transmission owner later takes responsibility for the transferred assets. The rules have to make the handover workable, rather than simply permit a different builder. The decision does not establish that wider self-build is undesirable; it explains why the particular code package no longer supplies a complete route to it.

How the Proposals Became Interdependent

During development, the workgroup concluded that the broader contestability framework belonged in a different section of the code from the charging provisions originally being changed. The remaining CMP330/374 text would remove existing provisions, while CMP414 would introduce the replacement arrangements. The final modification report described the two as intended for approval and implementation together.

The alternative version of CMP330/374 changed the implementation timing. It did not replace the missing framework. A longer lead-in could not solve the substantive problem created by withdrawing CMP414. That explains why Ofgem rejected both the original proposal and its alternative, despite the earlier code panel recommendation favoring approval.

The episode illustrates a practical risk in regulatory sequencing. Two changes can appear administratively separable while relying on one another to produce a usable rule. Once a companion is withdrawn, the remaining amendment must be judged against the rules that would actually exist after implementation, rather than the package that had once been envisaged.

A New Consultation, Not a New Right

Alongside the rejection, Ofgem opened a consultation on greater self-build and transfer for demand, generation and storage connections. Its published description proposes giving customers the option to build sole-use assets from their connection point to the existing transmission system and then transfer them to the transmission owner. Responses are due by November 13.

The consultation and the decision perform different jobs. The decision settles the older code proposal. The consultation seeks views on a broader approach that can include license changes and supporting documents. Connecting customers should therefore avoid treating the proposal as an immediately available entitlement or assuming that the rejected package has merely acquired a new implementation date.

For network companies and prospective users, the constructive response is to examine where construction choice meets adoption responsibility. Greater competition in building a connection will be useful only if customers and transmission owners can understand what must be transferred and under which obligations. Ofgem’s rejection preserves that question for a reform route capable of addressing it, rather than allowing a partial code change to stand in for a complete arrangement.