Data centres are about to relearn the 2014 Capacity Market's hardest lessons - the expensive way
The UK Capacity Market has been running since 2014. It has verified emissions declarations, audited technical claims, and a decade of enforcement precedent behind it. It has stiff penalties for underperformance, because the lights might go out in the middle of winter. Ofgem's new data centre connection reform - Curate - asks developers to self-certify with a director's letter and nothing else. That gap should worry anyone about to sign a commitment fee.
The verification gap
Under the Capacity Market, a false declaration is a termination event. Emissions data goes through one of four Independent Emissions Verifiers. Project spend is certified by an Independent Technical Expert. Todays proposed Curate has none of this. A data centre developer self-declares status, references a definition buried in the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, and that's it - no named verifier, no disclosed audit right, no published penalty for getting it wrong. Ofgem is asking a market to behave responsibly using a governance model lighter than the one it already runs next door.
A better fee reference point exists
Ofgem's proposed commitment fee - proposed at 2.5–7.5% of capex, or roughly £237,500 to £712,500 per MW - is a blunt instrument. A flat percentage doesn't distinguish a marginal project from a bankable one.
On the other hand, the Capacity Market's User Commitment Methodology does exactly that: it prices commitment against actual risk profile, not a fixed multiple of spend. If Ofgem wants the data centre fee to filter genuine investment from speculation rather than just taxing everyone equally, this is the more credible design reference - and it already has a decade of operational history to draw on.
Two open questions nobody's addressing yet
1️⃣what happens when a government strategic-project designation reallocates grid capacity after a neighbouring developer has already paid a six or seven-figure commitment fee to secure their project? No published Ofgem or DESNZ material addresses this conflict. It's not hypothetical - it's the direct consequence of running a national strategic-demand mechanism alongside a paid queue.
2️⃣ there's no confirmed timing yet for a National Data Centre Strategy that would resolve this, and the Flex Technical Taskforce's findings - due to the AI Energy Council this autumn - remain unpublished. Developers are being asked to commit capital now, against a policy framework still being written.
The curtailment % you're being handed is not neutral
Non-firm and ramped connections carry a curtailment forecast from NESO or NGET. In our experience, those forecasts skew (sometimes very) conservative - network operators have every incentive to over-predict curtailment hours and none to under-predict them, given the compensation exposure and embarrassment if they get it wrong. No published methodology or track record lets developers check this. The fix is straightforward: commission independent third-party grid dynamic modelling before accepting a non-firm offer, rather than pricing risk off a single, unverified number.
Where this leaves developers
Curate borrows the Capacity Market's instincts - commitment, milestones, forfeiture - without yet borrowing its safeguards. Until Ofgem closes that gap, the burden of verification sits with developers, not the regulator.
We've written a full briefing covering all fourteen sections of the reform - DCCF mechanics, self-build and independent transmission ownership, statutory powers, N-1/N-2 standards, and the complete picture developers need before committing capital.
Comments