The Contracts for Difference (Allocation) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 were made on 23 June 2026 and came into force on 24 June 2026. Published on legislation.gov.uk and signed by Michael Shanks for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the instrument amends the Contracts for Difference (Allocation) Regulations 2014, which form part of the statutory basis for the Contracts for Difference scheme under the Energy Act 2013. The measure is procedural rather than a redesign of the CfD scheme itself. It does not change strike prices, budget envelopes or technology categories. Instead, it rewrites parts of the process for qualification decisions, review notices and unresolved appeals once an allocation round is under way.
According to the amending Regulations, a review notice seeking reconsideration of a non-qualification determination may now include documentary evidence or other information of a description specified in the contract allocation framework for that allocation round. That gives the framework a clearer role in setting what material can accompany a request for review. The instrument also inserts a new regulation 20A. Where the relevant framework allows it, the delivery body may issue an amended non-qualification determination to an applicant who has already received one, or replace an earlier notice stating that an application was qualifying with a later non-qualification determination. In practical terms, the legislation creates an express route for revisiting status decisions inside the formal allocation process.
New regulation 20A goes further by allowing the contract allocation framework to apply modifications to a linked set of provisions where amended determinations are used. The Regulations specifically refer to regulations 19, 20, 21, 29, 31, 32, 33, 49, 50 and 51. That matters because a change to qualification status can affect several later stages of an allocation round, not just the initial notice. For project developers and advisers, the significance is administrative but real. The statutory instrument leaves the overall architecture in place while giving the Secretary of State scope to provide, through the framework for a given round, how the rest of the process should operate if an earlier determination is later corrected.
Regulation 49 is widened so that more applicants can be treated as pending applicants when contract allocation begins. The amended definition now covers an applicant with an unresolved appeal to the Authority, an applicant whose non-qualification determination has been upheld by the Authority but whose time to appeal to the High Court or Court of Session has not yet expired, and an applicant whose court appeal has already been filed but not determined. This change is narrow but important for schemes entering an allocation round while eligibility disputes are still live. It reduces the chance that a developer falls outside the pending-bid arrangements simply because the case has moved from the Authority stage to the court timetable.
Two connected amendments then change how pending bids are handled. First, regulation 50 no longer requires the delivery body to ensure that it does not become aware of the content of a pending bid. The Explanatory Note published with the instrument states that this requirement is being removed. Secondly, regulation 54 is tightened in a different way. The Secretary of State may still direct the delivery body to provide information in certain circumstances, but new paragraph (3A) states that the Secretary of State must not direct the delivery body to provide the content of any pending bid. Taken together, the amendments move the confidentiality boundary rather than removing protection for pending bids altogether.
Regulation 51 is also revised for cases where a pending applicant later becomes a qualifying applicant after a proceed notice has been issued. The new wording makes clear that the delivery body must re-run only the part of the allocation process needed to determine whether the pending application would have been successful, rather than repeating more of the process than necessary. A further clarification applies where the Authority later decides that an application is qualifying and the period for a ministerial re-run or halt direction has already expired. In that situation, the delivery body must still determine whether the pending application is successful in line with the contract allocation framework for that round. The effect is a more defined route for resolving late changes in qualification status without reopening the entire process.
The preamble records that the Secretary of State consulted the persons listed in section 24(1)(a) to (g) of the Energy Act 2013, together with any others considered appropriate, and that the draft instrument was approved by both Houses before being made. The Regulations extend to England and Wales and Scotland. The Explanatory Note states that no full impact assessment has been prepared because no, or no significant, effect on the private, voluntary or public sector is expected. Even so, the amendment is likely to matter for renewable energy developers, legal teams and auction advisers, because evidence rules, appeal timing and the treatment of pending bids can all affect whether a project remains in contention during a CfD allocation round.