Approach to disputes and determinations from the Gate 2 to Whole Queue exercise

What this is about

Ofgem is adding a dedicated dispute-resolution rulebook for one specific event: the Gate 2 to Whole Queue exercise under the TMO4+ Connections Reform package. The reform reorganises the transmission connections queue around a new gating model, and the Gate 2 to Whole Queue step issues fresh connection offers across the entire existing queue. Every entity in that queue is being handed a new offer, with a new connection date, a new sequence position, and in many cases a worse outcome than they held before. The guidance consulted on here sets out how Ofgem will handle the disputes that follow.

This is supplemental guidance, not a replacement. It sits on top of Ofgem's existing determination-of-disputes guidance for use of system and connection to energy networks, and applies narrowly to operational decisions arising from the Gate 2 to Whole Queue process. It covers disputes with NESO and disputes with transmission and distribution companies. Ofgem has flagged that the underlying general guidance will be reviewed separately as part of the connections end-to-end review, so this document is a stopgap built for a one-off, high-volume re-allocation rather than a permanent framework. The consultation opened on 31 October 2025, closed on 15 November 2025, drew 31 responses, and a decision was published on 8 December 2025. The consultation is now closed with decision.

The reason this matters is structural. When you reallocate a scarce administratively-rationed right (a transmission connection date) across the whole queue at once, you generate a wave of parties who were moved back, dropped out, or re-sequenced relative to projects they consider less ready. A connection date is a binary asset: a project either has a credible energisation path or it does not, and a slip of several years can break a business case outright. That asymmetry guarantees disputes. The open question Ofgem is trying to manage is not whether disputes happen but whether they resolve through a fast, predictable channel or congeal into a backlog of arbitration that stalls the very queue clear-out the reform is meant to deliver. The guidance is the procedural valve on a process designed to produce losers.

Options on the table

The consultation did not present discrete policy options to choose between. It published a single draft guidance document and asked for views on its contents and structure. The substantive choices are about how tightly to specify procedure, and Ofgem's decision document shows where it moved in response to feedback rather than presenting alternatives for the reader to weigh. The areas where the guidance was refined after consultation are worth setting out, because they are effectively the live design questions.

#### Scope of disputes covered

The guidance defines which disagreements fall inside this Gate 2 to Whole Queue channel and which belong to the general determinations regime. The narrower the scope, the more disputes get pushed back to the slower default guidance; the broader the scope, the more this fast-track absorbs. Respondents pressed for clarity here, and Ofgem refined the scope language in the final document. The winners from a clearly bounded scope are parties with genuine Gate 2 to Whole Queue grievances who get a defined route; the risk of an over-broad scope is that unrelated connection disputes get swept into a process built for a single exercise.

#### Weight placed on alternative dispute resolution

The draft set expectations that parties attempt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before escalating to a formal Ofgem determination. The design question is how hard that expectation bites: a strong steer toward ADR keeps volume out of formal arbitration and resolves disputes faster, but if it functions as a de facto gate it can delay parties who have a clear-cut case and just need a binding ruling. Respondents commented on exactly this, and Ofgem refined the ADR expectations and the description of the arbitration process in response. The trade-off is speed of clearance versus access to a determinative answer: ADR favours the system's interest in throughput; a guaranteed determination route favours the individual disputant facing a broken business case who cannot afford an open-ended mediation.

#### Treatment of the "remedial area"

Ofgem also refined the part of the guidance dealing with the remedial area, meaning what Ofgem can actually do to put a wronged party right. This is the substance of any dispute regime: a fast process that cannot deliver a meaningful remedy is procedural theatre. The decision document records changes here without specifying their content in the public summary, but the direction of travel, in response to respondents seeking clarity, is toward a clearer statement of what relief is available. Parties moved back in the queue unfairly are the intended beneficiaries; the constraint is that any remedy that pulls one project forward necessarily pushes another back, because the queue is zero-sum.

Questions being asked

The consultation page does not enumerate formal numbered questions. It frames the ask broadly: Ofgem wants views on the draft supplemental guidance, with particular interest from industry groups and network companies. From the consultation framing and the decision document's account of where it made changes, the questions in substance grouped into three themes.

#### Scope and interaction with existing guidance

- Is the boundary between this Gate 2 to Whole Queue guidance and the existing determination-of-disputes guidance clear enough to know which route a given dispute follows? *(This is really asking whether parties can tell, before they file, which regime governs them, which determines timelines and process.)* - Does the guidance correctly capture the operational decisions that arise specifically from the Gate 2 to Whole Queue exercise, including disputes with NESO and with transmission and distribution companies?

#### Procedure and alternative dispute resolution

- Are the procedural expectations, including the steps before a formal determination, sufficiently clear? *(Respondents explicitly asked for more clarity on procedure matters; this is about predictability of the path, not the outcome.)* - Is the expected use of ADR set at the right level, and is the relationship between ADR and the formal arbitration process clear? *(The underlying question: is ADR a genuine option or a hurdle that delays parties with a strong case?)*

#### Remedies and arbitration

- Does the guidance adequately set out the remedial area, that is, what Ofgem can do to resolve a dispute in a party's favour? - Is the arbitration process described with enough certainty for parties to understand what they are entering and what a binding outcome looks like?

Respondents broadly supported the guidance, its contents and structure, and the transparency it brings to the determinations space. The substantive feedback concentrated on clarity of procedure, the role of ADR, and the scope of covered disputes, which is where Ofgem made its post-consultation refinements.

How to respond

This consultation is closed. It ran from 31 October 2025 to 15 November 2025, an unusually short two-week window reflecting the urgency of having a dispute framework in place before Gate 2 to Whole Queue offers landed. Ofgem received 31 responses and published its decision on 8 December 2025.

There is no further action available on this consultation. The relevant outputs to read are:

- Gate 2 to Whole Queue disputes and determination guidance (the final guidance now in force) - Determination of Disputes Gate 2 to Whole Queue Decision Document [PDF, 277KB] (Ofgem's account of feedback and the refinements made to scope, ADR expectations, the arbitration process, and the remedial area) - Non-Confidential Responses [ZIP, 5.92MB] (the 31 submissions, for parties wanting to see how DNOs, TOs, the ESO, industry associations, and developers positioned themselves)

For anyone with a live Gate 2 to Whole Queue connection offer, the operative document is now the final guidance itself: it defines the route, the expectation to attempt ADR before formal determination, the arbitration process, and the remedies Ofgem can apply. The broader framework remains provisional. Ofgem has committed to reviewing the underlying determination-of-disputes guidance as part of the connections end-to-end review of the regulatory framework, so the durable rules for connection disputes are still to be settled. This document governs the one-off exercise; the permanent regime is the next thing to watch.