Ofgem Data Centre Commitment Fee Escrow

A Data Centre Commitment Fee Escrow account holds the cash a data centre developer must commit against its grid connection. The money sits in a segregated account in dospay's name, outside the developer's own banking arrangements, and is released only when a defined event occurs. That event is either energisation of the project, in which case the money returns to the developer, or a termination or capacity reduction, in which case the money is paid to the network operator.

The funds being held are the developer's own money. Under Ofgem's Curate proposals, a data centre project of 40 MW or more that connects to the transmission system, or that connects at distribution and is subject to a Transmission Entry Assessment, must secure a commitment fee from the point it accepts its Gate 2 connection offer until the point of energisation. Ofgem has consulted on a fee of between 2.5% and 7.5% of average data centre capital expenditure, which produces a figure of roughly £237,500 to £712,500 for each megawatt of requested capacity. A 100 MW project therefore faces a commitment of somewhere between £23.75 million and £71.25 million, held for the whole of the development period.

The principal user is the party holding the connection agreement. That is usually the project company, but it may be a hyperscaler, a co-location provider, an energy or infrastructure developer, a powered land developer or an independent landowner who has secured a connection on their own site.

The trigger point is acceptance of a Gate 2 connection offer, or the equivalent point in a distribution process. That is when the commitment obligation attaches under the Curate proposals and when the developer must decide where the money is going to live for the next several years.

Escrow involves holding real money, independently and in advance, so that payment does not depend on a future claim being accepted.

Bonds and insurance rely on a third party promising to pay later, subject to conditions, exclusions and their own financial capacity at the time of claim.

The commitment fee asks a developer to immobilise a very large sum for a very long time against an outcome it cannot fully control. Ofgem's own modelling puts the cost of carry at up to 170 basis points on project internal rate of return for a 2035 connection at the upper end of the fee range. The money is not spent, but it is not available either.

If the developer simply holds the cash on its own balance sheet, three problems follow. The money is exposed to the developer's own insolvency and to the claims of its other creditors. It is available to be spent, whether by design or by pressure, on something else. And it is difficult to demonstrate to a counterparty, a funder or a purchaser that the commitment is genuinely covered.

If the developer instead pays the money to the network operator as a cash security, a different problem follows. The developer has parted with a very large sum against an event that may never happen, and it is relying on the return mechanism working correctly at energisation, potentially many years later.

Escrow addresses the gap between those two positions. The money leaves the developer's control, which answers the insolvency and diversion problems and gives the funder something to look at. It does not leave the developer's ownership until an event occurs that the escrow agreement recognises, which answers the premature payment problem.

Neutrality, in that the funds are held by a party with no interest in whether the project energises or terminates.

Protection, in that the money is segregated and is not available to meet the general liabilities of the developer.

Certainty, in that the circumstances in which the money moves, and the direction it moves in, are written down before it is deposited.

Transparency, in that both the developer and, where the arrangement provides for it, the network operator or the instrument issuer can see the balance and the transaction history.

The practical outcome is that a developer can satisfy a commitment obligation without either weakening its own balance sheet position or handing money to a counterparty ahead of any event that justifies payment.

For the paying party

The developer deposits the fee once and does not pay it again. Depositing into escrow is not the same as paying the network operator, and the escrow agreement records that distinction expressly.

The money is ring-fenced from the moment it arrives. It is held in a segregated account and is not available to dospay's creditors or the developer's creditors.

The developer retains a clear line of sight to the return. Where the project reaches energisation, the escrow agreement provides for return to the developer on production of the agreed evidence. Where Ofgem or NESO increases the fee value and the developer decides not to post the additional amount, the Curate proposals contemplate a period in which the developer may self-terminate without paying the fee, and the escrow arrangement is drafted so that the held funds are released back to the developer in that scenario.

The developer can also demonstrate the commitment to third parties. A lender, an investor or a purchaser of the project can be given visibility of the account without being given control of it.

For the Network Operator

Where a commitment becomes payable, the network operator is looking at an identified and segregated fund rather than at the balance sheet of a special purpose vehicle several years after the offer was accepted. That reduces the risk that the sum proves uncollectable at exactly the point the project has failed.

The release mechanism is agreed in advance. The escrow agreement sets out what evidence of termination, capacity reduction or milestone failure is required, so that the route to payment does not have to be negotiated after the event.

Payment does not depend on the developer's continuing cooperation to the same degree as an unsecured obligation. Where the escrow agreement provides for release against a notice or certificate from the network operator, that is the operative instruction.

For advisors

Solicitors and corporate finance advisers frequently face client pressure to hold or direct large sums themselves. An escrow account removes that pressure. The adviser can structure and document the release mechanism without taking the money into client account or accepting responsibility for controlling it.

Lenders and funds get an auditable position. Balances, deposits and releases are recorded, and access can be extended to a funder on a read-only basis where the parties agree to it.

Auditors and investment committees get a single identifiable item rather than a restricted cash balance mixed into general treasury. Where a developer holds several connection positions, one account per project makes the cost of each position legible.

Advisers also get a mechanism that behaves predictably under change. Ofgem has proposed a process for adjusting both the fee value and the applicability threshold over time. Where the escrow agreement anticipates a top-up or a release on adjustment, the adviser is not renegotiating the structure each time the value moves.

One account, one project, one commitment amount, held from offer acceptance to energisation. This is the standard arrangement.

Yes. The elements that are commonly tailored are the release conditions, the evidence required to support a release, the identity of the parties authorised to instruct, the treatment of interest on the balance, and the notice periods applying to each release route.

All escrow arrangements are administered through the dospay digital escrow portal.

The portal provides a single place where authorised parties can view account balances, payment history and escrow status. It also supports the submission and tracking of information required for payments or releases, in line with the escrow agreement.

Using a digital portal reduces reliance on email chains and manual reconciliation. It improves transparency and creates a clear audit trail for payments and releases. Advisors often find this helpful when reviewing payment history or responding to queries during the life of the project.

The parties agree the escrow terms and dospay opens the account. The developer transfers the commitment amount, and from receipt those funds are segregated and identified to that project.

The funds remain held for the development period. During that period they do not move except where the escrow agreement provides for a top-up, a recalculation following a capacity change, or an early release.

On the occurrence of a release event, the party entitled to instruct submits the instruction together with the evidence the escrow agreement requires. dospay checks that the instruction comes from an authorised person and that the evidence is of the type and form specified, then releases the funds to the destination the agreement names for that event.

If the instruction does not meet those requirements, the funds stay where they are and dospay reverts to the parties.

The platform gives authorised users visibility of the account balance and of every deposit and release. Access is granted by named individual and can be extended to advisers, funders or instrument issuers on the terms the parties agree.

Release requests are submitted and tracked through the platform, with supporting evidence attached to the request rather than circulated by email.

Every action is recorded with a timestamp and an attributed user, which produces the audit trail. For an arrangement running across five or more years and multiple changes of personnel, that record is often the most valuable part of the service.

The escrow arrangement does not replace the connection agreement, the CUSC provisions governing securities and queue management, or any bond or letter of credit issued to the network operator. Those documents establish who owes what, when the commitment becomes payable, and what happens to a project that fails a milestone.

The escrow agreement deals only with the money. It records how much is held, in what currency, who may instruct a release, what evidence must accompany an instruction, and where the funds go in each defined outcome.

dospay does not decide whether a project has energised, whether a milestone has been met, whether a capacity reduction has occurred, or whether a commitment has fallen due. Those are matters for the network operator and the developer under the connection framework. dospay acts on the instructions and evidence the escrow agreement specifies, and holds the funds where it does not receive them.

Only parties authorised under the escrow agreement can give instructions to the escrow agent. This is agreed at the outset and documented clearly.

Instructions are usually tied to specific events, such as the issue of a certificate, confirmation of a milestone or the occurrence of a payment default. The escrow agent checks that the instruction matches the agreed conditions before acting.

This approach ensures that payments are controlled, predictable and not dependent on informal requests or unilateral decisions by one party.

The escrow agreement names the authorised instructing parties and the individuals who may act for each of them.

Release to the developer at energisation is normally structured as a unilateral instruction from the developer supported by the agreed energisation evidence, or as a joint instruction where the parties prefer that.

Release to the network operator is normally structured against a notice or certificate from the network operator, or against a joint instruction, depending on how the wider security arrangement is documented.

Informal instructions are not sufficient. An email between project personnel, a telephone call or a verbal confirmation on a project call will not move funds. The instruction must come from a named authorised individual, in the form the escrow agreement requires.

The starting point is understanding the transaction. dospay needs to know the project, the connection position, the amount to be held, the expected duration, and the events on which the money should move.

The release mechanism is settled next. This is the part of the process that repays attention, because it determines what evidence will be needed years later and who will be entitled to produce it.

The escrow agreement is then finalised and executed, and the account is opened. Onboarding is completed in parallel. Funding follows account opening. No money is accepted before the agreement is in place and the account exists.

For a straightforward arrangement with a single corporate developer, a clear ownership structure and complete onboarding information, an account can usually be opened within a small number of working days once the escrow terms are agreed.

Timing depends principally on two things. The first is the complexity of the parties, meaning the number of entities involved, the depth of the ownership chain and whether any party sits outside the United Kingdom. The second is how quickly complete information is provided.

Incomplete onboarding information is the most common cause of delay. Partial ownership charts, missing identification for a beneficial owner and unevidenced source of funds each stop the process until they are resolved.

Where the developer is working to a grace period deadline under the connection framework, the escrow terms should be settled well ahead of that date rather than at it.

Standard onboarding requires identity verification for all beneficial owners, directors, persons with significant control and authorised signatories, together with full corporate documents cross-checked against the register.

Ownership and control information is required for the developer and for any parent or group entity providing support. Group structure charts are requested in current form.

Source of funds evidence is required for the amount being deposited. Where the commitment is being funded from a facility, an equity subscription or an intra-group loan, the documentation supporting that route is needed.

Transaction information is required to establish the release mechanism. This includes the connection agreement or offer, the contracted capacity, the connection date, and the identity of the network operator.

• Parties to the escrow agreement and the individuals authorised to instructIdentity information for beneficial owners, directors, persons with significant control and authorised signatories
• Corporate documents and current group structure chartSource of funds evidence for the deposit
• The connection offer or connection agreement and any related security documentation
• Contracted capacity in MW and the applicable commitment amount
• Escrow amount and currency
• Release conditions for each defined event
• The certificates, notices or confirmations that will operate as release evidence, and who produces them
• Expected timetable, including the connection date and any applicable grace period deadline

The developer holding the connection position pays the money into escrow. Where a parent or group entity is funding the commitment, that entity is identified during onboarding and the source of funds evidence covers it.

Funding is usually a single payment made after the account is opened and before the deadline set under the connection framework. Where the developer is drawing on a facility or an equity commitment, staged funding to an agreed date can be accommodated, provided the full amount is in place by the applicable deadline.

Funds are ring-fenced on receipt. From that point they are segregated, identified to the project, and subject only to the release conditions in the escrow agreement.

Payments are ordinarily made in sterling, because the commitment itself is denominated in sterling. Where a developer is funding from another currency, conversion should be completed before the funds reach the escrow account, so that the balance held is not exposed to movement between deposit and deadline.

Release to the developer on energisation. The commitment is returnable if the project proceeds as planned. On confirmation of energisation, and against the evidence named in the escrow agreement, the balance is released to the developer.

Release to the network operator on termination. Where the project terminates after the point at which the commitment has attached, the amount becomes payable. Against a notice of termination or the equivalent evidence, the balance is released to the network operator.

Partial release on capacity reduction. Where the developer reduces contracted capacity, the amount attributable to the reduction becomes payable and the remainder continues to be held against the revised capacity. The escrow agreement records how the recalculation is performed and what evidence supports it.

Release following a milestone failure. Where the network operator confirms that a project has failed a queue management milestone and the consequence is loss of the queue position, the release follows the termination route.

Top-up on an increase in the fee value. Ofgem has proposed a mechanism for adjusting the fee over time. Where the value increases, the developer deposits the difference into the same account.

Release to the developer on self-termination following an increase. Where the value increases and the developer elects instead to self-terminate within the period the proposals allow, the balance is released back to the developer.

Release where an exemption or grace period applies. Where a project falls within an exemption, including a project energising within six months of implementation, and the account has been funded, the balance is released to the developer against evidence of the exemption.

In every case, if the instruction is not made by an authorised party or is not supported by the evidence the escrow agreement requires, the funds remain held.

If instructions are disputed or unclear, we will not release the funds.

Instead, the funds remain held safely in the escrow account while the parties follow the process set out in the escrow agreement. This may involve clarification, confirmation from an agreed third party, or the use of the dispute resolution process under the underlying contract.

This approach protects both parties. It ensures that money is not released prematurely and that funds remain available once the position is resolved.

If a party to the underyling contract becomes insolvent, we continue to operate under the escrow agreement.

Because the funds are held in escrow and not in the control of either party, they are protected from being used for other purposes. We will follow the agreed instructions and any applicable insolvency process, as set out in the escrow agreement.

In practice, this can provide greater certainty than relying on funds held directly by one of the parties, particularly where payment timing or entitlement is being considered as part of an insolvency situation.

‍

What happens if DOS & Co. becomes insolvent?

All escrow funds are segregated (kept separate from our own funds), safeguarded (protected by law from our own creditors) and kept liquid and unencumbered at the Bank of England. In the event of our insolvency, we have set aside regulatory capital that will be used by our administrators to 'unwind' our affairs - this will usually involve working with the parties to agree the identity of a new escrow agent who will 'step in' to carry out our obligations under the escrow agreement.