Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.
-
Upload
hilary-lester -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.
![Page 1: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Code Governance Review
Initial Proposals
Industry Codes and LicensingOfgem
![Page 2: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Can the arrangements meet future challenges and deliver reform and benefits to consumers?
The Governance Review…context
Codes have worked well to deliver incremental change, but..
![Page 3: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Process to date
• Scope of codes governance review (June 2008)• Initial consultations
– Major policy reviews and self governance (Dec 08)– Role of code administrators and small participant, etc.
initiatives (Dec 08)– Code objectives and the environment (Nov 08)– Charging methodologies (Sept 08)
• Code Administrators Working Group (CAWG)– Report published April 2009
• Initial Proposals consultations– Major policy reviews and self governance (July 09)– Code administrators and small participants etc (July 09)– Code objectives and environment (June 09)– Charging methodologies (coming soon)
![Page 4: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Objectives of code governance review
• Promote inclusive, accessible and effective consultation• Governance rules and processes transparent and easily
understood• Rules administered in independent and objective fashion• Provide rigorous and high quality analysis• Cost effective• Rules and processes flexible to allow effective change
management• Deliver in a manner that places a proportionate regulatory burden
![Page 5: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Focus of today….
• Major Policy Reviews and Self Governance
• Role of Code Administrators
• Small participant/consumer initiatives
![Page 6: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Major Policy Reviews and Self Governance
Ofgem initiates review
Third party raises mod proposal
Ofgem categorises
Merits appeal to Ofgem
Ofgem runs review
process –legally binding
conclusions
Standard merits
CC appeal
Ofgem decision –accept or
reject mod
Ofgem issues
decision
Panel develop mod
to comply with
conclusions
Ofgem decision
Panel decision –accept or
reject
Consultation and Panel
recommendation
Standard CC merits
appeal
PATH 2 – “REFORMED STATUS QUO”
PATH 3 – SELF GOVERNANCE
PATH 1 – OFGEM POLICY REVIEWDECEMBER 08 PROPOSALS
![Page 7: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Major Policy Reviews – Respondents’ views
• Mixed views from respondents
• Some agreed that codes were not effective in delivering major strategic reform
• Others preferred existing framework – e.g. wide number of alternatives can be raised, iterative process, Ofgem engagement
• Concerns raised regarding level of consultation and accountability of Ofgem for MPR conclusions
• Concern that MPR would limit ability of panels to vote freely
• Support for self governance proposals
![Page 8: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Major Policy Reviews – Key observations
• MPRs form key part of Initial Proposals
• Ofgem lead, single process, coordinated and transparent
• Recognition that MPRs give Authority more control
• Therefore checks and balances are important
• Proposals are necessary and proportionate
• Not expected to do more than 1 or 2 a year
• Increased alignment with ACER
![Page 9: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Major Policy Reviews – Checks and balances
New powers with full accountability
• Set out plans to conduct MPRs in Corporate Strategy• Consult on scope of MPR, issues and options for reform• We expect to carry out IAs• Publication of written conclusions• Consultation on modification proposals following any Ofgem
direction• Ofgem will retain open mind throughout process• No restrictions on panel member voting• Proposals intended to promote debate through transparent,
consultative framework.• Proposals do not affect rights of appeal to CC or conduct of appeal
process
![Page 10: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Major Policy Reviews – Key changes
• Ofgem has listened to concerns raised by respondents• Several key changes proposed to improve MPR process
KEY CHANGES
• Time window for industry participants to raise alternative modification proposals
• Urgent modification proposal facility
• Ability for Authority to change “directions” – e.g. if new information comes to light
![Page 11: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Major Policy Review – Outcome of MPR
December 2008 options
• Option 1 – High Level Binding Conclusions• Option 2 – Detailed Binding Conclusions• Option 3 – Ofgem prepares modification proposal and legal text.
Initial Proposals
•No options being ruled out – case by case assessment•Preference to use Options 1 or 2, and rely on industry expertise to prepare modification•Backstop power to draft code modifications
![Page 12: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Filtering and self governance
Determining the modification pathway
• Filtering decisions taken by industry, subject to Ofgem veto• Modifications can therefore be redirected between self
governance and Ofgem decision paths (Paths 2 and 3)• Changes to filtering criteria – “non-trivial” impacts
Self governance
• Key elements including the decision maker, voting mechanisms – for industry to develop and submit to Ofgem for approval
• Appeal mechanism• Ofgem to act as appeal body• Grounds of appeal – unfairly prejudice party’s interests/does
not meet code objectives• Establish “forum” to help resolve disputes/reduce appeals
![Page 13: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Major Policy Reviews and Self Governance
Proposed new framework
Ofgem begins Major Policy
Review
Third party raises mod proposal
Industry filters mod proposal, subject to Ofgem redirection
Appeal to Ofgem
Ofgem consults on scope, issues
and options (including an IA),
publishes conclusions and
directions Standard CC
appeal
Relevant licence holder/s develops
modification to reflect MPR directions.
Alternative mods possible within time window (and urgent mods at any time)
Ofgem decision
Consultation and Panel decision
Consultation andPanel recommendation
PATH 2 – “ REFORMED
STATUS QUO ”
PATH 3 – SELF
GOVERNANCE
PATH 1 – OFGEM
POLICY REVIEW
Ofgem decision
Standard CC appeal
Potential standard
CC appeal*
Appeal to Forum
Ofgem decision
Consultation and
Panel recommend-
ation
![Page 14: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Code administrators + consumer/small participant consultation
KEY ISSUES IN DECEMBER DOCUMENT
– Role of code administrators
– Accountability and independence of code administrators and panels – cost and quality of service
– Quality of analysis- modification reports difficult to understand / deficiencies in analysis
– Engagement of new entrants /small participants/consumers• Opaque/complex modification reports• Difficulties engaging at workgroup level
![Page 15: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Changing the roles and responsibilities of administrators?
December document options
Critical friend or active secretariat?
Respondents’ views
•No issues with quality of analysis•More engagement from Ofgem•Active secretariat not independent
Initial proposals
Requirement on CAs to adopt “critical friend”
![Page 16: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Critical friend
What is the scope of the critical friend function?
• Primary and secondary activities• Assess whether analysis on mod proposal is robust and
comprehensive?• Are all arguments for and against a proposal discussed?• Are unsubstantiated assertions challenged? • Assess whether a proposal has particular impacts on small
participants or consumers• Assist small participants and consumers (eg on drafting mods,
clarification of code text, explaining impacts of code modifications)
• Code administrators not performing these roles currently
![Page 17: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Accountability and independence of administrators
December document options
• Status quo - integration• Management unbundling/operational separation• Independent company and board structure• Independent chairmen of administrators• Improvement objectives/targets/KPIs• Treatment of costs – service contracts/price controls etc
Respondents’ views•Little support for company structures•Some support for service contract approaches
![Page 18: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Accountability and independence of code administrators
Initial proposals• Board structures provide optimal framework for
accountability and transparency• Merit in exploring service contract structures through
industry work-streams/issues groups• BUT, at this stage NO proposals for structural reform• Ofgem remains open to considering change in this area• More scope for CAs to develop and publish KPIs
Independently appointed chairs – CUSC and UNC• Help to embed critical friend approach• Support self governance framework• Aligns CUSC and UNC with BSC
![Page 19: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Other potential improvements
December document options
• Power to “call in” and “send back” modifications
• Panel members provide reasons for decisions
• Code administrators raise modifications
• Code of practice for administrators
• Performance evaluation – “scorecard approach”
![Page 20: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Other potential improvements
Respondents’ views
• Little support for “send back” power, some support for “call in” – more engagement from Ofgem
• Limited support for CA ability to raise mod proposals• Support for publication of panels reasons for decisions• Support for voluntary code of practice• Support for performance benchmarking
![Page 21: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Other potential improvements
Initial Proposals
• “Call in” – enable Ofgem to issue directions on:– scope of analysis that needs to be undertaken on mod
before it is submitted to Authority– timetabling of modification
• “Send back” – address deficient analysis or where further work is required
• Require panels to provide reasons for recommendations explained by reference to code objectives.
• Performance scorecard reviews of code administrators• Voluntary Code of practice – develop through CAWG• Ability of panels to raise proposals on administration
issues
![Page 22: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Small participant, new entrant and consumer representation initiatives
December options• Status quo ‘plus’ – voting rights on CUSC/UNC/BSC• Advocacy panel• Increased role for Ofgem consumer challenge group• Duty on code administrators to assist small
participants/consumer representatives
Respondents views• Difficulties/barriers for small participants• Some support for obligation on CAs• But little support for advocacy panel• Support for extending consumer rights across codes
![Page 23: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Small participant, new entrant and consumer representation initiatives
Initial proposals• Ofgem remains concerned about small
participant/consumer engagement• Duty on CAs to assist small participants and consumer
representatives• No proposals for dedicated voting seats for small
participants• BUT Consumer Focus voting rights should be extended
to UNC
![Page 24: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Small participant, new entrant and consumer representation initiatives
What is captured by a duty on CAs?• Contacting small participant/consumer reps on issues that
may impact them• Assisting frame and develop proposals• Ensuring viewpoints are articulated and debated at
workgroup and panel meetings• Ensuring views are reflected in workgroup and modification
reports• Management of meetings, web forums, improved websites• A reasonable endeavours duty?• Definition of small participant
![Page 25: Code Governance Review Initial Proposals Industry Codes and Licensing Ofgem.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062409/56649e6a5503460f94b67577/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Next Steps
• Responses due Friday 18 September
• August consultation on licence drafting
• Reconvene CAWG to develop Code of Practice
• Publish Final proposals early 2010.