Governance Review – Setting the scope

July 2008

2

• Respondents’ views to November open letter

• PED event

• Independent critique of governance arrangements

• Authority’s views

Scope of Governance Review

3

The Codes Governance Review……why now?

4

• Strategic policy reform/self governance package

• Charging methodologies

• Code objectives

• Code administration

• Complexity and fragmentation workgroup

• Small participant initiatives

Scope of the review – 6 key workstrands

5

• Ofgem initiated high level strategic policy reviews with legally binding conclusions…plus

• Self governance for low customer impact modifications

• Self governance with protections (eg appeal route, panel representation for customers)

• A combined package of proposals

• Consultation – autumn 2008

Scope of review

Major policy reform and self governance

6

• Decisions largely follow panel recommendations

Does Ofgem need to be involved in all mods?

Year No of decisions

07/08 153

06/07 210

05/06 239

04/05 163

7

Ofgem initiates review

Third party raises mod proposal

Ofgem categorises

Industry led

Merits appeal to

Ofgem

Ofgem runs review

process – legally binding

conclusions

Standard merits CC

appeal

“Most material – key public policy issue”

POSSIBLE PROCESS - THREE PATHS FOR CODE CHANGE

Ofgem decision – accept or reject mod

Ofgem issues

decision

Panel develop mod

to comply with

conclusions

Ofgem decision

Panel decision –accept or

reject

“Material but no major review

necessary”

Consultation and Panel

recommendation

Standard CC merits

appeal

PATH 2 - BUSINESS AS USUAL

Standard CC merits

appealPATH 3 – SELF GOVERNANCE

PATH 1 – OFGEM POLICY REVIEW

“Low customer impact”

8

• Methodologies impact on:o infrastructure investmento operational behaviouro GHG emissionso distributional effects

• Allow market participants to propose changes?

• Benefits - more accessibility, accountability of networks

• Downsides - frequency of change, reduced certainty, revenue risk for networks

Scope of review

Charging methodologies

Possible options for consultation

1. Status quo – no change

2. Transfer into codes

3. Retain in licence but allow more accessibility

Consultation – August 2008

9

• Alignment of code objectives with Authority duties?

• Propose to issue open letter consultation in September 08

• Will consider environment, but not other statutory duties

• Final guidance on treatment of GHG costs/benefits under existing code objectives – published June 08

• Possible options for consultation:o Expand scope of existing objectiveso New code objective on environmento Requirement on panels to consult on environment

Scope of review

Code objectives

10

• Quality of analysis - concerns remain, significant issues for smaller players and new entrants, and Ofgem!

• Scope for Ofgem to engage and advise – prevent “blind alleys”

• Proposals to enable Authority to “send back reports” and “call in panels and administrators”

• Governance of code administrators and panels:• Sufficiently accountable – board structures and benchmarking?• Independent panel chairs?• Alignment of customer representation across codes?

• Consultation Autumn 2008

Scope of review

Role of code administrators and panels

11

• Complexity and fragmentation – barrier to new entrants and smaller players

• Ofgem to set up working group to explore best practice and convergence across codes.

• No proposals at this stage to pursue code mergers – but open to industry to take initiative.

Scope of review

Addressing fragmentation and complexity

12

• Explore requirements on code administrators or panels to consider the needs of smaller participants

• Assistance or funding for smaller participants in engaging in the codes modification process?

• Consultation autumn 2008

Scope of review

Small participant initiatives

13

Our aspirations for code governance

14

• Governance ineffective in delivery strategic policy reform

• Effective in managing incremental change

• Administrator analysis - poor quality/lack of incentives

• Ofgem involvement disproportionate

• Code fragmentation/heavy layer of complexity

• Differences in code objectives lead to inefficiencies

• Sceptical over charging methodology changes

The Brattle report - conclusions

15

Quality of analysis – respondents’ views

• Several market participants indicated that quality of analysis was not problem or issue

• Improvement requires more engagement from Ofgem– earlier participation in process– terms of Ofgem engagement should be clearly set out

• Some smaller market participants took a different view– reports incomprehensible or lack critical assessment– participant views reported but not assessed/analysed– …this hinders engagement

• Some support for additional Ofgem power to :– “call in” proposals that are not being properly assessed– send modification reports back to panel– call for more analysis

16

Moving charging methodologies into codes

• Mixed views received from market participants

– Some supportive – welcome consideration of the issue, potential transparency benefits

– Some opposing views – potential for increased uncertainty– Some support for independent administration of

methodologies

• Network businesses generally unsupportive of move

– Potential for proliferation of proposals / additional resource requirements / greater uncertainty

– ENA agrees issue is within scope – but with caveats

17

Fragmentation, complexity and other issues

• Concerns expressed that existing arrangements are complex – harmonisation and convergence of mod rules necessary– consider code/administrator convergence

• Arrangements do not effectively address cross code & strategic issues

• Prioritisation of mod proposals desirable – links to self governance

• Mixed views for move to increased self governance– impact on smaller players? Less inclusive/accessible regime? Costly process?– Or, reduce Ofgem role where unanimous support for code mod

• Several respondents argued that:– no fundamental change is necessary – only incremental change is warranted– Change should be accompanied by cost benefit analysis

• Feedback received on other issues - e.g. transparency of Authority decisions

18

Alignment of code objectives

• Strong support from renewables sector

• Support from other market participants for considering the issue - although many signal a cautious approach:

– Important to consider interactions with statutory and licence objectives of network business

– Clarity needed on interpretation of objectives and the need for weightings if new objectives are added

– Risk of increased complexity

• Energywatch agrees that it is timely to consider alignment issue

– Lack of alignment means Authority does not receive all necessary information

19