Code Administrators Working Group (CAWG)

1. Code Administrators Working Group (CAWG) Meeting 3, 29th October 2008

2. Key issues – setting the scene • Transparency, accessibility and effective consultation? • How easy is it for parties to understand modification proposals, reports and processes? • How easy is it for parties to engage in the modification process and progress modifications? • Are aspects of the modification process too burdensome? • Measures to assist smaller market participants and consumers?

3. Key issues – setting the scene (continued) • Flexibility and cost effectiveness • What can we do to improve the efficiency and operation of the modification process? • Is there duplication? How do we reduce duplication? • Are processes sufficiently flexible to enable different types of modifications to be treated differently? • Rigorous and high quality analysis • Is analysis sufficiently rigorous and robust? Is it objective and independent? • Do the modification processes support rigorous analysis?

4. Formulating and raising modification proposals • Testing ideas • How easy is it to test ideas under CUSC/BSC and UNC • Issues groups or work-streams? Any material differences? • Who can raise modification proposals? Should panels be able to initiate proposals when they identify a deficiency in the codes arrangements?

5. Mod raised – Panel considers what route to take • Are initial written assessments useful, or unnecessary overhead? • Do Panels find the right balance between mods sent straight to consultation and those sent straight to workgroups? • Who should advise on Terms of Reference, and when? • Do (can?) Panels bundle similar mods effectively? • Use of workgroups, amalgamation of proposals • Do we need to increase the flexibility of the process (eg under BSC)? How do we do this? • Should some steps in the process be removed depending on the nature of the proposal? • Should simpler processes be introduced under CUSC/BSC for housekeeping modifications?

6. The Working Group process – ownership of the proposal • Who should own the modification proposal? The proposer or the workgroup? • Possible “proposer owns” approach: • Proposer controls proposed solution and evolution of the proposal • WG assesses proposal and makes recommendations • WG able to develop alternatives or variations • Is voting necessary? • Administrator chairs WG • Open door policy on work-groups • Owner of proposal able to withdraw proposal

7. Proposer owned proposals – Pros and cons? • Proposer maintains control of proposal – small participant benefits? • But… more resource burden for smaller parties? • Less reliance on voting and more flexible WG membership? Increased accessibility? • Flexibility and cost savings if proposals can be withdrawn

8. Other aspects of the modification process • Treatment of alternative proposals • Should there be restrictions on the number of alternative mods? • Should there be restrictions on when alternatives can be raised? • Possible approach: • No restrictions on alternatives • But, alternatives can only be raised within WG (or work-stream) process (CUSC CAP160 approach)?

9. Consulting stakeholders • Should the length of the report consultation be discretionary or fixed? • Should there be a de minimis consultation period? • Difference in treatment between urgent and non-urgent mods? • Should legal text be consulted on? If so, when?

10. The modification group report – role of the code administrators • What should be the role of the code administrator in relation to the WG report/modification reports? • Critical friend for the mod group? • Active analytical role in the assessment process? More than just reporting of views? • Issues to be considered as part of the Performance of Code Administrator work-strand • Ofgem interested in the views of CAWG

11. Panel considers recommendation • Do Panels have relevant expertise? • Do Panels adequately reflect range of stakeholder views? • Independent vs representative • If no, how to cater for what’s missing? • Should the proposer, working group chair, or any other attendee, have the ability to challenge the Panel’s thinking? • Do Panels provide enough information/rationale to explain their recommendations? • Should materials sent to the Authority be final: • Legal text (i.e. consequential changes and typos)? • Analysis? • Implementation Date?

12. Code of Practice for Panels and Administrators • Standard proforma for a modification proposal • Standard proforma for modification reports • Websites conform to agreed standards/principles • Alignment of code change process terminology • Description of role of administrator (including with respect to smaller parties) • Plain English summaries of modification proposals and Panel assessment • Describe factors that may be taken into account when assessing a mod against relevant objectives • Other suggestions?

13. Initiatives to assist smaller players/consumers • Should code administrators be able to raise modification proposals on behalf of smaller market participants, or sponsor proposals? • Should administrators be required to assist smaller market participants? • Are consumer views adequately represented on panels and workgroups? • Separately funded Consumer/Small participant advocacy panel? Who pays?

14. Initiatives to assist smaller players/consumers (continued) • Should there be consumer representation on the UNC panel? • Should consumers be able to raise modification proposals across all of BSC, CUSC and UNC? • Should administrators establish regular cross-code education forums for participants on key industry changes? Would this “crowd out” private sector provision? • Other suggestions?