Code Administrator Working Group - BSC

1. Code Administrator Working Group - BSC Chris Rowell (020 7380 4337) 28 August 2008

2. Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) 1 document - 806 pages Modification Procedures (BSC, F) 225 Modification Proposals Modification Group > Panel > Authority Code Subsidiary Documents (CSDs) 140 documents ~ 7000 pages Change Management (BSCP 40) 795 Change Proposals Panel Committee BSC Overview

3. Consult during Definition, Assessment & Report (typically 2 weeks) Send to ~360 self subscribed recipients (plus identified groups) Commitment of BSC Agents to Implementation Dates Limited engagement – typical number of responses 10 Limited information on BSC Party business impacts (e.g. costs & savings) Difficulties couching arguments in terms of Applicable BSC Objectives 1. Effective Consultation promote inclusive, accessible and effective consultation

4. Roles defined in Section F of BSC (Web) published timetable with public meetings & documents Easy to launch a proposal Bodies meet as independent experts Named contacts for all changes Information “comprehensive” Risk that with 3 “gates” - some arguments are held back Misalignment of objectives – Mods Groups & Panel v Authority 2. Transparent Processes be governed by rules and processes that are transparent and easily understood

5. ELEXON required to provide facilities, services & secretariat ELEXON additionally provide chairman, lead analyst, change drafting (+ operational experts) ELEXON primary source of analysis – reducing Party burden, delivering a consistent product 3. Administration • Struggle to produce papers “by committee” • “Critical friend” role v independence be administered in an independent and objective fashion

6. 4. Quality Analysis provide rigorous and high quality analysis of the case for an against proposed changes • Mods Groups work to Panel ToRs • Drive towards qualitative, if not quantative, arguments • Increasing sophistication in framing arguments around Applicable BSC Objectives • Limited number of responses • Limited information on business impacts (e.g. costs & savings) • Difficulties couching arguments in terms of Applicable BSC Objectives & their limited coverage

7. 5. Cost Effective • Use of ELEXON offices • Try to contain “meeting miles” – joint meetings • Use of ELEXON staff v consultants • Batch changes into Releases – certainty over Implementation Dates • Costs published & challenged • Substantial volumes of published materials – difficult to assimilate • be cost effective

8. 6. Flexible • Urgent Process • Timetable can (but is rarely) varied • One size – including for “Housekeeping Changes” • Once launched cannot be terminated • Aided by commitment of Proposer & dependent on Modification Group members contain rules and processes that are sufficiently flexible to circumstances that they will always allow for efficient change management

9. 7. Proportionate • No rejections due to lack of adequate analysis • Some Modifications largely self evident – require controls but not Authority decisions • Late identified analysis gaps can only be addressed by rejection (rather than reassessment) be delivered in a manner that results in a proportionate regulatory burden