BSC Panel 224 - ELEXON...compliance to the PAB –It does not require a Code change –The MEC has approved the data licence . P320: Updated impacts and costs 37 Central costs: –System

BSC Panel 243

13 August 2015

Health & Safety

2

Report on Progress of Modification

Proposals

13 August 2015

BSC Modifications Overview

4

Initial Written Assessment P324, P325

Assessment Procedure P308, P315, P318, P321, P323

Report Phase P320

With Authority -

Authority Determined -

Self-Gov. Determined -

Fast Track Determined -

Open Issues Issue 60

BSC Modifications Timelines

Aug 15

Sep 15

Oct 15

Nov 15

Dec 15

Jan 16

Feb 16

Mar 16

Apr 16

May 16

Jun 16

Jul 16

…

P308 AR DMR

P315 AR DMR

P318 AR DMR

P320 DMR

P321 AR DMR

P323 AR DMR

P324 IWA AR DMR

P325 IWA AR DMR

Issue 60 IR

5

P324 ‘Review of BSCCo’s

governance: introducing

improved accountability to

BSC Parties’

13 August 2015 Claire Kerr

243/04

Place your chosen

image here. The four

corners must just cover

the arrow tips. For

covers, the three

pictures should be the

same size and in a

straight line.

P324 Review of BSCCo’s Governance:

introducing improved accountability to BSC

Parties

BSC Panel – 13th August 2015

Alex Thomason

8

Background

Discussions in recent years over changes to BSCCo’s

vires

Independent review of BSC governance commissioned

Resulting “Knight Report” from 2013 identified

weaknesses in BSCCo governance

Ofgem issued an open letter encouraging BSC Panel and

BSCCo Board to work with industry to address the

reports’ findings

9

Defect

Knight Report produced multiple recommendations,

including:

Board members should be appointed for renewable three

year terms

The Chairman should be appointed by the Board on

recommendation of Nomination Committee

Board members should be remunerated

BSC parties should have the right to dismiss Board

members by ordinary resolution

The Board should follow the UK Corporate Governance

Code

10

Proposed BSC Modification

Accountability

Give BSC Parties ability to vote to remove Directors

Responsibility

Bring appointment process in line with UK Corporate

Governance Code

Allow BSCCo Board Chair and BSC Panel Chair to be

different people

Consider remuneration of Board members

BSSCo Business Strategy

BSSCo becomes solely responsible, but requirement to

consult BSC Panel and BSC Parties continues

11

Views against Applicable BSC Objectives

(d) Promoting efficiency in the implementation of the

balancing and settlement arrangements

Increase Board accountability to funding Parties

Clarify roles of BSC Panel vs BSCCo Board

Provide consistency with UK Corporate Governance Code

P324: Proposed solution

12

■ Amend the current BSCCo governance arrangements with the aim of clarifying the

relationship between BSCCo, BSCCo Board and the BSC Panel

■ Will address the weaknesses identified in the Knight Report 2013, to bring the

current arrangements in line with best practice

■ To achieve this, amendments need to be made to three key areas:

– Accountability

– Responsibility

– BSCCo Business Strategy

P324: Areas to consider (1 of 2)

13

■ What voting mechanism should be put in place?

– How will the voting mechanism work in practice?

– Consideration of allocating votes e.g. one party one vote or funding share etc.?

– Should there be any caps or limitations on the number of votes per Party, per

Party Group or type of Party?

– Can the voting mechanism be used at any time during the year or on an annual

basis only?

■ What are the impacts on the existing Board make up?

– What are the processes and practicalities of removing directors?

■ Consider the impacts of removing the Panel’s involvement in a potential

director’s appointment

– What is the Panel’s current involvement in the appointment process and how would

this be amended?


14

■ What are the advantages and disadvantages of separating the roles of

Board Chair and Panel Chair?

– What are the current interactions between the Panel Chair and Board Chair

appointments and how would these be amended?

■ Discuss the issue of remuneration for directors

– Should industry directors have the opportunity to receive remuneration?

■ What are the advantages and disadvantages of removing the requirement

for the BSC Panel to approve the BSCCo Business Strategy?

– Are there any additional mechanisms required to ensure that the views of BSC

Parties are reflected in the formulation of the BSCCo Business Strategy?

P324: Proposed progression

15

■ Six month Assessment Procedure

– Assessment Report by 11 February 2016

– P324 to be progressed in parallel with P325

■ Workgroup membership to include any interested Parties (joint Workgroup

membership for P324 and P325)

P324: Recommendations

16

We invite the Panel to:

■ AGREE that P324 progresses to the Assessment Procedure;

■ AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable;

■ AGREE the proposed membership for the P324 Workgroup; and

■ AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference.

P325 ‘Improving the

accountability of BSCCo to

stakeholders & better

aligning BSCCo governance

with best practice’

13 August 2015 Claire Kerr

243/05

P325 - Improving the accountability of BSCCo to stakeholders and better aligning BSCCo governance with best practice

Garth Graham, BSC Panel, Thursday 13th August 2015

Agenda

• What’s the Issue

• What’s the Solution

• What’s the Justification Against the Applicable BSC Objectives

What’s the Issue (1)

The Board has identified four key problem areas in its information paper to the June 2014 BSC Panel (Paper 225/20 – Moving Towards A New Governance Model For ELEXON):-

1. Non-compliance with UK Corporate Governance Code;

2. Lack of clarity in the relationship between the BSCCo Board and the Panel;

3. Inefficient decision making;

4. Lack of accountability.

What’s the Issue (2)

P325 directly addresses two of the four problems the Board identified:-

(1) Non-compliance with UK Corporate Governance Code; and

(4) Lack of accountability.

P325 indirectly addresses the other two problems the Board identified (2) and (3)

P325 also addresses a number of the Knight Report recommendations

What’s the Solution (1)

Issue Shares in BSCCo (Elexon)

* Based on Funding Share Payment(s)

Class of

Share

Holder(s) of the Shares Number of

Shares

A The Authority 1

B BSC Parties* 10,000

C The Company (National Grid) 1

D DNOs and IDNOs 1,000

E New Entrants 1,000


Each Class of Share has certain attributes

• Those attributes for Classes B, D and E are identical (same as shareholders in other UK Companies, as per UK Corporate Governance Code)

• Those attributes for Classes A and C are similar (veto over changes to Company governance, plus Class A has veto over Chairman)


Any Class B, D and E Shares not allocated are held in Nominee Account

Class B shares allocated once a year based on one Share per 0.01% share of BSC Funding Share

All Classes of Shares have same nominal value (£1) and only divisible as whole shares

Class B, D and E Shares come with the obligation to pay corresponding share of BSCCo costs for the year


Class B Shares can be reallocated via the Nominee Account

• Largest six BSC Funding Parties required to release minimum of 25% of their Class B initial allocation annually (creates liquidity in Class B shares plus dilutes largest six parties)

• All holders of Class B shares able to release as many shares as they wish

• Any Class B shareholder (except largest six) can apply to receive (if they wish) more Class B shares over and above their initial allocation up to average of largest six initial holdings

• No party beholden to any other party to release or receive Class B Shares


DNOs, IDNOs, New Entrants and non BSC Funding Share parties may obtain shares in BSCCo but are not compelled to hold shares

• Limits on holdings for Class D and Class E shares – every party who wishes gets a single share, then any other requests allocated by pro-rata up to a maximum of 200 shares

• Limits on holdings for Class E shares – must divest if becomes Class B holder or merges / taken over by Class B holder

What’s the Justification against the Applicable BSC Objectives (1)

Neutral against Applicable BSC Objective (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f)

Better against Applicable BSC Objective (d) as the introduction of new governance arrangements will improve the accountability of BSCCo to stakeholders, and better align BSCCo governance with best practice

What’s the Justification against the Applicable BSC Objectives (2) Current governance model does not allow the Board to function with optimum efficiency and restricts BSCCo’s ability to comply with good corporate governance practice, as set out in the UK Corporate Governance Code

Some initial costs / complexity for the new governance model, long-term, Applicable BSC Objective (d) will be better facilitated through the introduction of new governance arrangements, as the Board is made more accountable to BSC Parties (through BSC Parties’ rights as shareholders) and the BSCCo is able to govern itself more in line with good corporate governance practice

Thank you for your attention


30

■ What is the most appropriate mechanism for allocating and issuing

shares?

– How many shares should be created?

– Who will be responsible for issuing the shares?

– How long will the shares be valid?

– How will Parties be able to release or receive additional shares?

– Should there be a process for reallocating shares during the year?

■ What voting rights should BSC Parties have in accordance with their

annual funding shares?

– What voting mechanism should be put in place?

– How will the voting mechanism work in practice?

– Can the voting mechanism be used at any time during the year or on an annual

basis only?


31

■ What are the impacts and practicalities on the existing BSCCo model?

– Consider the impact on the existing Board and Panel make up

– Consider the impact on the existing Board and Panel interactions

– Consider the changes to ELEXON as an organisation

– Consider any potential license implications

– Consider the impact on National Grid as the existing license holder/shareholder

P325: Proposed progression

32

■ Six month Assessment Procedure

– Assessment Report by 11 February 2016

– P325 to be progressed in parallel with P324

■ Workgroup membership to include any interested Parties (joint Workgroup

membership for P324 and P325)


33


■ AGREE that P325 progresses to the Assessment Procedure;

■ AGREE the proposed Assessment Procedure timetable;

■ AGREE the proposed membership for the P325 Workgroup; and

■ AGREE the Workgroup’s Terms of Reference.

P320 ‘Reporting on Profile

Classes 5-8 Metering

Systems after the

implementation of P272’

13 August 2015 Oliver Xing

243/06

P320: Background

35

■ P272 requires Profile Class 5-8 Metering Systems with Advance Meters be HH settled

■ As part of its implementation, P272 requires changes to PARMS and Supplier

Charges to report any non-compliance

■ P320 proposes to remove these reporting requirement, because the same can be

achieved in a more cost efficient way

P320: Solution

36

■ P320 will back out the relevant paragraphs that require PARMS and Supplier Charge

changes introduced by P272

■ A Committee report should be created using ECOES data to report on P272 non-

compliance to the PAB

– It does not require a Code change

– The MEC has approved the data licence

P320: Updated impacts and costs

37

■ Central costs:

– System cost £17,100 (£4,600 increase from the initial quote)

– Ongoing cost £11,400 per annum (£4,800 increase per annum from the initial

quote) to produce the monthly Committee report using ECOES data, for the

duration of P272 monitoring

■ No cost to market participants to implement P320

■ Cost saving

– ELEXON and Suppliers will also achieve a combined cost saving of at least

£250,000 from not changing PARMS as required by P272

P320: Implementation approach

38

■ P320 should be implemented on the same Implementation Date of P272:

– 1 April 2017, if the Authority decision is received on or before 1 October 2015

■ We recommend an revised cut off date of 1 October 2015, as Parties and ELEXON

will benefit from an early decision on whether PARMS changes should be made

P320: Panel’s initial views

39

■ Unanimous: better facilitates Applicable BSC Objective (d)

– Cost saving from not making PARMS changes

– EFR is a more effective driver for compliance

P320: Report Phase Consultation Responses

40

■ Six out of the seven respondents agreed to approve the proposed solution

■ One respondent was unsure on whether P320 meets Applicable BSC Objective (d),

as additional costs will arise for ELEXON to produce the Committee Report, which

would be shared by all BSC Parties, including those Parties with good performance

■ Six out of the seven respondent agreed with the recommended Implementation Date

■ One respondent believed that the cut-off date should be earlier to give Parties

sufficient time to prepare for the change


41

We invite you to:

■ AGREE that P320 DOES better facilitate Applicable BSC Objective (d);

■ AGREE a recommendation that P320 should be approved;

■ APPROVE an Implementation Date of 1 April 2017 if an Authority decision is

received on or before 1 October 2015;

■ APPROVE the draft legal text; and

■ Either:

– APPROVE the P320 Modification Report; or

– INSTRUCT the Modification Secretary to make such changes to the report as the

Panel may specify.

P315 ‘Publication of Gross Market Share

Data’

13 August 2015 Oliver Xing

243/07

P315: background

43

■ Aims to increase transparency in the retail market by publishing Suppliers’ market

share summary data and making market level consumption data more widely

available

■ It will ensure that all parties have equal access to the basic market share data

■ The Panel returned P315 to Assessment Procedure on 9 April 2015 to consult on the

updated solutions

P315: further Assessment

44

■ The Workgroup has:

– issued a second consultation seeking views on the updated Modification solutions

– further developed the solutions

– issued a third consultation seeking views on the finalised Modification solutions

■ Solution changes :

– in the summary report, anonymise and aggregate data for Suppliers with market

shares below thresholds equivalent to approximately 1% in both domestic and

non-domestic markets (both Proposed and Alternative Modifications)

– make two years’ historical P0276 ‘GSP Group Consumption Totals Report’ available

upon implementation (Alternative Modification only)

P315: Proposed Modification

45

■ Publish quarterly Suppliers’ market share summary (based on R1 data) on the

ELEXON website

– market share by volume and MPAN count across newly defined characteristics

– national level data

– publish at least two months after each Quarter

– user friendly format and accessible by all parties

– anonymise and aggregate small Suppliers’ data for those who have market shares

under the thresholds equivalent to approximately 1%

■ Publish daily P0276 ‘GSP Group Consumption Totals Report’ data flow for SF, RF

and/or DF Settlement Runs on the ELEXON Portal

– make the data available to all BSC Parties (currently only available to Suppliers)

– non-BSC Parties can access the data through a licence agreement

P315: Alternative Modification

46

Same as Proposed Modification except for:

■ two years’ historical P0276 data available upon implementation

■ publish a new daily report ‘GSP Group Market Matrix Report’ containing market level

D0082 ‘Supplier Purchase Matrix Report’ for all Settlement Runs

– data aggregated by all Suppliers

– make the data available to all BSC Parties

– non-BSC Parties can access the data through a licence agreement

P315: impacts and costs

47

■ Proposed Modification

– approximately costs £80k and 29 weeks to implement for central systems

■ Alternative Modification

– approximately costs £104k and 36 weeks to implement for central systems

■ No mandatory impacts and costs for Parties

P315: implementation approach

48

■ For both Proposed and Alternative Modifications the recommended Implementation

Date for P315 is:

– 30 June 2016, if the Authority decision is received on or before 22 October 2015;

or

– 3 November 2016, if the Authority decision is received after 22 October 2015 but

on or before 25 February 2016

P315: addressing industry concerns

49

Concerns of some respondents

Workgroup view/action

Would reveal commercially sensitive information • GSP Group level of information • Profile Class level of information • Monthly publication being too frequent

Amended solutions to reduce data granularity • Report on national level • Group Profile Class into customer types • Quarterly publication with two months delay

Even following amendment, P315 could be used in conjunction with other data to reveal commercially sensitive information

Do not believe data could be used in this way; no evidence provided to explain how such information could be revealed

Would expose small Suppliers’ market shares to competitors

Amended solutions to anonymise and aggregate data of small Suppliers (<1% market share)

Data publication might breach CMA’s guidance on transparency

Legal view that publication does not breach the guidance

P315: industry views from latest consultation

50

Does P315 better facilitate Applicable BSC Objectives?

Yes – 7 respondents

No – 5 respondents

• Transparency is good for competition and anonymity threshold is appropriate to protect small Suppliers

• Promote competition and allow Parties to better understand the market

• Help Parties and NGC to improve forecasting

• Do not agree with the justification for change

• Non-level playing field for Suppliers exceeding the anonymity threshold

• Large Suppliers have more resources to make use of the data

• Current information is sufficient • Still believe the data is confidential

P315: Workgroup views

51

■ Competition benefits

– promote competition by providing all parties, including new entrants, with equal

access to basic market share information

– help market participants to identify opportunities and react to competition, which

ultimately benefits customers

– encourage new entrants due to better visibility of the market

P315: Workgroup views

52

■ Other justifications to publish P315 data

– help parties and NGC to better understand the effect of embedded generation and

improve their demand forecasting

– the market share report would be more accurate than the existing reports as it

would be created from a full set of Settlement data

– address information asymmetry – currently non-Supplier Parties are not able to

access P0276 GSP Group consumption data

– greater transparency around SVA embedded generation could improve efficiency of

pricing in forward markets

P315: Workgroup’s views against Applicable BSC Objectives

53

Proposed Modification

Applicable BSC Objective (b)

Beneficial (unanimous) • Greater visibility of SVA embedded generations would enable

Transmission Company to improve demand forecast and charging activities

• If BSC Parties can improve forecasting, this could result in less imbalance volume for the Transmission Company to manage

Applicable BSC Objective (c)

Beneficial (unanimous) • Better understanding of market share information would:

• promote competition by providing all parties, including new entrants, with equal access to basic market share information

• encourage new entrants due to better visibility of the market

■ Views identical for Alternative, but benefits increased due to more data being

available under the Alternative

P315: Workgroup’s conclusion

54

■ Both P315 Proposed and Alternative Modifications are better than Baseline

(unanimous view)

■ Alternative Modification is better than Proposed Modification (unanimous view

except for the Proposer)

■ P315 recommendation: Approve Alternative

P315: Panel initial views

55

We invite each Panel Member to give their views on:

The P315 Proposed Modification against the Baseline

■ Is the P315 Proposed Modification:

– Beneficial;

– Detrimental; or

– Neutral

against each Applicable BSC Objective and why when compared to the current

Baseline?


56


The P315 Alternative Modification against the Baseline

■ Is the P315 Alternative Modification:

– Beneficial;

– Detrimental; or

– Neutral

against each Applicable BSC Objective and why when compared to the current

Baseline?


57


The P315 Alternative Modification against the P315 Proposed Modification

■ Is the P315 Alternative Modification:

– Beneficial;

– Detrimental; or

– Neutral

against each Applicable BSC Objective and why when compared to the P315

Proposed Modification?

P315 recommendation

58

The P315 Workgroup invites the Panel to:

■ AGREE an Implementation Date for the P315 Proposed Modification of 30 June

2016;

■ AGREE an Implementation Date for the P315 Alternative Modification of 30 June

2016;

■ AGREE the draft legal text for the Proposed Modification;

■ AGREE the draft legal text for the Alternative Modification;

■ AGREE that P315 is submitted to the Report Phase; and

■ NOTE that ELEXON will issue the P315 draft Modification Report (including the draft

BSC legal text) for a 12 Working Day consultation and will present the results to the

Panel at its meeting on 10 September 2015

Minutes of Meetings 242 and

Actions arising

13 August 2015 Victoria Moxham

Chairman’s Report

13 August 2015 Michael Gibbons

ELEXON Report

13 August 2015 Mark Bygraves

243/01

Distribution Report

13 August 2015 David Lane

National Grid Report

13 August 2015 Ian Pashley

Ofgem Report

13 August 2015 Rory Edwards

Reports from the

ISG, SVG, PAB,TDC,

SRAG

13 August 2015

243/01a-e

Trading Operations: BSC

Operations Headline Report

13 August 2015

243/02

Change Report

13 August 2015

243/03

CMA Energy market

investigation: Summary of

provisional Findings and

Recommendations

13 August 2015

243/08

Justin Andrews

For today

69

Consider and comment on:

■ The CMA’s provisional findings and proposed remedies

Note:

■ Ofgem’s proposed 3rd Code Governance Review ahead of consultation in late

summer

■ DECC’s response, 31 July,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4506

05/CMA_response.pdf

■ Ofgem’s response, 5 August,

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2015/08/ofgem_response_to_the

_pfs_and_notice_of_remedies_0.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450605/CMA_response.pdf



https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2015/08/ofgem_response_to_the_pfs_and_notice_of_remedies_0.pdf



Summary of CMA Report

70

■ CMA investigation started in summer 2014

■ Final report due by end of 2015

■ Provisional findings and notice of potential remedies published on 7 July 2015:

– competition in wholesale gas and electricity generation markets works well

– no strong case for returning to the old ‘pool’ system

– minor concerns on EMR (DECC awarding CfDs outside the CfD auction & CfD budget

allocation)

– critical of large gas and electricity suppliers use of unilateral market power

– concern that Ofgem’s interventions have been to the detriment of competition

■ CMA found that adverse effects on competition arise in:

– wholesale market rules; retail competition and customer engagement; settlement design;

Ofgem’s duties, objectives and independence; and the governance of industry codes

CMA Consultation

71

■ The CMA sought views by 5 August 2015 on 24 proposed remedies

■ ELEXON provided a response on 31 July 2015

■ We have notified the CMA that the BSC Panel may wish to provide comments

following this meeting

CMA Remedies relevant to the BSC (1 of 6)

72

■ Market Rules - Absence of locational prices for transmission losses

– Remedy 1: Introduce a standard licence condition requiring locational

prices for transmission losses in order to achieve technical efficiency

– Controversial topic surfaces every few years

– 9 BSC Mods on locational transmission charging since 2002 (last was P229 in 2011)

– Encourages future generation plant to be built closer to areas of demand

– Will lead to a BSC Mod if taken forward

– Interactions with European legislation


73

■ Electricity Settlement Design – no firm plan for moving to half-hourly settlement

– Remedy 13: Require industry to agree a binding plan for the introduction

of a cost-effective HH settlement of domestic electricity meters

– Not clear how this requirement would be created or enforced

– Proposal has implications for other work, e.g. Ofgem’s proposed Code Governance Review, regarding

the co-ordination of industry change

– We believe ELEXON can and should play a key role in taking this forward

– Delivery might build on work of PSRG and Settlement Reform Advisory Group (SRAG)

– SRAG’s first meeting 15 July, focus:

development of proposals to enable the HH Settlement of PC1-4 customers on an elective basis

the promotion of cross-code co-operation to remove identified barriers


74

■ Industry Codes - conflicting interests and limited incentives to deliver policy changes

■ Industry Codes - Ofgem’s insufficient ability to influence code modification processes

Remedy 18a: Make code administration a licensable activity

i. Ofgem oversight of code administrator performance: Not clear on material benefits compared to

the status quo under the BSC or compatibility of BSC funding with the application of penalties

applied under a licence

ii. More powers for code administrators: make the initiation and development of modification

proposals more efficient. This appears to align with ELEXON/Panel (and Ofgem’s) views on more

strategic and proactive code panels and code administrators

iii. Selection of code administrators: CMA preference for impartial code administrators and implies non-

profit is good for independence? CMA raises question of competitive procurement of code

administrators.


75



Remedy 18b: Give Ofgem more powers to project-manage and control the

process of developing and/or implementing code changes

– Supports Ofgem’s approach on Significant Code Review (SCR) on next day customer switching

– The BSC already affords Ofgem extensive powers to direct the pace of change

– We encourage Ofgem’s early and consistent involvement in modifications

– We believe:

Only assess once in the SCR process (to avoid duplication of effort)

Industry code panels must have a role in voting on Modifications arising from SCRs


76



Remedy 18c: An independent code adjudicator to determine which code

changes should be adopted in the case of dispute

– Aims to resolve disagreements between parties over code changes more quickly

Not clear how this is better than determinations of Ofgem/Authority

The CMA is currently the appeal body if Ofgem/Authority approves a change recommended for

rejection by BSC Panel

Not clear how/why a new body would resolve disagreements more quickly than now

An additional body may adversely impact coordination between industry code change governance,

licence modifications and legislation


77

■ Ofgem’s duties and objectives and independence

Remedy 16: A Revision of Ofgem’s statutory objectives and duties in order

to increase its ability to promote effective competition

– The CMA queries what change may be required to Ofgem’s statutory objectives and duties

Implications for weighing the balance of arguments with respect to the trilemma?

Implications for Applicable BSC Objectives?

A 3rd Code Governance Review?

78

■ Progress:

– Ofgem open letter, 15 May

– Noted by Panel in June

– Workshop, 22 July

■ Issues:

– Delivery, analysis, co-ordination, smaller parties, barriers

■ Ofgem thinking about changes:

– Significant Code Reviews

– Code administration requirements

– Self-Governance processes

– Charging methodologies

■ Focus on incremental change

■ Further consultation in late summer

DECC’s response, 31 July

79

■ ‘impressive amount of analysis’

■ ‘intricate workings of the energy markets have escaped detailed scrutiny over recent

years’

■ ‘all suppliers maintain their focus on delivering the roll-out of smart meters by the

end of 2020’

■ ‘importance of half hourly settlement in facilitating greater innovation in time of use

tariffs and will shortly be bringing forward proposals for pre-legislative scrutiny that

will seek to give Ofgem greater powers in order to deliver settlement reform more

quickly’

■ ‘Government is committed to acting on the final recommendations from the CMA’

Ofgem’s response, 5 August

80

■ ‘thorough analysis the CMA has conducted on the market’

■ ‘strongly agree with the CMA’s conclusion on the current code governance regime’

■ ‘reformed set of institutions would be central to ensuring that the regulatory regime

is able to respond to the innovation and change the industry is going to see in the

coming years’

■ ‘agree in principle that locational losses could improve price signals and the

efficiency of investment in generation’

■ ‘work with DECC in the coming months to develop a plan for the implementation of

half-hourly settlement’

ELEXON’s response

81

■ Explanations of BSC, data and our submissions and hearing

■ Licensable activity:

– Ofgem has extensive oversight and powers on change (approval, prioritisation,

timescales, National Grid step-in)

– Implement BSC approach across all codes (and Consumer representation)

– Not for profit

– Competitive process and remove existing BSC restrictions

Recommendations

82


■ COMMENT on the CMA’s provisional findings and its notice of possible remedies of

its energy market investigation

Panel Meeting Dates for

2016

13 August 2015

243/09

Victoria Moxham

Recommendations

84

We invite you to:

APPROVE the proposed dates for 2016 as set out in table 1; and

APPROVE their publication on the ELEXON website.

Next Meeting: 10 September 2015

Documents

BSC Panel 224 - ELEXON...compliance to the PAB –It does not require a Code change –The MEC has approved the data licence . P320: Updated impacts and costs 37 Central costs: –System