1 / 9

Code Administrator Working Group - BSC

Code Administrator Working Group - BSC. Chris Rowell (020 7380 4337). 28 August 2008. Balancing and Settlement Code (BSC) 1 document - 806 pages Modification Procedures (BSC, F) 225 Modification Proposals Modification Group > Panel > Authority . Code Subsidiary Documents (CSDs)

alexia
Download Presentation

Code Administrator Working Group - BSC

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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

More Related