Utility Week - authoritative, impartial and essential reading for senior people within utilities, regulators and government
Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/678345
12 | 13TH - 19TH MAY 2016 | UTILITY WEEK Policy & Regulation Market view W ith only half of code administra- tion bodies in the energy market exposed to competitive pressures, do all organisations delivering these code- related services strive for exceptional qual- ity, while keeping costs low? Should they all be exposed to competitive tendering? These are some of the key questions that need addressing. Industry codes are multilateral agree- ments that underpin market interoperability. They ensure fair and equitable competitive market practices (a level competitive playing field), and ultimately, support the delivery of services for customers. Codes are an intrin- sic part of the governance infrastructure to ensure energy markets work. This is an aspect also recognised by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), which high- lighted within its provisional remedies that codes are critical for the functioning of the regulatory framework. In its Cutting Red Tape of the Energy Sec- tor publication, the Department for Busi- ness, Innovation and Skills (BIS) suggested four code administration bodies had a total operating budget of around £70 million in 2013/14. In addition, the CMA noted during its investigation into the retail energy mar- ket that the complexity of codes and the related governance arrangements created significant compliance costs for industry participants. At a time when energy costs are under such scrutiny, the regulatory and governance framework should also be exposed to driv- ing out inefficiencies and securing value for money for customers. Gemserv is one of the four code adminis- trators mentioned by BIS, administering two major industry codes: the Master Registra- tion Agreement (MRA), and the Smart Energy Code (SEC). Both codes play a fundamental role in governing energy market practices. The former supports electricity retail govern- ance practices across Great Britain; the latter lies at the heart of national smart metering rollout programme. Despite their signifi- cance, these two combined operating budg- ets only account for 7 per cent of the total £70 million suggested by BIS. In other words, the bulk of the costs in 2013/14 as quoted by BIS relate to the three remaining code administration bodies. While all industry codes are different in terms of their complexity and what they cover, undoubtedly behaviours change where there is a real risk of competitive pressure placed on those codes and their administrators. Competition in code administration ensures that organisations that look aer codes remain focused on the quality of ser- vice; it ensures efficient pricing of goods and services; and it drives organisations to inno- vate in order to stay ahead of its competitors. But not all codes and their code administra- tors are open to competitive pressures, as they are in the case for the MRA and SEC. All Gemserv's code administration work is secured on a competitive tender basis. The MRA (the electricity market retail code) has seen a 55 per cent cost reduction in core ser- vice charges since its inception in June 1998. The SEC, a new market code, applies similar efficient benchmarked practices. If this was the case across the board for all industry codes, that is, if they were open to competitive tender for code administra- tion services, there could be significant cost savings on the £70 million quoted by BIS. With half of the current 11 energy indus- try codes and agreements providing monop- oly services on a non-tenderable contract, improving competition in code administra- tion would provide a more cost-effective framework. It would change behaviours, ensuring that all code administration bodies were focused on the value and outcomes. The very nature of competitive threats bears down on costs. Indeed, the CMA pro- poses a remedy for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc) to make the provision of code administration (and deliv- ery) services a licensable activity. For this to achieve the outcome of high quality code administration at a low cost, all codes and their administrative services should be open to full competition. The right incentive-based model is one where there is no guarantee of future rev- enue other than under a competitively won contract, where a code administrator is able to reap the rewards of success but suffer the consequences of failure. Indeed, to do otherwise runs counter to the CMA's objective to ensure that the impo- sition of sanctions delivers strong account- abilities and to ensure that incentives placed on code administrators are aligned with those of customers. It is difficult to see how a licensing regime could be fully effective unless the two go hand-in-hand, that is, where licens- ing ensures there are strong accountabilities against which performance can be measured and enforced, and a fully competitive code regime ensures the licensing impacts are felt by the code administrators themselves. The CMA is due to publish its final rem- edies before 26 June 2016. The CMA should ensure that there is a level playing field when it comes to code administration, by requiring the full contestability of code administration services across all industry codes before sanc- tions under a licensing regime are applied. Tony Thornton, head of transformation, Gemserv Make codes competitive The energy sector could save significant sums of money by opening up all code administration activities to competition, says Tony Thornton. Key points Of the 11 energy industry codes and agreements, only half are open to competitive pressures. According to BIS, the four code adminis- tration bodies in the UK cost £70 million in 2013/14. According to the CMA, the complexity of codes and related governance is a significant compliance cost for the energy sector. Gemserv argues that opening up the non- tendered part of the code administration market would result in significant cost savings for the industry.