Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/721278
NETWORK / 33 / SEPTEMBER 2016 A key bone of contention since the commissioning of the FPSA project has been its potential to recom- mend a new 'system architect' to be accountable for the implementation and operation of new functions. This idea has been widely rejected by industry – especially energy system incumbents – as overly intervention- ist central planning. On the whole, those at the FPSA launch event agreed with this analy- sis. Central planning is not desirable and "will not work" said John Scott, a respected industry expert. However, it is also clear in the FPSA project team's key fi ndings that the new and extended function- alities needed in the power system will require new "organisational and governance capabilities". The proposed functions do not logically fall within the current roles and responsibilities of any of the incumbent system institutions, said the project's representatives. This raises questions about the allocation of accountability for their implementation. The FPSA team shied away from suggesting that this accountabil- ity could be addressed with a new 'architect' as such. Instead a new system of 'stewardship' was recom- mended. This should be considered in parallel to debate about the need for an independent system operator and to industry regulator Ofgem and the government's investigation of smart systems. At the time of writing, this collab- orative investigation by the regulator and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, was expected to issue a call for evidence in early September. One chapter of this call was to address questions about changing roles and responsi- bilities in the energy system. T H E A R C H I T E C T Q U E S T I O N The scope for a new authority in the energy system is causing a stir. The challenge of allocating accountability for the process of system change was a central topic of discussion at the FPSA report launch event in July. One delegate asked an expert panel: "Who is going to make the decision on accountability? When is it going to be made, how is it going to be made and, ultimately, who pays?" No consensus view about how to answer this challenge emerged, but here's some of what was said. Duncan Botting, director, Global Smart Transformation "Which one organisation has the authority to cover the whole system? None of them does. So in terms of having accountability – that doesn't exist today. So in terms of gaining a whole system perspective, certainly the institutional arrangements need to be reviewed by government… I would note that today there is a reactive situation where regulation is trying to keep up with circumstance and legislation cannot keep up. So we have to have a different way of governance which is more free fl owing, more open and more market driven." John Scott, director, Chiltern Power "Some interesting lessons can be drawn from other sectors about how they manage complexity in terms of their institutional arrangements… You can fi nd on the IET website a review of whole system management in complex sectors. We looked to see, does any other industry have the right model? The answer was no, but the one that came closest to being of interest was the world wide web – how is that run?" Dave Openshaw, chairman, FPSA technical content working group "What's come out of this study is a real call for action from the industry as a whole. It's not about forming new code panels and the bureaucracy that goes with them. The code panels were fi t for purpose at the time they were instituted. But now the scale and pace of change and the number of parties involved makes them suspect in terms of being able to deliver what we need." Phil Taylor, Newcastle University: "There are two things in confl ict with each other here – you talk about prerequisites, sequencing and an integrated approach with careful planning. But then we also hear that there's an urgent need for innovation and that innovation is too slow. It seems to me that you could therefore construct an argument for less regulation and more risk – for getting out of the way. We might get a sub-optimal answer, but it might be a lot faster… but then how do you protect the vulnerable?" Accounting for accountability G R I D L O C K E D