Code Governance Review: follow up

2 Background CGR implementation PID included the following deliverable –“achieve a demonstrable cultural shift within the organisation to ensure Ofgem’s proactive and constructive participation in the industry change management process”. We considered that a survey would be helpful to capture industry parties current (pre-CGR) views –25 responses received, covering large and small parties, and code administrators Comments generally in line with expectation – perceived weaknesses are being addressed through the ‘cultural shift’

3 Results QuestionsAgree%Disagree% We publish sufficient information on modification decisions817 Decision letters are clear and informative6711 Representatives at modification workgroups are knowledgeable and well briefed 722 Representatives at modification workgroups are helpful and add value to discussion 1929 Representatives at Code Panels are knowledgeable and well briefed484 Representatives at Code Panels are helpful and add value to discussion554 Stakeholders are kept well informed of when a modification decision is expected 2252 The indicative modification timetable published on Ofgem’s website is useful 5615 The time generally taken to make a modification decision is appropriate 1952 Respondents satisfied overall with Ofgem's role in the modification process 4122

4 Further breakdown, by question

5 Key messages The value the Ofgem representative adds to the process varies code to code and dependent upon the individual –Desire for greater consistency and assertiveness Response times for both decisions and actions often too long, with little transparency on what is happening –More proportionate approach needed –Calls for greater visibility of internal process Quality of decisions generally good, but let down on specific – often key – decisions Need to improve technical knowledge