CACoP

As part of Ofgem’s Code Governance Review, the Code Administration Code of Practice (CACoP) was established. The CACoP is a cross energy industry code document that aims to provide consistency in the approach and level of service associated with Code modification processes.

It contains 13 principles to facilitate convergence and transparency in Code modification processes, and to help protect the interests of small market participants and consumers through various means, including more plain English in Modification reports.

What are the principles?

The 13 CACoP principles are summarised below:

1. Code Administrators shall be critical friends;
2. Documentation published by Code Administrators shall be in clear English;
3. Information will be promptly and publicly available to users;
4. The CACoP will be reviewed periodically and subject to amendment by users;
5. Code Administrators shall support processes which enable users to access a ‘pre-Modification’ process to discuss and develop Modifications;
6. A proposer of a Modification will retain ownership of the detail of their solution;
7. Code Administrators will facilitate alternative solutions to issues being developed to the same degree as an original solution;
8. Estimates of implementation costs to central systems will be produced and consulted upon prior to a Modification being recommended for approval;
9. Legal text will be produced and consulted upon prior to a Modification being recommended for approval;
10. Modifications will be consulted upon and easily accessible to users, who will be given reasonable time to respond;
11. There will be flexibility for implementation, to allow proportionate delivery times and realisation of benefits;
12. The Code Administrators will report annually on agreed metrics; and
13. Code Administrators will ensure cross Code coordination to progress changes efficiently where Modifications impact multiple Codes.

As required by SEC Section C7.2, SECAS must comply with the principles set out in the CACoP.

The CACoP document and asosiated documents are available to download below. Further information on the CACoP can be found on Ofgem’s website.

• Code Administrator Code of Practice v4.0
• Code Administrator Joint Working Practice
• Top five things SECAS will do as a Critical Friend

The SEC Modification Process and the CACoP’s Key Performance Indicator measures

Principle 12 of the CACoP requires Code Administrators to report annually on a number of agreed metrics relating to the progression of Modifications through each Codes’ modification process.

The following table provides the metrics for Q4 2016 (covering October – December 2016) for modifications to the SEC. The table shows that 10 Modification Proposals were raised during the fourth quarter. As the majority of modifications are in the very early stages of progression, the data against many of the measurement areas are zero.

Metric No.	Description	Measurement area	Numbers
Area: General
1	Number of modifications raised in the period (Any modifications with alternatives should just be counted as 1:	Authority Consent – Non-urgent	5
		Authority Consent –Urgent	0
		Self-governance	5
		Fast-Track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
2	Number of modifications withdrawn in the period (Any modifications with alternatives should just be counted as 1):	Authority Consent – Non-urgent	1
		Authority Consent –Urgent	0
		Self-governance	0
		Fast-Track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
				Alternates
3	Number of modifications submitted to the Authority for decision in the period (include the number of alternatives submitted in the second box):	Non-urgent	1	0
		Urgent	0	0
				Alternates
4	Number of final industry decisions on modification in the period (include the number of alternatives submitted in the second box):	Self-governance	2	0
		Fast track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
				Alternates
5	Number of reports ‘sent back’ by the Authority in the period (include the number of alternates in the second box):	Non-urgent	0	0
		Urgent	0	0
6	Number of modifications implemented in the period:		2
Area: Consultation
7	Number of consultations which closed in the period for the following types of modifications this includes any consultation raised at any point during the modification cycle, and any modifications with alternates should be counted as 1:	Authority Consent – Non-urgent	4
		Authority Consent –Urgent	0
		Self-governance	2
		Fast-Track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
8	Number of consultations to  non-urgent  modification, which closed in the period, that had a consultation period of  less than 15 business days	Authority Consent	1
		Self-governance	0
		Fast-track self-governance	0
9	Number of consultations to  urgent modifications which closed in the period, that had a consultation period of  less than 5 business days	Authority Consent – Urgent	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
10	Number of modifications which had their final vote in the period, for which legal text  was not  available in the final consultation	Authority Consent – Non-urgent	0
		Authority Consent –Urgent	0
		Self-governance	0
		Fast-Track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
Area: Engagement
11	Number of new parties who have acceded to the code in the period		21
12	Number of times assistance was requested with access and engagement to code and the modification process in the period		2987
13	Number of respondents to Authority Consent modification consultations which closed in the period (this includes any consultation raised at any point during the modification cycle:	Minimum	6
		Mean	11
		Median	10
		Maximum	14
14	Number of respondents to Self-governance modification consultation which closed in the period (this includes any consultations raised at any point during the modification cycle):	Minimum	15
		Mean	17
		Median	17
		Maximum	18
Area: Costs
15	Number of modifications which had their final vote in the period, for which an estimation of the central system implementation costs  was not  available in the final consultation:	Authority Consent – Non-urgent	0
		Authority Consent –Urgent	0
		Self-governance	0
		Fast-Track self-governance	0
		Self-governance - Urgent	0
16	Number of modifications, implemented in the period, where the central system implementation costs were zero:		0
17	Number of modifications, implemented in the period where the central system implementation costs were more or less than the advised prior to the final industry vote:	Greater than or equal to 10%  MORE  than the advised implementation cost	0
		Greater than or equal to 10%  LESS  than the advised implementation cost	0

*Under the SEC Modification Process, for Modifications that are not Fast-Track Modifications or subject to Self-Governance, the SEC Change Board provide the final recommendation to the Authority.