FAO: Marzia Zafar, Deputy Director for Digitalisation and Decentralisation

This is Icebreaker One’s response to Ofgem’s Energy Digitalisation Governance – Architectural Coordination letter.

Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One (IB1) uses the terms Open, Shared and Closed data as defined here.

If you have any questions about our submission or require clarifications please do not hesitate to contact us via policy@ib1.org.

Executive summary

This response advocates for a focus on coordination of the energy sector’s data architecture and energy data governance as a fruitful starting point for architectural coordination of digitalisation governance. It emphasises that coordination is an ongoing process with human and technical components. It further works to the principle of minimisation, specifying that coordination activity must work in the leanest feasible manner, delegating to existing sector processes where possible and only acting where there are clear requirements for further intervention. We propose that the coordination challenge should be met via the appointment of an industry–independent coordination body composed of Secretariat, Research, and Monitoring functions. 

We do not propose that the coordinator should have enforcement powers, as these are most readily delivered under the existing regulatory and legislative capabilities of Ofgem and DESNZ. However, both Ofgem and DESNZ must be required to consider options from the coordination body in their determinations. 

The Secretariat should act as an independent facilitator for participatory governance processes which can adapt flexibly to evolving coordination needs and ensure accountability. 

The Research and Monitoring function should have two responsibilities:

  1. mapping the domain(s) in which coordination is enacted in order to support effective participatory governance
  2. monitoring and reporting on the outcomes of coordination activity to improve transparency and join-up with adjacent policy/regulatory goals (energy and cross-sector). 

We suggest that this function includes coordinating and monitoring the delivery of the sector’s digitalisation roadmap. We suggest that the body would require a small permanent staff to ensure continuity of process, with additional staffing contracted or seconded in on a short term basis for agile response to emergent needs (e.g. particular technical or domain expertise concerning a particular coordination challenge). This lightweight approach will deliver the intended benefits at a reasonable cost to the bill- or taxpayer. 

Response

Where should we focus?

Prior to addressing specific prompt questions, it is important to discuss the boundaries of the digital space and its component parts. Digitalisation is an umbrella term which can be used to refer to a wide range of different processes, technologies, activities, actors, and frameworks. Accordingly, the term is prone to some mystification as well as the drawing of false equivalences between digitalisation and technology. While we agree with Ofgem’s statement that there is an emergent need for coordination in energy sector digitalisation, we emphasise the importance of defining the boundaries of what exactly, within the wider digital space, is the target for this activity.

As discussed in IB1’s response to DBT’s Invest 2035: industrial strategy consultation, and in alignment with the National Data Strategy, the bedrock of digitalisation lies in data. In parallel, a significant proportion of industry digital activities to date involve laying the foundations for how data is governed, shared, and used within the energy sector. Accordingly, we strongly suggest that Ofgem’s architectural considerations at the present time focus on the coordination of the sector’s data architecture and associated energy data governance rather than other elements of the digital transition. Coordination in other digital arenas may well be required in future and we support future consultation accordingly. However, we do not believe that it represents value for money, nor effective prioritisation against net zero, to focus on these areas at the current time.

It is also important to draw a clear line between the valuable work currently progressing in large but focused sector-wide initiatives, such as the Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI) or Consumer Consent Solution programmes, with the overall task of coordinating sectoral data governance. At its heart, data is not a technology, an ontology, or a standard. Rather, data is highly contextual — defined by a framework of rights-based governance, shaping how it can be gathered, shared and used, by whom, and for what purpose(s). 

Many ongoing data sharing initiatives in the sector (currently in their definition, prototype, or pilot phases) are advancing technology-led projects. These technical developments augment the sector’s capacity to collect, transport, and process data which is valuable. However, we have raised concerns in several forums that these projects risk developing in a manner which results in disjointed data governance. Coordination in the data governance arena would ensure that technology buildout will be clearly linked to user needs, meet appropriate levels of security, and promote legal interoperability supporting clear and confident data use. Without coordinating energy data governance, we risk building an environment where data exchange is improved on a technical level, but the real world use of the data remains subject to the same limitations that have been established by the research literature. 

How would coordination be achieved?

Coordination is an ongoing process between people and organisations, which will contend with ‘live’ and sensitive factors such as vested interests as well as wider factors such as the economic climate. We would anticipate a common digital architecture coordination function extending beyond a document, to capture the scale and nature of the coordination problem. The “function” of architectural coordination delivers the value – a document could describe it, but would not enact it. We believe that an independent entity is required to operationalise effective coordination. We also advocate that this should be achieved through as thin a layer of activity as possible, in order to present the best value for money and time. 

Additionally, we emphasise that our engagement with industry via the Open Energy Advisory and Working Groups has highlighted a need to think of coordination not as all organisations within the sector doing things in the same way. Rather, coordination should  focus on harmonisation and interoperability within company contexts of operation and as a common framework which aligns activities and reduces duplication. 

Open Energy

We believe that Open Energy is the only initiative currently operating within the energy sector that holds the independence, governance approach (designed in collaboration with the Institute of Directors), cross-sector experience, technical knowledge and flexible capacity to address architectural coordination of energy data governance. 

Open Energy, the competition-winning programme developed under the UKRI Modernising Energy Data Access initiative, identified and articulated the need to make it straightforward to find, access and share energy data. Open Energy was funded by £1.3m public money through three phases and is currently funded by commercial members. 

Open Energy is coordinated by the public-benefit nonprofit body, IB1, and has been specifically developed for this purpose using a combination of radically transparent methods of open working, extensive consultation with stakeholders, and the input of specific domain expertise from energy industry, academic, cybersecurity and Smart Data specialists.

Successful governance initiatives, including Open Banking, have taken the model of having an independent, non-sectoral incumbent body take on an architectural coordination role. Additionally a key recommendation from the 2021 Energy Digitalisation Taskforce Report summarises:

It is recommended that an independent, commercially disinterested body is established by Government to develop and/or incubate Public Interest Digital Assets on behalf of the sector. The Body should be given a mandate and funding to develop and deploy assets (either directly or via partners), directed by a stakeholder panel interested in the current and future needs of the energy sector. The benefit of this is that it would report to government but operate to the side of it.

As part of discussions following this letter, we appeal to Ofgem and DESNZ to enter into dialogue with Open Energy and its membership to discuss how Open Energy might be appropriately strengthened (e.g. participation or enforcement mandates) or configured (e.g. as a special purpose vehicle) to enable it to meet the required coordination function.

Our focus on governance is driven by the view that making data work harder for net zero isn’t a technology challenge. Rather than a deficit of data or technologies to manage it, it’s a deficit of effective processes for groups of organisations to come together, cooperate on and set the terms of data sharing that’s really holding us back.

In our work, governance is an ongoing process. The execution of this process produces decisions that enable data sharing to take place. In practice, this involves establishing principles, defining clear roles and responsibilities, and agreeing priorities and tasks. It also involves collaborating to create artefacts to express and enforce these decisions, such as legal agreements and technical standards.

We have a particular approach to organising data governance at IB1. We use a tiered system of Steering, Advisory and Working Groups to bring organisations together. These groups work together to agree and adopt:

  • User needs & impact: commercial priorities, business cases, and prospective new products and services.
  • Technical infrastructure: shared ontologies, APIs, schemas and standards to support data exchange. 
  • Licensing & legal: data sharing agreements, modes of redress and liability frameworks.
  • Engagement & communications: common language, stakeholder engagement and recruitment.
  • Policy: alignment with corporate policy and industry regulations.

Participation in this process can be either voluntary (initiated by the market), or mandatory (demanded by regulators).

Using this collaborative process within the Open Energy programme, IB1 has designed, implemented and operates the Open Energy data search engine, the Energy Sector Trust Framework (ESTF), and within it, the Assured Open Data scheme. The ESTF is supported by IB1-developed open source Trust Services, including common technical specifications, a registry providing human- and machine-readable data sharing rules, a public directory of members and a secure portal for members to manage their information and issue digital identity certificates. These atomic, reusable services also power the cross-sector Perseus scheme that automates emissions reporting based on smart meter consumption data for UK SMEs. 

Our approach is inspired and practically informed by the UK’s Open Banking ecosystem, which enables data to be shared in new ways across banks and other financial services. It now has 15 million users and is projected to sustain a $12bn market of data-driven products and services. This change has been achieved not by building a big, centralised database of customer banking data, but by governing who should access it and how it should flow. 

Key questions:

1. Where is there a need for architectural coordination across the sector to unlock the full value of energy system digitalisation? 

As outlined above, we advocate that data governance, including the governance of data sharing, represents the clearest priority for coordination activity in the current moment. Needs are likely to change over time, so this must be regularly re-assessed in light of the wider sectoral environment (e.g. digital maturity, progress towards net zero, contextual policy challenges, economic environment etc). Additionally, we urge Ofgem to approach coordination through the lens of cross-sector interoperability and harmonisation, rather than a “one size fits all” standardisation. 

There is a need for coordination of data governance in the following arenas:

Secretariat:

  • Participatory processes: An independent facilitator is needed to support the involvement of a range of participants (directly or via a representative structure) which can adapt flexibly according to coordination needs. This requires:
    • Strong governance processes – e.g. covering participant selection, means of input, minuting, reporting, and decision-making
      • Ability to offer tailored mechanisms where required – e.g. working groups to focus on specific parts of the sector, or task and finish style groups to support elements of digitalisation strategy delivery.
    • Independent Secretariat function with experienced administrators to execute governance processes and communicate expectations of timescales, plans, key decisions etc.
    • Where required, the provision of independent chairing or facilitation services
    • Dispute resolution process, linked to existing sector mechanisms and to participatory governance processes.
    • Participant accountability mechanisms (linked to enforcement – see below).
  • Enforcement: we suggest that enforcement activity occurs under the umbrella of either Ofgem or DESNZ. This may include:
    • Ability to compel involvement in participatory processes (at least at some defined level) of regulated entities to ensure fair and balanced process
    • Ability to invite external stakeholders as and when required, in a transparent manner (e.g. pinned to a published methodology for a certain use case / decision / piece of research).
    • Ability to action change
  • Accountability: any coordinating entity must be accountable to its stakeholders. We suggest this is supported by the following:
    • Openness policies enabling scrutiny (e.g. of methodologies, processes, minutes, reports)
    • Where required (for security purposes), clear rules defining how scrutiny will be undertaken among closed audiences
    • Defined process for dispute resolution integrated with existing sector mechanisms
    • Clear processes for change management
    • Defined avenues for external involvement in participatory processes
  • Other:
    • We strongly suggest that the Secretariat is empowered to communicate across sectors in order to best learn and harmonise with digital and data sharing initiatives that cross sector boundaries.

Research and monitoring:

  • Mapping: light touch, but regularly re-visited, research and documentation to understand current and emergent actors, activities, points of interaction/crossover/competition, and gap analysis – this will also help draw the boundaries around the remit of current coordination priorities and future considerations. This must:
    • Include cross-sector activities
    • Include cross-scalar activities (e.g. map devolved authorities, local etc as well as national initiatives)
    • Include identification of priority use cases / sets of use cases, particularly which require addressing via pre-competitive activity.
    • Highlighting areas where government or regulatory input may be required to meet policy goals.
    • De-mystify parts of the digital transition into clear component elements (both socio-economic and technical) with defined terminology
  • Monitoring: 
    • Devising, implementing and openly publishing Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) methodologies and reports in accordance with a transparent schedule – including ways to ensure digitalisation supports other policy goals (e.g. Net Zero, Warm Homes Plan, Flexibility development etc) and increases transparency in an area of rapid sector growth.
    • Coordinating the delivery of the sector’s digitalisation roadmap to ensure that effort is not duplicated and complexity is minimised. While we welcome NESO’s work to address sector-wide digitalisation planning, we suggest that this function should be devolved to an independent body in order to appropriately hold all actors to account. 
2. What are the constituent elements of architectural coordination of digitalisation in the energy sector?

We have interpreted this question to refer to how architectural coordination could be operationalised through a coordinating body. We suggest that the body is composed of an experienced Secretariat, which is vital to good governance processes. It must also have a small research and MEL team as outlined below. Additional elements should be flexible and responsive to the developing ecosystem. Accordingly, it may be beneficial for the body to be able to second in expert staff on a temporary basis. Across the board it is vital for the coordination body to be independent.

Secretariat component

A Secretariat coordinates and supports group meetings to ensure the programme is making effective and timely decisions and is aligned with strategic objectives. Secretariat  administrative support includes: meeting arrangements, pre-read and agenda dissemination, note-taking and drafting of formal minutes. Maintenance of an effective, experienced Secretariat requires an appropriate budget for ongoing roles.

As outlined in question 1, the Secretariat component would support participatory processes, enforcement, and accountability functions. It is vital that the Secretariat retains independence from other sector bodies in order to navigate conflicts of interest and build trust among participants.

Research and monitoring component

An effective research and monitoring function requires the maintenance of a small team with expertise in research methods, knowledge transfer, and reporting. We suggest that primary research should be participatory, bringing in experts to minimise cost and duplication. The research element of this component may require a small flexible fund to support short term targeted projects (e.g. mapping stakeholders who must be consulted when developing a specific area of pre-competitive activity). The monitoring element requires access to participation from sector authorities to define the target and frequency of monitoring activity and dialogue with the wider sector, and appropriate experts, to identify or devise appropriate methodologies. It is essential for this component to have the ability to freely publish monitoring results, with sensitivity to factors such as security when defining the appropriate level of openness. This component should provide a forum for feedback from scrutiny as and when required.

We again emphasise the importance of independence in this arena as there may be cases where the component sheds light on poor performance or emergent issues. This requires an independent entity to perform; it cannot be nested in an existing body without risking conflict of interest.

3. What value could a common digital architecture document for the energy sector provide?

Coordination is an ongoing process between people and organisations, which will contend with ‘live’ and sensitive factors such as vested interests as well as wider factors such as the economic climate. We would anticipate a common digital architecture coordination function extending beyond a document, to capture the scale and nature of the coordination problem. The “function” of architectural coordination delivers the value – a document could describe it, but would not enact it. We believe that an independent entity is required to operationalise effective coordination

Potential benefits of architectural coordination include:

4. What function may be needed to deliver architectural coordination and how would it interact with functions/organisations that are delivering digital public infrastructure (DSI/NESO, Consumer Consent Solution/RECCo, Smart Metering Network/DCC, FMAR and SDR/Elexon) 
  • Ability to liaise and harmonise across sectors — e.g. Smart Data schemes, DSIT, Smart Data Council
  • Cross-sector thinking is required to achieve the size of impact that the Industrial Strategy and The Clean Power Plan have outlined
  • Must be a non-profit dedicated to the public good to avoid distorting the market and discouraging commercial members
  • A function should be judged against the criteria of:
    • How light-touch and small it can be in order to deliver the needed effect
    • How much value is gained by stakeholders from their participation
5. Is coordination an ongoing task (including monitoring), or a temporary task to deliver the elements needed (from q2)? 

We strongly encourage that coordination must be an ongoing task, including monitoring, and acknowledge that it will adapt and change as energy digitalisation evolves. Governance must be designed to assess and adapt to changes.