Consumer-led Industrial and Commercial (I&C) flexibility allows large energy consumers (factories, retailers, office blocks, data centres, hospitals etc.) to adjust their net energy consumption for short periods in response to the needs of the grid, incentivised through flexibility markets.

In the electricity market, this enables demand to respond to supply, a crucial shift as sectors move towards electrification and as electricity production shifts to cheaper, cleaner, but more intermittent, renewable sources.

Flexibility forms up a core part of the government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and is explored in depth in the Clean Flexibility Roadmap. It also delivers clear value, from reducing system costs for networks to unlocking new revenue streams and resilience for energy users. But, realising its full potential and accelerating the transition to Net Zero requires market-wide adoption.

Benefits of I&C flexibility

For grid operators, enabling flexibility can deliver:

• Reduced generation curtailment
• Reduced need for expensive grid-scale energy storage projects
• Reduced costs for grid capacity upgrades
• Alignment with Ofgem’s forthcoming RIIO-ED3 price control

For I&C Consumers, benefits include:

• Lower energy costs
• New revenue streams
• Reduced expenditure on grid connection upgrades
• Increased resilience for key consumers, such as hospitals, in times of grid stress

Data is the common thread

And yet, I&C flexibility isn’t one-size-fits-all. It encompasses a spectrum of approaches from direct demand response (where consumption is increased or decreased for a set period) to more sophisticated coordination of co-located technologies like solar, battery storage, heat pumps, and EV fleets.

What connects these approaches is data. Granular, trusted data sharing enables I&C sites to assess what options are feasible and maximise the benefits of participating in flexibility markets. Electricity networks also need real-time, high-quality data to plan and operate their networks, and to balance supply and demand. Without this, take-up of I&C flexibility will not reach its full potential, or will be costly to implement.

Sharing large amounts of data between diverse groups or organisations can lead to challenges including:

• Varying data formats, standards and semantics
• Separate representations of network assets and constraints
• Different data publication schedules
• Non-interoperable licensing and permissioning frameworks
• Issues with machine-readability
• Commercial and security sensitivities
• A lack of easy consumer data portability
• Fragmented data on existing I&C flexibility participation and performance

For I&C consumers, these barriers make it harder to identify viable flexibility opportunities and build robust business cases. This increases cost and complexity, often diverting time and investment elsewhere.

Unlocking flexibility at the speed and scale required to decarbonise the grid will therefore require a fundamental shift in how data is shared.

A data sharing scheme to accelerate I&C flexibility

The market needs a way for I&C actors to securely and easily share data with authorised parties to assess, plan and deliver flexibility at scale. Open Energy’s mission is to collaboratively define and develop a data sharing Scheme to support this, recognising that delivery is a co-ordination challenge, requiring collaboration to solve.

No single organisation can solve this alone, and implementing technical solutions without understanding the needs, constraints, and capabilities of others risks becoming an expensive exercise with unreliable outcomes.

The scheme will align with wider energy and cross sector initiatives such as NESO Data Sharing Infrastructure, RECCo Consumer Consent Solution, Elexon Flexibility Market Asset Register, Market-Wide Half-Hourly Settlement, and Smart Data policy), strengthening the overall data ecosystem and enabling interoperability.

Open Energy brings together energy system and I&C participants to build the data foundations for accelerating flexibility. IB1 acts as a neutral facilitator and data governance expert supported by the Energy Sector Trust Framework, a ready-to-use mechanism for governing the exchange of data in a consistent, trusted, and scalable way, without the need for centralised infrastructure.

How your organisation can benefit

If flexibility impacts your organisation, whether as an opportunity, a challenge, or a dependency, being part of Open Energy gives you a seat at the table, where the future of data sharing is being built. You’ll also help shape how the Energy Sector Trust Framework evolves to meet the specific needs of the flexibility market.

For networks:

• Contribute to, and benefit from, sector-wide alignment on data classification, licensing, and access controls
• Reduce the risk of costly inconsistencies emerging as flexibility markets mature.

For flexibility providers and aggregators:

• Access cleaner, more consistent data pipelines
• Access a governance framework that makes it easier to operate across multiple network areas.

For large energy consumers and trade bodies:

• Gain faster visibility of viable flexibility opportunities and incentives
• Access insights to support adoption and decision-making

Join us & your peers

To find out more about the Industrial & Commercial Flexibility use case, or to join Open Energy, get in touch with us at openenergy@ib1.org

And register for our upcoming webinar: https://events.humanitix.com/oe-i-and-cflex-webinar

The decisions being made now will shape the direction of the energy sector for years to come. Those helping to shape it will be best placed to benefit from the opportunities that follow.

Date: Tuesday 17 February 2026 11:00-12:30 GMT

Location: In person & online

Co-Chairs: Sara Vaughan & Gavin Starks

Secretariat: IB1

Meeting Aims 

1. Support for the use case for 2026
2. Support the governance process
3. Connect us with new potential members

Summary:

• It was agreed that:
  • The 2026 roadmap will move from engagement and prioritisation early in the year to implementation activity later in the year.
  • Remaining organisations will be asked to complete outstanding terms of reference signatures, where that is possible.
• It was noted that:
  • An update was given on activities since the last SG, including:
    • Government and Ofgem activity is increasingly focused on ensuring greater visibility of distributed and flexible energy assets.
    • Elexon has gone live with its flexibility market facilitator role, and the new Flexibility Commissioner has been announced.
    • NESO and XOSERVE have announced a strategic partnership on consolidation and sharing of gas data which will help facilitate and streamline whole-system planning.
    • Ofgem published its Forward Workplan for 2026/7.
    • RECCO published the design consultation on its Consumer Consent solution.
    • The intended publication of the DESNZ/Ofgem Digitalisation Vision in Q1 2026 was confirmed.
  • The Smart Data Council has resumed and is developing UK guidance for smart data schemes.
  • The Perseus programme has broad participation and commercial offerings are expected from 2026, with a £5-10bn SME opportunity by 2030.
  • Feedback to the Open Data access controls paper has been positive across the sector.
  • The 2026 priority use cases will focus on UC04 – cross-sector storm response or UC05 – industrial and commercial flexibility.
• It was discussed that:
  • Practical implementation and real use cases may be more persuasive to policymakers than theoretical proposals.
  • A Community Interest Company (CIC) based SPV funding model could support multi-year funding and participation from multiple network operators but, given IB1’s non-profit, public benefit status, there was not a strong case to change to such a model.

Next meeting: Thursday 7 May 2026 14:30-16:00 BST

Formal records, including attendees, are maintained by the secretariat. 

These are confidential to the Steering Group Members.

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:

• Avoiding duplication — e.g. multiple Trust Framework providers that potentially aren’t interoperable
• Learning from other sectors — lacking clear deadlines and costs. The Pensions Dashboard Programme has an estimated cost of £289m, with no released date of when the dashboard will be made available to the public
• Saving money and reducing time-to-value by providing market participants with repeatable processes and building on well-understood standards 
• Prioritisation of key use cases
• Avoid the time and financial costs of a lack of coordination, especially on urgent causes such as net zero

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. 

Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One 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.

Consultation response:

Regarding paragraph 3.36 in the Statutory Consultation on the RIIO-3 Licence Drafting modifications – reasons and effects document:

Generally IB1 supports a common Digitalisation Re-opener to encourage digitalisation by allowing network companies to seek funding for data and digital related projects with a broader scope than just IT hardware or software upgrades and to align with RIIO-ED2.

IB1 supports digitalisation as key for energy sector decarbonisation, and required for the investment in flex services and the coordination between sectors who rely on energy to meet their decarbonisation targets (water, transportation, built environment, industry).

IB1 supports sector-wide convening and governance to ensure digitalisation happens in a coordinated manner and can enable ‘whole system solutions,’ as promoted in RIIO-ED2 and realise the subsequent cost savings. IB1 supports Ofgem to continue to promote and finance whole system digitalisation coordination in RIIO-ED3.

As there are many ongoing data sharing and data governance initiatives e.g. consumer consent solution, flexibility services, Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI), which are currently in progress at different stages of development (definition, prototype, or pilot). Ofgem should not expect these programmes and underlying challenges the projects aim to solve to be resolved by the end of RIIO-ED3 (2031). Data sharing and data governance needs and subsequent solutions will evolve over time as we continue to electrify and connect the UK’s grid. As mentioned above, Ofgem needs to ensure ongoing governance and sector collaboration on data and digitalisation – reinforcement of this would be welcomed in addition to specific plans to expand/evolve data governance initiatives.

With the progress of the Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI) programme, IB1 anticipates ‘Shared Data’ sharing will evolve and will inform the evolution of data best practice (DBP) guidance. In particular, as data sharing scales, the need to standardise and harmonise legal and technical approaches will become more pressing in order not to slow innovation and add unnecessary cost. IB1 recommends that DBP should include guidance around Shared Data within the triage processes and licensing decisions, highlighting the role of Shared Data Schemes to provide definitions that aid interoperability and maximise impact.

Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One 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. We have omitted questions which we did not answer.

Consultation response:

Do you agree with the proposed implementation approach? Yes.

Rationale: We appreciate that there is a governance in place to discuss and approve the proposed implementation. We would welcome further transparency on the outcomes of applications to access data via this method and suggest that a summary of cases are made openly available after a 6-12 month trial period. Ongoing avenues for scrutiny remain important.

Please provide any further comments you may have.

As we are looking holistically at the smart meter data landscape, we will continue to work with the SEC and engage as it develops on a case by case basis and impacts wider use cases.

with Rohan Graham, Head of Asset Data, National Grid and Jay Chen, Data Process Administrator, IT&D Data Engineering and Process, NGED

Data sharing is key for reaching our net zero targets; this is something IB1’s strategic partner National Grid Electricity Distribution (NGED) has long recognised. And, as the company looks to cement its position as a digital leader in the energy industry, IB1 remains a key component and catalyst in accelerating its digitalisation journey. 

We caught up with Rohan Graham from National Grid and Jay Chen from NGED, to discuss how interoperability across Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) is fundamental to unlocking the potential of open data in the energy sector.

Building trusted open data

Last year, NGED identified a need to improve how it publishes assured open data. While the DNO had already established an open data portal, it wanted to review both what it was publishing and how it was publishing it. This shift signalled a commitment to providing data that is trusted, consistent and usable across the sector. 

“Our goal is to contribute to the broader movement of publishing interoperable assured open data, explore genuine shared-data use cases, and understand how to make that data available securely through trust frameworks, while considering and aligning to the DSI under development.” Rohan Graham. 

Sector-wide collaboration

NGED sits within a much wider ecosystem of UK DNOs, all of which publish similar datasets. Because these datasets are used across the energy sector, (not just within each DNO’s own business) ensuring their interoperability is essential.

To achieve the level of interoperability required and to build sector-wide collaboration, harmonisation is essential. Once in place, the value of this interoperability is far-reaching: it strengthens trust, encourages the wider use of data across the sector and ultimately accelerates the entire sector’s digital maturity. 

“Over the next 3-5 years, we’ll see the increase of interoperability of data between organisations as well as the increasing use of flexibility services across multiple DNOs.” Jay Chen, NGED. 

Data Action

The Data (Use and Access) Act might also be a catalyst for positive change in the sector. Its focus on the roll-out of smart data schemes is a move in the right direction. But, whether this alone will galvanise the sector toward a more connected, net-zero future remains to be seen.

“It’s definitely a positive move. It’s set up some of the frameworks for how Open Energy can be pushed forward, but really, the Act alone won’t create immediate change. Specific to Open Energy, the real push comes from facilitation by Icebreaker One, a common purpose and active participation from members of the ecosystem.” 

Rohan Graham, National Grid

IB1: The great facilitator 

Through our Open Energy programme, IB1 has helped to establish best practices for publishing open data; focusing on machine readability, standardised metadata and overall consistency; all of which help to facilitate trust across the sector. 

“Working with IB1 has been really valuable in providing awareness, guidance, and direction, mainly from an open data perspective, so far. One of the biggest benefits has been driving the collaboration between the DNOs through steering and working groups. This kind of collaboration is crucial for progressing interoperability and shared best practices”. Rohan Graham.

“Our strategic partnership enables NGED to have a driving seat in shaping the future of decarbonisation through working groups with sector organisations, facilitated by IB1.”

Jay Chen, NGED

What’s next?

Looking ahead, National Grid is set to continue its progress toward a more connected, digital energy system. Central to achieving this vision is the ability to continue identifying datasets that truly move the dial on flexible energy markets and decarbonisation.

“Understanding who needs that data, why they need it, and how to deliver it securely and at scale will be key. The sector needs to  remain focused on publishing what truly drives progress toward net zero – whether that’s open or shared data.” Rohan Graham. 

IB1’s work in Open Energy is creating a connected web of energy data – making it more discoverable, interoperable, and impactful, in the collective mission to reach net zero.

If you’re interested in becoming a Strategic Partner, an Open Energy member, or part of our expert network, you can join us at ib1.org/join or reach out at partners@ib1.org to start a conversation about unlocking data for net zero.

Date: 25 November 2025 11:00-12:30 GMT

Location: Online

Co-Chairs: Sara Vaughan & Gavin Starks

Secretariat: IB1

Meeting Aims 

1. Understand the reactions to the Architecture coordinator open letter
2. Update on Open Energy activities and webinar

Summary:

• It was noted that:
  • A number of the Q4 goals are complete or in progress, and the IB1 team are working to realign those remaining to create a new plan for Q1 and Q2, which will be shared with members in January 2026.
  • There was good engagement and attendance at the webinar in October, with poll results revealing that uncertainty around sector-wide alignment is a major confidence barrier, with participant discussion reinforcing the need for a coordinated approach.
  • Driven by the Data Use and Access Act, data sharing initiatives are starting to form across the economy.
  • As one of the more mature sectors for data sharing, the energy sector is experiencing concerns over misalignment that will likely play out in other sectors, and it has an opportunity to demonstrate how the co-ordination function should operate.
• It was agreed that:
  • Without further clarity on the venn diagram of roles within the industry, and who should be at the helm, the industry faces a significant financial risk of duplication and over-spending, leading to this transformation costing much more than it needs to; and
  • There is fragmentation across the industry with a lack of coherence around the venn diagram of roles, and who should be coordinating, orchestrating and determining the future developments.
  • Developing a Market Architecture would help to shape the governing process along with who the relevant actors are and what their contributions should be, providing clarity to the industry.
  • This does not have to be a single body, it could be a community of actors working together within some sort of governing body. A not-for-profit could be used to bring this together.
• It was noted that:
  • There are competing views on the value of a use case-based approach. However, many members feel that use cases are essential to be able to work on achievable priorities within the industry and make informed decisions about data protection and security.
  • It’s important to take note of the work that RECCo is undertaking, particularly what trust framework RECCo provides and how that is then used by the broader market. This highlights the decisions that need to be made and where there is a requirement for a coordinating function.
  • The question of ‘who is the final arbiter?’ that was posed during the last meeting, is yet to be resolved.
• It was discussed that:
  • While NESO holds the interim DSI role until 2028, it would be challenging for them, at least until then and possibly beyond without a change in the skills and capability of the organisation, to take up the role of a single, accountable organisation for digital co-ordination of the sector – although, in principle, this was the sort of role they should be fulfilling.
  • Other industries have placed an independent non-profit at the centre of their data-sharing arrangements, setting a successful precedent for the energy industry to follow.

We are pleased to announce that IB1 will be supporting The Retail Energy Code Company (RECCo) in the design and development of Ofgem’s  policy position to implement a Consumer Consent Solution (CCS). 

The CCS is a secure, digital solution that empowers energy consumers to control who can access their energy data. It enables people to easily grant, manage, review, and revoke consent. This supports transparency, consumer choice, and strong data protection across the retail energy market. 

IB1’s Role

IB1 will provide expert advisory support, assisting in the design of the Trust Framework that underpins the CCS. This framework will be central to ensuring that the service is reliable, transparent, trusted and usable by both consumers and market participants.

We will leverage our extensive experience in designing, developing, and advising on Trust Frameworks, Consent and Permission, and in cross-sector stakeholder engagement to deliver market-scale solutions. 

In particular we will bring learnings from the Perseus project, which enables SMEs to securely share emissions data with banks, calculated from their metered energy consumption, in a permission-based framework.

Sharing data with consumer or business consent is at the core of the smart data economy heralded by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. We are delighted to be working on a key initial focus of the Act, and intend for our learnings to be repurposed across sectors to help achieve legal, policy and technical alignment.

Date: 30 September 2025 14:30-16:00 BST

Location: In person and online

Co-Chairs: Sara Vaughan & Gavin Starks

Secretariat: IB1

Meeting Aims 

1. Introduction to the Cunliffe Review in preparation for aligning on responses in the next meeting 
2. Conduct vote to endorse setting up Data Standards Water Quality Monitoring 
3. Conduct vote to confirm endorsement by members of the Innovate UK bid 

Summary:

• It was noted that:
  • Elexon is progressing the Smart Meter Data Repository, coordinating with RECCo on its work on consumer consent alignment, with differing timelines expected for delivery.
  • DESNZ and Ofgem are expected to publish a vision document in Q1 2025. A question remains around how much it integrates and is influenced by the ongoing work in Open Energy.
  • The joint SIF bid with Arup, SSE, and NGED aims to develop a core use case that improves LAEP data sharing for high energy demand users, with a methodology to develop data schemes compatible with any trust framework.
• It was discussed that selecting and progressing specific use cases is necessary to test and shape the overall architecture, inform technical and legal standards, and support regulatory alignment, mirroring the iterative approach taken in Open Banking.
• It was discussed that while there is significant activity underway across the sector, there remains a degree of caution as to whether this activity is delivering tangible outcomes. This caution stems from several factors:
  • That current efforts require greater coordination and orchestration across the various market actors and initiatives to ensure alignment and avoid duplication. There is a need for an “orchestration layer”.
  • There is a question around who the delivery agents are, and how delivery can be ensured.
  • There is a need for clearer prioritisation and a stronger demonstration of commercial value.
  • There is a question around who is the master arbiter, who takes the ultimate decisions, e.g. on questions of definition?
• It was noted that the goals for Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 have been set, including:
  • A webinar addressing language challenges that is scheduled on 23rd October from 2-3pm
  • Two SIF bids to be submitted in early Q1 2025: ‘SIF ADA’ and ‘Market Architecture’
• It was discussed that key implementation decisions over the next 6-12 months will significantly shape the future architecture of the UK energy data ecosystem.

Data has a huge role to play in delivering net zero by 2050.

Reliable data is vital for verifying that organisations are meeting their sustainability commitments. Investors depend on it to shift their investments towards greener companies, while innovation in energy production will hinge on the smart use of data.

But despite generating huge quantities of data every day, we’re not making the most of it. Take data about companies’ emissions. It’s languishing in spreadsheets, carbon calculators, smart meters and other siloes. Even when organisations do share their emissions data, it’s generally seen as an exercise in after-the-fact reporting.

Databases of low quality, out-of-date information are not a foundation for developing new products or technologies, or unlocking new markets.

When it comes to net zero, data is everywhere, just not where we need it.

At IB1, we don’t try to bring ‘all the data into one place’, as others attempt. Nor do we host data or seek to provide analysis services using it.

Instead, we [orchestrate] [schemes] of [data governance] that enable groups of organisations to share continuous flows of well-structured, assurable data with one another.

Governance

Our focus on [data 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.

“Incentives in our organisations and society prompt us to beaver away on our own. Collaboration is the catalyst of innovation, [but] we often struggle to practice it when it comes to overcoming complex challenges and making efforts towards positive social progress”. – Miranda Dixon, Brink

As with other collective action problems, only good governance can align fragmented interests, enable collaboration and facilitate shared investment.

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). 

Our approach is inspired by the UK’s Open Banking ecosystem, which enabled data to be shared in new ways across banks and other financial services. It now has 10 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. 

Schemes

As well as neglecting governance, attempts to build databases of net zero data fail because they try to be all things to all people.

In a 2024 talk, Building scalable public data sets for scientific innovation, John Wilbanks described how effective data systems generally begin life by addressing a small set of very specific primary uses, before evolving to enable more over time:

“No one has ever built a complex data system by setting out to build a complex data system [from day one]. You build one by answering five questions at a time, using a standards based approach… And then when you’re able to answer twenty, you’ll have a functioning complex data system”.

We agree that specificity is a necessary condition for effective data sharing. We enable groups of organisations to come together around tightly-focused challenges or use cases related to net zero, which we refer to as [schemes].

Our flagship scheme, Perseus, enables small-and-medium sized businesses to share granular emissions data from their smart meter systems with banks and other lenders. By providing lenders with the accurate and assurable data they need, the scheme enables participating businesses to access loans and other finance to help reduce their emissions.

Perseus isn’t trying to cast a net around all sustainability data, or work for every company. It demonstrates how good governance—anchored around a very specific goal —can unlock data from the real economy and put it to use for net zero.

Orchestration

We don’t have a monopoly on this view of data governance. But we think groups of organisations can go further, more quickly with our [orchestration].

We provide and maintain the following Trust Services to enable schemes like Perseus to function:

1. A machine-readable rulebook that codifies how data can be shared within the scheme.
2. An approach for verifying which organisations can take part in the scheme.
3. An open directory of the organisations that have been verified to take part in the scheme.
4. An approach for monitoring and assuring that access to data within the scheme adheres to the agreed rulebook.
5. An open catalogue of the data that is made available within the scheme.

None of the services we provide rely on particular software or a singular technology vendor. What we deploy depends on the needs of the scheme. Data access can be enabled by API, more advanced privacy enhancing technologies… even fax machine. (Although we wouldn’t recommend the latter.) What’s important is that the solution meets our NOVA principles: a Networked, Open, Verifiable Architecture. 

Our non-profit status is another key element of this work. There’s a risk that the direction of data use will be dictated by commercial actors, if schemes are left to the market alone. Our approach at IB1 ensures that no individual or entity can take disproportionate control of net zero data, and that end user needs rather than organisational agendas drive progress.

We’re glad the importance of this orchestrating role is now being recognised. A recent analysis of ‘data spaces’ being built across the European Union found that successful efforts have an independent organisation at the centre:

“It is crucial to have a neutral orchestrator facilitating the exchanges between participants before the operations and governance of a data ecosystem solidifies.

The orchestrator should prioritise use cases, map business value creation, test business models, and set up governance models. During the operation phase, the focus will shift toward onboarding, enforcing the rules, ensuring the governance works as it should, and scaling up”.

Infrastructure for real progress

Making data work harder for net zero ultimately depends on trust, coordination, and infrastructure that works across organisations. 

Ever-bigger, centralised databases won’t get us there. What we urgently need are well-orchestrated schemes of data governance that enable decision grade data to flow.

But making this shift requires resources—and partners.

If you’re working along the same lines, or if you’re looking to fund the infrastructure that underpins real progress on net zero, join us.

Reach out via:  icebreaking@ib1.org

Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One 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. We have omitted questions which we did not answer.

Consultation response:

Icebreaker One (IB1) is a public-benefit non-profit working on data sharing and sustainability, convening organisations and governments to design market-scale solutions to make data work harder to deliver Net Zero. It creates and runs programmes to reduce barriers and costs to finding, accessing, using, and sharing data, which will ultimately reduce costs for consumers. Through the UKRI Modernising Energy Data Access competition, in collaboration with over 400 industry stakeholders, IB1 developed Open Energy which identified and articulated the need to make it straightforward to find, access and share energy data. Given IB1’s focus, we have responded to a number of the questions in the consultation. 

IB1 supports RIIO-ED3’s goals of moving away from gas infrastructure, toward renewables, and a more resilient grid. It is essential to have a joined-up approach and cross-sector thinking to achieve the size of impact outlined in the Industrial Strategy and The Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and unlock the widest range of potential benefits.

OVQ36. Do you agree with our position of not changing the Digitalisation licence condition?

IB1 supports digitalisation as key for energy sector decarbonisation, and required for the investment in flex services and the coordination between sectors who rely on energy to meet their decarbonisation targets (water, transportation, built environment, industry).

IB1 supports sector-wide convening and governance to ensure digitalisation happens in a coordinated manner and can enable ‘whole system solutions,’ as promoted in RIIO-ED2 and realise the subsequent cost savings. IB1 supports Ofgem to continue to promote and finance whole system digitalisation coordination in RIIO-ED3.

As there are many ongoing data sharing and data governance initiatives e.g. consumer consent solution, flexibility services, Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI), which are currently in progress at different stages of development (definition, prototype, or pilot). Ofgem should not expect these programmes and underlying challenges the projects aim to solve to be resolved by the end of RIIO-ED3 (2031). Data sharing and data governance needs and subsequent solutions will evolve over time as we continue to electrify and connect the UK’s grid. As mentioned above, Ofgem needs to ensure ongoing governance and sector collaboration on data and digitalisation – reinforcement of this would be welcomed in addition to specific plans to expand/evolve data governance initiatives.

With the progress of the Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI) programme, IB1 anticipates ‘Shared Data’ sharing will evolve and will inform the evolution of data best practice (DBP) guidance. In particular, as data sharing scales, the need to standardise and harmonise legal and technical approaches will become more pressing in order not to slow innovation and add unnecessary cost. IB1 recommends that DBP should include guidance around Shared Data within the triage processes and licensing decisions, highlighting the role of Shared Data Schemes (see OVQ37) to provide definitions that aid interoperability and maximise impact.  

OVQ37. Do you agree with our proposed approach to the DSI licence condition?

IB1 welcomes the energy industry collaborating and agreeing on data sharing. Through IB1’s Open Energy programme, we have co-designed the Energy Sector Trust Framework with sector stakeholders, including DNOs. Members are currently in the process of assuring their open data publication using the Assured Open Data Scheme governed by Open Energy. IB1 will continue to bring Open Energy learnings into the DSI development process. 

We encourage more clarity on what DSI ‘participation’ entails, including anticipated associated costs and funding. As mentioned in IB1’s response to DESNZ energy smart data scheme call for evidence, it is essential that a Trust Framework is viewed holistically – an entity incorporating technical, communications, engagement, legal and ongoing governance arrangements – rather than a technical solution. IB1 would recommend ‘participation’ in DSI is defined as being broader than operating data sharing nodes, including:

• In collaboration with stakeholders within and outside the energy sector:
  • Identifying and developing use cases
  • Designing technically- and legally- interoperable schemes
  • Agreeing, implementing and governing operational policies
  • Keeping in step with emerging trusted data approaches in other sectors of the economy, at home and abroad
• Articulating the amount of technical and non-technical work required for a Trust Framework 
• Articulating the role of consent and permissioning aligned with the 2025 Data (Use and Access) Act.
• Setting out the expected amount of resourcing including external and internal communications, executive support, legal resource, and skilled involvement in data governance and technical implementation

Our experience is based on establishing an energy sector data sharing programme through sector engagement (convening 100s of organisations and 500+ public webinar attendees) and governance processes (80+ Steering and Advisory Groups members) to develop operational services for search and access control. These are are now live and market-facing through the Energy Sector Trust Framework and Schemes, IB1 created, designed and developed Open Energy https://ib1.org/energy/ to provide three services:

1. Community: an expert network of professionals – the IB1 Constellation

2. Governance: co-design of data sharing Schemes using our Icebreaking process

3. Trust Services: An Energy Sector Trust Framework for Scheme implementation, covering Open Data, commercial Shared Data with pre-authorised access controls, and commercial Shared Data where access requires end-user permission/consent. In addition, Trust Services deliver search and assurability services. 

We recommend drawing upon this experience to both clearly and tightly define expectations for the DSI licence condition, and the roles of actors in the ecosystem (e.g. what is within the remit of regulators and code bodies, what could/should be precompetitive and what is open to commercial market competition).

So what is a smart meter?

A smart meter is a device that records and transmits your utility usage directly to your supplier, while also giving you insights into your own consumption. Most people are familiar with these household energy smart meters but much less so with water smart meters, which differ significantly in their design, purpose, and implementation. 

Not all smart meters are created equal

Smart water meters record a household’s water use and automatically send this information to the water company. According to Anglian Water, they can help customers detect leaks early, monitor their consumption, and receive alerts if their bill is unusually high. And, by encouraging more efficient water use, smart water meters play a valuable role in helping the UK move toward its net zero goals.

However, compared to energy smart meters, water smart meters typically offer less granular data and limited historical records – factors that can reduce their overall impact. You can explore the key differences between the two systems in the table at the bottom of this page.

Why does the Water Sector matter for net zero?

The water sector is an energy intensive one. In fact, the movement and treatment of water is said to create around 3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year. This is because every time someone uses water, whether it’s turning on a tap, flushing a toilet, or doing laundry, energy is used to pump and treat drinking water, distribute it through the network, collect and treat wastewater. 

The more water we use, the more energy is needed, which leads to higher carbon emissions. And, we’re seeing a rising demand and consumption of water in the UK, with seven regions in England on track to become severely water stressed by 2030. If we are to reach our net zero targets, curbing our water consumption and preventing water wastage, should be top of the agenda. 

What can we learn from energy smart meters? 

While the water sector faces its own unique challenges, it can draw valuable lessons from the energy sector’s experience with smart meters. The rollout of energy smart meters is further advanced but has not been without difficulties – ranging from incomplete deployment to inconsistent functionality. Both the successes and the setbacks in this journey could provide the water sector with a useful blueprint to follow.

These lessons also hint at a larger problem that the technology itself isn’t enough. To fully unlock their benefits (whether in energy or water) we need a way to make smart meter data more accessible, usable, and secure.

That’s where smart data schemes come in. And, propelled by the recent passing of the Data (Use and Access) Act, smart data schemes could unlock the value of smart meters, paving the way for a much smarter energy system. 

But what exactly is a smart data scheme?

A smart data scheme is a framework that enables secure, customer-authorised data sharing between organisations. It supports Smart Data, which is “the process of sharing customer data, upon a customer’s request, with authorised third parties in a secure way. The term ‘Smart Data’ is often used interchangeably with ‘open X’, where X is banking, finance or any other sector”. (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero)

A prime example of a smart data scheme, already in action, is Open Energy. You can think of Open Energy as a smart data scheme, like Open Banking, but for the energy sector. It allows consumers and innovators to securely access and share energy data – unlocking better services, smarter tariffs, and encouraging more sustainable behaviour. 

To learn more about our work in Open Energy follow this link: https://ib1.org/energy/uk/ 

What’s the connection between smart meters and smart data schemes?

To put it simply: smart meters are the source of the data but smart data schemes are the key to creating meaningful impact with this data. 

“These meters create datasets that could accelerate energy efficiency and help encourage sustainable behaviours, but the data is currently challenging to access. With the ability to see exactly how much energy they use and when, consumers can optimise their habits and take advantage of smart tariffs that incentivise energy use during off-peak periods. This creates immediate financial benefits for households and drives the adoption of “smart” energy systems across the country. 

A Smart Data framework leveraging Smart Meter data could amplify these benefits by accelerating the use of flexible energy tariffs and technologies. Empowering consumers with real-time energy insights ensures that the transition to clean power is not just a policy objective but a grassroots movement supported by informed citizens.” Startup Coalition and TBI project – Smart Data Report.

Smart Data in action

A live example of a cross-sector smart data scheme is our Perseus project, which connects half-hourly smart meter data – with permission from SMEs – to the financial sector. This helps to unlock green financing from banks to accelerate SME decarbonisation efforts. In other words, it links real economy data to the financial economy through a smart data scheme. 

“Our work in Open Energy has led, directly, to initiatives like Perseus which is taking smart meter data, with permission from SMEs into the financial sector. It is Data Act ‘ready’ and I believe is the first national cross-sector Smart Data Scheme in the country” Gavin Starks, CEO, IB1. 

If you’re interested in being part of a smart data scheme, whether its Open Energy and Perseus, then please get in touch via: icebreaking@ib1.org 

Similarities and differences between household energy and water smart meter systems 

Date: 22 July 2025 11:00-12:30 BST

Location: In person and online

Co-Chairs: Sara Vaughan & Gavin Starks

Secretariat: IB1

Meeting Aims

1. Highlight an issue which risks slowing down the progress to data sharing and the amount of value it could bring
2. Alignment on approach and definitions
3. Alignment on market architecture proposal

Summary:

Definitions, roles and responsibilities in the market around data sharing

• It was noted that:
  • Inconsistent use of key terms such as “Schemes” and “Trust Frameworks,” have contributed to causing wider confusion across the industry, hindering decision-making and alignment. 
  • Future data sharing frameworks are likely to involve multiple, independently governed trust frameworks, making coordination and interoperability essential.
  • The forthcoming DEZNZ and Ofgem flexibility roadmap and response on Data Schemes are expected to acknowledge sector-wide fragmentation and coordination challenges, and may provide further clarity on roles, responsibilities, and implementation expectations.
• It was discussed that, while some participants identified the absence of a central coordinating orchestrator as contributing to delays and duplicative costs, others questioned whether such a role is essential, proposing that clearer implementation responsibilities and project-level accountability might be sufficient. However, concerns were still raised around the “grey areas” of overlap or lack of clarity.
  • It was noted that:
    • Coordination is particularly important in the context of any move towards cross-sector as opposed to within sector alignment.
    • There is some apprehension around cross-sector coordination, which could be mitigated by exploring different pilot projects to see where the value drivers, risks and potential funding sources are, ensuring that practical problems are addressed.
• It was agreed that:
  • Open Energy should explore initiating and/or support sector-wide dialogue to unify terminology and framework design.

The value question: market architecture proposal

• It was noted that
  • Existing estimates, such as £20bn from the Smart Data Forum and £7bn delivered by Open Banking, suggest significant but potentially understated economic value.
  • There is intra-organisational disjointment, making it even harder to achieve inter-organisational collaboration.
• It was discussed that:
  • Determining what is pre-competitive infrastructure (e.g. Schemes, Trust Frameworks) versus competitive innovation space, is key to unlocking participation from a wide range of actors.
  • A collectively developed model could help engage government stakeholders and clarify implementation pathways, moving the proposal from conceptual to operational.
• It was agreed that a credible valuation of a joined up approach to data infrastructure is essential to building momentum, and that both top-down and bottom-up estimation approaches have limitations, and that Open Energy should continue to explore this proposal. 
• However, it is currently not the right time to proceed with it, instead we should all consider what comes out of the Flexibility Roadmap publication, and the Government response on developing a data scheme in the energy sector (these were both published the day after the SG, on 23 July 2025, along with a Call for Evidence on improving the visibility of Distributed Energy Assets and a Consultation on the best way to engage consumers on consumer led flexibility).

Data is the missing piece to this decarbonisation puzzle. Often, when people think of decarbonisation, they picture wind farms, solar panels and electric vehicles. But the fact is, none of these can reach their full potential without data or more specifically; trusted and accessible data. 

“Data is essential to net zero. It underpins almost all of the actions we need to take to get there: measuring emissions, putting in place low-carbon technology, and getting capital into the right places to finance the transition”. Gavin Starks, CEO, IB1.

But why is data so important? And what role can it play in getting us to net zero?

Across the energy system, valuable data is locked away in silos. It’s collected by organisations but often not shared, hard to find, or it’s in formats that can’t easily be used by others. This means that people and companies working to decarbonise – whether that’s by building new infrastructure, rolling out Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers, or managing grid connections – often don’t have the information they need to make smarter, faster net zero investment decisions.

And this isn’t an issue isolated to the energy sector. We see it in finance, transport, the built world, water and beyond. Data is the backbone of decarbonisation across these sectors and trusted data sharing is the key to unlock their potential. Without it, we’re guessing. With it, we can build the connected, intelligent systems required to reach net zero. 

This isn’t a hypothetical issue either, it’s something we’re already solving at Icebreaker One. 

Our Open Energy programme is creating a connected web of energy data and has already demonstrated how better access to data leads to tangible, net zero aligned outcomes. The approach with Open Energy, and all of our programmes, is use-case focused. This simplifies the process, and allows us to do ‘one thing well’. 

For example, in our work with Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (SSEN), our use-case was centred around matching EV charger roll-out with increasing EV demand. We demonstrated how improved access to data could help the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) align grid capacity with demand from newly installed EV charge points. Better access to charge points means consumers will be more comfortable in making the switch to an EV, helping to reduce the carbon emissions stemming from petrol and diesel cars.

But this is just one example. Trusted data sharing can also provide a clearer picture on real-time demand and supply of energy, it can enable smarter infrastructure like smart meters to help better understand business emissions and it can prolong the life of energy assets such as pylons by making better use of granular weather data. For more examples, check out the bottom of our Open Energy UK page. 

“It (Open Energy) makes it easy to search, access and securely share energy data and will unlock access to data held by thousands of organisations and institutions to enable an open marketplace which will pave the way to our net zero future” OpenUK Open Technology for Sustainability Day, COP26: Keynote: Lord Maude of Horsham. 

Great! So let’s make that happen – seems easy, right? 

The issue is that too often, access to energy data vital to the transition is blocked by lack of trust, difficulty agreeing access, and inconsistent data standards. Our approach helps to tackle this by driving the design, implementation and adoption of open standards to create assurable data flows between organisations. 

Now we’re getting a bit technical. What do we mean by ‘assurable data flows’?

As a helpful analogy, think of assurance like taking a flight. You want to know that the airline has a licence to operate, that their planes are maintained and their staff well-trained. Assurance works the same way for data: it gives people inside a company confidence in how they share the data (like staff training and pre-flight checks), and it gives others confidence that the data is trustworthy and handled properly (like knowing the plane is safe to board).

Open Energy brings together stakeholders to define assurance levels for both Open Data (freely accessible to anyone) and Shared Data (available to approved users under agreed rules). All of which helps build trust across the entire ecosystem.

Still with me? Let’s look at how it’s done

At Icebreaker One, we work together with domain experts from across the ecosystem – including large and small companies, regulated and unregulated actors, and the public sector. We bring together these experts into Advisory Groups and Sector Steering groups to co-create the rules on data sharing. We call this process ‘Icebreaking’, and it makes up one of the three different ways you can get involved in our work.

Want to help build a connected web of energy data that gets us to our net zero future?

Join as a member and you’ll shape this future by tackling shared industry challenges, gaining market visibility, and contributing to Open Energy and its Trust Framework – all while demonstrating your commitment to net zero and joining a community of experts with the same goal. 

*The energy sector comprises energy production, energy conversion and generation, transmission and distribution , energy retail and supply, energy services and management, policy, regulation, and markets. 

Date: 15 May 2025 10:00-12:00 BST

Co-chairs: Mike Ricketts (SSEN-Distribution); Gea Winterson-Mikic (Icebreaker One)

The meeting aims were as follows:

1. Introduce Membership
2. Review the problem statement for the SIF bid
3. Introduce the Scheme and Assured Open Data

Summary:

• Members were asked the Icebreaker question “For your organisation, which is the biggest challenge, the creation of a Local Area Energy Plan or the delivery?” and it was noted that:
  • Providing the financing against the delivery plan is a challenge 
  • There is pressure from CP2030 and the growth agenda 
  • The length of planning cycles are prohibiting material delivery, with the data agenda moving more rapidly than planning timelines will allow for 
  • There could be benefit in digitalising the planning process, allowing for a smoother information exchange between regulator and regulatee 
  • Data maturity was discussed:
    • Delivery will be challenging due to  the existing barriers of lack of data maturity and poor data infrastructure in some areas 
    • Thinking must be done in the context of the ability of end-users to work with any data being published 
• It was noted that the membership and funding approach for Open Energy was presented to members. It is intended to apply for SIF funding for the presented use case 
• It was noted that the problem statement and the the bid for the SIF fund will focus on high-energy demand point integration in Oxford 
  • For the Oxford area, there are multiple DNOs. Currently, it is difficult to combine the data that is being shared with Local Authorities (LAs) as part of a LAEP. 
  • It was discussed that the data standardisation to generate the LAEP is not the key value of the use case, but rather will enable wider data sharing.
    • The real value comes from the business and industrial sector being able to access this data, through a Trust Framework, to inform the planning and deployment of low carbon technologies 
  • It was noted that a governance layer is planned for the Data Sharing Infrastructure (DSI), but the DSI may not be the platform implementing this use case in the near term
• Benefits of focusing on the problem statement were noted: 
  • There are opportunities for the end-to-end value chain if the two way flow of data can be standardised, including planning and modeling of load on the network 
  • A Trust Framework allows for an open market approach, bringing innovation, better tooling, services to mediate and a confidence surrounding data sharing 
• Members were given an update on the Assured Open Data scheme:
  • It was noted that assured open data demonstrates and requires good practice, enables provenance and solidifies long-term confidence in the data. 
  • It was noted that common scheme technical definitions, for example assurance levels, are maintained as a central specification resource at https://specification.docs.ib1.org. This enables many schemes to adopt the same specifications via their Registries and ensure interoperability with one another.
  • It was noted that there are four assurance levels for organisations, and four for datasets. These are updated versions of the ones already in use by SSEN-D on their data portal

Date: 13 May 2025 11:00-12:30 BST

Location: In person and online

Co-Chairs: Sara Vaughan & Gavin Starks

Secretariat: IB1

Summary:

• It was noted in the co-chair update that:
  • There have been a series of determinations since the last meeting, including:
    • Ofgem – Appointing NESO as interim Data Sharing Infrastructure coordinator, with a refined governance model and new approach to use case development 
    • Ofgem – has appointed Elexon as the delivery body for the Flexibility Market Asset Registration (FMAR) system to streamline the registration process for flexible energy assets 
    • Ofgem – has appointed RECCo as the delivery body for the Consumer Consent Solution 
    • DESNZ – have made key decisions on delivering a smart and secure electricity system, as a response to the 2024 consultation on the Smart Secure Electricity Systems (SSES) Programme to enhance the flexibility, security, and interoperability of the electricity grid.
  • Foundational work on Smart Data, finance and energy will inform the evolution of water, transport and other non-financial sectors 

• It was discussed that
  • going through the consultation design phase for consumer consent poses challenges to industry: to work together and make pragmatic consensual decisions, and to build on existing work rather than reinvent frameworks
  • there are a mix of views across the SG as to how optimistic to be about the recent progress on decision making: there exists a sentiment that there are “decisions to consult further” rather than making firm choices. Lack of certainty represents a risk to future investment.
• It was noted that the Data Bill is anticipated to receive Royal Assent before summer recess
• It was discussed whether the SG members should be a mix of commercial and non-commercial or non-commercial only. Options included continuing to run as a non-profit, or whether to create a dedicated special purpose vehicle (SPV), for example as a community interest company. 
• It was noted that
  • IB1 is continuing research in this area and discussion is needed
  • while there is a spectrum of data maturity across the sector, energy code bodies have put in place structures that allow them to manage the balance of interests and that there may be some useful elements to draw from them
  • there is value in taking learnings from cross-sector work, and that this is important for the energy sector in representing wider interests: broad consensus will drive collective behaviour
• It was noted that Advisory Group 1 (AG1’s) first meeting prioritised a use case focussing on data sharing across regions to develop Local Area Energy Plans (LAEPs) with county councils, and potentially sharing the underlying data with other users. 
  • The use case will look at high energy demand point integration in the Oxford region, where an LAEP exists that borders SSEN, NGED and UKPN
  • The Assured Open Data (AOD) Scheme was presented to members: 
  • A new draft of the Assurance Levels is being reviewed and will be published for further feedback on 22nd May.
  • The AOD Scheme has been designed to be applicable across data schemes and there has been extensive work on the definition and legal agreement to make the components reusable 

Title: Open and shared data: Making UK data more accessible to those who can generate value, while protecting it from those with harmful intentions.

Description:
Explaining the important actions happening nationally and across the sector to remove the barriers to realising maximum value while minimising risk from opening and sharing data.

Chair welcome and introduction
Melissa Tallack, Stream Co-Lead – Northumbrian Water

Emerging and changing landscapes
Gavin Starks, Chief Executive – Icebreaker One

Call to action: Join the IB1 Constellation

Overcoming barriers to data sharing – cross sector progress
Brian Matthews – STFC

Insights from the data sharing working group to drive best practice across sectors
Sarah Hayes, Chair – Digital Twin Hub Data Sharing Working Group

• The scheme agreement [pdf, Google Doc for comment]
• The assurance levels:
  • Organisation assurance [specification]
  • Dataset assurance [specification]
  • Both specifications are also available in a Google Doc for comment

Please comment directly on the Google Docs if you are able, or email feedback to openenergy@ib1.org. Comments received before June 2 2025 will be considered for inclusion in the initial scheme implementation.

Background

Open Energy is proposing to add an Assured Open Data scheme to the Energy Sector Trust Framework (ESTF). The scheme has these main aims:

• Provide assurance to consumers of Open Data published by Members
• Enhance the quality, consistency, and reliability of published data
• Ensure Members comply with relevant data protection, privacy, and security regulations (e.g. members don’t publish any data subject to data protection regulations such as GDPR as Open Data under the scheme)
• Promote transparency and accountability within the data-sharing ecosystem.

The scheme incorporates updated organisational and dataset assurance levels based on feedback on the original levels that Icebreaker One announced in September 2023. These levels are already being used, for example by Open Energy members SSEN-D on their data portal.

Joining the scheme will be free to ESTF members. In order to assert the assurance levels members must execute the scheme agreement that sets out their commitments, and liabilities should they fail to meet them.

Date: 17 April 2025 14:00-16:00 BST

Co-chairs: Mike Ricketts (SSEN-Distribution); Gea Mikic (Icebreaker One)

Meeting Aims

1. Understanding what Open Energy is and the plans for 2025
2. Prioritise and validate a core use case for funding proposals

Summary:

• In response to the Icebreaker question – ‘What are your biggest challenges when making a business case for data sharing?’, participants noted:
  • Hesitancy to share data due to poor or lacking data quality, and the potential risks of sharing data in case there are regulatory repercussions  
  • There are often internal stakeholder engagement challenges as senior stakeholders struggle to see concrete evidence for the benefits of publishing data 
  • The need to flip the narrative on business value to include broader sector benefits
  • Business cases are typically based on to derived insights, which requires high money and time investment 
  • There is currently limited interest in the processing of data and how it is made ready to share 
    • The challenges of understanding end user needs, to empower them with the right data access for the problem they are trying to solve

• It was noted that the purpose of AG1 is to explore, define and prioritise use cases and case studies that illustrate the potential for market-wide scale 
• The proposed use case was discussed and members were asked how the use case could be refined further. 
  • It was noted that in the need for local government organisations’ Local Area Energy Plans (LAEPs), there is a tool developed that publishes data useful to those councils
  • Opening up a Local Energy Net Zero Accelerator (LENZA)-type tools to other users was discussed in the context of how a trust framework could allow other users to access data and tools currently available to DNOs and Local Authorities only. 
    • It is noted that some data held there is confidential. A trust framework could establish rules on who, why and how users can access certain combinations of data to e.g. accelerate deployment of low carbon technologies, electric vehicles, energy efficiency
  • It was noted that there is value in establishing a trust framework and standardising the data layer for building multiple tools 
  • The importance of interoperability was noted, with the creation of a tool needing to translate nationally to be scaled across all DNOs 
  • It was noted that the use case could be broadened to opening access to the underlying datasets themselves rather than just the LENZA tool   
• It was noted that the benefit of Open Energy’s approach is it offers the opportunity to achieve data sharing at scale with the data value chain considered, with members coming together for genuine sharing opportunities with clear value 
• It was noted that Open Energy is an opportunity to focus on use cases to demonstrate the art of the possible, looking at prior work, shaping the market architecture based upon reciprocity to facilitate data sharing.