The REC Code Roadmap presents the priority work items that RECCo
and the Code
Manager are planning to progress over the next 3 years, in order
to facilitate change to the Retail
Energy Code (REC) arrangements in an efficient way, with areas
of strategic focus clearly articulated.
The roadmap sets out how the REC arrangements are planned to be
reviewed, and what the reviews should achieve so that changes can be
prioritised, batched and delivered in logical, cost-effective order.
The Codes Roadmap is published in the Digital Navigator. Click here to view the roadmap.
The REC arrangements provide the systems and processes for the UK
energy retain market, directly affecting all people, businesses and
organisations in the country. It is imperative that the arrangements
evolve to support both consumers and market participants through the
nearer term challenges and opportunities, and the longer-term
transition to net zero and beyond.
The change process – new ideas for change, initial assessment,
solution development, impact assessment and consultation and
implementation – takes up a substantial amount of resources from
within RECCo and the Code Manager, as well as stakeholders.
The roadmap approach supports REC arrangements being maintained
and improved using RECCo, Code Manager and stakeholder resources as
effectively as possible, whilst ensuring overall strategic objectives
are understood and met.
The key element of the roadmap are the Epics –
work items with defined desired outcomes. An epic is most likely
progressed as a project, with recommendations for change as its
conclusion. We are using elements of agile delivery, including some
of the terminology such as epic, to provide the structure of the roadmap.
The Epics sit within Themes, that group the epics
and help show the priority areas of the retail arrangements we are
proposing to focus on.
The roadmap is split into four time periods,
showing when we will commence working on each epic.
There is also a Backlog which captures issues and
ideas for change that aren’t yet of sufficient priority to move onto
the roadmap as an epic. As we review the roadmap each quarter, and at
other opportune times such as new issues being raised, we will assess
the backlog items to see if they should become part of an epic, or be
an epic in their own right.
An epic is work item or project focused on a part of the REC – a
process, system, activity – where a need or an opportunity has been
identified to improve it in a way that would result in significant,
strategic benefit to REC stakeholders.
Some may relate to significant industry workstreams that need
focus due to the effort involved e.g. Market Wide Half—Hourly
Settlement (MHHS). Others may receive less attention in the normal
course of REC operations, but are considered highly impactful to one
or more REC stakeholder type, e.g. prepayment metering.
The epics describe the areas of the REC arrangements we view as
particularly important to review and improve in the near to medium
term (up to three years), and the desired outcome.
This provides a ‘priority baseline’ to compare other issues and
changes against, to support cost/benefit judgements about where RECCo,
Code Manager and REC stakeholder time is best spent.
- Publishing the roadmap
- The roadmap is refreshed
quarterly, to ensure new information and events and shifting
circumstances are taken into consideration. RECCo and the Code
Manager will engage with stakeholders to gather views while
preparing for each quarterly refresh.
- Working on the Epics
- Each Epic will is unique, but
it is likely to run as projects, with a discovery phase to
clarify and describe the problem statement, an analysis phase to
gather and review all relevant information, a solution
development phase to identify how the problem could be reduced
or resolved, and a recommendation for change.
- Appropriate stakeholder engagement is key to each
- Delivering on the recommendations
- It is expected that most recommendations will be taken
forward as Change Proposals, probably without, or with
considerably shorter solution development periods; but with time
for formal impact assessments and consultations before the
The roadmap runs alongside the REC Change Process and is not:
- A way to reduce the volume of change – Although decisions
will always need to be made about the volume of change that the REC
change process can manage at any one time, the roadmap should focus
resources on the most impactful change, rather than with the
specific aim of reducing change.
- A way to stop certain Change
Proposals (CP) being progressed – The Code Manager carries out
a priority assessment of each CP that is put forward, and discusses
with the proposer how best the issue could be addressed. The Code
Manager is responsible for drawing up a plan, and may identify that
there is not a sufficient business case to start work on a CP. The
change will be held until it is feasible and appropriate to
commence, and remain listed on the REC Portal. The roadmap is
another factor in that prioritisation process.
duplication of the CP process – each Epic will be unique in how it
is best progressed, but it is intended that the outcome will be a
recommendation for change, which would likely be taken forward
through a Change Proposal, with a substantial amount of the analysis
and solution development already completed.
As a REC stakeholder, you may:
- Want to contribute to the quarterly refresh of the roadmap
to put forward your views on the epics. We will issue an open
invite for comment – look out for these in the Weekly Bulletin.
- Want to contribute to an epic. It is likely that we will
undertake engagement with relevant experts or parties/organisations
during the discovery and solution development stages of an epic
(each will be unique). We will issue invitations to input in the
- Want to know about the progress of the
epics. We will publish updated views of the roadmap regularly here.
- Want to understand how a CP you raised or are interested in is
or may be affected by the roadmap. We will include the roadmap
contents/impacts in discussions with proposers, and describe any
relevant factors in the Initial Assessment Report (for