Market Compliance & Governance

Foreword

Foreword

This professional reference is one of a series Energy Compliance, Inc. publishes for registered entities and the people who run their compliance programs.

I’ve spent more than thirty years on every side of the bulk electric system. I’ve operated control centers as a Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator, and Power System Operator. I’ve audited grid facilities and signed off on findings as a senior compliance auditor. I’ve worked enforcement matters from inside the regulator’s process. For the last several years I’ve advised registered entities directly through the firm I founded.

The entities that do reliability well share a common habit. They take the standards seriously without confusing them with reliability itself. They know that a NERC Reliability Standard is a floor, not a ceiling. They know that compliance is something an auditor evaluates, but reliability is something a system either delivers or doesn’t. They prepare for audits by building programs that survive real questions, not binders that look thick.

That’s the perspective these references try to share. Each one focuses on a single topic. A standard family, an operational function, a regulatory framework, or an emerging industry challenge. Each one walks through how the topic actually works.

These references are written for the compliance manager who wants to understand the system, not just memorize requirements. For the legal counsel who has to brief a board honestly. For the senior operator who’s been told that compliance and reliability are the same thing and suspects they aren’t. And for the new compliance hire who got handed a binder and told good luck.

These references aren’t marketing material disguised as content. They’re the result of three decades of doing this work and watching it succeed and fail. I’ve written them in the same voice I use in a control room or in front of a Regional Entity audit team. Direct, evidence-grounded, honest about what the standards do and do not require.

Energy Compliance exists because most of the consulting offered to registered entities today is structured for billable hours rather than for outcomes. Every engagement is led by one senior practitioner. We don’t bring five people to a meeting that needs one. We automate the work that should be automated. We apply senior judgment to the work that requires it. If that approach matches what you’re looking for in a compliance partner, the back of this reference has our contact information.

If not, the reference still belongs to you. Take what’s useful. Apply it well. And remember the only test that ultimately matters: when the system needs to perform, does it?

Rob Smith, Founder, Energy Compliance, Inc.

EC-WP-405 Market Oversight, Compliance, and Governance

Chapter 1

Institutional Purpose of Market Monitoring and Oversight

The Handbook on Market Monitoring and Enforcement places market monitoring and enforcement in the overall governance of the market. It explains what market monitoring and enforcement can and cannot do, and why separating these tasks from the operational and reliability functions of the market is important. A proper understanding of the boundaries of what is possible in the market and the need to

have appropriate governance mechanisms in place are key to being able to effectively monitor and enforce market activities and for maintaining discipline and stability in the market.

Market monitoring and oversight protect public confidence in the integrity of organized wholesale electric markets by ensuring that market outcomes reflect the rules that were in place at the time of the particular transaction. These are institutional safety net features and not operational or reliability controls. They involve monitoring, analysis and reporting on market activity on a timely basis while maintaining adequate separation from operational activities and real-time management of the grid.

In principle, market monitoring is needed because of the nature of an organized market. As indicated above, market activity in an organized market relies on the participation of a large number of actors. Information on the relative influence of these actors is usually not available in real time to the individual actors because participants are spread out over a wide area. A large number of possible trading activities are carried out in real time through automated clearing processes. The potential for undesirable market conduct (harming competition and distorting market prices) is a risk to the market as a whole because individual transactions will generally not violate any specific limits or criteria designed to ensure reliability of the transmission system or safety of operation. The monitoring function identifies and addresses potential risks in case market activity deviates from defined theories of operation.

The article distinguishes between monitoring and oversight on the basis of the scope and the nature of the control. While monitoring means simply to observe and keep an eye on developments, the focus of oversight is the issue of whether the institutions are in line with the targets they are supposed to serve. Oversight bodies examine whether the market rules, the measures implemented to reduce the risks associated with these rules and the practices of regulators are in line with the legislative goals and the regulatory decision authorising the establishment of the trading system. The oversight is therefore both prospective and systematic in nature, and its goal is to ensure that the rules and mechanisms of the market as a whole are functioning properly, rather than that individual transactions take place in conformity with these rules. In this respect, the article concludes that oversight takes place at the institutional level and not at the level of specific exchanges.

One of the defining characteristics of market monitoring is its analytical independence. The separation of market monitoring from market regulation is to a large extent designed to avoid any conflict of interest between enforcing market rules and assessing these rules. Thus it is generally undesirable that those who may have to report deviations from normal behavior or possible distortions in market structures are also responsible for the transactions that take place in the market. An independent analysis ensures the impartiality of the conclusions drawn.

Market monitoring does not assess the reliability of the transmission system. Although reliability events and circumstances may be noted to provide context, the purpose of market monitoring is to investigate the impact of events on the market, and not to determine whether the grid is reliable. While events may

occur on the transmission system that are associated with reliability, the determination of whether those events or their associated circumstances are reliability-related is a function of the reliability monitoring bodies operating under the mandatory reliability standards. Market monitoring may confirm that reliability actions have occurred and determined the impact of those actions on the market, but it does not confirm or deny the need for the reliability actions from a reliability perspective.

The existence of oversight does not replace real regulatory authority. Even in situations in which the oversight body has recommended corrective actions, made public its findings, or referred actions to enforcement authorities for possible penalty, it is the enforcement authorities who decide on what penalties if any shall be levied and what corrective actions shall be ordered. The oversight body’s power to make public a thorough analysis of the issues at hand, complete with appropriate recommendations, is based upon the principle of impartial and official observation rather than upon regulatory authority.

The preventive nature of the institutional function of monitoring and oversight does not stem from their immediate correctives but from their preventive character in time. In fact, the purpose of monitoring and oversight is to prevent violations or misalignments from occurring in the first place by detecting patterns, vulnerabilities or potential misalignments at an early stage and allowing the competent authorities to take appropriate measures of a political, economic, judicial or administrative nature in a timely manner. Their preventive nature is therefore linked to their credibility, the quality of their methods and the delineation of their competences rather than to their speed or reactivity.

Understanding the Purpose of Market Monitoring Helps Clear Up Confusion Market monitoring is not meant to be an operating control function or a reliability oversight authority. Rather, it is meant to act as a compliance enforcement tool to maintain governance discipline in the market processes. Its purpose is to sustain confidence in the market that compliance with accepted designs and procedures is maintained in the absence of real-time oversight, thereby precluding the risk of bending the rules to achieve desired market outcomes.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Market monitoring and supervision ensures that market development and trading processes are carried out in accordance with established principles of a market economy, the principles of fairness and the norms of professional behavior by constantly watching the development of the market, making analyses and reporting irregularities. Monitoring is carried out outside the immediate management of the market and the work of the reliability organization; it examines the behavior and conformity of structures to market rules – rather than the reliability of the technical means and tools used for trading activities. Analytical and preventive monitoring function contributes to increasing stability and transparency of organized markets, without at the same time displacing operational or regulatory tasks.

Chapter 2

Market Monitoring Functions and Analytical Scope

Market monitoring is carried out on the basis of permanent analysis of market developments, occurrences and situation. Its scope is broadened or limited purposefully. While Market Monitoring is intended to ensure that the market activities, developments or structures that may be detrimental to competition or could distort the markets or the functioning of a market model are identified without prejudice to operational freedom and reliability of supply. Behavioral analysis is a key component of market monitoring. In a market monitoring regime, monitoring bodies observe and record the behavior of market participants to ensure it is in line with Market Rules and any mitigation measures. Examples of behavior which are typically observed and recorded include bidding behavior and offer patterns, physical withholding indicators and economic withholding as specified in the relevant tariffs. The purpose of such observations is not to determine whether the business strategy of the Market Participant is appropriate but rather to assess the adherence of their actions to the Market Rules in relation to their approved transmission network design. Also part of monitoring are structural analyses. The outcomes in the market can also give information on market concentration, on permanent or chronic congestion, on recurring or cyclic scarcity. The study of these phenomena is of great importance and needs to be done regardless of their relations with the behaviors of the agents that make up the system. This branch of monitoring consists therefore to research if these phenomena appear due to the intrinsic properties of the system, i.e. of a structural order, or to particular and sometimes regulative characteristics of the system, thus to propose in the frame of governance possible changes in the rules or adjustments of the reduction measures. Temporal analysis is another important feature. The monitoring functions assess the behavioural and output indicators over different time horizons. An isolated fact can be considered normal within the context of the volatility of financial markets, whereas recurring patterns can signal a risk. This perspective over time differentiates market monitoring from real time surveillance, and confirms the evaluative character of the latter rather than a purely reactive role. It is important to recognize that market monitoring does not assess the prudent operation of the grid. High voltage

transmission line re routs, upgrades or emergency restorations which may affect market conditions are treated as external events and therefore not subject to scrutiny under a market monitoring function. Instead, the validity of the operational decisions associated with such reliability initiatives will be a matter for governance and regulatory compliance under reliability standards and programs. In addition,

the analytical scope is limited to such extent that the findings upon which any determination is made are supported by adequate documentation of data, methodology, and analysis sufficient to enable scrutiny by regulatory authorities. Monitoring findings based on conjecture or on unwarranted inference from insufficient documentation are not considered monitoring evidence. Access to detailed data on individual market players allows for a precise analysis, though this usually implies a commitment to maintaining confidentiality. The reports are designed to strike a balance between informative content and the protection of confidential information by either omitting specific details or using anonymised and/or collated data. In the event that evidence is uncovered that calls for a formal enforcement procedure, the respective individual details of the market players in question will be disclosed. The findings of the market monitoring can be used as a basis for further analysis or as inputs for other Commission decisions and activities. However, Commission staff analysis does not amount to a binding recommendation, decision or ruling and its findings are not legally enforceable. The reports, referrals and recommendations based on the Commission staff analysis do not in themselves call for regulatory or market management action unless further process is undertaken. The Commission staff analysis does not cross the line of due process and the principle of separating investigation from enforcement. Je vous avez préalablement posé la question des missions du marché de contrôle. En expliquant les missions du contrôle de marché à partir des champs d’analyses du monitoring on contribue à répondre à cette question. On sait que les missions du monitoring sont déroulées en dehors des missions du contrôle des opérations, liées au renforce des sécurité. Le monitoring est donc un objet institutionnel à part entière nécessitant la définition précise de ses missions.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Market monitoring activities are designed to uncover particular trading conduct or market circumstances which may infringe on market integrity through the analysis of trading conduct, the market structure and the market performance. They cover a wide

range of aspects but exclude reliability matters and questions of operational prudence. With a purely regulatory purpose and based on a rigorous and impartial approach of analysis, the aim of market monitoring activities is to ensure an appropriate level of governance and control without prejudice to the commercial independence of market participants.

FROM THE FIELD

Monitoring is permanent and analytical. It runs continuously, looks for patterns, and refers concerns to enforcement bodies. It doesn't enforce.

The scope of monitoring is set by the tariff and the IMM's own protocols. Knowing the scope tells you what's being watched and what isn't.

A behavior outside monitoring scope can still be inside FERC's reach. Market monitoring isn't the only door.

Chapter 3

Oversight Roles and Institutional Separation of Authority

The institutional framework overseeing organized wholesale electric markets is complex and designed to provide separation of responsibilities, independence, accountability and to maintain a balance of competing goals. The complexity of this structure appears to be a matter of design rather than the result of the market fragmentation. The roles are deliberately restricted in scope to avoid any concentration of control, potential conflict of interest and to ensure that system reliability is maintained and regulatory issues are clearly addressed. In each sector, regulation is rooted in statute. The federal regulator sets tariffs for markets, compliance mechanisms and sampling programmes, thus providing a statutory basis for the functioning of the market. The approval of the market design and the allocation of responsibility for managing and policing the market is an activity of oversight that specifies the permissible forms of market design, polices unintended activities and ensures that markets remain relevant to their statutory purpose and continue to perform the function for which they were created. It does not concern the outcome of the trading activity that takes place in the market. Market administrators act only in accordance with the rules approved by the Market Committee. Their task is to ensure that these rules are enforced in a fair and transparent manner. In this respect, their role is administrative, not evaluative. As such, they do not have the right to assess whether the rules are appropriate, to infer the intentions of the participants or to decide upon the consequences of any infractions. Such an assessment, evaluation or decision-making would be of a subjective nature and could introduce a bias into the enforcement of the rules. These institutions work independently of the regulatory body in order to safeguard their objectivity in relation to the analysis of the situation. They have a merely evaluative role rather than a administrative one. These institutions analyse the developments on the market, signal risks and issues, communicate their assessments to the regulatory authorities. They do not affect the outcome of the activities carried out on the market; they do not implement administrative penalties nor give instructions to market participants. The

basis of their function is their expertise and credibility. Reliability oversight continues to be exercised in a distinct institutional manner, both concurrently and independently of market monitoring. The bodies charged with the responsibility of ensuring the regulatory compliance of electricity systems with respect to reliability requirements, verify that all requirements, particularly those related to security, are met. Market monitoring, however, does not monitor reliability compliance. Instead, the objective of ensuring

distinct institutional arrangements for economic and security functions is maintained. Law and Policy enforcement is distinct from market monitoring and oversight. Enforcement in most law and policy contexts is the exclusive province of public regulators and/or authorized agencies that have the ability to render a finding of non-compliance, specify any corrective measures or sanctions. All enforcement actions imply some statutory right to due process, burden of proof and judicial review. Monitoring for compliance may be used in informing any enforcement actions but it should not be considered as a substitute for genuine enforcement authority and a legal based enforcement process. This separation of functions serves several governance purposes. Firstly, the regulation of markets can no longer be concentrated in the hands of a single organization, since the buying of concessions could undermine its legitimacy. This separation also prevents the pressure of economic interests from eroding operational authority; it also protects reliability accountability by preventing it from being subordinated to market considerations. Finally, and above all, this transparency of organizational boundaries and the consequent legitimacy of their separation are essential to securing a competent and responsible distribution of competences. Misconceptions regarding roles of the players can cause substantial problems in relation to governance. As consumers tend to expect that independent monitoring utilities should be able to impose immediate remedies on the market in order to restore supply in the case of reported disruptions, or that market administrators should carry out the tasks to ensure energy supply and demand matching on an hourly basis, regulators tend to ask the players to extend their functions to meet the new requirements and requests, which undermine accountability and hinder timely actions. It is essential to define and enforce the boundaries between these roles. by separation brings clarity to the scope of oversight responsibilities and how a complex system of market participants can be governed efficiently. Oversight is not control and evaluation is not enforcement. Reliability and integrity governance for market participants’ volatile behavior is carried out by separate governance entities that function within specific boundaries. Their ability to perform these governance functions is assured by functioning through processes and not by merging their competences.

End-of-Chapter Summary

The independence of organized markets depends on an appropriate fragmentation of regulatory authorities’ missions, as well as those of market operators, system operators, audits boards, and regulatory enforcers. These missions need to be clearly defined and limited so as to avoid both potential conflicts of interests and overlapping competences, in order to ensure the legitimacy and sustainability of the institutional framework governing electricity markets.

FROM THE FIELD

Separation of authority is structural. The RTO operates the market; the IMM monitors it; FERC oversees both. The separation prevents conflicts of interest.

Chapter 4

Enforcement Authority and Procedural Boundaries

In market design terminology, Enforcement is the most consequential form of oversight in an organized wholesale electric market, and the most constrained. While enforcement actions address the violation of Market Rules, tariffs or FERC regulations through a formal process, Enforcement as an institution must operate within a set of highly prescriptive rules to ensure it remains clearly and demarcated from other activities such as Market Monitoring, Grid Management or Compliance and Administration. Commission actions to enforce competition and consumer protection laws occur after the Commission has completed a formal inquiry and reached conclusions regarding the illegal nature of actions or conditions and therefore requires enforcement action. Observations that appear to indicate market distortions or other aberrant conduct are made during the course of monitoring activities, but they do not necessarily become the basis for enforcement action solely on the basis of Commission personnel suspicion. Enforcement proceedings require satisfactory evidence to support Commission findings and compliance with legal procedures. Enforcement action represents a separate stage of activity than Commission statements on enforcement matters or recommendations concerning the exercise of regulatory authority. The enforcement legitimacy of a market institution depends on the level of procedural formality achieved by agents in their struggle to enforce rules. As enforcement disputes arise, allegations should be expressed clearly, proof disclosed fully, and respondents given an opportunity to rebut. Enforcement based on alleged rule-violations as defined in advance should then be enforced rather than retaliatory enforcement based on what comes to be seen ex-post as the deserved consequence of the action taken in dispute. Full procedural formality is thus necessary in part for the institutional reputation of the market institution threatened in the enforcement dispute; more specifically to assure the members of the market that any sanctions that are eventually imposed will be administered according to rules laid down ahead of time rather than simply in accordance with the information available to agents at the time of sanction imposition. Enforcement authority is only effective and practicable to the extent of its scope. Enforcement actions are only taken in response to market rule violations, violation of agreed-upon mitigation measures or regulatory requirements. Enforcement should not be confused with judging business arrangements as prudent or reliable unless there is a clear market rule violation. Enforcement should not be allowed to substitute for policy determination or operational control. The scope of enforcement and reliability authority has been intentionally limited. Reliability actions taken under mandatory standards are managed through compliance frameworks rather than the market

enforcement mechanisms. any market effects resulting from reliability actions are not enforcement triggers. This means that enforcement does not unnecessarily punish entities for exercising their reliability authority in the required circumstances. Similarly, remedies that are enforced through the Commission’s enforcement action have their own limits. For example, administrative penalties, behavioral undertakings or compliance undertakings impose specific consequences or requirements for specific infringements and do not amount to a structural overhaul of the market or the internal governance of a company. Realising such changes would in any case require a regulatory decision and cannot be imposed as an enforcement measure in relation to individual companies. At CIWEC we believe that enforcement should be conducted in a clear and transparent manner. That enforcement activities, carried out with appropriate levels of confidentiality, should be made public. That this helps to deter unethical conduct, and that it builds patient and staff trust in the objectivity of the enforcement process. That a high degree of consistency from one case to the next reduces room for ambiguity and helps to discourage what may be a calculated attempt to use that ambiguity for gain. Overstepping of the regulatory framework creates institutional risks for regulatory authorities. Enforcement is considered overstepped if it is activated because of political pressures, strong price fluctuations or high public concern with respect to individual transactions. In any case, enforcement must be replaced by an appropriate regulatory framework so that regulatory authorities refrain from overstepping their regulatory authority and enforce their regulatory framework only in cases where a clear rule violation is evident. Hence, in the enforcement of a proper regulatory framework, regulatory authorities must exercise restraint as an accountability tool so that they do not correct arbitrary market developments. It seems to me that it is important to understand the enforcement authority through the procedure of enforcement. Enforcement means to enforce rules; it does not mean to make the rules, to manage the infrastructure or to ensure the stability of

the market. Enforcement authority therefore only contributes to the efficiency of the market through the rule-based enforcement carried out within strictly defined limits.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Enforcement in organized markets is the activity that deals with the punishment of transgressions in relation to the Market Rules that are approved by the Regulatory Body through formal procedures. Enforcement is a distinct activity from surveillance, regulation, and market stability supervision and is characterized by a defined scope and set of sanctions. A disciplined enforcement activity protects the integrity of the governance of the market ensuring compliance with the principle of legitimacy, accountability and market members’ trust, without however interfering with the commercial and regulatory activities of the Market Operators.

Chapter 5

Interaction Between Market Oversight and Reliability Governance

Market oversight and reliability governance share the same system environment but operate independently with carefully defined interfaces in order to maintain clear authority while enabling appropriate institutional coordination. The interaction of these activities is important but limited. Getting these boundaries correct helps to avoid over-regulation and under-regulation. Market oversight monitors conduct and adherence to market rules, which were established during market design. Reliability governance monitors performance against the reliability standards that were mandated for FERC jurisdictional systems. These are different types of risk and different risk-reduction criteria. Market oversight is focused on issues of fairness, integrity and compliance with market rules. Reliability governance is focused on issues of system operating capacity, ability to respond to contingencies and reliable system operation. Neither replaces the other. Most interaction is context based and not control based. Reliability events could impact market outcomes and market conditions could be in the background of operational stress analysis. Regulatory bodies may wish to use reliability context to determine if market action was opportunistic or constrained. Conversely, reliability analysis could use the market schedules and commitments as part of the context for the analysis. Again neither analysis is deemed to have precedence over the other. There is a critical boundary at the point of operational intervention. Decisions made under reliability authority are to be evaluated solely through the reliability compliance and oversight mechanisms. The market does not assess the need, reasonableness or timing of those decisions. Reliability market impacts resulting from operational interventions are consequences rather than violations. The boundary serves to preserve operational discretion while preventing operational decisions from being delayed by consideration of potential market consequences. While markets do not directly address structural interaction issues, potential issues may be identified under market surveillance. In the case of repeated recourse to measures outside of market operations, or in the event of persistent price distortions caused by technical constraints or periodic settlements, it may be a sign that certain aspects of the market design need to be reviewed. In this context, the findings of the market surveillance are simply a contribution to the reflections of the governance, rather than a basis for any sanction. In this case, the purpose is to enable the governance to learn from the situation, without attributing culpability. Reliability governance can benefit from awareness of market oversight findings related to Market Rule violations. Lessons learned from monitoring activities, such as specific patterns of behavior by market participants, congested lines or inappropriate incentives can be used as

input to improve reliability planning and operations preparedness. It is a formal information sharing process and does not imply the loss of governance authority in each of the respective frameworks. Price increases, emergencies or enforcement actions can provoke calls to bring all services under a single command. In any of these cases, a well-managed regulator will be careful to preserve the principle of separate organizations with the coordination achieved through process rather than an erosion of the boundaries between the roles of the individual monopoly business regulators. This is an increased risk at times of high public interest. Relationships between oversight, monitoring and control functions and other entities within an organization often require procedural discipline to enable them to function effectively. Clear referral procedures, information flows and reporting arrangements can provide an informing control without interdependence. An important element of this relationship is discipline to ensure that intelligence is passed to other functions without any dilution of authority. This rule is a natural extension of the governance principle that we discussed in the previous section. There we saw that market monitoring and reliability governance, which are closely related, complement each other and reinforce a fundamental principle of governance. While independence is an important feature of governance, it does not mean isolation. In our context, the principle of independence between oversight and reliability governance is a bit more subtle than the previous rules. It does not mean that they should be unaware of each other’s activities. Rather it means that they should not intervene in each other’s affairs. Reliability benefits from ensuring economic integrity and system security through a set of complementary and bounded institutions rather than a single large institution.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Market oversight and reliability governance shall take place within a framework of information exchange and a corresponding context of rules; they shall be exercised independently of institutions. Oversight is exercised with respect to the conduct and structure of the market, while reliability governance is exercised with respect to the security of the system. The delimitation of functions and sanctions at intervention and enforcement points shall be clearly defined to enable rapid reliability measures, efficient governance and lasting institutional integrity.

FROM THE FIELD

Market oversight and reliability governance share infrastructure. They don't share the same logic. A behavior that's a market issue can also be a reliability issue, with different consequences in each frame.

The interfaces between markets and reliability are increasingly active. Capacity performance, ride-through requirements, fuel security — all sit at the boundary.

Programs that engage one frame at a time miss the cross-cutting findings. The framework is moving toward more integration of these regimes.

Market oversight mechanisms exist to detect specific behaviors: withholding, manipulation, gaming. Each has a regulatory definition and an analytical signature.

Chapter 6

Limits of Oversight in Preventing Reliability Risk

While important for maintaining market integrity and institutional accountability, oversight functions are not designed to preclude all reliability risk. The analytical, procedural and temporal characteristics of oversight impose intrinsic boundaries to what can be achieved through the exercise of oversight functions. Understanding these boundaries is important to manage unrealistic expectations and to ensure that reliability governance can achieve its full potential. Oversight is primarily a retrospective and analytical activity. Market monitoring reviews and reflects on observed conduct and outcomes after they have taken place, through a process of examination. Regulatory oversight assesses and considers the impact of market rules as part of a more contemplative process. None of these functions involve real time intervention or management of the evolution of events. Consequently operational authority is required to deal with rapid developing reliability risks. The scope of oversight is also limited by geography. Grid oversight verifies that an entity’s actions comply with applicable regulations and agreed upon operating procedures. It is not intended to scrutinize infrastructure adequacy, margin, or emergency preparedness, except where such items are specifically required by regulations or agreed upon procedures. Many grid reliability challenges arise from complex system conditions that are technically legal under current rules but are challenging to operate. Oversight can shed light on these interactions, but it will not automatically resolve them unless and until the underlying rules are modified. The reliability of oversight depends on a number of factors including the criteria for determining the sufficient evidence required to validate findings of risk. It is necessary to determine the level of evidence required to validate each concern based on the amount and quality of data and analysis that is available. In some cases the evidence required may not be generated until after the system has failed. Therefore Reliability Governance requires the use of conservative judgments and foresight in operations to prevent the need for oversight activities. While considerable attention is focused on market risk, it should be appreciated that there is little market oversight of correlated risk. Failures due to structural dependencies, commonmode failures, or widespread effects of external stress are often not detectable as

improper behavior or market abuse and are not necessarily the result of non-compliance with regulatory requirements. In such cases, markets behave as they are supposed to while the risk exposure of the system increases. While regulators can record this risk exposure, it is difficult to require companies to

take preventative measures in advance of a regulatory finding in the absence of violations of regulatory requirements. For this reason, independent reliability assessment and mitigation planning is warranted. Another risk is that the presence of oversight leads to false comfort when there is no action or finding. Absence of enforcement action or adverse findings can be seen as affirmation that the level of system risk is minimal. Conversely, oversight silence does not necessarily confirm that conditions have moved beyond safe boundaries. Governance of system reliability should therefore consider oversight findings as only one of the context variables. As Governments seek to tighten the controls on Oversight by closing perceived gaps in the regulatory framework this necessarily impacts the broader governance picture and may be counter-productive. Over broadening the enforcement of administrative disciplines for non prescribed infringement(s) or for behavior which has not been formally identified as an infringement is also likely to politicize aspects of official oversight and reduce the procedural protections afforded to individuals and organizations in this regard. Similarly there can be a danger of confusing risk assessment and audit with the proper governance functions of oversight in the context of regulatory expectations on supervisory authorities to ‘anticipate’ operational risks for entities they supervise. Governments should remember that any move to tighten oversight must respect the principle that such functions should have clear-cut defined boundaries rather than seek to transform the oversight role into a reliability factor for market participants. Knowing the limits of a system helps institutions to behave more disciplinarily. Oversight looks for behavioural and design anomalies. Planning examines whether a system is sufficient and resilient. Operations refer to real-time technical security controls that protect information systems and networks and help maintain their availability. Reliable system performance occurs when each component and feature functions within its design parameters and does not attempt to assume roles and responsibilities that belong to other elements. Oversee markets to maintain their legitimacy, but operational authority and planning discipline are different to oversight and know where it ends to ensure the right institutions are dealing with reliability risk.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Oversight is both analytically and procedurally limited and cannot protect against all reliability risks. What is left after internal control, operations management and management of external risks is subject to oversight retrospectively with specific scope and boundaries of evidence and cannot replace operational decision-making or contingency planning. Understanding the limits of oversight ensures that it can be exercised in a governing manner that does not exceed the boundaries and functionality provided.

Chapter 7

Governance Discipline During High-Visibility Market Events

High visibility events in the energy market are among the most challenging governance scenarios. Price spikes, emergency conditions, widespread market interventions or enforcement actions all draw the close attention of regulatory bodies, competitors, policy makers and the public. While market participants are scrambling to restore system reliability and market integrity, it is equally important to ensure that oversight, compliance and governance are carried out with the utmost professionalism and discipline. Visibility increases pressure on Market Users and Firms to take actions to address issues that may cause them significant marketbased or reputational losses. Market distortions, market disruptions, and sensitive political matters may require that Market Users and Firms provide rapid responses or explanations, or undertake corrective actions. This pressure may not always reflect market actions, firm operations, or regulatory matters that are within the firm’s control. Managing governance requires firms to actively manage the pressure to take precipitous actions or to overstep specific roles and conclusions pending thorough examination of the facts and appropriate procedures. Market monitoring functions are frequently under the microscope during periods of heightened media interest. Surveillance activities are sometimes expected to generate market analysis very quickly in response to unfolding events – in many cases when only limited market data is available. While it is important to provide market analysis and analysis in a timely manner, due consideration must also be given to ensuring that any conclusions reached are well-supported by robust analysis and evidence to prevent any rash or ill-considered conclusions being drawn as to market motivations. Drawing hasty conclusions can undermine market monitoring credibility at a critical time and can undermine effectively and efficiently any subsequent enforcement actions and policy measures that may be taken. Regulatory oversight also faces similar pressures. Media and other stakeholders can call for rules to be changed or enforcement action taken, or for policymakers to take action on a given issue. Achieving good governance in this context requires a balance

between explaining the facts of the situation and following procedures that are adequate to consider complex issues properly. The temptation to rush to provide a response to a current issue or media story should be resisted in favor of a more reflective approach that will yield better, more enduring solutions. High visibility conditions create great challenges in the area of balance between governance and operations. The impact of reliability actions taken during stressed conditions can be significant and

judgments made during stressful times can be subject to the harsh light of post event hindsight and scrutiny from an economics perspective. Risk reduction governance requires that the assessment of the appropriateness of these actions remain based upon reliability principles not economics. A failure in this respect could have a detrimental effect on the speed and quality of future Grid management responses. This also affects compliance functions within an organization. A significant amount of time is spent on preparing documentation in order to avoid raising suspicion and to fit actions to the expectation of what should not attract attention to avoid being investigated. A proper governance culture is about accurate record keeping, truthful reporting and adherence to defined procedures and processes and should not be about trying to justify actions. Compliance integrity is crucial for maintaining investigation credibility and for fostering a culture of learning. The communication discipline necessary to maintain an effective governance posture during high-profile events was the main theme of this entry. The number of words an organization uses to describe a power outage or cyber attack matters, because their choice of words will be interpreted by the public in ways that reinforce or contradict their governing authority and liability. To maintain the narrative of a secure and reliable electric system and to emphasize the proper sequence of events that occurred to avert harm to people and their environment, focus on the system and its management should strongly preponderate over discussion of financial impact. Post event processes can have a disproportionate impact following high profile events. Reviews should be as open and as frank as possible but must strike a balance between adequate information to enable accountability and no premature conclusions or inflammatory language. Inclusively designed governance frameworks that prioritise learning and structural review over individual criticism help organisations to build strength and withstand criticism. High visibility events should not be an excuse for abandoning the rule of law. Rather they should be a catalyst for greater compliance. Maintaining clear roles, following process and responding proportionately to events in high visibility situations will enhance market confidence and strengthen governance practices.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Market events carry a high level of visibility and consequently a high degree of pressure on regulatory agencies, internal compliance and external governance bodies. However, effective governance requires strict adherence to principles of segregation of duties, maintenance of a high level of documentary evidence and avoidance of abuse of discretion, all in full view of the public and politicians. Governance discipline at market events helps to sustain the credibility of the governing bodies and the reliability of the decision making process. It also helps to promote long term institutional credibility.

Chapter 8

Compliance Functions Within Market and Reliability Institutions

Compliance is about translating external governance constraints into discipline within an organisation. In a market and reliability context compliance is not about having rules, managing systems or enforcing consequences. Rather than educate, train or enforce certain conduct from compliance, the objective is to ensure that organisations – and the individuals within them – understand, are able to, and record as required their obligations and their actions. This is achieved without the compliance function being part of the day to day operational decisions. In market institutions the compliance function is concerned with ensuring that the tariffs approved by the regulatory body are applied, that the procedures for monitoring are implemented, that confidentiality is respected and that the reporting requirements are fulfilled. Compliance in market institutions serves to maintain market integrity by ensuring that administrative actions are carried out in accordance with the regulatory approvals, and that the monitoring procedures are implemented in the manner prescribed. Compliance does not involve a direct assessment of the market outcome or of the conduct of market participants. This section addresses the scope of the compliance function within entities that have responsibilities for reliability. Compliance serves a bounded purpose that includes the following elements: 1. Compliance with the mandatory reliability standards 2. Retention of evidence and 3. Interaction with regulatory bodies Compliance is not intended to be a determining factor in operational decisions, nor an alternative to individual engineering judgment. The compliance function serves to define a boundary condition for operational authority that enables the delivery of operational activities in a manner that is both trusted and verifiable. Authority versus Compliance Governance defines the relationship between the controlling and the controlled – in our case – between the utility and the regulatory bodies. Compliance, as the rules enforced by such bodies, should not be in the way of exercising authority, but should rather enable and facilitate it. In our Reliability Compliance program, decisions made by utilities under pressure in uncertain circumstances are properly facilitated when compliance is

seen not as a barrier to acting in a precautionary fashion, but as recording the particular circumstances of the occurrence and the compliance with the authority provided by the bounds of their jurisdiction. This whole area of compliance and oversight needs to be kept in balance. Compliance functions prepare organisations to be scrutinised, audited or otherwise enforcement action taken. Compliance should not influence the outcome of a scrutiny process or audit or enforce investigation and does not interpret the

law. Compliance’s role is to present its paperwork and procedures and provide an explanation as to how the legislation was complied with. The oversight organisation decides if there has been adequate compliance with the legislation. In addition to market monitoring functions and grid reliability compliance, information related to market and reliability compliance also presents sensitivity issues. Access to business confidentiality, grid operation records and Market Participants’ data requires a high level of discretion. Compliance programmes set specific control measures to avoid any abusive or non authorised access to this information while ensuring that relevant and authorised disclosure is possible in compliance with confidentiality agreements. Culture has a critical influence on the degree of success of compliance schemes. A compliance scheme seen as adversarial or as enforcing laws in a penalty orientated way generally leads to a risk-reduction strategy based on ‘keep head down’ (what is known as ‘minimalism’ or a ‘defensive’ approach to compliance). On the other hand, compliance as a governance tool that is considered a support function promotes attitudes that are open and conducive to learning and to ongoing improvement. This culture of compliance is particularly important for market and reliability compliance in order to ensure on-going operational performance and maintain institutional integrity. As experience is gained, the responsibilities of the Compliance function may change. Market design, reliability standards and regulatory requirements may evolve. Effective compliance programs react to these developments through training, process adjustment and regular feedback rather than through a static accumulation of rules and procedures. Adaptive compliance maintains the resilience of the role. Compliance viewed as a governance support function helps to put market and reliability institutions in the right perspective. Compliance is an instrument used to implement Authorities’ decisions and hold actors accountable for their actions. It has no role to play in terms of decision-making or delivery outcomes. Ensuring reliability and market integrity depends on the impact of compliance on existing operations and monitoring functions.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Compliance functions provide governance services within market and reliability institutions to ensure that market participants comply with applicable rules and requirements, record of authorized actions are maintained and engagement with governance procedures is conducted in a proper manner. Compliance does not direct operations or outcomes. Rather it ensures that those carrying out operational and management tasks within market and reliability institutions are held accountable for their decisions and actions thereby enhancing reliability and institutional governance. A compliance function that is aligned with the operations of an institution enhances the reliability of the grid and maintains public confidence in the institution.

Chapter 9

Enforcement Boundaries and the Preservation of Institutional Trust

Enforcement has a disproportionate effect on the trust within an institution because it is the moment when the transition from review to consequence happens. In a organized market enforcement is a key component and for enforcement to be credible in such an environment not only must the investigation be correctly done but it also needs to be clear that the boundaries of enforcement have been respected. Effective enforcement must be not only certain, and relevant to its role in the governing system, but limited so as to not intrude beyond what is acceptable. The institutional trust that underpins enforcement is based on the assumption that regulatory action is only taken when there is clear evidence of a rule violation rather than when enforcement is seen to be driven by other considerations such as market volatility, price or media related controversy. The basis of market activity – such as volatility, price impacts or controversy – should not in themselves be seen as sufficient justification for enforcement action. Where enforcement action is seen to be being driven by factors other than compliance with prescribed rules and standards, it can act to undermine institutional trust in market governance mechanisms. In response to what they perceive to be unpredictable enforcement activity, market participants may take behavioural precautions and institutions may become more cautious in their activities. Efficiency and market stability can be undermined. Clear enforcement boundaries are an essential element of the due process protection afforded by grievance mechanisms. The specificity of the standards, the clarity of procedures, and the consistency with which these procedures are applied must all provide clear notice to affected entities of the expectations and the penalties that may be imposed for non-compliance. Enforcement outside of established boundaries, whether because the boundaries have been expanded retrospectively, or because the facts of the situation and the wording of the provision have been interpreted in different ways over time, creates unpredictability and undermines compliance and fairness. Enforcement in the context of governance discipline means enforcement in accordance with the text of the provisions at issue. The enforcement and discretion relationship is sensitive. Market rules provide a spectrum of acceptable, legal behavior within certain limits. The challenge of the law enforcement is to draw the line between legally permissible and illegal competitive behavior and to make sure that this discrimination does not discourage useful, innovative competition. Without a clear discrimination between unlawful and acceptable competitive practices the feared consequence is overcaution and a non-productive reduction in trade rather than more reliable, efficient markets and higher standards of performance. All enforce ment boundaries are also reliability interaction boundaries.

Even though actions taken under reliability authority have potential market consequences that can be large, these do not make what was a reliability decision an enforcement decision. Relying on reliability outcomes as enforcement triggers for violations diminishes the authority of the enforce ment and creates fear for operators of the implications of having to take actions under enforce ment authority in subsequent similar circumstances. This kind of institutional trust depends on making the enforcement boundary clear and active. We believe that transparency supports trust, but that disclosure must be carefully managed. For example, disclosure of law enforcement activity can serve the purposes of accountability and deterrence, but selective or sensational disclosure can create distorted impressions of the role of different agencies. In the area of enforcement, we believe that communication about enforcement should provide a full explanation of the grounds for enforcement action, provide context by reference to applicable rules, and make a clear distinction between the economic impact of enforcement and the alleged violation of rules. Consistency over time is important for building trust. Enforcement of the law should be considered in terms of the overall pattern of enforcement rather than on a case by case basis. Periodic erosion of trust that can occur as a result of what appears to be inconsistent, selective or changing enforcement of the law undermines the effectiveness of the governance institutions regardless of the individual merits of any specific enforcement action. Consistent adherence to precedent, principles of proportionality and fair procedures should therefore be an important aspect of enforcement. Enforcement also affects the amount of learning that occurs. When enforcement is seen as fair and proportionate to the behaviour at issue, the institution affected is more likely to accept the findings and the implications for their actions. When enforcement is seen as punitive or over broad in scope, instead of learning there is denial. Reliable enforcement of market rules therefore needs to be both decisive in correcting problematic practices while at the same time as unobtrusive as possible, and preserving a spirit of constructive debate within the institution it polices. The protection of enforcement boundaries is not an abstract governance issue. It has consequences for participation, for transparency and for the capacity of institutions to effectively act within their bounds. Enforcement can only be a disciplinised tool for promoting accountability if it is not seen as a means of ruling from below.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Rules Violations enforcement boundaries are necessary to uphold institutional trust within organized markets. Enforcement activities must be rules-based, consistent, and free from outcome driven bias. Failure to uphold these enforcement boundaries can have significant impacts on the entire market and on the governance of reliability through the loss of due process, separation of authority and market/ reliability organization trust.

Chapter 10

Evolution of Oversight Frameworks Without Role Expansion

Wholesale electric market organized oversight arrangements are dynamic and evolve in response to changes in the bulk power system, new risks that arise and lessons learned. However, wholesale oversight should not extend to operational, planning or enforcement activities. Smart governance requires that wholesale oversight approaches and tools are dynamic and account for the boundaries of each institution in order to preserve their respective authorities, accountabilities and reliability decision making. The evolution of market monitoring is most commonly a matter of refinement of the analytical focus. Market monitoring organizations can fine-tune parameters such as the indicators, thresholds and analytical tools used in order to respond to observed changes in consumer or producer behavior, participation levels, or in the structure of the market. The aim of the monitoring activity itself does not change. An evolution of market oversight from one form of observation to a more refined form of observation therefore focuses on enhancing the level of observation while not increasing the extent of regulatory intervention. Similarly, regulatory oversight as a result of rule review and interpretation also largely occurs through market observation rather than actual market engagement. This is because in more developed markets and as the structure of the system evolves, regulatory bodies may wish to assess whether the current set of rules remains adequate for meeting the statutory requirements and ensuring the security of the system. In some cases this may result in a formal change to the rules however this does not typically involve the regulatory body directly trading or influencing on a market price outside of the processes defined by the new rules. One of the central governance challenges that have arisen is the need to deal with persistent problems that demand immediate remedial measures. Pressure on regulatory agencies to impose direct regulatory intervention on specific market events or individual operations is especially pronounced in periods of high volatility and stress. However, any impulse to give regulatory agencies more direct intervention powers may prove a false temptation. Increasing regulatory authority in such a

way could undermine due process, compromise existing regulatory mechanisms, and actually undermine the incentives for reliability providers to take the decisive actions needed to help avoid emergencies and to resolve them quickly when they occur. Evolution of the governance system through the established mechanisms of processes, institutions and procedures is essential to preserving the legitimacy of the system, and to preventing more expedient, yet ultimately dysfunctional, measures from being put in

place. Sharing information is another area that has evolved over time. Increased transparency, more frequent reporting and greater communication between agencies may all be included in an oversight framework to address the need to understand the current situation. Without prejudice to the principle of coordination as opposed to control, discipline should be exercised to ensure that any information which is shared is relevant to the discussion at the governing body level and does not enable individual officials to undermine others in the conduct of their operational duties. This work draws lessons from enforcement activities. From case to case, common patterns may emerge concerning potential ambiguities in the rules for market participants, or the lack of appropriate mitigation measures, or the presence of incentives that were not initially anticipated. These insights can then be used to refine the rules to better achieve their intended market integrity impact, while ensuring that any resulting regulatory activities are properly separated from enforcement actions. The pace of evolution must be managed to avoid instability. Vehement or reactive responses to single incidents are not conducive to stable governance. More evolutionary changes to oversight frameworks tend to be more stable, as they are based on a careful consideration of a range of inputs, such as scientific research and various stakeholders. Evolutionary governance is both responsive and stable, and allows for certainty and stability for stakeholders and market actors. This has often been misunderstood and so we need to emphasize that the evolution of oversight is a different phenomenon from resilience. Improvement of the regulatory system does not ensure that the underlying critical infrastructure is more reliable. Oversight plays an integrity and accountability enhancing role, but does not replace the need for infrastructure maintenance, operational readiness or appropriate planning. Misconceiving the relationship between these two concepts would risk the oversight being seen as an alternative or substitute to operational reliability responsibilities. This brief describes the implications of governance by evolving rules rather than by increasing the scope of activities to be overseen. Institutions need to evolve in order to remain relevant, and in so doing must do so in a way that does not compromise their functional integrity. Good oversight – analysis, illumination, and transparency – supports efficient markets and reliable supplies, while ill-conceived oversight – which tries to control operational details – undermines them.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Our oversight activities are advancing through a cycle of ongoing analysis, rule reviews and information sharing activities, as well as through a careful process of refinement of the mechanisms themselves, while minimizing the need for additional regulation. This approach to evolving our oversight work achieves the necessary balance between protecting market integrity, maintaining segregation of governance functions, upholding due process and sustaining FERC accountability, while allowing for necessary adaptations to an evolving energy system. disciplined oversight evolution preserves the proper balance between oversight, operational and reliability governance functions.

Chapter 11

Institutional Accountability Across Oversight, Compliance, and Enforcement

In a decentralized economy with centralized organized markets, it is important to ensure institutional accountability for every aspect of the market. This requires full knowledge of who is responsible for which aspects in what capacity and to what degree within the oversight, compliance, and enforcement functions. These are all essential yet distinct activities. Accountability is preserved by delineating them rigorously, so that each activity can be appraised independently of the others in relation to its responsibility. Oversight accountability is an analytical and evaluative accountability. Regulatory oversight bodies are accountable for analysing market developments, trends, risks and the functioning of market infrastructure to identify potential distortions relative to market frameworks and to disclose to market participants, in an appropriate manner and through established procedures, any significant issues they have uncovered. Oversight accountability is judged on the basis of analysis, methodologies and presentation rather than on the absence of disruptions to the markets. Oversight does not provide assurances of market stability, but rather ensures that developments are monitored and that institutions develop a level of awareness in relation to the markets they operate. Compliance accountability is essentially an internal and administrative accountability. A compliance function is responsible for ensuring that the organization has appropriate knowledge and tools to comply with laws and regulations; that it has the necessary documentation in place; and that it cooperates with audits and investigations by authorities. Compliance accountability is often assessed through criteria such as the organization’s preparedness for reviews, documentation of compliance-relevant procedures and decisions and the use of official discretion in accordance with applicable procedures. Compliance as such does not entail a review of the consequences of the activities in respect of which compliance has been exercised. Enforcement accountability is a matter of law and real-world consequence. Enforcement agencies have enforcement accountability obligations as part of their broader obligations to enforce laws and regulatory provisions in a fair, effective and proportionate manner and in accordance with their statutory powers and expectations, including the rule of law, procedural fairness, standard of proof and principles of statutory interpretation. Inherent in enforcement is the accountability for the impact of enforcement actions on the public and on the reputation of law enforcement agencies. Enforcement

actions and their outcomes are relevant to the maintenance and restoration of public trust in the integrity of the justice system. One of the core accountability risks arises when boundaries between these functions become unclear or are treated as ambiguous. Oversight bodies which suggest or imply enforcement conclusions for regulatory agencies to follow, compliance functions that attempt to retroactively modify rules to fit specific transactions, enforcement actions that punish firms for results rather than for violations of specific rules, all these and similar practices blur accountability boundaries, creating confusion as to who must do what and allowing authorities to redefine their jurisdiction and powers after a fact has been judged improper. Accountability must be time-bound as well. Oversight and enforcement are often retrospective activities, while compliance and operational activities are prospective and occur in real time. This governance discipline arises from the need to prevent retrospective assessment of appropriate exercise of discretionary authority in uncertain circumstances from undermining the lawful activity it seeks to regulate. Appropriate accountability mechanisms must therefore take into account the timing of the accountabilities in question. Cross-institution accountability can also increase the complexity of governance. Market operators, monitors, system operators and grid operators may have to report to different accountability bodies and stakeholders. Clarifying role-specific accountability in each institutional entity prevents accountability from being diffused among different entities and enables independent and yet coordinated assessment of the other entities. Accountability should therefore be preserved for each institution in relation to its unique mandate. Transparency supports accountability only when combined with clear roles and responsibilities. Reporting oversight findings, compliance activities and enforcement actions requires the right balance of transparency and understanding of organizational scope to support accountability. Inaccurate or misleading public portrayals of the scope of an organization’s oversight responsibilities and activities can undermine the impact of legitimate accountability systems and practices, even if the underlying system of transparency is well-conceived. This element is also highly related to the Institutional Accountability aspect discussed earlier. Entities are likely to act more boldly and assertively in their roles if they understand how their actions will be viewed and who will be holding them accountable. In absence of clarity around the former or the latter, there is more tendency to shift risk to others, or to become overly defensive or circumspect in decisionmaking, neither of which helps to achieve their goals. Thus, effective accountability rules are vital to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the governance processes as well as to support operational reliability of the assets and networks managed within such frameworks. While accountabiliti within the oversight, compliance and enforcement pillars of market governance institutions is what underpins the latter, reliability and market integrity are ensured not through shared accountabilit, but through rules-based and institutionalized hold-able accountabilit that is aligned to the role of market governance institutions and that is maintained at the core of market governance institutions’ structures.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Accountability in an institutional market requires a discipline of separation between monitoring, compliance and enforcement. Clearly defined functions with different sets of accountability standards for different activities ensure clarity of process, maintain integrity and enhance efficiency and credibility.

Chapter 12

Governance Lessons from Oversight Failure and Success

The effectiveness of any oversight mechanism is best tested in stressful periods and thus critical market events occur relatively rarely. Failures and successes in the conduct of market oversight are not only instructive for members of the governance structures of relevant markets, compliance organizations and regulatory bodies, they contribute to an evolutionary learning process that ensures that market structures, compliance procedures and regulatory practices endure without jeopardy to the reliability and credibility of the whole. Oversight failure generally falls into the category of role confusion rather than the category of any real analytical problem. Lack of effective oversight can be the result of regulatory bodies being treated as operational elements, regulators being seen as enforcement bodies rather than carrying out oversight in a structured manner, or compliance roles being seen as more than just documentation, such as being an advocate rather than simply recording facts. None of these cases generally relate to the regulators having inadequate skills, but to the fact that the roles which are supposed to be exercised are constantly being modified under the pressure of operating, time constraints, or in response to outside criticism. A common thread that can be observed in many cases of “failure” in enforcement is the phenomenon of “outcome-driven escalation,” where high prices, direct oversight action, controversy in the media, etc., whatever the cause, the consequence is that enforcement activity proceeds in the absence of adherence to well-defined substantive violations and/or triggers that have been established with regard to the factual thresholds necessary to take enforcement action. Outcomes should never drive enforcement actions, which ought to be conducted solely with respect to evidence. Unfair shocks to marketplace credibility that result from enforcement carried out in politically driven reaction to individual enforcement actions, or more broadly due to the general tenor of an enforcement approach, inevitably undermine deterrence and yield strategically aligned conduct (i.e., non-compliant market behavior) as an enforcement response. One of the most common failure modes is failure to realize when there is a problem

with the structure of the system. Focusing on the behavior of participants, rather than trying to understand the underlying structure of the system, can cause problems that arise from structural mismatch to be viewed as stress rather than as misconduct. In this case, oversight is technically performing its monitoring role, but it is not providing useful information to the governance level. The failure mode is not one of over-explaining enforcement, but of inadequate structural analysis and

insufficient feedback to the rulemaking process. Oversight that withstands pressure is effective oversight. Infallible oversight organisations maintain a constructive attitude, exercise restraint and refrains from drawing premature conclusions based on limited information and insists on following the proper procedure. Effective oversight leads to understanding of the situation at stake, provides insight into the scope of the mandate and leads to conclusions being drawn only when the basis for doing so is properly established. These characteristics ensure that the credibility of the oversight organisation is preserved at the same time as the operational effectiveness. Adaptation without increasing the role of an oversight institution is governance. What constitutes governance is specified by how the oversight institution changes its oversight mechanisms in light of specific misbehaviours and by the boundaries of the role it plays as an oversight institution in addressing these particular behaviors. Its governance activity is adaptable in the sense that it may change its oversight tools to reflect observable irregularities. Its rules may be more precise, or they may be made more transparent, in the event of undesirable conduct, yet the institution as a whole does not extend its activities into those of control and enforcement; instead it focuses on increasing the clarity of its existing rules. Coordination between institutions is another important indicator of success in the area of oversight. Appropriate information exchange between oversight bodies and reliability, governance and compliance functions is a key factor in enabling informed decisions to be made without the need for intervention. Oversight is compromised where the institutions involved are unable to sustain the discipline required to avoid allowing coordination evolving into influence or where information exchange is used to try and achieve particular outcomes. While the absence of governments from oversight dialogue is challenging to overcome, there are a number of indicators that can be used to measure success in instances where their engagement is possible: The outcomes of investigations are translated into practice and are therefore implemented by respondents. Findings lead to subsequent rounds of monitoring to focus on more impactful governance issues or provide clarity that streamlines subsequent accountability efforts, thereby achieving the overall goal of

promoting effective governance through the operation of independent oversight institutions. In cases where oversight bodies are unable to achieve governance-led changes to their findings, where there is a consistent stream of findings in spite of the quality of oversight work, oversight stagnation may be inferred. Cautious as we should be about blame, it’s even more important to be cautious about what we infer from oversight failure. An oversight system fails not because it lacks authority, but because it lacks clarity, discipline, or a proper role within the governance structures to which it belongs. Increasing the authority of regulatory bodies in the aftermath of oversight failure tends to copy, at a larger scale, the same set of failures that plagued the original institution. As I learned lessons about governance from my experience as an overseer this theme was powerfully reinforced. Effective oversight calls for a steady hand that can balance analysis, procedure, and institutional boundaries, even in times of crisis. Reliability and market integrity are best preserved not by punitive regulation but by regulatory systems that are trustworthy, familiar, and admired by market participants.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Lessons drawn from years of governance experience in oversight suggest that most failures occur because of governance and enforcement issues related to role confusion, enforcement pressure focused on outcomes, and insufficient examination of institutions and organizational structure. Oversight activities are generally effective if they are characterized by restraint, rigorous analysis, a delineation of roles and responsibility and adaptability through governance mechanisms. Effective oversight and hence, the trust, credibility and long term integrity of the markets is more a function of discipline than of scope of authority.

Chapter 13

Long-Term Governance Stability in MarketBased Systems

Long-term stability of governance in organized wholesale electric markets will require the ability of institutions to absorb dynamic changes while minimizing changes in role responsibilities, sovereignty, and accountability. Market operations in wholesale electricity markets involve dynamic changes driven by technologies, policies and systems. Governance of these markets, accordingly, needs to maintain stability while absorbing dynamic change and thereby ensuring stability of trust, predictability and adequacy of supply, while avoiding rigid or inert governance. The stability of the governance system is ensured by the structure of the institutions, rather than by the regulations. A clear division of the tasks of management of the market, supervision, regulation, compliance, law enforcement and reliability provides stability, as no single institution overloads, and pressure is dissipated to other institutions. Clear delimitation of institutions ensures that changes can be introduced in a procedural manner, through planning, and are not necessary imposed by means of market crises, by imposing new powers on other market institutions. A major source of instability is what we call creeping role expansion, or incremental functional creep. Sometimes regulatory bodies are requested to comment on the operational efficiency of firms, compliance departments are required to predict what sanctions the regulators may impose in the future, and oversight agencies are asked to intervene to correct what they perceive as improper behaviour. At the time each such request seems reasonable, but over time they add up to a slow-slow erosion of the boundaries and effective functioning of regulatory bodies. Maintenance of stability in governance requires a continual effort to counteract this creeping role expansion. Ultimately, the durability of the institutional framework also depends on the procedural legitimacy of the actions it took. Shareholders and other stakeholders may be more willing to accept adverse consequences when they are certain that all companies are subject to the same rules in a fair and predictable manner. Based on established procedures and established standards, governance frameworks that focus on procedures rather than on the exercise of individual discretion help to reinforce public confidence in an impartial regulatory system that does not overreact to particular incidents. The legitimacy of these institutional arrangements is an important factor in maintaining shareholder and other stakeholders’ long-term involvement and compliance. The ability to adapt is a key stability factor. Formal procedures for rulemaking, participation of stakeholders, and post implementation review provide the institutional mechanism for orderly change. In the dynamic real time environment of an active management regime, changes should not detract from the immediate exercise of management judgment. Stability is thereby

preserved. Insufficient Institutional Memory Undermines Stability Another factor that underpins stability is institutional memory. The oversight body’s recommendations, enforcement actions that set legal precedent, and the Commission’s day-to-day work all contribute to institutional memory, which grows over time and becomes a shared understanding of what is expected of the institution and its officials and of what is permitted and prohibited. The loss of this memory as a result of heavy staff turnover or periods of organisational change can lead to the repetition of earlier mistakes and to arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of laws. This risk can be mitigated by ensuring that governance frameworks include adequate provisions on record keeping, staff training and organisational stability. External pressure is another factor in stability. Politcal, economic or media pressure can drive the need for rapid change following an incident. Non resilient governance structures may react by altering the scope of responsibility or by taking a shortcut through the governance procedures. Resilient structures will be able to manage this pressure by reasserting roles and responsibilities, explaining the context of their decisions and by agreeing processes for review rather than making spontaneous changes to their structure. Stability in the long term is also a cultural fact. Institutions that provide clear messages as to the purposes and limits of oversight, compliance and enforcement functions develop societal expectations among stakeholders and within the organization itself, which serve to reduce potential tensions in times of stress and to govern behavior across the system. Why Formal Markets Last The stability of governance in a market-form gives us insight into why formal markets can survive for decades during periods of great change in the overall evolution of the market-form. Stability under change does not mean the rules remain the same, but rather that they are embedded in a stable institutional framework that enables orderly adaptation, upholds accountabilities and protects

the credibility of the agents who police the market. A stable institution of governance can accommodate considerable change in the structure of the market without undermining the integrity and security of exchange.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Market regulation governance stability in the long term requires: Precise delimitation of institutions to limit potential drift, resistances to functional drift, procedural legitimacy and rules governing a limited amount of adaptability so as to ensure market stability while enabling market adjustment, governance stability enables regulatory bodies to ensure that social groups have confidence in the authorities in charge, that the other market participants entrust regulation to these bodies. Long-term governance stability in market-regulation institutions is not achieved through stability of functioning, which would reduce the need for regulation, but rather through durable channels for change from one regulatory form to another via an adjustment process.

Chapter 14

Executive and Board-Level Accountability for Oversight Effectiveness

Executive leadership and board members fall into a higher accountability tier in relation to market oversight, compliance and governance standards. Unlike administrative or analytical roles, executives and board members are not involved in the direct monitoring activities such as investigations, enforcement and compliance activities. Rather, their role is to ensure that the oversight institution itself is properly setup, funded and shielded from any distortions that could compromise its mandate and performance. Accountability at this level is more systemic than transactional. Chief Executive Officers and Boards of Directors have accountability for ensuring that any internal monitoring activities have sufficient independence, analytical capabilities, and access to information in order to be able to carry out their work. This includes accountability for structure and processes related to the positioning of such units within an organization, their reporting lines and the extent to which they are provided with adequate resources. Effective oversight is compromised where monitoring institutions are dependent on, or subordinate to, the activities they are designed to monitor. This module continues the discussion of boardlevel accountability with a focus on the perimeter of the compliance role – specifically, the need to monitor and control the boundaries of the role. There will be instances in which the results of oversight activities – whether internal or conducted by external auditors, regulators, or the media – give rise to disagreements, controversies, or significant pressure on senior management and the board regarding remedial actions that need to be taken. It is particularly important for senior management and boards to maintain discipline in relation to the compliance role so that they do not succumb to pressure to influence operational matters, the exercise of law enforcement discretion, or other compliance issues outside of the established controls and procedures that are intended to contain them. The compliance role has well-defined boundaries, and senior management and boards must ensure they meet their stewardship obligations regarding these controls. Boardroom discourse shapes the culture of governance and leaders bear responsibility for the

style in which they communicate. They need to be mindful of the message they send in respect of oversight as boards are the governance mechanism to protect stakeholders and leaders should not put their businesses at risk by portraying governance and oversight as something to be feared. A negative boardroom narrative can undermine critical thinking and honest disclosure, and if governance and oversight are perceived as a political or threatening activity rather than as part of an institution’s

governance processes, this can detract from the ability to practise good and effective oversight. Governance and oversight are fundamental to protecting the integrity of an institution and this needs to be communicated, with senior leadership and other stakeholders being actively engaged in promoting a culture of awareness, education, accountability, and appropriate response. As noted in Chapter 1, resource allocation was another factor considered when making decisions about executive oversight. Chapter 3 emphasized the connection between accountability and choices made about staff and resources. Oversight activities with insufficient analysis, staff stability, and data availability may formally exist but are effectively nonoperational. The potential for operational oversight from an overly resourced oversight office can create pressure to expand the role of executives. This chapter highlighted the need for executive discretion to negotiate the appropriate level of capacity in relation to an official’s terms of reference. Oversight of an institution’s law enforcement posture can be particularly delicate. A board may not determine the factual circumstances of particular enforcement actions, yet it has to ensure that the policies governing such actions appropriately stress such matters as equity, consistency and proportionate conduct. Boards should look to the general enforcement policies, the use of enforcement precedent and the degree of disclosure relating to enforcement matters generally, without becoming involved in individual enforcement decisions. Board involvement in the latter can risk undermining both the institutional legitimacy of enforcement policies and procedures and the board’s own institutional effectiveness and governance integrity. Executive accountability does not end at the conclusion of an incident. Post-incident management requires executives to ensure that investigations are comprehensive, impartial and reflective of their specific roles and responsibilities. That politicallymotivated pressure to rush to conclusions or to assign blame should not be given in unlawfully heckling fashion to executives, rather it should feed into the governance procedures of the organization. Otherwise executives will lose the trust of the broader public. CEOs and boards must also be held accountable for board continuity. Turnover from a succession event, a reorganization or the impact of an external

change can impact the board’s governance memory and the clarity of its organizational boundaries. CEOs must be responsible for ensuring the continuity of board knowledge, board documents and board training that enables boards to remain effective as compositions change and policies are modified. Pursuing accountability at the executive and board levels is essential for complete market monitoring, oversight and enforcement governance. Ultimately, effective oversight is a function of technical analysis as well as leadership’s ability to uphold principles of integrity, independence and discipline – leadership that guards the guardians of the market. Reliable markets and credible governance are built on leadership that safeguards financial market institutions.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Executive and board-level oversight accountability is more about structural and institutional issues such as independence, resources, scope of responsibility, and organisational culture. Leadership must ensure that the oversight function is safeguarded from interference, resist the pressure to assume additional responsibilities, and ensure the continuity and legitimacy of the oversight body. Leadership governance is therefore crucial to ensuring sustainable oversight and building trust in institutions.

Chapter 15

Enduring Governance Boundaries in Market Oversight Regimes

A market oversight regime is sustainable only if its boundary (that is, the set of constraints that the overseeing agency must respect in carrying out its oversight activities) endures over time. The boundary of an oversight regime specifies the domain of oversight (what aspects of market conduct are subject to scrutiny) as well as the scope of discretion (what issues the agency can recommend and to what extent, and what it cannot recommend or recommend only with qualification, and the mechanisms through which its recommendations are translated into the decisions of market participants). An oversight regime’s boundary is not an incidental feature of its design; rather it is the key to the regime’s ability to legitimate its existence, hold participants accountable for their actions, and protect the reliability of the rules under its purview. At the heart of the concept of a central boundary is the differentiation between evaluation and control. Oversight evaluates whether individual’s behaviour, rules and activities fall within the boundaries defined by regulation. Control activities – whether in the market or as part of an enforcement agency or reliability organization – are located elsewhere. The influence of oversight institutions on the outcome of what they inspect can undermine the effectiveness of their evaluation tasks and undermine the integrity of the control activities that are conducted further down the line. A further longstanding administrative boundary is that between the exercise of governance and the exercise of discretion. For examples, compliance audits evaluate management within rules and goals, and are concerned with management choices over the particular circumstances to which rules are applied and goals pursued; enforcement complaints relate to choices made by persons with delegated operational or enforcement authority, and are not a means of regulating the delegations that have been made. Regulation that intrudes upon the exercise of discretion exercised by organizations or officers within delegations oversteps an important administrative boundary and is therefore likely to be as ineffective in its own terms as it is unacceptable within administrative practice. Time boundaries are as crucial. Oversight functions operate ex post, focusing on outcomes of events that have already occurred. It is not possible nor intended to influence current decision-making or impending operations. Attempting to blur these time boundaries risks replacing genuine oversight with supervision, which can lead to risks of interference in on-going operations that may paralyze swift action. One more constraint of the jurisdiction is highlighted in this paragraph. Market oversight looks at the behavior and design of the market within the framework of authorized tariffs and regulations. It does not encompass issues of system adequacy, resource adequacy or operational prudence unless otherwise defined within its

mandate. Reliability governance provides standards, planning and operational tools for managing adequacy, resource adequacy and operational prudence. These must be respected to avoid any over laps or duplication. Boundaries can also be informational. Oversight institutions typically have information that others do not. In order to exert governance discipline over others the information should be only used for the purposes for which it was collected, and it should only be communicated in formally prescribed ways. Disclosing information informally or selectively can compromise the decisions of others, and undermine the principle of oversight neutrality. One of the primary drivers of pressure to breach formal boundaries comes during moments of crisis or conflict. When market forces are exacerbated by a crisis, agencies or regulators may feel pressured to act more quickly or negotiate in ways that effectively eliminate formal boundaries. Disputes over enforcement, including those related to the implementation of embargoed zones, can also be a focal point for pressure to breach formal boundaries. Finally, intense media attention related to an environmental disaster may lead to pressure to sacrifice formal boundaries in order to be seen as taking swift action. Maintaining institutional boundaries in these moments, and accepting the potential consequences for those who do so, is an important way of preserving institutional legitimacy and ensuring that institutions are equipped to handle challenges in the future. Maintaining boarders is an active condition rather than a passive state. It needs constant confirmation through a broad range of messages and mechanisms emanating from leadership, processes and a culture within a Board. New staff, changes in market conditions and developments in legislation are just three examples of variables to test the strength of Boarder Control as an active condition. Governance stability is assured by the careful enforcement required to sustain the condition of Boarders being an active condition. It explains how understanding enduring governance boundaries can help in understanding why oversight regimes in markets will succeed or fail. That it is not about being

controversy-free. That it is about being able to perform under pressure in a predictable and credible manner, and that in order to perform within these boundaries authorities, accountabilities and trust need to be anchored.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Enduring governance boundaries are a critical factor that define the legitimacy and effectiveness of market oversight regimes. It is important to maintain clear boundaries between the evaluative and control functions, between governance and discretion, between ex post and real time decision making, and between market monitoring and reliability authority roles. The long term sustainability of the market oversight regime is dependent upon discipline of governance boundaries in market-based electric systems.

Chapter 16

Synthesis of Oversight, Compliance, and Governance in Market Environments

Market regulation, compliance and governance are inter-related activities and the purpose of these activities is to ensure that the market functions fairly but this does not mean that the Market Operator or the Transmission System Operator has direct control over the operations or reliability of the grid. Market regulation, compliance and governance activities differ in terms of purpose, time horizons and governance and these differences must be addressed by appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there is effective interaction among these activities. Synthesis does not mean merging each of the functions into a single one but rather, ensuring that each one is situated within an institutional framework that ensures synergy. Market infrastructure oversight is a means of providing external oversight for market participants’ behaviour and market design. Oversight is an ex-post functionality which offers an external assessment or review of market developments and design. Its role is essentially one of detection rather than correction. In Market Infrastructure Regulation, compliance refers to the process of translating externally imposed rules and guidelines into internal governance rules that serve as a basis for market participants’ conduct and thereby ensure that authorities’ decisions are enforced on a continuous basis. Governance refers to the arrangements for oversight and compliance that are established to ensure that their regulation does not obstruct their operation. In summary, the functionality of market infrastructure oversight, compliance and governance are interrelated and ensure that markets are governed in such a way that they can discharge their tasks credibly and flexibly. The integration of the individual functions is visible in the treatment of events as they move through the institutional system. Anomalies that are detected through monitoring may enter into the governance discussions. Governance will determine whether an adjustment to the rules as defined through monitoring or additional information calls for a clarification or amendment of the rules. Compliance ensures that any necessary adjustments to the rules are properly and uniformly implemented across

the Group and provides legal protection for any actions that must be taken during the period between the determination of a needed change to the rules and the time when that change becomes formally effective. In appropriate cases enforcement actions can then be taken for any detected violations of the amended rules. Each of the activities in the enforcement process occurs successively and within clearly

defined boundaries in order to maintain the legal standards of due process and respect for the rights of members. Restraint is an integral component of the synthesis of activities within the governance system. Governance cannot be practiced by the simple act of fudgment of function upon occasion or because of expediency, or because the relationship of the Overseer to the activity and its participants has not been formally defined. It cannot be a precedent for exercising administrative control over the existence of compliance documentation because the use of the documentation for such purposes in the here and now is taken as proof of the right to administer in the then and there. And it cannot be a precedent for governance determining the responsibility and authority for carrying out governmental functions. The institutional fabric and personnel that make up a governance system must demonstrate restraint to preserve integrity. It is important that communication flows between functions but that it is controlled. Insights should be communicated in a nuanced way rather than as unconditional instructions. Compliance-related communication must be presented in a purely factual manner to avoid the appearance of defensiveness. Governance-related communication must avoid sending signals as to what should be done in order to avoid over-explaining the role of each stakeholder and influencing their behaviour. Adhering to these guidelines allows for effective collaboration without confusion as to who is issuing instructions and who is responsible for decisions. The synthesis framework also functions as a learning framework. The feedback loops are indirect and structured. Oversight identifies patterns. Operations and planning interpret the implications of those patterns within their domain of expertise. Governance determines whether the structural changes are appropriate. This distributed learning process prevents the system from going into a reactive design mode while allowing the system to adapt based on knowledge. Failure of synthesis is generally a sign of severe boundary erosion. When oversight starts to affect operational decisions; when compliance turns into advocacy; when market dysfunctions prompt regulator counter-reactions that tip the balance in the opposite direction – the stability and functionality of the market will start to erode along with the corresponding accountability, as uncertainties multiply and cause hesitations in market activity. Understanding synthesis

reveals that no single function ensures market integrity or market reliability. Integrity of market functions arises from the interplay of bounded roles under common governance principles. A market remains credible if market oversight is independent, compliance is helpful, governance is strict and enforcement is light. This synthesis reaffirms the broader conclusion of this section. Oversight, control and governance are not control instruments, but rather guarantees of institutions’ proper functioning. Their effectiveness therefore stems from their clarity, modesty and continuity, rather than from their scope or urgency.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Oversight, compliance and governance are distinct yet interconnected mechanisms that uphold market integrity through a principle of conduct rather than consolidation of functions. Independent ex post evaluation, internal management controls and governance procedures are typically sequential and applied with restraint. An effective integration of oversight, compliance and governance maintains accountability, fosters learning and enhances legitimacy in market-based systems.

Chapter 17

Closing Perspective on Oversight, Compliance, and Governance Boundaries

The scope of oversight, compliance and governance activities is a matter of design choice. The limitations on such activities in organized wholesale electric markets have been established in order to preserve the ability of utilities to provide reliable service, to protect due process and to preserve the integrity of market institutions in an environment of intense and necessarily changing regulatory scrutiny. The following discussion is thus more descriptive than prescriptive. Oversight is not about guaranteeing the outcome of the matters it supervises or about eliminating all risks. What really matters is the quality of the control exercised (evaluation, transparency, highlighting potential or actual divergences), which is only doomed to fail if it is seen as a risk control or stability mechanism, as a means of managing current operations, as a substitute for risk prevention and governance measures or for the anticipation of potential disruptions. True oversight is a governance control mechanism that enhances the market’s legitimacy. Control and justification are not the purposes of compliance. Compliance is the governance system that enables organisations to safely and effectively exercise authority in a way that is consistent with regulatory expectations. Compliance that attempts to influence operational discretion or to manage the risk of detection undermines reliability and accountability. Compliance that provides the records, supports and explanations needed to confirm that authority has been exercised appropriately, enhances organisational legitimacy. Authority is governed by the rules of behavior defined by governance for the roles of Leader, Manager and Staff, and enforced by the commitment of the Organization’s governance. Governance does not necessarily eliminate conflict or controversy; it is the mechanism through which disagreements arise and are managed without compromising the established authority. Effective governance converts pressure into process, maintains boundaries under pressure and assures that any necessary adaptation is carried out within a defined framework of behavior rather than as a responsive reaction. One theme that keeps surfacing in this section is that boundary preservation is always an effort. Leadership needs to be reminded of it, staff needs to be schooled in its importance, and the broader culture of an organization needs to support the idea. Boundaries can fall apart because of formal assertions of authority, but they can also collapse because of less overt shifts in expectations, especially during significant events. The key to institutional survival is often to be able to reaffirm those

boundaries when it is most uncomfortable to do so. From this perspective, oversight, compliance and governance activities which contribute to reliability, do not interfere with it. Since they do not take any operational decision, they do not interfere with the need for operators to be able to act rapidly in face of uncertainty. Also, they do not undermine rapid decision-making by turning it into arbitrary behavior. Achieving system security and institutional legitimacy requires striking this balance. As market circumstances continue to change, there will always be pressure to respond to those changes by shifting authority from one party to another. Lessons from the extensive experiences with oversight, compliance, and governance suggest, however, that effective solutions to complex issues are rarely about who has which power. Rather, they are more often the result of more crystalline responsibilities, tougher controls, and greater discipline in refraining from overstepping normal boundaries. From this closing perspective, it reinforces the conclusion derived throughout this chapter. Market oversight, compliance and governance are not a peripheral part of the Market Design. They constitute rather essential structural safeguards that allow to reconcile the objectives of the markets and those of the reliability functions, while ensuring their complementary nature. To be efficient, it is crucial to know not only what they must achieve, but also what they are not expected to achieve.

End-of-Chapter Summary

Oversight, compliance and governance are bounded safeguards that provide a framework to ensure market conduct, and to support the mandate of the reliability authority through monitoring, correction and management. The purpose of the boundaries is strategic. Keeping these boundaries intact, particularly during periods of increased pressure, is critical to ensuring effective reliability operations, robust governance and market stability in organized markets.

Glossary

Glossary

Balancing Authority (BA) An entity that schedules resources ahead of time, maintains real-time balance of load, interchange and generation within the Balancing Authority Area, and supplies frequency support to the Interconnection.

Bulk Electric System (BES) - Except where modified by the exceptions set forth below, all Transmission Elements operated at 100 kV or greater and all Real Power and Reactive Power resources connected at 100 kV or greater. Excludes facilities used for the local distribution of electric energy.

Market Monitoring is the process of observing, analyzing and evaluating Market developments with the purpose of verifying that the market activity is in line with the agreed rules under the Remedial Measures and to determine if any market manipulation or design flaws are present.

Reliability Coordinator (RC) – The entity that holds the ultimate responsibility for the reliability of the Bulk Electric System, has a Wide Area view of the Bulk Electric System, and possesses the operating tools, processes and procedures necessary to prevent and/or mitigate potential System Operating Limit (SOL) or Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit (IROLP) violations.

Transmission Operator (TOP) - The Entity Responsible for the Reliability of its Local Transmission System and Which Operates or Directs the Operation of its Transmission Facilities.

Each entry in this glossary is an unedited duplication of selected definitions that have been incorporated from the NERC Glossary of Terms. This glossary does not replace or supersede any definitions contained in the official NERC Glossary of Terms.

About the Author

About the Author

Rob Smith is a senior electric industry professional with over thirty years of experience across every major function of the North American Bulk Electric System. His work spans reliability coordination, transmission operations, regulatory compliance, and cybersecurity reliability.

Rob has worked directly in real-time grid operations as a Reliability Coordinator, Transmission Operator, and Power System Operator within RTO/ISO and utility control center environments. He has also held senior regulatory and oversight roles, including senior compliance auditor and subject matter expert for NERC Reliability Standards. In those roles he audited grid facilities for compliance with applicable standards, evaluated the adequacy of mitigation actions, supported the development of violation notifications and settlements as part of FERC-directed enforcement actions, and participated in risk based oversight of utility mitigation activities.

Rob founded Energy Compliance, Inc. to bring senior, regulator-side compliance authority to registered entities directly, without the layered staffing, billable-hour overhead, and generalist advice typical of larger consulting firms. Every Energy Compliance engagement is led by Rob personally.

About Energy Compliance, Inc.

About Energy Compliance, Inc.

Energy Compliance, Inc. is an independent consulting and advisory firm focused exclusively on electric reliability, cybersecurity reliability, and regulatory compliance for organizations connected to the North American Bulk Electric System.

Our work supports registered entities, including Generator Owners and Operators, Transmission Owners and Operators, Reliability Coordinators, Balancing Authorities, and Distribution Providers. We work across NERC Reliability Standards, FERC orders, RTO/ISO market participation rules, Regional Entity oversight, and state regulatory frameworks.

We do this work differently than larger consulting firms. Engagements are led by a single senior practitioner with regulator-side experience. We don’t staff for billable hours. We staff for outcomes. Our deliverables are written to be operationally executable and audit-defensible, not to manufacture activity. Where automation can replace manual work, we build the automation. Where senior judgment is required, the senior is in the room.

Energy Compliance is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or endorsed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or any Regional Entity.

Services Provided

Our services are written to be clearly defensible. Operationally executable in real time. Audit-defensible at compliance review. Every deliverable is structured for the auditor’s question, not the consultant’s binder.

Energy Compliance services include, but are not limited to:

• NERC reliability and compliance advisory support
• Reliability governance and program assessments
• Registration and applicability analysis
• Operational and engineering reliability alignment
• Compliance program design and improvement
• Audit and enforcement support (non-advocacy)
• Mitigation planning and Self-Report development
• Training and executive briefings on reliability frameworks
• Regulator-perspective program reviews

Each engagement is scoped to the entity’s role, function, and bulk system impact.

ENERGY COMPLIANCE PROFESSIONAL REFERENCE

Rigorous Compliance. Defensible Programs. Energy Compliance, Inc. partners with registered entities on the institutional and technical questions that define strong reliability and cybersecurity programs, from classification through audit through enforcement response.

N ERC CO MP LIANC E S ENIO R ADV ISO RY Program support, interpretation, and audit Direct engagement on complex reliability preparation. questions.

I ND USTRY ENGAGEMENT AUD IT D EFENSE Standards development and working-group Notice of Penalty response and settlement participation. posture.

CONNECT WITH US Scan to visit

E N E RGY COMPL IAN CE , IN C. · EC-WP-405 · © 2026 · AL L RIGHTS RES E RV E D