Summary

  • A 14 October DESNZ consultation proposes statutory rules for sharing consumption and meter data, tariff data, and behind-the-meter asset data when consumers authorise access. It would build on existing energy services rather than create a separate data platform.
  • The proposal would bar data holders from charging people simply to access their own data or approve its sharing. It does not settle the charges data holders may levy on authorised third parties, how common functions will be funded, or how the cost model will protect smaller entrants.

A legal framework above services already in motion

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) opened its Energy smart data legislative framework consultation on 14 October. Responses are due by 8 January 2027. The document proposes regulations under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Its first scope would cover consumer consumption and metering information, tariff data, and assets behind the meter, such as batteries or heat pumps. Specified data holders would have to make relevant information available through agreed access arrangements when a consumer authorises sharing.

The plan is additive. The Consumer Consent Service is developing permission management, trust and onboarding; Elexon’s Smart Data Repository and Flexibility Market Asset Registration work on data availability; and separate programmes address asset visibility and tariff interoperability. DESNZ says legislation should supply common rights, duties, protections and governance without replacing those operational pieces. That distinction matters: an access right is useful only if the services that carry it can interoperate and keep operating.

Permission may be free while access is not

The consultation proposes that a data holder must not charge a consumer for accessing their own data or authorising its release to an authorised third party (ATP). But it leaves room for a holder to charge an ATP for access, and it does not require ATP services to be free. A consumer could therefore face no fee for consent yet still encounter a paid comparison, optimisation or advisory service.

Nor does the consultation specify a detailed charging schedule. It asks whether common functions such as accreditation, assurance, interoperability and redress should be funded collectively or through charges on participants; when a holder or interface body may charge ATPs; and how charges should be calculated and reviewed. Existing licence, industry-code, price-control and central-body mechanisms are preferred when suitable. Where they do not fit, DESNZ says powers under the 2025 Act may provide another route.

The department warns that high upfront fees or unpredictable recurring costs could deter participation. It also proposes fair and proportionate cost recovery, no duplicate charges for the same function, and safeguards for smaller providers and new entrants. Those are principles, not yet a price model.

The role map is also unfinished

The consultation proposes a hybrid accreditation and approval role for a future cross-sector coordination function and relevant domain coordinators, with Ofgem as statutory enforcer. The Energy Ombudsman would be a separate route for individual consumer complaints and redress. DESNZ also acknowledges that responsibility, escalation and liability need clarification when a service spans several organisations. The coordination function itself is still subject to separate design work.

That leaves an implementation question behind the cost question: which body will be accountable for the service a participant is paying to use? Without a clear answer, a fee may be visible while the duty it funds is not.

Sources

DESNZ consultation; consultation document, funding and governance chapters.