The Retail Energy Code (REC) has outlined plans to integrate its Theft Issues Group (TIG) into the broader Change Issues Group (CHIG), marking a shift in how energy‑theft matters will be governed across the sector.
Established in April 2024, TIG has played a significant role in developing several major Energy Theft‑related Change Proposals (CPs). While these efforts have delivered successful outcomes, REC has noted a recent decline in the number of new theft‑related Issues and CPs, prompting a review of how best to manage future work in this area.
CHIG, a well‑established and highly attended forum, now provides end‑to‑end support for REC Change Issues, including solution development, industry engagement, and governance processing. Many existing TIG participants already contribute actively to CHIG discussions.
Transition of Energy Theft Issues to CHIGUnder REC’s proposal:
- All future Energy Theft Issues will be managed through CHIG.
- CHIG will feature a standing agenda item dedicated to Energy Theft.
- Issue‑specific working groups will be formed where deeper specialist focus is required—for example, work underway on I0265 Theft Calculator Usage & Suitability Assessment.
- TIG may be re‑established in the future should issue volumes or industry needs increase.
The REC Code Manager expressed thanks to TIG members for their contributions to date and emphasised that collaboration will continue within the CHIG environment.
Concerns Raised by TIG ParticipantsDuring the recent TIG, several attendees shared concerns regarding the transition:
Some participants highlighted that theft specialists who routinely support TIG may not have capacity to attend monthly CHIG meetings, risking a reduction in expert input. REC clarified that attendance would only be required for the Energy Theft agenda slot, not the entire CHIG meeting.
Concerns were raised that discussions could become less candid in a larger forum—particularly if Ofgem or other wider audiences are present. TIG has historically provided a space for more open exchange on sensitive theft matters.
Several members questioned whether fewer issues are being raised because key stakeholders may not be participating, rather than because issues do not exist.
Participants noted that best‑practice sharing across the theft community is already limited, and some fear that integration could further reduce opportunities for industry learning.
The Chair of the UK Revenue Protection Association (UKRPA) also expressed similar concerns during the discussion, echoing members’ observations on the importance of maintaining specialist insight and open dialogue.
However, the UKRPA Chair acknowledged the rationale behind REC’s decision and reiterated that the UKRPA continues to provide a dedicated forum for:
- sharing best practice,
- discussing operational theft challenges,
- supporting industry collaboration, and
- offering technical input to RECCo and the REC Code Manager when required.
Its Chair emphasised that the UKRPA remains committed to working closely with REC to help the industry address Energy Theft and safety issues effectively.
