Annex A. At a glance: progress on the 2016 Recommendations
2016 Recommendations | Assessment of progress | Status |
---|---|---|
Role and objectives | ||
Focus on high-level goals and related outcomes and align functions with these outcomes | The PUC now has a stronger focus on goals and outcomes, which it could strengthen by measuring progress on its strategic objectives against key performance indicators. | Moderate progress on recommendation |
Clarify goals and priorities | The PUC developed strategic directions that meet the interests of users, but could explain further how it balances the different interests and priorities it sets for itself. | Good progress on recommendation |
Ensure that regulatory functions are fit-for-purpose | The PUC is better equipped for its designated functions; it now faces the task of fine-tuning the efficiency incentives in order to increase the impact of the new regulatory approach. | Good progress on recommendation |
Assess how best to continue participating in the policy making process without losing sight of the PUC’s core regulatory functions and the PUC’s independence | The PUC provides valuable input to ministries during the policy development process and the drafting of related legislation, whilst maintaining adequate resources to execute its functions. However, it did not assess how to continue participating in this process without losing sight of its independent role. | Limited progress on recommendation |
Set up appropriate institutional mechanisms for developing and overseeing the implementation of the strategic framework | The PUC established the Advisory Council in 2020. Going forward, the PUC will need to manage expectations around the work and function of the Council. | Moderate progress on recommendation |
Input | ||
Advocate for an alternative process for setting the regulatory fee which guarantees adequate accountability, minimises the risk of conflicts of interests and prevents potential undue influence | The new fee setting process is more robust and reduced the executive’s influence over the fee, but there is a need for clear criteria and procedures to ensure the right fee level in the future. | Moderate progress on recommendation |
Further investigate the possible long-term effects of the salary cap on the capacity of the regulator to attract, retain and develop talent | The competitiveness of PUC salaries has improved following a legislative reform in 2018 that changed the salary cap, but the impact of the salary cap on the PUC’s ability to attract and retain talent for senior positions is remains unclear. | Good progress on recommendation |
Develop a “total rewards” approach to attract and retain staff | The PUC implemented a new bonus system since 2016, with financial and non-financial incentives. | Recommendation implemented fully |
Process | ||
Advocate for staggered terms for Board members | There is a new robust process for the selection of Board members, that further staggers Commissioners’ terms, and allows for maximum two Commissioners to have their terms confirmed or renewed in one calendar year. | Recommendation implemented fully |
Exploit even further the multi-sector model and facilitate mobility across sector departments | Staff mobility within the PUC is shown to take place on a case-by-case basis, but the regulator lacks an organisation-wide mobility strategy. | Moderate progress on recommendation |
Introduce more regular and formal exchanges between Parliament and the PUC | The PUC presents its Annual Action Plan and the Annual Report to the Saeima. However, the current level of engagement is limited, given the breadth of topics and length of the reports. | Good progress on recommendation |
Remuneration of Board members after the end of term | There has been timid advancement on the process of amending the remuneration of Board members during the two-year cooling-off period. | No progress on recommendation |
Output and outcome | ||
Develop a performance assessment matrix that links goals and priorities to outputs and outcomes | The PUC had not developed a performance assessment matrix that would allow for a specific mapping of goals and priorities against outputs and outcomes. | No progress on recommendation |
Use performance data and information to communicate with key stakeholders | The PUC enhanced transparency through more external communication. However, it is difficult for stakeholders to grasp how the PUC performs in the absence of key indicators. | Moderate progress on recommendation |
Use data to develop choices for consumers | Since the last review, there are limited information comparison tools for e-communications and energy. There is a need for more data-driven tools and consumer education platforms which make use of extensive data. | Limited progress on recommendation |
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.
© OECD 2021
The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.