My contribution to a board
I would help a board examine the basis of a power-sector figure before relying on the conclusion attached to it. A generation quantity may be gross or net of station service; a portfolio capacity figure may describe the whole operated plant or an ownership-weighted share. A forecast account may combine predictions made with very different time remaining. Those distinctions can be explained in ordinary language, and they matter to how a board understands management’s account.
My experience comes from leading data work inside a generator, not from exercising every authority in the energy chain. I currently lead 98 colleagues through six direct reports, with EUR 15.4 million delegated 2026 expense. Operations, dispatch, trading, settlement, finance, engineering, safety and cybersecurity have separate owners. I would bring questions about the evidence supplied to those owners and the board, while recognising that the professional interpretation may require expertise beyond my own.
My CDO appointment brought executive presentations on energy information to the board from April 2020. I have not served as a statutory director in this invented career. A first appointment would therefore require preparation for collective responsibilities and the particular institution’s circumstances. The intended contribution is a disciplined way to test a measurement claim, supported by cases that include an error I made. It is not a claim that data leadership alone establishes readiness to chair a specialist committee or direct the operating business.
Judgement in practice
01Refusing to call generating-terminal output net generation
The 2023 account contained 240 GWh gross generation and 6 GWh station service, producing 234 GWh net generation within the defined boundary. I retained those related quantities rather than accept the larger figure under a net label. The response cost EUR 2.1 million in reconciliation and reporting work, without claiming that the difference was avoidable waste or that the data work generated additional electricity.
In a board setting I would ask management to explain the measurement point, period and reconciliation behind the account. The question is useful because an apparently minor label can change what a reader thinks the institution has achieved. I would then leave engineering and commercial judgements with their owners. A clearer data boundary provides a better basis for their explanation; it does not answer every question about efficiency, settlement or revenue.
02Keeping different forecast tasks from becoming one performance claim
The 2025 review combined five hundred forecasts issued eighteen hours before delivery with three hundred updates issued thirty minutes before delivery. I chose to separate the lead-time groups rather than present the pooled result as day-ahead performance. Both groups could be useful, but they did not represent the same task or opportunity to use newer observations.
For oversight, I would ask which decision the forecast is intended to support and whether the evaluation represents the time available for that decision. I would not assume a shorter lead time necessarily makes the forecast better or infer a trading-cost reduction from a reorganised review. The responsible analytical and commercial owners would need to substantiate those conclusions. The value of my intervention would be to make the comparison question explicit before the board accepts the result as evidence for a different use.
My first year on a board
My first preparation would concern the institution rather than a proposed technical programme. I would learn its ownership, legal setting, reserved decisions, committee responsibilities and the way management reports operating and commercial performance. I would seek appropriate guidance on director duties and the distinction between collective oversight and my familiar executive role. The aim would be to understand what the board needs from me before deciding which earlier experience is relevant.
I would read the existing information with attention to definitions that may be carrying several meanings. Where a question arises, I would use the chair and agreed management channels rather than assemble a separate reporting operation. A useful contribution may be a more precise explanation of an established measure. It need not begin with a recommendation to replace the system or a claim that the institution has misunderstood its own operations.
I would also ask for feedback on whether my questions improve the board’s decision. A technically accurate question can still be irrelevant to the matter before the board. I would need to learn when a measurement issue is material to oversight and when management can resolve it within its remit. Any committee participation would follow assessment of the mandate and skills required. I make no claim to committee-chair readiness simply because a committee receives data-dependent reports.
Conflicts and their management
I would begin the relationship review with my current employer and the organisations connected to its generation, technology, analytical and commercial activities. Relevant ownership interests, supplier relationships and personal connections would need disclosure before the intended institution assessed independence and fit. A statement of willingness to act objectively cannot replace that review. I would also clarify which examples from my career I am authorised to discuss and what restrictions apply to further evidence requested during selection.
Twenty-four annual days would be an initial indication rather than an unconditional commitment. Employer consent, induction, meeting preparation, committee work and periods of unusual demand all affect the actual requirement. I would revisit the allocation if the role’s circumstances changed. Restricted plant information and trading material should not be shared merely because a board conversation has begun. The demonstration contains invented records; an actual process would need a controlled way to examine permitted evidence without confusing a public narrative with unrestricted access to the underlying business.
My independence statement
No independence determination has been made. Employment, ownership and commercial relationships must be disclosed and assessed for the proposed institution and its applicable requirements.
Board and committee exposure
Presented to the Board or a committee
Vardelune Power
Executive presentations on generation and portfolio information
April 2020 — present
Explained measurement bases and analytical limitations to the board as an executive; no statutory-director or committee appointment claimed.
Committee contribution
Chair and member readiness| Capacity | Committees |
|---|
| Ready to join | A data or technology committee after assessment of the board’s mandate, existing skills and first-director preparation |
|---|
Capacity and preferences
- Time available
- 24 days per year
- Current directorships
- 0
- Sectors
- Power generation · Energy measurement and information services
- Company type
- An established energy business seeking a bounded contribution on the evidence behind portfolio and operating measures
- Company stage
- A generator reviewing how its measurements support leadership and oversight
The seat I am pursuing
I would consider a first seat where the board wants a clearer understanding of the evidence behind generation and portfolio measures and where my experience complements its existing expertise. An energy-information business or established generator may offer that fit, subject to the institution’s assessment. A data or technology committee could be relevant after preparation, but I would not claim automatic suitability for audit, risk or another specialist chair position.
I would bring experience of correcting my own interpretation, preserving competing portfolio bases and declining an evaluation label that did not match its observations. I would expect colleagues to test those experiences and their limits. The purpose of the proposed contribution is to help a collective body ask a more exact question, not to make the data function the owner of every answer. This fictional profile describes an appointment interest for illustration only. It records no actual candidacy, eligibility determination or endorsement by an appointing institution.
Governance learning and readiness
IICA Independent Directors’ Databank: Not yet registered
This Europe-market fictional leader claims no Indian databank status or exemption. Any cross-border appointment needs its own eligibility review and preparation.
- Undertake preparation for collective director responsibilities in the intended jurisdiction.
- Learn the institution’s committee mandates and how operating, engineering, commercial and financial evidence reaches the board.
- Complete induction and a relationship review before accepting a first statutory appointment.