Click here to load reader
Upload
trinhhanh
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MS D v ICON DISTRIBUTION INVESTMENTS LTD (ABN 80373025224) AND JEMENA NETWORKS (ACT) PTY LTD (ABN 24 008 552 663) TRADING AS ACTEWAGL DISTRIBUTION (ABN 76670568688) (Energy and Water) [2017] ACAT 43
EW 518/2016
Catchwords: ENERGY AND WATER - Feed-in tariff – solar PV system generating electricity and feeding-in to the grid – requirement for customer to have safety inspection of system after five years – customer hardship – request for deferment of safety inspection – systemic issues discussed.
Legislation cited: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 54Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008Utilities Act 2000 pt 12Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014
SubordinateLegislation cited: ActewAGL Electricity Service and Installation Rules
Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2012Utilities (Electricity Feed-in Code) Determination 2015Utilities (Electricity Service and Installation Rules Code) Determination 2013
Tribunal: Senior Member P SutherlandMember R Vassarotti
Date of Orders: 22 May 2017Date of Reasons for Decision: 9 June 2017
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL )
BETWEEN:
MS. DApplicant
AND:
ICON DISTRIBUTION INVESTMENTS LTD (ABN 80373025224) AND JEMENA NETWORKS (ACT) PTY LTD
(ABN 24 008 552 663) TRADING AS ACTEWAGL DISTRIBUTION (ABN 76670568688)
Respondent
TRIBUNAL: Senior Member P SutherlandMember R Vassarotti
DATE: 22 May 2017
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The name and address of the Applicant not be published.
2. That the complaint application be dismissed.
3. If the Applicant has not had her solar system inverter tested by Friday
16 June 2017, the Respondent is authorised to disconnect the solar system.
………………Signed………..Senior Member P Sutherland
REASONS FOR DECISION
1. This application was made as a complaint application under Part 12 of the Utilities
Act 2000 (the Utilities Act) by the applicant, Ms D, on 24 November 2016. The
applicant made a complaint that she could not afford to pay for a safety test on
her solar PV system and that the respondent, ActewAGL Distribution (AAD),
had failed to agree to her request that the test be deferred to June 2017. This
request, which was originally made to AAD in mid-2016, was refused on the
basis that safety issues required the test to be completed.
2. The applicant’s inquiry was originally received by the hardship area of ACAT
Energy and Water (ACAT E&W), however, given the complaint did not relate
to electricity supply for her domestic use, it was referred to the Energy and
Water Complaints area of ACAT E&W on 24 November 2016.
3. On 25 November 2016, ACAT E&W referred the complaint to the respondent
asking for a response to the complaint and for provision of relevant documents.
On 9 December 2016, the respondent advised that it was unable to grant an
extension of time until the end of June 2017 for testing of the solar panel
installation at the applicant’s property. The respondent noted that a test every
five years was a requirement of the Utilities (Electrical Service and Installation
Rules Code) Determination 2013 (ES&I Rules Code), which is a technical
code under the Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014.
4. ACAT E&W was not satisfied with this response and, on 31 January 2017, it
approached the Technical Regulator for further information. On 2 February
2017, Mr Simon Grice, Senior Manager, Utilities Technical Regulation, Access
Canberra replied by email confirming that safety testing was necessary for the
inverter within a solar PV generating system. ACAT E&W conducted further
correspondence with the Technical Regulator about the legislative framework
and possible inconsistencies in that framework and ultimately was satisfied that
an accurate and comprehensive response had been given in relation to the
applicant’s complaint.
5. On 23 February 2017, ACAT E&W forwarded the response and associated written
material to the applicant and expressed the opinion that periodic safety testing
2
of PV solar systems was a necessary safety requirement and that further
investigation of the complaint was not warranted. ACAT E&W advised that it
proposed to close the complaint and asked the applicant to respond in writing by
9 March 2017 if she did not agree with this course of action.
6. On 9 March 2017 and again on 11 April 2017, the applicant forwarded emails
objecting to closure of the complaint and included in these emails considerable
detail about her financial hardship and inability to pay the cost of the safety test.
As these emails contained no additional information on the substantive issue of
testing for safety, ACAT E&W considered closing the complaint without a
hearing, utilising the procedure in section 54 of the ACT Civil and
Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (the ACAT Act).
7. Rather than proceed under section 54, the Tribunal listed the application for
hearing on 22 May 2017 and a panel comprising Senior Member Peter
Sutherland and Member Rebecca Vassarotti (the Tribunal) conducted the
hearing.
8. After hearing evidence from Mr Grice and submissions by the applicant and the
respondent, the Tribunal made an oral decision to dismiss the complaint and
authorised the respondent to disconnect the solar PV system if the applicant had
not had the system tested by Friday, 16 June 2017. The Tribunal advised the
parties that written reasons for decision would be issued within two weeks.
9. At the request of the applicant, the Tribunal made an order that her name and
address should not be published.
Background to the complaint
10. The applicant contacted ACAT E&W on Thursday 24 November 2016 in relation
to correspondence between herself and AAD regarding their notification of a
requirement that she pay for a safety test on her solar PV inverter.
11. This contact had been preceded by a number of communications from AAD
regarding a requirement that she organise the testing of her PV inverter, which
was part of her roof top solar panel installation. She reported that, throughout
2016, AAD had contacted her regarding a contract requirement for her to test
3
equipment every five years by a qualified and licensed electrician who holds a
Clean Energy Council accreditation.
12. The applicant is known to ACAT E&W, having previously been a hardship client
of a predecessor agency, the Essential Services Consumer Council (ESCC). She
had exited from the ESCC hardship scheme before 2009, after stabilising her
electricity use and clearing her electricity-related debts.
13. With the assistance of an inheritance, the applicant purchased a solar panel system
in 2010, and took advantage of the original ACT Government feed-in tariff
scheme under the Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008.
Under this Feed-in Tariff scheme (FiT scheme), residential customers with
solar PV systems on their roof tops were entitled to a payment of 50.05 cents
per kWh for all electricity generated by their PV system and fed-in to the
ActewAGL grid. The entitlement to this payment continues for 20 years from
the date of installation, however the amount of the FiT payment was reduced to
45.7 cents in July 2011 and the FiT scheme was closed to new entrants on 30
June 2012. The FiT payment is delivered by way of a credit on the customer’s
account with their electricity retailer and is typically between $100 and $500
each quarterly bill depending on the season and the number of solar PV panels
on the roof.
14. The applicant reported that she had not previously been aware of a requirement to
have her solar PV inverter tested, did not understand why this was required
given she had invested in a high quality solar system, and she was not in a
position to pay for this testing. As such, she had not actioned the request for
testing when originally received (sometime in 2016). Due to her financial
position and a range of unplanned expenses, this additional cost of about $200
was still impossible for her to outlay and as such she requested an extension of
time to pay for a period until the end of June 2017.
15. In her documentation, the applicant provided detailed evidence of her financial
hardship. In response, AAD agreed to a 21 day extension and at this point the
applicant contacted ACAT E&W for assistance as she submitted that she was
unable to meet this request because of financial hardship.
4
16. AAD was contacted on 25 November 2016 to inform them that a complaint had
been received and was being investigated. This advice provided details of the
complaint, including:
(a) The customer has solar panels installed in the property.
(b) The customer had received a letter stating that the system must be tested
every five years (with the system having been installed for six years).
(c) The customer is experiencing financial hardship which means that she was
unable to afford the testing.
(d) AAD is threatening to disconnect the installation unless testing occurred.
(e) AAD had provided a 21 day extension, which the customer believes does
not take into account her financial hardship.
17. On 9 December 2016, AAD provided an email response to the complaint which
cited requirements outlined in the ES&I Rules Code that require owners of solar
panel installation to ensure the PV system inverter is tested every five years. It
noted that this Code is a technical code under the Utilities (Technical
Regulation) Act 2014 and this requirement was part of the obligations and
procedures for the safe, reliable and efficient connection of electrical
installations to an electrical network. AAD noted their requirements including
the need to report to the Utilities Technical Regulation Team (UTRT) on
actions to meet their obligations and their view that the granting of the requested
extension could pose a safety risk to ActewAGL employees and the public.
18. In response to this information, ACAT E&W entered into correspondence with Mr
Simon Grice, Senior Manager at UTRT who was representing the Technical
Regulator. Mr Grice tendered further information regarding the requirement to
test PV system inverters every five years to ensure they are functioning
correcting and will not cause a safety hazard for maintenance staff. Additional
information was provided including the ES&I Rules Code. Through the process
of inquiry, it was established that this Code contained a drafting error in clause
6.17(3) and identified that that the ActewAGL Electricity Service and
Installation Rules (the AAD ES&I Rules) clause 5.5.1(2) correctly reflects the
intent of the Code regarding periodic testing/verification requirement, noting
that safety testing/verification would be relevant to any size of generator. It
5
noted that AAD is required to gain approval of their Rules by the Director-
General (the Technical Regulator). He noted that the Technical Regulator had
approved the Service and Installation Rules as they reflected the Code intent. He
noted that information regarding the requirement for on-going maintenance
requirements of PV installations is provided on the ActewAGL website, and
that the connection agreement that owners are required to sign includes this
information at clause 5.1a and 8.2a. Mr Grice informed ACAT E&W that the
drafting error contained within the ES&I Rules Code will be corrected as part of
a Code update process.
19. ACAT E&W also engaged with AAD regarding the complaint as part of the
investigation who provided further information regarding the size of the
applicant’s solar system, which they confirmed was a system under 30 kWA.
20. Following inquiries, ACAT E&W contacted the applicant on 23 February 2017
signalling an intent to close the complaint given that the Technical Regulator
had confirmed the need for the periodic testing/verification requirements to
protect staff and network customers and his acknowledgement that, while there
was a drafting error in the Code that created some confusion, there was a clear
intention to require testing.
21. On 9 March 2017, the applicant contacted ACAT E&W to express her
disagreement with the move to close to the matter due to her lack of clarity
regarding the size of her system and, if this size system was covered by the
regime, her concerns about the timing of notice that AAD had provided a
customer on a low income and in financial hardship to meet the testing
requirement, the inability of AAD to respond adequately to issue of financial
hardship, and the impact of disconnecting the solar PV installation which would
exacerbate her financial hardship.
The Legislative Framework
22. ACAT has power under section 54 of the ACAT Act to dismiss an application
without holding a hearing (see Attachment A). If it proposes not to hold a
hearing, ACAT must give the parties notice of this intention and must take into
consideration any representations made by a party within 21 days (or a shorter
6
period set by ACAT). ACAT may then decide not to hold a hearing if it has
taken into consideration the representation by parties, if it has sufficient
information to make an informed decision, and if it is in the public interest not
to hold a hearing.
23. ACAT E&W has jurisdiction to receive a complaint application in respect of a
feed-in tariff dispute between a customer and a distributor under item 2, Table
172 in Part 12 of the Utilities Act 2000 and section 4.4 of the Electricity Feed-in
Code incorporated in the Utilities (Electricity Feed-in Code) Determination
2015 (see Attachment A). The applicant is a consumer who may be affected by
a possible contravention by a utility of an industry code dealing with utility
service standards.
24. Rule 6.17 of the Utilities (Electrical Service and Installation Rules Code)
Determination 2013 (ES&I Rules Code) concerns ‘Embedded Generation’.
Rule 6.17(3) states:
(3) ES&I Rules must set requirements for all protection measures applying to an embedded generating unit greater than 30kVA to be tested by persons qualified and accredited by the electricity distributor:
(a) when the embedded generating unit is installed and commissioned, before connecting to a electricity distributor’s electricity network; and
(b) at a minimum of every 5 years after connecting to the electricity distributor’s electricity network.
7
25. The ActewAGL Electricity Service and Installation Rules are made by AAD in
compliance with the ES&I Rules Code. Clause 5.5.1(2) of these Rules states:
(2) Testing
Protection measures applying to an embedded generating unit are to be
tested by qualified persons:
when the embedded generating unit is installed and commissioned,
before connecting to a utility’s network; and
at a minimum of every 5 years after connecting to the utility’s network.
The hearing of the complaint application
26. ACAT E&W initially considered not hearing the application under section 54 of
the ACAT Act, as it had sufficient information to make an informed decision
about the application. However, on reflection, ACAT E&W decided that there
was a significant public interest in holding a public hearing on several grounds:
(a) The applicant was indicating a strong desire to voice her concerns.
(b) There are thousands of solar roof top PV systems in the ACT and issues of
hardship around safety testing and failure of inverters are likely to arise
with some frequency over the next 14 years of the FiT scheme.
(c) Consideration of hardship issues in written reasons for decision may assist
in the development of appropriate hardship policies and contribute to
public awareness of the need for, and cost of, PV solar system testing and
maintenance.
27. The hearing of the complaint application was conducted on the morning of
Monday 22 May 2017. The applicant appeared in person, accompanied by a
support worker from CARE Financial Counselling Service. The respondent was
represented by Ms Sharnie Truesdale, ActewAGL Legal Counsel, and
Ms Joanne Hourigan, AAD Contact Centre Manager, was also present and gave
evidence.
8
28. Mr Simon Grice, Senior Manager, Utilities Technical Regulation, Access
Canberra attended as a technical witness speaking on behalf of the Technical
Regulator. Mr Grice made the following observations:
(a) PV inverter testing is necessary to ensure the safety of electricity workers
on the network; a faulty inverter may lead to the connection to the grid
becoming live. Testing is also a matter of public safety and may be of
benefit to the customer through detection of a faulty system which is not
delivering electricity to the grid.
(b) South Australia and the Northern Territory require testing every five years
and Victoria every three years. New South Wales does not specify a
specific period, however testing is required under relevant Standards.
(c) Testing of solar PV inverters is carried out by electricians accredited by an
industry body, the Clean Energy Council. Tests generally cost about $200,
however some firms may charge a higher amount and include other
services such as inspection of the solar panels and the electrical wiring of
the PV system. The Technical Regulator is satisfied that solar PV testing
is a mature market in the ACT and that prices are appropriately market-
driven.
(d) There is a drafting error in Rule 6.17(3) of the ES&I Rules Code which
will be corrected in a Code review process. The intention of the Code was
that solar PV inverters should be tested every five years whether they
were greater than 30 kVA or less than 30 kWA. Clause 5.5.1(2) of the
AAD ES&I Rules is a correct statement of the testing regime required for
safety of the network.
29. The applicant directed questions to Mr Grice and made a number of observations:
(a) Her financial position is a little better now than in 2009 because the
Global Financial Crisis has reduced the level of her mortgage payments.
Nevertheless she is still in considerable financial hardship and, as an
example, no longer has her gas supply connected and goes without her gas
hot water system.
9
(b) She received the notice about testing her solar PV system but couldn’t
even think about the PV because of other financial and personal stresses.
(c) She has consistently asked for deferral of the tests until June 2017, by
which time she expected to have enough money to pay for the test. AAD
declined these requests, simply extending time to complete testing by
21 days on each occasion.
(d) There are difficulties in undertaking the test because of access problems
including a broken gate and over grown vegetation.
(e) She has not drawn down any of her FiT payments and they are
accumulating as a credit on her electricity account. While the FiT
payments are not drawn down, Centrelink does not treat FiT payments as
income under the social security income test. If she were to draw down
from the FiT credit, she would lose some of her pension payment.
30. ActewAGL Distribution gave the following evidence about their business
practices in relation to the FiT:
(a) AAD’s primary concern is the safety of its employees and the public. It
has a duty of care which outweighs hardship considerations.
(b) AAD has no public information process about the safety test
requirements. Legal requirements are explained in the ‘Model Standard
Offer for Basic Connection Services’ applicable to retail customers who
are micro-embedded generators (Exhibit 3), however this document does
not appear to mention any requirement of periodic testing of the solar PV
system.
(c) AAD’s current procedure is to send a letter to the FiT customer on the five
year anniversary date asking for a safety test to be completed and giving a
link to the Clear Energy Council web site for a list of accredited testers. If
the test is not completed in the time specified, further letters are sent.
Where an extension of time is requested, a 21 day extension is generally
granted. AAD has not yet finalised a process for disconnecting solar PV
10
systems where no test is carried out. Currently there are two customers in
this situation.
(d) A solar PV system would be disconnected from the grid by use of an
isolation switch at the meter box. The switch would be danger tagged and
only the person who placed the tag is authorised to remove it. Accordingly
there would be a substantial cost in reconnecting a system: the cost of the
test; the cost of attendance by an AAD worker to remove the danger tag;
and the cost of an electrician to reconnect the system in the presence of
the AAD worker.
(e) If a solar PV system is disconnected and then reconnected, the FiT
payment would be reinstated. FiT entitlement is not lost.
Consideration and findings
31. Rule 6.17 of the ES&I Rules Code specifies that an embedded generation unit
greater than 30kVA must be tested at a minimum of every five years after
connection to the network, but does not specify any requirement for testing of a
unit less than 30kVA. The AAD ES&I Rules specify that all embedded
generation units must be tested at a minimum of every five years. The
requirement in the Rules is different from the requirement in clause 5.5.1(2) of
the ES&I Rules Code, however Rule 6.17 is not invalidated by this difference.
On the basis of the evidence given on behalf of the Technical Regulator, the
Tribunal is satisfied that a requirement for testing small units every five years is
valid and necessary for safe operation of the AAD electricity network.
32. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal advised the parties that it was
satisfied, on the written material before the Tribunal, that the applicant was in
substantial financial hardship and that no further oral evidence would be
required on this issue. The respondent agreed with this finding.
33. While the applicant is accepted as being in substantial financial hardship, this is
not a basis for waiving the safety test or deferring it for more than a period of
several months. There are no relevant provisions in the FiT regulatory scheme
addressing inability to pay for safety testing and the Tribunal believes that
safety is a paramount consideration. The FiT payment is an income stream for a
11
household and the necessary maintenance expenses associated with that income
stream should be paid from the income stream.
34. The Tribunal notes that disconnection of a solar PV system does not directly
affect the supply of electricity for domestic household purposes, however there
may be an indirect effect in that the customer will start to receive larger
electricity bills once the credits from the solar PV system cease. This
subsequent hardship would fall within the ACAT energy hardship assistance
program.
35. While hardship cannot be placed above safety in relation to the cost of testing
solar PV systems, the Tribunal considers that it would be desirable for AAD to
develop a hardship approach in relation to the cost of solar PV system testing
and, more urgently, in relation to the cost of replacing a failed inverter, which
can run to several thousand dollars, and is likely to arise for many customers in
the 20 year life of the FiT scheme. This is discussed as a systemic issue below at
[39]-[41].
36. In relation to the applicant, the Tribunal considers it reasonable that she be
ordered to have her inverter tested without further delay and at her own
expense. This arises from several considerations:
(a) Safety considerations are paramount and her solar PV system has not been
tested in more than six years.
(b) Because of the extended period for consideration of her requests for
deferral and her complaint to ACAT E&W, it is now close to 30 June
2017, which is the date she originally specified for completion of the test.
(c) The applicant is in credit on her electricity account and can draw down on
that credit to pay for the safety test. The Tribunal does not accept her
submission that the FiT payments should not be drawn down because of
the impact of the pension income test.
Systemic issues
Public communication about the requirement for safety testing
12
37. The Tribunal considers that the current arrangements for public communication
about the requirement for safety testing of solar PV systems every five years are
inadequate. The Tribunal suggests that Model Standard Offer (see [30]) should
include a reference to safety testing, with a cross reference to the AAD ES&I
Rules for further information. Specific information about the current safety test
requirements (including hardship provision) should also be published on the
AAD web site.
38. The current process for notifying customers about testing requirements should be
altered to give customers advance notice of the requirement so that they can
budget for the expenditure. The Tribunal recommends the following process:
(a) A first notice is sent to customers three months before the five year test
date informing them of the requirement to arrange a safety test at their
own expense before the test date. This first notice should refer to the list
of accredited testers and ask for contact on hardship issues.
(b) A second notice is sent to the customer immediately after the five year test
date politely asking the customer to arrange the test within 60 days. This
notice should mention hardship arrangements, an AAD complaint
telephone number and the consequences of failure to test, namely
disconnection of the solar PV system.
(c) If the test has not been completed at the end of the 60 day period, a
disconnection warning notice in explicit terms should be sent to the
customer, stating that the system will be disconnected if the test results are
not provided within 21 days. This notice should state the process and
consequences of disconnection, and also contain hardship information and
an ACAT complaint telephone number.
(d) After the 21 days has expired, the system should be listed for
disconnection on a specific day or week and AAD should advise the
customer of this date through an attendance (preferably at the site and
carded if no one is at home).
13
(e) After the solar PV system has been disconnected, the AAD call centre
must be able to provide specific information about the process for, and
costs of, reconnection.
Hardship provisions for costs associated with solar PV Systems
39. The Tribunal accepts that safety testing should not be deferred for more than
several months in situations where the customer cannot afford to pay for the
test. However, it is desirable that AAD develop hardship arrangements to
manage this problem and also the much larger problem of the cost of replacing
an inverter at several thousand dollars.
40. The obvious basis for such a hardship arrangement would be to use the customer’s
FiT income stream to meet the costs of testing or repairing their solar PV
system. This may be achieved by use of an irrevocable authority signed by the
customer directing their retailer to pay the tester from the customer’s FiT
credits, or some similar arrangement. At the hearing, the representative of the
Technical Regulator advised that there were legislative constraints on action of
this nature and complications because the retailer actually paid the credit, not
AAD. Accordingly there was agreement to convene a roundtable to discuss
possible hardship arrangements, including if necessary changes to the regulatory
framework which might involve amendments to the Electricity Feed-in
(Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008, the Utilities Act, the Utilities
(Electricity Feed-in Code) Determination 2015, or other instruments. The
roundtable might include the relevant ACT Government agencies, the Technical
Regulator, ACAT and the Independent Competition and Regulatory
Commission, AAD, and community and industry observers.
41. In relation to the cost of replacing an inverter, the Tribunal recommends that ‘No
Interest Loans Scheme’ providers in the Territory consider extending the NILS
Scheme to cover the purchase cost of a replacement inverter.
………………………………..Senior Member P Sutherland
Delivered for and on behalf of the Tribunal
14
ATTACHMENT A
LEGISLATION
Utilities Act 2000
172 ACAT applicationsA person (the complainant) mentioned in table 172, column 2 may apply to the ACAT in relation to a matter (the complaint) mentioned in column 3 in relation to the complainant.
Table 172 ACAT applications
column 1item
column 2complainant
column 3complaint
1 consumer affected by contravention
contravention of customer contract, or customer retail contract or customer connection contract made under the National Energy Retail Law (ACT), by a utility
2 consumer affected by contravention
contravention of an industry code dealing with utility service standards by a utility
3 consumer a utility fails to provide a utility service to consumer or withdraws a utility service from consumer, and failure or withdrawal causes substantial hardship, or is likely to cause substantial hardship, to consumer
4 person affected by contravention
contravention of s 51 (Protection of personal information) by a utility
5 person affected by contravention
contravention by a utility or a regulated utility of an obligation in relation to its network operations under this Act or the Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014
6 person affected by act or omission
act or omission of an authorised person for a utility or regulated utility in relation to its network operations under this Act or the Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014
7 person on whom charge imposed
capital contribution charge imposed under s 101
ACT CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 2008
54 Decisions without hearing(1) The tribunal may give each party to an application written notice to the
effect that—(a) the tribunal proposes to decide the application without holding a
hearing; and
15
(b) if the party wishes to make representations about the proposal, the party must make the representations within—(i) 21 days after the day the notice is given; or
(ii) if the tribunal decides that a shorter period is required in all the circumstances of the application—the shorter period.
Note The rules may prescribe a longer period for making representations (see s 25 (1) (e) and (2)).
(2) The tribunal may decide not to hold a hearing in relation to the application only if the tribunal—(a) has given notice under subsection (1); and(b) has taken into consideration any representations made by a party
within the 21-day period or shorter period decided by the tribunal under subsection (1) (b); and
(c) is satisfied that—(i) it is in the public interest not to hold a hearing; and
(ii) the tribunal has sufficient information to make an informed decision on the application.
Note The tribunal must observe natural justice and procedural fairness (see s 7).
UTILITIES (ELECTRICITY FEED-IN CODE) DETERMINATION 2015
4.4 Dispute resolution—Occupier disputes
Disputes between Electricity distributors and Occupiers of premises in relation to the Electricity Feed-in Scheme will be resolved in accordance with the Utilities Act and Complaints procedures developed by the Electricity distributor.An Electricity distributor must develop, maintain and implement procedures to deal with:(1) A Complaint of an Occupier, including:
(a) a right to have the Complaint considered by a senior employee within the Electricity distributor if the Occupier is not satisfied with the manner in which the Electricity distributor is handling the Complaint; and
(b) a Complaint by an Occupier against an Agent of the Electricity distributor; and
(2) the resolution of a dispute between the Electricity distributor and an Occupier.
The procedures implemented by an Electricity distributor must provide for the handling of a Complaint in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard on complaints handling. An Electricity distributor that receives a Complaint from an Occupier must advise the Occupier of the following matters:
16
(3) in its initial response to the Occupier —the Electricity distributor’s complaint handling practices and procedures; and
(4) in a response giving its final decision on a Complaint —any right the Occupier may have to refer their Complaint to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT).
An Electricity distributor must keep its records of a Complaint made by an Occupier for not less than 12 months after the Complaint is resolved.
17
HEARING DETAILS
FILE NUMBER: EW 0581/2016
PARTIES, APPLICANT: Ms D
PARTIES, RESPONDENT: ActewAGL Distribution
COUNSEL APPEARING, APPLICANT N/A
COUNSEL APPEARING, RESPONDENT Ms Sharnie Truesdale, Legal Counsel
SOLICITORS FOR APPLICANT N/A
SOLICITORS FOR RESPONDENT ActewAGL
TRIBUNAL MEMBERS: Senior Member Peter Sutherland
Member R Vassarotti
DATES OF HEARING: 22 May 2017
18