FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Clean Energy Regulator v E Connect Solar & Electrical Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1082
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Clean Energy Regulator v E Connect Solar & Electrical Pty Lt... and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1082
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Clean Energy Regulator (CER) brought proceedings against E Connect Solar & Electrical Pty Ltd (E Connect), Mr Airey, and Mr Doody in relation to the installation of solar panel systems and the creation of small-scale technology certificates (STCs). E Connect, Mr Airey, and Mr Doody admitted to contravening the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (Cth) (REE Act) by providing false or misleading statements regarding the installation of solar panel systems. The court had to determine the appropriate penalties and orders to be imposed on the respondents. The court found that the CER was entitled to deference in proposing penalties due to its expertise in the area of renewable energy regulation. The court imposed a pecuniary penalty of $200,000 on E Connect, $20,000 on Mr Airey, and $20,000 on Mr Doody. In addition to the penalties, the court ordered Mr Airey and Mr Doody to take reasonable steps to obtain consent from the owners of the systems for CEC-accredited persons to inspect the installations and carry out testing and commissioning tests in accordance with the Installation Guidelines Version 13 dated 2 November 2019. The court also ordered Mr Airey and Mr Doody to take reasonable steps to ensure that any company in respect of which they are an executive officer, or the conduct of which they are in a position to influence, does not provide false or misleading information to any person in relation to the creation of renewable energy certificates associated with the installation of any solar power generation system by that company. The court ordered Mr Airey and Mr Doody to pay the CER's costs of the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $30,000, with Mr Airey liable for $15,000 and Mr Doody liable for $15,000. The amount of $35,000 ordered against Mr Doody by Orders 6 and 9 above is to be paid by way of instalments as follows: $17,500 within three months of the date of these orders; and $17,500 within six months of the date of these orders. Finally, the CER undertook to the Court that it will not enforce any monetary relief against E Connect while in liquidation, without the leave of the Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pecuniary penalty
5. The first respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $200,000.
6. The second respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $20,000.
7. The third respondent pay to the Commonwealth of Australia a pecuniary penalty in the sum of $20,000.
Injunctive relief
8. Pursuant to s 154S(2) of the REE Act:
(a) the second and third respondents shall take all reasonable steps to obtain the consent of the owners of the systems the subject of the installations for the purposes of having a CEC-accredited person inspect the installations and carry out testing and commissioning tests in accordance with section 11 of the Installation Guidelines Version 13 dated 2 November 2019 (the inspections);
(b) if any of the inspections identifies any defects with an installation, the second and third respondents shall take all reasonable steps to arrange for the installation of a new system or to remedy any identified defect;
(c) the second respondent must take reasonable steps to ensure that any company in respect of which he is an executive officer, or the conduct of which he is in a position to influence, does not provide false or misleading information to any person in relation to the creation of renewable energy certificates associated with the installation of any solar power generation system by that company; and
(d) the third respondent must take reasonable steps to ensure that any company in respect of which he is an executive officer, or the conduct of which he is in a position to influence, does not provide false or misleading information to any person in relation to the creation of renewable energy certificates associated with the installation of any solar power generation system by that company.
Other orders
9. The second and third respondents pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings, fixed in the sum of $30,000, with the second respondent liable for the applicant’s costs in the sum of $15,000 and the third respondent liable for the applicant’s costs in the sum of $15,000.
10. The amount of $35,000 ordered against the second respondent by Orders 6 and 9 above be paid by way of instalments as follows:
(a) $17,500 within three months of the date of these orders; and
(b) $17,500 within six months of the date of these orders.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Annexure A
UNDERTAKING BY THE APPLICANT
In accordance with Order 1 of the Orders of the Hon. Justice Derrington dated 23 March 2023 and made in Federal Court of Australia proceeding No. QUD 468 of 2022, the Applicant, the Clean Energy Regulator, undertakes to the Court that it will not enforce any monetary relief against the First Respondent, E Connect Solar & Electrical Pty Ltd (in liquidation) ACN 625 797 337 while in liquidation, without the leave of the Court.
Annexure B
No.
Date of Installation
Installation Address
1.
9 January 2019
1 ANZAC Street, Nrth St Marys NSW 2760
2.
10 January 2019
5 Corunna Avenue, Leumeah NSW 2560
3.
12 January 2019
8 Spinebill Place, Cranebrook NSW 2749
4.
22 August 2019
14 Jonquil Close, Toronto NSW 2283
5.
22 August 2019
63 Tarragon Way, Chisholm NSW 2322
6.
22 August 2019
25 Derribong Street, Wongarbon, NSW 2831
7.
22 August 2019
121 Cobbora Road, Dubbo NSW 2830
8.
23 August 2019
19 Hazelwood Drive, Dubbo 2830
9.
26 August 2019
6 Bay Street, Balcolyn NSW 2264
10.
26 August 2019
16 Morton Parade Rankin Park, NSW 2287
11.
26 August 2019
13 Aspley Crescent, Dubbo NSW 2830
12.
28 November 2019
25 Hillcrest Drive, Gillieston Heights NSW 2321
13.
28 November 2019
230 Webbers Creek, Paterson NSW 2421
14.
28 November 2019
11 Kennewell Parade, Tuncurry NSW 2428
15.
29 November 2019
21 Russell Street, Clarence Town NSW 2321
16.
29 November 2019
22 Llewellyn Street, Saratoga NSW 2251
17.
2 December 2019
16 Endeavour Close, Woodrising NSW 2284
18.
2 December 2019
144 Lakes Boulevard Wooloweyah NSW 2464
19.
3 December 2019
96 Jubilee Street, Townsend NSW 2463
20.
3 December 2019
19 Roderick Street, Maclean NSW 2463
21.
3 December 2019
9 Tranquil Place, Alexandra Headland Q 4572
22.
4 December 2019
Unit 2, 31 Orion Drive, Yamba NSW 2464
23.
4 December 2019
1 Oxley Close, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324
24.
5 December 2019
63 Freyberg Street, New Lambton NSW 2305
25.
5 December 2019
101 River Street, Maclean NSW 2463
26.
5 December 2019
79 Wharf Street, Maclean NSW 2463
27.
5 December 2019
100 Dawson Road, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324
28.
6 December 2019
360 James Creek Road, Maclean NSW 2463
29.
6 December 2019
40 Wilton Drive, East Maitland NSW 2323
30.
7 December 2019
22 Ford Street, Oxley Vale NSW 2340
31.
9 December 2019
19 Daniels Close, Rushforth NSW 2460
32.
9 December 2019
24 Jean Norman Close, Wyoming NSW 2250
33.
9 December 2019
16 Garwood Street Rutherford, NSW 2320
34.
9 December 2019
28 The Patio Street, Hillvue NSW 2340
35.
10 December 2019
Unit 2, 16 Eskdale Drive, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324
36.
10 December 2019
10 Rosetta Close, Raymond Terrace NSW 2324
37.
10 December 2019
76 Kelly Street, South Grafton NSW 2460
38.
10 December 2019
2 Jill Street, South Tamworth NSW 2340
Background
Background to the litigation
The parties, with the exception of E Connect (which is now in liquidation), are agreed as to the factual circumstances in which the alleged contraventions occurred, the principles that the Court should apply in imposing pecuniary penalties in such circumstances and, subject to the Court’s discretion, the quantum of the penalties and the other orders to be made. Although the Court must exercise its discretion in relation to the appropriate penalties and other orders independently of the parties, it is appropriate to accord a degree of weight to the position taken by the CER in respect of those matters. It can be expected that, in circumstances where a civil penalty is proposed by consent, the regulator will provide to the Court thoughtful and careful submissions that draw upon and reflect its unique understanding of, and expertise in, the area of business activity that it is responsible for monitoring. In the present case, where it is apparent that some diligence has been brought to the task of proposing to the Court agreed penalties for the relevant contraventions, a measure of deference can properly be accorded to the CER’s opinion.The facts The facts on which the Court is to make its determination are set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts and Admissions filed by the parties (other than E Connect) on 21 March 2023. The relevant parts of that document are extracted below, with some alterations to its formatting and minor corrections to its content:11 At all material times to this proceeding the CER:(a)is, and was, the Clean Energy Regulator established by s 11 of the Clean Energy Regulator Act 2011 (Cth) (CER Act); and(b)is, and was, capable of commencing civil penalty order proceedings under the REE Act because:(i)the REE Act is [a] climate change law pursuant to s 4 of the CER Act;(ii)the CER has such functions as [are] conferred on it by [a] climate change law pursuant to s 12 of the CER Act;(iii)the REE Act defines “Regulator” as “the Clean Energy Regulator” pursuant to s 5; and (iv) s 154C(1) of the REE Act expressly provides that only the Regulator, being the CER, may apply for a civil penalty order.12 At all material times to this proceeding E Connect:(a)is, and was, a company duly incorporated according to the laws of Australia;(b) is, and was, capable of suing and being sued in its own name;(c) had, and has, as its director Mr Airey from 26 April 2018;(d) had as its director Mr Doody for the period of 26 April 2018 through to 14 February 2022;(e) employed persons, including Mr Airey and Mr Doody, or contracted persons, to carry out solar panel system installations;(f) is, and was, liable for the acts and omissions of Mr Airey and Mr Doody because Mr Airey and Mr Doody had the actual or apparent authority of E Connect;(g) was placed under external administration on 8 February 2023; and (h) was placed into liquidation on 10 March 2023.13 At all material times to this proceeding Mr Airey:(a)is, and was, a natural person, capable of suing and being sued in his own name;(b) is, and was, [a] director of E Connect;(c) had, and has, the actual or apparent authority of E Connect;(d) is, and was, the holder of an electrical mechanic and fitter class licence with licence number 127140; and (e) is, and was, the holder of the following accreditation from [the] Clean Energy Council (CEC):(i) Grid-connect Install only of photovoltaic power systems;(ii) Accreditation A6053971; and (iii) Period of accreditation of 8 October 2018 to 15 May 2021.14 At all material times to this proceeding Mr Doody:(a)is, and was, a natural person, capable of suing and being sued in his own name.(b) was [a] director of E Connect [for the period of] 26 April 2018 through to 14 February 2022;(c) had, during his period [as] director, the actual or apparent authority of E Connect;(d) is, and was, the holder of an electrical mechanic and fitter class licence with licence number 126847; and (e) is and was the holder of the following accreditation from CEC:(i) Grid-connect Design & Install of photovoltaic power systems;(ii) Accreditation A9183829; and (iii) Period of accreditation of 15 September 2016 to 26 May 2021.C. THE USE OF SMALL-SCALE TECHNOLOGY CERTIFICATES15When a CEC-accredited holder accredits an installation, the owner of the installed device, here small-generation units (SGUs), is entitled to create a REC [renewable energy certificate] with the CER.16 RECs created for SGUs are defined as “small-scale technology certificates” (STCs). The REE Act regulates how many STCs might be created per installation, as well as allowing for the assignment of STCs from homeowners to companies or other persons.17 The CER is responsible for managing and regulating the creation, trading, and selling of STCs after installation of SGUs.18 The holders of STCs, being SGU owners themselves or those assigned their rights, can trade or sell them within the Clearing House established by the CER or on the private market. The current Clearing House price is $40.00. There is, therefore, an economic incentive to create STCs, commercialise and profiteer from their trade.19 The assignment of the right to create STCs from the homeowner to another company often occurs in consideration for the reduction of installation costs and associated fees. Sometimes, a third party, often the actual installer, acts as an intermediary between the SGU owner and the entity to whom the STC rights are being assigned. As discussed from paragraph 24, that happened in this matter. The intermediary is paid to act for facilitating the assignment of STC rights.D. BACKGROUND TO THE CONTRAVENTIONSInstallation of 38 Solar Panel Systems 20 Between 9 January 2019 and 10 December 2019 E Connect, Mr Airey and Mr Doody caused thirty-eight (38) solar panel systems to be installed at properties throughout north-east New South Wales and south-east Queensland (collectively, the installations). [The dates and locations of each of the installations are described in the table at Annexure B to the orders accompanying these reasons.]21 Each of the solar panel systems installed was a SGU because they were devices that generated electricity whose source of energy:(a) had a kW rating of no more than 100 kW; and (b) had a capacity to generate no more than 250 MWh of electricity each year.22 Because each of the installations [was] installed after 1 April 2001, [an] STC [could] be created after the [SGU was] installed.23 The owners of the installed SGUs had a right, arising on the installation date:(a) to create STCs arising from the installations; and/or (b) [to] assign their right … to create STCs to a third party.Assignment of Right to Create [STCs] 24 For the installations, each of the SGU owners assigned their right to create STCs to either:(a) One Stop Warehouse Pty Ltd ABN 46 161 849 323; or (b) Formbay Trading Pty Ltd ACN 146 464 995.25Each of the assignments occurred by the SGU owners signing an assignment document assigning their right to create an STC to One Stop or Formbay. Pursuant to the assignment documents, Formbay and One Stop were assigned [rights] to create STCs.26 E Connect was paid by Formbay and One Stop to facilitate the assignment of the SGU owners’ right[s] to create STCs to Formbay and One Stop.27 Between 22 August 2019 and 30 January 2020 Formbay and One Stop paid E Connect the sum of $173,118.40.Accreditations of Installations 28Pursuant to s 20AC(5) of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations2001 (Cth), in the version of the Regulations that was in effect from period 13 March 2019 through to 10 March 2020, before Formbay or One Stop could register the information in the assignment documents for the purposes of creating the STCs, they were each respectively required to obtain a written statement from the installer of the SGUs at each of the installations stating:(a) the name of the designer and of the installer of the SGU;(b) the CEC’s accreditation scheme classification and accreditation number of the installer and designer of the SGU;(c) that the installer has public liability insurance of at least $5 million; and (d) that the installer:(i) is bound by the CEC’s Code of Conduct; and (ii)has complied with that Code of Conduct for the installation of the [SGU].CEC Code of Conduct and Installation Guidelines 29There were two versions of the CEC’s Code of Conduct that covered the period of the installations between 9 January 2019 and 10 December 2019.30 For the period of 29 February 2012 through to 1 November 2019, the CEC Code of Conduct Version 1 applied.31 From 2 November 2019 to date, the CEC Code of Conduct Version 2 applied.32 Both the Code of Conduct Version 1 and the Code of Conduct Version 2 provided that:All Clean Energy Council-accredited installers are bound by our code of conduct 33Both the Code of Conduct Version 1 and the Code of Conduct Version 2 also provided that:All persons holding any form of Clean Energy Council accreditation shall observe and conform to all relevant Australian Standards and all relevant Clean Energy Council Accreditation guidelines, and all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of practice.34Installers installing SGUs between the period of 9 January 2019 and 10 December 2019 were required to comply with the following CEC Guidelines:(a)For the period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019, Version 12 of the “Clean Energy Council Install and Supervise Guidelines for Accredited Installers” (Installation Guidelines Version 12) applied.(b) For the period from 1 July 2019 to date, Version 13 of the “Clean Energy Council Install and Supervise Guidelines for Accredited Installers” (Installation Guidelines Version 13) applied.35 Section 6 of the Installation Guidelines Version 12 provided:6 RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACCREDITED PERSON6.1 An accredited person shall sign-off on systems where they have:6.1.1 Undertaken the installation; or 6.1.2 Supervised the installation by others 6.1.3 Supervision includes visiting the site at:Job set up Mid-installation check-up Testing and commissioning 6.1.4 Sign-off is defined as the installer or supervisor performing the testing and commissioning requirements stated in section 11.6.1.5 The date of sign-off is the day that the installer or supervisor performs the testing and commissioning requirements.36 Section 11.1.1 of the Installation Guidelines Version 12 provided that:The commissioning sheets provided with these guidelines (or similar document) shall be completed by the accredited installer or the accredited supervisor (with suitably licensed person).37 Section 6 of the Installation Guidelines Version 13 provided:6 RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACCREDITED PERSON6.1 Signing Off as an Accredited Person 6.1.1 An Accredited Person shall only sign off on systems where they have:·Undertaken the installation; or ·Supervised the installation by others Supervision includes attending the site during:·job set up;·mid-installation check-up; and ·testing and commissioning 6.1.2 Sign off is defined as the installer or supervisor performing the testing and commissioning requirements stated in Section 14.6.1.3 The date of sign off is the day that the installer or supervisor performs the testing and commissioning requirements.Accreditation by Mr Airey and Mr Doody 38For seventeen (17) of the installations, Mr Airey signed written statements, which formed part of the assignment documents for the installations, accrediting those installations.39 Mr Airey represented in his written statements that:(a)he was the accredited CEC installer that completed the SGU installation at the address; and (b) he installed the system at the address; and (c) the system complied with CEC accreditation guidelines.40 For twenty-one (21) of the installations, Mr Doody signed written statements, which formed part of the assignment documents for the installations, accrediting those installations.41 Mr Doody represented in his written statements that:(a)he was the accredited CEC installer that completed the SGU installation at the address; and (b) he installed the system at the address; and (c) the system complied with CEC accreditation guidelines.Creation of [STCs] 42Formbay and One Stop relied on the information contained within the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody to exercise their entitlement to create STCs.43To create STCs, representatives from One Stop and Formbay were required to register the information contained within the assignment documents, which included the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody, to the Renewable Energy Certificate Registry.44Between 14 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, a representative or representatives from One Stop and Formbay registered the information contained within the assignment documents in the Renewable Energy Certificate Registry.45Between 14 January 2019 and 31 December 2019, 4487 STCs were passed by the CER based on the information registered from One Stop from the assignment documents.Respondents Overseas 46At the times at which the thirty-eight (38) installations as described in [the table at Annexure B to the orders accompanying these reasons] were purportedly carried out, Mr Airey and Mr Doody were either overseas, or in transit overseas.47 Relevantly, Mr Airey and Mr Doody were overseas, or in transit overseas:(a) between 23 December 2018 and 13 January 2019;(b) between 22 August 2019 and 26 August 2019; and (c) between 28 November 2019 and 10 December 2019.False or Misleading Accreditations 48By reason of the matters set out in this Statement at paragraphs 28 to 37 (inclusive), 39, 46 and 47, the written statements signed by Mr Airey were false or misleading in a material particular because Mr Airey did not comply with the Code of Conduct Version 2 and Version 3 in that he did not “conform [to]” all [relevant] Clean Energy Council Accreditation guidelines because he did not comply with the Installation Guidelines [Version] 12 and [Version] 13 because:(a)he signed off on installations he did not complete, install or supervise, within the meaning of Installation Guidelines [Version] 12 and [Version] 13; and (b)he did not sign off the installation[s] by performing the testing and commission requirements.49By reason of the matters set out in this Statement at paragraphs 28 to 37 (inclusive), 40, 46 and 47, the written statements signed by Mr Doody were false or misleading in a material particular because Mr Doody did not comply with the Code of Conduct Version 2 and Version 3 in that he did not “conform [to]” all [relevant] Clean Energy Council Accreditation guidelines because he did not comply with the Installation Guidelines [Version] 12 and [Version] 13 because:(a)he signed off on installations he did not complete, install or supervise, within the meaning of Installation Guidelines [Version] 12 and [Version] 13; and (b)he did not sign off the installation[s] by performing the testing and commission requirements.No Valid Entitlement to Create Certificates 50By reason of the matters set out in this Statement from paragraphs 28 to … 49 (inclusive), neither Formbay nor One Stop held an entitlement to create STCs because the written statements obtained from Mr Airey and Mr Doody were false or misleading.E. GROUNDS OF RELIEF51 By reason of the matters set out in this Statement at paragraphs 28 to 50 (inclusive), E Connect, Mr Airey and Mr Doody contravened s 24B(1) [of] the REE Act because:(a)Mr Airey and Mr Doody were representatives of E Connect and had the actual or apparent authority of E Connect;(b) the information in the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody was provided to One Stop or Formbay;(c) the information in the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody was in relation to [SGUs];(d) by reason of the matters set out in this Statement at paragraphs 28 to 41 (inclusive) [and] 46 to 49 (inclusive) the information contained in the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody [was] false and misleading;(e) by reason of the matters set out in this Statement at paragraphs 42 to 45 (inclusive):(i)agents of One Stop and Formbay relied on the information contained in the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody; and (ii)it could have been expected the agents of One Stop and Formbay would rely on the information contained in the written statements signed by Mr Airey and Mr Doody; and (f)neither One Stop nor Formbay [was] entitled to create the certificates they did because the written statements obtained from Mr Airey and Mr Doody were false or misleading.F. THE ALLEGED HARM SUFFERED BY THE CER52 Invalidly created STCs impacts on the efficacy of the Renewable Energy Target scheme administered by the CER. This impact comes in the form of a distortion of the number of STCs within the market. That distortion results in the number of STCs eligible for purchase by a liable entity in a quarter and on an annual basis … being incorrect or inflated.53 A liable entity may, for a given period, have a renewable energy shortfall which is an obligation imposed on them that must be discharged. There are two types of renewable energy shortfall, a large-scale generation shortfall, or a small-scale technology shortfall:(a)[if] a liable entity has a large-scale generation shortfall for a year, large-scale generation shortfall charge is payable in respect of the shortfall; [and](b)[if] a liable entity has a small-scale technology shortfall for a year, small-scale technology shortfall charge is payable in respect of the shortfall.54 RECs, which include STCs and large-scale generation certificates, are used to avoid or reduce the amount of renewable energy shortfall charge that liable entities who acquire electricity must pay. The liable entities will generally acquire the [RECs] by purchasing them.55 A liable entity may discharge a renewable energy shortfall obligation through the surrender of STCs (or other RECs); if they do not have enough certificates, the liable entity must pay a renewable energy charge.56 The REC scheme is directed toward:(a)encouraging the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources;(b) reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector; and (c) ensuring that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable.57 As s 3 of the REE Act explains, these objectives are achieved:… through the issuing of certificates for the generation of electricity using eligible renewable energy sources and requiring certain purchasers (called liable entities) to surrender a specified number of certificates for the electricity that they acquire during a year.58 The REC scheme assists in achieving the Renewable Energy Target.59 The Renewable Energy Target is an Australian Government scheme designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector and encourage the additional generation of electricity from sustainable and renewable sources.60 A liable entity’s obligations under the REE Act are determined by calculating the amount of relevant electricity acquired by the entity during the year. [Section 35] of the REE Act provides [that] “a person who, during a year, makes a relevant acquisition of electricity is called a liable entity.” [Section 31] of the REE Act sets out what is a relevant acquisition.61 The relevant acquisition of electricity is critical to determining a renewable energy shortfall. For present purposes, Part 4, Division 1, Subdivision C of the REE Act sets out how a small-scale technology shortfall is calculated.62 A liable entity’s annual small-scale technology shortfall is calculated by adding together the quarterly shortfalls. Each quarterly [shortfall is calculated in accordance with the steps set out in s 38AE of the REE Act]. For example, the first quarter is calculated by:(a)Firstly, working out 35% of the previous year’s reduced acquisitions, [multiplying] this by the small-scale technology percentage for the assessment year and [rounding] the result to the nearest MWh (rounding 0.5 upwards). The result is the required surrender amount.(b) Secondly, adding together:(i) the total value, in MWh, of [STCs] surrendered, under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5, by the liable entity during the surrender period for the first quarter; and (ii) the amount of any quarterly surplus that the liable entity has for the fourth quarter of the previous year.The result is the surrendered amount.(c) Thirdly, subtracting the surrendered amount from the required surrender amount.(d) [Finally]:(i)if the result is greater than zero, the liable entity has a quarterly shortfall for the first quarter of the assessment year equal to the result; or (ii)if the result is zero, the liable entity does not have a quarterly shortfall for the first quarter of the assessment year. (iii)If the result is less than zero, the liable entity has a quarterly surplus for the first quarter of the assessment year equal to the result (expressed as a positive).63 Part 4, Division 1, Subdivision C of the REE Act sets out the methodology for subsequent quarters.64 As above, the calculated renewable energy shortfall is an obligation the REE Act imposes on liable entities to discharge. Its discharge is fulfilled through the surrender of RECs, or payment of a charge. The RECs that a liable entity surrenders can, and invariably [do], include RECs it has purchased on the REC market. The costs of these purchases are passed on by liable entities to retail and domestic consumers within the market.65 All of the STCs created by One Stop and Formbay have been surrendered by liable entities to the CER.G. ANY OTHER RELEVANT MATTERSCo-operation with the CER’s investigation 66 E Connect, Mr Airey and Mr Doody have been co-operative in the investigations of the contraventions against the REE Act. This co-operation has included:(a) voluntarily providing documents at the request of CER investigators;(b) offering to provide the CER with enforceable undertakings;(c) offering to provide an audit to be taken by Mr Airey and Mr Doody to identify further sites (if any) where either Mr Doody or Mr Airey may have signed off on the installation of SGUs installed by installers who are not CEC-accredited; and (d) [joining] with the CER in presenting evidence by way of agreed facts.No previous similar conduct 67 E Connect, Mr Airey [and] Mr Doody have not previously been found by a court to have contravened the REE Act.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.