MS. D Applicant 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

[2017] ACAT 43

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 54

Electricity Feed-in (Renewable Energy Premium) Act 2008

Utilities Act 2000 pt 12
Utilities (Technical Regulation) Act 2014

Subordinate

Legislation cited:     ActewAGL Electricity Service and Installation Rules

Utilities (Consumer Protection Code) Determination 2012

Utilities (Electricity Feed-in Code) Determination 2015

Utilities (Electricity Service and Installation Rules Code) Determination 2013

Tribunal:                  Senior Member P Sutherland
  Member R Vassarotti

Date of Orders:  22 May 2017

Date of Reasons for Decision:         9 June 2017

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY          )

CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL     )          

BETWEEN:

MS. D

Applicant

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 Sutherland

Member 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1.The name and address of the Applicant not be published.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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

(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 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 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

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).

(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

ATTACHMENT A

LEGISLATION

Utilities Act 2000

172ACAT applications

A 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 172ACAT applications

column 1 item	column 2 complainant	column 3 complaint
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

54Decisions 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

(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.

NoteThe 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.

NoteThe 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:

(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.

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