Response to issues paper exempt selling regime madeleine kingston
Transfer of functions from Essential Services Commission of Victoria (ESCV) to AER
Yüklə 3,13 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Background on the AERs new functions
Transfer of functions from Essential Services Commission of Victoria (ESCV) to AERI note from the AER website as follows: From 1 January 2009, the AER is the economic regulator of Victorian electricity distribution network service providers (DNSPs). The DNSPs in Victoria are CitiPower, Powercor, Jemena, SP AusNet and United Energy. These functions were formally the responsibility of the Essential Services Commission of Victoria The AER's role in Victoria for electricity distribution Rollout of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (smart meters) Victorian AMI cost recovery General background of transfer of functions from ESCV to AER Complaints - Victorian electricity customers Information about the Energy & Water Ombudsman Victoria (EWOV) Power disruption—Victorian electricity customers Public lighting regulation in Victoria Interval meter reassignment requirements Service target performance incentive scheme for Victorian electricity distribution businesses (2006-10) Decisions regarding DNSPs applications for exclusion from the service target performance incentive scheme. Performance reports of Victorian electricity distribution businesses Benchmark upstream augmentation charge rates for Citipower's network CitiPower’s and Powercor’s proposed security fee scheme I note as follows also from the AER website Background on the AER's new functionsThe proposed new Law and Rules being implemented as part of the National Energy Customer Framework will transfer non-price distribution and retail regulatory functions from state and territory jurisdictions to the AER (except in Western Australia and the Northern Territory in respect of electricity). Effective transfer of these functions is likely to occur on an incremental basis from the middle of 2011. The AER’s responsibilities under the new Law and Rules will include:
Responsibility for electricity and gas retailer prices is to remain with state and territory jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions may exclude gas from the new customer framework. For further information about the new legislation and rules refer to the Ministerial Council on Energy's website 3 OVERVIEW OF EXEMPTIONS (AER Issues Paper 2010) 3.1.3 EXEMPT SELLER AND CUSTOMER RELATED FACTORS I deal with this section before proceeding to policy parameters s contained in the proposed National Energy Law AND Rules, as these issues are dealt with in more depth and are followed by extended related discussion. It therefore makes more sense to deal with a limited range of issues which the AER may take into account rather than those which is must, to comply with proposed laws. Having said that I cannot sufficiently emphasize the importance of those issues considered optional, whilst recognizing that time limits allows me only to deal with a handful. Opportunities to more formally address issues have vanished since the National Energy Rules and Laws are formalized, and the AEMC as Rule-Maker is busy with an unrealistically ambitious agenda to erode what few protections exist within alleged protection instruments for energy that surfaced momentarily, fraught with ambiguities and lack of detail, the nature of which I have covered in many previous public submissions to cursory public consultations, and which others also have fruitlessly tried to address I will aim to reinforce some issues, whilst within time constraints expanding on others. Failure to comment on all aspects of the Revised Exempt Selling (Retail Exemptions does not imply endorsement. In fact I am inclined to comment more generally on the basis on which the AER has attempted to invite applications for exemption from accountability through its exempt selling regime rather than comment on the detail of the proposals
‘WHETHER SELLING ENERGY IS OR WILL BE A CORE PART OF THE EXEMPT SELLER’S BUSINESS OR INCIDENTAL TO THAT BUSINESS’ Cursory comment MK It has become a core part of the role of “metering service providers and other types of licensed and unlicensed services providers to market themselves as allegedly providing fuel and water goods and services (electricity gas and water), bundled and unbundled forming part of the infrastructure of body corporate There is evidence of what may be interpreted as collusive arrangements with developers who see opportunities to impose, despite the provisions of exclusive dealings prohibitions, long-range service agreements spanning up to two decades or more for unsolicited services that lock in purchasers as owner-occupiers or their residential or other tenants living in strata titled properties unacceptably limiting choice, whilst charging inflationary prices for various infrastructure services bundled or bundled, but including alleged energy, water, Internet, security and other services. The AER should inform itself of what is happening in the marketplace and read up on the Arrow Asset Management Case NSW 2007 referred to herein as well as ASIC’s involvement in focusing on the impacts of collusive arrangements between property spruikers, property developers and service providers before making any decisions. See: Arrow_Asset_Management_Landmark_Case_NSW_2007_Summary_Gary_Bugden In addition the AER should be aware of changes to other laws especially trade measurement laws before opening up the market to further distortion and consumer detriment. ‘WHETHER THE EXEMPT SELLER’S CIRCUMSTANCES DEMONSTRATE SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAY WARRANT EXEMPTION’ There may be selected circumstances where carefully monitored time-limited exemptions may be warranted, and subject to structured and timetabled review and monitoring However, in the main, where allegations by property developers, for example may be seeking to justify why separate metering or other more appropriate arrangements should be made whilst planning and installing infrastructure in new buildings or upgrading older buildings, these are not always substantiated. In many of the new developments that I have sighted experiencing problems associated with for example long-range service arrangements for alleged provision of “energy services” “hot water energy services” (a nonsensical term that bears no relationship to terms and definitions or provisions within energy laws current and proposed) ‘WHETHER THE EXEMPT SELLER IS INTENDING TO PROFIT FROM THE ARRANGEMENT’ MK Comment My direct knowledge and experience is that exempt selling, especially those who are self-assessing, whether large or small, are profiting from these arrangements – often to the tune of millions of dollars over up to two decades. The recent Arrow Asset Management case NSW 2007 is but the tip of the iceberg. Many so-called service providers working in collusion with property developers are claiming “ownership” of infrastructure normally an integral part of body corporate strata titled property, and demanding millions of dollars if a Body Corporate wishes to exist from arrangements, whether or not entered into voluntarily and/or with full informed consent. Both owners and tenants are adversely affected, and breaches of multiple provisions, including under exclusive dealing and third party line forcing is common. One such case appears to be the Owners Corporation situation at 33 Inkerman Street, St Kilda (Oasis Developments). I can show actual figures of the extent to which licensed and unlicensed providers, some simply alleging supply of “energy” based on measures of temperature gauge gadgets used to measure water temperature in water heat panels used for room heating, using terminology that is to be found nowhere with energy or trade measurement laws. ‘WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY LIKELY TO BE SOLD BY THE EXEMPT SELLER IS SIGNIFICANT IN RELATION TO NATIONAL ENERGY MARKETS’
This is a loaded question that needs far more careful consideration. Time constraints prevent a considered response at this stage. The on-selling industry is growing. It is closely associated with the property development market and asset management. There are perceptions in the market place that despite all previsions, it is possible to retain and claim ownership and management of embedded assets electrical conduits, boiler systems, Internet infrastructure, pipes and associated equipment water or related to provision of gas and electricity. Market distortions are apparent but little information is readily available for analysis apart from anecdotal material – which I have spent some time and effort identifying both from the perspective of residential and other tenants, and from those of landlords and Owners’ Corporations managing properties housing or accommodating owner-occupiers as well as tenants, either business or residential. ASIC has identified a number of problems associated with arrangements made through property spruikers and developers, seemingly in collusive arrangements with service providers of one description or another purporting to be providing utilities and/or fuel of one description or another. I have made mention of the impacts of some of these arrangements. At the time that full retail completion was deemed to exist in Victoria, when the ESC first introduced its “bulk hot water policies” subsequently adopted in one form or another by other states there was a relatively small number of properties compared to national figures impacted. The story is different now, spruikers, some more obvious and others, though nevertheless promoting certain agendas are impacting on the marketplace. Whilst not necessarily directly involved in purchase from the wholesale market at “favourable prices” there is some evidence to suggest possible collusion between energy providers and “metering data service providers” or others associated with property management and development and investment advice that has impacts as distortions within the on-selling market. My feedback is that those locked into arrangements as owners of property are not as thrilled about the arrangements that are being promoted as evidence of “market demand” and “benefit” so that claims of benefits outweighing detriments can be substantiated. *******
‘THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON AN EXEMPTION, OR TO WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER LAWS, WOULD ALLOW APPROPRIATE OBLIGATIONS TO GOVERN THE APPLICANT’S BEHAVIOUR RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A RETAILER AUTHORIZATION’ MK Comment This opens up a minefield of considerations which time constraints prevent me from addressing The political will to investigation and if necessary prosecute may exist for certain matters, but for upholding of generic provisions within the energy arena, the will appears to be weak At the very least every provider or on-seller should be required to have a registrable exemption with timetabled monitoring of outcome. ‘THE LIKELY COST OF OBTAINING A RETAILER AUTHORIZATION AND OF COMPLYING WITH THIS LAW AND THE RULES AS A RETAILER COMPARED TO THE LIKELY BENEFITS TO THE EXEMPT CUSTOMERS OF THE EXEMPT SELLER’
If only I could tell a tale. I have begun to suggest the minefield and Pandora’s box of issues not considered by policy-makers at all levels, Rule Makers and unelected economic regulators88 alike. My direct experience is that “captive” customers unilaterally imposed with service obligations at the time of purchasing off-the-plan properties and being expected to pass on obligations ad infinitum under what appear to be illegal BOOT schemes (buy own operate and transfer) are geared up to benefit exempt sellers and property developers and spruikers more than any “deemed customer.” ‘ANY OTHER SELLER RELATED MATTER THE AER CONSIDERS RELEVANT’. The customer related factors are: ‘WHETHER THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXEMPT CUSTOMERS OR THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH ENERGY IS TO BE SOLD TO THEM BY THE APPLICANT ARE SUCH AS TO WARRANT EXEMPTION’
This question needs very careful consideration. For the most part, service agreements relating to sale and supply of electricity (including arrangements specific to the host retailers for the bizarre “bulk hot water arrangements”), are those determined between property spruikers and/or developers as in many cases relating to Henry’ Kaye’s involvement with the Oasis Development in 2003, with ongoing and unfinished work on the development with a vast majority of prospective owners already in the throes of purchasing off the plan. The situation greatly resembles the circumstances in the landmark legal decision before the NSW Supreme Court known as the Arrow Asset Management Case. For the most part, where multi-storied buildings are involved housing, for example residential owner-occupiers and/or tenants, it is a core part of business of the middlemen involved to be on-selling energy or water related or telecommunications goods and/or services. Profit margins made are astronomical. Protections and complaints redress are non-existent Care should be taken when determining the extent to which core functions are met during the assessment criteria. ‘THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS ON AN EXEMPTION, OR TO WHICH THE REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER LAWS, WOULD ALLOW THE EXEMPT CUSTOMERS ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A RETAILER AUTHORIZATION’
Access to any form of justice is expensive and comes with unacceptable prices. There seems to be almost no political will to sustain enforcement in certain areas, but the worm is turning and I have no doubt that class actions in the open courts will become the norm in time in the absence of appropriate statutory backing when misconduct and breaches occur and are reported. Regardless of how good policies and statutory provisions are – without enforcement these provisions are impotent. Industry-specific complaints schemes see conflicts of interest in dealing with certain classes of service provider. For as long as middlemen of any description are purporting to provide “energy service” or “measure energy” or “charge for energy” (albeit for gas measured in KwH and charged in cents per litre – making a mockery of trade measurement requirements for legal traceability subject to lifting of remaining utility exemptions, as is the intent. ‘ANY OTHER CUSTOMER RELATED MATTER THE AER CONSIDERS RELEVANT.’ EACH OF THESE PRINCIPLES AND FACTORS IS DISCUSSED FURTHER IN SECTION 4. MK Comment I hope the AER will begin to gather the knowledge and experience required to make these complicated assessments in a marketplace where there is almost no readily accessible data to assist with decision-making. However, anecdotal experience and case law is mounting. A lax attitude to granting exemption certifications to date has opened up the floodgates. I was appalled for example to find that there were in excess of 150 license exemption certificates issued by the ESC, some issued apparently without any due care to ascertain eligibility consent of owners, or proof of ownership of the property claimed to be “owned and operated.” Usual practice does not make current practices legal or desirable except in limited circumstances. In my opinion, in relation to the “bulk hot water” provisions in place in which middlemen are purporting to be determining energy consumption for energy supplied to a single gas or electricity meter, much of the distortion seems to have been facilitated, by opportunities created by flawed jurisdictional policy – which was originally initiated by the Essential Services Commission (ESC) Victoria and the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) who played a game of football with responsibility. The provisions of the Bulk Hot Water Guideline 20(1) were ultimately transferred to s 3 and 4 and an appendix of the revised Energy Retail Code v7 (effective date 1 April 2010). Apparent disregard for the fundamental; principles of comparative law is regrettable. I have discussed this in several published documents in the consultative arena, and include a similar chapter within this submission, in addition to reproducing an analysis of the extent to which the National Energy Law and Rules seem to have fallen short of its own objective and objectives reflected within generic and other provisions. As to choice, I have already addressed this – repeatedly and have dedicated significant components of material that already published in response to the AER’s Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd Gas Access Determination (Draft Decision (27 April, 4 June 2010,89 plus 15 unpublished appendices and case studies); and to the AEMC’s ERC0092 Provision of Metering Data Services and Clarification of Metrology Procedures (1 July 201090 with 15 appendices and 3 July as an supplementary submission).91 http://www.aer.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=737338&nodeId=b07bfe5f3fe9e34661d8620b52e808a1&fn=Madeleine%20Kingston%20further%20submission.pdf Retailer choice is generally determined on the basis of retailer supply remit, though Developers and OCs may have some choice at the outset over which retailer to choose to supply gas to fire up a single communal boiler tank. The building, metering and utility infrastructure choices are normally determined at the time that a building is erected and is the subject of direct contractual dealings with developers or owners, not renting tenants. In the case of retailer supply remit, the classes of consumers who received composite heated water whilst being unjustly imposed with obligations for alleged sale and supply of energy, and similar for those who are embedded end-consumers or electricity – there is no choice whatsoever or opportunity to participate in the competitive market. For residential tenants the situation is even more unfair when it comes to heated water, which under some tenancy laws may only be charged at the cold water rate, and the Owners’ Corporation receives a bill for that cold water. Though for settlement purposes only a single gas meter exists and the retailer is charged by the distributor for gas (or electricity) distribution to that single meter, the former are endeavouring to impose both consumption and supply and other charges, including metering data services and billing charges on end-users who are not party to any contract (except as a figment of imagination that bears no relationship to contract law or sale of goods provisions at either federal or state level). NSW Strata owners are similar aggrieved by the provisions for different reasons as discussed elsewhere. There are more class actions being initiated on the basis of contract, often by members of strata property in multi-tenanted dwelling. In one such litigious matter before the open courts the following issues are under challenge in the open courts: Reliance on the flawed jurisdictional “bulk hot water arrangements” under energy laws (effectively using water meters to pose as gas meters for the purpose of calculating deemed gas usage), initiated by Victoria and adopted in two other States, albeit applied discrepantly in each. At least three jurisdictions continue to apply these provisions discrepantly without due regard to numerous overlapping provisions, and complete disrespect for the spirit and intent of trade measurement provisions, notwithstanding that the utility exemptions from the NMA are yet to be lifted. These are Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. In the case of NSW I am unable to see how these provisions are different except for nominally recognizing in the Gas Supply Act 1996 that choice of energy provider must exist. In this case we are speaking of water provided, of varying temperature that is centrally heated and supplied to individual apartments. If Owners of each apartment obtain the consent of the OC to fit a separate gas meter and boiler system internally that is dedicated to that apartment, that is one thing. To expect tenants to do so is absurd and normally hot permitted by the OC or Landlord in any case. For the purposes of this particular submission time constraints do not permit me to further examine remaining sections of the specifics of the AER Issues Paper. However, I understand that future opportunities will arise, perhaps towards the end of 2010 or early 2010 when more formal consultations are undertaken. Meanwhile I continue with providing many sections that had been included in my published submission dated 4 June 2010 to the Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Ltd Gas Access Draft Determination (and accompanying 14 appendices available upon request; otr rely on new batch of REVISED appendices with this submission) I was alarmed to find a few days ago that the ESC, despite the specific provisions contained in the General Order in Council of May 2002 re Exempt Licensing, well over 150 such licences were randomly issued unjustifiably without due care to ascertain ownership, eligibility etc or any attempt to monitor the marketplace and outcomes of public policy. The AER now proposes to expand the exempt licence market including three categories of exemption – deemed for certain classes (such as landlords and body corporate entities); registrable exemptions; and piecemeal exemptions. Light-handed regulation has got out of hand. No-one quite knows the extent of the “self-assessed exempt licence” market, but my private efforts are beginning to uncover anecdotal evidence. EWOV had refused to share outcomes from a feasibility study undertaken in 2006-2007, despite fulfilling a public role. This body appears to act more like an industry association than an objective complaints scheme and is confused about its conflicts of interest. It is one thing supporting innovation and competition and quite another allowing industry participants, “metering lobbyists” and others to rule the marketplace, limit rather than enhance competition, breach multiple laws and best practice parameters and force private entities and individuals into the open courts – if they can afford to follow such a path. It seems to me that attempts are made to distort contractual law and even to re-write this and the common law, as well as trade measurement protections current or proposed; and energy laws, wherein energy is clearly defined as either electricity or gas, not heat expressed in calorific value (for alleged hot water provision, using temperature measuring devices attached to water heat panels used to calculate deemed gas usage for both heated water provision, room heating provision (water heat panels) and cooking, wherein only a single gas meter may exist for an entire property. Allegations that there is no room in multi-tenanted properties to install better systems with improved design are exaggerated. I have inspected many properties where there is ample room for provisions at least on each floor, improved service delivery, and greatly reduced costs not relying on creative interpretation of what “metering data service providers and others can deliver. In addition to failing on alleged benefits and cost savings on many counts, property owners are frequently finding that they are being imposed with allegations that infrastructure normally considered to be part and parcel of body corporate property is claimed to be owned and operated by a third party not of their choosing, appointed by a property developer long before they purchase a property, demanding massive “payouts” if a group of owners decides to seek alternative provider. How is this working for competition, fairness and freedom of choice, let alone the express provisions of exclusive dealing (see for example s47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and other provisions. FURTHER COMMENT ON SELECTED PARAMETERS OF THE PROPOSED AER EXEMPT SELLING ISSUES PAPER92 The introduction to the Issues Paper explains that this is the first step in developing guidelines about the Exemption Framework, which is intended to address a number of matters, including the procedure for applying for an individual exemption and the categories of sellers whole qualify for class exemptions. I note that more formal consultation will ensure once the proposed National Retail Laws and Rules are in place, which is expected to be during September 2010. I reserve the right to either re-submit the same submission in response to further initiatives, or to re-submit with expansion and any additional data that may become available in due course. This is merely a start with highlighting issues that have for decades seem to have been poorly understood by all policy makers, rule makers and regulators within energy and other arenas. It is not a good enough response or perception that this is a “too-hard-basket” issue. It is not a good enough excuse that skilling, training, historically discrepant opinion or interpretation; usual practice or some other factor may have hampered responsible and/or proper interpretation of all laws and provisions, not just those under energy provisions including codes and guidelines Meanwhile I attach preliminary material relating to a pertinent case study, this time from the perspective of Owners’ Corporations who are locked into inappropriate long-term service agreements with either licensed or unlicensed providers, including the class of providers generally referred to as Metering Data Service Providers93 I note that the proposal is based on the 2nd Exposure Draft of the National Energy Customer Framework released in November 2009 to which some 41 responses were made,94 including three from individuals – Kevin McMahon from Queensland (8th March); Dr. Leonie Solomon. See also submission by Kevin McMahon, private citizen, as a victim of the "bulk hot water policy arrangements" in Queensland Kevin McMahon Submission 8 March 2010 to MCE National Energy Customer Framework (NECF2)95 and of Dr. Leonie Solomons shareholder of failed second-tier Jackgreen Ltd, and Director - Solomons Superannuation Fund (shareholder of Jackgreen Ltd) Dr. Leonie Solomons Submission 26 February 2010 to MCE National Energy Customer Framework 2 (NECF2)96 Dr. Leonie Solomon Submission 26 February 2010 to National Energy Customer Framework2 (NECF2) As explained by the AER on p3 of the Issues Paper, under Part 5 of the proposed Retail Law, a person wishing to sell energy must either hold a retailer authorization or have an exemption from that requirement. The AER will be responsible for issuing exemptions. This issues paper and the attached draft classes of deemed and registrable exemptions constitute the first step in the AER’s consultation process. This work is based on the second exposure draft of the National Energy Customer Framework (released November 2009) and will be updated following passage of the final framework. It concerns me how many “registrable exemptions” have been randomly issued by the ESC, between 2002 and 2010, bearing in mind the limitations of the Victorian Ministerial General Order in Council of May 2002 and the concerns expressed by Minister Nick Theophanous, the then Minister for Energy. See: Ministerial Order in Council May 2002 Electricity License Exemption Victoria It is my considered view that the ESC has consistently over-stepped the boundaries of this Order, notwithstanding that at the request of the then Minister for Energy (Victoria) a Small Scale Licensing Issues Paper was floated and that the ESC made determinations and recommendations based on what I believe to be flawed assessment. Ltr Minister for Energy Theophanous re Small Scale Licensing Exemptions March 2006 I am extremely concerned about the prospect of perpetuation of the ESC’s reasoning and at national level, and especially given the preliminary indications of the current thinking of the AER. The failure to consider comparative law considerations current and proposed, the pending lifting of utility exemptions, the conflict within and outside energy regulations remain issues of ongoing concerns. The Paper has noted that transitional arrangements including, for example, the process for transitioning existing jurisdictional exemptions to the natural framework have not been covered in the current documents under consideration. This I believe is an urgent matter since the enormous number of exemptions granted by the ESC has allowed perpetuation of distortions and profiteering of a large scale, predominantly in existing and new property developments. Elsewhere I discuss in more detail the kinds of issues that have arisen through perceived lack of vigilance, scrutiny and monitoring, including for example checking that the applicant for license a exemption certificate meets the ESC’s own guidelines, including proof of ownership and/or direct written consent of say a Body Corporate entity involved. For example, simply because someone declares that they are entitled to on-sell because perhaps of status as an externally contracted Body Corporate Manager, does not mean that the exemption certification if granted should be in the name of the business entity providing such a service. I discuss this in more detail shortly. Other concerns relate to facilitation of profiteering within the on-selling context and alleged breaches of trade practice provisions including under exclusive dealing provisions s47 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, to be re-named Competition and Consumer Law 2010. I will discuss transitional arrangements and the list of exemptions elsewhere. I remain concerned that the ESC appears to have indiscriminately granted exemptions to numerous parties including Body Corporate Entities well beyond the parameters of the Ministerial Exemption Order of May 2002, and despite the specific concerns made by the then Minister for Energy Victoria, Minister Nick Theophanus, MP.
The AER may not be aware of what is actually happening in the marketplace or the limitations of the Victorian assessment of matters to date or their perceptions of what constitutes adequate policy or consumer protection. The Victorian Small Scale Licensing Review 2006-2007 had many limitations. Many participants including solicitors not declaring conflicts of interests, complaints schemes transparently confessing to conflicts of interest (notably EWOV Victoria); and industry participants of small scale providers with a vested interest participated. So did some community organizations, including Tenants Union Victoria several of whose case studies I had cited in previously published appendices, reproduced with this submission, as well as one of 2004 published by CUAC, all representing tenants perspectives. In addition I have published several times over within the consultative arena a particular case study that spanned almost two years wherein a particular disadvantaged end-consumer of heated water deemed to be “consumer energy” impliedly illegally as a tenant relying on enshrined tenancy, generic and common law rights, in which I acted as a nominated representative. Ultimately though under the guise of an aggrieved host retailer allegedly supplying deemed gas to this person, discontinued instead his heated water supplies for 12 months, after protracted and fruitless debate with the biased Industry-run Victorian complaints scheme; with the ESC and the DPI, who upheld the perspectives of a host retailer in the face of medical evidence and reports that it would be detrimental to the end-consumer to discontinue essential heated water supplies. There are no energy provisions explicitly sanctioning such conduct, but it is common knowledge that where a single gas meter supplies a communal water tank with heat, the only disconnection that can take place is that of water instead of energy. The existing Australian practices are a disgrace and place this country in the limelight in terms of the worst trade measurement and other practices in the name of energy provisions. It is my personal view that energy policy-makers, rule makers and regulators have been consistently over-stepping the boundaries of their own jurisdictions, and have continued to disregard the fundamentals of comparative law. More recently I have had occasion to empathize with the perspectives of owner-occupiers residing in strata titled property who are frequently exploited by property developers apparently in collusion with energy providers, meter data providers and other such “service providers” claiming to be operating within energy laws, but with such a degree of distortion of the intent spirit and letter of multiple provisions as to make a complete mockery of consumer and business protection. I begin by citing in more detail from Section 501-505 of the proposed National Energy Retail Law (see p Second Exposure Draft National Energy Customer Framework 2nd Exposure Draft - Proposed National Retail Law Electricity and gas are the only commodities termed “energy” under existing and proposed energy, generic, trade measurement and tenancy laws. These are goods not services and attract the full suite of protections. Under the proposed NERL energy means electricity or gas or both; Under the proposed National Energy Retail Laws s513, scheduled to be passed before the South Australian Parliament in September 2010 the form of energy authorized for sale is restricted to gas or electricity or both – and does not include heated water supplies, milk honey, glue or any other commodity, although it is indicated that a licence for gas does not extend to a licence for electricity and vice versa. 513 Form of energy authorized to be sold (1) A retailer authorization may authorize the sale of electricity or gas or both. (2) A retailer authorization cannot be varied to change or add to the form of energy that the applicant is authorized to sell to customers, as specified in the notice under section 507. (3) This section does not prevent an application for or the grant of another retailer authorization. Yüklə 3,13 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|