Essential Energy, Ausgrid & TasNetwork fined $20,000 each for unexpected loss of electricity supply to customers known to require life support systems

On top of government-owned Essential Energy’s fight with local governments over proposed increases in public lighting costs to councils across New South Wales which could see public lighting bills rise in the Northern Rivers by up to 73 per cent in 2015-16 and, unease over the company’s plans with regard to its Nymboida water licence, comes news that supply interruptions are not being managed well.

Australian Energy Regulator media release, 23 March 2015:

NSW and Tasmanian electricity distributors pay $60,000 in penalties regarding their life support obligations

Three electricity distribution businesses, Essential Energy, Ausgrid, and TasNetworks, have paid penalties of $20,000 each, following the issuing of infringement notices by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) in relation to incidents in which customers known to require life support equipment unexpectedly lost electricity supply.

“The unexpected loss of supply can have serious, potentially fatal, consequences for customers who require life support equipment, making compliance with life support obligations by energy distribution businesses a priority area for the Australian Energy Regulator,” AER Chair Paula Conboy said.

“The AER will continue to closely monitor compliance with the life support rules and take appropriate enforcement action where businesses fail to comply with these important obligations,” Ms Conboy said.

Essential Energy, Ausgrid, and TasNetworks reported these incidents to the AER pursuant to their reporting obligations under the National Energy Retail Law and National Energy Retail Rules (the Retail Law and Retail Rules).

The payment of a penalty specified in an infringement notice is not an admission of a contravention of the Retail Rules. The AER can issue an infringement notice where it has reason to believe a business has contravened a civil penalty provision of the Retail Law and Rules.

Background

Essential Energy, Ausgrid and TasNetworks are electricity distribution businesses that supply customers in New South Wales (Essential Energy & Ausgrid) and Tasmania (TasNetworks). Under the Retail Law and Rules, life support customers in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, and South Australia have a range of protections.

The Retail Law and Rules set out key protections and obligations for energy customers and the retail and distribution businesses they buy their energy from. The AER monitors and enforces compliance with the Retail Law and the Rules. The Rules require particular protections for customers registered as requiring any of the following life support equipment:

* an oxygen concentrator;

* an intermittent peritoneal dialysis machine;

* a kidney dialysis machine;

* a chronic positive airways pressure respirator;

* crigler najjar syndrome phototherapy equipment;

* a ventilator for life support;

* in relation to a particular customer - any other equipment that a registered medical practitioner certifies is required for a person residing at the customer’s premises for life support.

Customers who are reliant on life support equipment should contact their retailer and distributor. Premises registered with life support equipment are subject to a range of protections under the Retail Law and Rules, including strict controls on de-energising life support customers, requirements that distributors provide notice of planned interruptions to energy supply and information to assist customers to prepare a plan of action in case of an unplanned interruption.

To be eligible for these protections, customers must provide their energy retailer or distributor with confirmation from a registered medical practitioner that a person residing at the customer’s premises requires medical life equipment.

Related documents: 

AER Infringement Notice - Ausgrid - AER01-2015 (155.43 KB)

AER Infringement Notice - Essential Energy - AER02-2015 (161.17 KB)

AER Infringement Notice - TasNetworks - AER03-2015 (194.78 KB)

Contact details: 

ACCC Media1300 138 917

Metgasco CEO Peter Henderson calls Lismore coal seam gas plebiscite "a fraudulent poll"

 

A region in northern NSW has overwhelmingly voted against coal seam gas mining.

[ABC Rural 10 September 2012]

Prior to the poll, the actual level of opposition to CSG could only be estimated.

It is now clear that the community is highly engaged in the discussion about CGS activity

and does not want it in our LGA.

[Lismore City Council Mayoral Minute 9 October 2012]
 

In the 8 September 2012 Lismore Local Government Area Election 30,197 people were eligible to vote, with 25,641 voting in the mayoral poll and 25,660 voting in the councillor poll, according to the NSW Electoral Commission.

At the same time Lismore voted in its mayor and councillors for the next term it also voted in a formal plebiscite on coal seam gas.

This was the plebiscite question presented at the ballot:

Question No. 1

Do you support coal seam gas (CSG) exploration and production in the Lismore City Council area?

This was the result of that vote recorded by the NSW Electoral Commission:

Question No. 1 was NOT PASSED on 15/09/2012

Voter Turnout: 84.38%
Informal Rate: 2.80%

 

Of those 25,595 voters who participated in this non-compulsory plebiscite 86.86% voted No.

Now if one looks at the number of voters who participated in these three polls, it is apparent that the polls all have a fairly similar participation level and one which is obviously accepted as legitimate by the state electoral commission.

However, this is not good enough for Metgasco Limited’s director, shareholder and CEO Peter Henderson who chose in an NBN News interview on 6 December 2012 to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the plebiscite, calling it:

A fraudulent poll.. in which.. a lot of people chose not to vote.

Such contempt for the democratic process is mind boggling.

UPDATE:

In his own misleading words.....

"a fraudulent poll" comment at 3min 58 secs

UPDATE

The Northern Star 10 December 2012:

Lismore Mayor Jenny Dowell said Mr Henderson's comments were "quite odd."

"To claim the poll is fraudulent seems quite odd and casts a judgment on the voters of Lismore LGA who have clearly expressed their view.

"My question would be that if the poll produced a better result for CSG proponents, would Mr Henderson claim it was fraudulent?" said the Mayor.

Cr Dowell said that the positive and negative cases were prepared by the proponents and opponents to CSG mining, and that both sides believed their opposite side's case was questionable and unproven, but "the council did not modify or provide any input into the cases."

NSW local government elections: there's to be no party politics, unless ...

A correspondent writing in The Coffs Advocate (Wednesday, 1 August) has caught the local member Andrew Fraser with his pants down.

It seems Fraser doesn't want candidates in the September council elections to have any political affiliatiions. If that's to be the case, Fraser should have added a retrospective factor to his comments and called for a number of his parliamentary coalition mates to be shown the door. Chris Gulaptis, the local member for Clarence who is still on trainer wheels would have to go. Hey, that idea has some merit! Plus, Steve Cansdell would never have got a guernsey in the chamber. Oh, by the way, what's happening on the Scansdellsgate scene? Have federal authorities finally got their act together? Are they going to throw the book at Cansdell? Or, has that matter vapourised into thin air?

Here's John Vernon's letter in yesterday's Advocate.

Coffs Harbour MP Andrew Fraser said people interested in running for local government should not have political affiliations - "Coffs MP wants 'independent' future councillors" - ABC posted July 6, 2012.

How many current National Party MPs started their career in politics as an "independent" councillor? Chris Gulaptis, Stephen Bromhead, John Barilaro and Paul Toole come to mind as "independent councillors" who have graduated to being a National Party MP. There are many more examples from past governments and many councillors who are National and Liberal party members although they have campaigned as "independent" councillors.

Why would Andrew Fraser make these comments? Is he concerned the Greens believe in honest and transparent government and are calling for all prospective councillors to pledge to abstain from voting when they have a conflict of interest, pecuniary or otherwise? The O'Farrell government has of course changed the law so abstention from a vote when a councillor has a personal interest is no longer required.

Is it because the O'Farrell government is pushing through new planning laws that will severely restrict the right of residents to oppose inappropriate planning developments? Indeed the deadline for submissions on these proposals will be an astonishing, restrictive six days after the local government elections. The same date is also the restrictive deadline for submissions on the future of local government. That review opens the door to further local government amalgamations.

Greens' councillors will work to maintain council's powers and protect residents' rights in regard to planning. It is therefore no surprise a National Party MP is stating that "people interested in standing for local government should not have political affiliations".

JOHN VERNON