Case studies

Notice to access electrical infrastructure on private land

I received a complaint from Ms B regarding a transformer pole on her private land. Ms B advised that the positioning of the pole impeded her ability to develop the land and argued that the pole had been moved and changed a number of times without notification.

The pole is within a “deemed" easement for the benefit of the electricity distribution provider, TasNetworks, under the Electricity Wayleaves and Easements Act 2000. On this basis, TasNetworks refused to relocate the pole to Ms B’s preferred position but advised that the relocation of the pole would be possible if Ms B paid for the work.

It was noted that the pole had been relocated within the deemed easement area in 2009 and upgraded with a larger transformer in 2014. TasNetworks was unable to confirm that notification had been given or consultation undertaken for this work as required by the Act. I recommended an internal review of TasNetworks notification policy with respect to access and work on infrastructure in deemed easement areas on private land and a reassessment of the complaint.

To reassess the complaint, TasNetworks requested drawings and designs for Ms B’s intended development of the land to review whether there were any suitable alternatives to the current pole position. As Ms B was unable to provide this documentation, the reassessment of the complaint could not move forward. TasNetworks confirmed, however, that it would reopen the complaint should Ms B provide the information in the future.  In recognition of the lack of notification, TasNetworks also offered Ms B a $500 ex gratia payment.

TasNetworks advised me of a number of reviews and projects it had undertaken to improve customer consultation. I will continue to monitor the issue.

Tariff assignment error when changing retailers

I received a complaint from Mr F regarding the tariff assignment for his property. He had recently changed retailers and noticed that his new retailer, 1st Energy, was calculating his bill under tariff 31/41. Mr F advised that he had switched to tariff 93 before signing up with 1st Energy and had received a number of bills from his previous retailer, Aurora Energy that reflected the change to tariff 93.

1st Energy told Mr F that the national meter database confirmed that the property was assigned to tariff 31/41 and had no information to support Mr F’s argument that the property should be assigned to tariff 93.

My Investigation Officer made preliminary enquiries with Aurora Energy and 1st Energy.  It was identified that the network service provider, TasNetworks, was not advised by Aurora Energy of the assignment to tariff 93. Consequently, the national meter database was not updated to reflect the correct tariff. The issue was not identified while Mr F was signed with Aurora Energy as it had its own billing system that did not rely on the national meter database information.

After discussions with 1st Energy, it offered to update the national meter database, recalculate Mr F’s bills to reflect tariff 93 and apply a $100 customer service gesture to Mr B.

Explicit informed consent

Mrs J contacted me regarding a transfer of her household electricity account from Aurora Energy to 1st Energy. Mrs J said that she had been approached by a door to door salesman from 1st Energy but did not believe she provided consent to a transfer.

Mrs J advised that she did try to cancel the transfer when she became aware that 1st Energy had taken over her account. 1st Energy advised Mrs J, however, that as the relevant ten day cooling off period had passed, she would have to wait until after the first invoice to transfer back to Aurora Energy.

My Investigation Officer listened to a copy of the call verification and viewed a copy of Mrs J’s digital signature from the door to door salesman’s iPad. Mrs J advised that she has early stage dementia and did not recall signing any documentation or agreeing to the transfer on a verification call.

Considering Mrs J’s health it was reasonable to conclude that she did not provide explicit informed consent to the transfer. On this basis, 1st Energy agreed to cancel the transfer outside the cooling off period.

Mrs J was advised to consider affixing a 'do not knock' sticker on the property to prevent unwanted door to door marketing in the future.

New heat pump not connected to correct tariff

Ms M contacted me regarding the tariff assignment at her property after installing a new advanced meter and two new heat pumps.

Ms M noticed that her first bills after the installation did not reflect that the heat pumps had been connected to tariff 41 (space heating and hot water). Instead, it appeared that the electricity used by the heat pumps was being recorded under the higher tariff 31.

Aurora Energy received initial information from its metering provider that the electrical contractor who installed the heat pumps had not provided the correct instructions to connect the heat pumps to tariff 41.

During my Investigation Officer’s preliminary enquiries, it became clear that the relevant instructions from Ms M’s electrical contractor regarding the wiring of the heat pumps had not been passed on to the meter provider. Consequently, Aurora Energy arranged for the metering provider to re-attend the property and correct the wiring. Aurora Energy also allowed an ex gratia credit of $200 on the account which was approximately the difference in price between the running costs of the heat pumps on tariff 31 compared to tariff 41.

Final meter read at a vacated property

I received a complaint from Ms P claiming that Aurora Energy had refused her request for a final meter read at her property and had instead sent her an estimated meter read.

Ms P contacted Aurora Energy to arrange a final meter read. She advised Aurora Energy that the meter is inside the property and she was unable to provide access.  Ms P had vacated the property, she no longer lived in Tasmania, and the keys to the property had been returned to the real estate agent.

Aurora Energy attempted to resolve the matter, by contacting the real estate to discuss the issue. The agent advised that it was unable to attend the property, to allow TasNetworks access to the meter, and was not willing to leave the premises unlocked or leave a key onsite for this purpose.

The agent suggested that TasNetworks attend its office to collect the key prior to attending the site for a read.  TasNetworks refused this option and I believed its decision to be reasonable as it is not practical for, nor the role of a meter reader, to collect keys from a different location when undertaking meter reads.

When entering a connection agreement as a retail customer with Aurora Energy, the customer is entering into a standard retail contract. The terms set out in this contract confirm that the residential customer is responsible for providing safe and unhindered access to Aurora Energy and authorised representatives for the purpose of reading, testing, maintaining, inspecting or altering any metering installation at the premises. As such, the customer is obliged to provide access for the purpose of a final read and will continue to be responsible for charges until a reading can be obtained. The estimated read the customer referred to was a direct result of TasNetworks not having access to the meter to enable a final read to take place.

While I understood the difficulty the customer in this instance had in providing access, ultimately it is the customer’s responsibility to arrange access to a meter, as provided in Aurora Energy’s standard retail contract.

The customer’s dilemma was resolved when new tenants moved into the property and allowed TasNetworks access to the meter.

A little persistence goes a long way! - TasNetworks

In August 2016, Mrs C, from Latrobe in North-West Tasmania, made a complaint to me that she had been denied two Guaranteed Service Level (GSL) payments following two outages of twelve and eight hours respectively during storm events on 6 and 21 June 2016.

Mrs C had approached TasNetworks about the GSL payments but was informed that it had no records to indicate her property had been disconnected during the weather events.

My officer made enquiries with TasNetworks and spoke to Mrs C on several occasions.  Mrs C was frustrated with the situation but believed there was little chance that she would receive any GSL payments. TasNetworks was adamant that she had not been affected by the outages, as she claimed, and continued to refuse to make payment to her.

Mrs C’s primary concern was that she and her partner were aging and she was now seeking reassurance that TasNetworks would be aware of any issues relating to her supply in the event of any future outages.  The GSL payments were the catalyst for her raising the issue with me.

My officers were of the view that there was no reason to doubt Mrs C so, armed with a map of the local distribution network, travelled to Latrobe to speak with her and her neighbour. After some discussion with Mrs C, they drove around the general area to gain an understanding of the local network and the particular feeder supplying Mrs C.  Information provided by TasNetworks suggested that Mrs C was supplied from a transformer in her street that TasNetworks had confirmed had not gone out during the weather events.

The map showed conductors from another nearby transformer ending just short of Mrs C’s street that had disconnected during the storms.  My officers noticed that, in fact, the conductors connected to the network on Mrs C’s street and that it may be possible that she was connected from this transformer.

Following further discussion with TasNetworks it was found that the map provided was incorrect and Mrs C was indeed being supplied by a different transformer than first thought, and which had been disconnected at the times claimed by Mrs C.

TasNetworks provided the applicable GSL payments to Mrs C and her neighbours and Mrs C can now be confident that the source of her electricity supply is known to TasNetworks.

Electricity infrastructure on private land - who pays? TasNetworks

In August 2016, I closed complaints from Ms A and Mr & Mrs F regarding liability to repair high voltage electricity infrastructure crossing Ms A’s private land on the East coast of Tasmania that supplied her and Mr & Mrs F.  There are three poles to Ms A’s residence, the third being a transformer pole.  At the second pole, the supply branches off to Mr & Mrs F’s neighbouring property some distance away.

An aerial survey of the network in the area found, and photographed, a high voltage conductor which had disconnected from the insulator on the metal cross arm of the first pole and was sitting directly on the cross arm.  Unfortunately, this defect was not acted on for almost two weeks after first being detected.  When TasNetworks became aware of the issue, however, the supply to Ms A and Mr & Mrs F was disconnected almost immediately and repairs were undertaken.

Both Ms A and Mr & Mrs F made complaints to me about the timing of the disconnection -  around 5.30 pm on a winter’s evening - and the cost to them to have emergency repairs made to the infrastructure.

TasNetworks informed me that it was not made aware of the fault due to staffing issues with the aerial surveying company and when it was made aware of the fault it believed there was a very high safety risk that required immediate action necessitating the disconnection of supply and making repairs.

I accept that TasNetworks is responsible for safety issues and that its decision to disconnect, when it became aware of the issue, was reasonable in the circumstances.   A high voltage conductor rubbing on a metal cross arm poses a serious risk to both the TasNetworks network and to any members of the public who may have been near the conductor if it were to fail and fall to the ground.

The complainants believed that the electricity infrastructure, on Ms A’s land, was owned by TasNetworks.  TasNetworks insisted the first two poles were private and owned by Ms A and the third pole, with the transformer, was owned by it.

Ms A could not produce any evidence to support her claim that TasNetworks owned the infrastructure.

This issue has been raised with me over a number of years.  The ownership of, and responsibility for, electricity infrastructure on private land is not clear, particularly to landowners.   There appears to be little information available to determine just what arrangements were in place at the time the infrastructure was installed in the days long before TasNetworks became the responsible entity.

Access to private electricity infrastructure - all hands are tied! - TasNetworks

Mr H submitted a complaint to me after he was advised by TasNetworks that it could not access his neighbour’s property to undertake repairs to the electricity infrastructure connecting his rural residence.

The connection to Mr H’s property is by way of three poles on his neighbour’s property.   The first pole is a transformer pole, owned by TasNetworks, which also connects the neighbour’s residence. The next two poles are solely to facilitate the connection to Mr H’s property and, as such, TasNetworks consider him responsible for the maintenance of those poles and associated conductors.

A part of the infrastructure connecting Mr H was condemned and required attention, but his neighbour would not allow access to his land to make repairs.  The neighbour could not deny supply to Mr H, but TasNetworks, or a private contractor, could not demand access to the private infrastructure if the neighbour refused it.

The dispute was clearly a private one and outside my jurisdiction to investigate.  It was a matter for Mr H to arrange access to his neighbour’s land and I accept that TasNetworks was not in a position to demand access. This matter had a significant impact on Mr H as any alternative route of supply would be very expensive for him.

As the impasse dragged on, the electricity supply to Mr H was eventually disconnected and remained disconnected for some time.  This is one of a number of examples of the frustration caused to rural electricity consumers in Tasmania with the uncertainty that exists around the ownership of, and responsibility for, private electricity infrastructure.

High bill disputed - Aurora Energy

Mr F approached my office as he believed his Aurora Energy electricity accounts were excessive.   He asserted that his family had minimal electrical appliances and was very cautious in its use of electricity.

My IO obtained details of conversations between Aurora Energy and Mr F together with a table of consumption from the time Mr F moved in to the residence.

The table of consumption demonstrated very high consumption on tariff 31 (tenant light & power) with clear seasonal fluctuations. Consumption on tariff 41 (residential space heating & hot water) was quite high but consistent.   The charge for energy under tariff 31 is higher than tariff 41.

Mr F had informed Aurora Energy that he had until very recently, utilised plug-in heating wired to tariff 31 but had now installed a heat pump wired to tariff 41.   For the period following the instillation of the heat pump, the tariff 31 consumption had fallen significantly and tariff 41 charges had risen, reflecting the change from plug-in to wired-in heating.

My officer was able to provide a detailed explanation to Mr F about the impact of each of the tariffs on his energy bills and how he could now expect his accounts to reduce if he no longer relied on plug-in heating.