National Energy Customer Framework (NECF) biased towards energy sellers and, reduces consumer protections

First 15 of 15 paragraphs shown Social welfare organisations in NSW and South Australia agreed the planned National Energy Customer Framework (NECF) - now in its second draft - was biased towards energy sellers and, reduced consumer protections.
Submissions argue new rules favour sellers: For example the South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) in a submission to the 2nd Exposure Draft of the NECF, argued ‘...best practice result for consumer protections across the NEM has not been realised in the NECF current form'.
SACOSS tells what’s wrong with the policy: It argued:
- objective should be amended to include all small customers, rather than ‘hardship customers and other small customers’;
- Fairness and Sustainability were needed as key principles;
- records of explicit informed consent should be made available to an Energy Ombudsman at no charge as well as to a customer if that record relates to a complaint being handled by the Ombudsman ( as in the South Australian Energy Customer Transfer Code.
Definition of ‘hardship customer’: SACOSS wanted amending this term to read ‘customer experiencing hardship’ illustrates the changing needs to customers and avoids unnecessary and potentially demeaning labeling of customers who may be experiencing temporary difficulties in paying energy bills for a variety of reasons; and
- provision for the AER to take action where a hardship policy is considered deficient;
- that retailers publish hardship indicators online and to report them regularly to the AER.. to ‘ensure that advocates and members of the public have access to this important source of information.’
And include distributors in rules: SACOSS argued as 'In SA, ETSA Utilities was running Direct Load Control (DLC) trials, which involve direct contact between the Distributor and small customers, and, Ripple Control services in Queensland represent a similar circumstance. This required that DBs be covered (along with retailers) under any marketing provisions.
What if a retailer refuses to supply: An example was r. 205(3), limiting the obligation on a retailer that has decided not to offer a retail contract to a customer. Instead of requiring the retailer to inform the customer of the standing offer retailer, it requires the retailer to refer the customer to the distributor to find this information.
Discarded customer left with no info and no supply: SACOSS argued this rule ’places an unnecessary onus on the part of the customer and the distributor if the retailer does not wish to offer a contract to the customer, then there is clearly no business case for not referring the customer to a competitor if that competitor is the standing offer retailer’.
Meter reading plan unfair: SACOSS said as Rule 209(2) required retailers only to ‘endeavour to ensure that a meter is read at least once every 12 months’. ‘This is simply not good enough it can not only seriously disadvantage customers, but this rule does not acknowledge the pre-existing meter reading requirements under the National Metrology Procedures’.

...Log in to read rest of Article or image.