SUBMISSION

Energy Action Group

To the

Essential Services Commission

10 January 2003

Review of Connection & Augmentation Guidelines: Volume 4 – Contestability

SUMMARY. In this submission I intend to focus my comments from the perspective of small to medium customers. This would include augmentation of existing assets to supply a medium business with a loading of up to say 100Kw, a new residential customer with a large air conditioner or under floor heating load in a location where the existing assets a re at or approaching being fully utilised. The connection of small HV extensions to the network such as providing supply to a rural residence, a pumping installation or farming installation such as a poultry farm or a feed lot.

I feel that I can make a worthwhile contribution to what applicants for supply in the above categories require to assist them in their applications because of my experience gained in negotiating with these customers during my 27 years as a District Manager with SECV in districts as diverse as Wycheproof and Greensborough.

What the Customer Wants.

The customer types that I have featured above require the following when making an application for connection to the distributors network which require the erection of additional assets or augmentation of existing assets.

• The conditions that would apply to such a connection including the tariff that would apply.
• The amount of the customers contribution including a clear explanation of how it is arrived at. That is it is the difference between the incremental revenue and the incremental cost.
• A firm date as to when the work necessary to enable the connection will be completed.

Information that Customer must supply

• An accurate location of where the supply is required.
• A detailed explanation of the process and proposed loading as well as the anticipated Maximum Demand
• The hours of operation of the facility.

CONCLUSION. It is quite obvious to me that practically all the issues raised in

Volume 4 apply only to major works where the applicants for supply would have the capacity or could employ others to do the design and construction of any assets required to enable a connection to the distributors network. The application of the competitive tendering process to the above type of customer would be an unnecessary step in what experience tells me should be a very simple process.

I might be naïve but I was under the impression that there were allowances made in the DUOS charges for such things as load growth and augmentations. For the type of customers that I have listed above it would seem that distribution businesses want to charge customers for work that they should be doing and should also be making the operational decisions necessary for connections to their networks.

Garth Sullivan

E-mail garpat@cdi.com.au