Benefits and risks of new review The investigative design of Option 3 would seem to significantly expand the scope of the limited merits review body regime, making it much closer to full merits review. Allowing the review body, without any request from the various interested parties, to pursue any line of inquiry adds unnecessary cost and delay to the process. EUAA Preferred option Option 3. Retaining merits review Yes. EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to this. Consistency between electricity Yes. Differences in technology are not sufficiently large to justify differences in review arrangements. and gas regimes Potential for minor amendments No. EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to NEL and NGL to this. Extent recent reforms address The recent reforms make no difference to the issues raised by the Panel. issues raised by the Panel Impact of a move to a EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to ‘materially ground for review this. preferable’ Barriers to the Tribunal EUAA fail to see how the Tribunal will be able to adopt a different manner of working, even following requests performing this role from the SCER, the Australian or State and Territory Governments. The Tribunal should rightly be able to decide how it wishes to meet its obligations, free from prescription by the Government. Information the Tribunal could EUAA do not believe the Tribunal is the appropriate body and so considerations of restrictions on it are not consider relevant. Benefits and risks of new review EUAA agree with the assessments of the benefits associated with their recommendations. There are not Panel’s body any particular concerns about risks associated with the new body that cannot be mitigated through proper consideration of institutional design. Do not accept the view that the establishment of a new appeal body is necessarily a threat to investment. EUAA do not agree with characterisation of the creation of a new body as necessarily representing SCO’s additional risk. argument is that the additional risk arises because it is uncertain how the new body would SCO’s operate. Such risks are easily managed. Prescriptiveness of requirements EUAA suggest minimal prescription. The review brief should be to assess whether a materially preferable body’s on new review body decisions can be found to be in the long term interest of consumers. There is no need to specify that representation on the Review Body should include a lawyer.
Benefits and risks of new review body The investigative design of Option 3 would seem to significantly expand the scope of the limited merits review regime, making it much closer to full merits review. Allowing the review body, without any request from the various interested parties, to pursue any line of inquiry adds unnecessary cost and delay to the process. EUAA Preferred option Option 3. Retaining merits review Yes. EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to this. Consistency between electricity and gas regimes Yes. Differences in technology are not sufficiently large to justify differences in review arrangements. Potential for minor amendments to NEL and NGL No. EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to this. Extent recent reforms address issues raised by the Panel The recent reforms make no difference to the issues raised by the Panel. Impact of a move to a ‘materially preferable’ ground for review EUAA support the analysis undertaken by the Limited Merits Review Panel, and their conclusions in relation to this. Barriers to the Tribunal performing this role EUAA fail to see how the Tribunal will be able to adopt a different manner of working, even following requests from the SCER, the Australian or State and Territory Governments. The Tribunal should rightly be able to decide how it wishes to meet its obligations, free from prescription by the Government. Information the Tribunal could consider EUAA do not believe the Tribunal is the appropriate body and so considerations of restrictions on it are not relevant. Benefits and risks of new review body EUAA agree with the Panel’s assessments of the benefits associated with their recommendations. There are not any particular concerns about risks associated with the new body that cannot be mitigated through proper consideration of institutional design. Do not accept the view that the establishment of a new appeal body is necessarily a threat to investment. EUAA do not agree with SCO’s characterisation of the creation of a new body as necessarily representing additional risk. SCO’s argument is that the additional risk arises because it is uncertain how the new body would operate. Such risks are easily managed. Prescriptiveness of requirements on new review body EUAA suggest minimal prescription. The review body’s brief should be to assess whether a materially preferable decisions can be found to be in the long term interest of consumers. There is no need to specify that representation on the Review Body should include a lawyer.