network. Origin also requested greater clarity around the become phrase ‘should known’. We consider AGN dealt adequately with these concerns in its pre-submission engagement. AGN responded that the three month limit is not unreasonable since it runs from the time at which a user becomes aware of the claims. AGN also noted that the 11 month limit is broadly consistent with similar limits in the Energy Retail Code. AGN also noted that clause 22.3 does not prevent a retailer from pursuing any claim which it is required by law to pursue on behalf of a customer. This is expressly provided for by clause 22.3(b). Similar arguments were raised in response to arrangement proposal for AGN’s access its South Australia distribution network. We consider that a user will not be disadvantaged by these sub-clauses where they discover an error after the time limit for adjustments has expired. In such circumstances they could use the dispute resolution mechanism in clause 23. Consistent with our position on arrangement for its South Australian AGN’s access Distribution System, our draft decision is to accept proposed clause 22.3. AGN’s Delivered quantities Clause 24.1 states how AGN will determine the quantity of gas delivered in a billing period when preparing a statement of charges. It differs from the corresponding clause in current access arrangement as follows: AGN’s Whenever AGN prepares a statement of charges for a given Billing Period, the Quantity of Gas shown in that statement of charges to have been delivered (or estimated to have been delivered, or expected to be delivered) will be determined by AGN: (a) in the manner required by law; (b) (to the extent permitted by law) in the manner required by any relevant rules or agreement that bind AGN and the Network User; and (c) to the extent not otherwise required by paragraph (a) or (b)), on a reasonable basis. AGL requested deletion of the phrase to be as it believes it is a ‘expected delivered’ precursor to AGN commencing forward estimated billing in Victoria. AGL argues this process results in considerable rework each month and is financially detrimental to it. Red Energy and Lumo Energy sought clarification of this phrase during AGN’s submission consultation, suggesting it could allow AGN to bill for future consumption. AGN responded that quantities must be determined first and foremost in the manner required by law and any rules or agreements binding AGN and the network user, and thereafter on a reasonable basis. AGN further stated:
network. Origin also requested greater clarity around the phrase ‘should become known’. We consider AGN dealt adequately with these concerns in its pre-submission engagement. AGN responded that the three month limit is not unreasonable since it runs from the time at which a user becomes aware of the claims. AGN also noted that the 11 month limit is broadly consistent with similar limits in the Energy Retail Code. AGN also noted that clause 22.3 does not prevent a retailer from pursuing any claim which it is required by law to pursue on behalf of a customer. This is expressly provided for by clause 22.3(b). Similar arguments were raised in response to AGN’s access arrangement proposal for its South Australia distribution network. We consider that a user will not be disadvantaged by these sub-clauses where they discover an error after the time limit for adjustments has expired. In such circumstances they could use the dispute resolution mechanism in clause 23. Consistent with our position on AGN’s access arrangement for its South Australian Distribution System, our draft decision is to accept AGN’s proposed clause 22.3. Delivered quantities Clause 24.1 states how AGN will determine the quantity of gas delivered in a billing period when preparing a statement of charges. It differs from the corresponding clause in AGN’s current access arrangement as follows: Whenever AGN prepares a statement of charges for a given Billing Period, the Quantity of Gas shown in that statement of charges to have been delivered (or estimated to have been delivered, or expected to be delivered) will be determined by AGN: (a) in the manner required by law; (b) (to the extent permitted by law) in the manner required by any relevant rules or agreement that bind AGN and the Network User; and (c) to the extent not otherwise required by paragraph (a) or (b)), on a reasonable basis. AGL requested deletion of the phrase ‘expected to be delivered’ as it believes it is a precursor to AGN commencing forward estimated billing in Victoria. AGL argues this process results in considerable rework each month and is financially detrimental to it. Red Energy and Lumo Energy sought clarification of this phrase during AGN’s consultation, suggesting it could allow AGN to bill for future consumption. AGN responded that quantities must be determined first and foremost in the manner required by law and any rules or agreements binding AGN and the network user, and thereafter on a reasonable basis. AGN further stated: submission
AER%20-%20Draft%20decision%20-%20AGN%20Victoria%20and%20Albury%20gas%20access%20arrangement%202018-22%20-%20Attachment%2012%20-%20Non%20tariff%20components_0.DOCX