Guyana Power and Light (GPL) has to reimburse consumers for overcharges to their bills, a result of tariff increases being applied incorrectly.

The issue dates back to 2001, when consumers received bills for electricity consumed in the period before July 1 at an increased rate that should not have been applied until after July 1.

The Appeal Court, presided over by Chancellor Desiree Bernard, and Justices of Appeal Claudette Singh and Ian Chang, last Wednesday upheld the Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) 2001 ruling to this effect and dismissed the power company’s appeal against it. The only difference is that the court ordered that GPL and the PUC determine how customers are to be reimbursed for the excess sums collected.

On August 28, 2001, after the government had phased out its subsidy to GPL and customers had to bear the brunt of increased rates on bills issued from July 1, the PUC had deliberated on whether consumers could be billed at a higher rate for electricity consumed in a period when the rates were not in effect. It determined that:

* “GPL shall bill consumers for the actual consumption of electricity up to and including June 30, 2001 at the existing rate (before the July 1 increase);

* Any and all amounts collected in excess of those rates based on the July 1, 2001 rates (are) to be credited to the account of each consumer for whom the excess or additional amounts were collected;

* Such credit must be reflected in the respective bills and not later than October 31, 2001;

* That the new rates with effect from October 1, 2001 will be billed to consumers for electricity consumed with effect from October 1, 2001.”

* The PUC also ordered GPL to pay it $197,108 as the costs for the two hearings, which led to that order.

However, GPL appealed the decision of the PUC on the grounds that the commission erred in its understanding of and misconstrued the terms of the letters/agreements between the government and itself regarding the temporary subsidisation of electricity bills; and that the PUC exceeded its jurisdiction as well as acted without jurisdiction in its ruling.

GPL argued that it was a monthly revenue subsidy it was receiving from the government and not a consumption subsidy and hence the need for the retroactive increases to cover the deficit in financing, which would arise each month as a result of the loss of the subsidy.

But the PUC argued that the issue was whether GPL could have properly charged a customer for electricity consumed in one month at a rate fixed for a later month, solely on the ground that the bill was issued in the later month.

Justices Bernard and Singh found that consumers could have only been billed at increased rates for the electricity they consumed in the period of the increased rates.

“I cannot agree with Counsel for the Appellants (senior counsel Miles Fitzpatrick and Mr T Jonas for GPL) that consumers would be liable to pay the new rates for electricity consumed in an earlier month. I think consumers were liable to pay actual rates for electricity consumed in a particular month set out in the agreements between the government and the appellants,” Justice Bernard said in her written ruling.

Justice Singh in a written decision also concurred that bills issued prior to the increases should reflect the lower prices and Justice Chang has also concurred.

Justice Bernard noted in her ruling the point of Counsel for the Respondents (senior counsel Ashton Chase for the PUC) that Section 7 of the Second Schedule of the Electricity Sector Reform Act provided for the billing of consumers retroactively for electricity consumed for a maximum of six months but that the rates should be those in effect at the time of the consumption.

“The Appellants here (GPL) are not seeking to bill consumers retroactively, but are seeking to apply new rates to bills for a month when old rates were in force. By analogy, Section 7 (2) will apply and the rates reflected in bills for June 2001 should be those in effect when the electricity was consumed,” Justice Bernard asserted.