Complaints against GPL have been frequent
Consumer Concerns
Eileen Cox
Stabroek News
February 8, 2004
'You have to pay.' Clerks at the Guyana Power & Light (GPL) and Guyana Water Incorporated (GWI) seem to have been trained, with these words, to dismiss the consumer who challenges a bill. What can the consumer say in response?
Complaints against GPL have been so frequent and so valid that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has been constrained to intervene and remind the company of the act which governs it.
Before I go into the letters sent by the PUC to GPL let me record the latest complaint.
A consumer returned to his home on Thursday, January 29, to find that the electricity line to his home had been disconnected on the pole. He went to the GPL office and was told that it was an error as he was in credit. A promise was given that he would be reconnected the next day and that he would not have to pay the reconnection fee.
The next day came and went and there was no reconnection. Now, a holiday weekend followed and, as we all know, the three utilities do not have emergency teams working at weekends and on public holidays. This consumer had to remain without electricity in his home for three days. On Tuesday he was still complaining about the failure to reconnect him.
Now, when there is a disconnection to one's home, it is not only the inconvenience that one suffers in the home. It is the message that is sent to one's neighbours and all who may pass and see the house in darkness. They snigger and say, "Look, he did not pay his electricity bill."
For this reason we in the Guyana Consumers Associa-tion are asking that the GPL pay damages when it disconnects a customer in error. The customer cannot erase the impression created in the minds of all who saw his house in darkness.
On November 20 last year, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) wrote to the Chief Executive Officer, Guyana Power and Light, concerning the billing of consumers whose meters were registering zero. The PUC pointed out that sections 7 (2) and 17 (1) in the Third Schedule of the Electricity Sector Reform Act 1997 applied, according to the circumstances, when meters registered zero.
Section 7 (2) states:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing a public supplier from billing a consumer retroactively for electricity consumption for a maximum period of six months prior to the issuance of such a bill, upon the presentation of reasonable evidence that the consumer was not previously billed for such consumption."
The Section also states that the rates reflected in such a bill should be those in effect at the time the consumption of electricity occurred.
This seems to take care of situations where there was tampering or the supplier could not gain access to read the meters for one reason or another.
In the case where a meter is defective, Section l7 (1) applies. It states:
"If for reasons other than tampering with a meter or the consumer's failure to ensure that the public supplier has access to the relevant meter, a public supplier is unable to read a meter on the consumer's premises or is satisfied that the meter has not accurately registered the amount of electricity supplied to a consumer's premises, the public supplier may determine the amount of electricity supplied on the basis of the average monthly consumption by the consumer during the previous three months."
There is a proviso:
"Provided that the public supplier may determine the amount of electricity pursuant to this subparagraph for a period of no more than two consecutive months, during which the public supplier shall remedy its inability to read the relevant meter, or repair, re-secure or re-site such meter in order to ensure that it is accurately registering the amount of electricity supplied."
Now, in cases where GPL accepted that its meter was defective, the company has been billing consumers for six months. From what I have seen the amount claimed seems to have been arbitrarily arrived at with no input from the consumer. Therefore, it seems that these consumers, so billed, are due for refunds.
On January 19, the PUC, in another letter to GPL, pointed out that the February bill of a customer showed consumption from 59613 to 60077, yet the March bill showed a consumption reading from 59743.
There is one other matter concerning GPL. In its advertisement of Tariff Changes April 2003, GPL showed the Interim Return Certificate (IRC) for 100 kWh per month or less as $38.13 with the modified Rates for Bills issued from April 1, 2003 as $39.54, the current charge. However, the IRC Rate when the consumption was over 100 kWh per month is shown as $42.26 and the Modified Rate as $42.90. I had earlier presumed that $38.13 was the current charge for consumption of 100 kWh, or less, per month.