Dispute Resolution Panel decisions
Home
| Decisions of dispute resolution panels
together with a summary are published in this section. Please note that
decisions under the Code changes gazetted in 2002 will contain the names
of all parties. Primary: Distribution loss factor Clause 3.6.3 (c) On 15 September 1999, a dispute resolution panel chaired by John Clarke QC issued a determination relating to the determination of the appropriate loss factor under clause 3.6.3(e) of the Code. A summary of the panel’s decision, slightly amended in order not to name the parties involved in the dispute, is available to download. The panel recommended, amongst other things, that NEMMCO should not make any new determination of a loss factor in relation to the generator than was the subject of the dispute until the wider issues of the financial impact of distribution loss factors have been considered by NECA as part of its current review of the scope for integrating the energy market and network services. Commenting on the panel’s decision, Stephen Kelly, NECA’s managing director, said that: "I welcome the panel’s recognition of the need to resolve the wider issues surrounding distribution loss factors. It is essential to ensure there are no barriers to entry, or unfairly discriminatory access to the market, for new entrants. We shall ensure that this issue is addressed four-square within the review we have launched of the scope for integrating the energy market and network services. The appropriate basis for determining distribution loss factors will be discussed, and comments invited, in the issues paper we shall shortly be publishing as the basis for consultation on the review." |
|
 |
Summary of dispute resolution panel decision Open document... |
|
|
|
Primary: Participant fee structure dispute The ‘Second Group’ chaired by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE that was responsible for deciding the participant fee structure dispute made a determination on 6 December 2002. A summary of that determination is available to download. The Second Group dismissed each of the errors that were alleged to have been made by NEMMCO in its 2000 fee structure determination and therefore upheld that determination. |
|
|
|
Summary of Second Group determination Open document... |
|
|
|
Primary: Dispute between Sithe and Integral over
avoided Integral Energy and Sithe Australia Power in 2002 invoked the market’s alternative dispute resolution arrangements to resolve a dispute over the payment of avoided transmission use of system (TUOS) payments. Under §5.5 of the Code, as amended following our transmission and distribution pricing review, distribution network service providers (DNSPs) must pass through to an embedded generator the amount of customer TUOS charges the DNSP would otherwise have had to pay to a transmission network service provider had the embedded generator not been connected to the DNSP’s network. This is so-called avoided TUOS. The dispute between Sithe and Integral hinged on whether §5.5 in itself gives Sithe a right to payment of avoided TUOS by Integral. A three member dispute resolution panel, chaired by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE sitting with GE (Tony) Fitzgerald AC QC and Dr Phillip Williams issued a binding determination relating to the content of future connection agreements or perhaps modifications to existing agreements, not with altering the rights and obligations of parties to existing agreements, which do not enter into new agreements or perhaps modify existing agreements after the changes to §5.5 came into effect. The full text of the panel’s determination is available to download. The dispute was resolved in just over three months. A notice of dispute was issued on 24 September, and referred to the dispute resolution panel on 30 October, last year. The panel issued its determination to the parties on 8 January 2003. |
|
|
|
Summary of dispute resolution panel decision Open document... |
© NECA, 2004.