PUC demands public hearing with GPL
- says consumer complaints ignored
Kaieteur News
July 27, 2004
The cross-fire between the Guyana Power and Light and the Public Utilities Commission continued Friday with the same steam as the first session held two Fridays ago.
The consultation was held at the Law Library of the Supreme Court with the aim of formally airing and resolving crucial issues that are of major concern to customers.
The sole generator of Guyana’s electricity was cautioned by the PUC that if the unwarranted disregard for and unrealistic demands on consumers continued there would be no choice but to involve the attention of the media via more public hearings.
According to Commissioner of the PUC, Prem Persaud, officials at the GPL issued unsigned letters of threat to consumers that carry no letter-heads or when carried is halfway torn.
This, Persaud said, is an indication that monies collected are placed directly into the pockets of some employees.
“If these are official documents why do they have torn letter-heads and are unsigned?”, he questioned.
He added that the grammar in letters coming from the desk of senior officials is also bad which does not say well for a company of that stature.
“Because they are a monopoly they use highhanded methods and seek to persecute poor Guyanese people,” Persaud said.
He stressed the non-responsiveness of the power company to the complaints of consumers and insisted that this only made for bad relations with the public.
“All these people need, sometimes, is a hearing and you tell them pay first and complaints after. The entire public relations staff should be replaced with persons who know how to deal with the public,” Persaud suggested.
The Commissioner further requested of GPL’s attorneys, Neil Bollers and Timothy Jonas, to advise the power company to respond to consumer complaints or expect public hearings would be mounted.
“When in doubt all the PUC basically ask for is clarification on an issue but GPL never responds,” the chairman noted.
Persaud detailed that the PUC had forwarded all written complaints to the GPL but its responses are disgusting.
Persaud noted, all correspondence were sent to the Chief Executive Officer Robin Singh who was expected to have dispensed them to whom concerned.
However, the PUC was not convinced that the correspondence had even left the desk of the CEO.
The PUC highlighted the fact that the GPL was not in the habit of acknowledging the receipt of most documents sent by the Commission and that the notices are sent long in advance.
Some of the complainants from the last hearing including Mr. Elvin Mc David, Ms. Elisa King, Dr. Rama Sahadeo, Dr. F. Beckles, and Mr. Gregory Mentore, who are still seeking an audience with the power company.
In the first instance Mr. Elvin Mc David informed that GPL crews were making daily trips to his house and he was demanding to know what the position was in regard to these daily visits.
He requested that no contractor trespasses on his property until such time as his complaints are resolved.
“They come to trouble girls and interfere with girls on my staff, disconnect power and read meter even though I requested that they don’t,” Mc David said.
Jonas, GPL’s attorney, insisted that if the GPL contractors could not enter Mc David’s yard they would be forced to disconnect the power from the outside on the lamppost.
However, Commissioner John Caesar retorted that it was just a matter of complying with a legal process of avoiding the man’s premises until issues are resolved.
According to Mc David’s attorney, Mc David had come back from the US to deal with the issue since he had suffered tremendous loss. He reported that Jonas promised to reply on the issue of compensation but never did.
Jonas reported that Mc David had not paid since April and for 23 months had only paid for a minimum amount of units but now was making a big issue of paying what he owed.
The PUC had issued a letter requesting that no disconnection was done until the matter is resolved.
If they did, the Commissioner said, they were blatantly disregarding the authority of the PUC.
Mc David complained about having to refuse entry to a group of GPL employees who went back two weeks later.
“They jumped the fence and told the housekeeper that they were there to check on a water meter, when in fact they were there to disconnect the electricity supply,” he said.
The PUC advised Mc David to go to the High Court since he was only obliged to pay the current bill and not the amount in dispute.
Jonas in reply requested 10 days to put forward a proposal to Mc David which involves possible installation of a new meter. But he questioned, if such a need arises, how it would be installed considering the legal ban.
Mc David agreed that GPL was allowed to install a new meter provided that they do not disconnect his power supply.
Mc David also sought information from the power company about a second meter registered in the name of his wife.
He said the meter was disconnected and according to GPL it was done as a punitive measure.
Another complainant, Elisa King, said she received a letter from GPL informing her that she owed in excess of $159,000.
King said she queried the bill and was told to forget the $100,000 but pay the remaining $59,000 and an additional $10,000 for accusations levelled against her for tampering.
She said her power supply was reconnected and disconnected within two days after the payment.
King said when she queried she was told that a part of the bill for $159, 000 was incurred by a previous tenant and that it was not a matter of their concern whether she was not the tenant.
They further told King that if she succeeded in finding the previous tenants then it was a feather in her cap.
The woman consulted with the tenant who told her she would only be willing to pay half of the amount and that she would have to try with the remainder.
PUC said they would have to trace these funds that are allegedly paid to GPL for tampering and records will have to show where these monies have gone.
“GPL cannot force a consumer to pay outstanding bills for tenants who have moved out,” Persaud said. .
A technician from GPL then demonstrated on a circuit board how the power company determines consumers who tamper with the meter and those who do not.
The main switch runs to the meter and the meter registers what is consumed through the load (electrical equipment) in the house and the distribution panel.
When the lights are on, or electrical equipment are put to use the meter spins and records the units of consumption.
If the consumer turns off the main switch, the meter will not record consumption. If the consumer is not at home, then GPL can assess whether the meter is recording and if energy is passing through but not registering.
Tampering is when consumers attempt to reduce the bill by connecting a line from the main switch directly to the distribution box and the meter is deliberately made to reject any registration of consumption.
Some consumers are clever and leave the line attached to the meter and there is only some energy passing through that is recorded.
In such instances the ampere-meter (measuring device that is clamped on to the meter wire and the wire leading to the lamppost) is used to determine whether the energy registered on the ampere-meter is balanced.
The technician explained that the reading from the wire on the lamppost and the one from the wire attached to meter must be the same.
If there is an imbalance then the consumer could be tampering as was the case against King.
The Commissioner asked whether there was a difference in the consumption pattern if the earth wire is present or absent to explain the imbalance at King’s house but the technician said it was an impossibility.
The power company said the tampering measurement campaign is one which began since October last and it was impossible for the meter to give contrary readings if the person is not stealing electricity.
The PUC observed that there might be a reason why GPL avoids addressing the issues since Jonas indicated his disinterest in listening to the other complaints at that time.
He said he had come specifically to address Mc David’s concerns.
Mentore however, said he attempted to query a bill issued to his deceased father’s estate and was bluntly told it was none of his interest if he was not going to pay.
Mentore was also accused of tampering but said that he ensures he turns off his main switch before he leaves home for work so there was no way measurements could have shown up on the device.
The Attorney said maybe Mentore had forgotten to turn off his main switch on that particular day as his meter indicated tampering.
Jonas had said that the GPL crew was not met with a warm reception when they go to consumers. “Consumers hide, send out children, lock gates and doors,” he stated.
The PUC rebutted that that does not mean the GPL should add and charge it to the neighbour’s bill.
The PUC divulged evidence that there are some consumers who self-generate electricity for part of the month but their bills do not reflect a reduction in consumption.
Persaud said it is a fact that consumers are desperately trying to conserve on electricity. When the consumption drops, GPL gleefully concludes that the consumer is stealing electricity, and it sets out to back bill consumers never considering that there maybe legitimate reasons for the reduction in consumption, Persaud said.
A serious reduction in consumption is not necessarily an indication of tampering and a reason for disconnection, he added.
According to Commissioner John Caesar, a great lesson should be learnt by GPL from those persons who self generate electricity since they will be losing a great deal of cash.
At the last hearing, the PUC had dubbed GPL as “highhanded and heartless”. Jennifer Ganpat, Secretary of the PUC, had said that the GPL is the sole power provider in the country and so naturally tends to exhibit monopolistic behaviour - refusing to give customers a fair hearing or in some instances no hearing at all and generally discourteous to consumers. She mentioned that it is the hope of the Commission that GPL will in future address consumer complaints in a courteous, efficient and professional manner; analyse complaints and put the necessary mechanisms in place to minimise their occurrences.
Some of the criminal activity carried out by GPL employees were listed as irregular meter readings, claim for miscellaneous amounts without explanation as to the reason, obtaining the signature of consumers under duress, on forms allegedly admitting owing financial sums.
Consumers expect that they will pay for what their meter record but when GPL realises that the bill may be lower than the previous month, they will take pains in issuing a bill for miscellaneous amounts and threatens the consumers with disconnection if they do not sign acknowledging that the inflated amounts are due.
Persaud added that the PUC is resolute in their intent to alert the accounts department of the Power Company that an audit of the books would be necessary to ascertain where all illegal monies collected are lodged.
“You can see blood in the eyes of those consumers who come to make a complaint and the Commission has overriding powers,” Persaud affirmed.
The next hearing between the parties is set for August 3.