PSO Overcharges (Public Service Obligation on Electricity Bills)

Community Hall Vicarstown

This post relates to PSO (Public Service Obligation) levies on ESB bills of non domestic customers. Once you have a connection of over 30KVA you are into a much higher level of PSO charges even if you never utilise it. Many customers connected prior to PSO levies in 2009 and there was no financial implications to having the higher kVA (or MIC as it is known) at that stage. However when PSO came in this changed but ESB Networks did nothing about informing customers. Most people that I have spoken to only discovered it when their bills started to rise exponentially. When you request a reduction from ESB Networks on their required form it is easily achieved if your power usage reflects.

I am part of a voluntary organisation who were affected by PSO overcharging. We have since adjusted our MIC to an appropriate level and got reduction from this in PSO charges. However since PSO charges were introduced in 2009 we have been overcharged to the extent of €10,000.

We have requested repayment from ESB Networks of this money. They refuse saying that it is the responsibility of each connected property owner/occupier to request the correct MIC. They also say they had no responsibility to inform likely affected property owners/occupiers of the financial implications of incorrect MIC after PSO was introduced and subsequently increased significantly. We appealed their refusal to repay to the Commission for Regulation of Utilities who upheld their decision. In our opinion this appeal process was just a false facade aligned with ESB Networks.

We intend to follow the process further through political and legal routes. We have the Minister For Justice and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in our constituency and we are also looking for legal assistance on a conditional fee arrangement.

There are thousands of small businesses and voluntary organisations out there that are and have been overcharged due to inexpertness/lack of knowledge. ESB Networks have done nothing to address this even though they are well aware and it is well covered in their new connection literature.

We seek similarly affected individuals/small businesses/voluntary organisations to join us in this quest. Contact can be made at communityhallvicarstownatgmail.com

coylemj

Community Hall Vicarstown wrote: »

This post relates to PSO (Public Service Obligation) levies on ESB bills of non domestic customers.

So how is this a consumer issue?

Community Hall Vicarstown

I'm new to this where should it be?

dudara

Moving to entreprenurial & Business Management.

antoinolachtnai

The PSO levy is imposed by and paid to the government.

ESB Networks and the suppliers collect it on the government's behalf. They don't have the money any more and didn't get any benefit from it.

If you are unhappy with a government decision or action you have three months to have it judicially reviewed. You have a very low chance of clawing your money back.

Community Hall Vicarstown

Antoinolachtnai thanks for your reply. We are not against PSO and we are happy to pay our share and are still doing so. It is the overcharge element that we are seeking to recoup.

When PSO was introduced in 2009 intially at a very low level, ESB Networks did nothing to inform customers of the impending financial liabilty of having an incorrect MIC level. After introduction at a low level the PSO levy got some major hikes and it was at this stage that people with small businesses and voluntary organisations like ourselves realised they had a problem. It was possible to rectify it but in the interim nice bits of overcharge had developed.

We have had loads of situations over the last few years where banks, state bodies and other organisations went out of line on certain matters and when public momentum got behind the issue they were brought into line and in certain situations monies were paid back. One thing that we are learning in a lot of these cases is that information surrounding charges and increased charges needs to be adequately explained and communicated by the organisation doing the charging.

air

I don't think you have a leg to stand on here.
Your argument is akin to complaining to a landlord that you were overcharged on rent because you didn't use all the bedrooms in your house.
It is the responsibility of the customer to ensure that their supply capacity is appropriate to their needs.
If you were being charged for a greater MIC than your supply connection was rated in reality you would have a strong argument and would likely be refunded, but I cannot see any logic to support your claim in the situation you have outlined.

The PSO levy was introduced in 2003 (and not 2009) by way of CRU decision paper CER/02/152.
The levy was actually zero in 2009 - see page 12 of CER/08/129.

Community Hall Vicarstown

Thanks for your views Air. I supose if we had someone with your knowledge in the organisation we would be able to avoid all these pitfalls. Unfortunately organisations like ourselves depend on volunteers a lot of them like myself lacking in the expertise on such matters. It has cost us €10,000 and that is a lot for a voluntary organisation that turns over €20,000 in the year. No employees everyone involved are volunteers.

I dont think that your analogy of the landlord is a fair representation. The MIC was set before PSO so there were no financial implications at that time. When the PSO levy was being stepped up communication of the financial implications should have happened to customers. It is very well communicated to new customers if you look at ESB networks new connection documentation.

Anyhow it appears that lots of small businesses are agrieved as well. I have received 5 e-mails on the matter since I posted it here and on a previous forum about the matter.