MunicipalNews

Resident questions being denied smart meter by metro

Gilfillan does not know of any other resident in Edenvale who is reaping the benefits of the AMI meter.

Edenvale resident Rory Gilfillan’s current electricity bill is high due to his meter not supporting Time of Use.

“The challenge of my current meter is that it does not support a Time of Use tariff, while advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) does support Time of Use,”

Gilfillan has made the requested an AMI meter from the metro but his request was denied.

“I phoned and personally spoke to the head of customer relations who informed me that it was not possible.

“He told me that prepayment was their priority and that AMI meters were too expensive.

“I then wrote a formal complaint to Mr Raedani, since National Energy Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) created a law in 2008 that any residential user using over 1 000kWh per month must be put on an AMI meter and switched to a Time of Use tariff.

“He replied that he would give a formal reply, but he did not.

Also read: Greenstone smart meter roll-out nears the end

“I have also forwarded my complaint to Nersa,” said Gilfillan.

Gilfillan currently does not know of any other resident in Edenvale who is reaping the benefits of the AMI meter.

“My electricity bill is high. There are five adults and one minor on the property and I run three fridges and two geysers,” said Gilfillan.

He said that by law he is entitled to an AMI meter and that metro should comply.

“Nersa created this law in 2008 to alleviate loadshedding.

“The Time of Use tariff rewards consumers who move their load to off-peak hours and thereby create less stress on the system.

Also read: Community not happy with smart meters

“We are again faced with loadshedding and if the municipality had actually done anything to implement this law 11 years ago, I’m sure a lot of the loadshedding we are facing today could have been avoided,” said Gilfillan.

A request for comment was sent to CoE on April 5 at 3pm and to Nersa on April 10 at 12.34pm.

Comment was requested by April 9 at 4pm by CoE and April 12 at 10am.

By the time of going to print no comment was received.

Related Articles

 
Back to top button