CER response to comments received to CER/14/130
Regulation of Electrical Contractors with respect to
safety from 2016
DOCUMENT
TYPE:
REFERENCE:
Response to comments received
DATE
PUBLISHED:
QUERIES TO:
30th October 2014
CER/14/758
Thomas Quinn (tquinn@cer.ie)
The Commission for Energy Regulation,
The Exchange,
Belgard Square North,
Tallaght,
Dublin 24.
www.cer.ie
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Background ................................................................................................. 2
Submissions received .................................................................................. 2
Structure of this Paper ................................................................................. 3
Regulation of Gas Installers with Respect to Safety .................................... 3
2.0
The Designated Body ..............................................................................................5
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
Number of Bodies to be Designated ............................................................ 5
Financial Structure of the Supervisory Body ................................................ 7
Permitted Activities ...................................................................................... 9
Term of Designation .................................................................................. 11
Corresponding Terms for both Electrical and Gas SSBs ........................... 12
Regulating the Operation of the Designated Body ..................................... 13
Electrical SSB(s) Inspectors ...................................................................... 15
3.0
The Criteria Document .......................................................................................... 18
3.1 Criteria Document .............................................................................................. 18
4.0
Technical Standards, Training and Assessments ............................................... 21
4.1
Assessments ............................................................................................. 21
5.0
Membership ........................................................................................................... 24
5.1
5.2
5.3
Individual Registration ............................................................................... 24
Insurance ................................................................................................... 25
Membership categories ............................................................................. 26
6.0
Controlled, Restricted and Minor Works .............................................................. 29
6.1
6.2
6.3
Controlled Electrical Works........................................................................ 29
Restricted Electrical Works ........................................................................ 30
Minor Electrical Works ............................................................................... 33
7.0
Electrical Works by Unregistered Individuals...................................................... 36
7.1
Detection ................................................................................................... 36
8.0
Certification & the Role of ETCI ............................................................................ 38
8.1
8.2
8.3
ETCI Certification ...................................................................................... 38
Electronic Certification System .................................................................. 39
Non-Compliances ...................................................................................... 40
9.0
Public Awareness .................................................................................................. 43
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
Safe Electric Brand .................................................................................... 43
Use of the Safe Electric logo ..................................................................... 44
Annual Logo .............................................................................................. 45
Unique identifier ......................................................................................... 46
Branding .................................................................................................... 48
Restrictions on use of Electrical SSB logo ................................................. 49
Notifying Customers Regarding Outcomes................................................ 50
10.0
Interaction with Gas Installer Regulatory Scheme .............................................. 51
10.1
A Joint Gas and Electrical SSB ................................................................. 51
1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Under section 9C of the Electricity Regulation Act 1999 as amended by the Energy
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 the CER has responsibility to regulate the activities
of electrical contractors with respect to safety. In order to carry out this function the CER
appointed the Registered Electrical Contractors of Ireland (RECI) and the Electrical
Contractors Safety and Standards Association of Ireland (ECSSAI) as Electrical Safety
Supervisory Bodies (Electrical SSBs) in accordance with section 9D (1) (a) Electricity
Regulation Act 1999 as amended by the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, to
carry out the role of regulating electrical contractors on a day-to-day basis commencing
in 2009 for a period of seven years.
In June 2014, the CER published a Consultation Paper (ref.CER/14/130) on the
Regulation of Electrical Contractors with respect to Safety from 2016. That paper invited
submissions on the regulatory scheme with respect to Electrical Contractors. The
Consultation was carried out to align with the end of the current designation period1 to
enable the CER to review the scheme, as it currently stands, in order to make any
potential improvements for the designation period commencing January 2016.
1.2 Submissions received
The CER received 29 submissions2 from the following participants:
 Paul Dolan
 Feilim Mac Criosta
 Certsure
 Midlands Energy Training and Assessment Centre (METAC)
 John Lucitt
 Safeed
 Tony Byrne
 The health and Safety Authority (HSA)
 George O’Callaghan
 The Electrical Contractors Safety and Standards Association of Ireland (ECSSAI)
 John Cotter
 Cormac Shannon
 The Register of Electrical Contractors of Ireland (RECI)
 Aidan Kennedy
 iSkill
 The Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union (TEEU)
 Eddie Mahon
1
ECSSAI and RECI are designated as Electrical SSBs until the end of 2015.
2
Please note all submissions are published on the CER website – www.cer.ie
2










A&L electrical
The Electrical Contractors Association (ECA)
ESB Networks
Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT)
Cork County Council
The Association of Electrical Contractors of Ireland (AECI)
Aviva
The National Electrical Contractors of Ireland (NECI)
The Electro Technical Council of Ireland (ETCI)
John Desmond
27 responses have been published alongside this response to comments paper. One
respondent requested that their response be treated as confidential and it has not been
published. Another has not been published as it related to a specific complaint and was
not directly related to the consultation. Another has been redacted in some areas as it
contained information which could potentially be misleading.
In addition, the CER held meetings with a number of respondents.
This response to comments paper sets out the CER’s response to the comments
received.
It should be read in conjunction with both the Consultation Paper
(CER/14/130) and Proposed Decision Paper (CER/14/757).
Please note that publication of these submissions does not mean that the CER agrees
that all information put forward in the submissions is correct.
1.3 Structure of this Paper
The Consultation Paper which was published in June posed a number of questions with
regard to the electrical contractor regulatory scheme. This paper provides a summary of
the submissions received to each of these questions along with the CER’s response
followed by the CERs proposed decision.
This response-to-comments paper is being published alongside the CER’s Proposed
Decision Paper on the regulation of electrical contractors with respect to safety from
2016 (CER/14/758). There is a further opportunity for interested parties to respond to the
CER’s proposed decision by Thursday, 27th November 2014 as set out in the Proposed
Decision Paper.
1.4 Regulation of Gas Installers with Respect to Safety
The Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 also confers on the CER the function to
regulate the activities of gas installers with respect to safety through designating a body
to carry out this function on a day-to-day basis. The CER has also consulted in a similar
fashion on the Regulation of Gas Installers with respect to Safety from 2016. Those
3
consultation, proposed decision and response-to-comments papers are available on
www.cer.ie.
4
2.0
The Designated Body
The CER received comments with regard to the following issues raised in the paper:







Number of Bodies to be designated
Financial structure of Electrical SSB(s)
Permitted activities
Term of designation
Corresponding terms for both electrical and gas
Regulating the operation of the designated body
Electrical SSB(s) inspectors
These are discussed in turn below.
2.1 Number of Bodies to be Designated
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to the
number of bodies to be designated:
Number of Bodies to be Designated
The CER sought responses from interested parties on the option of appointing
one Electrical SSB for the designation period commencing January 2016.
2.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Out of the 29 responses received, 20 respondents detailed a preference in relation to the
number of Electrical SSBs to appoint. Nine respondents were in favour of appointing one
Electrical SSB citing improving consistency in delivery of Electrical SSB services, cost
saving benefits for RECs, and removing the danger that contactors with competency
issues may gravitate towards a more lenient Electrical SSB.
11 respondents were in favour of appointing two or more Electrical SSBs, citing reasons
such as competition, choice, alternative costings, avoiding job losses and negative
public perception to a monopoly3. One respondent also cited that it would be impossible
not to have job losses if one body was designated.
2.1.2 CER Response
The CER notes that of the 20 respondents to this question, 11 respondents were in
favour of appointing two or more Electrical SSBs, while 9 respondents were in favour of
appointing one Electrical SSB. Differing reasons were put forward as to why the CER
3
Some respondents provided comments regarding insurance costs for RECs. The Electrical
SSB(s) is required to ensure RECs have appropriate cover in place. It is not intended to require
the Electrical SSB(s) to become involved in the negotiation of costs for insurance.
5
should appoint one Electrical SSB or more than one body for the designation period
commencing January 2016.
One reason offered as a justification by respondents who both agree and disagree with
the proposal is cost savings benefits. Respondents in favour of appointing one Electrical
SSB described the cost efficiencies gained by having one body. Respondents against
this option argued that by reducing the number of bodies to one that the benefits of
competition (such as pressure on prices between the Electrical SSB(s) would be lost
creating a monopoly situation. As set out in legislation the CER must have regard to the
costs likely to be incurred by the CER and by final customers. The CER is of the view
that cost savings can be achieved by designating one Electrical SSB by realising
efficiencies through economies of scale (such as having costs associated with only one
building and one IT system) and removing repetition of certain functions (such as
management).
Another source of cost savings in this scenario would be that by designating one
Electrical SSB the internal resources required by the CER to audit and inspect the
Electrical SSB to ensure compliance with required standards would be reduced. In terms
of competition the CER recognises that having more than one Electrical SSB has
provided choice to RECs, with each offering different prices for services provided
(registration and certification etc.). Ultimately CER regulates the core electrical safety
scheme on a not-for-profit basis, in carrying out this role the CER approves the Electrical
SSB(s) costs and tariffs (to recover these costs). In a scenario where a one Electrical
SSB model is chosen the CER will only approve the Electrical SSB’s costs and
associated tariffs which accurately represent this new position and fully reflect the
savings achieved. This ensures that RECs and customers are protected by the CERs
oversight of costs and tariffs.
The CER also notes that even if one Electrical SSB is to be appointed there will be
competition between the prospective body(s) through the competitive tendering process
through which the successful Electrical SSB(s) is appointed. This competition is likely to
include price competition.
Another issue cited by respondents in favour of appointing one Electrical SSB was
ensuring more consistent Electrical SSB service levels in the scheme. A risk was also
described which was the danger that contactors with competency issues may gravitate
towards a more lenient Electrical SSB. The CER is of the view that it is critical to the
overall safety of the scheme that standards are maintained consistently and enforced
equally across all RECs in the scheme. The CER is concerned that inconsistencies
found in the delivery of services between Electrical SSBs could present potential safety
risks therefore designating one Electrical SSB would remove this issue.
The issue of negative public perception of one Electrical SSB being designated was
raised by respondents in favour of more than one Electrical SSB. The CER does not see
6
any issues regarding public perception by designating one body; the CER is also
responsible for the regulated gas installer’s scheme which has operated successfully
with one Gas SSB without any negative public perception issues.
One respondent cited that it would be impossible not to have job losses if one body was
designated. In determining the number of bodies to designate the CER is required under
legislation to have regard to the costs likely to be incurred by the CER and final
customers. In this vein the CER must meet its safety responsibilities in relation to the
regulation of electrical contractors as efficiently as possible.
2.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
As acknowledged in legislation the CER proposes to designate one Electrical SSB for
the designation period commencing January 2016.
2.2 Financial Structure of the Supervisory Body
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to the
financial structure of the Electrical SSB(s):
Financial Structure of a Designated Body
Whether the Electrical SSB(s), which is designated for the period
commencing January 2016 should continue to operate as a not-for-profit
organisation or be allowed to operate as a profit making business.
How should the money which will be transferred over to the CER on
termination, in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of Appointment, be
used.
2.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 13 respondents commented on this question. 11
respondents were in favour of the Electrical SSB(s) continuing to operate on a not-forprofit basis setting out that the body(s) should only focus on safety. One respondent was
in favour of the profit making model with excess money used for educational purposes or
being used to distribute technical information to RECs. Another respondent was in favour
of a hybrid model with no conflicts of interest between Core and Permitted activities
allowed.
Different suggestions were put forward by respondents in relation to what to do with the
surplus money returned to CER at the end of the current designation period. One
suggestion was to use the funds to promote electrical safety. Another suggestion was to
7
use the surplus funds to reduce the cost of certificates for RECs. The suggestion was
made that the funds be used for policing enforcement of the rules. One respondent
suggested using the funds to educate RECs, informing them of technical changes. A few
respondents suggested transferring surplus funds to the appointed Electrical SSB(s) for
the new operating period.
2.2.2 CER Response
The CER acknowledges that 11 of the 13 respondents to this question were in favour of
the current not-for-profit model. The CER notes the reasoning put forward by
respondents for this position that the Electrical SSB(s) should focus solely on safety.
However, the CER is conscious that there are other areas where a for-profit model has
worked with respect to safety regulation. A for-profit model could potentially facilitate the
implementation of financial penalties if the Electrical SSB was not acting appropriately.
The CER is also cognisant that there could be further benefits to a for-profit model in
that, if implemented in a suitable manner, it could incentivise the Electrical SSB(s) to
reduce costs with resultant decrease in costs for RECs. However, while the not-for profit
model does not have this benefit, the CER approves the Electrical SSB’s costs and
therefore has control over the costs charged to RECs in any case under the not-for profit
model.
One response specified a hybrid model which sounds similar to the current system in
place whereby the Electrical SSB’s carry out their core activities on a not-for-profit basis
but may carry out permitted activities (once approved by CER) such as training which is
currently allowed on a for profit basis. These permitted activities are discussed in the
next question (section 2.3).
One respondent was in favour of a for profit model (but not strongly), but crucially
specified only if the profits were used for education and technical updates of RECs. The
CER notes this response and considers it to be consistent with the majority of responses
(in favour of not-for-profit model) which specified using the surplus funds in differing
ways to increase safety. Respondents stated this could be achieved either through
promotion, education of RECs, reducing certificate costs and putting the surplus funds
towards policing of rules. A few respondents suggested transferring the surplus funds to
the appointed Electrical SSB(s) for the new operating period. The CER favours this
option and consider it the most effective way of using these surplus funds to the ultimate
benefit of the schemes RECs and customers. It is likely that through the newly
designated Electrical SSB(s) some of the other respondent’s safety suggestions could
be implemented with these surplus funds.
The CER is also conscious that putting in a place a not-for-profit model may also serve
to reduce the pool of candidates interested in engaging in the competitive process with
the result that more expensive and/or less suitable Electrical SSBs would be in place
8
from 2016 onwards. However, the CER is strongly of the view that the focus of a
Electrical SSB(s) must remain on safety rather than profit maximisation in the carrying
out of its core activities. This can be mitigated to some extent through allowing permitted
activities to be run by the Electrical SSB(s) (subject to approval on a case-by-case basis)
on a for-profit basis.
On the other hand, having a for-profit model could result in the organisation focussing on
the maximisation of profits rather than improving safety.
Also from public perception point of view the CER’s view is that regulation by a
designated body(s) is far more palatable to the industry when that body(s) operate their
core activities on a not-for-profit basis. It is easier to achieve buy in from the industry
when it can be shown that the scheme is being ran on a not-for-profit basis purely for the
purpose of increasing safety. If it was run on a for-profit basis it may leave the scheme
open to assertions that the principle motivation was profit.
2.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER proposes to implement a not-for-profit model (with respect to core activities) for
the Electrical SSB(s) to be in place from 2016 onwards. This not-for-profit model has
worked well during the first designation period keeping the focus on safety and there is
no compelling reason to change this. The CER proposes that any permitted activities
could be carried out on a for-profit basis but only after seeking permission from the CER.
The CER proposes to transfer the reserve (via the CER) to the new Electrical SSB(s).
The CER proposes that the reserve will be utilised by the Electrical SSB(s) for purposes
agreed to in consultation with the CER.
2.3 Permitted Activities
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to permitted
activities:
Core and Permitted Activities
What criteria should be used if prohibiting the Electrical SSB(s) in place from
2016 onwards from participating in any permitted activities?
2.3.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 15 respondents commented on this question. 10
respondents were in favour of the Electrical SSB(s) continuing permitted activities, with a
number of these providing caveats to their support for permitted activities. For instance 4
9
respondents put safety as the key determinant, 2 of the respondents mentioned that
these activities should be self-financing.
Three respondents mentioned that the Electrical SSB(s) should be involved with the
Building Emergency Safety System (BESS) scheme citing the merits of the scheme and
how emergency lighting is part of the integrated wiring system within a building. 2
respondents suggested that the Electrical SSB(s) should expand how technical
information updates (e.g. updates to Wiring rules or standards) are provided to RECs.
Two respondents mentioned that Electrical SSB(s) should not engage in any permitted
activities and should focus on their statutory obligations (core activities). 4 respondents
specifically mentioned that the Electrical SSB(s) should not provide training citing an
unfair competitive position, conflict of interest and the fact that the equivalent Gas SSB is
not permitted to provide training. 1 of these providers however suggested that the
Electrical SSB(s) register training providers (and supply training manuals) to maintain
consistency of course delivery.
2.3.2 CER Response
The CER notes the preference of the majority of respondents (10 out of 15) was for the
Electrical SSB(s) to continue doing permitted activities, this was qualified by a number of
respondents mentioning how they supported these permitted activities once they
contribute to safety or are self-financing. The CER’s primary concern is the regulation of
electrical contractors in relation to safety. Any permitted activities would have to
contribute to safety or not impact negatively on safety.
The CER is cognisant that 4 respondents specifically mentioned that the Electrical
SSB(s) should not provide training. In providing training to RECs it could be argued that
the Electrical SSB(s) are helping to promote improved standards amongst RECs
benefitting the overall scheme. However the CER’s view is that having the Electrical
SSB(s) carrying out training does create a potential conflict of interest between safety
and financial motives. Also the position of the Electrical SSB(s) in relation to their RECs
may provide an unfair competitive position in offering training against other training
providers. For these reasons the CER proposes to remove the ability of the Electrical
SSB(s) appointed for the new designation period to carry out training as a permitted
activity. Also the CER is minded stipulate that the Electrical SSB(s) would only employ
inspectors and other staff that do not work on training.
The CER is aware that 3 respondents mentioned that the Electrical SSB(s) should be
involved with the BESS scheme. The development and operation of the BESS scheme is
outside of the CER’s legislative remit, but the CER would not have any issue with this
permitted activity continuing as long as it does not impact negatively on safety or the
integrity of the scheme and objectives.
10
Two respondents mentioned that Electrical SSB(s) should not engage in any permitted
activities and should focus on their statutory obligations (core activities). The CER does
not have any issue in allowing the Electrical SSB(s) to provide permitted activities as
long as they do not impact negatively on safety. These would be approved on a case by
case basis by the CER.
The CER notes the comment regarding the Electrical SSB(s) developing a training
manual which all trainers would use. However, the CER cannot require training course
providers to utilise a common training manual. Therefore the CER does not propose to
require the Electrical SSB(s) to develop such a manual.
2.3.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER proposes to allow the Electrical SSB(s) to offer permitted activities once these
have been approved on a case by case basis by the CER. These could potentially be
on a for-profit basis. From a safety perspective, it is important that any non-core activities
carried out by the Electrical SSB(s) do not impact negatively on the core safety activities.
When considering whether to approve a permitted activity, the CER would consider
matters such as, but not limited to, the ring-fencing arrangements that are in place to
ensure separation from the core activities and any impact the permitted activities could
have from an resource or public perception (or any other) perspective.
The CER does not intend to allow the Electrical SSB to participate in training or
assessments of RECs. To ensure that there is no issue with respect to another separate
organisation providing training or assessments, the CER would also put in place a
requirement that the Electrical SSB could only employ staff or contractors that were not
involved in other activities such as mandatory training or assessments.
2.4 Term of Designation
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to the length
of the designation period (or term of designation):
Term of Designation
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether the fixed term for the
designation period commencing January 2016 should move to five years or
remain at seven years.
2.4.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 12 respondents commented on this question. 11 of these
respondents preferred the option of keeping the term of designation at 7 years citing the
5 year designation period as excessively short in light of resources required to tender for
11
appointment, for stability and to allow time to focus on developing progressive changes
in the scheme. 1 respondent favoured the 5 year designation period describing how this
was an adequate time period to reflect on key drivers in the industry.
2.4.2 CER Response
The CER notes that the majority of respondents favoured continuing with a designation
period of 7 years. The CER recognises that a balance must be found when setting an
appropriate duration for the Electrical SSB(s) to be appointed. The CER favours a
designation period of 7 years over 5 years due to the fact it provides the successful
Electrical SSB(s) and the industry with a level of continuity to the regulated electrical
safety scheme. The designation period must be sufficiently long in order to allow the
Electrical SSB(s) to make significant progress in its function, implement any necessary
changes and enable some level of continuity in the scheme for both RECs and
customers.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the resources involved in the tendering process
results in expense to the CER, other parties involved in the process and ultimately the
end user. A longer designation period may also allow the Electrical SSB(s) to put in
place better value contracts in relation to its costs, which would ultimately lead to
reduced costs for RECs and the customer.
The CER proposes to include the possibility within the Electrical SSB(s) Terms and
Conditions of Appointment of carrying out a mid-term review of the Electrical SSB(s)
performance towards the end of the third year of operation (2018). Where the Electrical
SSB(s) performance is to be deemed not satisfactory, the CER would consider all
options to improve the performance of the Electrical SSB(s) up to and including dedesignation if appropriate.
2.4.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER proposes to designate the Electrical SSB(s) for a term of seven years.
2.5 Corresponding Terms for both Electrical and Gas SSBs
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to having
coinciding or staggered end dates for the designation periods for the Gas and Electrical
SSBs:
Staggered end dates for Electrical and Gas SSBs
Comments were sought from interested parties on the possibility of having
staggered designation end dates for Electrical and Gas SSBs in order to avoid
coinciding termination dates.
12
2.5.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 8 respondents commented on this question. 5
respondents favoured same end dates for the Electrical and Gas SSBs citing the
execution of a smooth transition and potentially facilitate shared costs (in joint Gas and
Electrical SSB scenario). 2 respondents suggested staggered end dates, with one of
these specifying it only if it was the most efficient option for CER.
2.5.2 CER Response
The CER notes that the majority of respondents to this question favoured having the
same end dates for Electrical and Gas SSBs. The CER is of the view that staggered
designation end dates for Electrical and Gas SSBs would not be the most efficient
option. The CER resources required during the designation process (staff, legal advice
etc.) for the Electrical and Gas SSBs are shared when they have coinciding termination
dates, introducing staggered dates would only increase the amount of CER and external
resources required overall.
In relation to the 2 responses which favoured staggered end dates, one specified that
the CER should only do so if it is administratively advantageous and efficient. The other
response did not specify any reasons for favouring staggered dates. The CER’s
response to the issue of a joint Gas and Electrical SSB will be dealt with below in section
10.0.
2.5.3 CER Proposed Decision
As outlined in Section 2.4 of this paper, the CER proposes to designate the Electrical
SSB(s) for a term of seven years. The proposed decision relating to the gas scheme
proposes to designate a Gas SSB for a term of seven years.
2.6 Regulating the Operation of the Designated Body
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to regulating
the operation of Electrical SSBs:
Electrical SSB Compliance
The CER sought comments regarding the introduction of any further measures to
ensure Electrical SSBs compliance with the Terms and Conditions of Appointment
and the Criteria Document.
2.6.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 9 respondents commented on this question. 5
respondents felt that no further measures were required, seeing no necessity for such
additional measures. 2 respondents suggested the Electrical SSB(s) could achieve
13
accreditation to an international standard. 1 respondent suggested a strict contractual
obligation with substantial penalty clauses in the event of non-compliance.
2.6.2 CER Response
The CER acknowledges that 5 of the 9 respondents to this question did not feel that any
further measures were required viewing the current measures as appropriate. The CER
does already employ dedicated resources to help ensure the compliance of the current
Electrical SSBs with the Criteria document and the Terms and Conditions of
Appointment through annual audits and inspections and monitoring of KPIs.
One respondent suggested continuous monitoring and control between the CER and the
Electrical SSB(s) at a period of every 2 years. The CER’s Electrical Investigation Officer
(EIO) already carries out an agreed number of audits and inspections on the Electrical
SSBs each year. These audit for any non-compliances with the requirements and
processes as set out in the Criteria document and the Terms and Conditions of
Appointment with a view to addressing same. The CER also review quarterly
performance reports from the Electrical SSBs, which includes key KPIs monitoring areas
such as REC numbers, certificate sales and the number of inspections carried out on
RECs. The CER may develop more KPIs focused on the performance of the Electrical
SSB(s) itself, possible KPIs could include the processing time of REC registration
applications and the processing time to validate REC submitted certificates.
It was suggested that the CER should appoint an independent 3rd party to audit the
Electrical SSB(s) performance. The current Electrical SSBs are already audited by an 3rd
party on behalf of the CER on a frequent basis, due to resource constraints all audits are
not carried out by CER staff members.
One respondent was in favour of a strict contractual obligation for the forthcoming
Electrical SSB appointment(s) with suitable and substantial penalty clauses in the event
of non-compliance. The CER already has put in place Terms and Conditions of
Appointment with the current Electrical SSBs, these set out the requirements of the
bodies and the different penalties for not adhering to these. The CER also published the
Criteria document, this details the rules and obligations for participants operating within
the electrical safety regulatory framework, including the Electrical SSBs (Section B of the
Criteria). The CER expects compliance with the Terms and Conditions of Appointment
and the Criteria document. Sanctions which the CER may impose on an Electrical SSB
for breaches of the above include implementing a remediation plan process and
termination of their T&Cs. The CER will review these for the new designation period in
light of the first designation period.
2 respondents suggested the Electrical SSB(s) could achieve accreditation to an
international standard. While the CER is in favour of any measure which aids compliance
with the Criteria document, putting in place specific requirements regarding accreditation
may serve to reduce the pool of candidates interested in engaging in the competitive
14
process. One of these also recommended that as a minimum that an electrical contractor
who has ISO/IEC 17020 accreditation should be recognised as being competent. The
CER understands that the function of the accreditation bodies is to ensure that
companies are adhering to the relevant ISO standards (in this case performing
inspections) and not to the current edition of the National Wiring Rules. The current
Electrical SSBs are however required to assess electrical contractors as set out in the
Criteria document and ensure the work they carry out is in compliance with the current
edition of the National Wiring Rules.
The CER also intends to include the possibility of carrying out a formal review of the
Electrical SSB’s performance towards the end of its third year of operation (2018). If, in
the CER’s view, the Electrical SSB’s performance is not satisfactory, it would undergo
this formal review and may be de-designated from the end of its fourth year of operation
(2019). This would facilitate a competitive process to designate a body to be in place
from 2020 onwards. This review will not compromise the CER’s intention to keep the
body under continuous review with de-designation being an option at any stage for nonsatisfactory performance. We continually review compliance and will act accordingly
within our legislative powers. This formal review would act as an additional measure of
reviewing the Electrical SSB’s performance on a more formalised basis.
2.6.3 CER Proposed Decision
The proposed decision on this matter is outlined in Section 3.7 of the CER’s proposed
decision paper (CER/14/757).
2.7 Electrical SSB(s) Inspectors
In the consultation paper the CER posed the following questions in relation to Electrical
SSB(s) inspectors:
Qualifications of Inspectors
Comments were invited from interested parties on what qualifications Electrical
SSB(s) inspectors should be expected to hold?
2.7.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 13 respondents commented on this question. 6
respondents considered the current requirements as adequate. 4 respondents specified
5 years work experience as more appropriate than 3 years. 2 responses suggested that
the Electrical SSB inspectors should be qualified to deal with ATEX atmospheres and
other complex environments.
15
One respondent suggested inspectors gaining A1 assessor status, training (at least one
day per year) to keep up to date with regulations and standards with an external trainer
and completion of TV&C training and assessment with an external provider.
2 respondents suggested changing from the words ‘fully conversant’ to ‘detailed
knowledge’ in relation to the inspectors relationship with the wiring rules, building
regulations, health and safety legislation, DSO code of practice and other relevant
material.
2.7.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 6 respondents considered the current Electrical SSB inspectors
qualifications requirements as adequate. 4 respondents specified 5 years work
experience as being more appropriate than 3 years. The CER will discuss this suggested
change with the members of the Criteria document modification committee (ECCRP),
and proceed with this modification proposal as appropriate.
In relation to a number of responses regarding inspectors being qualified to deal with
ATEX atmospheres and other complex environments, the CER is cognisant that the
Electrical SSBs must upskill some of their inspectors in order to be able to deal with
inspections in these more complex environments. Discussions with the current Electrical
SSBs have already taken place in relation to this issue.
One respondent suggested inspectors gaining A1 assessor status, the CERs
understanding is that this is required to become a National Vocational Qualifications
(NVQ) Assessor in the United Kingdom. The CER would not see this as being a suitable
requirement for Electrical SSB inspectors. However the CER may look at requiring
inspectors to carry out lead auditor training to further enhance their auditing of RECs
certificates and test record sheets during the RECs annual audit and inspection.
This respondent also suggested that the Electrical SSBs inspectors should do training
(at least one day per year) to keep up to date with regulations and standards with an
external trainer. It is the Electrical SSBs role to ensure their inspectors are cognisant
with the appropriate standards and regulations. If the CER felt there was any issue with
inspectors’ knowledge in this area, this would be discussed with the Electrical SSBs and
appropriate actions taken. The CER would not see the suggestion of inspectors having
to sit a minimum of one day a year with an external trainer as being required going
forward.
The final suggestion of this respondent was that the Electrical SSBs’ inspectors should
undertake at least 3 days training and carry out the TV&C assessment with an external
provider. As set out in the Criteria document the CER requires the Electrical SSB
inspector to have completed a valid TV&C. The course and assessments offered by the
Electrical SSBs have been accepted by the CER as being appropriate to fulfil this
requirement but the CERs proposal to not allow Electrical SSB(s) from 2016 to run
16
training would ensure that Electrical SSB inspectors will not be able to sit training by the
Electrical SSB(s).
2 respondents suggested changing from the words ‘fully conversant’ to ‘detailed
knowledge’ in relation to the inspectors relationship with the wiring rules, building
regulations, health and safety legislation, DSO code of practice and other relevant
material. The CER’s view is that the current wording used is appropriate and reflects the
required level of knowledge of the relevant material by the Electrical SSBs’ inspectors.
2.7.3 CER Proposed Decision
In relation to the suggestion by respondents specifying 5 years work experience as
being more appropriate than 3 years, the CER is minded to discuss this suggested
change during 2015 with the members of the Criteria document modification committee
(ECCRP), and proceed with this modification proposal as appropriate.
The CER will continue to work with the Electrical SSBs in relation to upskilling some of
their inspectors in order to be able to deal with inspections in these more complex
environments. Going forward the CER may look at requiring inspectors to carry out lead
auditor training to further enhance their auditing of RECs certificates and test record
sheets during the RECs annual audit and inspection. The CER intends to discuss this
suggested change during 2015 with the members of the Criteria document modification
committee (ECCRP), and proceed with this modification proposal as appropriate
17
3.0 The Criteria Document
3.1 Criteria Document
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to the Criteria
Document.
Criteria Document
The CER requested comments from interested parties on the Criteria Document
in particular;
o What potential improvements could be made to the Criteria document?
o How should the CER communicate modifications which it intends to make
to the Criteria Document to industry stakeholders?
3.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 10 respondents commented on this question. One
respondent described how the current system for identifying, consulting and
implementing modifications in the Criteria document has worked well, but suggested
adding a search function in the electronic copy. 2 respondents suggested publicising
modifications via the internet. 2 respondents suggested publicising modifications using
news media, while another suggested face to face meetings with groups of contractors.
Another respondent suggested using the REC database to publicise modifications.
Another respondent suggested that any communications should include training
providers to ensure consistency.
One respondent proposed that TEEU be added to stakeholders consulted during the
modification process, another suggested that RECs should be given a voice at the
ECCRP meeting (where modifications are discussed).
One respondent suggested requesting ETCI to set up a technical committee to monitor
and amend content in the Criteria document. 2 respondents expressed concern at CERs
statement that ‘CER would reserve the right to make a change to the document without
going through these processes if that modification was deemed important from a safety
perspective’.
3.1.2 CER Response
The CER notes that a number of respondents suggested that the CER publicise
modifications via different means such as the internet, using news media and face to
face meetings. It was also suggested that any communications should include training
providers. The CER currently publishes any final modifications to the Criteria document
on its website along with the updated Criteria document. The final modifications are also
circulated to the members of the Criteria modification committee (ECCRP). The CER is
18
supportive of creating a mailing list which could circulate modifications and subsequent
updated Criteria document.
The CER is aware that another respondent suggested using the REC database to
publicise modifications. The CER would be open to getting the Electrical SSB(s) to
include modifications to the Criteria document in their newsletter to their RECs.
Notification through a newspaper was suggested by one respondent, although this would
reach a greater number of the general public, it may be excessive given the costs
involved (which would ultimately be passed on to the customer).
A number of respondent’s proposed new stakeholders (TEEU & RECs) that should be
included in the modification committee (ECCRP). The ECCRPs members currently
consist of ETCI, ESBN, Electrical SSBs and the CER. The CER considers the current
members as an effective reflection of relevant stakeholders but is open to examining
who this committee consists of going forward.
It was suggested by a respondent that ETCI should be requested to set up a technical
committee to monitor and amend content in the Criteria document. It is under CER’s
legal remit to develop and amend the Criteria document as required. The CER included
ETCI as part of the modification committee (ECCRP) so they could provide their
expertise; but the CER would not see any obvious advantage to a technical committee
being set up for this purpose.
In relation to responses which expressed concern at CERs statement that ‘CER would
reserve the right to make a change to the document without going through these
processes if that modification was deemed important from a safety perspective’. In
normal operations the CER consults with the members of the modification committee
(ECCRP) when processing potential modifications, but if an exceptional situation arises
whereby a modification is urgently required and vital from a safety perspective then the
CER reserves the right to make this required modification without following the usual
process, this is in order to fulfil our legislative safety remit as set out under the Energy
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in 2006.
3.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER view is that, in general, proposed modifications to the Criteria Document
should be consulted on widely. Where these are wide ranging or fundamental changes
the CER is of the view that public consultation is generally appropriate. Where the
changes are less significant, the CER is of the view that appropriate consultation can be
achieved through consultation with the ECCRP.
The CER may look at different ways of communicating final modifications such as
creating a mailing list which could circulate modifications and subsequent updated
Criteria document, and getting the Electrical SSB(s) to include modifications to the
Criteria document in their newsletter to their RECs. The CER’s view is that although
19
notification through a newspaper would reach a greater number of the general public, it
may be excessive given the costs involved (which would ultimately be passed on to the
customer). In relation to the membership of the modification committee (ECCRP) the
CER considers the current members as an effective reflection of relevant stakeholders
but will examine who this committee consists of going forward.
20
4.0 Technical Standards, Training and Assessments
4.1 Training
4.1.1
Summary of Comments Received
One respondent stated that the current arrangements are broadly satisfactory,
but no provision is made for a scenario where an applicant cannot produce
documentary evidence of their experience.
4.1.2
CER response
In the CER’s view there should be some form of verification of an applicant’s
experience prior to accepting them for registration with the Electrical SSB. The
current requirements, in place since 2009 and outlined in the Criteria Document,
are that applicants must have documentary evidence.
The CER is open to reviewing any proposals from industry regarding this
requirement, but is conscious that any change whereby an applicant was not
required to provide documentary evidence of their qualifications may not provide
sufficient verification regarding the suitability of the prospective Qualified
Certifiers.
4.2 Assessments
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to assessments.
Assessments
The CER invited comments from interested parties on whether the scope of
assessments should cover the full scope of controlled electrical works
4.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 16 respondents commented on this question. One
respondent suggested that an exam on the Wiring rules is covered in the apprenticeship
and that this course should focus on testing and verification. Another respondent
described how the TV&C course developed already prioritised part 6 of the Wiring rules.
One respondent described how certification documentation is different in explosive
atmospheres and would warrant further training. Another respondent stated that
21
Qualified Certifiers (QCs) should undergo assessments similar to gas operatives to
maintain and improve competence.
2 respondents suggested that the scope of the assessment should be directly related to
the type of work being carried out by the individual.
2 respondents mentioned if categories of registration were added that additional training
would have to be completed by RECs QC in these additional categories (e.g. HV).
One respondent mentioned how there is no reference to post training experience of new
QCs, with their practical application of knowledge gained in training.
Another respondent mentioned that the need for a newly qualified electrician to carry out
a further training course in certification and verification suggested a deficiency in the
training syllabus of FAS (Solas).
4.2.2 CER Response
The CER notes that a number of respondents pointed out that an exam on the National
Wiring Rules is covered in the electrical apprenticeship and that the TV&C assessment
focuses on part 6 of the National Wiring Rules (ET101).
It was suggested by respondents that the scope of the assessment should be directly
related to the type of work being carried out by the individual, this was similar to other
responses which specified that if categories of registration were added that additional
training would have to be completed by RECs QC in these additional categories. In a
scenario where additional categories are created for specialised areas (e.g. ATEX & HV)
the CER would see focused training/assessment of potential candidates relevant to
these areas as an appropriate step.
In relation to one respondent who stated that QCs should undergo assessments similar
to gas operatives, the CER’s view is that the requirements as currently set out are
currently adequate and appropriate for individuals operating as QCs. Any candidate who
wishes to act as a QC must meet the entry requirements as set out in the Criteria
document of having served a recognised apprenticeship as an electrician (National Craft
Certificate) or suitable equivalent award, and must complete the accredited TV&C
course and successfully complete the assessment.
One respondent mentioned how there is no reference to post training experience of new
QCs. One of the entry requirements stipulated in the criteria document is that the
applicant has completed a recognised apprenticeship as an electrician and being
awarded a National Craft Certificate (or another suitable award, equivalent to Level 6 or
higher on NFQ). The prospective QC would have this experience along with work
experience gained since qualifying as an electrician. In order for an individual to become
a QC as described above they must meet the entry requirements of the accredited TV&C
22
course and successfully complete the assessment. The accredited TV&C assessment
will have to be successfully completed again in 5 years’ time.
In relation to one respondent who commented on the need for a newly qualified
electrician to carry out a further training course in certification and verification, the CER
has discussed with FAS (Solas) the concept of including certification and verification in
the electrical apprenticeship syllabus in a manner which would make it consistent with
the accredited assessment. If this included, this would mean that a newly qualified
electrician would not have to re-sit the assessment for another five years.
4.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER is willing to look at focused training/assessment of QCs relevant to their
specialised areas if additional categories of registration are created in the future for
these areas (e.g. ATEX & HV).
The CER also proposes to amend the Criteria document to formalise the learning
outcomes of the current accredited courses. These Verification and Certification courses
are accredited by DIT and City and Guilds. The CER does not intend to modify these
learning outcomes at this time.
23
5.0 Membership
5.1 Individual Registration
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to membership.
Individual Registration of RECs
Whether there should be a move to individual registration for electrical
contractors.
5.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 16 respondents commented on this question. 9
respondents preferred the option of keeping the current system, but 5 of these did see
merit in an additional voluntary register (not compulsory) of individual electricians which
could allow for CPD. Reasons for not moving to individual registration included adding
costs to the industry and potentially reducing employment.
7 respondents were in favour of individual registration citing accountability for individual
electricians work. One of these put in the caveat of preferring the option of individual
registration if the scheme was starting from scratch.
One respondent went on to suggest in an individual registration scenario that each
electrician would need to complete the TV&C assessment, and that the cost should be
absorbed by the individual electrician. Other respondents suggested that the cost of this
training would ultimately be passed on to the end customer.
5.1.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant that 9 of the 16 respondents to this question favoured the option
of keeping the current system, while 7 respondents were in favour moving to individual
registration. It was in recognition of the unique characteristics of the electrical contracting
industry (i.e. electrical contractors operating as companies, as well as individual
electrical contractors) that the CER permitted group registration, allowing RECs to
register as companies as well as individual sole traders. This means the term REC refers
to an electrical contracting entity, which could be either an individual sole trader
operating as the electrical contractor or may be a larger operation, constituting many
individuals (e.g. general operatives, engineers and electricians). The CER’s view is that
this is the most suitable approach and best represents the electrical contracting industry
for now as it encompasses small, medium and large electrical contractors working in
different sections of the industry. Moving to individual registration of RECs is a relatively
big change, which may require change to primary legislation. The CER does not see any
need to move to an individual registration model now, with the current REC model (group
24
registration) helping to effectively deliver a regulated safety scheme in the electrical
industry while effectively accommodating its disparate characteristics.
In terms of the issue of accountability for work carried out by individual electricians
raised by those in favour of individual registration, ultimately the REC’s principle duty
holder is responsible for the personnel operating under the umbrella of the REC, and
must ensure they are suitably trained and competent. Also the QC must carry out
verification, testing and certification on all controlled electrical works carried out by the
REC.
The CER also notes that some of the respondents which were in favour of keeping the
current system did see merit in an additional voluntary register (not compulsory) of
individual electricians which could allow for CPD. The CER is in favour of CPD and
would encourage RECs to maintain records of their staff’s development but do not intend
to bring in any requirements in this regard.
5.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
Moving to individual registration of RECs would be a significant change, which may
require change to primary legislation, especially if it were to be implemented in a manner
which would allow disciplinary action to the taken against a REC’s employee. It would
also be a significant change to the industry and it would be appropriate to have further
consultation on this in any event.
The CER will give further consideration to this, including how it could be implemented
under the existing legal framework, but does not propose to implement any variation of
individual registration (that is, no move away from the current REC and QC model) in the
medium term.
5.2 Insurance
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to insurance.
Insurance
Should run on insurance be a membership requirement for all RECs?
5.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 6 respondents commented on this question. 3
respondents were not in favour of run-on insurance citing issues such as cost and
enforcement of any such requirement if the contractor is retired and no longer a member
of a regulatory body (Electrical SSB).
25
2 respondents considered it good practice, but it would have to be affordable and
economically viable.
5.2.2 CER Response
The CER notes that most respondents cited cost as a potential issue in relation to
adopting run-on insurance. One respondent raised the point of how any potential
requirement for run-on insurance could be enforced against individuals who are no
longer members of an Electrical SSB. The CER notes the sentiment put forward by most
respondents that it is best practice for a contractor retiring from the industry to adopt runon insurance. The CER will look at this issue further going forward.
5.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER will look further into this issue of run-on insurance.
5.3 Membership categories
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to categories of
membership.
Categories
Comments were requested on whether there should be more categories of
RECs.
5.3.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 20 respondents commented on this question. 12
respondents consider the current membership categories as adequate citing reasons
such as the Irish scheme not being large enough to support different categories,
additional costs and that such a move would restrict RECs in the work they do. One
respondent mentioned that a danger in introducing categories was short duration
courses emerging for different categories potentially allowing unqualified individuals
easy access to the scheme.
3 of these respondents suggested the current scheme was adequate to cover all areas
with the exception of ATEX environments due to onerous training required to work in this
area.
8 respondents were in favour of categories citing reasons such as easier recognition of
areas covered by the REC. Also different respondents suggested extra categories for
public lighting, HV, and inspection testing and certification.
26
One respondent suggested a sub category for specific purposes (lift installers,
switchgear assemblers, appliance repairers etc.) which would require a lower level of
training.
5.3.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant that 12 out of the 20 respondents to this question thought that
there should be no further categories of membership, while 8 respondents were in favour
of more categories. The CER’s view is that the regulated electrical scheme is not of a
sufficient scale to include an extensive range of categories of membership for RECs.
The cost of implementing such a system could be prohibitive for certain smaller
categories. Also in a scenario with multiple different categories of membership for RECs,
there could be confusion in the industry and among customers about what work different
categories of RECs could perform.
The CER notes that 3 of the respondents suggested that the current scheme was
sufficient to cover all areas with the exception of ATEX environments. The CER is
minded that the area of ATEX environments is particularly specialised due to the
potential risks posed and onerous training required to work in this area. However the
HSA under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations
2007 already addresses the safety of workers in potentially explosive atmospheres. The
National Wiring Rules for Electrical Installations in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres
(ET105) defines standards for the selection of equipment, installation, testing and
verification of installations where potentially explosive atmospheres may exist. The CER
is of the view that electrical installations in ATEX environments are adequately legislated
for from a safety perspective at the moment and currently does not see any benefit to
creating a category for RECs operating in this area but will review this position on an ongoing basis.
The CER acknowledges the suggestion of a sub category for specific purposes which
would require a lower level of training as suggested by one respondent. However the
proposal raises certain issues, for instance this could cause confusion in the industry
and among customers about what work these sub category RECs would be able to carry
out. Another issue is if these contractors (such as lift installers, switchgear assemblers,
appliance repairers etc.) require registration with an Electrical SSB, why can’t they
become a full REC under the current system. If this sub-category has less onerous entry
requirements than a full REC, then what benefits does it offer, for instance could a sub
category REC certify certain types of work, and if so, what kind. The CER have concerns
that facilitating this sub category could allow contractors who would not meet the entry
requirements of becoming a full REC circumvent this by becoming registered through
this category.
27
5.3.3 CER Proposed Decision
Following consideration of all comments received, the CER proposes to review the
system which is currently in place with the aim of introducing a limited number of
categories. This review will be carried out separately.
28
6.0 Controlled, Restricted and Minor Works
6.1 Controlled Electrical Works
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to Controlled
Works.
Controlled Electrical Works
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether they felt that there
should be amendments to the scope of controlled electrical works.
6.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 7 respondents commented on this question. 4
respondents considered the current scope of Controlled Works appropriate.
One respondent saw an opportunity for guidance to clarify the exact scope of Controlled
Works, and described potential confusion caused by requiring certification of ‘inspection
testing and certification’.
One respondent thought the CER should engage in further consultation on the scope of
Controlled Works in the near future.
Another respondent suggested that no Electrical SSB should be offering the Third Party
Inspection option for non-RECs to certify Controlled works.
6.1.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 4 of the 7 respondents to this question consider the current scope of
Controlled Works as appropriate and that one respondent thought the CER should
engage in further consultation on the scope of Controlled Works. The CER’s view is that
the current definition of the scope for Controlled electrical work is sufficient for the
scheme to achieve its safety objectives through certification. The range of electrical work
covered is of course very broad but the CER will continue to monitor this, and if the CER
is of the view that further electrical works currently outside the scope need to be added it
will propose these changes and consult with industry.
Controlled Electrical Works are works for which a certificate must be issued if carried out
by a REC. Non-RECs are not precluded from carrying out these works. On the other
hand only RECs can legally carry out electrical work covered by the scope of Restricted
Electrical Works. For instance as currently defined in Controlled Works accredited
29
inspection bodies are not excluded from carrying out their functions in commercial and
industrial environments, however as Restricted Works is currently defined accredited
inspection bodies would be prevented from operating in the domestic area unless they
become a REC.
In relation to one respondents submission about clarifying the exact scope of Controlled
Works, and the potential confusion caused by requiring certification of ‘inspection testing
and certification’. In the definition setting out the scope of Controlled Works, point
number 5 relates to the inspection, testing and certification of existing electrical
installations in accordance with chapter 62 of the National Wiring Rules. This would
relate to contractors carrying out periodic inspection reports (P.I.R). In this case the term
“certification” would mean the confirmation of certain characteristics of the existing
electrical installation which the P.I.R is being carried out on, the REC is confirming the
current condition/status of the existing installation but not actually certifying electrical
work previously carried out.
The CER notes that one respondent suggested that no Electrical SSB should be offering
the Third Party Inspection option for non-RECs to certify Controlled works. The
procedures and requirements of Third Party Inspections were extensively consulted on
and set out in Common Procedure No. 2 of the Criteria document. The CER does not
see any reason to change these procedures at present, but if any stakeholders wish to
submit a modification proposal setting out reasons why, the CER would process it
accordingly in conjunction with the ECCRP (Criteria document modification committee).
6.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER’s view is that the current definition of the scope for Controlled Electrical Work
is sufficient for the scheme to achieve its safety objectives through certification. The CER
will continue to look at the scope of Controlled Electrical Works and may introduce some
changes to the scope during the new designation period from 2016 onwards.
6.2 Restricted Electrical Works
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to Restricted
Works.
Restricted Electrical Works
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether parties felt that there
should be amendments to the scope of restricted electrical works.
30
6.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 11 respondents commented on this question. 9
respondents suggested expanding the scope of Restricted Works into differing areas
such as ATEX, agricultural, horticultural, MV, maintenance on complex electrical
installations and commercial areas. One of these respondents suggested Restricted
Works should be extended to cover all electrical works.
One respondent described how certain subsystems might be best verified and tested by
specialist contractors which might not be RECs (or based in this jurisdiction), and that in
some specialist environments certain competent accredited individuals should not be
precluded by not being RECs.
Also this respondent suggested expanding Restricted Works to cover installations which
fall under the scope of the 2005 Safety Health and Welfare at Work Act and the 2007
Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations. If the scope was
expanded it was suggested that the restriction should be based on whether an individual
is competent or not, rather than if they are a REC.
Another respondent suggested that accredited inspection bodies should be excluded
from the requirement to become a REC when inspecting electrical works in a restricted
area once the scope of accreditation includes periodic inspection.
Another respondent suggested advertising Restricted Electrical Works in electrical
wholesales along with the Safe Electric logo. This respondent also described the need to
hold electrical wholesalers liable for providing the general public with electrical
components.
6.2.2 CER Response
The CER notes that nine of the eleven respondents to this question suggested
expanding the scope of Restricted Works in to differing areas; with one of these
respondents suggesting that the scope of Restricted Works should cover all electrical
works. One of these respondents suggested expanding Restricted Works to cover
installations which fall under the scope of the 2005 Safety Health and Welfare at Work
Act and the 2007 Safety Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations.
The CER is also cognisant that 2 respondents suggested different areas (specialist
contractors & accredited inspection bodies) where contractors who are not RECs should
not be restricted from working in their respective areas.
The CER’s approach to regulating restricting electrical work has been based on a
phased approach, namely, introducing a defined scope in the first instance and then in
the longer term moving, following consultation, to a broader definition of Restricted Work
in the interests of safety and in line with legislation. It was determined that the scope of
Restricted Electrical Works had to be clearly established and that it was critical that it
was capable of being simply and easily communicated in the interests of ensuring it was
31
understood by the public and, therefore, complied with. In determining the scope of
Restricted Works to be defined a key risk identified was where there were untrained
personnel associated with the electrical installation that are not subject to any form of
regulation. This risk was seen as being greatest with respect to electrical installations in
a domestic setting where untrained personnel, be they homeowners or unregistered
contractors, could carry out Controlled Electrical Works in an existing electrical
installation which did not require connection to the electricity network by the DSO. The
CER appreciates that certain areas of electrical work present greater safety risks than
others, and going forward will consider expanding this scope and will consult with
industry on areas where it is felt that restricting activities to RECs will help increase
safety.
One respondent suggested that if the scope of Restricted Electrical Works was
expanded it was suggested that the restriction should be based on whether an individual
is competent or not, rather than if they are a REC. The CER was given the statutory
authority to regulate the activities of electrical contractors with respect to safety through
the implementation of the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act in 2006, which
amended the Electricity Regulation Act, 1999. In order to fulfil its regulatory obligations,
the CER undertook to design and develop a regulatory framework that would ensure that
defined electrical installations are carried out by competent electrical contractors to the
required Technical Standards and rules. Specifically, the 2006 Act introduced the
concept of Controlled (Specified) Electrical Works and Restricted (Designated) Electrical
Works, into the 1999 Act, which provided the CER with the basis for defining what
electrical works, would be considered for the purposes of the new regulatory system for
REC’s. Restricted Electrical Works are defined as works that only a REC can carry out,
the 2006 Act states “A person shall not carry out electrical works which are designated
(Restricted) electrical works unless that person is a registered electrical contractor”. It is
on this basis the CER set out the scope of Restricted Electrical Works, and limited the
defined area to RECs. The CER believes this method of restricting a defined area of
work to RECs is an effective way of improving safety in the industry, making any change
to Restricted Works as described by the respondent above would require changes to
primary legislation.
6.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER’s view is that the current definition of the scope for Restricted Electrical Work is
sufficient to improve electrical safety for customers in the scheme. The CER will consider
the scope of Restricted Electrical Works in the future (from 2016 onwards) following
further discussions and considers some of the points made by respondents as valid. This
will require further consultation with industry and the development of a S.I. and will not
happen in the short term.
32
6.3 Minor Electrical Works
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to Minor Works.
Minor Electrical Works
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether parties felt that there
should be amendments to the scope of minor electrical works.
6.3.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 9 respondents commented on this question. 3
respondents considered the scope of Minor Works adequate as it is. One of these
respondents suggested that clients should be informed of the risks in not using a REC.
One respondent does not believe that the wiring of heating control systems should be
covered under Minor works, citing the issue of RECs certifying installations where the
heating control system was not completed by them, and asking should a subsystem
certificate be provided to the main certifying REC by whoever completed the heating
system.
2 respondents suggested that the installation of prepayment meters should not be
covered under Minor Works, and belongs under Controlled Works.
3 respondents suggested that Minor Works should be removed altogether, from a safety
point of view, citing DIYers ability to safely undertake this electrical work.
6.3.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 3 of the 9 respondents to this question considered the scope of
Minor Works to be adequate, while another 3 respondents suggested that Minor Works
should be removed altogether. One respondent specifically mentioned the wiring of
heating control systems as not being suitable to be covered under Minor works.
Minor electrical works are exempt from Controlled and Restricted Works, and so one is
not required to be a REC to carry out minor electrical works. Minor works include the
addition of an accessory to an existing circuit, the replacement of an accessory in an
existing circuit and the relocation of an accessory in an existing circuit (for example
replace a light switch like for like, or move a light or add a socket to a circuit in a
domestic premises). Once this work is completed by a person who is suitably
trained/competent in installing and testing this work, it is acceptable. The CER
recommends certifying Minor Electrical Works but it is not compulsory (unless a
customer requests a cert from a REC for Minor Works carried out). A REC may
purchase a book of Minor work certificates from their registration body either RECI or
33
ECSSAI. The CER would recommend that if customers have any doubts in relation to
getting Minor electrical works carried out that they should hire a REC. In determining the
scope of Minor Works the CER is of the view they do not impose a significant safety risk
on the consumer, and therefore should be exempt from the scope of Controlled and
Restricted Electrical Works. Additionally, restricting Minor Electrical Works would
achieve very limited public safety benefits, whilst imposing a disproportionate cost on
customers.
Where a Registered Electrical Contractor (REC) installs a heating circuit at the
distribution board and brings it as far as a fused spur the CER considers it acceptable for
a heating engineer to spur off from this spur unit to the various components of the
heating system. After this point where the heating engineer spurs off for the heating
systems associated components it is considered Minor Electrical Works and certification
is not compulsory. Once the circuit is added to the distribution board and brought safely
to where the power is required to a fused spur by a REC with suitable protection and
cable sizing in line with the National Wiring Rules, it is acceptable to the CER. Once this
work is completed by a person who is suitably trained/competent in installing and testing
this work it is acceptable. As mentioned above the CER recommends certifying Minor
Electrical Works but it is not compulsory and if customers have any doubts in relation to
getting Minor electrical works carried out that they should hire a REC.
The CER is cognisant that 2 respondents suggested that the installation of prepayment
meters should be covered under Controlled Works and should not be considered a Minor
Electrical Work. The CER considers the installation of prepayment meters as a major
installation and is therefore a Controlled Electrical Work and certified accordingly. The
“Declaration of Compliance with ET101 for Minor Electrical Installation Works” more
popularly known as the Minor Works cert is currently being completed by some RECs
who are installing prepayment meters, but these do not provide a third copy of the
results, which should be sent to the Electrical SSB for validation purposes as outlined in
Common Procedure number 1 of the Criteria document. The use of a certificate
designed for Controlled Electrical Works would remedy this issue and provide the
certifying REC with a 3 part certificate to record the test results, one for the REC, one for
the customer and finally a copy for the REC’s Electrical SSB, so the certificate results
can be validated. The CER are in discussions with ETCI in relation to the development of
a cost effective non-DSO <50kVA certificate, it is envisaged that the use of this
certificate would be adopted once introduced for all non-DSO (non-DSO meaning no
requirements for electricity connection or re-connection from the Distribution System
Operator, currently ESBN) work, including the certification of the installation of
prepayment meters which would be validated by the relevant Electrical SSB.
6.3.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER’s view is that the current scope of Minor Electrical Works is correct for now as
it sufficiently balances public safety benefits whilst not imposing a disproportionate cost
on customers. The CER will continue to look at this scope and may introduce some
34
changes to the scope during the new designation period from 2016 onwards. If
amendments are made to this area this would likely be through the examination of
restricted electrical work as outlined in section 6.2.3.
35
7.0 Electrical Works by Unregistered Individuals
7.1 Detection
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to detection of
unregistered individuals.
Detection of Unregistered Individuals
Comments were requested regarding mechanisms which could be utilised to
detect cases of illegal electrical works.
7.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 7 respondents commented on this question. 3
respondents suggested a public awareness campaign to promote reporting illegal
electrical works.
One respondent suggested adding a telephone helpline for reporting illegal electrical
work.
Another respondent suggested that if the scope of Restricted Electrical Works was
expanded beyond domestic premises into the workplace environment that there could be
scope for utilising additional mechanisms to detect and report illegal electrical works.
2 respondents were satisfied with the current detection mechanisms.
7.1.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 2 respondents were satisfied with the current detection
mechanisms, while 4 respondents suggested further measures. 3 of these suggested
doing a public awareness campaign to promote reporting illegal electrical works. One
respondent suggested adding a telephone helpline for reporting illegal electrical work. In
carrying out a public awareness campaign around the electrical safety scheme the CER
promotes visiting the Safe Electric website for more information. This website contains
the online reporting form for reporting illegal electrical work (it also gives the option to
download a pdf document to print off a hard copy and fill in manually to send in). This
allows members of the public to report potential illegal electrical works anonymously.
This has proved effective, with the CERs Electrical Investigation Officer (EIO) receiving
reports from the public on illegal electrical works. The CER recently had a successful
prosecution in the electrical area.
36
The CER sees the merit of promoting the reporting mechanism on illegal electrical works
and will continue to promote the Safe Electric scheme and requirements through a public
awareness campaign involving TV, radio, press and online media. The CER sees the
merit of the suggestion by a respondent to create a telephone helpline for reporting
illegal electrical work. As things currently stand members of the public are welcome to
ring the CER, to report or to seek clarifications about potential illegal electrical works via
telephone. The CER is constantly reviewing how best to allow members of the public
report potential illegal electrical work or report contractors illegally portraying themselves
as a REC, as the scope of Restricted Electrical Works potentially expands going forward
the CER are open to looking at new possible reporting mechanisms.
7.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER is satisfied that the current reporting mechanisms for unregistered individuals
have worked well but will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the current reporting
mechanisms and will continue to look at new possible reporting mechanisms going
forward. The CER recently had a successful prosecution in the electrical area.
37
8.0 Certification & the Role of ETCI
8.1 ETCI Certification
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to the certification
system.
ETCI
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether the CER should
continue to use ETCI certification or should a process be implemented whereby
the Electrical SSB(s) would provide the certificates without sourcing them from a
third party.
8.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 15 respondents commented on this question. 11
respondents were in favour of continuing to use ETCI certification citing reasons such as
ETCI’s contribution to electrical safety and the point that the costs associated with what
ETCI do in respect to electrical safety would still need to be covered by some other
body. One of these respondents also supported the extension into MV rules by ETCI,
mentioning how it would require a different industry model in order to manage the
content of the various certificates. Another one of these respondents also suggested in a
scenario where ETCI certification was no longer used that clarity with regard to copyright
might need to be obtained if the intention was to use a replica of the current ETCI
certificate.
One respondent suggested that in a scenario where ETCI was not in a financial position
to maintain ET101 Ireland could find it is unable to influence future European electrical
standards; however Ireland could choose to adopt another standard such as BS 7671 or
CENELEC HD 60364. This respondent also suggested that if funding for ETCI could be
maintained through alternative means then this could save RECs money through
cheaper certification.
One respondent suggested that the Electrical SSB(s) could print the certificates directly
under licence from ETCI, and pay ETCI the same amount of money as it would have
made by printing and selling the certificates to the Electrical SSB(s) itself. Advantages
cited in this suggestion included avoiding costs of storage, handling and delivery of
certificates. Another respondent suggested a system where certificates are available
from a third party with an alternate funding system to allow ETCI continue their work in
the area of the National Wiring Rules.
One respondent suggested that ETCI should be subsumed into the NSAI citing how the
current setup seems like a duplication of resources/bodies and might be better if
streamlined. Another respondent described how ETCI should be retained independently
or integrated into NSAI, but in either case certificates should be issued by ETCI. This
respondent also suggested that ETCI should be asked to produce a standard Test
Record Sheet instead of the Electrical SSB ones currently being used.
38
8.1.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant that 11 of the 15 respondents who commented on this question
favoured CER continuing to use ETCI certification in the electrical scheme.
The CER recognises and appreciates the contribution made by ETCI members in the
area of electrical safety in Ireland preceding the CER’s involvement and now while
operating largely on a voluntarily basis. However the CER does have certain
reservations in relation to the current arrangement.
These are discussed further within the proposed decision paper (CER/14/757).
8.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER’s proposed decision on this matter is outlined within Section 9 of the proposed
decision paper (CER/14/757).
8.2 Electronic Certification System
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to the electronic
certification system.
Electronic Certification Scheme
The CER sought views from interested parties on the electronic completion
certificate system.
8.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 13 respondents commented on this question. All 13
respondents were in favour of the introduction of a new electronic certification system
covering all certificate types citing reasons such as facilitating compliance, improving
efficiency and reducing costs.
7 of these respondents also specified that a paper based system should also be offered,
with the electronic system not being mandatory citing the issue of all RECs not being
computer literate. 7 of the respondents were in favour of use of the electronic system
being mandatory but suggested that it should be brought in on a phased basis, with
paper certificates phased out gradually.
4 respondents suggested all Electrical SSB(s) should be required to offer and promote
the electronic certification system.
39
3 respondents also suggested that HV certificates once approved should be built into the
electronic system, one of these respondents also suggested that ATEX should also be
included.
8.2.2 CER Response
The CER notes that all 13 respondents to this question were in favour of the introduction
of an electronic certification system covering all certificate types. The CER considers the
development of an electronic certification system covering all certificate types as an
important progressive step which would help facilitate compliance. The CER accepts that
a paper based system should also be offered to RECs with the electronic system not
being mandatory, so any contractors who may not be computer literate are not excluded.
The CER would favour incentivising the electronic certification system over the paper
based system, with the electronic system envisaged to replace the majority of the paper
based system on a phased basis. This may be appropriate if, for example, there are
lower administrative costs for the Electrical SSB associated with electronic certificates.
Going forward the CER would see all Electrical SSB(s) being required to offer and
promote the new electronic certification system. In relation to respondents who
suggested other certificates which they considered should be built into the electronic
certification system, the CER would envisage the electronic system being capable of
providing all required certificates as set out under the definition of Controlled Electrical
Works. Going forward if new certificates become approved after the new electronic
certification system is already operational the system could be updated to include these.
8.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
In light of the operational efficiency gains which could be realised and possible more
effective compliance, for example, in relation to monitoring and closing out outstanding
PCTs the CER proposes to have a new electronic certification system capable of
providing certificates for all Controlled and Minor Works developed.
8.3 Non-Compliances
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to noncompliances in relation to certification.
Non-Compliances Relating to Certification
The CER sought views from interested parties on non-completion of post
connection tests and the non-issuance of certificates.
40
8.3.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 11 respondents commented on this question. 4
respondents suggested using a public awareness campaign citing increasing awareness
of the importance of the post connection tests and the value of the certificate to the
customer.
3 respondents suggested that the establishment of an upgraded electronic certification
system will assist in reducing non-compliances, giving greater control in the monitoring
and return of post connection certificates.
3 respondents suggested that random spot checks should be carried out to ensure
completion certificates and test record sheets are fully compliant. Another respondent
suggested increasing the assessment/surveillance regime on any RECs identified as not
certifying their work.
One respondent suggested that insurance companies would seek on their forms a
completion certificate for any electrical works completed in the applicant’s house over
the previous 12 months. Another respondent suggested offering discounts on insurance
or electricity bills to people who report details of electrical work carried out and its
certification.
One respondent described how compliance has improved among RECs in relation to the
return of post connection certificates since the introduction of procedures whereby
processing of further certificates for the non-compliant REC are blocked.
One respondent suggested fining RECs a standard amount (€100) for not carrying out
post connection tests and returning the respective certificate as required. It was
suggested that the Electrical SSB(s) could retain 25% of the charge, with the remainder
remitted to CER to police implementation of REC legal requirements.
8.3.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 4 respondents suggested using a public awareness campaign to
increase awareness of the importance of the post connection tests and the value of the
certificate to the customer. The CER continues to run the Safe Electric public awareness
campaign; this highlights the message that the REC should issue a certificate. This
message has been communicated through media such as TV, press, radio and online.
The importance of completing post connection tests has been continuously highlighted
to the RECs, with correspondence to RECs and homeowners regarding outstanding post
connection tests outlining their importance.
3 respondents suggested that the establishment of an upgraded electronic certification
system will assist in reducing non-compliances. The CER in having a new electronic
certification system developed is hopeful it contributes to reducing non-compliances
through further incentivising RECs to certify all their work and also facilitating more
efficient monitoring by the Electrical SSB(s).
3 respondents suggested that random spot checks should be carried out to ensure
completion certificates and test record sheets are fully compliant. The Electrical SSB
41
inspects each REC once a year during which the inspector audits the RECs certificates.
It is the CER’s view that there is no benefit to spot checks of documentation, as
compliance in this area can be verified or otherwise through the annual audit and
inspection of the REC by their Electrical SSB.
Another respondent suggested increasing the assessment/surveillance regime on any
RECs identified as not certifying their work. The CER are in favour of a risk based
system whereby RECs that are identified with non-conformances are prioritised from an
assessment and surveillance perspective but believes it is important to have at least one
inspection per annum.
One respondent suggested fining RECs a standard amount (€100) for not carrying out
post connection tests and returning the respective certificate as required. The CER will
continue to enforce the requirement that all post connection tests are carried out and the
certificates containing these results are returned by the REC for validation to their
respective Electrical SSB. The CER notes that the option of fining RECs for noncompliances was never envisaged in the primary legislation or subsequently set out in
the Criteria document.
8.3.3 CER Proposed decision
The CER recognises that compliance is important to the scheme and so measures
ensuring this compliance are vital. The CER intends to facilitate a new electronic
certification system developed which will contribute to reduced non-compliances in
relation to certification. The CER may consider moving more to a risk based model in the
future.
42
9.0 Public Awareness
9.1 Safe Electric Brand
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to the Safe
Electric brand.
Branding
The CER sought views from interested parties on what actions the CER should
take to publicise the Safe Electric brand?
9.1.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 8 respondents commented on this question. 7
respondents were in favour of continuing the public awareness campaign across multiple
media. One of these respondents also suggested using social media and that the Safe
Electric brand should be the only customer facing brand.
Another one of these respondents suggested that the CER should also partner
strategically with other organisations to help explain the significance of the Safe Electric
brand. One of these respondents suggested adding a caveat to the Safe Electric
message being advertised advising customers to review the REC register online before
hiring a REC to ensure that the REC continues to have valid insurance.
One respondent suggested that every electrical wholesaler should display the Safe
Electric logo and information on restricted electrical works.
9.1.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 7 respondents were in favour of continuing the public awareness
campaign to continue to publicise the Safe Electric brand. The CER intends to continue
to raise awareness of the Safe Electric logo and message through the media campaigns.
These have helped raise awareness of the brand and the regulated electrical scheme
among the general public.
The use of social media was suggested by a respondent. The CER would consider this
option and may utilise it if it is of the view that it increases awareness of the Safe Electric
brand and safety message. It was also suggested that the Safe Electric brand should be
the only customer facing brand. The CER sees merit in this suggestion, in that it may
reduce potential confusion for the general public. The current situation where there is a
Safe Electric brand along with the 2 current Electrical SSB brands may be confusing to
people outside of the industry looking to hire a REC. Having Safe Electric as the only
43
customer facing brand would mean that any Electrical SSB(s) would assume the Safe
Electric identity. An advantage of this would be that the Safe Electric brand would remain
a constant, so whatever body(s) becomes designated would not be introducing different
brands to the public.
In relation to one respondent’s suggestion that every electrical wholesaler should display
the Safe Electric logo and information on restricted electrical works. The CER sees the
merit of this suggestion, in increasing awareness among people potentially purchasing
electrical equipment of the current electrical requirements such as how it is illegal for a
non-REC to portray themselves as a REC or to carry out Restricted Electrical Works.
The CER has no control over electrical wholesalers but will look into this suggestion
going forward.
9.1.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER intends going forward that the Safe Electric brand will be the only customer
facing brand of the Electrical SSB(s) when carrying out core activities. The CER will
continue to publicise the Safe Electric logo and message through the media campaigns.
The CER will look into the suggestion that electrical wholesalers could publicise the Safe
Electric logo.
9.2 Use of the Safe Electric logo
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to the mandatory
use of Safe Electric logo.
Mandatory Use of Safe Electric Logo
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether it should be made
mandatory for an REC to display the Safe Electric logo on their vehicle?
9.2.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 8 respondents commented on this question. 6
respondents suggested that the use of the Safe Electric logo by RECs on their vehicle
should not be mandatory citing security concerns, opening up the possibility of REC
vehicles being targeted.
Another respondent did not specify if use of the logo should be mandatory, but did
suggest it should be made a prominent logo to be displayed in a variety of ways and led
by collective industries.
One respondent was in favour of making it compulsory to display the Safe Electric logo
citing how every opportunity should be taken to promote the Safe Electric brand.
44
9.2.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 6 out of 8 respondents to this question suggested that the use of the
Safe Electric logo by RECs on their vehicle should not be mandatory. One respondent
favoured this proposal. The CER understands the security concerns raised by
respondents whereby having the Safe Electric logo displayed on a RECs vehicle may
draw attention to valuable equipment and facilitate a REC’s vehicles being targeted for
theft. While keen to promote the Safe Electric brand the CER would favour leaving the
display of the Safe Electric logo on a REC’s vehicle as optional, and down to the REC’s
discretion, but in a scenario where a REC puts their details on a vehicle identifying them
as an electrical contractor then they must display the Safe Electric logo. In a scenario
where the REC has the vehicle without any details displayed at all, or without details
which identify them as an electrical contractor then they do no need to display the Safe
Electric logo.
9.2.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER intends to have a requirement in place to ensure that where a REC displays
their details on their vehicle which identifies them as an electrical contractor, the Safe
Electric logo is also displayed.
9.3 Annual Logo
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to an annual
logo.
Annual Logo
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether references to the year
of registration should be included as part of or in addition to the logo.
9.3.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 7 respondents commented on this question. 4
respondents were not in favour of introducing an annual logo citing issues such as
increased cost. One of these respondents suggested that customers should check the
online REC register to ensure the contractor is still registered.
Another 2 of these respondents suggested alternative ways of capturing the year,
suggesting including it in the individual registration card (if introduced) and in an annual
certificate of registration respectively.
3 respondents were in favour of the introduction of an annual logo. With one of these
respondents specifying that the Safe Electric logo should be modified to incorporate the
Electrical SSB’s annual logo.
45
9.3.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 4 respondents were not in favour of introducing a reference to the
year of registration in the Safe Electric logo, while 3 respondents were in favour of its
introduction. The CER sees as outlined by respondents both positive and negative
points to introducing an annual Safe Electric logo. On one hand there is additional cost
in updating the logo for renewal and printing each year. However the use of an annual
logo means an unregistered contractor using an old safe electric logo on their vehicle
displaying themselves as a REC would be more easily identified and potentially
prosecuted. The CER will consider this option going forward during the new designation
period from 2016 onwards.
2 of the respondents against the introduction of an annual Safe Electric logo on REC
vehicles suggested alternative ways of capturing the year, suggesting including it in the
individual registration card (if introduced) and in an annual certificate of registration
respectively. The CER would not see these alternatives as effective at highlighting
unregistered contractors displaying themselves as a REC.
One of the respondents in favour of the introduction of an annual logo specified that the
Safe Electric logo should be modified to incorporate the Electrical SSB’s annual logo.
The CER would have reservations that implementing this suggestion of a modified Safe
Electric logo designed to incorporate the Electrical SSB’s annual logo could cause
confusion amongst the general public. The CER would see it as optimum to keep these
logos separate.
9.3.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER does not propose to introduce the requirement of an annual logo at this time
because of administrative and cost implications. However the CER does recognise that
an unregistered contractor using an old safe electric logo on their vehicle displaying
themselves as a REC would be more easily identified and potentially prosecuted. The
CER will consider this option going forward during the new designation period from 2016
onwards.
9.4 Unique identifier
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to a unique
identifier.
Unique Identifier
The CER sought views from interested parties as to whether a unique identifier
e.g. REC number should be included as part of the Safe Electric logo.
46
9.4.1 Summary of Comments Received
Of the 29 responses received, 5 respondents commented on this question. 2
respondents were against the introduction of a unique identifier as part of the Safe
Electric logo citing reasons such as cost and administrative issues. One of these
respondents suggested that customers should check the online REC register to ensure
the contractor is still registered.
One respondent suggested the unique identifier should be included on the annual
certificate of registration.
One respondent was in favour of including a REC identification number as part of the
Safe Electric logo. Another respondent suggested the REC number could be part of the
Safe Electric logo but only if there were no additional costs to the REC.
One respondent described how introducing a unique identifier into the Safe Electric logo
had both pros and cons, aiding customers in checking if a contractor is registered but
being potentially misused by less scrupulous contractors.
9.4.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant of the 5 responses to this question. The CER appreciates that the
use of a unique identifier number would help customers in checking if a contractor is
registered. However from an administrative point of view implementing this proposal
would be very difficult. It would be very laborious and costly to print up batches of logos
with the unique identifier number as an appropriate number of contractors become
registered. This process in practice would be slow and resource intensive. The trade-off
between the benefit achieved versus the extra cost taken on would not appear to
support bringing in this measure.
As mentioned by one respondent the REC’s unique identifier number is already on their
annual certificate of registration. However the CER would still advise customers to
search for RECs on the Electrical SSB’s online register, this way they can be confident
that the contractor is still registered.
9.4.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER does not propose to introduce the requirement of a unique identifier at this
time, but will look at it in the future.
47
9.5 Branding
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to branding.
Branding
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether, assuming there were
to be more than one Electrical SSB in place from 2016 onwards, should the
Electrical SSBs be required to contribute to a joint list which could be hosted on
www.safeelectric.ie.
9.5.1 Summary of Comments received
Of the 29 responses received, 7 respondents commented on this question. 4
respondents were in favour of a joint REC register being on the Safe Electric website in
the event of more than one Electrical SSB being designated.
One respondent questioned if it would be possible for one of the Electrical SSBs to
immediately remove a member of theirs from the shared REC register when required
(insurance expired).
Another respondent suggested that consumers should be encouraged to use the central
website.
9.5.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 4 of the 7 respondents to this question favoured a joint REC register
being on the Safe Electric website in the event of more than one Electrical SSB being
designated. One respondent questioned if in this scenario if Electrical SSBs would be
able to update the shared register immediately. In a scenario of more than one Electrical
SSB being designated the CER would favour a joint list being hosted on
www.safeelectric.ie. The CER’s view is that this would be an optimal option cutting out
confusion caused by redirecting members of the public to different unfamiliar Electrical
SSB websites to access separate Electrical SSB registers. The CER considers a
combined REC register far more efficient and less confusing. In light of the promotional
efforts expended to publicise the Safe Electric brand and website, the CER’s view is that
it is most appropriate for a single combined REC register to reside there. In a scenario
where one Electrical SSB is designated there will be only one register, the CER’s view is
that it would be most appropriate to be situated on the Safe Electric website.
9.5.3 CER Proposed Decision
In a scenario of more than one Electrical SSB the CER favours a combined REC register
hosted on the Safe Electric site. In a scenario where one Electrical SSB is designated
there will be only one register, the CER’s view is that it would be most appropriate to be
situated on the Safe Electric website.
48
9.6 Restrictions on use of Electrical SSB logo
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to Electrical SSB
logo restrictions.
Electrical SSB logo restrictions
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether restrictions should be
put in place regarding the manner in which Electrical SSB(s) can use or promote
their own logo(s).
9.6.1 Summary of Comments received
Of the 29 responses received, 6 respondents commented on this question. 4
respondents were not in favour of restrictions being introduced around how the Electrical
SSB(s) can use or promote their logo as long as it is promoting electrical safety.
One respondent was in favour of the introduction of restrictions around how the Electrical
SSB(s) can use or promote their logo, and recommended the use of a sole brand which
is Safe Electric.
9.6.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant that 4 of the 6 respondents to this question did not favour
restrictions being introduced around how the Electrical SSB(s) use or promote their logo
as long as it promotes electrical safety, while one respondent favoured the introduction
of restrictions, and recommended the use of a sole brand which is Safe Electric. The
CER’s view is that in light of the launch and continuous promotion of the Safe Electric
brand and message that the co-existence of Electrical SSB logos may cause confusion
and dilute the safety message. These Electrical SSB logos are displayed by their RECs
(such as on vehicles, stationary, websites) with customers coming across these different
logos when looking for a REC. The CER is of the opinion that it would be beneficial to
have just one customer and REC facing brand, this would help ensure a more effective
and less confusing message to the public.
Also another consideration is that the current Electrical SSBs may not be the designated
Electrical SSB(s) from 2016 onwards, in this scenario any potential different newly
designated Electrical SSB(s) would subsequently introduce their brand adding to the
confusion. Having one brand Safe Electric, would solve this problem.
9.6.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER proposes to have just one customer and REC facing Electrical SSB brand,
Safe Electric.
49
9.7 Notifying Customers Regarding Outcomes
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to notifying
customers regarding outcomes.
Reports on Complaints
The CER sought views from interested parties on whether notifications regarding
the outcome of the disciplinary process should be provided to the complainant or
whether there should be a requirement that they be offered the opportunity to
attend the disciplinary panel.
9.7.1 Summary of Comments received
Of the 29 responses received, 6 respondents commented on this question. 5
respondents supported the proposal that the outcome of the disciplinary process is
provided to the complainant.
One of these respondents didn’t see any benefit in the complainant attending the
disciplinary hearing, except in the scenario where the complainant is called by the
disciplinary committee in a capacity to provide evidence.
One respondent described how notifications are currently sent to the complainant
regarding the outcome of a hearing and that attendance of the complainant is at the
discretion of the disciplinary committee.
9.7.2 CER Response
The CER notes that 5 out of the 6 respondents to this question supported the proposal
that the outcome of the disciplinary process is provided to the complainant, while one
respondent described how notifications are currently sent to the complainant regarding
the outcome of a hearing. One respondent didn’t see any benefit in the complainant
attending the disciplinary hearing, except in the scenario where the complainant is called
by the disciplinary committee in a capacity to provide evidence. The CER is open to
submitting this proposal to the ECCRP (Criteria document modification committee) and
allowing it to be discussed by its members and progressed as appropriate.
9.7.3 CER Proposed Decision
The CER does not propose to introduce this requirement, but is open to submitting this
proposal to the ECCRP (Criteria document modification committee) for consideration.
50
10.0 Interaction with Gas Installer Regulatory Scheme
10.1 A Joint Gas and Electrical SSB
In the consultation paper the following question was posed with regard to a joint Gas and
Electrical SSB.
Joint Electrical and Gas SSB
The CER sought views from interested parties on the option of one process
being utilised to designate a single organisation as both the Gas SSB and the
Electrical SSB.
10.1.1 Summary of Comments received
Of the 29 responses received, 11 respondents commented on this question. 6
respondents were in favour of facilitating the option of a single body undertaking the role
of both the Electrical and Gas SSB citing advantages such as reduced costs. One of
these respondents stated that separate processes should be used to designate the
respective gas and electrical bodies.
4 respondents were not in favour of facilitating the option of a single body undertaking
the role of both the Electrical and Gas SSB citing reasons such as allowing the separate
Electrical SSBs concentrate on their own role and area of expertise.
10.1.2 CER Response
The CER is cognisant of the 11 respondents to this question, with 6 respondents in
favour of a single body undertaking the role of both the Electrical and Gas SSB and 4
respondents not in favour of this option. The CER notes that there may be cost saving
efficiencies from having one body acting as both the Gas SSB and Electrical SSB.
However, having a joint designation process, whereby parties would be required to ‘bid
in’ for both functions, may reduce the pool of candidates interested in engaging in the
competitive process with the result that more expensive and/or less suitable Electrical
and Gas SSBs would be in place from 2016 onwards.
This is especially important given that the CER’s proposed decision to ensure that core
activities will be carried out on a not-for-profit basis which may already reduce the pool of
candidates interested in engaging in the competitive process.
The technical differences between the gas and electrical disciplines are noted, but these
could be overcome through the body having appropriate personnel to undertake relevant
activities.
51
Another concern to the CER would be that if say the gas or electrical designated body
was to be de-designated due to an issue in that respective scheme, this could lead to
the other scheme (be it gas or electrical) being unable to continue to operate due to
financial constraints (no longer having certain costs shared with the now de-designated
body).
10.1.2 CER Proposed Decision
The CER proposes to undertake one competitive process to designate a Gas SSB and a
separate competitive process regarding the electrical scheme.
For the avoidance of doubt, these two separate processes could still potentially result in
the same organisation being designated as a Gas SSB and an Electrical SSB.
52