A meter’s certificate is no longer sufficient evidence for billing
CHILE · POWER, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSITION
An InsightIA note · November 2026 · reissued on October 12, 2026
The Superintendencia de Electricidad y Combustibles, Chile’s sector regulator, brought charges against 2 bodies involved in certifying the Nansen N12U01 meter.
What changed
On September 21, 2026, the Superintendencia de Electricidad y Combustibles [SEC] brought charges against Certpro SpA and Underfire S.A., 2 bodies involved in certifying the Nansen N12U01 meter [V]. It alleges that they issued approval certificates with incomplete verification of the Protocolo de Ensayos (Testing Protocol): they allegedly failed to identify or properly record that the device also measures energy through the neutral conductor [V]. The model is installed at more than 56,000 Enel Distribución supply points, and the SEC has already instructed Enel to suspend billing for devices with anomalies, refrain from disconnecting service, and replace them [V].
What it reveals
The SEC states that the device has a measurement circuit in the phase conductor and another in the neutral conductor [V], and alleges that testing covered only the former [V]. Marta Cabeza, Superintendent, stated: "certification processes must verify all technical characteristics that may affect a meter’s operation and accuracy" [V].
During its inspection, the SEC found that certain meters continued recording energy with the apartments’ main circuit breaker switched off [V]. The investigation began with complaints of excessive charges in Pudahuel [V].
Our hypothesis is that current practice is to accept readings from a meter model once, on the strength of a third-party certificate, and use them for billing [H]. What this fails to capture is when that acceptance ceases to match what the device measures: the investigation was opened following complaints of excessive charges [V], and Enel reported its own detection within that inspection process [V], so the signal that opened the case arrived after billing [D]. Structured as a Decision System, Execution on Decision Systems would compare each record every month against a signal independent of the certificate and stop using that meter model’s readings for billing when a deviation appeared [H]. A distributor already doing this that detected the anomaly before any complaint would refute the hypothesis.
The chain has at least 4 links that could have failed: the manufacturer, the party that issued the Protocolo de Ensayos, the certifiers, and the distributor [H]. The protocol and the 2 resolutions would distinguish between the alternatives.
If the failure were in the protocol’s design, the certifiers would have complied and the defect would extend to other models approved through the same route [H]. The responses to the charges from Certpro and Underfire and the SEC’s resolution would distinguish between the alternatives.
Which decision is affected
Who decides: the head of metering at a distributor
What they decide: whether to bill on the basis of a certified meter’s record, and what evidence supports that charge in response to a complaint from customers or authorities
What changed in that decision: their judgment, and with it the evidence they need — their own, the manufacturer’s, the certifiers’ — to accept the energy delivered and the associated charges as correct
A third-party certificate is no longer, by itself, evidence that the measurement is valid [D]. This week, the share of the installed fleet corresponding to that model and its approval route can be reviewed. Where meter testing is inherited from a third party, billing could be based on a test the company did not perform [D].
The question
What share of your meter fleet is currently covered by your own testing of the neutral conductor circuit?
Sources
SEC, "SEC formula cargos a Certpro y Underfire por eventuales incumplimientos en la certificación de medidores" (SEC brings charges against Certpro and Underfire for possible noncompliance in meter certification), September 21, 2026 · https://www.sec.cl/sec-formula-cargos-a-certpro-y-underfire-por-eventuales-incumplimientos-en-la-certificacion-de-medidores/ · reopened on October 12, 2026
SEC, "SEC formula cargos a Enel por medición irregular que podría afectar a más de 56 mil clientes" (SEC brings charges against Enel over irregular measurement that could affect more than 56 thousand customers), September 14, 2026, the preceding charge in the same chain, which records the temporary prohibition on marketing the batches under investigation · https://www.sec.cl/sec-formula-cargos-a-enel-por-medicion-irregular-que-podria-afectar-a-mas-de-56-mil-clientes/
SEC, website news index, where the 2 notes appear with their dates · https://www.sec.cl/feed/
Evidence markers: [V] verified against a primary source · [D] derived · [H] hypothesis. The supporting evidence book, with 1 row per unit of claim, is kept in this piece’s file.
The 2 proceedings remain at the charges stage, which is an allegation with a resolution pending. What the note attributes to the test is what the charge says, rather than a proven fact
The Protocolo de Ensayos was not opened, and no verified claim in this note depends on its text
When Enel detected the anomaly is not recorded. The note of September 14 says that Enel reported its detection to the SEC "within the inspection process", and does not date that detection. The note therefore states only the sequence of the signal that opened the case — the billing complaint — rather than claiming that Enel detected it late
This is a reissue _r2: it retains the event, figures, supporting evidence book, and sources of the version published on September 28, and adds F0 cuts 4 and 5 in movement 2. The original LinkedIn post is not republished