关于印发江门市安全用电管理暂行规定的通知
广东省江门市人民政府
江府［2006］29号
关于印发江门市安全用电管理暂行规定的通知
各市、区人民政府，市直各单位：
《江门市安全用电管理暂行规定》业经市政府十二届三十四次常务会议审议通过，现印发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。
江门市人民政府
二○○六年七月十一日
江门市安全用电管理暂行规定
第一章 总 则
第一条 为加强安全用电管理，保障电力设施安全运行，保证电网安全，根据《中华人民共和国安全生产法》、《中华人民共和国电力法》、《电力设施保护条例》、《电力监管条例》、《用电检查管理办法》等法律、法规、规章和国家电力行业技术标准，结合本地实际，制定本规定。
第二条 本规定适用于本市行政区域内的安全用电管理。本市行政区域内，电力供应企业（以下称供电企业）和电力使用者（以下称用户）以及与电力供应使用有关的单位和个人，必须遵守本规定。
第三条 安全用电管理工作由各级人民政府负责，各级电力管理部门和安全监管部门是本级人民政府安全用电管理的工作部门。
第四条 任何单位和个人有权举报、制止危害用电安全的行为。
第二章 安全用电管理职责
第五条 电力管理部门安全用电管理职责
（一）宣传、普及电力法律法规和安全用电常识。
（二）监督国家有关电力供应与使用政策、方针的执行，坚持安全第一、预防为主，监督供电企业和用户制定与完善安全用电管理的各项规章制度，落实安全责任制。
（三）对用户进行用电安全检查，加强电气设备安全用电管理，督促用户消除用电不安全因素，提高安全用电水平。
（四）依法查处危害电力安全违法行为和事故隐患，并作出行政处罚或限期整改。
第六条 供电企业安全用电管理职责
（一）执行国家及电力管理部门颁布的电力法律、法规、政策和电力技术规程、行业管理标准中有关安全用电工作的规定。
（二）接受电力管理部门对安全用电的监督和管理。协助电力管理部门制订安全用电管理规章制度及宣传、普及安全用电知识。
（三）依法开展安全用电检查工作，限期整改事故隐患。
（四）建立健全安全用电工作的基础资料、用户档案和保障安全用电的工作制度。
第七条 用户安全用电管理职责
（一）执行国家及电力管理部门的电力法律、法规、政策和电力技术规程、行业管理标准以及有关安全用电工作的规定。
（二）接受和配合电力管理部门对安全用电的监督管理，接受和配合供电企业依法开展的用电检查和对承装、承修、承试电力设施的验收。
（三）做好预防事故工作，制定并落实反事故措施。若发生事故必须保护事故现场，配合做好对事故的调查和处理工作。
（四）在用户的受电装置或送电装置上从事电气安装、试验、检修、运行等作业的人员,必须取得国家规定的相关证件。
（五）用户应加强对用电设备的安全管理，严格按有关安全用电的规定进行设计、安装、试验、检修和运行管理，以保证用电的安全。
第三章 受电工程安全质量管理
第八条 本章中所称受电工程是指用户自行投资建设并与电力系统有直接电联系的电力设施工程。
第九条 新装、增容和改建的用户必须向供电企业进行申请，按规定办理手续，经审核同意后，方能组织施工，经中间检查、竣工验收合格后方能接入配电网。
第十条 接入供电企业电网的供电设计和安装委托应报供电企业认可。受用户委托进行受电工程设计和安装的单位应具备规定的等级资质，设计单位应具备相应的电力工程设计资质证书，安装单位应具备《承装（修）电力设施许可证》和《安全生产许可证》。受用户委托的承装（修、试）单位在办理工程委托时应按规定提交有关资料给供电企业核对。
第十一条 用户办理新装申请时，涉及有新建建筑物的施工临时用电，应提交项目批准文件、规划部门颁发的《建设用地规划许可证》、环保部门颁发的环境影响评价批复等证明；正式用电，应提交项目批准文件和规划部门颁发的《建设工程竣工规划验收合格通知书》。
第十二条 对于住宅小区等配网规划应与城市规划相符，并报行政规划部门审批。经批准后的线路走向和供电设施位置不能随意更改。确需更改的，应报原批准机关审批，并进行公示。严禁将临时基建用电转供给住宅用电户使用。为防止烂尾楼转供电现象的出现，应同时落实住宅小区的临时基建供电方案和永久供电方案，对临时基建用电进行严格管理，供电企业可视情况根据国家有关规定予以停止转供电。
第十三条 受电设备装置应符合国家和行业的产品技术标准，适合电网和用户用电发展的需要，选用技术先进、质量可靠、维护方便、经济适用、节能的设备和产品，不得采用国家明令淘汰的设备产品。
为确保安全生产，受电工程的技术标准及设备选型应符合江门供电营业区的电网运行要求以及规划、建设、消防和环保等部门要求。结合江门实际，受电工程的设计标准不宜低于省电力行业协会制定的典型设计标准。
用户应健全受电设备管理制度，制定运行管理规定，包括现场操作规定，设备日常巡视检查规定，设备运行维护检修规定等。定期进行电气设备的检验、维护和消缺，确保设备健康。
第十四条 在供电企业拥有产权或维护管理的电气设施（设备）上进行作业的，按国家规程规定办理工作票和操作票（工作票签发人、工作负责人须经供电企业认定方为有效），严禁无票作业。
第十五条 受电工程施工单位应有施工组织方案（含组织措施和安全措施），施工过程中应按市政要求设置围栏和警告标示，必须按照有关规定进行安全作业。
第十六条 供电企业用电检查人员应随时对受电工程作业现场进行抽查。当检查发现有事故隐患的、无证上岗的或不按规程操作的，检查人员应及时向电力管理部门报告，要求施工单位纠正。
凡隐蔽工程部分，必须提出中间查验，且中间查验合格后才能进行后续工程施工。否则，供电企业不予对竣工工程查验。
用户受电工程施工、试验完工后，应向供电企业提出工程竣工报告，报告除条文规定的以外，还应包括：建设单位及施工单位的验收证明、试验单位的承试资质、试验人员的资格证书、试验设备的年检合格证书；现场作业人员的作业证书；承装（修、试）单位与业主签订的工程保修合同；工程监理资料。如有不符合规定的，改正后予以检验，直至合格。
查验时，要根据规划、建设、环保和消防等部门的要求进行综合查验。
第十七条 供电单位要统筹安排受电工程接入电网时间，以减少停电对广大用户的影响。装表接电业务由供电企业的用电营业机构统一归口办理。
第四章 电力设施保护和安全运行
第十八条 各行政机关、企事业单位、社会团体和个人应增强社会公德和法制观念，提高安全意识，共同维护本市电力设施，确保安全运行。
第十九条 电力设施产权单位应采取安全防护措施，防止在电力设施上发生人身触电损害事故和遭受外力破坏。
第二十条 任何单位和个人应保证电力线廊道畅通，不得在架空电力线路保护区内规划院基、建筑房屋、种植危及电力设施安全运行的树木，不得堆放谷物、草料、垃圾、易燃物、易爆物，不得倾倒酸、碱、盐及其它影响安全供电的物品，不得烧窑、烧荒。
架空电力线路保护区:导线边线向外侧水平延伸并垂直于地面所形成的两平行面内的区域，在一般地区各级电压导线的边线延伸距离为：1－10千伏5米，35-110千伏10米，220千伏15米，500千伏20米。
第二十一条 单位和个人在工程施工中需开挖路面的，应事先知会供电企业，并采取安全措施，确保地下电缆管线不受损坏。
第二十二条 输（配）电线路附近的建筑工地应严格做好安全监护工作，在靠近导线侧安装严密的防护设施，悬挂警示牌，防止触碰导线、杆塔而发生事故。
大型车辆、吊车、吊机在线路下通过或在线路附近进行搬运作业时，应严格执行操作规程，做好安全预防措施，防止触碰导线、杆塔而发生事故。
第二十三条 行驶在江河的船只应严格按航道行驶，避免触碰过河架空输电线，不得在有过江电缆的河面上抛锚，船只通过跨河电力线路时，应及早放下桅栏杆；机动车辆行驶或田间作业时，不得碰撞电杆和拉线。
第二十四条 有关管理机构或经营单位，应对本机构或本单位在电力高压线经过的道路两旁设置的各类广告牌进行安全检查，避免发生倒塌而损坏电力线路。不得以广告牌等装修物覆盖低压电力线路。
第二十五条 电力高压线附近的蔬菜及植物的遮盖物和薄膜类物件应绑扎牢固，防止脱落后被风卷至导线上引起事故。
第二十六条 广播线路、电讯网络线、电视天线等不得与电力线同杆架设或混线。为避免人身触电、财产损坏等事故，已同杆架设者应拆除。通信线、广播线和电力线进户时要明显分开。
第二十七条 为保障电力设施安全运行，严禁下列行为：
（一）在输电线路附近放风筝和航空模型等；在输电线路附近售卖、飘放氢气球或飘挂彩带等可能危及线路安全的物品。
（二）向电力线路设施射击或抛掷物体。
（三）在距电力设施周围水平距离500米以内的范围内进行爆破作业。
（四）靠近电杆挖坑或取土，在电杆上栓牲畜。
（五）在电力线路上挂晒衣物。
（六）攀爬、跨越电力设施的保护围墙或遮栏。擅自攀爬杆塔或在杆塔上架设电力线、通信线、广播线或安装广播喇叭。
（七）利用杆塔、拉线作重牵引地锚。
（八）在杆塔内（不含杆塔与杆塔之间）或杆塔与拉线之间修筑道路。
第二十八条 严禁盗窃和破坏电力设施，危及电力安全运行和公共安全。
第五章 安全用电
第二十九条 安全用电应遵守以下规定：
（一）严禁私接电网和私拉乱接用电设备。
（二）严禁私自改变低压系统运行方式，禁止采用“一相一地”方式用电。
（三）严禁使用挂钩线、破股线、地爬线和绝缘不合格的导线接电。严禁使用花线作固定电源线。
（四）严禁金属外壳无接地装置的用电设备投入运行，低压用电设备应安装漏电保护开关。
（五）严禁带电修理设备，禁止单人带电作业，必须进行带电作业时，应在技术熟练的电气人员监护下，严格按照操作规程落实安全措施后方可进行。
（六）严禁带电移动电气设备。危险场所的照明电压不得超过36伏。在特别危险的金属容器，如锅炉、蒸发加热器和管道等（内）工作时，照明电压不得超过12伏。易燃易爆物品的生产车间、仓库的用电应符合防爆要求。
（七）严禁约时停送电，停送电必须严格执行有关制度，不得擅自调整配电变压器抽头和操作、拆除、变更、迁移供电企业高低压设备。
（八）家庭用电严禁拉临时线和使用带插座的灯头。
第三十条 临时用电设备的安装应符合安全技术规程规定，并加装漏电保护装置。所有临时用电线路必须符合用电要求，要有安全措施，并有专人负责，用电完毕须断电拆除。
第三十一条 发现电力线断落时，不要靠近；如距离导线的落地点8M以内时，应及时将双脚并立，按导线落地点反方向跳离，并看守现场或立即找电工处理。
第三十二条 发现有人触电，不要赤手拉触电人，应尽快拉断开关或用绝缘或干燥材料断开电源，就地及时对触电者进行正确的人工呼吸法抢救，及时报打“120”抢救。
第三十三条 为防止电气火灾事故，应遵守下列规定：
（一）严禁在变配电场所内或配电柜、开关箱、计量箱等用电设备周围堆放易燃易爆等杂物。严禁用可燃物覆盖、遮盖电力线路。
（二）不得用铜线、铅线、铁线代替保险丝，保险丝要与电气设备的容量相匹配，不得随意换大或调细。
（三）用电负荷不得超过导线的允许载流量，发现导线有过热的情况，必须立即停止用电，并报告电工检查处理。
（四）各种过流保护器、剩余电流动作保护装置（漏电保护器），必须按国家和行业的有关规程的要求装配，保持其动作可靠。
（五）使用电热器具，应与易燃易爆物体保持安全距离，无自动控制的电热器具，人离去时应断开电源。
（六）发生电气火灾时，要先断开电源再行灭火，严禁用水熄灭电气火灾。
（七）各种营业场所、厂房车间以及住宅的电气设计和安装必须委托有相应设计、承装资质单位进行。
第六章 安全用电检查
第三十四条 电力管理部门应对辖区内用户进行定期或不定期用电安全检查，及时提出整改意见，用户应及时纠正。
第三十五条 供电企业对管辖的用户的用电设备,应进行定期或不定期用电安全检查，及时提出整改意见，用户应予以积极配合。用户接到供电企业下达的整改通知书，应及时按整改要求进行纠正。
用户对其自行维护管理的电气设备的安全负责，供电企业用电检查人员不承担因被检查设备不安全引起的任何直接损坏或损害的赔偿责任。
现场检查确认有危害供用电安全或扰乱供用电秩序行为的，供电企业用电检查人员应按国家《用电检查管理办法》的规定在现场予以制止。拒绝接受供电企业按规定处理的，可按国家规定的程序停止供电，并请求电力管理部门依法处理，或向司法机关起诉，依法追究其法律责任。
第三十六条 用户必须按有关规定定期进行电气设备和保护装置的检查、检修和试验,其试验标准应符合《电力设备预防性试验规程》（DL/T596-1996）和《继电保护和安全自动装置技术规程》（GB14285－93）规定。如有新的国家标准，则按新标准执行。
第七章 法律责任
第三十七条 供、用电双方按产权归属各自负责其电力设施的维护、日常管理和安全工作，确保安全运行，并承担由此而引起的法律责任。
第三十八条 由于私拉乱接或其他违章用电造成本人或他人的人身、财产损害事故，依法由肇事者承担责任。
第三十九条 任何公民、法人或其他组织违反本规定，危及电力设施安全和用电安全的，由有关部门按照有关规定进行处理或处罚，构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
第八章 附 则
第四十条 本规定由市电力管理部门负责解释。以前我市有关文件与本规定不一致的，以本规定为准。
第四十一条 本规定自颁布之日起实施。
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia
苏冉
IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).
B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.
Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.
B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.