Light and Gas flat rates to be examined by the consumer

Analysis of the campaign "The First Flat Rates of electricity and gas” – An example of bad practices commercial.

A couple of days ago I received in my mailbox the usual Gas Natural Fenosa invoice for the supply service of gas for heating.

The first, “The First Flat Electricity Rates and Gas” , seems quite attractive to the naked eye: a generous invitation to save. However, after examining a little better the "offer", immediately it is intuited that it is about something very different... And it is that, my friends, a monopoly like the of the gas will never voluntarily reduce its profits in a gesture of "solidarity", much less in a country like ours where the consumer is in a state of total helplessness The conclusion I came to after studying the offer more carefully, and with which you will surely be According to the end of reading this writing, it was the following :

«Disguised as an opportunity to savings, it is an invitation to spend more money wasting energy uselessly... And they don't even improve the price!!!!!…”

I write these lines because it was not an offer any of the hundreds that arrive in the mailbox. This one is special : 1) It is personalized, it is printed indicating my consumption and that rate they recommend. 2) Obviously, the company knows also my current rate: TUR 1. And finally 3) The change would be detrimental to me and the terms in which it is raised the offer makes it difficult to compare it with my current plan.

I would like you to download the spreadsheet that helped me to figure out if the offer really meant a "discount" :

I only analyzed the corresponding part of the offer to gas, I buy electricity at a marketing company that guarantees me 100% supply with “clean” energies . the sheet of calculation (available in download links above) It is prepared with my consumptions. If any of you are also eligible for the Last Rate Resource (TUR), and substituting the kWh of my bi-monthly gas bills for yours finds that you It pays off, please let me know. In any case, The analysis must be done starting from the assumption that the consumption would have to be the same... Or is it that Gas Natural Fenosa supposes that with its offer we are going to give ourselves more showers or that we will start cooking for the neighbors? Bearing this in mind, everyone can play with the assumptions you want. Suppose from here that I foresee that I will have to increase my consumption and that an offer of this type could be of interest: just this morning the triplets.

In the brochure you will see some “flat rates” for stopovers. The The lowest is €19/month up to 3,000 kWh and is followed by 38 €/month up to 6,000 kWh, exactly double the price and consumption max, so
the second scale does not imply an improvement over the first. Then there are those of 9,000 kWh | 12,000 kWh | 20,000 kWh with a small reduction. The catch is that for get the best possible price you have to increase your consumption up to the maximum that the rate allows, which necessarily means wasting energy and spending more money. And if you do and go too far, they charge you for each extra kWh double the TUR you gave up, or you invite you to move to the upper section of the scale, never bottom.

Playing around with my spreadsheet I reproduced various “scenarios” to compare with the "Micro Flat Rate" that they offered me according to my consumption: 1) The current scenario with the TUR rate (my consumption in the last 365 days). 2) Scenario in which the consumption yields the same price with both tariffs. 3) Stage of consumption in which its rate is more favourable. 4) Maximum consumption scenario (3,000 kWh per year)

TUR 1 VERSUS “MICRO FLAT RATE” – up to 3,000 kWh/year.

The client only benefits from the rate change in a narrow band (2,737 – 2,999 kWh). really the fee is not advantageous in any case, the "savings" are only possible because they promote the return of 1 installment if not you reach the maximum (3,000 kWh). The maximum "savings" is achieved by consuming 2,999 kWh, the difference being barely €15… At this point in the analysis, and assuming that the situation of the user has really changed as to anticipate a need for higher energy consumption, it is time to ask ourselves three questions:

• Can anyone predict exactly the energy that will consume in 1 year? Will we fall into that narrow strip in which we can obtain a prize of up to €15/year thanks to a “refund”?.
• Would someone from the TUR be interested in this offer?… Will you make this analysis and take care not to exceed 1 kWh of the contracted maximum?.
• If the intention is to save : Wouldn't it be easier to take measures to avoid wasting energy?.

You may have noticed that in order to make the comparison we have had to restrict ourselves to the term of consumption and the fixed which are included in your offer. We have had to "prune" the VAT invoice, the hydrocarbons tax and the meter rent, plus see yearly totals because your plan is monthly while current billing is bimonthly. The terms in which the offer makes comparison difficult.

Overall, the conclusions I have been able to reach to arrive in relation to this "supposed offer" are the following :

1. It is misleading: My consumption last year was 1,735 kWh and not the 1,843 kWh indicated in your offer “personalized”. Let's assume it was a mistake.
2. They invite me to change my consumption habits: go from “savings” to “waste”.
3. It goes against energy efficiency policies and reduction of CO2 emissions of the European Union and the Spanish Order FOM/1635/2013.
4. It is misleading: This rate does NOT include some concepts such as the hydrocarbons tax or the rent of the counter. This leads to confusion, complicates the comparison with the current rate. They could have included these concepts, but excluding them makes the offer seem more attractive..
5. It is misleading : They do not clearly indicate whether or not it includes the VAT. Which aggravates the previous point.
6. It is misleading : They express the price on a monthly basis when current billing is bimonthly, misleading when comparing directly to the actual invoice.
7. It is misleading: The consumer will not be able to change again rate until 1 full year has elapsed and surely you will lose the possibility of returning to the TUR.
8. It is deceptive: It invites one not to worry about consumption. Yeah is exceeded, each kWh in excess will be billed at twice the the TUR (€0.12/kWh).
9. It is at least “suspicious” than the first 2 rates (Micro = 3,000 kWh and Mini = 6,000 kWh) are proportional in price and that the limit of the second tranche does not they have made it coincide with the TUR 2 that begins in 5,000 kWh. WATCHING | 1 of many – GAS NATURAL FENOSA | Article : FLAT RATES – An example of bad practices commercials
10. It is misleading : If I do not change my annual consumption, the supply of Gas Natural Fenosa is more expensive than TUR, and if for for whatever reason I was forced to change my habits consumption and spend more gas (ONLY REASON THAT WOULD EXPLAIN EVEN CONSIDER MAKING THE CHANGE), how I could know exactly what I am going to consume in 1 year?.
11. You have to make a conscientious study of the offer to conclude that the consumer only benefits from the change to the "Flat Rate" by consuming in a narrow margin above 2,737 kWh/year, and this because at the end of the year they return a fee. Furthermore, if the consumption exceeds the contracted maximum (3,000 kWh), starts to lose from the first kWh in excess.
12. In other words: The client always loses. In it small section in which you benefit from the return of 1 installment, the difference DOES NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS . the maximum annual savings to which a consumer can aspire currently in the TUR it is barely €15/year… And What happens last year?... Will he be able to return to the TUR?... Will he will keep this “promotion” in which 1 is returned quota?.
13. What is clear is that GAS NATURAL FENOSA IS VERY INTERESTED IN TWO PURPOSES: TO MAKE US ABANDON THE TUR AND GET US TO SPREAD ENERGY .

For years we have been reinforcing consumer habits that promote energy saving and that help us comply with with the requirements of the European Directives regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the midst of this crisis economy, families need to save more than ever, and not out of environmental awareness but because they lack the money. Now is the time for companies in the information sector to energy, inspired by "solidarity" and all those things beautiful that they put in their statement of values like the "sustainability" and "social commitment", send us a brochure reminding us of saving habits with a detailed list of good tips to reduce the bill… But instead Of this, Gas Natural Fenosa does the opposite: Sends us "misleading" advertising that invites us to splurge energy and that will surely lead us to greater spending economic. And the most serious: the Administration allows.

Finally, I opened the second letter: “Thanks to a small gesture, you can do a unique thing” . With the excuse of a donation to the Red Cross invite us to provide them with two personal data: the ID number and an email (plus a code associated with the contract of supply). Authorization is not requested to include those data to a file nor does it indicate the use that will be given to them, which it will surely be a commercial use : to start, check the DNI's with the holders of the contracts. Of If so, this would constitute a clear violation of Article 4 (section 7) of the Organic Law of Protection of Data.

Unfortunately, the Administration refrains from punish these behaviors, and it does so by obeying the ideology of our political class and the oligopolies they serve and who they legislate in their place.

What can one do in the face of this situation?

To start, go to the nearest Consumer Office (the OMIC in Catalonia) and denounce this practice. do it with hoping that they will open a file to the company and sanction, or at least suspend the alleged “promotion”. And if you are outraged enough, also report it to the AEPD (APD CAT in Catalonia).

Finally, and taking advantage of the fact that the offer was a sale crossed with the "Electricity Flat Rate", change your electric company to one that is not one of the 5 that make up the oligopoly represented by UNESA, preferably one that guarantees 100% supply with "clean" energies... Act, #CloseTheDoors

Do you want to know more about the situation of the electricity sector?

I also recommend watching the documentary Oligopoly broadcast on Salvados program of La Sexta and the video of the Px1NME in YouTube: #Oligopoly2. Currently the Px1NME is in the phase of production of a new documentary: #OligopolyOFF

———————————————–
Article prepared by Frank Pulido (Mechanical Engineer) Twitter @6300000org . Collaborator by Home Repair Care.

Note: This article represents the opinion and criteria of a totally independent collaborator to Home Repair Care.C.B. to such effect, Home Repair Care.C.B is not responsible for any possible action in the present or future, whether legal or otherwise nature for the content expressed.