Analysis of the campaign "The first flat rates for electricity and gas" - An example of bad commercial practices.
A couple of days ago I received in my mailbox the usual invoice from Gas Natural Fenosa for the Gas supply service.
First, "The First Flat Rates for Light and Gas", it seems quite attractive at first glance: a generous invitation to save. However, after examining the "offer" a little better, it immediately appears that it is something very different … And the thing is, my friends, a monopoly like the gas monopoly is never going to 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 defenselessness. The conclusion I came to after studying the offer more carefully, and with which you will surely agree when you finish reading this writing, was the following:
«Disguised as a savings opportunity, it is an invitation to spend more money wasting energy uselessly … And they don't even improve the price !!!!! …»
I am writing these lines because it was not just any one of the hundreds that arrive in the mailbox. This is special: 1) It is personalized, it is printed indicating my consumption and what rate they recommend. 2) Obviously, the company also knows my current rate: TUR 1. And finally 3) The change would be detrimental to me and the terms in which the offer is raised make it difficult to compare it with my current plan.
I would like you to download the spreadsheet that helped me figure out if the offer was really a "discount":
I only analyzed the part of the offer corresponding to gas, I buy the electricity from a trading company that guarantees a 100% supply with "clean" energy.. The spreadsheet (available in previous download links) is prepared with my consumptions. If any of you are also covered by the Last Resort Rate (TUR), and by substituting the kWh of my bimonthly gas bills for yours you find that it pays off, please let me know. In any case, the analysis must be done based on the assumption that consumption would have to be the same … Or is it that Gas Natural Fenosa assumes that with its offer we are going to take more showers or that we will start cooking for the neighbors? . Taking this into account, everyone can play with the assumptions they want. Let's 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 to me: just this morning the triplets were born.
In the brochure you will see some "flat rates" for stopovers. 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 maximum consumption, so
the second scale is not an improvement over the first. Then there are 9,000 kWh | 12,000 kWh | 20,000 kWh with a small reduction. The catch is that to get the best possible price you have to increase your consumption to the maximum that the rate allows, which necessarily means wasting energy and spending more money. And if you do it and spend, they charge you for each extra kWh twice the TUR which you have renounced, or they invite you to move to the upper part of the scale, never lower.
Playing with my spreadsheet, I reproduced several “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 consumption yields the same price with both rates. 3) Consumption scenario in which your rate is more favorable. 4) Maximum consumption scenario (3,000 kWh per year)
TUR 1 VERSUS “MICRO FLAT RATE” - up to 3,000 kWh / year.
The customer only benefits from the rate change in a narrow band (2,737 - 2,999 kWh). Actually the flat rate is not advantageous in any case, the "saving" is only possible because they promote the return of 1 installment if you do not reach the maximum (3,000 kWh). The maximum "saving" is achieved by consuming 2,999 kWh, the difference being only € 15 … At this point in the analysis, and assuming that the user's situation has really changed to foresee a need for greater energy consumption, it is time to ask three questions:
- Can anyone exactly foresee the energy it will consume in 1 year? Will we fall into that narrow band in which we can obtain a prize of up to € 15 / year thanks to a "refund"?
- Could this offer be of interest to someone receiving the TUR? … Will they carry out this analysis and also take care not to exceed 1 kWh of the maximum contracted?
- If the intention is to save: Wouldn't it be easier to take measures to avoid wasting energy?
You will have noticed that in order to make the comparison we have had to restrict ourselves to the term of consumption and the fixed term that are included in your offer. We have had to "prune" the VAT bill, the hydrocarbon tax and the meter rent, in addition to seeing annual totals because his plan is monthly while the current billing is bimonthly. The terms on which the offer is made makes comparison difficult.
In general, the conclusions that I have been able to reach in relation to this “supposed offer” are the following:
- It is misleading: My consumption last year was 1,735 kWh and not the 1,843 kWh indicated in your “personalized” offer. Let's assume it was a mistake.
- They invite me to change my consumption habits: go from “saving” to “wasting”.
- It goes against the energy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction policies of the European Union and the Spanish Order FOM / 1635/2013.
- It is misleading: This rate does NOT include some items such as the hydrocarbon tax or the meter rental. This leads to confusion, complicates the comparison with the current rate. They could have included these items, but excluding them makes the offer seem more attractive …
- It is misleading: They do not clearly indicate whether or not it includes VAT. Thing that aggravates the previous point.
- It is misleading: They express the price on a monthly basis when the current billing is bimonthly, misleading when comparing directly with the current bill.
- It is misleading: the consumer will not be able to change the rate again until after 1 whole year and will surely lose the possibility of returning to the TUR.
- It is misleading: It invites you to be unconcerned about consumption. If it is exceeded, each kWh in excess will be billed at twice the TUR (€ 0.12 / kWh).
- It is at least “suspicious” that the first 2 tariffs (Micro = 3,000 kWh and Mini = 6,000 kWh) are proportional in price and that the limit of the second section has not made it coincide with the TUR 2 that starts at 5,000 kWh. WATCHING | 1 of many - GAS NATURAL FENOSA | Article: FLAT RATES - An example of bad business practices
- It is misleading: If I do not change my annual consumption, the Gas Natural Fenosa offer is more expensive than the TUR, and if for whatever reason I were forced to change my consumption habits and spend more gas (ONLY REASON THAT I WOULD EXPLAIN TO CONSIDER EVEN MAKE THE CHANGE), How could I know exactly what I am going to consume in 1 year?
- A careful study of the offer must be made to conclude that the consumer only benefits from the change to the "Flat Rate" consuming in a narrow margin above 2,737 kWh / year, and this because at the end of the year they return a quota. In addition, if consumption exceeds the maximum contracted (3,000 kWh), it begins to lose from the first excess kWh.
- In other words: The customer always loses. In the small section in which you benefit from the return of 1 installment, the difference DOES NOT REPRESENT SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS. The maximum annual savings that a consumer can currently aspire to in the TUR is barely € 15 / year … And what happens last year? … Will he be able to return to the TUR? … Will this "promotion" in which 1 installment is returned will be maintained?
- What is clear is that GAS NATURAL FENOSA IS VERY INTERESTED IN 2 PURPOSES: TO MAKE US LEAVE THE TUR AND ENSURE THAT WE WASTE ENERGY.
For years we have been reinforcing consumption habits that promote energy saving and that help us to comply with the requirements of the European Directives regarding the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the midst of this economic crisis, families need to save more than ever, and not because of environmental awareness but because they lack money. Now is the time for companies in the energy sector, inspired by "solidarity" and all those beautiful things that they put in their declaration of values such as "sustainability" and "social commitment", to send us a brochure reminding us saving habits with a detailed list of good tips to reduce the bill… But instead, Gas Natural Fenosa does the opposite: it sends us "misleading" advertising that invites us to waste energy and which will surely lead to higher financial costs. And the worst: the Administration allows it.
Finally, I opened the second letter: "Thanks to a small gesture, you will be able to do something unique". With the excuse of a donation to the Red Cross, they invite us to provide them with two personal information: the ID number and an email (in addition to a code associated with the supply contract). Authorization is not requested to include these data in a file, nor is the use that will be given to them indicated, which will surely be a commercial use: to begin with, check the IDs with the holders of the contracts. If so, this would constitute a clear violation of Article 4 (paragraph 7) of the Organic Law on Data Protection.
Unfortunately, the Administration refrains from punishing these behaviors, and does so by obeying the ideology of our political class and the oligopolies they serve and who legislate in their place.
What can one do in this situation?
To begin, go to the nearest Consumer Office (the OMIC in Catalonia) and report this practice. Do it with the hope that they will open a file with the company and sanction it, or at least suspend the supposed “promotion”. And if you are sufficiently outraged, also report it to the AEPD (APD CAT in Catalonia).
Finally, and taking advantage of the fact that the offer was a cross-sale with the “Flat Electricity Rate”, change your electricity 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 energy "Clean" … Act, #CierraLasPuertas
Do you want to know more about the situation of the electricity sector?
I also recommend watching the Oligopoly documentary broadcast on the Salvados de La Sexta program and the Px1NME video on YouTube: # Oligopoly2. The Px1NME is currently in the production phase of a new documentary: #OligopolyOFF
-
Article prepared by Frank Pulido (Mechanical Engineer) Twitter @ 6300000org . Collaborator of OVACEN.
Note: This article represents the opinion and criteria of a totally independent collaborator from OVACEN.C.B. To this end, OVACEN.C.B is not responsible for any possible action in the present or future, be it legal or of any other nature for the content expressed.
