MSE News: Small supplier Bulb cuts energy tariff thanks to 'LOWER wholesale costs'

Raxiel

All matter above absolute zero emits radiation of some sort. The average person would consider 'nuclear waste' to mean substances emitting an unnaturally high level of ionising radiation as a result of an industrial process (be that from a nuclear power station or medical x-rays).

You're free to raise a complaint with the ASA, but I think you'll have as much luck with them as someone who complained about an advert that included the term 'around the globe' on the basis that some people think the world is flat.

jamesd

Will, I do not disagree that Bulb is a renewable energy supplier. My concerns are the specific claims Bulb is making which appear to be untrue and/or misleading.

With regard to your earlier claim that:

'we have no plans to stop advertising ourselves as a "100% renewable electricity" supplier. We feel it is the most succinct and descriptive way of explaining what we do. And, as far as Ofgem, the ASA and the environment are concerned, it is perfectly accurate.'

and the extent to which that applies to the claim that "you get 100% renewable electricity " I see that to date the ASA has handled one complaint about Bulb and they say this about it:

"After consideration of complaints we received, the following companies and organisations agreed to amend or withdraw advertising without the need for a formal investigation.
Bulb Energy Ltd t/a bulb
05 October 2016 Number of complaints: 1
Media: Internet (on own site) "

The me, that doesn't really give the impression that the ASA thought everything was OK but of course I can't read the whole complaint and decision.

There are a few ways to proceed from here. The least desirable one is probably me continuing with the discuss with ASA approach that I've already taken but go on to making a complaint. I'll do that if needed, of course.

But there's a way that may be better and certainly less adversarial, so a good deal more pleasant all around. They are willing to review material and give informal opinions and reach agreements instead. So as an alternative, would you be willing to provide them with a link to this and the various things that I've mentioned and ask them to take a look so that they can discuss them informally with Bulb and maybe resolve things that way?

That should be a good deal better and at the worst get rid of the easiest issues with much less strife. And less strife is probably better all around.

jamesd

It's perhaps also worth mentioning two areas where we're probably in strong agreement:

1. Bulb are the good guys
2. We want Bulb to grow as a result of the MSE mention.

Bulb isn't evil, this is just about the understandable enthusiasm going a bit further than it should, particularly when it comes to the claim about what customers actually get delivered to them.

Will_at_Bulb

Our previous discussion with the ASA was around clarifying some terms for an energy monitor trial that we were running at the time, which we were happy to do. It's not relevant in this situation. My comment about the ASA was that, to our knowledge, the ASA has never ruled against a supplier describing their energy in the way we do, and they have been describing themselves as such for at least 21 years.

I appreciate your thoroughness, but we really don't think that any of the ways we describe ourselves are a cause for concern. So we're going to throw up our hands here and say that we believe that we're completely in the legal, moral and semantic right here. If you disagree, it is your prerogative to take it further.

phillw

jamesd wrote: »

As I hope you are aware, Bulb has no control over the energy that is actually supplied to the customer and cannot ensure that it is 100% or even 1% renewable.

I would have thought that everyone was aware that you pay Bulb to buy enough renewable energy to meet your usage and that gets added to the national grid as that is the basis for energy supply in the UK.

The electricity is no different & you've done something for the environment. If it turns out that they are not buying enough renewable energy then that would an issue. It's the same as companies producing fair trade and non fair trade chocolate is done on a percentage system. If 20% of the beans they buy is fair trade then they mix it all together and label 20% of their bars as fair trade.

jamesd

The differences are:

1. There really are places and things you can buy where you really do get what you're told you're getting.
2. Those firms aren't lying to their customers by claiming that they get a green supply, they really are delivering it.

By lying, this firm is harming consumers and the competing businesses which genuinely deliver on it, whether that's home solar, district heating or whatever else.

And no, everyone wasn't aware, like one of the people I spoke with at the ASA. Which isn't surprising when you have a supplier which doesn't deliver lying and confusing people. If more firms are telling the same lie then I want all of them to stop lying.

phillw

jamesd wrote: »

1. There really are places and things you can buy where you really do get what you're told you're getting.

If a company produces fair trade and non fair trade goods & you buy a fair trade product then your extra money is used to pay for the fair trade raw ingredients, but you don't necessarily get the fair trade ingredients yourself.

jamesd wrote: »

2. Those firms aren't lying to their customers by claiming that they get a green supply, they really are delivering it.

It's not a lie. You're over simplifying it and then making an argument based on a distorted viewpoint. The electricity isn't any different (like the fair trade cocoa beans aren't), you're paying for green energy to be produced and they are getting it produced for you. The delivery mechanism means that everyone's energy is mixed together.

jamesd wrote: »

If more firms are telling the same lie then I want all of them to stop lying.

I'm interested in your motives, because they don't seem honourable.

jamesd

My motive is to stop energy suppliers from lying about whether the energy actually supplied to their customers is renewable or not. There are providers that really do supply such energy. With its lie this one is claiming to be one of them.

Your fair trade comparison would be a company that has on the packet a claim that it is fair trade content but actually just has the same fair trade content as the one with the generic no fair trade or average market fair trade content label next to it on the shelf. That harms the one one the other side of it which really is all fair trade content and the consumer who is trying to buy fair trade goods.

Just like the fair trade false claim packaging this energy from could instead tell the truth about their customers getting no more or less renewable energy than their neighbours buying from British Gas or EDF or whoever else.