Heating... Why do we go from consumers to customers? Dimitar Todorov in front of FAKTI

Continued…

- But how can the European directive and the law on energy be ignored?
- It was possible. And now it is possible, if we take seriously the fact that we have a contradiction in the laws. It is clear that all interested managers in the district heating companies, in the companies for share distribution, in the Ministry of Energy, will say that the distributors were implemented on the basis of the European directives, transposed into the law on energy. However, no one says or looks at Art. 9, item 3 of Directive 2012/27 of the EU, which states: “Where the use of individual meters for heating is not technically feasible or cost-effective, individual heat allocators shall be used to determine the heat consumption of each radiator,

unless the Member State concerned demonstrates that the installation of such heat allocators would not be cost-effective.

In such cases, consideration may be given to using alternative cost-effective methods for measuring heat consumption.”
What has been written gives the Bulgarian MPs, in our and the European Parliament, the opportunity to prove that heat allocators cannot be used in Bulgaria and that this will lead to a change in the energy law.

- Since you claim that the allocators do not provide accurate information on the energy consumed for heating, how does this affect the equalization accounts?
- The equalization accounts are absolutely wrong. The heating energy is distributed without being measured. This contradicts the BDS EN 834 standard. It's like distributing some amount of energy that is not known in advance. A number of calculations are required.

- Then why do we need these distributors, since they do not provide accurate information?
- Thus, it can be concluded that purchasing new distributors with remote reading is simply stupid. They will distribute, just like the current distributors, incorrectly determined heating energy from the radiators. I am surprised that the former Minister of Energy Temenuzhka Petkova (b.r. – now Minister of Finance), Prof. Dr. Eng. Nikola Kaloyanov from the Technical University, energy expert Ivan Hinovski, the manager of the heat accounting company “Techem Services” Milena Stoyanova Ltd., explain in the media that when everyone is equipped with remote metering dispensers and monthly metering is introduced, citizens will receive accurate bills. How this will happen, since the balancing bills are wrong, is not clear.

So far they lied to us once a year, and with remote metering they will lie to us every month.

On top of that, we will also pay a fee for this lie.

- You said that hot water meters should also be remotely read. Will this help with more accurate bills?
- Nothing will help. Particularly large bills are charged for hot water through unreasonably high values of the specific energy consumption for heating one cubic meter of water. These values reach over 100 kWh/m3. From a report by Prof. Dr. Eng. Nikola Kaloyanov - lecturer at the Technical University of Sofia - on measuring the energy characteristics of a multi-family residential building, sent on 10.03.2015 to Delyan Dobrev - chairman of the parliamentary energy committee, it can be seen that the energy consumption for heating one cubic meter of water from 10 to 55 oC can reach 80 kWh, and this with a depreciated and uninsulated pipe network. The theoretical consumption is 53.33 kWh/m3. This report shows that if an additional heat meter is installed in the subscriber station after the heater for heating the building, then the difference between the reading of the general heat meter, measuring all the energy, and the reading of this additional heat meter will give the exact energy for heating the hot water.

Then there will be no need to calculate the specific energy consumption for heating 1 m3 of water and speculate with it.

In Decision 727/20.06.2019 of the Commission for Protection of Competition (CPC), an opinion was given on the compliance with the competition rules of the draft amendment and supplement to Regulation No. 16-334 of 06.04.2007 on heat supply. In Section III Conclusion, item 6, “… as regards the amount of thermal energy for heating 1 cubic meter of hot water during the heating season, the Commission maintains the already expressed opinion that the most accurate way to do this is the metering method, by installing an additional heat meter in the subscriber station of the heating circuit at the expense of the district heating company”. The working group for changes to the regulation had to comply with this recommendation of the CPC. At least that's what was written in the order of the Minister of Energy to create the group.

- And what happened?
- These recommendations were not implemented,

because it had to be written that the additional heat meter in the heating circuit should be at the expense of the district heating company.

There was also an excuse: such an option still exists in the Energy Law, but note - at the expense of the subscribers. Of course, no condominium will put a hedgehog in its pants. Because this includes purchase, installation, metrological checks every five years, possible repairs or replacement.
The conclusion is - since the energy for heating the water is not measured correctly, the bills charged for hot water are also not correct. Remote metering does not contribute anything to accuracy.

- In your opinion, are there any other, to put it mildly, inconsistencies in our legislation related to heat metering?
- I will give you a few examples:
1) An amendment to the Energy Act was published in the State Gazette No. 54/17.07.2012, according to which the words consumer, users, consumer, etc. everywhere should be replaced with the words client, clients, client, etc. Later, this was also done in the regulation on heat supply. Interestingly, this only applied to this law. Why was the amendment not made to all laws? Why do the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Protection Commission, the Consumer Protection Federation, the Consumer Protection Association continue to exist, but we do not have a Customer Protection Act, a Customer Protection Commission, etc.? Clarity on this issue came later. The then Ombudsman of Bulgaria Maya Manolova requested an interpretative decision from the Supreme Court of Cassation whether "in cases of supply of heat energy for domestic needs in a building - condominium, do the provisions of the special Energy Law apply or do they derogate from the consumer rights-protecting provision of Art. 62 of the Consumer Protection Act, regulating the unsolicited supply of goods or services?". That is, if you do not want a service, you are not obliged to pay for it.
On September 28, 2016, the day before the court case on this interpretative decision, an article by Prof. Dr. Ivan Ruschev, a lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Sofia University – St. Kliment Ohridski” appeared on the "Legal World” website. According to him: "With the termination of the heat supply to the individual property, the individual ceases to be a consumer within the meaning of the ZZP”. He also writes that "First of all, in order for there to be an unsolicited service or delivery, within the meaning of Art. 62 of the ZPA, it is necessary for the person to have the quality of a consumer, which the apartment owners who have terminated the heat supply to their properties essentially do not”. This refers to subscribers who have removed their radiators, but have a building installation and are obliged to pay for the energy released by it.

He then writes that "the legal text after the amendment adopted the term "clients", and not consumers of heat services, since objectively the service has been terminated and there is no basis for its delivery, as provided for in the law”.

This means that if the subscriber is without radiators, he is no longer a consumer. But, in order to take the money for the building installation from him, they call him "client" and then he is obliged to obey the Energy Law, and the fact that there is a Consumer Protection Law is of no importance.

Prof. Dr. Ruschev makes a distinction between the two words "consumer" and "client". And this time the Energy Law may prove powerless, because all subscribers, according to the Energy Law, are customers of district heating companies, not consumers.
2) In Art. 10, item 1 of Directive 2012/27 it is written that “the billing information shall be accurate and based on actual consumption“. In Art. 155, paragraph 2 of the Energy Act it is also written that “the heat transfer company or the heat supplier shall invoice the consumed amount of heat energy based on actual consumption at least once a year“. We have actual consumption when the actual parameters of the heat carrier are taken into account, namely 70 oC on the supply and 50 oC on the return. These figures are taken from letter No. G-12341A/22.10.2015 of “Toplofikatsiya – Sofia” EAD.

With such parameters, the power of the heating elements is 1/3 less than at design temperatures, which are 90 °C at the supply and 70 °C at the return.

The companies for share distribution (FDR) make all calculations at the design temperatures, which increases the power of the heating elements. This leads to an incorrect determination of the energy released by the risers - the liras, an incorrect determination of the maximum specific consumption of the building, incorrect charging of energy to subscribers who have not provided access. The companies for share distribution have a reason, because in item 4. of the additional provisions of the latest regulation on heat supply it is written that “the installed heating power in a property is the sum of the powers of the heating elements installed in the dwelling, determined under design conditions“. But, design parameters and actual are two different things. Here is the contradiction between the bylaw and the law and the directive, which leads to a lot of errors.

- After so many remarks, do you have any hope that things will get better?
- Yes, I hope that the legislators will remove the words “share allocation“ from the energy law.