In connection with the submitted draft amendment to the Energy Act, submitted by n.p. Yavor Kuyumdzhiev and a group of people's representatives, the Confederation of Employers and Industrialists in Bulgaria, after taking into account the opinions expressed by the member companies of the organization and discussing them in the "Energy" Committee of KRIB, expresses the following position:
We express our concern at the extremely unsustainable legal and regulatory framework in the energy sector. The constant supply of ZID of ZE makes the energy and industrial sectors unattractive for the continuation of existing and for attracting new industrial investments. In this regard, we insist that the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers undertake and implement a more conservative and time-sustainable strategy for the development of energy legislation. We insist on a more constructive policy regarding companies and services in the energy sector. The image of the Bulgarian energy industry must be restored. Any ill-considered and politically conjunctural decision regarding the necessary investments and level of service in the Bulgarian energy companies leads to negative reflective consequences in the Bulgarian industrial sectors and enterprises, employment and unemployment.
Today, EU member states are threatened by deindustrialization. Bulgaria also suffers from expensive energy - high electricity prices and expensive additional gas. Threatened sectors create the highest added value for the economy. These are export-oriented enterprises that work in fierce competition.
Bulgaria urgently needs a consensus among the political elites to stabilize the energy sector and hence the industry. Energy will come out of the crisis with policies that are insensitive to the change of governments and parliaments. Any other decision will have a prohibitively high cost to the economy and the standard of living of the population.
We support all legislative initiatives related to the construction and implementation of a new, modern concept of relations between companies and their customers, which will enable Bulgarian consumers to receive quality service and at the same time provide an opportunity for energy companies to improve their activities.
We believe that the proposals made have their systematic place in the regulations governing these relationships, but due to the very detailed regulation of the relations, respectively the rights and obligations of the parties, we believe that the systematic place of these proposals is in the General Terms and Conditions of the companies approved by the State Environmental Protection Agency, in the capacity of an independent body and balancer between the interests of customers and companies or in the relevant rules - Rules for measuring the quantities of electricity, not in the law.
In addition, we express our principled position that proposals for changes in the legislation should be accompanied by an analysis of the impact of the implementation of the respective proposals, in order to clearly track the real monthly costs that the proposed changes will cause. We draw your attention to the fact that the implementation of the changes proposed by the importer requires the automation and refinement of business processes in the SAP information system - costs that companies need to make additionally.
According to the experts at KRIB, changes in the regulatory framework should be aimed at modern methods of informing customers, and not returning and falling back to information necessarily only in the conventional way - through letters by post, which in turn will lead to an unnecessary increase in operating costs of a company, but it is also contrary to the requirements and campaigns for environmental protection and environmentally friendly consumer behavior.
We also believe that it is necessary to create and exist normative prerequisites for non-discriminatory treatment and equality of citizens and protection of the rights of correct users. In this regard, the proposals made related to the protection of the rights of domestic customers who are in bad faith ("postponement" of payment for one category of customers, prohibition of interruption of power supply, removal of a price for restoration of power supply in case of non-payment, exemption from the costs of metrological expertise even in the case of proven manipulation) are unacceptable from a business point of view and will again lead to cross-subsidization due to the violation of the principle that everyone reimburses the costs that he himself caused.
According to the experts in the field, the proposed introduction of a ban on drawing up a finding protocol in the absence of the client will block one essential area of the licensing activity of the operators of electricity distribution networks, namely - the obligations in connection with maintaining the means of commercial measurement in working order and creates prerequisites for incorrect user behavior and purposeful refusal of presence to draw up the protocol. The possibility of drawing up a protocol in the presence of an independent witness is a generally accepted practice used in all other spheres of public life, and not allowing it in the regulation of public relations in the energy sector is a manifestation of discrimination.
Having expressed our principled position on the draft law submitted to us, we bring to your attention the following specific proposals:
1. In § 2, the proposed new paragraph 3 of Article 98a should be amended as follows:
"(3) In the event that the reported readings for consumed electricity are more than twice as high as those for the same period in the previous year, the customer has the right to file an objection against the bill. The final supplier has no right to suspend the supply of electricity until the inspection is completed or until the dispute is resolved with an effective court decision, in the event of a legal dispute, and the client is obliged to pay all his remaining obligations that are not subject to dispute."
Motives:
Defining an objective and universal criterion that is applicable in all cases and that reflects all possible variations of real cases that may arise is extremely difficult. We understand the intent of the proposed changes, but we believe that the desired result will not be achieved with the proposal so made. In this regard, we propose to use quantities of electricity as a criterion, rather than amounts due on accounts, thus eliminating the influence of differences in the prices of electricity and network services, which will inevitably arise when comparing the amounts on the account one year ago, as well as the comparison with the same period of the previous year is more correct in view of the seasonality of consumption. In addition, we propose to explicitly state that the presence of a disputed bill on the part of the customer does not automatically release him from his obligation to pay the next due amounts for electricity and network services that are not subject to objection and dispute. The absence of such an explicit recording, in our opinion, will create conditions for the abuse of rights by incorrect customers and will create a risk for timely payment between all participants in the chain to the public supplier and electricity producers.
2. In § 3, the proposed new paragraph 4 of Article 98a should be amended as follows:
"(4) The final supplier is obliged to notify the customer in cases where he initiates a temporary suspension of the supply of electricity due to non-fulfillment by the customer of his obligation to pay amounts due under the contract. The notification is carried out in an appropriate way - by telephone, fax or e-mail when the customer has provided such data."
Motives:
The proposal made in § 21 proposing a definition of "personal notification to the customer" is, in our opinion, unclear. The definition covers not only personal notification, but other possible ways of notifying the customer are also described. In this regard, I suggest that the possible ways of informing the client should be described in the corresponding paragraph. The development of modern technologies provides a wide variety of channels for communication with the customer, but in order for them to be used effectively, it is necessary that the customer himself has provided the necessary data to the final supplier. The Company's practice shows that more and more customers use alternative methods of contact - telephone, fax, e-mail. Requiring a minimum period of 3 days before the cutoff date will again require an upgrade of the information systems and lead to additional costs for the companies, and therefore for the end user. In practice, the invoices contain a preliminary announcement of the date on which, hypothetically, in case of non-payment, the electricity supply would be suspended.
3. In § 5, the proposed new paragraph 3 of Article 104a should be amended as follows:
"(3) In case of temporary suspension of the supply to a customer at the request of the final supplier, due to non-fulfilment of payment obligations under the contract for the sale of electricity, the Distribution Network Operator restores the supply, after making the payment, including the restoration price , within a period of 12:XNUMX (twelve o'clock) on the next calendar day after submitting a request for this. For an additional fee, the restoration of the supply is provided within 6 (six) astronomical hours after the fulfillment of all the conditions for the restoration."
Motives:
The removal of the reinstatement fee will mean that the reactivation costs will not be paid by those who cause them in the form of additional services, but will have to be paid by all other legitimate users who pay their bills on time. In view of this, the removal of the recovery price will upset the balance between the interests of customers and the distribution network operator to the extent of tolerating the incorrect users at the expense of the decent ones, as well as violating the European principles that everyone should recover the costs they cause themselves. We believe that with the adoption of the entire set of measures that are planned to be introduced to protect the consumer - mandatory advance notice before suspension, practical possibility to dispute any bill and "deferral" of payment, accompanied by a ban on suspension of power for the inspection period, etc., the rights of customers will be guaranteed to a great extent. When determining the period in which the distribution company should restore power, multiple factors should be taken into account, such as the possible ways in which the customer will pay the overdue bills and the communication of the intermediaries and their information systems in the collection of payments and the final supplier. Another factor that deserves special attention is the remoteness and geographical characteristics of some settlements.
4. In § 6, the proposed new paragraph 4 of Article 104a should be amended as follows:
"(4) In the event of a request for a metrological examination of a commercial measuring instrument by a customer, the same shall be carried out by an authorized person in accordance with the terms and conditions of the current legislation. The commercial measuring instruments shall be dismantled and stored by the electricity distribution company, which shall ensure their dispatch of the competent authority for metrological supervision, sealed with the seals and stickers recorded in the finding protocol drawn up during the dismantling. The costs of metrological expertise of a commercial measuring instrument are at the expense of the party that initiated the inspection. In the event that the initiative is the customer's and the inspection found that the metrological and technical characteristics do not correspond to those standardized for a given type of commercial measurement means, or another measurement deviation is detected, the distribution network operator reimburses the costs to the customer within 7 (seven) days from the date of notifying the customer of the results of the inspection."
Motives:
The proposed revision preserves the principled approach of paying the costs of the metrological inspection depending on its results and limits the possibilities of abuse of rights. We must note that the changes proposed by the petitioner will place an additional burden on the distribution companies in unpredictable ways. We believe that the matter regarding the rights and obligations during inspections of the means of commercial measurement are subject to regulation in the Rules for measuring the quantities of electric energy and should not be regulated at the level of law.
5. In § 7, the proposed new paragraph 5 of Article 104a should be amended as follows:
(5) The operator of the distribution network owes compensation to customers in the event of a deviation from the permissible indicators of the quality of electric energy in the amount of 10% of the value of the used quantities of electric energy with proven deviations in quality, registered by serviceable recording devices installed at the measurement location of electrical energy without exceeding the provided power. The operator of the distribution network owes compensation for all property damage that the customer has suffered as a result of low-quality electricity supply. Compensation under this order can be claimed within 3 weeks of the occurrence of the event."
Motives:
It should be noted that in terms of power quality indicators, the majority of electricity meters (households and small businesses) do not record the voltage and frequency of the supplied power. Replacing with ones that have such functionalities will require new investments that are not included in the prices of distribution network operators. Indeed, dispatch logs are kept for a significantly longer period than 3 years, but too often the cause of the damage is an accident in the network caused by the work of third parties who are not at the scene of the accident when the teams of the distribution company arrive. Proving alleged non-pecuniary damages is entirely the burden of the client and there is no practice of administrative authorities regarding the recognition of the amount of such.
6. In § 8, the proposed new paragraph 6 of Article 104a should be deleted.
Motives:
We believe that the proposed text is not in the interest of customers either, as it creates an opportunity for purposeful sabotage of the activity of the network operator and stimulates the unregulated use of energy. When inspecting the means of commercial measurement, the results of the inspection are objectified in a document - a finding protocol, which in practice has become necessary in the absence of the client, or in the case of a purposeful refusal of the client to attend the inspection of the means of commercial measurement, or during its dismantling , the findings report to be signed by an independent witness who is not an employee of the Operator.
7. In § 10, the proposed addition to paragraph 1 of Article 123 should be deleted.
Motives:
Provisions providing reduced conditions and protection of vulnerable customers - persons entitled to heating allowances are provided for in the draft general terms and conditions of the final supplier. Debts accumulated for a period longer than two months or debts in an amount exceeding half of the minimum wage for the country will appear burdensome to customers and create prerequisites for even more difficult payment and at the moment the temporary suspension of supply with electric energy is not realized on a day preceding a holiday or officially announced as such a day.
8. In § 19, the proposed new paragraph 4 of Article 206 should be deleted.
Motives:
We propose that this text be dropped, as it repeats the text of the existing paragraph 3 of Article 206 regarding the triple amount of the sanction in case of repeated violation.
9. In § 20, the text should be amended as follows:
1. Paragraph 1 to acquire the following wording:
"The final suppliers of electricity, the final suppliers of natural gas, the operators of electricity distribution networks and the operators of gas distribution networks bring the General Terms and Conditions under Art. 98a, Art. 104a, Art. 183a and Art. 183b into compliance with this law, within six months of its entry into force."
2. Paragraph 2 should be deleted.
Motives:
We propose to extend the deadline, as the technological time for carrying out the legally established procedure for amending and supplementing general conditions according to Ordinance No. 3 on licensing activities in the energy sector should be taken into account, and paragraph 2 should be deleted, since the general principles of law and in particular art. 26 of the ZZD expressly provide that, in the case of amendments to the legislation, the provisions of the general terms and conditions that contradict these amendments shall be replaced by the norms of the law.
10. The text of § 21 should be deleted.
Motives:
In connection with the proposals made in § 3.
http://www.turbulence.tech