Nu doar consumatorii ENEL au fost taxati suplimentar, ci toti consumatorii din RomaniaALL Romanian Electricity Consumers Charged Extra, Not Just Enel’s

Au aparut astazi noi amanunte in dosarul in care vicepresedintele ANRE, Claudiu Dumbraveanu, este acuzat de unele aranjamente cu compania Enel, in favoarea companiei Electro-Alfa International, aranjamente care compromit in final tocmai Autoritatea Nationala de Reglementare in domeniul Energiei (ANRE), institutie independenta si nesubordonata politic. Cel putin asa zice legea de functionare a ANRE. Dincolo de rechizitorul procurorilor DNA, citat peste tot in media romaneasca, problema incarcarii facturilor de energie electrica pentru consumatori este una mult mai complicata si, mai ales, ne este apanajul exclusiv al Enel.

Altfel spus, toti distribuitorii de energie electrica din Romania (8 la numar) au incarcat nejustificat (unii mai multi, altii mai putin) facturile de energie electrica pentru consumatori, dar, atentie, nu pentru ca ar fi fost un aranjament intre ei si ANRE, ci pentru ca legea a fost interpretata gresit. De la interpretarea legii insa si pana la modalitatile de despagubire ale consumatorilor romani au aparut problemele si, in cazul mai sus amintit, aranjamentele. Concluzia: daca toti distribuitorii de energie electrica au gresit, iar ANRE nu a comunicat acest lucru consumatorilor, este foarte posibil ca asemenea aranjamente sa mai gasim si prin alta parte. Si atunci e grav.

Reprezentantii ANRE incearca sa explice, ce-i drept cam tarziu, ce s-a intamplat din 2008 (anul privatizarii Electrica Muntenia Sud) si pana in 2013, in piata de energie electrica, in contextul in care legislatia primara a suferit modificari esentiale, iar cea secundara (apanajul ANRE), a venit cu completarile de rigoare. Poate a fost greseala de ambele parti, poate nu. Urmeaza sa aflam. Pana atunci insa sa prezentam argumentele ANRE, vizavi de scandalul in care s-a ajuns si care nu-l exonereaza insa pe vicepresedintele ANRE de urmarirea penala, sau chiar de favorizarea unor companii in detrimentul consumatorilor de energie din Romania. Repetam insa, nu numai consumatorii Enel din zona Muntenia trebuie sa se simta “arsi la buzunar”, asa cum s-a afirmat pana acuma, ci toti consumatorii din Romania, inclusiv cei arondati la Electrica, CEZ, sau E.ON, ceilalti distribuitori de energie din Romania. Este adevarat, aici nu cunoastem procentele.

Conform unui Ordin al ANRE (133/2008, art 5.14) , daca pe parcursul unui an, un furnizor de energie electrica incasa mai mult de la consumatori (conform reglementarilor ANRE), in anul care urma aceasta incasare suplimentara se ajusta in functie de ceea ce descoperea Agentia de reglementare la furnizorul respectiv (amintim ca toti distribuitorii de energie electrica au si filiale de furnizare). Ulterior, dupa aparitia Legii 220 , care instituie o taxa de 18 lei/MWh si apoi a Legii 134, care obliga mentionarea in factura pentru consumator a certificatelor verzi (taxa suplimentara), distribuitorii-furnizorii de energie electrica pentru consumatorii casnici fie nu au stiut cum se aplica taxele respective, fie s-au folosit de confuzie pentru a-si ajusta veniturile.
Conform ANRE situatia respectiva nu a durat mai mult de sase luni, perioada in care fucturile finale au incarcat nejustificat consumatorii. Cum era sa piarda furnizorii? Constienti de aceasta situatie, reprezentantii ANRE au inceput verificarile si au descoperit ca un procent de 4,7% (in medie) reprezenta taxarea suplimentara si nejustificata. Initial s-a vorbit de 6%, asa cum mentioneaza si procurorii DNA. In concluzie, banii trebuia returnati celor pagubiti, adica consumatorilor din Romania.

Aici a aparut problema, caci ANRE a considerat ca ar fi o povara prea mare ca sa ceara recuperarea prejudiciului dintr-o data si a conventi cu furnizorii s-o faca etapizat, incepand cu un procent de 1,3%. Era un fel de protectia la adresa companiilor de distributie-furnizare, sub pretextul ca acestea nu trebuiau dezechilibrate din punct de vedere financiar. O sa vedeti mai incolo la ce a dus aceasta protectie. Pe de alta parte, furnizorii de energie electrica aveau si au de recuperat sume enorme de la companiile statului roman (cel mai cunoscut exemplu este CFR), un posibil motiv de pasuire din partea ANRE. Daca este asa este cat se poate de grav, caci consumatorii casnici din Romania, si nu numai, au subventionat pierderile companiilor la care statul nu a stiut sa faca ordine.

Cum lucrurile sunt de abia acum cunoscute, cu siguranta ca increngatura in care a intrat ANRE cu companiile de distributie, indeosebi cele private, va naste inca multe scandaluri. Ne intrebam in acest context ce rol a avut puterea executiva, in conditiile in care ANRE, cu toata independenta ei, nu a luat deciziile fara sa anunte mai sus. Pana sa ajungem si la alte concluzii prezentam pozitia ANRE fata de situatia data:

” Cu privire la informatiile aparute in spatiul public privind asa-zisa dubla taxare a certificatelor verzi la consumatorii finali de energie electrica de catre S.C. ENEL SA, dorim sa facem urmatoarele precizari:

Sistemul de promovare a producerii energiei electrice din surse regenerabile de energie prin certificate verzi care a fost instituit prin Legea nr. 220/2008, prevede acordarea de certificate verzi producatorilor de energie electrica din surse regenerabile, a caror valoare este facturata apoi de catre furnizori consumatorilor finali de energie electrica din Romania.

La data de 26 iulie 2012, a intrat in vigoare Legea nr. 134/2012 (publicata in Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei, Partea I, nr. 505/23.07.2012) care a modificat si completat legislatia pentru stabilirea sistemului de promovare prin certificate verzi, printre modificarile si completarile aduse numarandu-se si prevederea prin care valoarea certificatelor verzi se factureaza separat de tarifele/preturile pentru energia electrica (art. 8, alin. 4).

Ca urmare a acestor modificari, in perioada 26 iulie – 31 decembrie 2012, la pretul reglementat anterior stabilit de ANRE, pret care includea deja componenta de achizitie de certificate verzi, furnizorii de energie electrica au facturat certificatele verzi in continuare conform prevederilor Legii nr. 220/2008, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare, evidentiind, apoi, si separat, in factura, valoarea acestora, conform Legii 134/2012.

In urma actiunilor de control, pe care le desfasoara conform programelor de control aprobate, ANRE a constatat interpretarea eronata a unor prevederi privind aplicarea preturilor si tarifelor, si, in baza competentelor sale de reglementare si calculelor efectuate in conformitate cu prevederile Metodologiei de stabilire a preturilor si tarifelor la consumatorii finali care nu uzeaza de dreptul de eligibilitate, aprobata prin Ordinul ANRE nr. 30/2012, a luat masura regularizarii, prin reducerea tarifelor la furnizarea reglementata a energiei electrice pentru perioada 26 iulie – 31 decembrie 2012, prin micsorarea pretului pe MWh la consumatorii finali cu 1,3 %, facand, astfel, posibila recuperarea sumelor facturate suplimentar.

Totodata, ca urmare a acestor masuri, dupa data de 1 ianuarie 2013, tarifele pentru furnizarea reglementata a energiei electrice nu mai contin componenta de achizitie de certificate verzi, valoarea acestora fiind calculata in conformitate cu prevederile Legii nr. 220/2008, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare si evidentiata, separat, in factura“.
New details emerge in the case of Energy Regulatory Authority (ANRE) VP Claudiu Dumbraveanu charged of arrangements with Enel company in favor of Electro-Alfa International company; these arrangement basically embarrass the ANRE, which is an independent institution without political subordination. Besides the charges formulated by the anticorruption prosecutors and widely quoted by Romanian media, the issue of undue extras on the electricity bills is more complicated – and on top of everything, it is not specific to Enel.

That is, all eight electricity distributors in Romania charged their users extra; some more, some less. Note that it was not within some arrangement with ANRE, but due to misinterpretation of the laws. The problems occurred along the way from this misinterpretation to the ways of compensating the consumers; in the aforementioned case, this is where compromise occurred, too. To conclude: if all the electricity distributors were wrong, and ANRE did not inform the consumers, such deals might be found in other places, too. It would be grievous news, indeed.

ANRE representatives now try to explain – a bit late- what happened on the electricity market between 2008, when Electrica Muntenia Sud was privatized, and 2013, as primary legislation changed considerably, and secondary legislation, which is ANRE’s game, added the necessary details. Maybe both parties were wrong, but then again – maybe not. We will soon find out. Until then, we shall present ANRE’s arguments in the resulting scandal; they don’t exonerate its Vice President from the major offense charges, not even from the minor ones like favoring some companies, to the detriment of Romanian electricity consumers. Once again, all the consumers in Romania should see themselves as victims of pilfering, including the clients of Electrica, CEZ, or E.ON, not just of Enel. True, in these cases we don’t know the percentages.

According to ANRE’s Order 133/2008, Article 5.14, if an electricity supplier charged more over one year, the additional sums were adjusted over the next year, based on ANRE’s findings; note that all the distributors also have supplier subsidiaries. When Law 220 introduced a tax of 18 lei/MWH, and Law 134 imposed mentioning this additional tax, i.e. the green certificates, on the bills, the electricity distributors-and-suppliers either did not understand how it applies to household consumers, or took advantage of the confusion to supplement their revenues.
According to ANRE, undue amounts were invoiced over six months at most. Well, how could suppliers lose money? ANRE’s representatives, aware of the situation, started checking, and found that additional unduly invoiced sums amounted to 4.7 percent on the average. A figure of 6 percent was mentioned initially, including by the anticorruption prosecutors. The victims – i.e. the Romanian consumers – were entitled to reimbursements.

Here’s where the problem occurred; ANRE considered the lump reimbursement too big a burden, and agreed with the suppliers on a recovery schedule based on 1.3 percent. It was sort of protection for the distribution-and-supply companies, on the pretext of avoiding their financial unbalance. We’ll see further the consequences of this protection. On the other hand, the electricity suppliers had – and still have – to recover huge sums from state-owned companies (the best-known example is the national railroad operator CFR), which was a possible reason for ANRE granting deferments. If so, it’s very bad, as Romanian household consumers have subsidized the losses of companies where the state was incapable of cleaning the mess.

As things surfaced only recently, ANRE’s entanglement with the distributors, especially the private ones, will surely generate more scandal. We wonder, as things are, what the role of the Executive power was, as ANRE, with all its independence, could not decide without notifications to higher levels. But before jumping to conclusions, here is ANRE’s position:

“As regards informations publicly circulated on the so-called double taxation of electricity end users by Enel Company for green certificates, we want to mention the following:

The system for promoting through green certificates the production of electricity from renewable energy sources was introduced by Law 220/2008; it stipulates issuing green certificates to the producers of electricity from renewable sources, followed by the invoicing of these certificates to the Romanian end users of electricity.

Law 134/2012 (published in Part I of the Official Gazette No. 505 of July 23, 2012) came into force on July 26, 2012; it changed and completed the legislation on the system of promotion using green certificates, including the provision of distinct invoicing of green certificates and tariffs/prices of electricity (Article 8.4).

As a result of these modifications, between July 26 and December 31, 2012, the electricity suppliers continued invoicing the green certificates according to Law 220/2008, as subsequently modified and completed, at the regulated price previously set by ANRE, while also highlighting the value of these green certificates as a separate item on the invoices, in accordance with Law 134/2012.

As a results of its control actions according to its approved control schedule, ANRE found that some provisions on the application of prices and tariffs were misinterpreted; using its prerogatives of regulation and based on calculations according to the Methodology for setting the prices and tariffs for the end users who do not use their eligibility rights , approved by ANRE’s Order No. 30/2012, [the Authority] decided the regulation through diminishing the tariffs for regulated electricity supply between July 26 and December 31 by cutting 1.3 percent off the price per MWh for end users, and thus allowing the recovery of additional invoiced sums.

Furthermore, as a result of these steps, since January 1, 2013 the tariffs for the regulated electricity supply no longer include the green certificate purchase component; the value of these certificates is calculated according to Law 220/2008, as subsequently modified and completed, and listed as a separate item on invoices.”