|
|
 | | From: | RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i | | Subject: | Re: RSPB fake conservation. | | Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:11:44 +0000 |
|
|
 | On 18 Dec 2004 09:28:58 GMT, amacmil304@aol.com (AMacmil304) wrote:
>Press Release From: Dr John R. Etherington, former Reader in Ecology,
>University of Wales
>
>RSPB Energy adjudged guilty of misrepresenting its ‘green’ electricity
>marketing scheme
>
>Advertising Standards Authority upholds complaint: 8 December 2004
>
Non-broadcast Adjudication
RSPB Energy
Grampian House
200 Dunkeld Road
Perth
PH1 3GH
Scottish & Southern Energy plc
Grampian House
200 Dunkeld Road
Perth
PH1 3GH
Date: 8th December 2004
Media: Brochure, Magazine
Sector: Utilities
Public Complaint From: Dyfed
Complaint:
Because of the complexity of the subject matter in this case, the
Authority has taken the unusual step of providing some background
information to the complaint.
The Authority understood that Ofgem had responsibility for
implementing the Government''s Renewables Obligation, which encouraged
the expansion of the renewable generation sector by setting targets
for electricity suppliers to source a proportion of their electricity
from renewable generators; the target for 1 April 2003 to 31 March
2004 was 4.3%. It noted Ofgem issued generators with Renewables
Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for their renewable electricity output.
The Authority understood that each ROC represented one megawatt hour
of electricity and that ROCs could be sold by the generator either
with or separately from the renewable electricity generated; the
opportunity for generators to sell ROCs separately from renewable
electricity created a market for traders or brokers to buy and sell
ROCs and enabled renewable electricity generators to maximise their
revenue by selling their ROCs to the highest bidder. It understood
that there were three ways for electricity suppliers to meet their
obligation: they could buy 4.3% of their electricity from renewable
generators and present ROCs to show they had done so; they could use
the buy-out clause, which allowed suppliers who had not bought enough
renewable electricity to fulfil their Renewables Obligation to meet
their obligation by paying for the shortfall (the buy-out price for 1
April 2003 to 31 March 2004 was 3.051 p/KWh); or they could use a
combination of ROCs and buy-out to meet the target. The Authority
noted all buy-out payments were made to Ofgem, who re-distributed the
payments to the electricity suppliers who had met their Renewables
Obligation through ROCs, in proportion to the number of ROCs they
presented. It understood that the buy-out option existed to provide a
market incentive for electricity suppliers to fulfil their Renewables
Obligation by buying ROCs, because using the buy-out clause to meet
their obligation might cost them more than buying ROCs. The Authority
understood that the retired ROCs scheme allowed holders of ROCs to
officially remove them from the ROC market. It also understood that
only hydro-electric generating stations with a declared net capacity
of 20 MW or below were eligible for receiving ROCs.
Complaint follows:
Objection to a brochure and magazine advertisement for renewable
energy. The front page of the brochure stated "Power to protect
wildlife and the environment". Text inside the brochure stated " ...
RSPB Energy now exceeds the requirements laid down by the
government''s Renewables Obligation by 10%. In simple terms this means
that for every 10 customers, RSPB Energy will support the generation
of enough additional renewable electricity to supply the needs of an
average home. RSPB Energy is brought to you by a unique partnership
between the RSPB ... and the Scottish and Southern Energy Group ...".
The magazine advertisement stated " ... RSPB Energy helps reduce the
amount of carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere and is increasing the
amount of renewable energy being produced in the UK ...". The
complainant, who pointed out that Scottish and Southern Energy Group
had down-rated the capacity of some of their hydro-electric generating
stations to ensure eligibility for receiving ROCs and believed the
lost capacity outweighed the renewable energy contributed by the
advertised scheme, and who questioned whether the advertisers''
retired ROCs scheme increased the amount of renewable energy
generated, challenged the claims:
1. "RSPB Energy now exceeds the requirements laid down by the
government''s Renewables Obligation by 10%. In simple terms this means
that for every 10 customers, RSPB Energy will support the generation
of enough additional renewable electricity to supply the needs of an
average home" and
2. "RSPB Energy ... is increasing the amount of renewable energy being
produced in the UK".
Codes Section: 3.1, 7.1, 49.2 (Ed 11)
Adjudication:
The advertisers said they would retire ROCs to the value of 10% of all
RSPB Energy electricity consumption. They stated that all retired ROCs
were formally classified as such by Ofgem and could not be used by any
supplier to fulfil their Renewables Obligation. The advertisers
asserted that the removal of ROCs from the ROC market stimulated the
generation of an equivalent quantity of additional renewable
electricity. They conceded that the buy-out clause offered an
alternative to buying renewable electricity as a way of meeting the
Renewables Obligation; they believed, however, that because they were
committed to retiring 10% of their ROCs, the buy-out option would not
affect their pledge to increase the amount of renewable electricity
generated. The advertisers argued that they were exceeding the
requirements of the Renewables Obligation by 10% because their
commitment to sourcing 4.3% of their electricity from renewable
generators applied to the electricity supplied by Scottish and
Southern Energy Group''s supply business, SSE Energy Supply Ltd, and,
in addition to that, they were retiring ROCs to the value of 10% of
RSPB Energy electricity consumption; they believed they were doing 10%
more than was required. The advertisers asserted that eligibility to
receive ROCs depended on a generating station''s capacity, not output,
and that down-rating the capacity of some of their hydro-electric
generating stations had not reduced the amount of renewable energy
those stations produced.
1. Complaint upheld
The Authority understood that the declared net capacity of a
hydro-generating station could be regarded as the theoretical maximum
of electricity that the station could produce. It understood that the
down-rating of a station''s declared net capacity would not
necessarily affect the efficiency of the station, that increasing the
efficiency of a station could increase the annual MWh output, and that
the efficiency could be increased without increasing the declared net
capacity. The Authority also understood that the down-rating of a
station''s declared net capacity could result in reduction in output
during periods of high rainfall, because stations with reduced
capacity would not use the optimum amount of water when reservoirs
were full; that would result in increased spill from dams, which would
represent lost energy. The Authority concluded that down-rating the
capacity of hydro-electric generating stations might not necessarily
reduce the amount of renewable energy those stations produced, but
that the output of those stations could be reduced during periods of
high rainfall.
The Authority noted the target for 2003 -2004 was for electricity
suppliers to source at least 4.3% of their electricity from renewable
generators and considered that the claim "RSPB Energy now exceeds the
requirements laid down by the government''s Renewables Obligation by
10%" was confusing because it implied the advertisers were exceeding
the Government''s 4.3% target by 10%, which would mean that 4.73% of
RSPB Energy was produced from renewable sources, whereas the Authority
understood that 100% of RSPB Energy was produced from renewable
sources. It was not convinced that the advertisers were exceeding the
requirements of the Renewables Obligation by 10% merely because they
were retiring 10% of their ROCs. The Authority noted each ROC
represented one megawatt hour of electricity and understood that the
advertisers held one ROC for every megawatt hour of electricity. It
understood that, if 100% of RSPB Energy electricity was produced from
renewable sources and if the advertisers were retiring ROCs to the
value of 10% of their electricity consumption, it meant that they were
retiring 10% of their ROCs. The Authority understood that the theory
behind the claim " ... for every 10 customers, RSPB Energy will
support the generation of enough additional renewable electricity to
supply the needs of an average home" was that, as a result of the
advertisers retiring 10% of their ROCs, the amount of renewable
electricity generated would increase by 10% of the advertisers''
output; that increase would be equivalent to 10% more electricity
being supplied to the National Grid, for every RSPB Energy customer,
than that customer used, so for every 10 customers, enough renewable
electricity would be supplied to the National Grid to meet the
consumption of 11 typical RSPB customers. It considered that the claim
rested on the assumption that retiring ROCs created a proportional
increase in demand for renewable electricity. The Authority understood
that retiring ROCs forced more suppliers to use the buy-out option to
fulfil their Renewables Obligation, which increased the value of the
ROCs that were in circulation, because it both reduced the supply of
ROCs and increased the amount of money to be redistributed to ROC
holders. The Authority considered it likely that the advertisers''
retired ROCs scheme would, in time, lead to an indirect increase in
the generation of renewable electricity, because the profitability of
renewable energy generation would increase if ROCs were expensive. The
Authority considered, however, that it had seen no evidence to prove
the assumption which the claim rested: that retiring ROCs created a
proportional increase in demand for renewable electricity. The
Authority told the advertisers not to repeat the claim unless they had
evidence to prove it.
2. Complaint upheld
The Authority understood that the advertisers'' retired ROCs scheme
was in its early stages and considered that the advertisers had not
sent evidence to show that they were increasing the amount of
renewable energy being produced in the UK at the present time. It was
not satisfied that the claim had been substantiated and told the
advertisers not to repeat it unless they had evidence to prove it. "
> It is time for the renewables industry at large to show that it is making a
>significant contribution to reducing CO2 emission and that it is not simply
>driven by a scramble for profits ‘effectively subsidised’ by the plundering
>of all our bills. We need verifiable ‘carbon’ targets, NOT
>‘installed-megawattage’ targets which may be unrelated to saving of fossil
>fuel consumption.
I'd agree it's time we stopped CONservation hooliganism taking us for
a ride. Whilst they are spending so much time and effort trying to con
us out of a few bob, our precious environment and habitat is
suffering! After all their claims are to "protect wildlife" not "to
make money"
Oh well another charity off my Christmas list, are there any charities
left that don't rip us all off?
Any news on the new band aid single and what percentage of our
donation actually gets to the good causes? I heard the RSPB, Woodland
Trust etc only actually use about 3pence in the pound for the good
causes.
|
|
| | From: | Peter Duncanson | | Subject: | Re: RSPB fake conservation. | | Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:10:20 +0000 |
|
|
| On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:11:44 +0000, RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
wrote:
>
>Any news on the new band aid single and what percentage of our
>donation actually gets to the good causes? I heard the RSPB, Woodland
>Trust etc only actually use about 3pence in the pound for the good
>causes.
There is information at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4055325.stm
BAND AID 20 CD SINGLE - WHERE £3.99 GOES
1. £1.83 - straight to Band Aid Trust charity
2. 60p - VAT to be given to charity by government
3. £1.10 Retailer's cut. How much goes to charity depends on the retailer
and how many are sold
4. 46p - Record company costs eg manufacture, distribution
Source: Band Aid Trust
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from uba)
"In the beginning was The Tautology."
|
|
| | From: | RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i | | Subject: | Re: RSPB fake conservation. | | Date: | Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:32:49 +0000 |
|
|
| On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:10:20 +0000, Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:11:44 +0000, RaStaMan Vibrations 4 i N i
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Any news on the new band aid single and what percentage of our
>>donation actually gets to the good causes? I heard the RSPB, Woodland
>>Trust etc only actually use about 3pence in the pound for the good
>>causes.
>
>There is information at
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4055325.stm
>
> BAND AID 20 CD SINGLE - WHERE £3.99 GOES
>1. £1.83 - straight to Band Aid Trust charity
>2. 60p - VAT to be given to charity by government
>3. £1.10 Retailer's cut. How much goes to charity depends on the retailer
>and how many are sold
>4. 46p - Record company costs eg manufacture, distribution
>Source: Band Aid Trust
>
Sounds fair enough. Thanks for that. I see amazon etc have agreed to
waive their profit and you can also donate online for the song and DVD
http://www.liveaiddvd.net/
http://www.bandaid20.com/
Which saves a few of the planets resources and you don't even HAVE TO
download the song!!
Now having made my donation where do I complain about it being such a
crap song. The original was an inspiration to us all and will be
forever but to keep rehashing it is destroying the credibility I'm
sure. With all this talent surely they could come up with a new and
equally inspirational song. I dread next year coming just in case they
rehash it again, isn't it about time someone told Sir Bob?
|
|
|
