ASA Adjudication on Thormec UK Ltd

Ad

A magazine ad for water-source heat pumps featured a picture of a waterfall. Text alongside the picture stated "Thormec heat pumps take all their energy from the most natural and widely spread resource around, the water table. Wells, boreholes, rivers or even the sea provide the water needed to power the pumps. Gone are the days of expensive, environmentally damaging conventional systems". Four bullet points stated "Save 76% on your heating bills", "Zero harmful emissions", "Quiet, clean and efficient operation" and "400% more efficient than conventional heating".

Issue

1. Calor Gas Ltd challenged whether the claim "zero harmful emissions" could be substantiated.

The ASA Challenged whether:

2. the claim "save 76% on your heating bills" could be substantiated; and

3. the claim "400% more efficient than conventional heating" could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

1. Thormec UK Ltd (Thormec) said their units were sealed refrigerant units that did not produce any harmful emissions themselves. They said the units did use electricity, but Thormec argued that that could be supplied from the customer's own renewable sources, or from special green energy tariffs provided by the customer's electricity supplier. Thormec said they also worked alongside other companies who installed renewable electricity plants and that, coupled with their heat pumps, the use of electricity in that instance was also zero rated.

2. Thormec explained that the most efficient a usable energy source could be was 100%, and that any fuel, when consumed, could not be more efficient than this. They said that if, for example, they burned electricity, gas or oil to release their energy, those systems could not produce anymore than 100% of their potential energy (chlorific value). They said the same was true of a heat pump. Thormec explained that a heat pump used electricity, and that the resistance of that electricity was passed over as heat out, and that in addition the refrigeration circuit of the heat pump absorbed low grade heat from the ground and condensed it to a high grade heat to be used in the heating system. Thormec said that every heating appliance had a Co-efficient Performance (COP) rating. Thormec explained that the COP rating was the energy paid for in the form of electricity to run the unit, or generate into the unit, against the energy output of the unit. They said electricity had a COP rating of approximately .98, but because the rating was dependent on the type of electricity application used, they regarded the rating as 1. They said that .98 would be 98% efficient and 1 would be 100% efficient, and that these were standard figures in the use of energy production. Thormec said their unit had a COP rating of 4.3. They submitted a copy of the COP test carried out by the Building Services Research Information Association (BSRIA), an independent test centre for microclimate and refrigeration units, which showed the Thormec Heat pump had a COP rating of 4.3. Thormec explained that that meant their units were in effect 430% efficient. They argued that if electricity was 100% efficient and cost 10p per kw, they could reduce that cost to 2.3p per kw, which was a saving of over 76%. Thormec said they used the figure of 10p per kw for electricity because that was the average price from suppliers.

3. Thormec pointed to the results of the BSRIA test showing a COP rating of 4.3. They said they had other thermal heating systems which had a COP rating of 5 and over. Thormec explained that, taking electricity at 100% and their units at 500%, the difference was 400%. They said they did not have a BSIRA report to substantiate the COP rating of 5, which was a rating they had got from their own tests. Thormec said, because they could only independently substantiate the COP rating of 4.3, they would amend the ad to state "330% more efficient than conventional heating". This figure was the difference between electricity at 100% efficient and their unit at 430% efficient.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Thormec's argument that water-source heat pump units did not produce any carbon emissions themselves. We understood that, by using electricity, a heat pump unit would still produce a certain amount of CO2, although that would be less than that produced by a conventional heating system. We also acknowledged that, if the units were powered by wind turbines, or other renewable sources of energy supplied by the customer, then the carbon emissions could be reduced even further. However, we considered that most customers would not have their own renewable energy supply and would have to use conventional electricity to power the heat pump unit instead. We understood that a typical ground-source heat pump, running off electricity, could cut harmful emissions by around five tonnes each year. However, we also understood from Thormec's own website that, when powered by electricity, their water source units produced three tonnes of carbon emissions each year.  We considered that most consumers would understand the claim "zero carbon emissions" to be an absolute claim that referred to the performance of the heat pump unit itself, and not to the nature of the energy tariffs provided by their electricity supplier. We also considered that the nature of green energy tariffs varied greatly between the different suppliers, and that the claim "zero carbon emissions" might not accurately reflect the carbon cutting initiatives of those different tariffs. Because of this, and because we considered the claim "zero carbon emissions" had not been qualified in the ad, we concluded it was likely to mislead.

On this point we investigated the ad under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.1 (Environmental claims).

2. Upheld

We noted Thormec's argument that, because their units were more efficient than conventional heating appliances, they could reduce the cost of customers' electricity to 2.3p per kw. We also noted that this was a saving of over 75% from the average electricity cost of 10p per kw. We noted, however, that this was only an average price and that energy costs varied around the country from 7.53p per kw to 18.30p per kw depending on the tariff, supplier and payment method that customers used. We considered that the saving a customer might receive would be dependent on the  conventional energy source they were replacing. We understood that the running cost of a conventional gas boiler in a three-bedroom, well-insulated property was around £335 per annum, based on gas consumption of 17,000kw per annum. In comparison the running costs for a ground source heat pump for the same property would be £225 per annum. We acknowledged that that was a saving of £110 or 33%. We understood that a ground-source heat pump was generally more efficient than a water-source heat pump, because the temperature of the source was greater, and that therefore customers with water-source heat pumps might not achieve this comparative level of savings for their running costs. We considered that not all customers with a water source heat pump would make a saving of 75% on their heating bills, and that Thormec had not sent evidence to show that any of their customers had achieved that amount. Because of that, and because the claim "Save 76% on your heating bills" was not qualified by text such as 'up to', we concluded that on this point the ad was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We understood that the COP rating of a heat pump unit was the ratio of the number of units of heat output for each unit of energy input used to drive the unit. We acknowledged that, unlike conventional fuels, for every unit of electricity used to drive a heat pump the pump would produce more than one unit of heat, because heat pumps utilised the low grade heat of their water or ground source. We noted the BSRIA report provided by Thormec showed their unit had a COP efficiency rating of 4.3, which we understood to mean that for each unit of energy used to power the pump 4.3 units of heat energy were supplied by the system. We welcomed Thormec's assurance that they would amend the ad to reflect that BSRIA result until they had a similar BSRIA report to substantiate their own tests on their 5 COP rated unit. However, we considered that the efficiency rating of a heat pump system would depend on the type of unit used, and that heat pump units typically had COP efficiency ratings of between 3 and 5. We also considered that Thormec provided a range of water-source heat pumps, which had different efficiency ratings, and that the unit most suitable for a customer's needs might not necessarily have a COP rating of 4 and therefore be 400% more efficient than the conventional heating system it replaced. Because we considered the claim "400% more efficient than conventional heating" was an unqualified claim that could not be substantiated by the BSIRA report, and would not necessarily apply to all Thormec's water source units, we concluded that on this point that ad was likely to mislead.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We told Thormec not to repeat the ad in its current form and advised them to seek guidance from our CAP Copy Advice team when preparing future ads.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)