ASA Non-broadcast Adjudication: Ecotricity Ltd

Complaint

Objection to a mailing, for wind power, that was headed "Welcome to wind". Text stated " ... Some of the projects we've already built with the support of our customers We built Swaffam's [sic] first turbine in 1999, and a second in 2003 at the request of local people. Together they generate electricity for 3,000 homes ...". The complainant challenged the claim, because he believed the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) issued for the turbines suggested that the number of homes the turbines supplied with electricity was fewer than 3,000 and because he believed the quoted figure did not take into account energy lost during transmission and distribution to those homes.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Adjudication

Complaint upheld

Ecotricity maintained that the two turbines in Swaffham were able to supply electricity for more than 3,000 homes. They explained that, when calculating the number of homes that were powered by the wind turbines, they used a 10-year projection of the combined electricity output of the two turbines, which was estimated at 10 GWh (gigawatt-hours) per annum, and the industry-recognised average annual household consumption of 3,300 kWh (kilowatt-hours). Ecotricity acknowledged that transmission and distribution losses over the National Grid could be significant but asserted that such losses from the Swaffham turbines were negligible because output generated from them went directly into the local grid to power nearby homes and businesses. They argued that it was not common industry practice to take into account transmission and distribution losses when calculating annual homes equivalents.

We noted the complainant's concern about transmission and distribution losses and their objection that the Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) issued to the turbines in Swaffham, during the year 2004, seemed to suggest that output was lower than claimed.

We noted the domestic electricity consumption figure currently recommended by Energywatch and recognised by the industry was 3300 kWh per household per year and considered that that was a reasonable figure for the advertisers to use in their calculation. We also noted, however, the calculation was based on an estimate of the combined electricity output of the two turbines over the next ten years. We considered that readers were likely to infer from the claim " ... Together they generate electricity for 3,000 homes ..." that the turbines were currently generating electricity for 3,000 homes, not that they were estimated to generate electricity for 3,000 homes based on yearly estimates for the turbines over a 10-year period. We concluded that the claim was misleading on this point and told Ecotricity to amend it. We advised them to consult the CAP Copy Advice team for help with the amendment.

The ad breached CAP Code Clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).