ASA Adjudication on E.ON Energy Ltd

Ad

A radio ad for an energy company was in the style of a school lesson. The teacher asked “The perfect source of energy?” and listed different energy sources, while the students gave her pros and cons for each. She said “Coal?” and the students responded “Cheap, reliable, but not low carbon”. She said “Gas?” and they responded “Fairly reliable, pretty clean, but North Sea gas is running out … So, it will get more expensive”. She said “Wind?” and they responded “Renewable, it’s carbon-free, but doesn’t always blow”. She said “Nuclear?” and the sound faded out. A voice-over concluded “No single source of energy is affordable, reliable and carbon-free, so at E.On we’re working on a balanced portfolio that includes them all. From gas to nuclear, from coal to wind". The teacher then asked "So the answer is ...?” and the students responded simultaneously, each suggesting one of the options.

Issue

One listener challenged whether it was misleading to call wind energy "carbon-free", as he felt there were significant carbon emissions involved in the construction and maintenance of wind farms.

BCAP Radio Code

Response

E.ON Energy Ltd (E.On) stated that the average listener and consumer would know that conventional sources of energy (fossil fuels) emitted carbon dioxide when used to generate electricity, whereas renewable sources of energy, such as wind, did not. They stated that listeners would infer that the ad was referring to energy sources and the generation of power from those sources, and not to the whole life cycle of wind farms. They said the claim "the perfect source of energy" indicated that the comparison related to the carbon produced when power was generated, rather than that produced when power stations or wind farms were produced. They pointed out that the ad did not make any claims about the construction or maintenance of wind farms being "carbon free" over a defined period. They said that it was generally accepted that wind farms saved carbon emissions during operation, when compared to fossil fuel energy generation, and referred to a carbon balance calculation tool, which calculated carbon payback times for wind farms; the examples given varied from 1.8 to 5.1 years. They said that, over its lifetime, a wind farm paid back more carbon than it emitted. They also believed it was not misleading to describe a wind farm as carbon free, on that basis.

The Radio Advertising Clearance Centre (RACC) stated that the claim "Wind? Renewable, carbon-free, but doesnt always blow" was made within a wider context of referring to a range of energy sources and was immediately followed by the claim "no single source of energy is affordable, reliable and carbon-free". They did not feel that listeners were likely to be misled into thinking that the phrase "carbon-free" in that context meant that there were no carbon emissions in the life-cycle of wind farms and believed that "carbon-free" would be understood in the context of comparing energy sources, and not in isolation or relating to the construction and maintenance of wind farms.

Assessment

Not upheld

The ASA considered that listeners would understand that the ad was specifically comparing the benefits and disadvantages of generating energy from different energy sources and was concerned with the pros and cons of each energy source in use and noted that the final voice-over stated single source of energy is affordable, reliable and carbon-free". We considered that listeners would understand from the ad that the generation of energy through wind power would not produce carbon emissions, unlike the generation and combustion of energy from fossil fuels, to which wind power was compared in the ad, and considered that listeners would not infer that the claim "carbon-free" related to the complete life-cycle of a wind farm in that context.

Because we considered that the claim "carbon-free" in the context of that ad was not a generalised environmental claim, but was limited to the specific aspect of comparing the generation and combustion of energy in use from a range of sources, we concluded that it was not misleading.

We investigated the ad under CAP (Broadcast) Radio Advertising Standards Code rules 2 - 5 (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.

Action

No further action necessary.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)