The reasons that led to the creation of the single, green tariff were analyzed by the Minister of Environment and Energy, Theodore Skylakakis. Speaking on Thursday in the Plenary of the Parliament, on the subject, he requested the approval of a relevant article, entitled: “Establishment of regulations in the supply of electricity – Addition of Article 138A to Law 4951/2022”.
This is specifically about article 17, in the draft law of the Ministry of Development: “Incorporation of Directive (EU) 2021/2101 of the European Parliament and of the Council of November 24, 2021 on the amendment of Directive (EU) 2013/34 regarding the publication of information taxation of income from certain enterprises and branches – Update of national legislation on companies’ publicity obligations and other urgent provisions’.
The Minister of Environment and Energy stated the following about the “green” tariff in the context of the discussion of the bill:
“Ladies and Gentlemen, colleagues, the article I want to refer to is article 17, which introduces the “green” – as we call it – invoice, to the invoices that suppliers should have from 1.1.2024. I want to explain, what is the meaning of this tariff and why I will ask for its approval, if possible by the widest possible parliamentary majority.
One of the problems that exist in the electricity market is the inability of consumers to have a clear picture of who is the cheapest supplier. Why does this weakness exist? European law, which we apply and the European regulatory framework we currently follow, give full freedom to providers to shape their commercial policy. This complete freedom has led to a large number of tariffs – if there is anyone in the room who knows who the cheapest supplier is, please interrupt me and tell me now – and creates a difficulty for a large number of consumers in choosing the cheapest . Quite simply, it takes a lot more work and expertise than any ordinary person – and the vast majority of electricity consumers are ordinary people – can or has the ability to allocate to analyze all the suppliers’ tariffs.
From 1.1.2024 there will be a transition of all consumers to the new tariffs. And given that a very large number of consumers will certainly not actively choose a tariff – I remind you that there are over 1 million benefits, in which consumers have not chosen a tariff at PPC and historically remain on a tariff, without engaging in which tariff they will go – and a huge number of people will find themselves without an express contract, we had two options: One option was to accept that suppliers would choose a tariff on behalf of consumers. That is, those who will not actively make the decision, who will not make a statement, would go to the invoice closest to what they had, which the suppliers would choose. However, suppliers have the right to offer whatever invoice they want. And which one would be the closest to each consumer, would be the supplier’s decision. There, however well-intentioned the suppliers may be, there is an inherent conflict of interest that we felt we should avoid. Given that from 1.1.2024 for those who do not actively choose an invoice, there is no full contract, i.e. we would not have two parties that would agree, we would have one party that would agree (supplier’s note). That is why we introduced a new ex ante tariff, i.e. with a variable price, but known in advance (this does not apply to fixed tariffs), which has the following characteristics: It has a correction system to reduce, as much as possible, the difference from the ex post invoice and to reduce the compensation cost paid by the suppliers. I note here that if you have an invoice with an adjustment clause, at the end of the day it is cheaper than an invoice where the supplier tells you the price and then pays compensation if they make a mistake (in the long term, in the short term they may not this is true).
So we tried to make a tariff as close as possible to the cheapest, but in which the consumer knows from the beginning what the price will be next month. And this invoice should have the feature that consumers will now be able, by opening the relevant page of the FSA, to compare the prices – in every bill and in every message that consumers will receive, there will be a link that will take them to the comparison of prices. They will see who is the cheapest last month, the month before, the month before, etc. And so, they will form a picture of who is the cheapest in the market. This does not mean that they cannot leave this tariff. They can leave at any time. This does not mean that they cannot change supplier. They can change supplier at any time. It does mean, however, that companies will be forced, on this particular tariff, to compete on prices, with consumers knowing the prices. And price competition will only be good for the consumer.
I see that there are some publications, which say that I am ideological, non-neoliberal – because I do state interventions – and that there is confusion in the market. I will say, therefore, that the confusion exists among consumers today. Because the big confusion is, they don’t know who is the cheapest. And we will resolve this confusion. And I would like – if possible – because I never ask anyone to vote for something they don’t believe in, to have the greatest possible support from the National Delegation on this issue. Thank you very much”.