COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the EU Framework for Metering and Billing of Energy Consumption Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency
Date: 2016-11-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: consumer information, electricity supply, energy consumption, energy distribution, energy efficiency, energy saving, energy supply, gas supply, measuring equipment, price of energy

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.11.2016  SWD(2016) 399 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION  of the  EU Framework for Metering and Billing of Energy Consumption  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency   {COM(2016) 761 final} {COM(2016) 401 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

Purpose of this evaluation .................................................................................. 3 

Purpose of this evaluation .................................................................................. 3 

Overview of EU acquis related to metering and billing ..................................... 3 

Scope of this evaluation ..................................................................................... 4 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE ............................................................................... 5 

3. 

4. 

5. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Description of the initiative and its objectives ................................................... 6 

Baseline .............................................................................................................. 9 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 10 

METHOD .................................................................................................................... 10 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) ........................................................... 11 

State of play as regards implementation .......................................................... 11 

Problems and issues identified ......................................................................... 12 

6. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................................................. 13 

6.1. 

6.2. 

6.3. 

Electricity and Gas Directives .......................................................................... 14 

EED .................................................................................................................. 28 

Billing (information) and frequency ................................................................ 36 

7. 

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 40 

ANNEX 1 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................ 45 

ANNEX  2  -  REFIT  ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  RENEWABLE  ENERGY  DIRECTIVE  –  PROVISIONS 
RELATED TO GUARANTEES OF ORIGIN (GOS) ......................................................... 51 

ANNEX 3 - MAIN SOURCES USED FOR THE ANALYSIS ................................................................. 55 

ANNEX 4 - DETAILS ON COMMISSION PROPOSALS ..................................................................... 57 

ANNEX 5 - BILLING PRACTICES AND REGULATION PER COUNTRY .............................................. 59 

2 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Purpose of this evaluation 

The purpose of this evaluation is to take stock of the current performance and continued 
relevance of existing EU legal provisions on metering and billing so as to evaluate what is 
working,  what  is  not,  and  why.  This  is  done  in  the  context  of  the  follow-up  on  the 
communications on a new energy market design1 and on Delivering a New Deal for Energy 
Consumers2  (hereinafter  referred  to  jointly  as  the  Market  Design  Initiative  -  "MDI")  and  as 
part  of  the  parallel  review  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EED).  At  the  same  time  the 
evaluation  presents  an  opportunity  to  look  critically  at  provisions  where  problems  have 
already  been  identified  in  the  course  of  the  ongoing  work  with  transposition  and 
implementation of the EED.  

1.2. 

Purpose of this evaluation 

The purpose of this evaluation is to take stock of the current performance and continued 
relevance of existing EU legal provisions on metering and billing so as to evaluate what is 
working,  what  is  not,  and  why.  This  is  done  in  the  context  of  the  follow-up  on  the 
communications on a new energy market design3 and on Delivering A New Deal for Energy 
Consumers4  (hereinafter  referred  to  jointly  as  the  Market  Design  Initiative  -  "MDI")  and  as 
part  of  the  parallel  review  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive  (EED).  At  the  same  time  the 
evaluation  presents  an  opportunity  to  look  critically  at  provisions  where  problems  have 
already  been  identified  in  the  course  of  the  ongoing  work  with  transposition  and 
implementation of the EED.  

1.3.  Overview of EU acquis related to metering and billing 

The  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives5  contains  the  following  key  provisions  related  to 
metering and billing: 

  Article 3 

Billing and promotional material 

o  3(3) Access to comparable and transparent supply options (Electricity only!) 
o  3(5)/3(6) Access to consumption data 
o  3(9)  Disclosure  of  the  overall  fuel  mix  and  environmental  impact  of  the 

supplier (Electricity only!) 

  Annex I  

Consumer protection 

o  1.c) The transparency of applicable prices and tariffs 
o  1.d) Consumer payment methods 

1 COM(2015) 340 final 
2 COM(2015) 339 final 
3 COM(2015) 340 final 
4 COM(2015) 339 final 
5  Directive  2009/72/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13  July  2009  concerning  common 
rules  for  the  internal  market  in  electricity  and  repealing  Directive  2003/54/EC,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0072  

Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules 
for  the  internal  market  in  natural  gas  and  repealing  Directive  2003/55/EC,  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0073  

3 

 
                                                            
o  1.i) Frequency of information on consumption and costs 
o  2. Intelligent metering systems (smart meter roll-out) 

The Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)6 contains the following key provisions: 

  Article 9 

Metering 

o  9(1) Individual metering generally 
o  9(2) Requirements related to smart metering 
o  9(3) Metering of thermal energy in multi-apartment/purpose buildings 
Billing information (in conjunction with Annex VII) 

  Article10 

o  10(1) Consumption based billing (information) requirement in general (incl. as 

regards minimum frequency) 

o  10(2) Requirements on consumption information from smart meters 
o  10(3)  General  information  and  billing  requirements  pertinent  to  costs, 

consumption and payment 

  Article 11 

Cost of metering and billing information 

o  11(1) Metering and billing generally free of charges 
o  11(2) Conditions for pass-through of cost of sub-metering/-billing  

In addition the following provisions are of relevance when considering disclosure of energy 
sources in bills: 

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED)7 contains the following key provision: 

  Article 15 

Guarantees of Origin (GO) 

o  15(1-12)  A  comprehensive  framework  for  the  issuance,  transfer,  and 
cancellation  of  guarantees  of  origin  for  electricity  produced  from  renewable 
electricity sources for the sole purpose of disclosure. 

The EED contains similar provisions for guaranteeing the origin of electricity produced from 
a high-efficiency cogeneration process: 

  Article14(10)  

1.4. 

Scope of this evaluation 

This  evaluation  is  based  on  the  five  Better  Regulation  criteria  (relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence  and  EU-added  value)  in  a  proportionate  way  and  considers 
simplification, burden reduction potential, SMEs and quantification of costs and cost benefit 
only implicitly or to a limited extent, given its partial scope, the multiple and complex other 
factors affecting the objectives studied and the limited data available. 

6 Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, 
amending  Directives  2009/125/EC  and  2010/30/EU  and  repealing  Directives  2004/8/EC  and  2006/32/EC, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32012L0027  
7 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the 
use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Directives  2001/77/EC, 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
The scope of the evaluation covers the following elements: 

Electricity and Gas Directives 

  General  evaluation  of  the  performance/continued  relevance  of  Article  3(3)  of  the 
Electricity  Directive:  This  covers  access  to  comparable  and  transparent  supply 
options,  implicitly  addressing  the  information  presented  in  bills,  comparison  tools, 
metering information and pre-contractual information. 

  General  evaluation  of  the  performance/continued  relevance  of  Article  3(9)  of  the 
Electricity  Directive:  This  addresses  the  disclosure  of  the  overall  fuel  mix  and 
environmental impact of the supplier. The evaluation of the legal text will therefore be 
performed together with Article 15 of the RED, which cross references it (see below). 
  General evaluation of the performance/continued relevance of Articles 1.c) and 1.i) 
of  Annex  1  of  the  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives:  These  cover  key  information 
presented in consumer bills. 

Energy Efficiency Directive 

  General  evaluation  of  the  performance/continued  relevance  of  Article  9(1): 
Substantial experience with implementing this article already exists since it has been 
in force longer than the remaining provisions (it was transferred virtually unchanged 
into the EED from the 2006 Energy Services Directive). 

  EED  Article  10(1)  and  the  related  annex  VII  in  particular  in  so  far  is  concerned 
minimum billing frequency (identified as possible area for development in MDI) and 
comparability of information. 

EED Articles 9(2) and 10(2) and Annex I point 2 of both the Electricity and Gas Directives 
concern requirements specifically for smart electricity and gas meters and will be considered 
as part of a separate thematic evaluation on smart meters. 

Remaining provisions in Articles 9-11 are not within the scope of the evaluation, except to 
the extent justified by: 

  Early  indications  of  a  need  for  technical  clarifications  already  emerging  from  the 

ongoing implementation work; 

  The  need 

to  address  overlap/coherence  with  MDI  actions  on  consumer 

empowerment/information/transparency. 

The  RED  has  already  been  subject  to  a  REFIT  review,  so  this  evaluation  contains  the 
conclusions from that report for issues related to the GO system.  The relevant parts of the 
REFIT  review  are  in  Annex  2.  The  REFIT  evaluation  of  the  legal  text  will  therefore  be 
considered together with the evaluation of Article  3(3)  of the Electricity Directive, which it 
cross  references  (see  above),  as  will  the  EED  provisions  on  GOs  for  high-efficiency 
cogeneration.  

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

This section identifies the objectives behind the existing provisions on metering and billing in 
the IEM legislation and in the EED based on the legislative texts (including their recitals) and 

5 

 
 
 
 
on  the  related  Commission  proposals  and  preparatory  documents  accompanying  the  latter 
(impact  assessments).  At  the  end  of  the  section  the  intervention  logic  behind  the  legislative 
provisions on metering and billing is depicted. 

2.1.  Description of the initiative and its objectives  

The Electricity and Gas Directives as adopted by the co-legislator 

The recitals of the 2003 Electricity8 and Gas Directives9 as adopted by the co-legislators 
following the co-decision process reinforce the objectives identified by the Commission10 to a 
large extent. The co-legislators 

 

Inserted a recital stating that the ability of electricity and gas customers to choose their 
supplier  freely  was  fundamental  to  the  freedoms  which  the  Treaty  guarantees 
European citizens (Recital 4) – a point reiterated elsewhere in the recitals11. 

  Reinforced a recital on standards of public service to include the right for household 
customers  and,  where  Member  States  deem  it  appropriate,  small  enterprises  "to  be 
supplied with electricity of a specified quality at clearly comparable, transparent and 
reasonable prices" (Recital 24). 

  Added to the Electricity Directive a recital acknowledging the Commission's intention 
to ensure that reliable information on the environmental impact of electricity from 
different  sources  could  be  made  available  in  a  transparent,  easily  accessible  and 
comparable manner (Recital 25). 

The  provisions  and  recitals  on  the  freedom  to  choose  suppliers  and  the  right  to  clear, 
comparable  information  remained  largely  unchanged  by  the  co-legislators  in  the  2007 
Directives.  Although  the  original  recital  on  disclosure  was  removed  in  the  2007  Electricity 
Directive,  the  co-legislators  reinforced  the  provisions  in  the  Directive  to  specify  that 
information on fuel sources should be clear and, at the national level, comparable. 

To  summarize,  the  metering  and  billing  provisions  in  the  electricity  and  gas  markets 
Directives  have  remained  largely  unchanged  since  they  were  first  proposed/adopted  in 
2001/2003. Legislative texts and supporting documents reveal that the major objectives of the 
Commission and co-legislators were to: 

  Enable easier and more effective consumer choice; 
  Boost competition in retail markets; 
  Create consumer incentives to save energy. 

The Commission's proposal for the EED 

The  2011  Commission  proposal  for  an  Energy  Efficiency  Directive12 
included  a 
comprehensive  and  ambitious  set  of  provisions  on  metering  and  billing  representing  very 

8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32003L0054 
9 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003L0055 
10 For details on the Commission proposals see Annex 4. 
11 Recitals 20 and 18 of the Electricity and gas Directives respectively. 
12 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011PC0370  

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
significant changes compared to the already existing provisions in the field, namely Article 13 
of the Energy Services Directive13 (ESD). 

The Commission's proposal was accompanied by detailed analysis of options on metering & 
billing14.  The  stated  specific  objective  of  the  proposal  as  regards  the  metering  and  billing 
provisions was to "[e]nsure that consumers are empowered with correct, understandable and 
regular information on their energy use".  

More particularly, there was a clear aim to address problems identified with the application 
of  Art  13  of  the  ESD:  As  the  Impact  Assessment  summarized  it:  "Because  of  the  vague 
wording  the  provisions  did  not  lead  to  improvements"  with  respect  to  the  aim  that  was  to 
"ensure  understandable  and  accurate  information  is  provided  for  consumers  via  individual 
meters and energy bills on a frequent basis."15. 

Key changes proposed included:  

  minimum  frequency  of  consumption  based  billing  of  every  1-2  months  in  most 

cases, and  

  clarification  that  individual  metering  in  each  flat  in  multi-  apartment  buildings 

was also required for heating, cooling and hot water. 

The EED as adopted by the co-legislator 

The recitals of the EED as adopted by the co-legislators following the co-decision process 
to  a  large  extent  mirror  the  objectives  identified  by  the  Commission  despite  the  operative 
provisions being very different. Notably, the co-legislators:  

  Retained  a  recital  emphasizing  the  need  to  take  account  of  the  benefits  of  cost-
effective technological innovations such as smart meters, albeit without stressing the 
need for visualization of cost and consumption indicators (Recital 26). 
Included  new  recitals  with  cross-references  to  the  provisions  on  smart  meters  in 
Directives  2009/72/EC  and  2009/73/EC  (Recitals  27&  31),  and  on  the  appropriate 
conditions for using heat cost allocators and sub-metering of heating, cooling and hot 
water more generally in multi-apartment buildings (Recitals 28-29). 

 

  Added  two  recitals  expressly  acknowledging  the  insufficient  progress  and  clarity  of 

the existing provisions and the need for clearer rules: 

"(32)  The  impact  of  the  provisions  on  metering  and  billing  in  Directives 
2006/32/EC, 2009/72/EC and 2009/73/EC on energy saving has been limited. 
In  many  parts  of  the  Union,  these  provisions  have  not  led  to  customers 
receiving up-to-date information about their energy consumption, or billing 
based on actual consumption at a frequency which studies show is needed to 
enable customers to regulate their energy use. In the sectors of space heating 
and  hot  water  in  multi-apartment  buildings  the  insufficient  clarity  of  these 
provisions has also led to numerous complaints from citizens." 

13 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0032  
14 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_0779_ia_annexes.pdf, p.52 
15 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_0779_impact_assessment.pdf, p.12 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
(33)  In  order  to  strengthen  the  empowerment  of  final  customers  as  regards 
access  to  information  from  the  metering  and  billing  of  their  individual 
energy  consumption,  bearing  in  mind  the  opportunities  associated  with  the 
process of the implementation of intelligent metering systems and the roll out 
of smart meters in the Member States, it is important that the requirements of 
Union law in this area be made clearer. This should help reduce the costs of 
the  implementation  of  intelligent  metering  systems  equipped  with  functions 
enhancing  energy  saving  and  support  the  development  of  markets  for  energy 
services  and  demand  management.  Implementation  of  intelligent  metering 
systems enables frequent billing based on actual consumption. However, there 
is also a need to clarify the requirements for access to information and fair 
and  accurate  billing  based  on  actual  consumption  in  cases  where  smart 
meters  will  not  be  available  by  2020,  including  in  relation  to  metering  and 
billing  of  individual  consumption  of  heating,  cooling  and  hot  water  in  multi-
unit  buildings  supplied  by  district  heating/  cooling  or  own  common  heating 
system installed in such buildings. 

As  regards  the  possibility  to  guarantee  the  origin  of  electricity  from  high-efficiency 
cogeneration  the  EED  essentially  incorporated  and  updated  provisions  from  Directive 
2004/8/EC:  

 

"(39)  To  increase  transparency  for  the  final  customer  to  be  able  to  choose 
between  electricity  from  cogeneration  and  electricity  produced  by  other 
techniques, the origin of high-efficiency cogeneration should be guaranteed on 
the basis of harmonised efficiency reference values…." 

In  short,  based  on  the  EED  recitals  the  objective  of  Articles  9-11  as  identified  by  the  co-
legislators  was  to  strengthen  the  empowerment  of  final  customers  as  regards  access  to 
up-to-date  information  on  their  actual,  individual  energy  consumption  at  a  frequency 
enabling  them  to  regulate  their  energy  use,  bearing  in  mind  the  opportunities  associated 
with  intelligent  metering  systems  as  well  as  the  situations  where  smart  meters will  not  be 
available by 2020. There was a clear aim to clarify existing provisions that were considered 
unclear  and  ineffective.  The  GO  provisions  in  Article14  and  the  related  Annex  expressly 
aimed  at  increasing  transparency  for  the  final  customer  to  be  able  to  choose  between 
electricity from cogeneration and electricity produced by other techniques 

As adopted, the EED's operational provisions in essence: 

  Carried forward without changes the ESD provisions on individual metering (in EED 

Article 9(1)); 

  Added requirements for smart electricity and gas meters (Article 9(2)); 
  Added  new  provisions  expressly  requiring  metering  of  heating/cooling/hot  water  in 
multi-apartment/purpose  buildings,  and  on  cost  allocation  (Article  9(3)),  subject  to 
technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness condition; 

  Extended provisions on billing and billing information to include a specified minimum 
frequency, and elaborated on billing information requirements (Article10(1), 10(3) and 
Annex VII); 

  Added new provisions on historical information for customers with electricity or gas 

smart meters (Article 10(2)); 

8 

 
 
 
 
  Carried forward provisions on guaranteeing the origin of electricity produced through 

high-efficiency cogeneration from Dir. 2004/08/EC. 

2.2.  Baseline 

The 2003 and 2009 Electricity  and Gas Directives were  fundamental to the liberalisation of 
the  EU's  gas  and  electricity  sectors  and  the  completion  of  the  internal  market.  In  their 
absence, it is not likely that many Member States would have proceeded with liberalising their 
energy  markets  at  the  same  speed  and  to  the  same  extent.  Therefore,  it  is  likely  that 
significantly  fewer  EU  energy  consumers  would  have  been  able  to  benefit  from  market 
competition in terms of:  

 
increased efficiency and competitiveness;  
 
lower energy supply costs; 
  higher standards of service.  

In  absence  of  the  EED,  ESD  provisions  from  2006  would  have  continued  to  apply.  As 
mentioned  above,  these  had  not  proven  to  consistently  lead  to  the  expected  improvements. 
The detailed issues with the ESD provisions will be further explored below. 

As regards guarantees of origin, such were already introduced for electricity from renewables 
and from high-efficiency cogeneration in Directives 2004/8/EC and 2001/77/EC, respectively. 

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  somewhat  atypical  in  that  it  has  not  aimed  to  evaluate  a 
single, specific intervention. Rather, it seeks to take stock of the current situation which is the 
cumulative outcome of several, past policy developments/legislative processes with different 
timing.  It  does  so  only  in  so  far  as  regards  metering  and  billing  is  concerned  and  with  a 
particular  focus  on  coherence  and  relevance.  Consequently,  it  has  been  considered  less 
important to identify a clear baseline, but in the analysis only interventions over the last 1-2 
decades  have  been  considered  (although  there  are  examples  of  EU  action  on  metering  and 
billing even before that16). 

16 Cf. eg. Council Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon dioxide emissions by improving 
energy efficiency (SAVE)   

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: Intervention Logic Diagram illustrating the subject of this Annex  

3.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

This evaluation aims, for each of the sub-themes within the scope, to answer the following 
questions: 

1. What is the current situation? 

2. How effective has the EU intervention been? 

3. How efficient has the EU intervention been? 

4. How relevant is the EU intervention? 

5. How coherent is the EU intervention internally and with other (EU) actions? 

6. What is the EU added value of the intervention? 

4.  METHOD 

This  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  in-house  by  the  Commission  services.  No  analytical 
models  have  been  applied.  The  main  activities  and  processes  which  have  provided  the  key 
inputs are listed in Annex 3. 

10 

 
 
5. 

IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS)  

5.1. 

State of play as regards implementation 

Electricity and Gas Directives 

Enforcement action undertaken by the Commission in relation to the Internal Energy Market 
legislation is ongoing. Procedures are set out in detail in "Enforcement of the Third Internal 
Energy  Market  Package  (SWD(2014)  315  final)".17  As  of  20  January  2016,  all  of  the 
infringement  proceedings  for  partial  transposition  of  the  Electricity  Directive  have  been 
closed.  The focus is  now on addressing the incorrect  transposition or bad application  of the 
Third Energy Package, with priority being given to violations which have the highest impact 
on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  including  unbundling,  independence,  powers  and 
duties  of  the  national  regulatory  authorities  and  consumer  protection.  On  this  basis,  the 
Commission has opened structured dialogues ("EU Pilot18") with a number of Member States. 
As of 20 January 2016, 8 of these dialogues have been followed by infringement procedures 
(see further details below). 

Energy Efficiency Directive 

As  the  deadline  for  transposing  the  EED  was  relatively  recent  (5/6-/2014),  the  enforcement 
action  undertaken  by  the  Commission  in  relation  to  the  EED  at  this  stage  mainly  concerns 
incomplete transposition. As of 20 January 2016 there were still 23 infringement procedures 
pending for incomplete transposition of the EED. In addition, the Commission is yet to verify 
the conformity of the transposed national measures with the requirements of the Directive.   

Importantly, two of the key provisions in Article 9 and 10 of relevance to this evaluation have 
later application deadlines than the general transposition deadline as regards certain aspects of 
heating,  cooling  and  hot  water  metering  and  billing  in  multi-apartment  buildings.  Although 
certain  metering  and  billing  requirements  already  existed  under  Article  13  of  the  Energy 
Services  Directive,  they  were  further  developed  in  the  EED  which  clarified  the  difference 
between  heat  cost  allocators  and  individual  heat  meters  and  imposed  additional  metering 
obligation  for  buildings  with  central  heating  system,  in  addition  to  buildings  with  district 
heating.  The  obligation  for  frequent  billing  in  accordance  with  Article  10(1)  only  became 
mandatory  as  of  31/12/2014,  and  the  deadline  for  introducing  metering  of  heating,  cooling 
and  hot  water  in  individual  units  in  multi-apartment/purpose  buildings  is  31/12/2016.  This 
provision,  of  particular  importance  to  owners  and  tenants  in  Member  States  in  which  large 
apartment blocks make up a significant percentage of the residential housing stock, obviously 
cannot yet be evaluated fully as the application deadline has not yet passed and it is therefore 
impossible to check how the legal obligation has been put into practice. 

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2014_iem_communication_annex6_0.pdf. 

17 
presented here are updated, to the extent necessary. 
18 Structured dialogue between the Commission and the Member State concerned is carried out via ‘EU Pilot’. 
EU  Pilot"  This  is  a  scheme  designed  to  quickly  resolve  compliance  problems  without  having  to  resort  to 
infringement procedures for the benefit of citizen and business 

Figures 

11 

 
                                                            
5.2. 

Problems and issues identified 

In September 2011 the Commission opened 38 infringement proceedings against 19 Member 
States to ensure full transposition of the Electricity and Gas Directives. Non-resolved cases 
were followed up in 2012 by sending reasoned opinions and referrals to Court. 

The two Directives have been now transposed by all Member States. The Commission closed 
all the non-communication cases. 

Structured dialogues with Member States as well as infringements on incorrect transposition 
or bad application are currently ongoing. As of 20 January 2016, 8 of the structured dialogues 
have resulted in infringement procedures where, inter alia, violation of the EU electricity and 
gas consumer provisions is at stake.  

So  far,  Annex  I(1)(d)  on  consumer  choice  of  payment  methods  and  Annex  I(1)(i)  on 
frequency  of  information  on  consumption  and  costs  of  both  Directive  2009/72/EC  and 
Directive 2009/73/EC seem to be the most problematic of the articles relevant here. Issues as 
regards  the  non-conforming  transposition  of  Annex  I(1)(d)  have  been  raised  in  structured 
dialogues with 5 Member States and 1 Member State has received a Letter of Formal Notice 
regarding  the  transposition  of  the  same  provision.  As  for  the  Annex  I(1)(i)  of  Directive 
2009/72/EC and Directive 2009/73/EC, structured dialogues raising issues as regards the non-
conforming  transposition  of  this  provision  are  currently  pending  for  5  MS  and  for  one 
Member State the procedure is currently at the stage of Letter of Formal Notice. 

Findings  of  a  mystery  shopping  exercise19  carried  out  between  11  December  2014  and  18 
March 2015 suggest that the implementation and/or enforcement of some measures addressed 
in this evaluation may be an issue in certain Member States.  

Only  28%  of  mystery  shoppers  (including  experts)  were  able  to  find  a  contact  point  where 
they could obtain information about their energy rights, as required under Article 3(9)(c) of 
the Electricity and Gas Directives20. In addition, Article 3(9)(a) of the Electricity Directive 
requires suppliers to specify the contribution of each energy source to the overall fuel mix of 
the supplier over the preceding year in or with consumer bills21. However, more than a third 
(35%)  of  mystery  shoppers  in  the  same  study  disagreed  that  their  electricity  company 
informed them about how the electricity they used was produced (scores 0 to 4 on a scale to 
10)22. As transposition checks for the directives do not indicate particular irregularities around 

19  Mystery  shopping  or  a  mystery  consumer  or  secret  shopper,  is  a  tool  used  externally  by  market  research 
companies,  watchdog  organizations,  or  internally  by  companies  themselves  to  measure  quality  of  service,  or 
compliance  with  regulation,  or  to  gather  specific  information  about  products  and  services.  Mystery  shoppers 
were instructed to analyse one of their own monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly electricity bills. 
20' 'Member States shall ensure that electricity suppliers specify in or with the bills and in promotional materials 
made available to final customers… the contribution of each energy source to the overall fuel mix of the supplier 
over the preceding year in a comprehensible and, at a national level, clearly comparable manner…' 
21 'Member States shall ensure that electricity suppliers specify in or with the bills and in promotional materials 
made  available  to  final  customers…  information  concerning  their  rights  as  regards  the  means  of  dispute 
settlement available to them in the event of a dispute.' 
22 This was the case for a majority of respondents in nine EU-28 countries, with the highest level of disagreement 
observed in Bulgaria (78%). On the other end of the scale, the proportion of respondents who “strongly agreed” 
(scores 8 to 10) that their electricity company informed them about how the electricity they used was produced 

12 

 
                                                            
these articles, this points to possible interpretation issues or the bad application of the relevant 
measures by national authorities. 

As  regards  the  EED,  only  44%  of  mystery  shoppers  were  able  to  find  a  comparison  of  the 
current  energy  consumption  with  consumption  for  the  same  period  in  the  previous  year, 
preferably in graphic form (EED Annex VII 1,2 b)), and only 26% were able to find tips on 
saving energy or contact information (e.g. link to a website) (EED Annex VII 1.2 c) / 1.3).23 
However, the transposition of the Directive is still incomplete in several Member States and 
even  where  transposition  has  been  completed,  further  implementation  activities  are  still 
ongoing.  A  preliminary  analysis  of  notified  transposition  measures  carried  out  for  the 
Commission indicates that transposition of Articles 9-11 remains very patchy at this stage24. 
On  average  across  all  Member  States,  it  seems  that  only  some  44%  of  the  mandatory 
provisions  of  these  articles  have  been  fully  transposed  so  far  (it  is  emphasised  that  this  is 
based on preliminary analysis). 

Several  complaints  from  citizens  have  also  been  received  by  the  Commission  concerning 
implementation  of  Article  13  of  the  ESD  (which  pre-ceded  the  EED  provisions)  in  multi-
apartment buildings, leading to infringement procedures against a number of Member States. 

The  responses  to  the  Commission's  Consultation  on  the  retail  energy  market25  conducted  in 
spring 2014 generally confirm the impression that there's much room for improvement in the 
retail  market,  including  when  it  comes  to  metering  and  billing  issues.  Of  a  total  of  237 
responses, 160 didn't consider that consumers have the information they need to use energy 
more efficiently, and of those 160 more than half (125) considered that the availability of such 
information could be improved "a little" or "a lot" by more frequent and informative billing. 

In  terms  of  stakeholder  views  on  the  overall  adequacy  of  the  current  EED  provisions  on 
metering and billing, roughly 3 out of 5 of respondents to the public consultation on the EED 
review  who  had  an  opinion  on  this  question  were  satisfied.  About  2  out  of  5  expressed  the 
opposite  view.  Unsurprisingly,  utilities  were  most  likely  to  find  the  current  provisions 
sufficient, with 92% of all utility respondents being of this view. In contrast, 2 of every 3 
NGOs  or  consumer  organisations  expressing  an  opinion  considered  the  current 
provisions  to  be  inadequate  to  guarantee  all  consumers  easily  accessible,  sufficiently 
frequent, detailed and understandable information on their own consumption of energy. 

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Below the evaluation questions are addressed for each of the key provisions within the scope 
of the evaluation. 

varied  between  5%  in  Bulgaria  and  46%  in  Austria.  Germany  joined  Austria  at  the  higher  end  of  the  country 
ranking with 45% of respondents who “strongly agreed”. 
23 European Commission (2016), 'Second Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets 
for consumers in the EU '. 
24 Data reflecting November 2015 status. 
25 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-retail-energy-market  

13 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
6.1.  Electricity and Gas Directives 

What is the current situation? 

The evidence presented in this section draws extensively on survey data, as well as data from 
a mystery shopping exercise. The aim of the mystery shopping exercise was to replicate, as 
closely as possible, real consumers’ experiences across 10 Member States26 selected to cover 
North, West, South and East Europe countries. A total of 4,000 evaluations were completed 
between  11  December  2014  and  18  March  201527.  Whilst  data  from  the  mystery  shopping 
exercise is non-exhaustive, the methodology enables the controlled sampling of a very large 
topic area28, as well as providing insights that would not be apparent in a desktop evaluation 
of legislation and bills. Using a behavioural research approach rather than a traditional survey 
allowed us to identify what people actually do, rather than what they say they do. 

Whereas  this  evaluation  describes  the  relatively  small  number  of  non-prescriptive  measures 
on energy billing contained in the EU acquis, all Member States have legislation with further 
billing  requirements  (see  Annex  5  or  an  overview  of  billing  practices  and  regulation  per 
country). For example, UK electricity and gas suppliers must follow over 70 pages of rules on 
the information in bills as part of their current licensing requirements. 

In  addition  to  legislative  requirements,  suppliers  communicate  and  present  information  in 
different  ways  as  a  part  of  their  non-price  competition  with  other  suppliers.  For  example, 
information may be presented in a certain format for branding purposes, or to target different 
customers  with  different  kinds  and  levels  of  information  to  increase  consumer  satisfaction. 
There  is  therefore  currently  a  broad  divergence  in  Member  States  with  regards  to  the 
individual elements in electricity and gas consumer bills and the total amount of information 
in these bills. 

26 The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
27 European Commission (2016), 'Second Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets 
for consumers in the EU'. 
28  For  example,  there  were  over  400  electricity  and  gas  supply  offers  in  Berlin  alone  in  2014  (source:  ACER 
Database), making a comprehensive examination of all supply offers in the EU28 impracticable. 

14 

 
                                                            
Text Box 1: Select requirements for UK domestic energy bills29 

The following information must be grouped together, in a box, distinct from other 
information and included on page one of the Bill:  
  The standardised title “Could you pay less?”  
 

Information on cheaper tariffs offered by the supplier and the savings available if 
the consumer were to switch.  

  A Personal Projection* for the consumer's current tariff. 
  A signpost to further tariff information.  
  A standardised switching reminder “Remember – it might be worth thinking about 

switching your tariff or supplier”. 

The following information must be grouped together and included on page two of the 
Bill, in a box, distinct from other information, in the following order:  
  The standardised title “About Your Tariff”. 
  The  name  of  the  customer's  fuel,  current  tariff,  payment  method,  any  applicable 
tariff  end  date,  exit  fees  and  the  customer's  personalised  usage  in  the  last  12 
months. 

The following information must be provided anywhere on a bill:  
  The standardised title “About Your TCR”**.  
  The TCR for the customer's current tariff.  
  A signpost to where to find independent advice on switching supplier.  

* The Personal Projection is a standardised methodology that uses a consumer's actual 
or estimated consumption to estimate their projected cost for a particular tariff for the 
next year.  

** The TCR or 'Tariff Comparison Rate' is used to assist consumers to make an initial 
comparison of alternative tariffs. It is similar in nature to the Annual Percentage Rate 
used to describe savings, loan and credit agreements.  

Figure 2 below from ACER summarizes the information provided to household customers on 
their bills. It includes general billing requirements put forward in Article 3 and Annex I of the 
Electricity  and  Gas  Directives  (for  example,  information  on  the  single  point  of  contact),  as 
well  as  items  not  covered  by  EU  law  (price  comparison  tools).  Whereas  customers  in  the 
majority  of  MSs  are  currently  provided  with  information  on  the  consumption  period,  actual 
and/or  estimated  consumption,  and  a  breakdown  of  the  price,  there  is  a  greater  diversity  of 
national practices with regards to other potentially beneficial information, such as switching 
information, information about price comparison tools, and the duration of the contract.  

29 Ofgem (2013) 'The Retail Market Review – Final domestic proposals Consultation on policy effect and draft 
licence conditions', pp. 71-108, 130-163 https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2013/03/the-retail-
market-review---final-domestic-proposals.pdf 

15 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 2: Information on household customer bills in MSs – 201430 

The  results  of  a  mystery  shopping  exercise  on  the  information  in  energy  bills  covering  ten 
representative  Member  States31  provide  a  more  detailed  impression  of  the  differences  in 
billing practices within the EU. Mystery shoppers were instructed to analyse one of their own 
monthly,  bi-monthly  or  quarterly  electricity  bills  for  a  number  of  information  elements 
identified as best practices by the Citizens' Energy Forum's Working Group on e-Billing and 
Personal  Energy  Data  Management  as  well  as  a  number  of  information  elements  addressed 
(although not always required) by the current Electricity Directive32. 

30 Source: CEER Database, National Indicators (2014-2015) 
31 The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
32 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/20131219-e-billing_energy_data.pdf  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 1: Information included on an electricity bill in a sample of ten Member States - I33  

Country 
CZ  DE 

ES 

FR 

IT 

LT
34 

PL 

SE 

SI 

UK 

% 
who 
foun
d 
item 
on 
their 
bill 
(tota
l) 
99%  96
% 
96%  92
% 

Item  

Supplier's name 

Contact 
details (including 
their helpline and em
ergency number) 

The  duration  of  the 
contract  

deadline 

for 
The 
the 
informing 
supplier 
about 
switching  to  another 
supplier 

in 

Item 
"billing" 
evaluation 
sheet 

Provider’s 
name 
Telephone 
number  of 
customer 
service/hel
pline 
Postal 
address  of 
provider 
Email 
address  of 
provider 
Emergency 
number 
(e.g.  to  call 
in the event 
of 
an 
electrical 
emergency 
or 
power 
outage) 
Duration  of 
the  contract 
(e.g. 
24 
months) 
The  period 
of  notice  to 
terminate 
your 
electricity 
contract 
(e.g. 
30 
days  before 
the 
intended 
termination 
date) 

88
% 
80
% 

60
% 

40
% 

28
% 

100
% 
93
% 

100
% 

75
% 

35
% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 

100
% 

37
% 

93
% 

94%  92
% 

69%  92
% 

59%  68
% 

100
% 

95
% 

8% 

97
% 

80
% 

97
% 

22%  8%  50
% 

27
% 

19%  4%  50
% 

0% 

27
% 

87
% 

17
% 

57
% 

0%  5% 

10
% 

0% 

12
% 

0% 

100
% 
100
% 

96
% 

84
% 

64
% 

40
% 

28
% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 

96
% 

40
% 

4% 

0% 

100
% 
97
% 

83
% 

60
% 

87
% 

50
% 

27
% 

33  European  Commission  (2016),  '  Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity 
markets for consumers in the EU. 
34 Lithuania stands out as the country where mystery shoppers were the least likely to find each of the items on 
their  bill.  Mystery  shoppers  in  Lithuania  (note:  all  shoppers  were  clients  of  Lesto)  reported  that  they  do  not 
receive  an  electricity  bill;  they  declare  usage  themselves  online  (via  www.manoelektra.lt  -  a  site  dedicated  to 
Lesto customers) or by means of a paper bill book. 

17 

 
  
 
 
                                                            
The  tariff 
name 

(A 
reference 
to)  a  clear 
price 
breakdow
n  for  the 
tariff  (the 
base  price 
plus 
all 
other 
charges 
and taxes) 
The  base 
price 
of 
one 
energy 
unit 
kilowatt 
hours  or 
kWh)  for 
the 
selected 
tariff 
The 
switching 
code  

(in 

The 
amount  to 
paid, 
be 
for  which 
billing 
period,  by 
when  and 
how 

80
% 

79
% 

Tariff 
name/plan 
(e.g. 'Day  & 
Night Fix') 
A  detailed 
price 
breakdown 
your 
for 
tariff 
(e.g. 
division  of 
total price in 
base  price, 
network 
charge, etc.) 

Base  price 
per  kWh  of 
your tariff 

82
% 

84% 

65% 

57% 

92% 

65% 

100
% 

87
% 

83
% 

93% 

60
% 

93% 

80% 

76% 

100
% 

93% 

8% 

88% 

92% 

96% 

73% 

68% 

65% 

87% 

93
% 

83% 

68
% 

83% 

92% 

88% 

93% 

73
% 

97
% 
95
% 

96% 

58% 

87% 

87
% 

67% 

44
% 

78% 

76% 

72% 

67% 

100
% 
96% 

100
% 
90% 

97% 

100
% 

97
% 
97
% 

100
% 
100
% 

72
% 
80
% 

100
% 
93% 

100
% 
100
% 

100
% 
100
% 

97% 

97% 

84
% 

88% 

100
% 

87% 

87
% 

87% 

64
% 

65% 

92% 

64% 

100
% 

to 

Switching 
code/meter 
identificatio
n  (EAN  or 
MPAN 
code; 
a 
unique  code 
for 
your 
electricity 
meter) 
Amount 
be paid 
Billing 
period  (e.g. 
15 
November  – 
14 
December 
2014) 
Payment 
method (e.g. 
direct 
deposit, 
cheque, 
bank 
transfer) 

18 

 
 
 
Clear 
information 
on  how  this 
amount 
has 
been 
calculated:  is 
it based on an 
actual  meter 
reading 
or 
estimated 
only? 
For 
calculations 
based 
actual 
consumption: 
meter 
readings  and 
consumption 
during 
the 
billing  period 
(measured 
in 
kilowatt hours 
or kWh) 

on 

Details  about 
consumption 
during 
billing period 
(in kWh) 
Value  of  the 
meter 
reading at the 
end  of 
the 
billing period 
Value  of  the 
meter 
reading at the 
beginning  of 
the 
billing 
period 
Fuel 
mix/energy 
sources  (e.g. 
wind  power, 
biomass) 

on 

Tips 
saving 
energy 
link 
to 
website) 

does 
Where 
energy 
the 
from, 
come 
how 
it 
is 
generated, 
how 
environment 
friendly  is  it 
fuel 
("the 
mix") 
Information 
on how to get 
tips  on  saving 
energy  (e.g.  a 
link 
a 
to 
website) 
Information 
to 
on  how 
obtain  the  bill 
in  alternative 
formats 
(e.g. 
in  large  print) 
for consumers 
with 
disabilities 
Base (note: figures in grey are 
based on a smaller sample):  

Information 
to 
on  how 
obtain  your 
bill 
in 
alternative 
(e.g. 
format 
paper/online, 
large print) 

(e.g. 
a 

5% 

4% 

18%  3% 

0% 

0% 

8% 

3% 

4% 

4% 

3% 

of 

% 
shoppers 
stating  that  it 
not clear how 
the 
billing 
amount  was 
calculated 

89%  95%  67%  96%  100%  100%  73%  95%  87%  91%  95% 

89%  90%  93%  96%  86% 

88% 

73%  95%  87%  82%  95% 

88%  95%  93%  96%  86% 

88% 

73%  86%  83%  91%  90% 

32%  48%  45%  20%  47% 

43% 

0% 

18%  52%  40%  13% 

26%  8% 

48%  17%  23% 

20% 

36%  8% 

24%  20%  57% 

24%  16%  8% 

23%  27% 

53% 

28%  5% 

20%  16%  50% 

300 

25 

40 

30 

30 

30 

25 

40 

25 

25 

30 

19 

 
 
Table 2: Information included on an electricity bill in a sample of ten Member States - II35 

Information 

Item 
evaluation sheet 

in 

"billing" 

The contribution of each 
energy  source 
the 
overall  fuel  mix  of  the 
supplier 
the 
preceding year  

over 

to 

Information  concerning 
the  consumer's  rights  as 
regards 
the  means  of 
settlement 
dispute 
available  to  them  in  the 
event of a dispute 

13a.  Fuel  mix/energy 
sources 
(e.g.  wind 
power, biomass) 

8b.  National  contact 
information  point  (or 
single  point  of  contact 
where  you  can  obtain 
information  about  your 
energy rights) 
8c. An energy  mediator 
or third-party assistance 

Country 

CZ  DE  ES  FR  IT  LT  PL  SE  SI  UK 

%  who 
found 
item  on 
their  bill 
(total) 

32% 

48% 45% 20% 47% 43% 0% 18% 52% 40% 13% 

28% 

44% 43% 33% 43% 30% 4% 3%  16% 12% 53% 

23% 

36% 45% 23% 57% 0%  0% 3%  12% 0%  50% 

Base:  

300 

25  40  30  30  30  25  40  25  25  30 

The  results  show  a  large  variation  across  countries  for  selected  items;  for  example, 
information about the period of notice to terminate a contract was not found on bills in Italy, 
Poland, Slovenia and Spain, while in Germany and France, at least half of shoppers had found 
such  information  on  their  bill  (50%  and  57%,  respectively).  These  variations  may  reflect 
national  differences  in  consumer  preferences  and  the  characteristics  of  local  markets,  as 
reflected in Member State rules and discretionary billing practices by suppliers. In addition, 
the figure illustrates the possible bad application issues. 

To illustrate another dimension of divergence, the following figure shows information load in 
consumer bills in different Member States. This can have a significant impact on consumers' 
ability to comprehend their bills. 

35  Shoppers  were  instructed  to  analyse  a  monthly  or  quarterly  bill.  In  the  Czech  Republic  and  Germany,  a 
considerable number of shoppers reported that they only receive an annual bill from their electricity company. In 
these  countries,  88%  (n=22)  and  50%  (n=20),  respectively,  of  shoppers  analysed  an  annual  bill.  European 
Commission  (2016),  '  Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity  markets  for 
consumers in the EU. 

20 

 
  
                                                            
Figure 3: Information on household customer bills in MSs – 2014 (number of information elements)36 

To summarize, there is currently a broad divergence in Member States, both with regards to 
the individual elements in consumer bills and the total amount of information in these bills. 
The widespread divergence in national practices reflects differences in national legislation and 
marketing  by  suppliers,  which  are  themselves  a  function  of  consumer  preferences  and  the 
characteristics of local markets. To a more limited extent, the divergence may also reflect the 
bad application of certain requirements of the Electricity and Gas Directives identified earlier 
in  the  Annex,  particularly  EU  requirements  on  information  on  consumer  rights  and  energy 
sources. 

How effective has the EU intervention been? 

To recap, the major objectives of the Articles in the Electricity and Gas Directives relevant to 
billing and metering were: 

  To boost competition in retail markets; 
  To create consumer incentives to save energy; 
  To enable easier and more effective consumer choice. 

With  regards  to  the  first  of  the  three  objectives  –  boosting  competition  in  retail  markets  – 
retail market competition has clearly increased in the EU since the articles relevant to billing 
and metering were introduced in the Second Energy Package. However, there have also been 
a great number of other relevant measures put in place at the same time as part of the broader 
effort  to  liberalise  EU  energy  markets.  These  include  unbundling  rules  and  limits  on  price 
regulation37. This makes it impossible to quantitatively gauge the competition gains brought 
about by the articles on billing and metering. 

There  is  a  similar  situation  for  the  second  of  the  three  objectives  –  creating  consumer 
incentives  to  save  energy.  There  is  evidence  to  show  that  there  has  been  progress  in  recent 

36 Source: ACER 
37 See the Evaluation on the Electricity Directive. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                            
years38. However, as numerous EU energy efficiency policy measures have been put in place 
in parallel during the period in question, it is again impossible to quantitatively disambiguate 
the  individual  contribution  to  these  gains  by  the  measures  introduced  in  the  Second  Energy 
Package.  Qualitatively,  however,  we  can  estimate  these  gains  to  be  relatively  minor  as  also 
acknowledged in the Energy Efficiency Directive, where Recital 32 expressly states that the 
"impact of the provisions on metering and billing in Directives 2006/32/EC, 2009/72/EC and 
2009/73/EC on energy saving has been limited. In many parts of the Union, these provisions 
have not led to customers receiving up-to-date information about their energy consumption, 
or billing based on actual consumption at a frequency which studies show is needed to enable 
customers to regulate their energy use". 

In  terms  of  the  third  of  the  three  objectives  –  enabling  easier  and  more  effective  consumer 
choice  –  there  exist  various  data  that  help  us  understand  how  EU  consumers  perceive  their 
energy bills and the extent to which their bills are building awareness about energy use. These 
data are summarised in the remainder of this section. 

Consumer organisations responding to the latest ACER Market Monitoring Report stated that 
the average electricity and gas consumer in their countries is only able to compare prices to a 
limited extent. The average score was 4.8 and 5.0 on a scale from 1 to 10 for electricity and 
gas respectively39.  

These mediocre figures are backed by the 2016 Electricity Study that found that one in five 
consumers  surveyed  still  disagree  that  the  electricity  bills  of  their  electricity  company  were 
easy and clear to understand (note the disparity in individual Member States concerning the 
level  of  understanding  with  Bulgaria  performing  worst  and  Cyprus  performing  best).  This 
effect  was  even  more  pronounced  among  mystery  shoppers  from  ten  Member  States  who 
were  quizzed  with  their  current  bills  to  hand.  Here,  between  20  and  54%  of  respondents 
disagreed  with  the  statement  “My  bill  is  easy  to  understand”.  Correspondingly,  8%  of  all 
consumers who had reported having a problem with their electricity supplier in the past three 
years identified problems with billing40. 

38  See  f.ex.  COM(2015)  574  final  "Assessment  of  the  progress  made  by  Member  States  towards  the  national 
energy  efficiency  targets  for  2020  and  towards  the  implementation  of  the  Energy  Efficiency  Directive 
2012/27/EU as required by Article 24 (3) of Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU" 
39 ACER (2015) Market Monitoring report 2014, 
http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/ACER_Market_Monitoring_R
eport_2015. 
40 European Commission (2016), 'Second Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets 
for consumers in the EU '. 

22 

 
                                                            
Figure 4: Agreement with statement: “bills of my electrify company are easy and clear to understand”, by 
country41 

Figure 5: Agreement with the statement: “My bill is easy to understand”42 

The  complaints  data  collected  through  the  European  Consumer  Complaints  Registration 
System indicates the largest share (28%) of consumer complaints reported to the Commission 
between 2011 and 2016 were related to billing. Whilst the complaints classified as relating to 
"unjustified"  or  "incorrect"  invoicing/billing  (10%  of  all  electricity  and  gas  complaints)  are 
most likely related to billing on estimated rather than actual consumption43, complaints about 
unclear  invoices  or  bills  make  up  around  1%  of  all  electricity  and  gas  complaints  in  the 
system. The category 'other billing complaints' relates to cases where users of the  European 
Consumer  Complaints  Registration  System  did  not  encode  a  sub-category,  or  where  their 
specific complaint could not be categorised according to the options presented below.  

41  Question:  "The  following  question  deals  with  the  quality  of  services  offered  in  the  electricity  retail  market. 
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, using a scale from 0 to 
10, where 0 means that you “totally disagree” and 10 means that you “totally agree”: Bills of [PROVIDER] are 
clear  and  easy  to  understand."  European  Commission  (2016),  'Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the 
functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU '. 
42  Agreement  with  the  statement:  “My  bill  is  easy  to  understand”  European  Commission  (2016),  'Second 
Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU '. 
43 See Thematic Evaluation on Smart Metering. 

23 

666561595856565453484745444443434140404038353535343228242158252621212826282229262328373333403840373926293446323437482543263681010121091814182822112015914172017313129172730282349341029CYEELTMTFIDELVSKATROSIBECZSENLUKIEEU28LUHRHUPTFRDKELPLITBGESNOISStrongly agree (8 to 10)Agree (5 to 7)Disagree (0 to 4)Don´t knowQ2_7. The following question deals with the quality of services offered in the electricity retail market. Please indicate how much youagree or disagree with each of the following statements, using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means that you “totally disagree” and 10 means that you “totally agree”. Bills of [PROVIDER] are clear and easy to understand.%, Base: all respondents5.3.1 Consumers’ viewsabout theirelectricitybills 202423152813147838444033352413292328302344333738128101083012131210108121318122022334417381087674233121220102013131041313LTSEUKDESIITTotalFRCZESPLCompletely agreeAgreeSomewhat agreeNeither agree nor disagreeSomewhat disagreeDisagreeCompletely disagreeQ14. To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “my bill is easy to understand”?  %, Base: all mystery shoppers 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 6: Electricity and gas consumer complaints, 2011-201644 

Switching 
1% 

Other issues 
22% 

Price / Tariff 
7% 

Provision of 
services 
7% 

Quality of service 
8% 

Contracts and 
sales 
11% 

Unfair Commercial 
Practices 
16% 

Unclear bill 
1% 

Billing 
28% 

Incorrect bill 
6% 

Unjustified invoicing 
4% 
Debt collection 
2% 
Non-issue of invoice 
0% 

Other billing complaints 
15% 

It therefore appears that whereas a significant percentage of EU consumers have difficulties 
understanding their energy bill, problems directly related to bill clarity have not led to a large 
number  of  consumer  complaints  compared  with  other  issues  such  as  back-billing,  unfair 
commercial practices, and contractual clauses. 

Energy  bills  are  the  foremost  means  through  which  suppliers  communicate  with  their 
customers. As such, consumers' ability to correctly answer simple questions about their own 
electricity  use  indirectly  reveals  the  extent  to  which  bills  have  been  effective  in  providing 
information that could facilitate effective consumer choice. The figures show that whereas the 
majority  of  EU  consumers  report  that  they  know  how  much  they  pay  for  electricity,  fewer 
were  aware  of  their  consumption  in  terms  of  kWh,  what  type  of  tariff  they  have,  or  their 
sources of electricity.  

Whilst this finding may certainly reflect a lack of consumer interest in this information, the 
information facilitates effective consumer choice by helping consumers identify the best offer 
in the market and weigh the benefits of switching. Their omission from many bills, as proven 
by  data,  may  therefore  be  impeding  the  achievement  of  one  of  the  stated  objectives  of  the 
billing provisions in the Electricity and Gas Directives. 

44 Source: DG JUST, European Consumer Complaints Registration System. 

24 

 
 
                                                            
Figure 7: Self-reported awareness of electricity use45 

Looking  deeper  into  consumer  awareness  of  energy  sources,  across  the  EU28,  just  24%  of 
respondents “strongly agreed” (scores 8 to  10) that they knew how the electricity  they used 
was  produced.  The  proportion  expressing  strong  agreement  varied  between  12%  in  the  UK 
and  51%  in  Malta.  This  low  level  of  awareness  corresponds  with  the  fact  that  just  32%  of 
sampled bills contain this information. 

Figure  8:  Agreement  with  statement:  “I  know  how  the  electricity  that  I  use  is  produced  (e.g.  nuclear 
generation, wind, gas, solar, petroleum, coal, etc.)”, by country46 

45  Question:  "Please  indicate  how  much  you  agree  or  disagree  with  each  of  the  following  statements,  using  a 
scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means that you “totally disagree” and 10 means that you “totally agree”." European 
Commission  (2016),  'Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity  markets  for 
consumers in the EU '  
46  Question:  "Please  indicate  how  much  you  agree  or  disagree  with  each  of  the  following  statements,  using  a 
scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means that you “totally disagree” and 10 means that you “totally agree”. "I know 
how  the  electricity  that  I  use  is  produced  (e.g.  nuclear  generation,  wind,  gas,  solar,  petroleum,  coal,  etc.)." 
European Commission (2016), 'Second Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets 
for consumers in the EU '. 

25 

42%38%30%32%16%24%26%32%34%52%4.95.25.85.77.1I know how the electricity that I use is produced (e.g. nucleargeneration, wind, gas, solar, petroleum, coal, etc.)I know how the price I pay for electricity is calculatedI know the main characteristics of the tariff I am on (e.g. whetherI am on a fixed or variable price, the use of renewable energy,etc.)I know how much electricity I use (per month, year or any otherfrequency)  in kWhI know how much I pay for electricity (per month, year or anyother frequency)Disagree (0-4)Strongly agree (8-10)AverageEU 282.3.1 self-reported awarenessQ1_1 to 5. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means that you “totally disagree” and 10 means that you “totally agree”. %, EU28, Base: all respondents 
 
 
                                                            
Notwithstanding these low consumer awareness figures, data from the 2016 Electricity Study 
indicate  that  consumer  demand  for  information  on  energy  sources  is  nevertheless  high.  A 
behavioural  experiment  involving  10,056  consumers  from  10  EU  Member  States  (CZ,  DE, 
ES, FR, IT, LT, PL, SE, SI and the UK) tested consumer willingness to switch to a green offer 
for extra-costs. 42% of consumers chose a green offer when the premium was low (€1.5/kWh) 
and another 37% of consumers when the premium was high (€3/kWh)47.  

The  increasing  proportion  of  green  tariffs  currently  on  offer  in  the  EU  also  shows  that 
suppliers  are  responding  to  this  demand:  by  the  end  of  2014,  almost  one  third  (697)  of  all 
electricity  offers  and  almost  one  quarter  (178)  of  gas  offers  in  the  EU  were  labelled  as 
'green'48. 

However,  there  may  be  scope  to  facilitate  growth  in  this  area.  Improving  the  provision 
(availability, ease of access and use) and quality (clarity and comparability) of information on 
energy  sources  in  bills  may  therefore  lead  not  only  to  enhanced  non-price  competition  and 
support  the  further  development  of  renewable  energy  capacity,  but  also  to  greater  overall 
consumer engagement and satisfaction with the market. In this respect, expert bodies such as 
ACER  and  CEER  have  specifically  highlighted  "the  lack  of  standardisation  of  how 
Guarantees  of  Origin  are  used  to  prove  green  credentials  in  different  Member  states"  as  an 
important issue49. 

To  summarize,  it  is  difficult  to  say how  much  the  billing  articles in  the  Electricity and  Gas 
Directives  have  contributed  to  their  stated  objectives,  because  of  other  significant  policy 
interventions aimed at fulfilling these same objectives, and because these objectives were not 
accompanied  by  specific  indicators  that  would  allow  us  to  disentangle  causal  relationships. 
Nevertheless, the analysis presented in this section indicates that there is scope to improve the 
extent to which the billing provisions in the Electricity and Gas Directives facilitate consumer 
choice. 

How efficient has the EU intervention been? 

There are no data available to assess this question quantitatively, but given the narrow scope 
and  low  level  of  prescription  of  the  billing  provisions  in  the  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives, 
the  costs  are  likely  to  have  been  limited.  Consumer  bills  are  currently  heavily  regulated 

47  European  Commission  (2016),  '  Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity 
markets for consumers in the EU '. 
48 100% of the electricity production coming from green sources or – in the absence of information on the input 
of green sources – if it is labelled as such by the price comparison tool. ACER (2015) Market Monitoring report 
2014, 
http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/ACER_Market_Monitoring_R
eport_2015, pp. 42-43. CEER (2015). 
49 ACER (2015) Market Monitoring report 2014, 
http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/ACER_Market_Monitoring_R
eport_2015, pp. 42-43. CEER (2015) Advice on customer information on sources of 

Electricity, 
http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Customers/Tab5/
C14-CEM-70-08_CustomerInfo-Sources%20of%20Electricity_Advice_March%202015_0.pdf 

26 

 
                                                            
beyond  the  requirements  imposed  by  the  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives  in  most  Member 
States50.  

How relevant is the EU intervention? 

At the time of drafting both the Second and Third energy packages, consumer bills and pre-
contractual information formed the basis of consumer comparability, as consumers would be 
given  the  possibility  to  measure  up  individual  offers  against  their  current  supply  contract. 
Since then, the use of online comparison tools has risen significantly across the EU. Over time 
the continuation of this trend might challenge the relevance of the EU intervention if it is not 
adapted to also reflect new ways of consumer-market interaction. Well-designed, reliable and 
transparent  online  comparison  tools  do  the  number-crunching  necessary  to  accurately 
compare the costs of each offer for individual consumers. In the future it will be increasingly 
important to ensure that bills enable or even facilitate consumers'  use of these online tools to 
compare  their  individual  consumption  or  current  tariff  to  other  available  offers  (e.g.  by 
providing a code that the consumer can input in the tool to customize the comparison). 

The  2016  Electricity  Study  found  that  64%  of  EU  consumers  who  had  compared  tariffs  of 
different electricity companies said they had used comparison tools to do so. It also showed 
that  comparison  tools  –  which  grants  access  to  the  offers  of  a  larger  number  of  providers-
significantly  increased  the  number  of  cheaper  offers  consumers  were  able  to  identify 
compared with contacting individual providers directly51.  

Comparison  tools  are  likely  to  become  even  more  important  as  the  retail  market  for  energy 
matures. Between 2012 and 2014, ‘choice’ for consumers in European capitals widened, with 
a  greater  variety  of  offers  being  available.  However,  the  ability  of  consumers  to  compare 
prices can be hampered by the complexity of pricing and the range of energy products, as well 
as  by  an  increasing  number  of  offers  and  their  bundling  with  additional  free  or  payable 
services52.  

ACER  has  therefore  recommended  that:  "To  improve  consumer  switching  behaviour  and 
awareness  further,  National  Regulatory  Authorities  (NRAs)  could  become  more  actively 
involved  in  ensuring  that  the  prerequisites  for  switching,  such  as  transparent  and  reliable 
online price comparison tools and transparent energy invoices, are properly implemented."53  

It is important to emphasise that in the context of the general efforts to move energy markets 
from simple commodity markets (for kWhs) towards an energy services market, "transparent 
and  reliable  price  comparison  tools"  need  to  be  able  to  assess  contracts  from  a  holistic 

50  European  Commission  (2016),  '  Second  Consumer  Market  Study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity 
markets for consumers in the EU '. 
51  From  twice  to  twenty  times,  depending  on  the  Member  State.  European  Commission  (2016),  '  Second 
Consumer Market Study on the functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU '. 
52 ACER (2015) Market Monitoring report 2014, 
http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/ACER_Market_Monitoring_R
eport_2015 p.40, 100. 
53 ACER (2015) Market Monitoring report 2014, 
http://www.acer.europa.eu/Official_documents/Acts_of_the_Agency/Publication/ACER_Market_Monitoring_R
eport_2015 p.10. 

27 

 
                                                            
perspective  that  integrates  broader  aspects  including  energy  efficiency  improvement  actions 
or services, differences in energy sourcing qualities (greenness) etc.   

How coherent is the EU intervention internally and with other (EU) actions? 

Whilst  the  provisions  on  billing  in  the  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives  are  not  contradicted 
elsewhere in the EU acquis, they are complemented and reinforced by various Articles in the 
EED  and  RED,  also  addressed  in  the  present  document.  Consolidating,  streamlining  or 
clarifying the respective scope of these articles would make the legislation as a whole easier 
to  understand  and  reduce  the  scope  for  unintended  interactions  resulting  from  subsequent 
legislative  revisions.  This  concerns  for  example  the  issue  of  billing  frequency  (see  further 
discussion  below)  but  also  smart  metering  requirements  (addressed  in  a  separate  evaluation 
paper). 

With  regard  to  disclosure,  it  is  notable  that  gas  deliveries  are  not  subject  to  disclosure 
although  this  could  stimulate  consumer  demand  for  green  gas  supplies  (such  as  biogas 
injected in the gas grids) or allow some consumers to choose certain sources over others (if 
for example shale gas or LNG was identified separately). Equally it is notable that while the 
EED  provides  a  means  for  guaranteeing  the  origin  of  electricity  from  high-efficiency 
cogeneration, there is no disclosure obligation to stimulate the use of that tool. 

What is the EU added value of the intervention? 

The  provisions  addressing  consumer  information  in  the  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives  are 
essential for protecting consumers in the internal energy market at the retail level. They play 
an important role in ensuring the benefits of the internal market in energy can be enjoyed by 
all  consumers,  and  help  to  create  a  level-playing  field  for  suppliers  and  other  retail  market 
actors  across  the  EU.  Whereas  there  are  currently  still  very  few  if  any  examples  of  cross-
border supply in the retail market, a common base of energy consumer rights is a precondition 
for that to develop over time.  

6.2.  EED  

Article 9(1) 

What is the current situation? 

Article 9(1) of the EED is, apart from some very minor editorial changes, identical to Article 
13(1) of the ESD.  Member States have generally transposed and implemented Article 9(1), 
which should not be surprising given that they have effectively been under the obligation to 
do so since the 2006 adoption of the identical provisions in the ESD.  

However, the absence of substantial changes is somewhat paradoxical given that ESD Article 
13(1) contained several elements known to be the subject of different interpretations and that 
a key objective of the EED, as discussed above in Section 3, was to clarify existing provisions 
on  metering  and  billing.  In  the  context  of  the  Concerted  Action  on  the  Energy  Services 
Directive  the  Member  States  themselves  reported  that  there  is  a  "large  variance  in  the 

28 

 
interpretation  of  Article  13  of  the  ESD"  and  that  the  Article  had  "….only  limited  causal 
influence on changes in metering & billing policies"54. 

The areas where particular ambiguities persist are: 

  The definition of "final customer"; 
  Meaning  of  "competitively  priced  individual  meters  that  accurately  reflect  the  final 
customer’s actual energy consumption and that provide information on actual time of 
use". 

The definition of "final customer" 

A  ‘final  customer’  means  according  to  EED  Article  2  (23)  "a  natural  or  legal  person  who 
purchases energy for own end use".  This definition has given rise to different interpretations  
notably  in  cases  where  heating  and  cooling  or  hot  water  is  purchased  collectively  by  or  on 
behalf  of  an  association  of  end-users  (for  example  a  group  of  households  responsible  for 
energy  consumption  in  each  of  the  individual  apartments  in  a  multi-apartment  building). 
Although  it  is  often  a  housing  cooperative  that  purchases  the  energy,  it  is  arguably  the 
individual  households  who  are  the  end-user  (except,  perhaps,  of  energy  used  for  heating 
stairwells and similar collective uses). The Commission services have taken the view that the 
definition  of  final  customer  should  be  understood  as  covering  those  end-users  (i.e. 
households/tenants) as well as the entity purchasing heating/cooling/hot water on behalf of the 
end-users  (e.g.  a  housing  cooperative/building  owner).  However,  some  Member  States  (FI, 
FR,  DE,  UK,…)  seem  to  interpret  the  provisions  differently,  taking  the  view  that  the 
individual households in such buildings are not to be considered as final customers if they do 
not  have  a  contractual  relationship  with  the  energy  supply  company  .  This  question  has 
important implications for the effective scope of the obligations in the EED, incl. Article 9(1), 
10(1), Article 10(3) and Annex VII. In principle this problem applies to all energy forms, in 
practice  it  is  most  relevant  for  thermal  energy  forms  (electricity  and  gas  more  rarely,  not 
being  subject  to  individual  supply  contracts  even  in  multi-apartment  buildings).  It  is 
particularly problematic when it comes to new buildings or major renovations, for which the 
obligation  in  the  EED  Article  9(1)  to  fit  individual  meters  is  absolute  (i.e.  technical  and 
economic conditionalities do not apply), but where the applicability of this absolute obligation 
is undermined by the uncertainty about the meaning of the definition of "final customers".  

Meaning  of  "competitively  priced  individual  meters  that  accurately  reflect  the  final 
customer’s actual energy consumption and that provide information on actual time of use". 

EED Article 9(1) (and before that ESD Article 13) refers to "competitively priced individual 
meters  that  accurately  reflect  the  final  customer’s  actual  energy  consumption  and  that 
to 
information  on  actual 
provide 
implement/enforce for a number of reasons: 

time  of  use."  This  obligation 

is  challenging 

1.  It is not clear what "competitively priced" means. The term "competitively priced" was 
presumably  used  to  protect  consumers  from  overly  costly  solutions  imposed  by 

54 Renner / Martins (2010). Technical Summary Report TSR03 on Informative metering and informative billing, 
Concerted  Action  ESD,  http://www.esd-ca.eu/reports/outcomes-2008-2011/technical-summary-reports/tsr03-
individual-metering-and-informative-billing  

29 

 
 
                                                            
monopolistic  utilities.  In  practice  it  is  unclear  precisely  how  this  is  to  be 
interpreted/implemented.  

2.  It is not clear precisely how/with what time resolution "information on actual time of 
use" must be provided. Dating back to the 2006 ESD, it is arguably a reference to one 
of the functionalities of what is now commonly referred to as smart meters. However, 
firstly the provision of actual time of use data is but one of the recommended/desirable 
features  of  smart  meters.  Secondly,  time  of  use  is  typically  mostly  of  relevance  for 
electricity, and less so for other energy forms55. Recital 28 to the ESD stated that " [i]n 
the context of this Directive, competitively priced  individual meters include accurate 
calorimeters". Calorimeters are devices to measure thermal energy flows.  

3.  Thirdly,  it  is  not  entirely  clear  what  "individual"  meters  mean  (c.f.  the  point  on  the 

controversy around the definition of final customers above). 

In short, where the provisions aimed to advance the use of sophisticated meters (with time of 
use  capabilities),  the  ambiguous  wording  has  meant  that  few  if  any  Member  States  have 
interpreted it to require smart meters. Where it sought to advance the provision of meters to 
end-consumers,  many  of  which  are  individual  households  in  multi-flat  buildings,  the 
ambiguous  definition  of  final  customers  has  prevented  it  from  doing  so  consistently. 
Eventually this issue may have to be resolved legally, either through an interpretation by the 
Court or through legislative changes. 

How effective has the EU intervention been? 

With  respect  to  the intervention  logic,  there is  a  wealth  of  scientific  and  technical  literature 
published over the last 40 years on the influence energy consumption feedback can have on 
consumers' decisions and behaviour and the resulting energy savings. By way of example the 
following three recent literature review papers/reports provide a useful overview: 

Karlin, B., Zinger, J. F., & Ford, R. (2015, September 21). "The Effects of Feedback on Energy 
Conservation: A Meta-Analysis". Psychological Bulletin. Advance online publication. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0039650; 

Zvingilaite E. and Togeby M. (2015). Impact of Feedback about energy consumption. Ea Energy 

Analyses, 15-05-2015. http://www.ea-
energianalyse.dk/reports/1517_impact_of_feedback_about_energy_consumption.pdf; 

EEA Technical report No 5/2013 – "Achieving energy efficiency through behaviour change: what 
does it take?", http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/achieving-energy-efficiency-through-
behaviour . 

Individual metering is a necessary precondition for providing any feedback to consumers on 
their  actual  consumption.  Billing,  on  the  other  hand,  is  but  one  way  of  conveying 
consumption feedback. Since utilities anyways bill customers for purely commercial reasons 
it is however a low-cost and widely used approach to providing feedback.  

The literature mentioned above is generally reporting findings from specific, concrete studies, 
programmes and pilot projects. It establishes beyond doubt that feedback on individual actual 

55 Admittedly this could change e.g. in the context of increasingly smart and optimised, integrated systems with 
electricity and heat storage. At present this is however of very limited practical relevance.  

30 

 
 
 
  
 
                                                            
consumption,  including  via  billing,  tends  to  trigger  enduring  savings.  The  precise  impact 
depends a lot on the precise modalities, the situation before, the frequency etc.   

No evidence is available as regards the total impact of applying the EU  acquis on metering 
and  billing,  because  there  has  been  no  systematic  monitoring  or  reporting  of  the 
implementation of individual metering and consumption based billing, or the extent to which 
such  practices  have  been  furthered  by  EU  legislation.  It  is  safe  to  say,  however,  that  to  the 
extent/where  the  EU  provisions  have  triggered  the  installation  of  individual  meters,  and 
consumption  based  (frequent)  billing,  this  will  have  led  to  savings:  this  causal  link  is  well 
established in the scientific literature.   

There  is  evidence  from  the  work  and  discussions  on  implementation  in  (and  between) 
Members States to suggest that Article 9(1) of the EED has been less effective than intended 
because: 

a)  Key  concepts  or  terms  used  remain  either  ambiguously  defined  or  undefined,  and  are 
interpreted differently by different parties. 

b)  In  addition,  Member  States  in  many  instances  have  made  use  of  the  caveats  regarding 
technical feasibility and financial reasonableness / proportionality to make broad exceptions. 
These  conditions may  of course  be subject to review and possible infringement action from 
the Commission as part of its enforcement role. 

c)  Other  provisions  meanwhile  provide  more  impetus  to  reach  at  least  some  of  its  intended 
objectives (cf. e.g. Article 9(3)).  

This  is  in  line  with  an  assessment  of  the  effectiveness  of  Art.  13  ESD  where  the  Member 
States argued that changes in metering and billing were mainly due to factors  other than the 
ESD and that the causal influence of Article 13 ESD on the practice of metering and billing in 
the Member States was weak56. The relatively low penetration rate of smart electricity meters 
throughout most EU Member States gives an indication of the limited effectiveness of Article 
9(1). Whilst time-of-use information can be provided by other types of meters (e.g. dual-tariff 
(night/day)  meters),  and  while  such  meters  may  not  be  uncommon  in  some  countries  (e.g. 
FR),  the  fact  is  that  most  electricity  meters  throughout  the  EU  remain  conventional  ones, 
despite this provision being in force since 2008 (as part of the ESD).  

For  gas,  even  fewer  MS  have  rolled  out  smart  meters,  and  gas  remains  dominated  by 
conventional  metering  with  no  time-of-use  capabilities.  For  thermal  energy,  time-of-use 
capable  meters  are 
individual 
dwellings/consumers  are  still  not  equipped  with  individual  meters  for  hot  water  and  heat 
consumption. 

rule57,  and  many 

the  exception 

rather 

than 

the 

56 Renner / Martins (2010). Technical Summary Report TSR03 on Informative metering and informative billing, 
Concerted Action ESD, http://www.ca-eed.eu/outcomes/outcomes-2008-2011/technical-summary-reports 
57 Applications exist e.g. in Finland and Denmark. 

31 

 
                                                            
Figure 9: Share of household customers equipped with smart meters for electricity - 2014 

Source: CEER Database, National Indicators (2014-2015)58. 

In terms of heat metering, it has been estimated that there is a theoretical potential of some 20 
million permanently occupied dwellings in multi-unit buildings that are not individually sub-
metered yet59. 

How efficient has the EU intervention been? 

As  a  preface  to  answering  this  question  it  is  worth  recalling  that  utilities  for  commercial 
reasons in any case send bills to their customers, and requirements for feedback delivered via 
bills  therefore  entail  very  marginal  or  no  additional  costs  except  where  the  additional 
information  is  of  a  nature  that  is  costly  to  collect  or  where  the  billing  process  is  frequently 
repeated.  They  also  in  most  cases  install  meters  to  justify  such  billing,  although  there  have 
historically  been  exceptions,  especially  in  multi-unit  buildings  and/or  district  heating 
networks. 

Secondly, it is worth recalling that the acquis under consideration in this evaluation does not 
require  the  installation  of  smart  meters  (or  was  at  least  not  interpreted  to  that  effect).  The 
additional costs of "smart" meters over conventional ones is therefore less relevant here, but it 
is central to the evaluation of smart metering provisions that has been conducted and will be 
reported elsewhere as part of the forthcoming Market Design Initiative. 

There  are  no  data  available  to  assess  the  cost  or  efficiency  of  the  EU  intervention  here 
considered quantitatively, but given that most of the key obligations as regards metering and 
billing in the current  acquis are either expressly subject to cost-effectiveness conditions OR 
softly/ 
integrated 
efficiency/proportionality  considerations  when  transposing  and  implementing  the  provisions 
nationally.  It  is  therefore  safe  to  assume  that  obligations  for  enhanced  metering  and  billing 
measures generally have only been introduced where there was a sound economic case, and , 
it is therefore very unlikely that the rules have imposed any disproportionate costs. 

/ambiguously  worded,  Member 

typically 

States 

have 

58 2014 ACER/CEER annual report on the results of monitoring the internal electricity and natural gas markets 
59 Cf. p. 8 of http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/events/2-
castellazzi_heat_metering_setting_the_scene.pdf  

32 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
How relevant is the EU intervention? 

For the purpose of strengthening consumer empowerment, Art 9(1) is very relevant and would 
be even more so if it were to be clarified. The fundamental notion that individual consumers 
(incl.  households)  should  have  the  right  at  reasonable  costs  ("competitively  priced")  to 
accurate  metering  of  their  own  consumption  ("individual  meters"),  and  have  access  to 
information on when their actual consumption takes place (i.e. "time of use") remains highly 
relevant.  

However, in so far as thermal energy supplies are concerned the practical relevance of EED 
Article 9(1) has been diminished by the addition of the more precise Article 9(3). As regards 
electricity and gas the smartness/capabilities of the meters have since been addressed in more 
detail in the context of the smart meter roll out provisions under the IEM legislation (adopted 
years after the original ESD provisions) and in a subsequent Commission Recommendation60. 
At  least  for  electricity  and  gas  it  would  therefore  seem  appropriate  to  update  these 
requirements  in  the  light  of  these  developments  to  reflect  that  "time  of  use"  is  but  one  of 
several  important  features  of  modern  meters.  For  thermal  energy,  the  emergence  and 
increasingly  common  market  development  of  remotely  readable  heat  meters  and  heat  cost 
allocators should similarly be reflected in order to remain fully relevance. 

As  regards  the  lack  of  individual  meters  the  Commission  services  are  not  aware  of  any 
evidence that this is a significant issue for electricity and gas. This said, the presence of even a 
simple conventional meter within reasonable reach allowing at least self-checks cannot still be 
taken  for  granted  even  for  electricity,  as  is  evident  from  a  case  recently  having  been  the 
subject  of  a  ruling  by  the  Court61.  This  could  suggest  that  a  clearer  right  without  any 
conditions or caveats but for something more basic, namely the right to a meter allowing self-
checks, might be at least as relevant going forward. 

As  regards  billing,  it  should  be  noted  that  even  where  other  forms  and  means  of  providing 
energy  feedback  (e.g.  smart  phone  apps  etc.),  consumption  information  delivered  with  bills 
remains  relevant  since  the  various  forms  of  feedback  generally  are  complementary  and 
reinforce  each  other.  By  way  of  example,  research  has  shown  that  real-time  feedback 
(possible  only  with  smart  equipment)  tends  to  impact  more  on  behaviour,  whereas  more 
indirect  feedback  (e.g.  with  monthly,  quarterly  or  annual  bills)  tends  to  impact  more  on 
investment decisions. 

How coherent is the EU intervention internally and with other (EU) actions? 

The ambiguities in the wording of Article 9(1) raise questions of coherence with other EED 
provisions: For example,  

  Are  "meters  …that  provide  information  on  actual  time  of  use"  to  be  considered  to 
mean smart meters of the kind referred to in Article 9(2) (and in the IEM legislation), 
or another intermediate category (between smart and simple, conventional meters)? 

60 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32012H0148&from=EN   

61 Judgment in Case C‑83/14 of 16 July 2015: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=lst
&docid=165912&occ=first&dir=&cid=400263  

33 

 
                                                            
  Are  "Individual  consumption  meters"  for  thermal  energy  referred  to  in  Article  9(3) 

also supposed to be "meters …that provide information on actual time of use"? 

What is the EU added value of the intervention? 

Rules  to  empower  consumers  and  provide  adequate  consumer  protection  remain  absolutely 
critical  for  the  well-functioning  and  the  legitimacy  of  the  EU's  internal  energy  market.  The 
provisions  now  contained  in  Article  9(1)  of  the  EED  did,  when  first  adopted  as  part  of  the 
ESD in 2006, push forward the agenda of individual metering and smart metering at least in 
some EU Member States. This said, the current added value has been diminished because of 
the  various  ambiguities  and  the  subsequent  developments  elsewhere  on  smart  meters.  By 
being made more precise, it could (re)gain added-value. 

EED Article 9(3) Thermal energy in multi-unit buildings: Possible clarifications  

Article  9(3)  being  new  (compared  to  the  ESD)  and  the  deadline  for  achieving  its  effective 
outcome  (installation  of  meters  or  heat  cost  allocators  in  individual  units  in  multi-unit 
buildings) only being by 31/12/2016, it is at this stage premature to evaluate Article9(3) as 
a whole.  

Nevertheless,  during  the  Commission's  work  overseeing  Member  States'  implementation,  a 
few areas where technical clarifications could be welcome have emerged and merit attention. 
These concern: 

  The meaning of "multi-apartment/purpose buildings"; 
  Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness criteria for meters and heat cost allocators; 
  Availability of transparent cost allocation rules. 

The meaning of "multi-apartment/purpose buildings" 

Whereas the Commission services have taken the view that a "multi-purpose building could 
be  understood  as  a  building  occupied  by  at  least  two  entities  that  need  to  share  between 
themselves the bill for the energy purchased", a different reading is possible. For example, the 
French  authorities  read  the  (French  version  of)  the  provision  as  referring  to  buildings  with 
both  dwellings  and  non-dwelling  uses  ("immeubles  mixtes").  The  first  reading  implies  a 
broader  scope  in  that  buildings  containing  no  dwellings  but  more  than  one  commercial  or 
industrial entity (e.g. a shopping mall) would be covered.  

It  could  be considered  to  clarify  this  aspect  next  time  the  Directive  is  amended  anyways  or 
through  further  guidance).  From  a  coherence  perspective,  and  given  that  the  EPBD  for  the 
purpose  of  building  Energy  Performance  Certificates  (EPC)  uses  the  notion  of  "building 
units"62,  it  could  be  considered  to  align  with  this  so  that  Article  9(3)  metering  would  be 

62 In the EPBD  "building unit" is defined as "a section, floor or apartment within a building which is designed 
or altered to be used separately" -  in this regard, 'separate use' could be understood as separate use of energy 
(i.e.  individual  energy  metering  and  billing…)  and/or  having  separate  users.  "To  be  used  separately"  would 
therefore mean that different building units have, or are capable of having, different tenants or different owners 
and may be billed separately as compared to the building as a whole. In any case, a "building unit" requires an 
energy  performance  certificate  of  its  own,  independently  from  the  building  as  a  whole,  in  accordance  with 

34 

 
 
 
                                                            
required wherever EPCs are required, in order to facilitate implementation in Member States 
by avoiding the need to use two similar but not identical distinctions. It could also be left to 
MS discretion to interpret the precise boundaries in their specific national contexts. 

Technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness criteria for meters and heat cost allocators  

The  first  part  of  Article  9(3)  is  relatively  clear,  except  that  the  conditionality  can  be 
interpreted/applied in widely differing ways. DG ENER's ongoing contract with "empirica"63 
aimed  at  formulating  best  practice  guidelines  for  application  of  these  criteria  and  analyzing 
Member  States'  application  of  these  criteria  has  revealed  that  many  Member  States  literally 
transpose the criteria into national law without giving further guidance on how to apply them. 
In  addition,  some  Member  States  apply  general  or  broad  exemptions  based  on  cost-benefit 
analysis  carried  out  on  a  single  average  building  or  a  limited  range  of  typical/example 
buildings. Very few Member States have adopted specific measures to ensure a building-by-
building assessment of the fulfilment of the criteria, with most leaving it to local actors (heat 
suppliers,  building  managers  etc)  to  assess  if  the  criteria  require  the  provision  of  individual 
meters.    This  situation  could  potentially  affect  the  achievement  of  the  policy  objective  of 
ensuring that individual metering and billing is implemented at least where it is cost-effective 
and  feasible.  Depending  on  the  outcome  of  the  ongoing  transposition  and  implementation 
process,  it  could  be  considered  at  a  later  stage  to  "codify"  (some  elements  of)  best  practice 
approaches in any further, future review of the EED provisions. Doing so now however seems 
premature given that the deadline has not even passed yet, which is why progress at this stage 
should  better  focus  on  encouraging  MS  to  follow  best  practice  based  on  guidance  from  the 
Commission and through the work on enforcement.   

It is noteworthy that respondents to the public consultation on the EED review widely agreed 
that  it  is  appropriate  for  the  requirements  to  be  subject  to  technical  feasibility  and/or  cost 
effectiveness  conditions  –  this  view  was  not  only  shared  by  5  of  every  6  respondent 
expressing  an  opinion,  but  also  by  a  majority  in  each  category  of  stakeholders,  including 
NGOs  who  were  otherwise  most  critical  as  regards  the  overall  adequacy  of  Articles  9-11. 
There was similarly broad agreement that conditions should not be harmonized at EU level, 
although NGOs and private respondents were slightly more favorable to this idea.   

Availability of transparent cost allocation rules 

The last sub-para of Article 9(3) provides that "…Member States may introduce transparent 
rules  on  the  allocation  of  the  cost  of  thermal  or  hot  water  consumption  in  [multi-
apartment/purpose]  buildings  to  ensure  transparency  and  accuracy  of  accounting  for 
individual  consumption.".  Although  it  is  optional  ("may")  it  is  nevertheless  of  some  use 
because  it  implicitly  recognises  that  despite  the  right  to  be  billed  based  on  individual 
consumption (Article 10), occupants of multi-unit buildings may not be billed exclusively on 
that  basis  but  also  on  other  factors.  This  is  also  significant  in  the  context  of  the  many 
complaints  from  occupants  in  multi-apartment  buildings  who,  unhappy  with  the  collective 

Article 12(1) and 11(6). For example, if a building were sub  divided into self-contained flats, each flat should 
have an EPC.  
63  Analysis  of  good  practices  and  development  of  guidelines  for  accurate  and  fair  allocation  of  costs  for 
individual  consumption  of  heating,  cooling  and  domestic  hot  water  in  multi-apartment  and  multi-purpose 
buildings to support the implementation of relevant provisions of the Articles 9-11 of the Directive 2012/27/EU 
on energy efficiency – Tender ENER/C3/2013-977 

35 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
solutions,  wish  (and  sometimes  decide) to  use  individual solutions,  and  thus  do not  wish  to 
pay for the collective solutions.  

This topic is also the subject of work under the contract referred to above. Depending on the 
outcome  produced  by  empirica,  it  could  be  considered  to  "codify"  (some  elements  of)  best 
practice  approaches  in  the  review  of  the  EED  provisions,  or  simply  to  encourage  MS  to 
follow best practice based on guidance adopted or published by the Commission. In any case 
there is a link with the application of Article 10(3) and Annex VII in so far as heating, cooling 
and hot water in multi-unit buildings is concerned. 

6.3.  Billing (information) and frequency 

What is the current situation? 

The EED provisions on billing contained in Article 10 essentially  

1)  Define  the  basic  right  for  customers  without  smart  electricity  and  gas  meters  to 
accurate  billing  information  based  on  actual  consumption  with  a  certain  minimum 
frequency (Article 10(1) & Point 1.1. of Annex VII). 

2)  Define certain minimum information to be provided with billing information, namely 

a)  Current 

actual 
(A.VII point 1.1 a); 

prices 

and 

actual 

consumption 

of 

energy  

b)  Comparisons with previous years (A.VII point 1.1 b); 
c)  Contact information to locate further energy information information/resources/advice 

(A.VII points 1.1 c and 1.3); 

d)  Comparisons with average customers in the same user category (A.VII point 1.1 c). 

3)  Define certain other rights to request 

a)  That billing and consumption information to the extent it exists be made available to a 

third party energy service provider (Article 10(3) a); 

b)  Electronic billing (Article 10(3) b); 
c)  Clear, understandable explanations of how bills are derived (Article 10(3) b); 
d)  Information/estimates on energy costs in an easily understandable format allowing to 

compare deals on a like-for-like basis (Article 10(3)e). 

The  EED  does  not  specify  a  minimum  billing  frequency  for  supplies  metered  with  smart 
electricity and gas meters. Where a smart metering system is available to final customers, the 
general provisions of the IEM legislation continue to apply. According to Annex I point 1 i) 
of  the  IED  and  IEG  Directives  it is  to  be  ensured  that  customers  "are  properly informed  of 
actual  electricity  consumption  and  costs  frequently  enough  to  enable  them  to  regulate  their 
own electricity consumption. That information shall be given by using a sufficient time frame, 
which  takes  account  of  the  capability  of  customer’s  metering  equipment  and  the  electricity 
product in question". According to an interpretative note published by the Commission on 22 
January 2010, the Commission's services consider that where smart meters are installed, 
receiving actual consumption based information on a monthly basis would be sufficient 
to allow a consumer to regulate his consumption64. 

It should be stressed that the right/obligation referred to in point 1 above applies only "where 
this is technically possible and economically justified". Similarly, the minimum information 

64 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2010_01_21_retail_markets.pdf  

36 

 
 
                                                            
referred to under point 2 above is to be provided "where appropriate" according to Annex VII. 
The rights listed under point 3 are not subject to such caveats.  

How effective has the EU intervention been? 

The  Commission  does  not  yet  have  comprehensive  data  on  the  detailed  implementation  of 
EED Article 10. Initial high-level analysis of the current state of transposition suggests that it 
is still very incomplete and patchy, although this remains to be confirmed by more in-depth 
analysis at country level. In the latest annual report from ACER on the results of monitoring 
the  internal  electricity  and  natural  gas  markets65  information  on  the  billing  frequency  is 
available  for  a  range  of  Member  States  for  2014,  but  the  new  requirements  as  regards 
minimum frequency under the EED took effect only as of 31/12/2014. 

Table 
Source: CEER Database, National Indicators (2014-2015) . Note: * Electricity, ** Gas. 

information  based 

3:  Frequency 

of  billing 

actual 

on 

consumption 

– 

2014 

Without smart meters 

With smart meters 

Legal 

In practice 

Daily 

Legal 

FI* 

In practice 

Monthly 

BG, EE, LT, SE* 

BG*,  EE,  HR**,  LV*, 
LT 

AT, EE*, ES*, PT*, 
SE* 

FR, ES*, PT*, SE*  

Bimonthly 

CY*, PT** 

CY*, ES*, FR, PT** 

NL 

NL** 

Quarterly 

AT,  IE,  NO*,  PT*, 
RO** 

DK, IE, PT*, RO 

NO* 

DK*, EE*, NO* 

Triannually 

FI 

EL 

Biannually   HR, RO*, SI 

HR*, MT* 

Annually 

CZ,  DK,  EL,  ES*, 
FR,  HU,  NL,  PL*, 
SE**, SK 

LU, NL, SI, SK 

DK, FR, SE** 

As  discussed  earlier,  data  collected  and  reported  by  ACER  shows  that  a  high  share  of 
registered complaints about electricity and gas retail markets are related to billing issues. But 
the data are neither specific nor recent enough to reveal if the reasons are related to issued 
that  were  (to  be)  addressed  as  part  of  the  EED  implementation  as  of  2015.  Whereas  the 
mystery  shopping  study  referred  did  contain  data  from  2015  and  suggested  that  problems 
exist,  that  is  also  not  surprising  given  the  less  that  complete  situation  as  regards  both 
transposition and actual implementation. 

As regards heating, cooling and hot water, no evidence is available as regards the extent to 
which  the  various  information  elements  are  made  available  to  final  customers  or  at  what 
frequency.  

For  consumers  in  multi-unit  buildings  supplied  from  central  heating,  cooling  or  hot  water 
systems, these challenges ares compounded by lack of clarity as to whether the requirements 

65 2014 ACER/CEER annual report on the results of monitoring the internal electricity and natural gas markets 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
are  actually  applicable  to  them  at  all  or  not  (cf.  the  discussion  in  section  6.2)  Where  the 
consumers/occupants  of  individual  units  do  not  have  a  direct  contract  or  commercial 
relationship with the energy utility. A specific stakeholder consultation carried out as part of 
the  contract  referred  to  in  Footnote 64  confirmed  that  the  Annex  VII  requirements  are  only 
considered fully applied by less than 75% of the respondents (cf. Figure 10). 

Figure  10:  Expert  stakeholder  responses  on  the  question:  "Today  in  your  country,  does  invoicing  of 
heating,  cooling  and  hot  water,  and  information  provided  to  tenants  on  their  consumption  pattern, 
generally conform to the requirements of Annex VII?" 

Not surprisingly, a similar proportion of the same stakeholders did not consider that - where 
heating and/or hot water is sub-metered - invoices sufficiently transparent and clear, and cost 
allocation regarded as fair (cf. Figure 11). 

38 

 
 
 
 
Figure  11:  Expert  stakeholder  responses  to  the  question:  "Where  data  from  heat  meters  or  heat  cost 
allocators  are  used  to  calculate  the  amount  of  energy  invoiced  to  residents,  are  invoices  sufficiently 
transparent and clear, and cost allocation regarded as fair?" 

How efficient has the EU intervention been? 

There  are  no  data  available  to  assess  this  question  quantitatively  yet,  but  given  that  the 
provision themselves (in EED Article 10(1)) contain "caveats" regarding cost-effectiveness, it 
is unlikely that the rules have imposed any disproportionate costs. 

Even where meters or heat cost allocators are in place, the "cost plus" regulation that is typical 
of district heating networks, or internal heating accounts of sub-metered multi-unit buildings 
supplied e.g. from a central fuel oil boiler, is often operating on an annual basis. It may thus 
be  costly  or  impossible  to  produce  the  cost  figures  that  would  in  principle  be  required  to 
produce sub-annual billing information including current energy costs. For this reason focus 
on  consumption  information  (in  terms  of  energy)  rather  than  billing  information  (including 
also  cost/price  data)  might  be  a  more  realistic  option  for  sub-annual  information  in  these 
cases. Depending on how MS have applied the "caveat" in Article 10(1) in this case, this may 
have resulted in more or less efficient outcomes.  

How relevant is the EU intervention? 

With  EED  Article  10  and  Annex  VII  having  been  adopted  rather  recently  and  aiming  to 
address some of the problems identified, it clearly remains highly relevant. 

39 

 
 
 
How coherent is the EU intervention internally and with other (EU) actions? 

Whereas  no  direct  contradictions  with  other  provisions  and  actions  have  been  identified,  it 
may seem incoherent or at least confusing that, as explained above, the minimum frequency 
of billing is (qualitatively) regulated in the Electricity and Gas Directives and quantitatively 
regulated in the EED for all but smart electricity and gas meters. Most importantly, the latter 
(EED) results in what would seem to be an unjustified difference between those customers of 
electricity/gas  and  thermal  energy  forms,  respectively,  who  have  equipment  allowing  for 
automatic/remote  readings:  whereas  customers  with  smart  electricity    or  gas  meters  should 
expect to have at least monthly information (cf. the Commission's interpretation of the IEM 
provisions), consumers whose consumption is measured with "smart" heat meters or heat cost 
allocators  are  only  entitled  to  information  2  or  4  times  a  year  (assuming  that  the  cost-
effectiveness condition has not been used to deviate from it). It would seem more logical that 
where supplies are measured using remotely readable equipment, and where marginal costs of 
more  frequent  information  are  therefore  very  small,  the  minimum  frequency  would  be  the 
same regardless of the energy form, and that this be clearly spelled out. 

Moreover, the wording of Annex VII in some cases can be considered ambiguous.  The use of 
the  word  "should"  in  Annex  VII  point  1.1.  has  led  some  Member  States  to  consider  the 
minimum  requirements  optional/non-binding,  although  the  word  "shall"  is  used  in  the 
operative  Article  itself  (Article  10(1)).  In  the  same  vein,  there  seems  to  be  some  overlaps 
between the requirements listed in point 1.2 c) and point 1.3 of Annex VII, which both refer 
to contact information for external resources that the customer can refer to. 

What is the EU added value of the intervention? 

Delivering a New Deal for energy consumers as part of an Enery Union with consumers at its 
heart  means  inter  alia  providing  consumers  with  frequent  access  to  partially  standardised, 
meaningful,  accurate  and  understandable  information  on  consumption  and  related  costs66. 
Guaranteeing certain minimum standards in terms of the frequency and content of billing and 
billing information therefore contributes to realising the Energy Union and meet EU goals on 
energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS  

The legislators' original objectives behind the provisions can be summarised as follows:  

 

 

to enable effective consumer choice and boost competition through the availability 
of  transparent,  comparable  and  reliable  information  on  prices,  costs,  energy 
consumption, fuel mix  and environmental impact of electricity supplies; 
to  enable/incentivize  energy  savings  through  sufficiently  frequent  feedback  about 
(the cost of) their energy consumption. 

66 Cf. conclusions in COM(2015) 339 final 

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Effectiveness 

The  evidence  available and  considered  in  this  evaluation  suggests  that  the  provisions  in  the 
IEM  and  EED  together  are  likely  to  have  made  some  contributions  towards  the 
achievement of both of these objectives, although it is impossible to quantify this given the 
multiple and complex other factors that also affect these objectives' achievement, the absence 
of precise indicators and the scarcity of data.  

The EED generally contains the most specific and detailed provisions in the area of metering 
and  billing,  and  not  just  as  regards  energy  savings  but  also  as  regards  the  clarity  and 
comparability of energy bills. The deadline for its transposition is relatively recent (mid 2014) 
and some of the key obligations therein have later deadlines for actual application. Until the 
national transposition measures are in place, have been verified to be in conformity with the 
requirements of the Directive and have been applied by market players on the ground it might 
be too  early to  draw  many firm conclusions as regards the  effectiveness  of  the current 
legislative framework.  

It  is  nevertheless  already  possible  to  identify  certain  gaps  and  areas  of  potential 
improvements.  

With regard to comparability and clarity of billing information, the relatively low degree 
of  satisfaction  of  electricity  and  gas  customers  compared  to  other  services  markets  and  the 
high share of complaints related to billing suggests that there is still room for improvement 
and  that  further  action  might  well  be  required  to  this  end,  at  national  or  EU  level.  This 
conclusion is corroborated by the findings of the 2016 Electricity Study and the responses to 
the  Commission's  Consultation  on  the  retail  energy  market  conducted  in  spring  2014.  A 
specific  expert  stakeholder  consultation  confirmed  similar  issues  for  centrally  supplied 
thermal energy in multi-unit buildings: only 1 out of 4 consider that invoices are sufficiently 
transparent and clear, and cost allocation regarded as fair by consumers in such sub-metered 
buildings. 

With respect to energy savings there was a clearly stated intention with the EED to clarify the 
pre-existing  requirements  contained  in  the  IEM  and  in  the  2006  Energy  Services  Directive 
(ESD) as their effect on this objective was considered to have been too limited. This intention 
has only partially been met given that the current framework remains complex and open to 
interpretation  with  regard  to  the  nature  and  scope  of  certain  key  obligations.  From  this 
perspective, there is a case already for revisiting certain aspects of EED Articles 9-11 and of 
Annex VII, in particular those related to the minimum frequency of provision of information, 
the  precise  nature  of  that  information  and  the  situations  in  which  the  requirements  are 
applicable.  

With regard to disclosure of energy sources, the evidence available suggests that the way the 
current requirements are implemented is not sufficient to match the intentions: a rather high 
share of citizens seem to either not find or not notice disclosure information with their 
billing information. Others have doubts about the credibility or added-value of green claims 
made.  While  these  problems  in  some  instances  may  be  due  to  bad  application/non-
enforcement,  it  also  points  to  a  potential  for  making  such  information  more  trustworthy, 
accessible, visible and easy to understand and compare. Moreover, the fact that a high share 
of  gas  offers  carry  "green"  labels  or  claims  despite  biogas  injection  still  being  very  limited 
also  puts  a  question  mark  over  the  effectiveness  of  what  is  in  fact  amounts  to  a 
voluntary/unregulated  regime,  given  there  is  no  disclosure  obligation  for  gas  as  there  is  for 

41 

 
electricity.  Finally,  there  is  increasing  demand  from  energy  consumers,  particularly  the 
corporate  sector,  but  also  from  organisations  representing  general  consumers,  for  robust 
information on the emissions associated with the energy use.  This has resulted in a number of 
organisations proposing that the Guarantees of Origin system is extended to cover emissions 
such as CO2. 

Efficiency 

There is little if any evidence but good reason to assume that the intervention has been 
efficient in terms of the proportionality between impacts and resources/means deployed. The 
major reason for this is that certain obligations are either modest in ambition, unclear in scope 
(and therefore not implemented) or qualified with conditions allowing Member States to make 
implementation subject to cost-effectiveness/proportionality criteria. A possible exception is 
the rules on disclosure where resources have been committed to establish systems allowing 
the  issuance  of  guarantees  of  origin  of  electricity  from  renewable  energy  sources  and  from 
high-efficiency cogeneration under the RES and EED, respectively, but where the disclosure 
obligation  in  the  IED  does  not  require  their  use,  thereby  missing  an  obvious  opportunity  to 
use common EU tools that anyways exist. 

Relevance 

Overall the key provisions remain highly relevant, not least those of the EED which is not 
surprising  given  its  relatively  recent  adoption.  This  said,  parts  of  both  the  IEM  and  the 
EED itself have to some extent been surpassed by developments in the market as well as in 
the  regulation  (EED).  This  concerns  notably  EED  Article  9(1)  which  carried  forward 
provisions from the former Energy Services Directive without addressing certain ambiguities, 
and  without  reflecting  recent  technological  and  market  developments  as  regards  the 
availability  of  remotely  readable  heat  cost  allocators  and  meters.  As  regards  the  IEM,  the 
increasing use of online price comparison tools challenges the relevance, or at least the 
completeness, of certain provisions if they are not adapted to also reflect and support new 
ways of consumer-market interaction. 

Coherence 

In terms of coherence, the evaluation has pointed to a number of issues where improvements 
seem possible. 

Firstly,  it  must  be  noted  that  smart  metering  is  addressed  by  provisions  in  both  the 
Electricity and Gas Directives, in the EED and in the EPBD, as well as by a non-binding 
Commission  Recommendation.  These  provisions  are  the  subject  of  a  separate  thematic 
evaluation reported as part of the Market Design Initiative and not discussed in depth here. It 
suffices to say here that whereas no direct contradictions have been identified, this situation 
is  at  the  very  least  confusing  and  renders  it  more  complex  to  understand  the  applicable 
requirements.  An example is the minimum frequency of billing which is regulated by the 
IEM Directives in a qualitative way (not making references to quantified frequencies), and by 
more  specific  quantified  provision  in  the  EED  but  only  in  so  far  as  non-smart  meters  are 
concerned.  This  results  in  what  appears  to  be  an  unjustified  difference  in  the  guaranteed 
minimum  frequency  of  provision  of  information  between  those  customers  of  respectively 
electricity/gas and heat that have remotely readable/"smart" equipment installed: the latter are 
not  currently  sure  to  fully  benefit  from  the  capabilities  of  the  smart  equipment  (be  it  heat 
meters or heat cost allocators). 

42 

 
Secondly, the continued use in the EED (Article 9(1)) of the term "meter…. that provide 
information on actual time of use", originating from the 2006 Energy Services Directive, 
raises  questions  about the  coherence  with  the  framework  for  promoting  smart  meters. 
The latter generally aims to promote the roll-out, where cost-effective, of meters with a wider 
range of functionalities of which capability to provide time-of-use information is just one. 

Thirdly, in so far as billing and billing information are concerned, the way Annex VII of the 
EED is  drafted and referenced could be improved to  address certain internal overlaps 
or ambiguities as regards the nature and scope of its applicability. Notably it might be worth 
clarifying beyond doubt that the annex is applicable to consumers of thermal energy in multi-
flat/purpose  buildings  even  where  they're  not  directly  or  individually  parties  to  an  energy 
supply contract. The precise nature of some of the information elements (comparisons) could 
also be clarified. 

Finally, two observations can be made as regards disclosure of energy sources: 

Firstly,  the  current  disclosure  regime  is  not  technology-neutral.  Electricity  supplies  are 
subject  to  disclosure  whereas  network  supplies  of  gas  and  thermal  energy  forms  are  not.  It 
might be argued that historically this was justified a) because "gas is just gas" and b) because 
thermal energy supplies were not regulated by an internal market directive. However, as gas 
supplies  are  increasingly  being  diversified  to  include  biogas,  gas  customers  arguably  might 
also start having an interest in knowing where their gas comes from and use this information 
as active consumers. As regards heat, switching supplier is typically not an option in the short 
term.  Nevertheless,  heat  consumers  –  whether  supplied  from  a  central  boiler  in  a  multi-flat 
building or from a district heating network – arguably also could have a legitimate interest in 
knowing the source of their energy: at building level this could inform collective decisions to 
change energy source when installations have to be renovated. At the level of district heating 
networks, this could increase awareness and political pressure over time to transition to using 
more efficient and low-carbon sources or upgrading infrastructures in the network. 

Secondly,  whereas  EU  legislation  establishes  tools  to  facilitate  electricity-related 
disclosure  for  both  renewables  and  high-efficiency  cogeneration,  it  only  stimulates  a 
demand for the former. The obligation to disclose the fuel mix, enshrined in the Electricity 
Directive,  does  not  require  or  stimulate  disclosure  of  the  share  of  cogeneration.  Moreover, 
even for renewables, the disclosure obligation is not systematically/exclusively met using 
guarantees of origin, despite them being available, as their use is not mandatory. 

EU added-value 

Delivering a New Deal for energy consumers as part of an Energy Union with consumers at 
its heart means inter alia providing consumers with frequent access to partially standardised, 
meaningful,  accurate  and  understandable  information  on  consumption  and  related  costs. 
Healthy  levels  of  consumer  engagement  and  retail  competition  are  key  to  ensuring  the 
rollout  of  new  products  and  services  that  will  help  the  energy  system  become  more 
flexible, and build demand for innovative energy products. Guaranteeing certain minimum 
standards  in  terms  of  the  frequency  and  content  of  billing  and  billing  information  therefore 
contributes  to  realising  the  Energy  Union  and  meeting  EU  goals  on  energy  efficiency  and 
greenhouse gas reductions. 

In  addition,  the  provisions  addressing  consumer  information  in  the  Electricity  and  Gas 
Directives  are  essential  for  protecting  consumers  in  the  internal  energy  market  at  the  retail 

43 

 
level. They play an important role in ensuring the benefits of the internal market in energy can 
be enjoyed by all consumers, and help to create a level-playing field for suppliers and other 
retail market actors across the EU. Whereas there are currently very few, if any, examples 
of cross-border supply in the retail market, a common base of energy consumer rights 
that helps national rules converge over time is a precondition for that to develop. With 
the perspective of developing an internal retail market where customers one day might even 
shop  cross-border,  the  common  definition  of  minimum  requirements  for  information  for 
consumers  creates  added  value.  But even  in  absence  of  cross-border  supplies  at  retail  level, 
common minimum requirements allow service providers and equipment manufacturers 
to develop standard solutions and create economies of scale, leveraging the internal market 
of 500 million consumers. 

Simplification, burden reduction potential, SMEs, and quantification of costs and benefits 

From  the  evaluation  it  appears  very  likely  that  it  should  be  possible  to  clarify  the  current 
legislative provisions which are somewhat complex and open to interpretations on important 
points.  This  in  turn  should  simplify  the  task  for  the  public  authorities  whose  task  it  is  to 
transpose the rules in  national law and ensure their actual implementation  and enforcement. 
However, also other market players and not least citizens would benefit from clearer and more 
coherent rules at the EU level.  In terms of burdens for citizens economic operators, including 
on SMEs, the existing rules create a net benefit as they are not requiring action where it is not 
cost-effective, and are therefore not imposing significant burdens.  

44 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  

This  evaluation  has  benefitted  from  input  from  the  following  processes  involving 
stakeholders: 

1.  Consultation on the retail energy market 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-retail-energy-market; 

2.  Consultation on the Review of Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/consultations/consultation-review-directive-201227eu-
energy-efficiency; 

3.  Three stakeholder workshops on metering and billing of thermal supplies organised by 

"empirica" for the Commission 
http://www.empirica.biz/projects/energy/details/?projectid=182; 

4.  Three range of workshops organised by the JRC on metering and billing of heat 
http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/tags/heat-metering-and-billing. 

Retail market public consultation - results 

Below are summarised in graphic form a quantitative summary of the relevant feedback from 
the consultation referred to in point 1 above.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please  give  your  opinion  on  the  relative  importance  of  the  following  factors  in  helping 
residential consumers and SMEs better control their energy consumption and costs. 

ACER/CEER  Annual  Report  concludes  that  consumers  are  dissatisfied  with  the  information 
they  receive  in  their  contract  and  in  their  billing  information.  The  report  also  shows  the 
frequency  with  which  consumers  switch  from  one  energy  supplier  to  another.  This  varies 
between 0% to 14,8% in the EU Member States. 

In your opinion, what are the key factors that influence switching rates? 

46 

 
 
 
 
Please  indicate  if  you  agree  or  disagree  with  the  following  statements  concerning  ways  to 
increase consumers' interest in comparing offers and switching to a different energy supplier. 

47 

 
 
 
 
With the implementation of related provisions in the Energy Efficiency Directive by December 
2014, consumers can be billed on the basis of their actual energy consumption and have the 
right to access their actual and historical consumption data. Do you think that bills provide 
consumers with sufficient information about their consumption patterns? 

EED review - results 

Below  are  summarised  in  graphic  form  a  quantitative  summary  of  the  feedback  from  the 
consultation referred to in point 2 above in so far as EED Articles 9-11 are concerned, on the 
basis of 326 responses. Further details have been published online in a full synthesis report67. 

67https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Public%20Consultation%20Report%20on%20the 

%20EED%20Review.pdf  

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Overall adequacy: Do you think the EED provisions on metering and billing (Articles 9-11) 
are sufficient to guarantee all consumers easily accessible, sufficiently frequent, detailed and 
understandable  information  on  their  own  consumption  of  energy  (electricity,  gas,  heating, 
cooling, hot water)? 

44% 

25% 

31% 

Yes

No

No opinion

Do you think it appropriate that the requirement to provide individual metering and frequent 
billing (Articles 9(1), 9(3) and 10(1)) is subject to it being technically feasible and/or cost 
effective? 

27% 

12% 

61% 

Yes

No

No opinion

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Should such conditions of being technically feasible and/or cost effective be harmonised 
across the EU?  

31% 

22% 

47% 

Yes

No

No opinion

How  would  these  conditions  of  being  technically  feasible  and/or  cost  effective  affect  the 
potential for energy savings and consumer empowerment? 

21% 

15% 

64% 

Yes

No

No opinion

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  2  -  REFIT  ASSESSMENT  OF  THE  RENEWABLE  ENERGY  DIRECTIVE  –  PROVISIONS 
RELATED TO GUARANTEES OF ORIGIN (GOS) 

This section summarises the evaluation work that has been carried out in relation to Article 15 
of  the  Renewable  Energy  Directive  (Directive  2009/28/EC).    This  Article  relates  to  the 
Guarantees of Origin (GO) system which tracks the origin of renewable electricity and can be 
used for disclosure purposes. 

Conclusions and recommendations for GOs 

The REFIT assessment concluded the following actions:  

  Continue to stress the importance of MS to move towards a GO system based on the 
European  Energy  Certificate  System  (EECS)  operated  by  the  Association  of  Issuing 
Bodies  (AIB).  Also,  continue  to  monitor  progress,  to  ensure  full  implementation  of 
this article throughout the EU.  

  Assess the option to link GOs to the actual energy stream, after 2020.  
  Assess  the  benefits  of  following  the  Best  Practice  Recommendations  formulated  by 
RE-DISS  I  and  any  further  recommendations  from  RE-DISS  II22.  These  include: 
extending  the  use  of  GOs  for  all  types  of  power  generation;  streamlining  the  use  of 
tracking mechanisms at MS level; clarifying the relation between support schemes and 
the tracking systems used for purposes of disclosure.  
Investigate the possible extension of the use of GOs beyond RES-E and high-efficient 
cogeneration to all types of power generation i.e. including electricity from fossil and 
nuclear generation.  

 

REFIT assessment 

What is the current situation? 

The REFIT analysis of the RED summarised the situation with the GO system. 

Article 15: Guarantees of origin (GOs) 
Positive contributions  
Transparency on RES generation has increased 
and GOs proved to be a useful tool to reduce 
fraud and inaccuracies.  
Systems throughout the EU have become more 
standardised.  

Key issues and barriers  

There are still barriers to the trade and transfer of 
GOs; differences in the comprehensiveness of 
procedures and the use of GOs remain.  
The administrative burden seems reasonable but 
data are lacking and likely to depend on MS 
implementation and starting point  

How effective has the EU intervention been? 

The REFIT analysis showed: 

  All  MS  now  have  some  sort  of  RES  GO  system  in  place  with  competent  bodies 
assigned for issuing, transferring and cancelling GOs. The use of GOs for heating and 

51 

 
 
 
 
cooling remains limited as RED does not set a mandatory requirement regarding their 
issuance. 

  Guarantees  of  Origin  are  used  for  three  main  purposes:  fuel  mix  disclosure  i.e.  to 
prove  how  the  energy  was  produced  and  ensure  transparency  of  the  energy  data 
produced and of the information provided to final consumers; to determine eligibility 
for national support schemes - it is up to Member States to decide whether they want 
to combine GOs and support schemes; as a traded commodity between MS. 

  Almost  all  countries  use  GOs  for  consumer  disclosure  purposes  and  most  recognize 

GOs from other countries and allow trade, albeit with different conditions. 

  The  number  of  GOs  issued,  traded  and  transferred  has  been  increasing  sharply 
between  2010  and  2013  but  the  trade  in  GOs  remains  limited  due  to  barriers  to  the 
trade and transfer of GOs based on the fact that not all Member States are members of 
the  Association  of  Issuing  Bodies  (AIB)  and  use  a  system  compliant  with  the 
European  Energy  Certificate  System  (EECS),  which  means  that  GOs  from  some 
Member States are refused by others. 

  At this stage there is no specific research which isolates and quantifies the impact that 
GOs have had on the level of investment in renewable energy at EU or MS level. 
  GOs  have  proved  to  be  useful  tools  to  reduce  fraud  and  inaccuracies.  The 
effectiveness  of  the  systems  in  place  to  avoid  inaccuracy  and  double-counting  has 
clearly improved significantly since the first version of the Directive (2001) and even 
since  2009.  The  majority  of  countries  are  now  compliant  with  the  EECS  and  have 
systems in place to check the validity of the information supplied by GOs. However, 
there  still  remain  differences  in  the  comprehensiveness  of  these  procedures  and 
therefore their likely effectiveness. 

  The  effectiveness  of  GOs  as  a  tradable  commodity  which  can  support  investment  in 
RES across Europe is less clear. The exclusion of GO use as a compliance means for 
meeting  national  targets  reduces  their  effectiveness  in  supporting  investment  across 
the EU, because it places the emphasis on domestic (national) measures irrespective of 
the opportunity for cheaper investment elsewhere. 

How efficient has the EU intervention been? 

Efficiency was examined by the REFIT analysis: 

 

  The  costs  of  a  Guarantee  of  Origin  regime  include  the  development  and  operation 
costs of a registry as well as costs of plant registration and audits and transaction costs 
for participants. 
Implementing article 15 of the 2009 Directive will have involved additional costs for 
public  authorities  in  order  to  meet  the  new  mandatory  requirements  it  included. 
However,  in  most  countries  the  system  will  build  on:  the existing  GO  system  if  one 
was implemented in response to the 2001 Directive; or using an existing body as the 
responsible authority and allocating it these additional responsibilities in order to limit 
additional costs. 

  Overall  the  administrative  burden  does  seem  reasonable,  although  in  practice  it  will 
depend on how MS implement the system. The system costs associated with fraud and 
double-counting avoidance also need to be viewed in the context of the risks and costs 
of  fraud  and  double-counting  itself.  These  costs  can  be  minimised  through  a 
standardisation of GOs across Europe. 

  Ultimately  the  cost  efficiency  of  the  system  will  not  only  depend  on  the 
implementation and operation costs but also on the volume of GOs issued and traded: 

52 

 
 
the more GOs are issued the higher the economies of scale achieved and therefore the 
efficiency of the system. 

  There  is  no  available  overview  of  the  costs  placed  on  producers  by  the  various  MS 

systems at this point. 

  The  continued  standardisation  of  the  GO  system  at  EU  level  –  following  the  Best 
Practice  Recommendations 
further 
recommendations  from  RE-DISS  II  -  seems  to  be  the  best  way  to  maximise  the 
potential benefits from this Article. 

formulated  by  RE-DISS 

I  and  any 

What is the EU added value of the intervention? 

The REFIT analysis summarised added value as: 

  The article is not directly related to other EU initiatives but GOs might be considered 
useful tools as part of the objective for a single internal energy market set out in the 
2009 Energy Market Directives. Specifically, the role of GOs in supporting fuel mix 
disclosure  helps  facilitate  consumer  choice  and  supplier  competition,  both  of  which 
are encouraged by the 2009 Energy Market Directives. 

  The 2009 RED introduced improvements in the minimum requirements originally set 
out in the 2001 Directive. Without further intervention at EU level the situation would 
likely have remained unchanged since 2001 with a fragmented system as opposed to 
the more standardised (although still not unified) process currently in place. 

  The  added  value  of  this  article  in  terms  of  cost-efficiency  is  limited  by  the  need  for 
individual MS to meet their renewable targets and the separation between GOs and the 
underlying commodity they related to (i.e. energy). 
It  is  also  limited  by  the  presence  of  other  tracking  systems  in  some  MS  along  with 
GOs which can create confusion and duplication. 

 

Conclusions 

The main conclusions with regards to GOs from the REFIT review are that: 

  They represent a generally effective tool for auditing purposes and that there is value 
in  having  a  consistent  approach  at  EU  level.  This  consistency  reduces  barriers  to 
investment  (because  the  market  has  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  the  GOs  across  a 
standardised  system)  and  transaction  costs  (because  of  the  efficiency  of  common 
rules).  The  role  of  the  Association  of  Issuing  Bodies  (AIB)  and  use  of  a  system 
compliant  with  the  European  Energy  Certificate  System  (EECS)  is  important  in 
underpinning the integrity of GOs as internationally traded commodities. 

  They could also be a useful tool for creating a voluntary, consumer-driven market for 
renewables.  The  consumer  buying  a  green  tariff  supply  backed  up  by  GOs  can  be 
confident  that  the  corresponding  renewable  electricity  has  only  been  accounted  for 
once in green supply agreements. However, the decoupling of the electricity and GOs 
weakens this benefits since a consumer cannot directly attribute his or her electricity to 
a particular renewable source (or indeed any renewable source). 

  Despite progress in implementation, improvements are still needed in order to achieve 

a consistent system across Europe. 

  GO trade is still in its infancy and it is as yet unclear whether it will have net positive 
impacts on RES deployment at EU level and, consequently on MS ability of reaching 
their  targets.  There  is  a  potential  for  conflict  between  EU  level  and  country  level 

53 

 
 
 
 

benefits  from  the  mainstream  use  of  GOs  should  it  happen.  This  is  because  the 
exclusion  of  GO  use  as  a  compliance  means  for  meeting  national  targets  places  the 
emphasis on domestic (national) measures irrespective of the opportunity for cheaper 
investment elsewhere. 
It  is  important  that  all  MS  continue  to  move  towards  a  GO  system  based  on  the 
European  Energy  Certificate  System  (EECS)  operated  by  the  Association  of  Issuing 
Bodies  (AIB).  Joining  AIB  and  the  EECS  can  provide  guidance  for  MSs  on 
developing a system which is compliant with others across Europe, and will facilitate 
trade. 

 

  Separating  GOs  from  the  energy  system  itself  decreases  transparency  since  the 
consumer cannot associate their electricity with a renewable source. This can reduce 
the effectiveness of this article as a means to encourage the voluntary market in green 
electricity supplies. 
It is worth investigating the possible extension of the use of GOs beyond RES-E and 
high-efficient  cogeneration  (HE  cogeneration)  to  all  types  of  power  generation  i.e. 
including  electricity from  fossil and nuclear generation. This would help support the 
tracking  and  auditing  on  non-renewable  supplies  and  underpin  the  integrity  of  the 
supply  mix  disclosure  statements  that  inform  consumer  choices  concerning  these 
generation types. 

Finally, the overall future effectiveness of GOs will be improved by continuity of the RED 
beyond 2020 (and communicating that continuity), especially to avoid uncertainty in the GO 
market as we approach 2020. 

54 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 - MAIN SOURCES USED FOR THE ANALYSIS 

Electricity and Gas Directives 

  ACER  is  an  agency  created  by  the  ACER  Regulation.  ACER's  duties  include 
monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  internal  electricity  and  gas  markets.  By  the  end  of 
2015,  ACER  will  have  published  four  annual  Market  Monitoring  Reports68  that 
provide  in-depth  coverage  of  relevant  issues  such  as  consumer  empowerment  and 
protection, supplier switching and consumer information.69 

  DG  JUST  published  in  2010  (2009  data)  a  study  on  the  functioning  of  retail 
electricity  markets  for  consumers  in  the  EU  ("the  2010  electricity  study").70  This 
major study examined whether a well-functioning electricity market was in place for 
consumers  in  the  EU.  It  also  examined  the  extent  to  which  consumers  were  able  to 
make  informed  and  empowered  choices  and  what  motivates  behaviour  in  the 
electricity market. The study provided evidence pertinent to evaluating the billing and 
metering measures put in place by the Electricity Directive. 

  DG  JUST  commissioned  a  follow-up  study  on  the  functioning  of  retail  electricity 
markets  for  consumers  in  the  EU  ("the  2016  Electricity  Study"71)  to  assess  the 
development of consumer  conditions across  the EU28 Member  States' (and Norway, 
Iceland)  electricity  markets  following  the  implementation  of  the  Third  Energy 
Package. The 2016 Electricity Study assesses the extent to which the electricity market 
benefits  consumers  and  what  is  still  missing  for  better  consumer  outcomes.  It  also 
examines  the  extent  to  which  consumers  are  able  to  make  informed  and  rational 
choices  corresponding  to  their  energy  consumption  needs,  whether  they  possess  the 
necessary tools to compare prices and offers, and what motivates consumer behaviour 
in  the  energy  market.  The  study  makes  comparisons  with  the  findings  of  the  2010 
electricity  study.  The  findings  provide  evidence  for  future  policy  initiatives  and 
identify  actions  needed  for  further  integration  of  the  EU  Internal  Energy  Market. 
Initial  findings  from  the  2016  Electricity  Study  were  published  in  November  2015 
together with the State of the Energy Union 2015 Communication.72 The final report 
will be published in summer 2016. 

  DG  JUST  published  a  study  on  the  coverage,  functioning  and  consumer  use  of 
comparison  tools  and  third-party  verification  schemes,73  which  addresses  the 
possible  improvements  that  can  be  made  to  ensure  comparison  tools  are  reliable, 
transparent and user-friendly and that they benefit consumers given that consumers are 
increasingly using such tools to compare offers on the market.  

68 http://www.acer.europa.eu/electricity/market 20monitoring/Pages/default.aspx 
69 The data used for compiling ACER's annual report is provided by national regulatory authorities for energy 
(NRAs), the European Commission and the European Networks of Transmission System Operators (ENTSOs). 
The  members  of  the  Administrative  Board  of  ACER  (Article  12(7)  of  the  ACER  Regulation)  and  ACER's 
Director (Article 16(1) of the ACER Regulation) act independently of the Commission and other interests. For 
sector-specific  consumer  issues,  ACER  also  draws  on  data  from  the  Commission's  Consumer  Scoreboard. 
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/10_edition/index_en.htm 
70 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/retail_energy/index_en.htm 
71 2nd Consumer market study on the functioning of retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU, EC, 2016 
72  http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-union/state-energy-union/index_en.htm;  see 
in  particular  "Energy 
Consumer  Trends  2010  –  2015",  SWD(2015)  249  final,  18.11.2015,  http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/energy-
union/state-energy-union/docs/swd-energy_consumer_trends_en.pdf  
73 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/market_studies/comparison_tools/index_en.htm 

55 

 
                                                            
 

In addition, DG JUST's (and formerly DG SANCO's) consumer scoreboards74 are an 
important  source  of  information  on  how  the  single  market  is  performing  for  EU 
consumers. 

  The Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) is a not-for-profit association 
through  which  Europe's  national  energy  regulators  cooperate  and  exchange  best 
practice.  It  has  recently  produced  advice  on  customer  information  on  sources  of 
electricity,75 presenting  recommendations  on how to  make  the system for disclosing 
how electricity has been produced more comprehensive, coherent and reliable.  

  The  European Consumer  Complaints Registration System - ECCRS (DG JUST). 
In  May  2010  the  Commission  adopted  the  "Recommendation  on  the  use  of  a 
harmonised  methodology  for  classifying  and  reporting  consumer  complaints  and 
enquiries".  The  Recommendation  is  addressed  to  any  body  who  is  responsible  for 
collecting consumer complaints, or attempting to resolve complaints, or giving advice, 
or  providing  information  to  consumers  about  complaints  or  enquiries,  that  is  a  third 
party to a complaint or enquiry by a consumer about a trader76. Consumer complaints 
collected by consumer complaint handling bodies are a key source of information on 
the functioning of consumer markets across the EU, in particular on problems faced by 
consumers. As the data is directly comparable across the EU, this should allow for a 
faster, better targeted, evidence-based policy response at the EU or the national level 
to real problems experienced by consumers. 

EED 

 

In so far as metering and billing of thermal supplies is concerned, the work performed 
under a service contract77 with the consultants empirica has provided input. Under 
this  contract  two  workshops  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  have  been 
organised  to  exchange  views  on  existing  and  best  practices  focusing  on  Member 
States' interpretation of  "technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness" for the purpose 
of the application of Article 9(3) and 10(1).  

  Another workshop on heat metering and billing more generally was held with the 

assistance of the JRC78.  

  DG ENER's general analysis of Member States' transposition and implementation, 

assisted by external consultants. 

  Reports from the Concerted Actions on the Energy Services Directive and the Energy 

Efficiency Directive79. 

http://www.ceer.eu/portal/page/portal/EER_HOME/EER_PUBLICATIONS/CEER_PAPERS/Customers/ 

74 http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/consumer_scoreboards/index_en.htm 
75 
Tab5/C14-CEM-70-08_CustomerInfo-Sources%20of%20Electricity_Advice_March%202015_0.pdf 
76http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/consumer_evidence/data_consumer_complaints/docs/consumer-complaint-
recommendation_en.pdf 
77  Analysis  of  good  practices  and  development  of  guidelines  for  accurate  and  fair  allocation  of  costs  for 
individual  consumption  of  heating,  cooling  and  domestic  hot  water  in  multi-apartment  and  multi-purpose 
buildings to support the implementation of relevant provisions of the Articles 9-11 of the Directive 2012/27/EU 
on energy efficiency – Tender ENER/C3/2013-977 
78 Full documentation available here: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/node/9072  
79 http://www.esd-ca.eu/reports  

56 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 4 - DETAILS ON COMMISSION PROPOSALS 

The Commission's proposal for the Electricity and Gas Directives 

The  metering  and  billing  provisions  in  the  current  Electricity  and  Gas  Directives  were 
introduced in the Second Energy Package in 2003 as an integral part of measures making all 
consumers  free  to  choose  their  supplier.  The  2001  proposal  for  these  directives80  cited 
"transparency  of  information"  as  a  basic  right  for  consumers.  A  subsequent  amended 
proposal81 added that "disclosure is important in enabling effective choice". 

Although the 2007 Commission proposals for the Electricity82 and Gas Directives83 did not 
include  new  provisions  on  metering  or  billing,  they  reiterated  that  the  existing  universal 
public service84 requirements in Article 3 of the legislative texts were there "to make sure that 
all  consumers  can  benefit  from  competition."  As  for  the  provisions  on  the  frequency  of 
information  on  energy  costs,  these  were  intended  to  "create  incentives  for  energy  savings". 
The Commission's Impact Assessment accompanying the 2007 proposals85 stated that one of 
the specific objectives of the broader effort to improve consumer protection was "[e]nabling 
easier price comparisons". 

The Commission's proposal for the EED 

The  2011  Commission  proposal  for  an  Energy  Efficiency  Directive86 
included  a 
comprehensive  and  ambitious  set  of  provisions  on  metering  and  billing  representing  very 
significant changes compared to the already existing provisions in the field, namely Article 13 
of the Energy Services Directive87 (ESD). 

The Commission's proposal was accompanied by detailed analysis of options on metering & 
billing88.  The  stated  specific  objective  of  the  proposal  as  regards  the  metering  and  billing 
provisions was to "[e]nsure that consumers are empowered with correct, understandable and 
regular information on their energy use".  

More particularly, there was a clear aim to address problems identified with the application 
of  Art  13  of  the  ESD:  As  the  Impact  Assessment  summarized  it:  "Because  of  the  vague 
wording  the  provisions  did  not  lead  to  improvements"  with  respect  to  the  aim  that  was  to 

80 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447663534789&uri=CELEX:52001PC0125(01).  
81 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447663534789&uri=CELEX:52002PC0304(01) 
82 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447425243567&uri=CELEX:52007PC0528 
83 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1447425326195&uri=CELEX:52007PC0529 
84  Sometimes  known  as  'universal  service'  -  the  practice  of  providing  a  baseline  level  of  services  to  every 

resident, most commonly through a regulated industry. 

85 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2007/sec_2007_1179_en.pdf 
86 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011PC0370  
87 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006L0032  
88 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_0779_ia_annexes.pdf, p.52 

57 

 
                                                            
"ensure  understandable  and  accurate  information  is  provided  for  consumers  via  individual 
meters and energy bills on a frequent basis."89 

Key changes proposed included:  

  minimum  frequency  of  consumption  based  billing  of  every  1-2  months  in  most 

cases, and  

  clarification  that  individual  metering  in  each  flat  in  multi-  apartment  buildings 

was also required for heating, cooling and hot water. 

89 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/sec_2011_0779_impact_assessment.pdf, p.12 

58 

 
 
 
                                                            
ANNEX 5 - BILLING PRACTICES AND REGULATION PER COUNTRY

90 

The regulatory environment in relation to billing is well elaborated across the EU28, Norway 
and Iceland. Nonetheless, there is a large variation in how countries choose to approach the 
subject,  in  particular  with  regards  to  the  extent  they  are  willing  to  define  the  content  of 
electricity  bills  specifically  in  the  national  legislation.  Three  broad  approaches  were 
identified:  

Highly  prescriptive  (HP)  approaches  relying  on  legal  instruments  or  resolutions,  which 
request a large amount of detail and/or give very specific instructions on what information to 
provide in electricity bills. 

Legislation which specifies the main information (MI) that must be included in bills, which is 
subsequently  reinforced  by  guidance  from  the  regulator  (in terms  of  mandatory  information 
and format, or best practice guidance). 

Legislation that specifies the main information, but leaves electricity providers broad freedom 
(BF) to communicate this within their own format. 

In  the  following  table,  billing  practices  in  each  country  are  described,  noting  what  are 
considered to be a highly prescriptive approach (HP), an approach enforcing communication 
of main information (MI) and, finally, an approach that allows broad freedom (BF).  

Table 4: Billing practices and regulation per country 

Austria (MI)  Article 81 of EIWOG specifies which information should be presented on the 
electricity  bill.  This  provision  is  further  detailed  by  ordinances  from  the 
regulator, in which  suggestions are given as to how to  present the  mandatory 
information, 
the  price 
components. The contents of the documents (e.g. electricity bill, contract, etc.) 
are detailed not only in the Electricity Act, but also in the Renewable Energy 
Act,  the  System  Charges  Order,  the  Electricity  Duty  Act,  as  well  as  in 
individual Federal states legislation. The ‘DAVID-VO’ Ordinance (Articles 1-
5) specifies the information that electricity suppliers must give to customers. 

the  energy  sources  breakdown  and 

including 

90 Source for this annex: European Commission (2016), ' Second Consumer Market Study on the functioning of 
retail electricity markets for consumers in the EU. 

59 

 
 
 
                                                            
Belgium 
(HP) 

Law April, 29th 1999 ‘Loi relative à l'organisation du  marché de l'électricite’ 
details  the  mandatory  information  to  be  present  in  a  consumer’s  bill.  The 
information to be presented in the bill is highly regulated, with 10 mandatory 
headings and many mandatory sub-headings which detail the information to be 
provided. 

Bulgaria (BF)  The Bulgarian Consumer Protection Act (Art. 4, Par. 1) outlines a minimum set 
of  requirements  for  information  to  be  provided  to  the  customer  such  as:  (1) 
information  on  the  composition,  (2)  the  supplier’s  contact  details,  (3)  the 
trader’s complaint handling process, and 4) arrangements for payment. 

Croatia (MI)  Articles  49  and  63  of  the  Act  on  Electricity  Market  (Official  Gazette,  no. 
22/13,  95/15  and  102/15)  regulate  billing.  In  Croatia,  regulations  specify  that 
the  supplier  needs  to  deliver  an  electricity  bill  that  contains  the  following 
elements:  the  share  of  the  price  that  is  freely  negotiated,  the  share  that  is 
regulated and fees and other charges prescribed by special regulations.  

Czech 
Republic  
(DF) 

Cyprus (MI)  Article  91  (1)(d)(iv)  and  Article  93  (1)(j)  of  the  Electricity  Law  206(Ι)/2015 
regulate  how  the  consumption  of  electricity  should  be  communicated  to 
consumers. The tariffs of the main energy provider are regulated by the Cyprus 
Energy Regulatory Authority (CERA) and they can be found on the website of 
the Electricity Authority of Cyprus (EAC). 
Bills for electricity, gas, heat supply and related services are governed by Act 
nr. 458/2000 Coll. in articles 11a and 98a. Electricity suppliers are to publish 
the  conditions  and  price  of  electricity  supply  for  households  and  residential 
customers in a way that can be accessed remotely. If increasing the prices for 
the  supply  of  electricity,  the  supplier  is  obliged  to  notify  the  consumer  in 
advance.  In  the  case  of  electricity  and  gas,  outstanding  charges  are  billed  at 
least once a year. 
Regulation of billing information is implemented in Executive Order no.486 of 
2007 on electricity billing. However, the Danish Energy Regulatory Authority 
has  presented  an  executive  order  which  gives  consumers  the  possibility  to 
receive a simplified bill. The purpose of this order is to give consumers a better 
understanding of the price elements and an incentive to be active on the energy 
market. This order was implemented in Danish law in October 2015. 

Denmark 
(MI) 

Estonia (MI)  Electricity Market Act §75 stipulates the following: “the seller shall submit an 
invoice  for  the  electricity  consumed  to  the  customer  once  a  month,  unless 
agreed  otherwise  with  the  customer”.  It  is  mandatory  for  suppliers  to  include 
information not just on consumption but also on emissions and waste (nuclear 
and oil shale) as well as dispute resolution options. 

Finland (MI)  Part III, Ch. 9, 69 § of the Electricity Market Act (588/2013) outlines the legal 
requirements with regards to billing imposed by the electricity provider. In the 
bill,  the  provider  is  to  include  details  on  how  the  price  is  broken  down, 
information  on  the  contract’s  duration  and  which  dispute-solving  tools 
consumers have at their disposal. 

France (HP)  Article 4 of the Regulation 18 April 2012 covers electricity or natural gas bills, 
their payment modalities and reimbursement of overpayment (i.e. bill based on 
an estimation of the consumption). The bill must include information on over 
16  different  headings.  The  website  ‘Energie  info’,  made  available  by  the 
National  Energy  Ombudsman,  illustrates  and  explains  this  mandatory  content 
to consumers.  

60 

 
 
 
Germany 
(MI) 

The right to receive clear information on one’s energy contract before signing, 
and  to  be  informed  in  advance  if  any  changes  are  made  to  the  contract,  are 
provided  for  within  German  law  (article  41  EnWG).  The  EnWG  (section  IV 
art.  40)  specifies  the  content  that  should  be  provided  to  consumers  on  their 
electricity  bills.  The  German  Institute  for  Transparency  on  Energy  (DIFET) 
produces certificates for those suppliers that provide consumer-friendly bills. 

Hungary 
(HP) 

Greece (BF)  The new Code of Electricity Supply regulates the tariffs of electricity suppliers. 
Specifically, this code describes what must be included in the bill and how the 
bill must be broken down into three different elements: (1) regulated charges; 
(2) competitive charges or supply charges; and (2) other charges. 
Law  2013.  évi  CLXXXVIII.  törvény  az  egységes  közszolgáltatói  számlaképről 
regulates  the  content  of  bills.  The  law  gives  actual  examples  of  the  minimal 
information  necessary  on  each  bill  and  also  gives  examples  as  to  which 
elements  may  be  changed  or  added  without  infraction.  The  law  also  imposes 
such  details  as  fonts  and  font  sizes  and  provides  in  its  annexes  a  detailed 
example of the respective bill in its actual detail. Additionally to the law, the 
electricity suppliers also regularly provide a dedicated section on how to read 
the electricity bill.  

Iceland (BF)  Regulation  1050/2004,  Art.  42  (referred  to  in  Act  65/2003,  Art.  20)  lists  the 
information  that  must  be  shown  in  the  invoice  sent  to  customers.  Bills  shall 
show  unit  prices  used  for  basic  account  types  and  quantities  of  electricity. 
Charges levied for the transportation, distribution services and electricity must 
be clearly seperated.  

Italy (MI) 

Ireland (MI)  Statutory  instruments  S.I.  No.  426/2014  Part  4,  Art.  6,  Art.  7  and  S.I.  No. 
463/2011,  Art.  9,  regulate  the  communication  of  charges  and  consumption 
information to electricity consumers in Ireland. Under Irish law, suppliers must 
also inform customers of upcoming price changes at least one month before a 
price change comes into effect. 
D.Lgs  93/11  Art.  43(2);  L  125/07  Art.  1(6)  and  Art.  1(5)  legislate  the 
communication of charges and consumption information. Consumers should be 
informed  of  the  components  relating  to  supply  cost  (servizi  di  vendita), 
network  cost  (servizi  di  rete),  general  system  charges  (oneri  generali  di 
sistema),  and  taxes  (VAT  and  consumption  tax).  The  regulator  has  set  up 
several tools in order to help the consumer understand his bill, most notably a 
dedicated  webpage  ”Your  Bill  Explained”  (la  bolletta  spiegata)  and  a 
consumer help-desk (lo Sportello per il Consumatore). 

Latvia (MI)  According  to  Art.  31  3°  of  Electricity  Market  Law,  the  Public  Utilities 
Commission  (PUC)  shall  determine  what  kind  of  information  and  to  what 
extent electricity supplier shall include in their bills and informative materials 
that are issued to the consumer. The regulations of the PUC determines that a 
bill  shall  include  at  least  the  electricity  amount  in  kWh  supplied  in  billing 
period, the amount charged for consumed electricity in euros and the average 
electricity  price  in  euro  per  kWh  during  the  billing  period  and  fees  for 
electricity  distribution  system  services,  other  additional  services  and  the 
mandatory  procurements  components  and  total  fees  for  the  billing  period  for 
consumers  and  other  end-users  to  whom  shall  be  issued  invoices  regarding 
electricity service supply. 

61 

 
 
 
Lithuania 
(BF) 

Luxembourg 
(BF) 

Malta (MI) 

Netherlands 
(MI) 

information 

Law  on  Energy  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  No.  IX-884  and  Law  on 
Electricity of the Republic of Lithuania No VIII-1881. Article 31 regulate the 
communication  of  charges  and  consumption 
to  electricity 
consumers  in  Lithuania,  as  well  as  contractual  conditions  and  changes  to 
contracts.  The  consumer  is  entitled  to  receive  information  on  conditions  of 
service  and  electricity  prices  and  tariffs,  reports  on  prices,  contract  terms, 
conclusion and termination conditions. 
Article  2(5)  of  the  Law  of  1  August  2007  regulates  the  communication  of 
charges and consumption information to electricity consumers in Luxembourg, 
as  well  as  contractual  terms.  With  respect  to  billing,  the  law  states  that 
electricity  providers  must  transmit  to  residential  customers  transparent 
information on tariffs and prices. 
Electricity Market Regulations (S.L. 545.16), Art. 8(3) regulates billing. Bills 
issued  by  Enemalta  Corporation,  Malta’s  electricity  supplier,  must  include 
contact  details  of  its  subcontractor,  ARMS  Ltd,  which  is  the  company 
responsible  for  meter  reading,  billing,  debt  collections  and  customer  care 
services. Households should receive bills calculated on actual consumption at 
least every six months. For households with a smart meter, these bills based on 
actual  readings  are  more  frequent.  All  bills  show  a  breakdown  of  the  price 
calculation,  the  total  electricity  consumption  for  that  period  as  well  as  the 
average daily energy consumption, relevant tariffs and CO2 emissions. 
The  Electricity  Act,  article  95,  details  the  mandatory  information  to  be 
provided on an energy bill and some associations provide recommendations for 
data  presentation.  The  breakdown  of  an  energy  bill  concerns  supply  costs 
(“leveringskosten”),  network  costs  and  metering  costs,  and  then  taxes 
refunded 
(“Belasting”).  While  using  green  energy,  some 
(“Belastingvermindering”). 

taxes  are 

Norway (MI)  FOR-1999-03-11-301, chapter 7 §7-2 regulates the communication of charges 
and  consumption  information  to  electricity  consumers  in  Norway.  The 
regulation is detailed, and lays down stipulations for frequency of billing. For 
Internet  billing,  the  bill  shall  contain  a  graphical  comparison  of  the  annual 
consumption  of  each  settlement  period  with  the  corresponding  period  during 
the  previous  year.  For  paper  invoicing,  the  company’s  logo  and  contact 
information must appear on the top of the first page. In both cases, “the invoice 
must be clear and easy to understand”. 

Poland (MI)  The Energy Law, Art. 5. 6a - 6c. regulates the communication of charges and 
consumption  information  to  electricity  consumers  in  Poland.  Electricity 
suppliers  are  to  inform  consumers  about  the  fuel  supply  mix  used  in  the 
previous calendar year and about a place where information is available about 
the impact of the production  of energy on the environment (at  a minimum in 
terms  of  carbon  dioxide  emissions  and  radioactive  waste  created).  Electricity 
suppliers  must  also  inform  consumers  about  the  amount  consumed  in  the 
previous  year  and  the  place  where  information  is  available  about  the  average 
electricity  consumption  for  each  connection  group  of  recipients,  energy 
efficiency  improvement  measures  and  the  technical  characteristics  of  energy-
efficient appliances. 

62 

 
 
 
information 

Slovakia 
(MI) 

Romania 
(HP) 

Portugal (BF)  Art. 54 d) and Art.55 c) and d) of Decree Law of 15 February 2006 regulate the 
communication  of  charges  and  consumption 
to  electricity 
consumers  in  Portugal.    Under  the  law,  consumers  are  entitled  full  and 
adequate  information  to  enable  their  participation  in  the  electricity  market, 
access  information  in  a  transparent  and  non-discriminatory  manner  on 
applicable prices and tariffs, as well as complete and adequate information in 
order to promote energy efficiency and the rational use of resources. 
Law 123/2012 (modified in 2014) ART.62 (1) h9) and art. 145 (4) p) and Law 
123/2012 (modified in 2014) ART. 66 (1),(2) regulate the content of bills. The 
Energy  Authority  ANRE  has  made  available  to  the  consumer  an  explanatory 
sample of the components that have to be included in the bill. This model has 
been  adopted  by  electricity  suppliers,  who  can  also  opt  to  display  the  same 
document at their websites, in order to inform consumers about the contents of 
their bill. 
The  supplier  of  electricity  and  gas  is,  according  to  the  §  17  article  14  of  the 
Law  251/2012,  obliged  to  inform  the  customer  on  the  invoice  or  attached 
material  about  the  particular  components  of  the  energy  supply  including  the 
unit  price.  Information  about  the  composition  of  the  price  component  has  to 
include  the  unit  price  especially  for  electricity  purchase  including  the 
commercial  activity  of  the  supplier,  distribution,  losses  during  distribution, 
system services, system operation and taxes. 
Beside standard items that must be included in every invoice issued in Slovenia 
that are stipulated by the Value Added Tax Act (invoice date, number, invoice 
issuer’s contact details, amounts billed, VAT rate,…), consumers also have to 
receive certain information in their electricity bills, stipulated within Article 42 
of the Energy Act, including the proportion of energy source that supplier used 
in  preceding  year  in  a  way  comparison  between  different  suppliers  can  be 
made,  the  reference  source  where  publicly  available  data  on  environmental 
impacts,  expressed  in  CO2  emissions  and  amounts  of  radioactive  waste 
resulting from the electricity production in the preceding year, and consumers’ 
rights related to dispute resolution. 
Law 24/2013 establishes the type of information that should be included in an 
electricity  bill.  This  format  is  mandatory  for  the  suppliers  of  last  resort.  The 
details  of  the  information  are  formally  listed  in  the  resolution  N.5655  of  23 
May 2014 of the Ministry for the Industry, Energy and Tourism. The resolution 
illustrates  in  its  annex  a  template  to  be  followed  when  producing  electricity 
bills,  showing  in  explanatory  graphs  and  in  detailed  tables  the  mandatory 
information and its granularity. 

Slovenia 
(MI) 

Spain (HP) 

Sweden (BF)  The  Electricity  Act  chapter  8,  §14-16  specifies  that  an  electricity  supplier’s 
billing shall be clear. It shall contain information on the measured consumption 
and  current  electricity  prices  that  the  billing  shall  be  based  on.  The  Swedish 
Energy  Markets  Inspectorate  specifies  in  detail  what  shall  be  contained  in 
electricity bills. The electricity cost consists of two parts: (1) a payment to the 
grid  operator  to  stay  connected  and  (2)  payment  for  the  actual  electricity 
consumption and the electricity cost. 

63 

 
 
 
UK (BF) 

The  consumers’  right  to  accurate  consumption  information  is  captured  in 
Condition 31A of the Standard Licence which makes it incumbent on suppliers 
to provide customers with electricity consumption information in each bill (or, 
within the space of 30 days from a notice of increase in charges in cases where 
the latter is issued). In addition, suppliers must send an annual statement to all 
customers  in  a  pre-defined  format.  Schedule  2ZB  to  the  Electricity  Act 
stipulates that licence-exempt suppliers must also provide consumption data to 
customers  on  an  annual  basis.  Under  Condition  12  of  the  Standard  Licence, 
suppliers  must  take  meter  readings  at  least  once  every  two  years.  Condition 
21B  of  the  Standard  Licence  allows  customers  to  read  their  own  meters  as 
often as they choose. Suppliers are to reflect that reading in the subsequent bill. 
The structure of the bill is not fixed by any legislation. 

64