Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Not upheld.
Ad description
A number of claims on www.ecotricity.co.uk about its energy supply which included "Britain's Greenest Energy" and "The electricity we supply is the greenest of any company in Britain".
Issue
Tesla Motors Ltd challenged whether claims that Ecotricity supplied:
1. the greenest electricity; and
2. the greenest energy
in Britain were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
1. Ecotricity explained that in the UK, the accepted methodology for comparing electricity sources was via the Fuel Mix Disclosure (FMD) which Ofgem required to be published each year. The FMD broke down the electricity supplied each year by its method of generation: coal; natural gas; nuclear; other; and renewables, and an emissions factor was assigned to each method of generation. Those figures were used to calculate the average carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per kilo watt hours (kWh) of electricity supplied. They went on to explain that renewable sources had an emissions factor of zero because they did not produce any emissions during generation.
Ecotricity submitted evidence of the CO2 emissions (g per kWh of electricity produced) for the following generation methods: coal; gas; photovoltaic (commonly used in solar panels); wave & tidal; biogas (anaerobic digestion & landfill); offshore and onshore wind; nuclear; and hydro-electric. That showed coal had the highest CO2 emissions and that on-shore wind had one of the lowest.
Ecotricity supplied the FMD for their electricity and that of their only commercial competitor who also provided electricity which came from 100% renewable sources. They had compared the CO2 emissions from the lifecycle of both which showed that Ecotricity’s was 10.7 g CO2 per kWh compared to that of their competitor at 18.2 g CO2 per kWh. Therefore, they believed they had substantiated their claim of “greenest electricity”.
2. Ecotricity said they were the only supplier to also provide “green gas” which was composed of mostly natural gas with a small percentage of sugar beet derived gas. They provided evidence which demonstrated that their “green gas” had been certified. They said that as yet, there was no prescribed methodology for assessing “green gas” sources like there was for electricity. However, because nobody else supplied “green gas” they compared their own “green gas” to the norm which was 100% fossil fuel derived. They said that lifecycle emissions associated with gas from sugar beet (the source of their green gas) were 99 g CO2 per kWh compared to 199 g CO2 per kWh when burning fossil fuel gas. They went on to explain that the fuel mix of their “green gas” was comprised of 5% sugar beet derived gas and 95% fossil fuel derived gas. Subsequently, they said their “green gas” had a combined emissions value of 197 g CO2 per kWh.
Because of the life cycle CO2 emissions for their electricity and that they were the only supplier to provide “green gas”, Ecotricity believed the claims that they supplied the greenest energy in Britain had been substantiated and were not misleading.
Assessment
1. Not upheld
The ASA considered the claims that Ecotricity supplied the greenest electricity in Britain were absolute ones which required substantiation to show that it was more environmentally friendly than any other provided in the UK, when taking into account its environmental impact over its full life cycle. Additionally, we considered such claims were also likely to be seen by consumers as a comparison about their product to that of their competitors and therefore, Ecotricity needed to hold suitable comparative data in support of them.
We noted Ecotricity’s evidence relating to the life cycle emissions for the different methods of generating electricity and we acknowledged that nuclear, on- and off-shore wind, and hydro-electric generation methods produced lower CO2 emissions per kWh of electricity than the other generation methods referred to above. We understood that the life cycle emissions for electricity provided by suppliers would be calculated on the particular fuel mix used to generate the electricity. They provided evidence of the fuel mix for the “Big Six” utility companies and six other suppliers that were their commercial competitors; they understood these were independent ethical green suppliers. Of all of the FMDs provided, we noted that only one (in addition to Ecotricity) supplied electricity from 100% renewable sources. On that basis, we considered it was appropriate for Ecotricity to compare their electricity supply to that competitor and we noted that based on its fuel mix, the CO2 emissions for Ecotricity’s electricity were the lower of the two.
We considered Ecotricity’s choice of companies against which to make their comparison was appropriate and relevant. Having taken into account the evidence we had seen, we concluded claims that they provided the greenest electricity had been substantiated and were not misleading.
On this point, we investigated the claims under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. 11.2 11.2 The meaning of all terms used in marketing communications must be clear to consumers. 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. and 11.7 11.7 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit that a product offers; for example, by highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products or by highlighting an environmental benefit that results from a legal obligation if competing products are subject to that legal obligation. (Environmental claims), but did not find them in breach.
2. Not upheld
We considered that in the context of an ad about energy supply, consumers were likely to interpret “energy” as a reference to both electricity and gas. As in point 1 above, we considered claims about Ecotricity’s energy being the greenest were absolute ones and required substantiation to show it was more friendly to the environment than any other commercial energy provider in the UK, when taking into account its environmental impact over its full life cycle.
Ecotricity had provided evidence which demonstrated that no other supplier in the UK offered consumers “green gas”. Because of that, we considered it was reasonable for them to compare their “green gas” CO2 emissions against those of 100% fossil fuel derived gas. We noted that Ecotricity’s “green gas”, which was a mix of 95% fossil fuel derived and 5% sugar beet derived gas, produced fewer grams of CO2 emissions per kWh compared to fossil fuel derived gas.
We considered Ecotricity had demonstrated that its electricity and green gas had the least impact on the environment compared to their competitors. Therefore, we concluded the claims that they supplied the greenest energy in Britain had been substantiated and was not misleading. Therefore, the claims did not breach the Code.
On this point, we investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so. (Misleading advertising), 3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation. (Substantiation), 3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product. (Comparisons with identifiable competitors), 11.1 11.1 The basis of environmental claims must be clear. Unqualified claims could mislead if they omit significant information. 11.2 11.2 The meaning of all terms used in marketing communications must be clear to consumers. 11.3 11.3 Absolute claims must be supported by a high level of substantiation. Comparative claims such as "greener" or "friendlier" can be justified, for example, if the advertised product provides a total environmental benefit over that of the marketer's previous product or competitor products and the basis of the comparison is clear. and 11.7 11.7 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers about the environmental benefit that a product offers; for example, by highlighting the absence of an environmentally damaging ingredient if that ingredient is not usually found in competing products or by highlighting an environmental benefit that results from a legal obligation if competing products are subject to that legal obligation. (Environmental claims), but did not find it in breach.
Action
No further action necessary.
CAP Code (Edition 12)
11.1 11.2 11.3 11.7 3.1 3.33 3.7
