May 2025 promised to be the cheapest month thanks to the renewable generation in spring. However, consumers They have ended up paying more In the light of the light for the blackout of April 28, since they have had to activate emergency mechanisms or reinforcement systems. Now it seems that that should not have been so high.
Short. Facua-Consumnadores in Action has warned the electricity marketers of the free market, In a press releasethat they cannot raise their rates unilaterally for the blackout of April 28 if that change is not provided for in the contract.
A specific case. The association has loaded directly against Energía, a commercialization of the Repsol Group that has notified a 6% surcharge (about 73 euros per year), alleging an “increase in technical costs of the system” for the electricity network reinforcement system. However, like He recalled Facuaadjustment services are not part of the regulated costs (such as tolls and charges) and, therefore, do not justify a rise in the price agreed in free market contracts.
The law is clear. According to the Civil Code, contracts must be fulfilled as agreed and cannot be modified according to the will of a single part (Arts. 1256 and 1258). Exceptions would only be accepted if the contract explicitly includes a clause that allows the marketer to apply these increases by extraordinary situations such as the lived.
From the other part. The employer who brings together Iberdrola, Endesa and EDP, AELEC, is pressing to distribute or contain the overrages derived from the blackout. Its proposal is to transfer these extraordinary expenses – given to operate the system in “reinforced mode” to avoid new blackouts – to other concepts of the invoice, such as regulated charges, where costs by renewable or extrapeninsular are also included, according to Finch access has had access.
There are more. The employer has calculated that the reinforced security strategy has meant an extra cost of 200 million euros in just one month and requires that there be an extraordinary regulatory response, so that neither consumers nor marketers assume that impact alone. As has detailed Fifodies, are in search of a “transient and exceptional” measure that relies on operation procedures 8.2 and 14.4, already provided for in the current regulatory framework.
So is it valid? Legally, the key point is the type of contract that each consumer has. In free market contracts, prices are agreed for a year and cannot be modified unless the contract expressly allows. If there is no clear and specific enabling clause, the climb would be illegal, and it could be considered an abusive clause, even if there is a notice. From Facua they support this thesis in the Civil Code and in Article 65 of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2007 on consumer defense, which establishes that contracts must be interpreted in favor of the user and according to the objective good faith. That is, although the company affirms that the surcharge is justified, if you did not sign it and is not in transparent conditions, it cannot impose it.
Any forecast? Today, neither Red Eléctrica nor the Ministry for Ecological Transition have clarified how much this reinforced security operation will last, nor how its costs will be distributed. From AELEC and other associations, an intervention of the regulator or the Ministry to temporarily redesign the cost distribution is expected. The objective: avoid an irreversible impact on the electrical marketing market and contain the price escalation.
Image | Seoane Prado
Xataka | Broady in April, more expensive invoice in May: thus has affected the system reinforcement
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings