Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 226: To ask the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources the position regarding agencies under his remit (details supplied), changing corporate name and so on; his views on media reports regarding cost for such change; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40894/10]

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As part of the electricity deregulation process, the Commission for Energy Regulation (CER) commissioned market research which indicates that there is confusion among electricity consumers as to the separate identities and roles of ESB as owner and operator of the electricity network and ESB as an electricity supplier. This is of concern because ESB Networks must provide, and be perceived to provide, the same level and quality of service to all customers irrespective of their electricity supplier.

It is vital for consumers to have full confidence that they can switch supplier without any impact on the quality of their network service. Therefore, as part of the deregulation process and the delivery of real competition, ESB is required by the CER to rebrand its electricity supply business. ESB would also in any case be required to engage in some form of rebranding as part of the implementation of EU Internal Energy Market Third Directive. Member States are obliged under the Directive to ensure that there is absolute clarity for consumers as to the separate identities and functions of the energy network operator and a related energy supply company. For this reason, the issue of rebranding needs to be addressed for both ESB and, in due course, BGE.

ESB has advised that rebranding will have an estimated cost of between €6 and €8 million. The CER has also confirmed that there is no plan to include the costs of rebranding in ESB's regulated revenues in the period 2010 to 2012. ESB has made it clear that the company will introduce its new brand in a practical and cost effective way without causing inconvenience, expense or confusion to customers.

Once full electricity market deregulation has been introduced, expenditure on advertising and marketing, and whether these costs are met from electricity revenues, will be a commercial decision for all competing suppliers including ESB and BGE. The deregulated market will maintain constant pressure on all costs incurred by suppliers, who will be competing vigorously on price offerings to customers.

Turning to the gas market, I would emphasise that there is no specific proposal or timescale or firm costings as yet for rebranding. Any statements or speculations about the cost of any future possible rebranding are highly premature. However, with the successful development of competition in the retail gas market, the CER intends to publish for consultation in the coming weeks a roadmap for gas market deregulation. The question of rebranding is likely to be addressed in that context.

In the context of delivering full competition in the gas market and delivering on EU requirements, all concerned are committed to ensuring any rebranding of BGE which might be required is done in a fully cost effective and transparent way.