Despite the measures that the Government has adopted in recent years to combat energy poverty, up to one million vulnerable families are outside the indicators used to determine such poverty, which represents 30% of the total of these cases, which amount to 3.6 million. On the contrary, and even if not in the strict sense, there are 4.7 million families considered vulnerable “at least by some” of the three indicators of the EU Observatory on energy poverty (the one used by the Government), which represent 25% of the total families (18.7 million). These data are part of a study carried out by the consultancy firm Nera Economic, and the situation was denounced through the accusations presented to the Ministry for Ecological Transition in the public consultation on the new National Strategy against energy poverty 2025-2030 which the department chaired by Sara Aagesen is preparing, although it does not have a regulatory character.
Vulnerability is the main (but not the only) condition for users to be able to request the social bonus on the electricity tariff (which all consumers pay with a small increase on the electricity bill), even if only 1.8 million are covered, according to the latest data from the National Markets and Competition Commission (CNMC). The voucher is a cumbersome system of discounts on the electricity bill, of 50%, 65% and 100% respectively, depending on whether they are vulnerable consumers, seriously vulnerable consumers, at risk of social exclusion or who satisfy other conditions. The first two discounts will drop in January to pre-crisis levels: 35% and 50%. But neither the electricity bonus, applied only on request to those who have signed up to the regulated tariff (PVPC), nor the policies adopted by the government in recent years after the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, have managed to reduce energy poverty in Spain, according to sources close to the government.
This is due – several experts agree – because in determining vulnerability, the income of families or the geographical areas in which they live are not taken into account, some with extreme temperatures in winter or summer, which lead to greater electricity consumption. “The indicators used do not actually measure energy poverty but the dispersion of energy spending,” states the study that Nera recently presented at a conference organized in Bilbao by ConsumES, a confederation made up of seven of the main consumer associations and the University of the Basque Country and in which members of the BC3-Basque Center for Climate Change participated.
The indicators used by the Government are based on relationships of energy expenditure, which take into account family income, expenditure on consumer goods or the number of consumption units in the home, which “can ensure that families are not considered vulnerable and others are not considered vulnerable”, says Jorge Sanz, associate director of Nera. These indicators are three: Disproportionate energy expenditure (GED), i.e. the percentage of families in which energy expenditure (in relation to family income) is more than double the national median; Insufficient energy expenditure (GHG), i.e. the percentage of families in which energy expenditure (as a percentage of income) is less than half the national median; and the hidden energy poverty indicator (PEE), i.e. the percentage of families in which energy expenditure (compared to total expenditure on consumer goods and services) is less than half the national median.
However, according to the study cited, a family can have a relatively low level of energy expenditure, even if it has a high income, for the simple fact that its home is well thermally insulated, and/or because it lives in an area with a mild climate, such as the Canary Islands. On the contrary, a family can have a high level of relative expenditure with a low level of income, just because its home is poorly insulated, and/or because it is located in an area with a cold climate, such as the center of the Peninsula.
“False positives”
Experts agree that the indicators can be regressive, as they do not take income into account. per capita family or area of residence. For Mikel González-Eguino, researcher at BC3, there are other indicators to use, such as 10% (when a family’s energy bill exceeds 10% of its income, it is considered a poor family) or low income (below 60% of the average) and high costs. “We recommended that the government adjust the annual income and spending thresholds,” to avoid “false positives,” says González-Eguino. This researcher distinguishes between fuels (in this case consumption is greater with higher incomes) and electricity (where this rule is not respected because all families have this energy and always consume a minimum).
Although the Ecological Transition highlights that thanks to anti-crisis social policies the price of electricity in Spain is lower than in the rest of Europe, families who benefited from the bonus before the application of these measures enjoyed a discount of 300 euros on average per year on their bills. According to the INE Family Budget Survey, the average electricity bill per home is 700 euros per year.
Experts believe that the indicators measure poverty poorly and that the social bonus is regressive since only in some cases does it take into account income (specifically the IPREM or reference index for the calculation of family income) and the number of family members, but it places limits on the volume of subsidized consumption and also applies to groups that are not necessarily vulnerable, such as large families or victims of gender or terrorism.
Another issue at the center of the debate is the taxation that weighs on the bill directly (such as VAT or electricity), indirectly (7% of production paid by electricity companies and passed on to the customer) and through the so-called charges (costs external to the system, such as subsidies to large industry). For Cristina Pizarro, BC3 researcher and professor at the Basque Public University, “there is a taxation problem”, even more so “when we have opted for electrification”. And he adds that “any taxation will always reach, directly or indirectly, the consumer”.
