The owner of a store in a private house wanted to pay for electricity at the household rate: how the dispute with the regional energy company ended

Can the owner of a store located in a private house use the household electricity tariff if part of the electricity is used for business activities? This question became the subject of a dispute between the consumer and the distribution system operator in Poltava.

The Podilskyi District Court of Poltava considered a lawsuit filed by the owner of a private house against JSC "Poltavaoblenergo" to cancel the decision of the commission reviewing the violation report. The plaintiff requested to recognize as illegal the decision of the distribution system operator, which established the use of electricity for non-household needs and imposed the obligation to bring the metering and contractual relations in line with the requirements of the Retail Electricity Market Rules.

Essence of the case 

During a technical inspection, representatives of JSC "Poltavaoblenergo" found that in the private residential house, electricity was used not only for household needs but also for business activities — selling goods in a store located in the same house. Based on the inspection results, a violation report was drawn up regarding the breach of clause 2.3.12 of the Retail Electricity Market Rules, and the commission of the distribution system operator obliged the consumer to eliminate the violation by organizing separate commercial metering of electricity used for non-household needs or by bringing contractual relations into compliance with the legislation.

Disagreeing with this decision, the plaintiff turned to the court. He noted that previously, consumption of electricity at this site was already divided between household and non-household needs, and after the termination of the relevant additional agreement, he continued to use the household tariff. Furthermore, the plaintiff pointed out that no actual damage was caused to the distribution system operator, so the commission's decision is unfounded and should be canceled.

Position and conclusions of the court

In case No. 553/4583/25, the court noted that the legal relations between the parties are governed by the Law "On the Electricity Market" and the Retail Electricity Market Rules. The law defines a household consumer as an individual who uses electricity exclusively for their own household needs, which do not include professional or business activities. At the same time, electricity used at the household consumer's premises for business activities must be metered separately and paid for at non-household consumer tariffs.

The court noted that clause 2.3.12 of the Retail Electricity Market Rules obliges a household consumer, when using electricity for non-household needs, to contact the distribution system operator to organize separate commercial metering and to formalize an act of distributed electricity. In case of such a violation, the operator has the right to draw up a violation report, and the commission may impose on the consumer the obligation to eliminate the violation by organizing separate metering and bringing contractual relations in line with the Rules.

Evaluating the plaintiff's arguments, the court stated that no violation of his rights by JSC "Poltavaoblenergo" was established. It was also not proven that the distribution system operator was aware of the use of electricity for non-household needs, while the plaintiff himself concluded the contract as a household consumer.

The court also found unfounded the arguments about the absence of any violations due to no damage caused to the distribution system operator. The court believes that concluding a purchase and sale contract for electricity at the "green" tariff does not exempt the consumer from the obligation to comply with the Retail Electricity Market Rules.

Considering the established circumstances, the court concluded that the violation report was drawn up in accordance with the Retail Electricity Market Rules, the commission reviewed it following the established procedure, and the decision was made within the granted powers.

Therefore, the court found no grounds to satisfy the claim to cancel the commission's decision.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua  and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.