Consumers overpaid on electricity bills between 2014 and 2021 because of pro-rata billing, with the NAO estimating €6.5 million per year and more than €50 million in total, before an adjustment was introduced in 2022.
Both numbers check out. NAO found €6.5M/year variance (€4.6M electricity + €1.9M water). PN's €50M-over-eight-years pledge is the cumulative figure (8 × €6.5M = €52M). The court ruled ARMS' billing illegal in July 2022 and an adjustment was introduced.
Both numbers check out. NAO found €6.5M/year variance (€4.6M electricity + €1.9M water). PN's €50M-over-eight-years pledge is the cumulative figure (8 × €6.5M = €52M). The court ruled ARMS' billing illegal in July 2022 and an adjustment was introduced.
Both numbers check out. The National Audit Office found an annual net variance of €6.5 million between the pro-rata and annualised billing methodologies (€4.6M for electricity + €1.9M for water). The €50 million total is the cumulative figure across the eight-year period 2014-2021 (8 × €6.5M ≈ €52M). On 5 July 2022 the court ruled ARMS' pro-rata billing method to be in breach of Subsidiary Legislation 545.01, requiring refunds — that is the 2022 adjustment Sammut refers to. Sammut's framing is precise on the headline numbers, the case history and the timeline. True.
Also said by Mark Anthony Sammut on 2026-05-04 at the PN political event · Żurrieq: "x'ħallastu żejjed intom fuq medda ta' tmien snin kemm il-Gvern Laburista dam jiċċarġja żejjed mill-kontijiet prorata… bejn l-2014 u l-2021. […] Sa ma mbagħad irranġawha, ammettew u rranġawha mill-2022 'il quddiem imma baqgħu qatt ma taw lura dak li tħallas żejjed qabel.".
Did ARMS really overcharge consumers by €50 million over eight years
Sammut's numbers map directly onto the National Audit Office's published findings and the July 2022 court judgment. The €6.5M/year × 8 years = €50M+ arithmetic is precise. The court ruling that established the underlying methodology was in breach of Maltese law is on the public record. This is one of the cleanest factual claims of the press conference.
The mechanism — pro-rata vs annualised billing
Maltese electricity tariffs are progressive: rates rise with consumption. Higher consumption tiers carry higher per-kWh rates. The Subsidiary Legislation 545.01 framework requires tariffs to be applied to cumulative annual consumption — meaning the tariff calculation should account for total kWh used over a 12-month window, with consumption-tier thresholds applied annually.
ARMS instead used pro-rata billing: each billing period (typically every 2 months) was calculated independently, with the consumption-tier thresholds pro-rated for that period. The mechanical effect: consumers crossing into higher tiers within a single billing period were charged at the higher rate, even when their cumulative annual consumption would have stayed below threshold.
The two approaches produce different totals because tariff progressivity is non-linear. Pro-rata billing is consistently more expensive for households with seasonal consumption patterns (summer-heavy use from air conditioning, or winter-heavy use from heating). ARMS' methodology systematically over-collected.
What the NAO found
| NAO finding | Amount | Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity over-collection | €4.6M / year | Pro-rata vs annualised tariff application |
| Water over-collection | €1.9M / year | Same methodology applied to water tariffs |
| Total annual variance | €6.5M / year | Combined electricity + water |
| Cumulative 2014-2021 (8 years) | ~€52M | 8 × €6.5M = €52M |
| Sammut's framing | "more than €50M" | Conservative round-down of NAO figure |
Sammut's '€50 million' is a conservative round-down. The NAO's published variance comes to ~€52M cumulative over the 2014-2021 window. PN leader Bernard Grech had previously pledged in 2022 that a future PN administration would return €50M in over-charged bills, using the same arithmetic base.
The 5 July 2022 court ruling
The Civil Court (First Hall) delivered judgment on 5 July 2022, finding that ARMS' pro-rata billing methodology was in breach of Subsidiary Legislation 545.01 — the regulation that requires tariffs to be calculated on cumulative annual consumption. The Court ordered ARMS to refund the overcharged amounts to consumers.
Following the ruling, ARMS adjusted its billing methodology from 2022 onwards to align with the annualised approach SL 545.01 requires. The adjustment going forward is uncontested. The disputed question — which Sammut is implicitly highlighting — is the refund of over-collected amounts from the 2014-2021 period: ARMS has not returned the cumulative €52M.
What's still outstanding
- Refund mechanism. The court ordered refunds, but the operational mechanism for returning the cumulative ~€52M to specific consumers across an 8-year window remains contested. ARMS has argued case-by-case calculation is required; consumer associations have argued for an aggregate refund.
- Per-household impact. Average per-Maltese-household over-charge: ~€330 over 8 years (€52M / ~200,000 households / 8 years × 8 = ~€260 per household over 8 years). Higher for households with seasonal consumption patterns.
- Government / Enemalta liability. ARMS is a Maltese government-owned entity; the over-collection effectively went to the state through Enemalta. Refunds therefore involve a fiscal-policy decision, not just a corporate compliance one.
So is the claim accurate?
Yes — completely. The NAO €6.5M/year finding, the 8-year multiplication producing €50M+ cumulative, the 5 July 2022 court ruling against the pro-rata methodology, and the 2022 adjustment are all on the public record. Sammut's framing is precise on the numbers, the case history, and the timeline.
Verdict: True.