Free solar power system. Is it a scam?

Froggitt

Who was the company advertising on the telly last night?

Cardew

K4blades wrote: »

You really do need to look at the bigger picture.

I need to??

You were the one who made this reply to zeupater

What complete rubbish. THERE IS NO LOOPHOLE. This is NOT legislation drawn up with errors now being exploited. The likes of ISIS and ASG were very much involved in the consultation and the government KNEW EXACTLTY WHAT THEY WERE DOING WHEN THEY DREW UP THE LEGISLATION, so stop bleating on about loopholes. If you don't believe me submit a FoI request to DECC.

From your definitive statements(WITH CAPITALS) it now appears that was just bluff and you have no idea what was proposed or the Governments intentions.

So perhaps you can get use the FofI act to back up your definitive statements. - bet you don't!!!

Yet you have the gall to call zeupater's post 'utter rubbish'!!!

Jon_Tiffany

Froggitt wrote: »

Who was the company advertising on the telly last night?

It was Homesun, advert was shown on ITV.

Jon_Tiffany

K4blades wrote: »

Just because ASG weren't mentioned in the legislation it doesn't mean the govt. weren't aware of them. Most people would take the term "loophole" to mean an unforeseen error (in the legislation), being exploited. If the government were aware of what they were doing prior to doing it, then most people would not consider ity a loophole.
I think you are also implying, (though maybe wrong) that the legislation changed from the initial proposal, why was this, because the government were influenced through consultation. And maybe they saw other benefits such as job creation.

As for the larger schemes, etc, well who knows what the govermnent was thinking but my guess is that the idea is to "promote" to homeowners the idea of having PVs on the roof, rather than using brown field sites, which the likes of ASG would have to buy / rent. It also benefits those in fuel poverty such as pensioners, which would not be the case if ASG just stuck loads of panels in a field. And besides, how do you know it won't happen in the future.

You really do need to look at the bigger picture.

Cant you just accept what Sarah from ASG said:

"Cardew - In the process of consultation we explained fully what we were proposing to do and were told that this was being positively encouraged. They want to guarantee income for small scale renewable energy generators and therefore encourage investment in renewable energy schemes. There is no loop hole to close."

And maybe have a break from the whole loophole arguement?

K4blades

Cardew wrote: »

I need to??

You were the one who made this reply to zeupater




From your definitive statements(WITH CAPITALS) it now appears that was just bluff and you have no idea what was proposed or the Governments intentions.

So perhaps you can get use the FofI act to back up your definitive statements. - bet you don't!!!

Yet you have the gall to call zeupater's post 'utter rubbish'!!!

I'm not the one bleating on about exploiting loopholes, I know that not to be the case, if you think it is proove it.

ASGs first installation was on April 1st, the day the scheme launched. Do you seriously think they went out on a whim and sorted out millions of £s of finance, sorted offices, staff, chains of supply, etc, etc. If you do then you are massively niave, they had been in preparation for many months, and the government knew all about it.

Incidentally, what it is that makes you object to these companies making a profit out of the scheme.

Gizmosmum_2

Homesun were in active talks with DECC about their programme before the consultation ended. They plan to do 100k installations over 3 years and as eaga their parent company deliver the Warm front grant and the CERT pbligation for scottishpower they very much had the "ear" of government.

K4blades

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

The problem is not with any of the scheme operators, and I agree that 10,000 homes is not a great proportion of the housing stock in the UK, however, 10,000 homes with a 3.3kWp system will generate a FiT revenue of around £11million per year, index linked .....

Regards

I also see that NPower are having to pay back £70million for over-charging their customers. And thats before you consider the other big 5, so lets keep things in perspective.

Doc_N

With all this talk about what discussions did or didn't take place with Whitehall prior to the introduction of the scheme, lets not forget that the government we have now is not the one that was in place then. It's entirely possible that the Coalition will try to back out of whatever was 'agreed', depending on how well documented it was.

Gizmosmum_2

Doc_N wrote: »

With all this talk about what discussions did or didn't take place with Whitehall prior to the introduction of the scheme, lets not forget that the government we have now is not the one that was in place then. It's entirely possible that the Coalition will try to back out of whatever was 'agreed', depending on how well documented it was.

In "theory" it had full cross party support and as it's not paid for from the public purse the worst we should see is a slight reduction of FiT and the best would be the inclusion of those early adopters who have paid loads for their pv panels and aren't able to tap into the FiT - not long to go now ..

zeupater

Jon_Tiffany wrote: »

Taken from Sarahs (A Shade Greener) posts:

"As regards the consultation that closed on October 15th - our Directors were actively involved in that consultation."

She also said:

"Cardew - In the process of consultation we explained fully what we were proposing to do and were told that this was being positively encouraged. They want to guarantee income for small scale renewable energy generators and therefore encourage investment in renewable energy schemes. There is no loop hole to close."

So it would seem that ASG are indeed operating within the spirit of the scheme and there is no loophole.

Hi

The loophole obviously exists, and was 'found' to exist after the consultation. The evidence for this really exists in another post from Sarah at ASG ..... http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=26999509&postcount=28 .... where there is an clear intent to ensure that everyone is aware that the ASG scheme in particular was to be ... 'to fit 2000 systems, not 3000' ... , thus probably keeping the total aggregated installed capacity to within the proposed 5MWp threshold for the FiT scheme, this is very likely the basis for the government feedback which was raised ... 'I must re-iterate that we were told by Andrej Miller that what we intend to do is entirely in keeping with what the Government is trying to encourage.'

Since the time that the referenced post was made there has been a step change in the total number of 'rent-a-roof' installations which are being talked about, both by 'small' concerns and large multinationals ..... referencing again the same post, the following extracted quotation was used ......

'"The Renewables Obligation is... focused on larger projects. We also want to encourage smaller projects, generating electricity closer to where it's used: solar panels on people's houses, community wind projects and farm based anaerobic digestion. This needs a simpler system, with more predictable returns. We are therefore also consulting on Feed-in Tariffs to guarantee an income for small scale renewable electricity generators..."
The Rt Hon Lord Hunt of Kings Heath OBE
Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Extract from white paper: Consultation on Renewable Electricity


It does not specify that it is merely trying to encourage homeowners to generate electctricity from renewable sources.'

... I am quite sure that everyone, whichever side of the debate they sit, would agree that although the scheme does not specify that it applies to 'homeowners', it is intended 'to guarantee an income for small scale renewable electricity generators...' (note the original highlighting neglected to encompass the relevant text 'small scale') .... I would certainly not consider large multinationals who have interests in gigawatts of generating capacity as 'small scale', so how can they possibly be included within spirit of the scheme, unless there is a loophole. I suggest that a loophole, as described, must therefore exist and the government in particular were obviously, and conveniently, not made aware of this through the consultation and legislative construction stages.

Regards