Feed In Tariffs(FIT) Announced.

mysterons

In case anyones been following the saga of my Tesco PV installation it seems my troubles aren't over yet. I have received a 'Parallel Connection Agreement' from my DNO Central Networks agreeing connection of my '1.73kw PV Generator'
Problem is I've got a 3.96kw system installed :rotfl:
When I emailed Central Networks G83 dept they say Tesco's installers the Mark Group have sent them incorrect information.
Also although I paid in full over a week ago I still havent received a receipt or any of the promised guarantee paperwork. Oh and still no MCS certificate either.

Doc_N

mysterons wrote: »

In case anyones been following the saga of my Tesco PV installation it seems my troubles aren't over yet. I have received a 'Parallel Connection Agreement' from my DNO Central Networks agreeing connection of my '1.73kw PV Generator'
Problem is I've got a 3.96kw system installed :rotfl:
When I emailed Central Networks G83 dept they say Tesco's installers the Mark Group have sent them incorrect information.
Also although I paid in full over a week ago I still havent received a receipt or any of the promised guarantee paperwork. Oh and still no MCS certificate either.

You do seem to have been particularly unlucky with your set of installers - though, oddly, I had exactly the same letter from Central Networks referring to a 1.73kw system instead of 3.96.

Almost all of the paperwork was dealt with at the time of installation, though, and the MCS certificate followed within a week.

Have you received your Clubcard points - maybe they've missed those too.

mysterons

Hi Doc N, nice to see someones actually reading my ramblings.
I dont know how long you've had your system installed but as you say you've had your MCS certificate can I ask if you've sent off your FIT's application? If so what did you answer to the 2 questions about total installed capacity and declared net capacity? Obviously total is 3.96kw but I'm guessing 3.6kw for the net figure as limited by the inverter.
Looking through the folder left by the Mark Group I suppose the paper listing s/no's of panels and inverter is actually the guarantee paperwork Tesco referred to.
I've now received building regulations part P compliance cert from 'elecsa' which I assume isn't anything to do with MCS paperwork?
I hope the 1.73kw agreement isn't going to be a problem with registering the 3.96kw system. I've also read elsewhere that your Fit's application will be refused until you can supply a receipt (not an invoice) with the words 'paid in full' on it.

keith_r59

mysterons wrote: »

I've also read elsewhere that your Fit's application will be refused until you can supply a receipt (not an invoice) with the words 'paid in full' on it.

When I applied recently for my FIT with E.ON all I had to send them with the application form was a copy of the MCS Certificate, no other documentation was required.

Doc_N

mysterons wrote: »

Hi Doc N, nice to see someones actually reading my ramblings.
I dont know how long you've had your system installed but as you say you've had your MCS certificate can I ask if you've sent off your FIT's application? If so what did you answer to the 2 questions about total installed capacity and declared net capacity? Obviously total is 3.96kw but I'm guessing 3.6kw for the net figure as limited by the inverter.
Looking through the folder left by the Mark Group I suppose the paper listing s/no's of panels and inverter is actually the guarantee paperwork Tesco referred to.
I've now received building regulations part P compliance cert from 'elecsa' which I assume isn't anything to do with MCS paperwork?
I hope the 1.73kw agreement isn't going to be a problem with registering the 3.96kw system. I've also read elsewhere that your Fit's application will be refused until you can supply a receipt (not an invoice) with the words 'paid in full' on it.

I've had the system in for several weeks, and put the application in as soon as I received the MCS certificate. This is blue, and has 'MCS' at the top, with the MCS installer certificate number - the ELECSA Part P certificate is something else entirely.

The MCS certificate shows the declared net capacity for my system as 3.8 kw (though it's a 3.96 system) and I used that for the application form.

e.on didn't ask for a receipt in order to agree the FIT application - the MCS certificate, I imagine, is only going to be issued by an installer once payment has been received.

The 1.73kw point didn't cause any problems - I just got it corrected over the phone. There didn't seem to be any linkage between that and the FIT application.

You've probably seen this, but just in case you haven't, it's quite useful:

http://www.eonenergy.com/At-Home/Products/Feed-in+Tariffs/How-to-apply-for-fit-payments.htm?WT.mc_id=How_to_Apply&WT.svl=8

mysterons

Many thanks for that Doc N, sets my mind at rest (for the time being )

Energy_Saving_Trust_company_representative

Hi,

we've lined up one of our experts to answer any questions related to saving or generating energy. This includes things like feed-in tariffs and the free solar panel schemes. It starts at 2pm today here - http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=2815438

Cheers,

Matt

Mcfi5dhc

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

I don't get it - £40 million savings in 2014-15. Savings against what?

How much has the government paid out so far in FIT in 2010? £0 (fact)
Projection for 2011 - £0
Projection for 2012 - £0
Projection for 2013 - £0
Projection for 2014 - £0

So, how do they save £40Million? Sack all of the DECC? Or are they being a bit sneaky and comparing apples to pears

If they cut FIT (which they will), this will only affect electricity bills for people, it will not affect the national debt

Anyone enlighten me?
Thanks

I posted this a few weeks ago. Sinco then, I sent the DECC an email asking where the savings would come from. The respose from the DECC is, in my opinion, incredible. Word for word, it is here:

"The Spending Review confirmed that the level of support provided by FITs will be reviewed with a view to reducing the scheme's projected costs in 2014/15 by at least £40 Million i.e. 10% to maximise value for money. FITs are funded by energy companies who are then expected to pass these costs on to consumers via electricity bills. They are therefore classified as public tax and spend by the Office of National Statistics, and so Treasury subject them to the same scrutiny as normal public expenditure"

So, the treasury isn't saving £40Million, so why did they say they would?

zeupater

Mcfi5dhc wrote: »

I posted this a few weeks ago. Sinco then, I sent the DECC an email asking where the savings would come from. The respose from the DECC is, in my opinion, incredible. Word for word, it is here:

"The Spending Review confirmed that the level of support provided by FITs will be reviewed with a view to reducing the scheme's projected costs in 2014/15 by at least £40 Million i.e. 10% to maximise value for money. FITs are funded by energy companies who are then expected to pass these costs on to consumers via electricity bills. They are therefore classified as public tax and spend by the Office of National Statistics, and so Treasury subject them to the same scrutiny as normal public expenditure"

So, the treasury isn't saving £40Million, so why did they say they would?

Hi

Looks like what they're saying is that because the government have imposed the scheme on the energy companies the 'bean counters' classify the FiT as public expenditure and the collection of the funds by the energy companies to pay for scheme is treated as a form of outsourced tax collection.

Thinking about it, the scheme as a whole should be support neutral, so what they must be effectively saying that the expenditure will be reduced by £40m and this sum will be utilised reduce goverment support elsewhere (RHI ??).

HTH

Mcfi5dhc

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Looks like what they're saying is that because the government have imposed the scheme on the energy companies the 'bean counters' classify the FiT as public expenditure and the collection of the funds by the energy companies to pay for scheme is treated as a form of outsourced tax collection.

Thinking about it, the scheme as a whole should be support neutral, so what they must be effectively saying that the expenditure will be reduced by £40m and this sum will be utilised reduce goverment support elsewhere (RHI ??).

HTH

Surely the whole point of the Spending Cuts though was to get more money back to Whitehall to pay back the national debt built up by Brown and Blair? They would have been far better by saying "cut the DECC budget by x%"