Solar Panel Guide Discussion

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

You are grasping at straws, the scheme is overseen by the Treasury in that they control ofgem.

You know full well that the 'public purse' is taken to mean revenue raised by taxation and distributed by Treasury.

Funds for the FIT pot are a levy only paid by electricity customers.

Someone who doesn't pay an electricity bill doesnt pay towards the FITs funds.

To use your analogy, all taxpayers contribute toward the funding of an aircraft carrier; they don't all contribute toward FITS.

This is a good explanation of how FIT is funded:

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/principles/funding/

</H1>
If you feel this semantic game has proved your point, so be it.

However nobody here is in doubt what 'public purse' means and the 'public purse' does not pay for FIT.

No doubt you will get lots of thanks and inane posts in support!

does this help?

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_60_12.htm

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

This is a good explanation of how FIT is funded:

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/principles/funding/

'Although the FITs are established in law'

Tax?

Cardew

don0301 wrote: »

does this help?

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_60_12.htm

Thank you for the link but I am afraid it doesn't help.

I assume you feel that the Climate Change Levy is something to do with FIT . More information here:

http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/channelsPortalWebApp/channelsPortalWebApp.portal?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pageExcise_InfoGuides&propertyType=document&id=HMCE_CL_001174#P4_44

<H2>What is Climate Change Levy (CCL)?

CCL is a tax on the taxable supply of specified energy products (taxable commodities) for use as fuels that is for lighting, heating and power, by business consumers including consumers in:

• industry
• commerce
• agriculture
• public administration
• other services

CCL does not apply to taxable commodities supplied for use by domestic consumers or to charities for non-business use

.</H2>
Or perhaps you meant one of these:

Aggregates Levy
Landfill Tax
EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS)
Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme
Carbon Price Support

Sadly it doesn't seem that any of those are related to FIT.

However I do appreciate your research.

Cardew

don0301 wrote: »

'Although the FITs are established in law'

Tax?

No dispute about FIT being established in law.

We agree on something - albeit it was in my link.

Tax? - No

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

No dispute about FIT being established in law.

any chance you will answer several challenges with facts? proper responses?

or is this distraction to continue?

don0301

Cardew wrote: »

No dispute about FIT being established in law.

We agree on something - albeit it was in my link.

Tax? - No

this really says a lot about you

still waiting for proper responses to several challenges

you are great at distraction *clap*

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

You are grasping at straws, the scheme is overseen by the Treasury in that they control ofgem.

You know full well that the 'public purse' is taken to mean revenue raised by taxation and distributed by Treasury.

Funds for the FIT pot are a levy only paid by electricity customers.

Someone who doesn't pay an electricity bill doesnt pay towards the FITs funds.

To use your analogy, all taxpayers contribute toward the funding of an aircraft carrier; they don't all contribute toward FITS.

This is a good explanation of how FIT is funded:

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/principles/funding/

</H1>
If you feel this semantic game has proved your point, so be it.

However nobody here is in doubt what 'public purse' means and the 'public purse' does not pay for FIT.

No doubt you will get lots of thanks and inane posts in support!

Hi Cardew

There is a definate issue here .... HM Treasury don't physically hold money, they're not a bank ... they also do not control OFGEM or any other government department or agency, they simply control, implement and oversee government economic and financial policies. They are effectively the accountants for the country, ensuring that each area of government is allocated funding (a budget) and that expenditure doesn't exceed that budget ....

The definition of 'public purse' in every source I have just tried is defined as being .... 'the funds raised by a government by taxation or other means' or something very similar .... the official HM Treasury document which was referenced previously classifies the levy which is administered by the energy companies in conjunction with DECC/OFGEM as a tax, it's this tax which funds what you described as the 'FiT pot' .... even if it wasn't officially classified as a tax then the very fact that it had been raised specifically in order to implement government policy it would still be 'or other means' ....

It's a tax, the government department responsible for taxation say's it's a tax, and I for one believe that they are correct ... the link provided in the abovereferenced post actually informs the reader that "Although the FITs are established in law, rather than coming from the government, the tariffs are actually paid by the energy suppliers." and this is correct, however, as described previously, the energy suppliers are acting as an agent for the levy (tax) collection and as a conduit for distribution of the funds to the MCS registered systems all of which is accounted for by DECC and ultimately HM Treasury, you could add the NAO into that group too as they are the government's internal auditors ....

Now, addressing addressing the included analysis .....

"Someone who doesn't pay an electricity bill doesnt pay towards the FITs funds.

To use your analogy, all taxpayers contribute toward the funding of an aircraft carrier; they don't all contribute toward FITS."

... this is flawed, it's pretty much the same as saying that someone who lives outside an LA area doesn't pay towards the roads in that area, or someone who doesn't fly doesn't pay air passenger duty, or someone who doesn't drink doesn't pay beer tax ..... the only difference is that the levy/FiT is ringfenced, this being because it's administered by the energy sector, this being specifically to reduce the cost of administration ....

Let's now consider a solution which would satisfy conditions where involving HM Treasury into the loop in a more conventional 'unringfenced' solution, even if only to understand why the current ringfenced solution is in place. If the energy companies collected, accounted for and 'handed' the money to HM Treasury central coffers via OFGEM and then HM Treasury allocated a variable budget for distribution to a government agency such as OFGEM, MCS, EST or even HMRC for payment to the individual MCS registered sites, this would require the establishment and manning of an administrative/call centre to handle the generation payments, something which all of the listed departments are not geared-up to do, unlike the energy suppliers who have systems to cope with millions of customers .... how many billion more pounds would that cost ?? .... better leave it as it is then

This discussion has nothing to do with semantics, it is related to the understanding of what FiTs are and are not and unlike many things discussed on this forum the answer is there in black & white published by the relevant government department themselves ... it's funded from a levy which is classified as a tax. It has understandably been decided that the levy & FiT payment be ringfenced and adminstered by the private sector in order to minimise unnecessary public sector administrative costs .... the root of the discussion is in a post by jamesingram which simply attempted to convey that the rapid sector growth resulting from the levy could eventually prove to be an energy cost moderating factor which would benefit the public, a post which was factual, informative, and correct in every way, including the use of the term 'public purse' and the context in which it was applied ....

HTH
Z

Cardew

Hi Z,

If you think FITs are paid from the 'public purse', then carry on thinking that way.

I concede!

zeupater

Cardew wrote: »

Hi Z,

If you think FITs are paid from the 'public purse', then carry on thinking that way.

I concede!

Hi Cardew

Can you explain why HM Treasury agree with me (or is it the other way round and I agree with them) and you seem to agree with neither of us, yet concede so readily .... the source document from HM Treasury referenced earlier seems to have been overlooked .... It simply wouldn't be fair to expect someone to concede without understanding the need to concede ....

For reference, here, again, is the document describing/defining the levy as a tax ....

HM Treasury
Control framework for DECC levy-funded spending
March 2011
section2 ... page 6

"Levy-funded spending will not be regarded as a regulatory burden to be covered by the „One-in One-out‟ commitment, but as taxation and spending overseen by the Treasury"
(http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/control_framework_decc250311.pdf)

... I cannot see how it would be possible to interpret the phrase in any other way, especialy considering the source ... HM Treasury themselves ....

It is really unfortunate that this approach needs to be adopted, however, as I see it it would be much better to establish consensus on the issue of taxation once and for all in order for this 'little gem' to not be raised on numerous future occasions ....

HTH
Z

John_Pierpoint

Can I bring the irrational international world of politics into this.
The OECD, is well versed in identifying stealth taxes, when trying to evaluate the health of economies. The OECD says the FiT is funded by a levy that is a tax, so the Treasury had no option than to admit that it is part of Government spending.

The politicians have made an undertaking to reduce the fossil fuel use in the UK, the attempts to de-carbon the grid are part of this. Climate Change has given rise to a parallel accounting system - perhaps no more irrational than fiat currency.

Compared to the funny money being wasted on fashion purchases, particularly in the car industry - the FiT numbers are minute.

Compared to the massive subsidies paid to land owners via the Common Agricultural Policy - the FiT numbers are minute.

Compared to the massive amounts borrowed from our children and given to the bankers - the FiT numbers are minute.

Personally I believe that Climate Change is a major problem and I am pessimistic about the attempts to deal with it being too little too late.

However that belief generates similar passionate debate:
http://www.marklynas.org/2011/09/the-myths-of-easter-island-jared-diamond-responds/

Cardew wrote: »

3. Transmission losses? We bring in huge amounts of electricity generated by Nuclear in the South of France to Kent and then to the grid. Indeed it has been muted that solar farms in Spain or even North Africa could supply UK. But transmission losses for a solar farm a few miles from a town is a problem? Get real please.

I don't think it has to come that far ?
I have flown over the French equivalent of Sellafield, in Normandy - positioned so that any failure will result in the prevailing wind bringing the fall out over London.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Nuclear_power_plants_map_France-fr.png

Meanwhile here is another catalogue of the failed investment of billions of pounds of public money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield