We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Solar Subsidy Cut Challenge Allowed
Options

The_Green_Hornet
Posts: 1,588 Forumite


A High Court judge has ordered a hearing next week of a challenge over government plans to cut financial incentives for solar electricity.
Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in London, said the proposals had given rise to "economic risk" for those engaged in the solar industry.
He said the application for judicial review against Energy Secretary Chris Huhne should be heard next Tuesday and Wednesday as it seemed to him an immediate risk had been created "for those who are installing solar panels after 12 December".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496
Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in London, said the proposals had given rise to "economic risk" for those engaged in the solar industry.
He said the application for judicial review against Energy Secretary Chris Huhne should be heard next Tuesday and Wednesday as it seemed to him an immediate risk had been created "for those who are installing solar panels after 12 December".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16201496
0
Comments
-
Wouldn't it be ironic, if, after lots of us having spent £10,000+ on a 'panic-bought' system in the last 6 weeks or so, they now say systems bought before April 2012 will still get the higher rate of FiT, but will only pay the currently advertised prices for a system which seem to be coming in at about £2500 less!0
-
Let us hope that the application fails!0
-
If the challenge is successful the prices will rise in the short term as they are based on the returns available from the FiT and have no direct relationship to material costs, however, to compensate, the government will simply announce a revised retrospective deadline and then lower the tariff further having considered further massive falls in global pv pricing over the last two months :cool::D ...... If the challenge fails the workload which has been put 'on hold' in order to maintain the stance that market demand has 'dried up' thus putting jobs at risk will simply be released again when pricing and margins allow .... that'll likely be straight-away then
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
People don't seem to realise that it was always intended that there would be a finite sum available for Solar FIT and when that was used the scheme would cease for new entrants.
The mistake the Government made was allowing Rent a Roof firms to exploit a loophole and cash in on a subsidy(that we pay) clearly meant for individuals. So many of them got their nose in the trough that the available funds were eaten up quickly. A Shade Greener alone have installed over 10,000 systems and apparently will carry on offering systems even though the FIT has dropped to 16.8p/kWh - so if the business model shows a profit at 16.8p/kWh, how much are they making at 43p/kWh.
All this bleating about jobs being lost is hogwash! Their concern is they want more food - the '43p/kWh' food!! - poured into the trough now.0 -
I hope to god that it fails! After doing 300 installs within 6 weeks i could not handle this being dragged out until April.0
-
The problem is not solely rent-a-roof!
It's a fairness issue.
Why should I, as someone on a very low income, pay for _anyones_ solar panel?
I do not care one jot if it's a doctor doing it as he's got a bit of spare cash, and wants a nice investment, as well as being able to boast about being green, or a company set up to get the subsidy.
People who want solar on their homes should not be subsidised by more per kW than nearby schemes taking up the whole of a large supermarket or other business roof and generating 50kW.
The notion that it makes sense to go back to 41p/kWh - when it's already been proved that there is 2-3000 pounds 'slack' in the market, due to dropping install prices, is barking, barking mad.
How else could the cut in subsidy be done?
The number of installs done in November were a substantial fraction of those done in 2011 (30%, if I recall).
If a more reasonable 3 or 6 month period were given, then the number of new installs before the deadline would be insane!
The deadline gave a reasonable window for most existing booked installs to take place.0 -
rogerblack wrote: »The problem is not solely rent-a-roof!
It's a fairness issue.
Why should I, as someone on a very low income, pay for _anyones_ solar panel?
Totally agree - the whole system is madness. However it is the Rent-A Roof companies that have caused the immediate crisis by cashing in on a loophole.
It is two Rent a roof companies that are in court, together with the Friends of the Earth who see everything through a Green haze!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards