We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
MSE News: Government loses appeal over solar subsidy cuts
Comments
-
thats because i totally agree , the eldery , families on low income with children especially and the sick who will be funding the 1% who can afford to buy them , or friends of homesun who want to win this court case.
blocks of flats *could* get panels - but it would be for communal area`s (lighting , lifts etc) - but again , i agree its not really right or fair ; - well actually flats could get panels per flat , just requires a huge amount of reqiring for each flat.0 -
I am not a fan of Chris Huhne, or his party, but on this he cannot be faulted.
Seriously?! Sorry, I have agreed with you in the past on many of your posts but on this I must disagree.
How about the fact that he/The DECC totally failed to keep tabs on the level of demand (which no doubt increased as costs dropped)? This has to be one of the main reasons of the fear that the FIT pot would be used up prematurely.
The fact that the DECC appears to of totally failed to moderate the rent a roof schemes, allowing promises of huge returns to investors who were itching to milk the scheme for all it's worth.
The fact that as a result (presumably of the above) they decided to change the FIT rate earlier (and as ruled, illegally) than previously announced thus completely blowing business plans and undermining confidence in the whole market.
I am astonished that he still has the role and think that it is a pretty damning indictment that Cameron still supports him publicly.0 -
Seriously?! Sorry, I have agreed with you in the past on many of your posts but on this I must disagree.
How about the fact that he/The DECC totally failed to keep tabs on the level of demand (which no doubt increased as costs dropped)? This has to be one of the main reasons of the fear that the FIT pot would be used up prematurely.
The fact that the DECC appears to of totally failed to moderate the rent a roof schemes, allowing promises of huge returns to investors who were itching to milk the scheme for all it's worth.
The fact that as a result (presumably of the above) they decided to change the FIT rate earlier (and as ruled, illegally) than previously announced thus completely blowing business plans and undermining confidence in the whole market.
I am astonished that he still has the role and think that it is a pretty damning indictment that Cameron still supports him publicly.
Well one thing we are absolutely in agreement about is the role of the Rent a Roof companies backed by venture capitalists.
It is absolutely astonishing that in a scheme designed for individual householders that a single firm had installed over 10,000 systems some while ago and will be getting the full FIT rate for 25 years.
It gives some idea of their profit margins that some R A R firms will still operate and make a profit with the FIT at 16.8p/kWh.
That said, these RAR firms got clearance from the previous Government.
It is valid criticism that the present Government should have acted sooner - albeit it would still have been within the Consultation period. - which has been ruled illegal!
It is also pertinent that the installations of PV doubled the UK's solar capacity in the 6 weeks after their announcement.
Probably the biggest tactical error was to have a consultation period in the first place. - it wasn't a negotiation! It is pretty obvious that the solar firms(including RAR) would argue for high tariffs for a longer period and in this they would be aided and abetted by misguided idiots of the 'Green' organisations; who seem incapable of appreciating that halving the subsidies would enable twice the amount of solar to be installed for the same sum of money.
As said, I am no fan of Huhne, but at least he acted, albeit late.
Incidentally did you see Questions to him in Parliament last Thursday(it is in Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120126/debtext/120126-0001.htm ). He was very good and destroyed those on the opposite benches. When challenged about court costs he replied:Chris Huhne: I entirely reject the idea that there is no future for the industry. The reality is that we would be able to support at least twice as many installations at the new tariff rate as we could under the old one.
The hon. Lady asks about the costs of the legal cases. I merely point out to her that we are spending a few thousand pounds in order to save consumers £1.5 billion, which is what the cost would have been had we left the case to run. The reality is that the previous Labour
Government introduced a scheme that was fundamentally flawed. As with other issues, this Government are putting Labour’s mess right.
Well worth reading Hansard to get some unchallenged figures about solar.
P.S.
Perhaps Cameron is waiting for 'other events' to remove Huhne!0 -
My sister and I had signed contracts (and deposits paid) with a solar PV installation company to have PV panels fitted to our properties. However when the government announced their decision to cut FIT payments, the company told us that they could not promise to get our installations done by 11th December so the contracts were cancelled and the deposits returned. My sister and I could find only one company who absolutely guaranteed to have our PV panels installed and commissioned by the 11th December so, relying on the governments announcement, we signed contracts with them. However this company's installations were considerably more expensive than those we had originally chosen. Since that government decision has now been ruled to be illegal and they have been forced to "move the goalposts" once more regarding the cut-off date for the higher FIT tariff, does anyone think we should attempt to sue the government for the extra costs we incurred due to their illegal behaviour?!? We would have been having the installations done by the original company in January were it not for the panic the government caused by their sudden announcment in December. I'm sorry I have posted this in the wrong place but I couldn't find how to start a new post....0
-
Well one thing we are absolutely in agreement about is the role of the Rent a Roof companies backed by venture capitalists.
It is absolutely astonishing that in a scheme designed for individual householders that a single firm had installed over 10,000 systems some while ago and will be getting the full FIT rate for 25 years.
It gives some idea of their profit margins that some R A R firms will still operate and make a profit with the FIT at 16.8p/kWh.
That said, these RAR firms got clearance from the previous Government.
It is valid criticism that the present Government should have acted sooner - albeit it would still have been within the Consultation period. - which has been ruled illegal!
It is also pertinent that the installations of PV doubled the UK's solar capacity in the 6 weeks after their announcement.
Probably the biggest tactical error was to have a consultation period in the first place. - it wasn't a negotiation! It is pretty obvious that the solar firms(including RAR) would argue for high tariffs for a longer period and in this they would be aided and abetted by misguided idiots of the 'Green' organisations; who seem incapable of appreciating that halving the subsidies would enable twice the amount of solar to be installed for the same sum of money.
As said, I am no fan of Huhne, but at least he acted, albeit late.
Incidentally did you see Questions to him in Parliament last Thursday(it is in Hansard http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201212/cmhansrd/cm120126/debtext/120126-0001.htm ). He was very good and destroyed those on the opposite benches. When challenged about court costs he replied:
Well worth reading Hansard to get some unchallenged figures about solar.
P.S.
Perhaps Cameron is waiting for 'other events' to remove Huhne!
Sorry for the slow reply (plus dredging up a now old thread), have been away.
Firstly, thanks for the link. That was very interesting and good to read the information as it originated.
That 1.5b figure was always going to be a scare number, probably based on the last week install rate prior to Dec 11th multiplied by the number of weeks till April. We now know that it is not the case, but who knows how it might have gone, especially as the cost of panels dropped by about 30% in the first two months of this year, if I understand correctly.
I too agree that something absolutely needed to be done, 43.3p is an insane return for costs however I think for Huhne to pin it still all on Labour when they had been running the department at the time for about 17months makes you wonder what they had been doing during that time...
And also, why oh why do they keep having consultations?? They've just completed more and announced more! Makes me want to start up my own business, especially as they all seem to state the blimming obvious.
It is clear that there is blame on both (or indeed on all three!) sides here, but the RAR insanity has to be the biggest lesson, I just hope they learned from it.
Oh, and :rotfl: at your P.S. Indeed you certainly called that!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards