Can we treat the governments policies on saving energy seriously?

kevin6666

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Care to expand on this, provide some evidence?
Mart.

Evidence no, for obvious reasons.

The most common case (which I'll admit is negligible but arguably still fraud) is now that the start read has to be from the day the FIT Supplier received a complete application. Upon hearing this joe customer is not happy about loosing the payment for the kWh he has generated since it was installed so lies about the current reading. There's nothing the Supplier can do about it as while the data paints a clear picture the customer lied about their opening read to argue it would require far more legal resource than the 10/15 quid the customer is scamming the bill payer out of.

There is also a somewhat surprising rate of meter exchanges compared to what you see for Supply meters. Probably 2 reasons, the meters are Chinese junk but also easy to get your local corrupt MCS installer to get rid of the evidence of lies before the Supplier does its meter inspections.

The whole FIT industry is poorly regulated and thought out. I believe Generation meters were originally a 2 year stop gap until SMART metering came along and did the job lot but...well we're still waiting for those. Also a large amount of elderly customers are getting ripped off by the jumped up white van man. Even today receipts of 10 grand for a 4kw system are common.

It's incredible the billions that's been spent on renewables yet they do little to nothing in terms of providing the national grid with a long term sustainable future.

FIT hasn't all been negative, it's created thousands of jobs and no doubt caused more CO2 than it will ever save.

tunnel

kevin6666 wrote: »

Evidence no, for obvious reasons.

The most common case (which I'll admit is negligible but arguably still fraud) is now that the start read has to be from the day the FIT Supplier received a complete application.
.

Thats nonsense. I've just submitted an application for my latest addition. I had 5 days from commissioning to submit my application for them to accept my start read. The application clearly asks for your commissioning start read too.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

Evidence no, for obvious reasons.

The most common case (which I'll admit is negligible but arguably still fraud) is now that the start read has to be from the day the FIT Supplier received a complete application. Upon hearing this joe customer is not happy about loosing the payment for the kWh he has generated since it was installed so lies about the current reading. There's nothing the Supplier can do about it as while the data paints a clear picture the customer lied about their opening read to argue it would require far more legal resource than the 10/15 quid the customer is scamming the bill payer out of.

For those 10/15 quid, there would have to be an extra 100 or so kWhs on the meter. How is that getting on there?

Or are you saying that PV'ers don't get paid for generation from the commissioning date (even if they submit the FiT application within the required time period)?

kevin6666 wrote: »

There is also a somewhat surprising rate of meter exchanges compared to what you see for Supply meters. Probably 2 reasons, the meters are Chinese junk but also easy to get your local corrupt MCS installer to get rid of the evidence of lies before the Supplier does its meter inspections.

That strange, can you provide any info to support this. Are you aware that the TGM's are just 'normal' import meters. Same makes, models and certifications?

Also are you not aware that the FiT providers review generation figures and challenge any that are outside of the expected range?

I got a nice call from EDF, when they thought my new extension was underperforming, but it was an end of month install and they compared against the whole month.

kevin6666 wrote: »

The whole FIT industry is poorly regulated and thought out. I believe Generation meters were originally a 2 year stop gap until SMART metering came along and did the job lot but...well we're still waiting for those. Also a large amount of elderly customers are getting ripped off by the jumped up white van man. Even today receipts of 10 grand for a 4kw system are common.

2 year stop gap till smart meters, that's a new one on me. Especially since the smartness of smart meters is still undecided, and may not measure export anyway. We'll have to wait and see.

White van man .... absolutely, that's why the PV threads on MSE are so useful to anyone interested in PV, and willing to trawl through all the anti-PV comments.

kevin6666 wrote: »

It's incredible the billions that's been spent on renewables yet they do little to nothing in terms of providing the national grid with a long term sustainable future.

Little bit cheeky coming from a nuclear fan isn't it? I'm reluctantly in favour of nuclear for its CO2 role, but there is no denying the simply vast sums of subsidies it's mopped up. And 50 years on, will require subsidies equal to the anticipated on-shore wind and PV farm subsidies in the 2020's.

What's the current clean up bill for Fukushima, is it $200bn or £200bn?

kevin6666 wrote: »

FIT hasn't all been negative, it's created thousands of jobs and no doubt caused more CO2 than it will ever save.

Been a while since this one came up. Normally it turns up every 6 months or so. Including all elements, not just the panels, the CO2 payback on PV is around 3 years in high sun areas (eg California) and perhaps 6 or 7 years in the UK. The systems should be good for 30 to 40 years ...... or more!

Mart.

kevin6666

If you post your application form and supporting docs to your FIT Supplier if they follow the guidance they have can only accept a reading upon receipt of a fully completed and correct application.

4.25. Electricity generated prior to an installation’s Eligibility Date is not eligible to
receive FIT payments. Accordingly, the initial meter reading(s) used to calculate FIT
payments must not relate to an earlier date than the installation’s Eligibility Date.
Where a FIT Licensee operates a postal application process, an initial meter reading
that is supplied with a written request for MCS-certified registration of an installation
that has been commissioned will usually relate to a date that is earlier than the
installation’s Eligibility Date. In such cases, that meter reading cannot be used as the
initial meter reading for the purpose of calculating FIT payments and the FIT Licensee
will need to contact the applicant to obtain a meter reading that relates to a date on
or after the date that the written application for MCS-certified registration was
received by it.

tunnel

And from my FIT provider

Please note:

If we receive your completed application form and supporting documents via post within 5 working days of your commissioning date, we will pay you from your opening generation meter reading confirmed on your MCS certificate

kevin6666

tunnel wrote: »

And from my FIT provider

Please note:

If we receive your completed application form and supporting documents via post within 5 working days of your commissioning date, we will pay you from your opening generation meter reading confirmed on your MCS certificate

I did mention it was poorly regulated right? However I can confirm some of the big 6 did query ofgem and your FIT providers view is incorrect.

Look at EDFs/npowers etc App form and it now has a note that says they'll be in touch to get an up to date read if you submit via post.

Martyn1981

kevin6666 wrote: »

I did mention it was poorly regulated right? However I can confirm some of the big 6 did query ofgem and your FIT providers view is incorrect.

Look at EDFs/npowers etc App form and it now has a note that says they'll be in touch to get an up to date read if you submit via post.

Still not following you.

You started this claiming that PV'ers were committing fraud. Then said it was small scale, but still fraud, and explained about getting FiT monies for about 60 to 100kWhs of generation that they aren't entitled to.

So how is that generation getting onto the meter? Both of my TGM's arrived reading 1 (or something like 00000001). And yes, I'm a good boy, and put the opening read on the applications as 1.

If posted in, are you suggesting that PV'ers are committing fraud because the FiT provider has chosen to pay them for generating leccy whilst the application was in transit?

Do you think:
a. This is getting a little silly? or
b. That ship sailed some time ago?

Mart.

tunnel

Poorly regulated or not, judging by the amount of people that post on these boards looking for some sort of guidance with their installs I fail to believe that that scam exists. Most that enquire are being led blind by their installers and only browse/post on here to seek reassurance that "everything will be ok". Defrauding the FIT is probably last on their list. It certainly was with mine on my first/second/third install.

Martyn1981

tunnel wrote: »

Poorly regulated or not, judging by the amount of people that post on these boards looking for some sort of guidance with their installs I fail to believe that that scam exists. Most that enquire are being led blind by their installers and only browse/post on here to seek reassurance that "everything will be ok". Defrauding the FIT is probably last on their list. It certainly was with mine on my first/second/third install.

Also there are a few additional points:

1. For extensions (like yours and mine) the eligibility date of the application is actually when the commissioning took place, not when the application was received, so the initial meter reading is fine and valid.

2. On checking Kevin's source (alerted by his use of the word guidance), I find it starts off with the disclaimer: "This guidance is not intended to be a definitive technical or legal guide to the FIT scheme."

3. The guidance in question only came into force in July this year, when it replaced this paragraph:

4.25. In circumstances where a FIT Licensee operates a postal application process, Ofgem considered that it is reasonable to allow 5 working days from the date on which the application was signed to when it was received by the FIT Licensee to allow for postage delays. In such circumstances, the meter reading recorded on the application can be considered as the start meter reading. If the application has been received a long time after it was signed, the FIT Licensee is obligated to contact that FIT applicant to obtain another meter reading. This meter reading should be considered the start reading from which the FIT applicant will be eligible for FIT payments.

please note the bold, which ties in with our understanding and will presumably excuse practically all the pre July 13 PV'ers from accusations of fraud (farcical or otherwise).

It's a funny old world!

Mart.

BornAtTheRightTime

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ofgem considered that it is reasonable to allow 5 working days from the date on which the application was signed to when it was received by the FIT Licensee to allow for postage delays. In such circumstances, the meter reading recorded on the application can be considered as the start meter reading.

...
which ties in with our understanding and will presumably excuse practically all the pre July 13 PV'ers from accusations of fraud (farcical or otherwise).

Mart.

Thanks for that Mart, I thought I might need to defend my start meter reading against accusations of fraud until I saw your reply. Hopefully that's the end to this daft argument. Beginning to wonder whether to revise my signature...